Tachyony: Imported page

2021-12-09T14:17:33Z

Imported page

New page

{{short description|Undoing prior edits}}
{{Redirect|WP:RV|the Reviewing process|WP:RVW}}
{{For|technical information on making reverts|Help:Reverting}}

{{Essay|WP:RV|WP:REV|WP:RVV}}
{{nutshell|Revert vandalism on sight, but [[#When to revert|revert an edit made in good faith only with an explanation and after careful consideration]]. [[WP:WAR|Edit warring]] is prohibited. ''See'' {{selfref|[[Wikipedia:three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]|inline}}. Editors should always [[#Explain reverts|explain their reverts]].}}

'''Reverting''' means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. A '''partial reversion''' involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it.

==What is a reversion?==

A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button in the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text.

A single edit may reverse multiple prior edits, in which case the edit constitutes multiple reversions.

Technically, any edit can be said to reverse ''some'' of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|editing policy]]. Wholesale reversions (''complete'' reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.

{| class="wikitable"
|+Examples
|-
! Editor action !! Classification
|-
| