![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think Radiant may misunderstand the fundamental point of the 0RR guideline. Here he adds "The problem with this 'rule' is that it makes it impossible to get rid of good-faith-but-ill-advised edits, which are plentiful". The point of the 0RR guideline is to give fellow contributors the benefit of the doubt and include their information in addition to any information you want to add. I don't think there is a wikipedia policy that defines "ill-advised edits", what do you mean? The 0RR accounts for the possibility a fellow editors contribution may need re-wording and cleaning up, but the point is to ensure all information and viewpoints are retained. zen master T 23:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I so no reason to have a rule against *individual* reverts. We should all promptly remove certain types of things, such as unverified information. Leaving potential misinformation out of respect for the contributor ignores WP:V. Whie we WP:AGF is a guideline, WP:V is a non-negotiable founding policy. Verifiability means we *don't* assume things to be true, just because somebody says they are. If you say something I doubt, and give no sources, and I can't find any, I'm entitled to revert you. Revert wars are harmful, but individual reverts are often beneficial. They force somebody to actually justify their change. Also, discouraging reverts would merely mean that people would find "imaginitive" means of doing reverts, by doing edits that accomplish the same result, but aren't technically reverts. -- Rob 20:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well it does say "Revert only when necessary", not "don't revert at all". Dan100 ( Talk) 10:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I am saying testing outside the sandbox is vandalism in the sense that it is not beneficial to the article but we should give the benefit of the doubt and not necessarily immediately revert, though if it is say a high traffic part of wikipedia like the main page then it probably should be reverted. You brought up the newbie testing example to make a case for your argument that reverts have to happen in cases of non-vandalism edits, yet the "What vandalism is not" page you linked to is actually direct evidence against your argument, the page states "...On the contrary, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the Sandbox (e.g. using the test template message) where they can keep making their tests. (Sometimes they will even revert their own changes.)". Which means don't necessarily immediately revert newbie testing, "greet them warmly", give them the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to correct their own mistake, which is exactly the same principle as the WP:0RR... zen master T 18:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I only revert for blatant vandalism, otherwise I manually rollback only because it allows me to add an edit summary. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Right, so what you meant to say was "I only rollback for blatant vandalism, otherwise I manually revert only because it allows me to add an edit summary." :-) Dan100 ( Talk) 10:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
In order to judge if it's a good idea to merge (instead of link) 1RR, I need to compare 1RR with ROWN. But instead of 1RR I am redirected to ROWN, without a link in sight! In view of the above objection by Dan100, this has the same effect as sabotage. Either undo the redirect, or add a link. Harald88 00:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I've always been a proponent of the idea that users should revert a claim that seems a bit too unlikely when there is no source to back it up. It cannot be the duty of the vandal fighter to verify claims made by anons, especially when there are so many anons making unverified claims in edits. However, I pretty much always tell the user what I've done after I do it, and if he makes another revert (if it isn't blatant vandalism, that is), I'll make a comment on the talk page and ask for a third opinion there. However, 80-90% of the time, no second edit is made, and the claim is never attempted to be verified.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
19:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I made a userbox for this. Like it?-- God of War 05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1RR | This user prefers discussing changes on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war. |
Hi.
Why is this:
"Furthermore Absolute Zero-revert rule followers will never make any reverts, they will always discuss it first and ask someone else to make the necessary edit and give the benefit of the doubt."
But if it's been discussed and it is agreed that it is OK to revert, then why can't one revert it themselves? (note that someone must not be following 0RR since someone has to do the reverting, so obviously not everyone on WP could follow a 0RR.) mike4ty4 20:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
See also: Help:Reverting
I think that one thing that this article hints at, but doesn't go far enough in saying is that consensus should be a part and a product of the editing process, rather than a prerequisite for it. Demanding prior approval means we don't entertain bold ideas as often as we should, and is highly discouraging to contributors, as well as unnecessarily bureaucratic.
