Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time.
Contents |
[edit] Revert wars considered harmful (the three revert rule)
Wikipedia policy states that you may not revert any article more than three times in the same day. This is a strict limit, not a given right; you should not revert any one article more than three times daily. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule for details on this.
High-frequency reversion wars make the page history less useful, waste space in the database, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists. Sock puppets must not be used to violate this rule. Please request protection rather than reverting. Violation of this rule may lead to protection of the page on the version preferred by the non-violating party; blocking; or investigation by the Arbitration Committee.
[edit] Explain reverts
Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face—"I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back". However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting. What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.
Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, e.g., "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's how edit wars get started.
If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page, or contact the editor and ask for the reason for their revert.
[edit] When reverting changes implemented with no discussion, use neutral edit summaries
Some articles undergo periods of very heavy editing. Often, the most active editors of these pages arrive at a consensus among themselves that all non-trivial changes must be discussed in the talk pages before they are committed to the article. When editors unfamiliar with this unwritten rule make edits, these edits are frequently reverted almost immediately. This can be a big turn-off to the "outside" editor. It can become the spark for edit wars. If editors deem it necessary to revert edits which lack prior discussion on the talk page, the edit summary for the revert should be neutral. For example it should say "Consensus among editors for this article is for changes to be discussed on talk page before being committed". The summary should not attempt to explain what is wrong with the edit. It should not state that the edit is POV, that it is inaccurate, that it does not meet style guidelines or other fault-finding problems. Edit summaries of this sort are quite likely to result in an argument taking place using edit summaries and incite a revert war, rather than encouraging discussion. This is because the editor making the changes will be inclined to point out similar problems from which the existing version also suffers. From there, suspicions of uneven application of rules, bias, censorship and other bad-faith assumptions are likely to develop. Edit wars and arbitration are often not far away. If the editors of an article arrive at consensus that undiscussed edits must be reverted, it is highly recommended to use neutral edit summaries.
[edit] Avoiding or limiting your reverts
Having realized that article development has ground to a halt because of incessant reversions, two or more people agree to give higher-than-usual respect to each other's edits. Unlike the three-revert rule, these rules are usually voluntary and self-enforced.
[edit] One-revert rule
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.
Sometimes, users may be limited to one revert per the Arbitration Committee.
[edit] Zero-revert rule
Editors may also choose to adhere to a zero-revert rule, for example:
"Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page."
Using a zero revert rule gives fellow editors the benefit of the doubt in all cases. Even in instances where you know the other editor's viewpoint is dead wrong, the fact that some people have this viewpoint can be relevant in itself, and their contributions might be expandable into a useful addition to the article. However, this rule is very difficult to follow in practice.
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.
