Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary: Difference between revisions
{{proposed}} this actually is a proposed guideline; it still being developed so it's not yet accepted (or rejected) |
Glenn Willen (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
===Zero-revert rule=== |
===Zero-revert rule=== |
||
For those who have mastered talking about a contribution they don't like with the editor who proposed it, a more advanced method of implementing the '''zero-revert rule''' can be to assume that some or all of the contribution of the other editor is valuable to society. The zero-revert rule is defined as "''Only revert vandalism. Improve changes you don't like and discuss them on the article's or your fellow editor's user talk page, but don't revert or remove them." (talk about any change on the article talk page instead of reverting).''" The problem with this "rule" is that it makes it impossible to get rid of good-faith-but-ill-advised edits, which are plentiful. |
For those who have mastered talking about a contribution they don't like with the editor who proposed it, a more advanced method of implementing the '''zero-revert rule''' can be to assume that some or all of the contribution of the other editor is valuable to society. The zero-revert rule is defined as "''Only revert vandalism. Improve changes you don't like and discuss them on the article's or your fellow editor's user talk page, but don't revert or remove them." (talk about any change on the article talk page instead of reverting).''" The problem with this "rule" is that it makes it impossible to get rid of good-faith-but-ill-advised edits, which are plentiful. On the other hand, it encourages editors to look for any salvageable content in such edits, rather than just throwing them out the window; even the most minimal use of content from the edit(s) in question will make the editor feel more welcome than a revert of their contribution would. |
||
====Encouraging others to be polite==== |
====Encouraging others to be polite==== |
||
Revision as of 05:47, 28 December 2005
 | The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
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.
 | This page in a nutshell: Before you revert an edit, try to find an alternative. Reverts should only be made to maintain the quality of an article. |
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 may 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.
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, eg, "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.
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 voluntary and are not enforced.
One-revert rule
Some editors may choose to voluntary follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them.
Team members sign up and are initially considered "members in good standing". Upon detecting a rule violation (i.e., reverting a revert instead of discussing the revert), any member in good standing may move the name of the violator to the "Suspended" section. The result of a suspension is that the members who are still in good standing obviously continue to trust each other to edit together harmoniously.
Regaining one's standing is as easy as (1) undoing the revert that merited the suspension and (2) discussing the edit in question. (While on suspension, one ought not to attempt to restore his own credentials; please wait for a member in good standing to do that.)
Zero-revert rule
For those who have mastered talking about a contribution they don't like with the editor who proposed it, a more advanced method of implementing the zero-revert rule can be to assume that some or all of the contribution of the other editor is valuable to society. The zero-revert rule is defined as "Only revert vandalism. Improve changes you don't like and discuss them on the article's or your fellow editor's user talk page, but don't revert or remove them." (talk about any change on the article talk page instead of reverting)." The problem with this "rule" is that it makes it impossible to get rid of good-faith-but-ill-advised edits, which are plentiful. On the other hand, it encourages editors to look for any salvageable content in such edits, rather than just throwing them out the window; even the most minimal use of content from the edit(s) in question will make the editor feel more welcome than a revert of their contribution would.
Encouraging others to be polite
Reverting can feel like a slap in the face to someone who considers themselves to be competent and acting in good faith. Those who have mastered 0RR in their own lives may choose to restore an unkind revert of another editor with a friendly reminder don't bite the newbies or WP:0RR as the case may warrant. When in accordance with the 0RR, this may be used to restore a revert, but not to create a revert.