Save reverting for vandalism, and changes that are outright harmful, and resist the temptation to revert as a form of disagreement. When you do disagree by reverting, be part of the process. Keep the bold-revert-discuss cycle going - and try to turn it into the bold-bold cycle of continuing to make bold changes from both sides towards the goal of reaching a compromise. Triona ( talk) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The definition of "revert" given here is that a page goes back to precisely the same as a previous version. This is different from the definition in the 3RR rule, which is reverting a change in whole or in part. Even if a particular change is completely undone (by clicking "undo"), other subsequent changes might still be there so the page may not be identical to any previous version. I suggest either changing the definition of revert on this page to match that at 3RR (preferred), or else explicitly noting that the definition used here is different from the definition used there (but is there a good reason for it to be different?). -- Coppertwig ( talk) 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Increasingly, I see reverts not for any problem in the improvements I contributed, but with the given reason that my little essay explaining them insufficient to placate the reverter. The essay appears only in the History section. Our mission with Wikipedia is a world-beating encyclopedia, not a world-beating set of edit descriptions.
Part of the burgeoning problem may be a snippet that I saw somewhere in Wikipedia's instructions incautiously encouraging reverting changes as a way to get discussions started. This section should be clarified to indicate that the reasons for the revert should be stated in full -- i.e., giving the reasons why the original article text was deemed superior. What I'm seeing instead is demands to make the little essay explaining the changes (which are in any event self-explanatory) a better essay, without saying what was lacking with it in the first place (my little essays often take up much or all of the space allowed in the little "Edit summary" field as it is).
The proliferation of these "Revert Trolls" diminishes my enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia. An effective mechanism for identifying them and shutting them down or educating them about the inadvisability of failing to follow the reverting guidelines is needed.
By analogy to WP:3RR, an uninformed user might guess that "1RR" means one revert per day. Instead it means something totally different:
As written, "1RR" allows a user may make as many reverts as he likes (subject to other rules, of course), but those reverts may not be re-reverted without discussion and perhaps even affirmative consensus. This concept has validity but the current name implies it is something different. Could we come up with a different name? Maybe "Don't re-revert" ("DRR")? That way "1RR" could unambiguously mean "one revert per day". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
My 2c: I think an edit is a revert if the editor has made the same edit previously and it has been undone by another editor; the "previous" edit though does not necessarily have to be made the same day. For example: if an editor adds X to an article on May 1st and the addition is reverted, then the addition of (functionally) the same content on May 4th should count as revert since the editor knows that the edit is disputed.
I am not claiming that this is "the correct" interpretation of the current language on the
WP:3RR,
WP:1RR etc pages, or that it is lawerly airtight. But I think, it follows from the goal behind having revert restrictions, which is to prevent editors from repeatedly making edits that they know are disputed. This knowledge is not wiped out at the start of every 24 hour period.
Abecedare (
talk)
23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Suggested Change:
Some editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If you revert a change and someone re-reverts it, discuss it with the re-reverter rather than reverting it a second time.
Sometimes, users may be limited to one revert by the Arbitration Committee or by the community per the editing restrictions guidance.
Some editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. ( Smallvillefanatic ( talk) 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
I have removed the section that was encouraging reverting with the summary "discuss first" as a valid practice. It runs counter to WP:DRNC and WP:BRD which seem to have more consensus than this section did. I have archived the related discussion on this below. Gigs ( talk) 18:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just added a section for situations where a group of editors, whether rightly or wrongly, feel the need to "protect" a page by reverting non-trivial edits which are not first discussed on the talk page. I don't know whether this is exactly appropriate for the current guideline, but I thought I would put it out there for discussion. -- BostonMA 23:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Since the discussion here was not getting much attention, I've created it anew elsewhere. 128.138.43.254 ( talk) 19:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a lot of precedence for the idea that it's okay for editors to demand discussion prior to edits, except on policy pages and where handed down by the Arbitration Committee. Are we sure we want to legitimize that kind of behavior given that it leads to an atmosphere of article ownership, ie "You must get my permission before you can edit this page"? -- causa sui talk 22:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes with 1RR, a series of single reverts by a series of determined (but different) editors can still disrupt articles, and can sometimes result in a protracted edit war over a number of days, and to discussions taking place. There has been some success using a "No Revert of a Revert" policy on other articles. This policy enables an edit to be reverted, but that revert may not be subsequently reverted without consensus on the Talk page. This policy quickly exposes the most common stonewalling tactics and forces discussion to take place on the Talk page rather than through the edit history of an article. Thoughts? -- HighKing ( talk) 16:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I moved the anchors for WP:1RR and WP:0RR up to the start of the section so that an editor following the shortcuts will not need to scroll to see WP:3RR and the rest of the introduction to the section. This was inspired by discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning indicating that this essay can lead to confusion. Please fix it if you have a better idea. - 2/0 ( cont.) 19:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The current 1RR text is broken. 1RR is just like 3RR, except with a limit of 1. The current text ties it to the original revert. This is wrong William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's important to note that reversion has an impact beyond just risking edit wars. More specifically, reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia, and unfortunately not as dramatically evidenced as the spate of mutually negating edits resulting from an edit war. Perhaps this hazard of reverting is worth noting on the project page. ENeville ( talk) 16:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I added it, let's see if it gets reverted Bhny ( talk) 20:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly an improvement, but it still seems like instruction creep to me. I've been around for quite a while, and I can't think of any situation in which this advice would have outweighed the cost of hundreds of people having to read it. Are there any examples for where this would really make a difference? — Sebastian 09:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This attempt was rejected in connection with the editor's tendentious abuse of the close paraphrasing banner at Materialism, see Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing#Reversion of change to milder problems template and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Can quotation marks inside quotations within quotations be altered?.— Machine Elf 1735 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned by the new section Preventing degradation through entropy, added by User:Boundlessly. It includes the quote "Don't make the edit in the first place unless it's necessary" in support of its position, but offers no link, only referring to this Talk page, which doesn't seem helpful for those who seek to understand the logic of the guideline. Most importantly, however, it seems to directly contradict the spirit of WP by discouraging contribution. It runs counter to Wikipedia:Be bold, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I would further note the irony in Boundlessly having reverted an edit on this project page, Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, and accomanying it with the comment "The link is intentional by an older wiser previous editor." This seems to betray a presumptuous superiority, which again seems counter to the ethos necessary for a vital WP. ENeville ( talk) 02:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This essay does not seem to conform to its title. The title states what sounds to me like good advice: revert only when necessary. But the body of the essay never actually gives that advice. I think it ought to, and in somewhat more detail than the title. The current lead makes it an article about how editors tend to avoid edit wars. The current body then strays from that to advise against edit warring and to give reasons one might avoid reverting.
My observation is mostly one about the need for a better lead and better organization, but there's a substantial issue as well: is reverting only to be avoided in the context of an edit war, or should one avoid the very first revert, giving deference to another editor who has taken the time to make an affirmative edit? Is it OK to revert an edit one finds unnecessary, even if one doesn't find it harmful?
I'd be happy to take a run at making the essay have a clear point, but I wonder whether that point should be 1) revert only when necessary; 2) don't create an edit war; or 3) here are some ideas on the use of reversion in Wikipedia. The current article seems to straddle these three.
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 05:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
What is the distinction intended to be? Is it specifically the lack of an exception for "obvious vandalism" in the latter? (Existing discussions on this talk page weren't of much help.) -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 23:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
So what sanctions can be brought against editors who are doing harm through lots of unnecessary reverts? Fgnievinski ( talk) 01:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This is just way too funny! On a essay discouraging reversions an instant complete revert was made to this new section I composed encouraging editors to avoid the "fast and dirty" revert just because it is easier than trying to contribute content. The revert was by an editor who has never edited on this project page before, within a few hours of my posting it. [3] Anyone interested in trying to apply WP:PRESERVE principles to my edit, as opposed to blanket reversion?-- GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 18:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:BAD-REVERT
, the hyphen looks a little strange/nonstandard, but I have no strong objections to the existence of a shortcut. --
SoledadKabocha (
talk)
19:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If the main objection is that the word "lazy" is seen as too harsh by some people, I'd suggest changing the subsection title to something else, maybe something like "Think twice before reverting." Similar massaging could be done to help keep editors who delete a lot from feeling accused of laziness.- GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 05:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
WegianWarrior has opposed the additional material that I have proposed that has been suggested or altered by myself, and Fgnievinski [9] Giraffedata, [10], Vsmith [11] [12].
To address concerns that the term "lazy" was applied to reverting without an effort to follow WP:PRESERVE, I changed the title and langauge of the new proposed subsection as follows:
Your comments and suggestions are welcome. I think it is important to encourage editors to make an effort to preserve as much material as possible instead of rushing to an immediate revert.
Looking at the lead of WP:BRD, I also think that the use of the word "immediately" in the recommendation "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement," contradicts the very next sentence. "Consider reverting only when necessary." And the authorization to revert content just because you don't have time to research or rewrite the contribution "immediately" can be turned into a license that allows reverting even when it is not necessary. Surely, most problems should be tagged immediately to invite other editors to fix it, but the suggestion to revert just because the reader/editor does not have the time, knowledge, or ability to "immediately fix" the issue is subject to abuse and certainly shows lack of sufficient respect for the goodfaith of both the original contributing editor and other editors who are in a position to fix the tagged concern.
In short, outside of vandalism, I think that before a revert, editors should make efforts to WP:PRESERVE and if they don't have the time to preserve content, they should tag the contribution so other editors can get into the discussion, saving revert for a step that generally follows tagging and a bit of time for others to address the concern. This essay seems to be a good place to describe such alternatives.-- GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 21:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Virtually nothing in this is linked, not to policies, guidelines, or other essays.
I have yet to see a single thing in this page that only pertains to "articles", so that would should be replaced with "pages". The essay fails in its purpose if any system WP:GAMEr feels entitled to ignore every word of it because they're editing a template or a guideline or a portal or ....
After some improvement, it may be worth trying to merge other reversion-related essays into this one, though doing so now would be premature because the above problems make this page look like a draft instead of a stable essay that's been around 3 years already.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't like the headings "Acceptable reversions" and "Unacceptable reversions" in this Wikipedia essay. It looks too much like a guideline or a policy, and these sections are not without controversy. The headings would be better as "Good reasons to revert" and "undesirable reversions" or something like that. I will make the change at some point if there are no objections here. 18:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I removed
Edits that introduce bias or undue weight should be reverted until consensus is built.
because it followed,
... a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement.
and I don't see any reason that bias and undue weight need to be called out specially. They are just two of many, many problems in an article that need to be corrected, and editors should use the same standards in deciding with a reversion is appropriate as with any of the others: incorrect facts, non-notable material, unreadable language, bad grammar, etc. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 00:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think Radiant may misunderstand the fundamental point of the 0RR guideline. Here he adds "The problem with this 'rule' is that it makes it impossible to get rid of good-faith-but-ill-advised edits, which are plentiful". The point of the 0RR guideline is to give fellow contributors the benefit of the doubt and include their information in addition to any information you want to add. I don't think there is a wikipedia policy that defines "ill-advised edits", what do you mean? The 0RR accounts for the possibility a fellow editors contribution may need re-wording and cleaning up, but the point is to ensure all information and viewpoints are retained. zen master T 23:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I so no reason to have a rule against *individual* reverts. We should all promptly remove certain types of things, such as unverified information. Leaving potential misinformation out of respect for the contributor ignores WP:V. Whie we WP:AGF is a guideline, WP:V is a non-negotiable founding policy. Verifiability means we *don't* assume things to be true, just because somebody says they are. If you say something I doubt, and give no sources, and I can't find any, I'm entitled to revert you. Revert wars are harmful, but individual reverts are often beneficial. They force somebody to actually justify their change. Also, discouraging reverts would merely mean that people would find "imaginitive" means of doing reverts, by doing edits that accomplish the same result, but aren't technically reverts. -- Rob 20:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well it does say "Revert only when necessary", not "don't revert at all". Dan100 ( Talk) 10:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I am saying testing outside the sandbox is vandalism in the sense that it is not beneficial to the article but we should give the benefit of the doubt and not necessarily immediately revert, though if it is say a high traffic part of wikipedia like the main page then it probably should be reverted. You brought up the newbie testing example to make a case for your argument that reverts have to happen in cases of non-vandalism edits, yet the "What vandalism is not" page you linked to is actually direct evidence against your argument, the page states "...On the contrary, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the Sandbox (e.g. using the test template message) where they can keep making their tests. (Sometimes they will even revert their own changes.)". Which means don't necessarily immediately revert newbie testing, "greet them warmly", give them the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to correct their own mistake, which is exactly the same principle as the WP:0RR... zen master T 18:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I only revert for blatant vandalism, otherwise I manually rollback only because it allows me to add an edit summary. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Right, so what you meant to say was "I only rollback for blatant vandalism, otherwise I manually revert only because it allows me to add an edit summary." :-) Dan100 ( Talk) 10:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
In order to judge if it's a good idea to merge (instead of link) 1RR, I need to compare 1RR with ROWN. But instead of 1RR I am redirected to ROWN, without a link in sight! In view of the above objection by Dan100, this has the same effect as sabotage. Either undo the redirect, or add a link. Harald88 00:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I've always been a proponent of the idea that users should revert a claim that seems a bit too unlikely when there is no source to back it up. It cannot be the duty of the vandal fighter to verify claims made by anons, especially when there are so many anons making unverified claims in edits. However, I pretty much always tell the user what I've done after I do it, and if he makes another revert (if it isn't blatant vandalism, that is), I'll make a comment on the talk page and ask for a third opinion there. However, 80-90% of the time, no second edit is made, and the claim is never attempted to be verified.
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
19:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I made a userbox for this. Like it?-- God of War 05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1RR | This user prefers discussing changes on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war. |
Hi.
Why is this:
"Furthermore Absolute Zero-revert rule followers will never make any reverts, they will always discuss it first and ask someone else to make the necessary edit and give the benefit of the doubt."
But if it's been discussed and it is agreed that it is OK to revert, then why can't one revert it themselves? (note that someone must not be following 0RR since someone has to do the reverting, so obviously not everyone on WP could follow a 0RR.) mike4ty4 20:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
See also: Help:Reverting
I think that one thing that this article hints at, but doesn't go far enough in saying is that consensus should be a part and a product of the editing process, rather than a prerequisite for it. Demanding prior approval means we don't entertain bold ideas as often as we should, and is highly discouraging to contributors, as well as unnecessarily bureaucratic.
Save reverting for vandalism, and changes that are outright harmful, and resist the temptation to revert as a form of disagreement. When you do disagree by reverting, be part of the process. Keep the bold-revert-discuss cycle going - and try to turn it into the bold-bold cycle of continuing to make bold changes from both sides towards the goal of reaching a compromise. Triona ( talk) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The definition of "revert" given here is that a page goes back to precisely the same as a previous version. This is different from the definition in the 3RR rule, which is reverting a change in whole or in part. Even if a particular change is completely undone (by clicking "undo"), other subsequent changes might still be there so the page may not be identical to any previous version. I suggest either changing the definition of revert on this page to match that at 3RR (preferred), or else explicitly noting that the definition used here is different from the definition used there (but is there a good reason for it to be different?). -- Coppertwig ( talk) 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Increasingly, I see reverts not for any problem in the improvements I contributed, but with the given reason that my little essay explaining them insufficient to placate the reverter. The essay appears only in the History section. Our mission with Wikipedia is a world-beating encyclopedia, not a world-beating set of edit descriptions.
Part of the burgeoning problem may be a snippet that I saw somewhere in Wikipedia's instructions incautiously encouraging reverting changes as a way to get discussions started. This section should be clarified to indicate that the reasons for the revert should be stated in full -- i.e., giving the reasons why the original article text was deemed superior. What I'm seeing instead is demands to make the little essay explaining the changes (which are in any event self-explanatory) a better essay, without saying what was lacking with it in the first place (my little essays often take up much or all of the space allowed in the little "Edit summary" field as it is).
The proliferation of these "Revert Trolls" diminishes my enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia. An effective mechanism for identifying them and shutting them down or educating them about the inadvisability of failing to follow the reverting guidelines is needed.
By analogy to WP:3RR, an uninformed user might guess that "1RR" means one revert per day. Instead it means something totally different:
As written, "1RR" allows a user may make as many reverts as he likes (subject to other rules, of course), but those reverts may not be re-reverted without discussion and perhaps even affirmative consensus. This concept has validity but the current name implies it is something different. Could we come up with a different name? Maybe "Don't re-revert" ("DRR")? That way "1RR" could unambiguously mean "one revert per day". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
My 2c: I think an edit is a revert if the editor has made the same edit previously and it has been undone by another editor; the "previous" edit though does not necessarily have to be made the same day. For example: if an editor adds X to an article on May 1st and the addition is reverted, then the addition of (functionally) the same content on May 4th should count as revert since the editor knows that the edit is disputed.
I am not claiming that this is "the correct" interpretation of the current language on the
WP:3RR,
WP:1RR etc pages, or that it is lawerly airtight. But I think, it follows from the goal behind having revert restrictions, which is to prevent editors from repeatedly making edits that they know are disputed. This knowledge is not wiped out at the start of every 24 hour period.
Abecedare (
talk)
23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Suggested Change:
Some editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If you revert a change and someone re-reverts it, discuss it with the re-reverter rather than reverting it a second time.
Sometimes, users may be limited to one revert by the Arbitration Committee or by the community per the editing restrictions guidance.
Some editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. ( Smallvillefanatic ( talk) 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
I have removed the section that was encouraging reverting with the summary "discuss first" as a valid practice. It runs counter to WP:DRNC and WP:BRD which seem to have more consensus than this section did. I have archived the related discussion on this below. Gigs ( talk) 18:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just added a section for situations where a group of editors, whether rightly or wrongly, feel the need to "protect" a page by reverting non-trivial edits which are not first discussed on the talk page. I don't know whether this is exactly appropriate for the current guideline, but I thought I would put it out there for discussion. -- BostonMA 23:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Since the discussion here was not getting much attention, I've created it anew elsewhere. 128.138.43.254 ( talk) 19:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a lot of precedence for the idea that it's okay for editors to demand discussion prior to edits, except on policy pages and where handed down by the Arbitration Committee. Are we sure we want to legitimize that kind of behavior given that it leads to an atmosphere of article ownership, ie "You must get my permission before you can edit this page"? -- causa sui talk 22:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes with 1RR, a series of single reverts by a series of determined (but different) editors can still disrupt articles, and can sometimes result in a protracted edit war over a number of days, and to discussions taking place. There has been some success using a "No Revert of a Revert" policy on other articles. This policy enables an edit to be reverted, but that revert may not be subsequently reverted without consensus on the Talk page. This policy quickly exposes the most common stonewalling tactics and forces discussion to take place on the Talk page rather than through the edit history of an article. Thoughts? -- HighKing ( talk) 16:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I moved the anchors for WP:1RR and WP:0RR up to the start of the section so that an editor following the shortcuts will not need to scroll to see WP:3RR and the rest of the introduction to the section. This was inspired by discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning indicating that this essay can lead to confusion. Please fix it if you have a better idea. - 2/0 ( cont.) 19:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The current 1RR text is broken. 1RR is just like 3RR, except with a limit of 1. The current text ties it to the original revert. This is wrong William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's important to note that reversion has an impact beyond just risking edit wars. More specifically, reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia, and unfortunately not as dramatically evidenced as the spate of mutually negating edits resulting from an edit war. Perhaps this hazard of reverting is worth noting on the project page. ENeville ( talk) 16:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I added it, let's see if it gets reverted Bhny ( talk) 20:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly an improvement, but it still seems like instruction creep to me. I've been around for quite a while, and I can't think of any situation in which this advice would have outweighed the cost of hundreds of people having to read it. Are there any examples for where this would really make a difference? — Sebastian 09:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This attempt was rejected in connection with the editor's tendentious abuse of the close paraphrasing banner at Materialism, see Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing#Reversion of change to milder problems template and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Can quotation marks inside quotations within quotations be altered?.— Machine Elf 1735 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned by the new section Preventing degradation through entropy, added by User:Boundlessly. It includes the quote "Don't make the edit in the first place unless it's necessary" in support of its position, but offers no link, only referring to this Talk page, which doesn't seem helpful for those who seek to understand the logic of the guideline. Most importantly, however, it seems to directly contradict the spirit of WP by discouraging contribution. It runs counter to Wikipedia:Be bold, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I would further note the irony in Boundlessly having reverted an edit on this project page, Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, and accomanying it with the comment "The link is intentional by an older wiser previous editor." This seems to betray a presumptuous superiority, which again seems counter to the ethos necessary for a vital WP. ENeville ( talk) 02:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This essay does not seem to conform to its title. The title states what sounds to me like good advice: revert only when necessary. But the body of the essay never actually gives that advice. I think it ought to, and in somewhat more detail than the title. The current lead makes it an article about how editors tend to avoid edit wars. The current body then strays from that to advise against edit warring and to give reasons one might avoid reverting.
My observation is mostly one about the need for a better lead and better organization, but there's a substantial issue as well: is reverting only to be avoided in the context of an edit war, or should one avoid the very first revert, giving deference to another editor who has taken the time to make an affirmative edit? Is it OK to revert an edit one finds unnecessary, even if one doesn't find it harmful?
I'd be happy to take a run at making the essay have a clear point, but I wonder whether that point should be 1) revert only when necessary; 2) don't create an edit war; or 3) here are some ideas on the use of reversion in Wikipedia. The current article seems to straddle these three.
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 05:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
What is the distinction intended to be? Is it specifically the lack of an exception for "obvious vandalism" in the latter? (Existing discussions on this talk page weren't of much help.) -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 23:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
So what sanctions can be brought against editors who are doing harm through lots of unnecessary reverts? Fgnievinski ( talk) 01:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This is just way too funny! On a essay discouraging reversions an instant complete revert was made to this new section I composed encouraging editors to avoid the "fast and dirty" revert just because it is easier than trying to contribute content. The revert was by an editor who has never edited on this project page before, within a few hours of my posting it. [3] Anyone interested in trying to apply WP:PRESERVE principles to my edit, as opposed to blanket reversion?-- GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 18:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:BAD-REVERT
, the hyphen looks a little strange/nonstandard, but I have no strong objections to the existence of a shortcut. --
SoledadKabocha (
talk)
19:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If the main objection is that the word "lazy" is seen as too harsh by some people, I'd suggest changing the subsection title to something else, maybe something like "Think twice before reverting." Similar massaging could be done to help keep editors who delete a lot from feeling accused of laziness.- GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 05:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
WegianWarrior has opposed the additional material that I have proposed that has been suggested or altered by myself, and Fgnievinski [9] Giraffedata, [10], Vsmith [11] [12].
To address concerns that the term "lazy" was applied to reverting without an effort to follow WP:PRESERVE, I changed the title and langauge of the new proposed subsection as follows:
Your comments and suggestions are welcome. I think it is important to encourage editors to make an effort to preserve as much material as possible instead of rushing to an immediate revert.
Looking at the lead of WP:BRD, I also think that the use of the word "immediately" in the recommendation "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement," contradicts the very next sentence. "Consider reverting only when necessary." And the authorization to revert content just because you don't have time to research or rewrite the contribution "immediately" can be turned into a license that allows reverting even when it is not necessary. Surely, most problems should be tagged immediately to invite other editors to fix it, but the suggestion to revert just because the reader/editor does not have the time, knowledge, or ability to "immediately fix" the issue is subject to abuse and certainly shows lack of sufficient respect for the goodfaith of both the original contributing editor and other editors who are in a position to fix the tagged concern.
In short, outside of vandalism, I think that before a revert, editors should make efforts to WP:PRESERVE and if they don't have the time to preserve content, they should tag the contribution so other editors can get into the discussion, saving revert for a step that generally follows tagging and a bit of time for others to address the concern. This essay seems to be a good place to describe such alternatives.-- GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 21:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Virtually nothing in this is linked, not to policies, guidelines, or other essays.
I have yet to see a single thing in this page that only pertains to "articles", so that would should be replaced with "pages". The essay fails in its purpose if any system WP:GAMEr feels entitled to ignore every word of it because they're editing a template or a guideline or a portal or ....
After some improvement, it may be worth trying to merge other reversion-related essays into this one, though doing so now would be premature because the above problems make this page look like a draft instead of a stable essay that's been around 3 years already.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't like the headings "Acceptable reversions" and "Unacceptable reversions" in this Wikipedia essay. It looks too much like a guideline or a policy, and these sections are not without controversy. The headings would be better as "Good reasons to revert" and "undesirable reversions" or something like that. I will make the change at some point if there are no objections here. 18:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I removed
Edits that introduce bias or undue weight should be reverted until consensus is built.
because it followed,
... a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement.
and I don't see any reason that bias and undue weight need to be called out specially. They are just two of many, many problems in an article that need to be corrected, and editors should use the same standards in deciding with a reversion is appropriate as with any of the others: incorrect facts, non-notable material, unreadable language, bad grammar, etc. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 00:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)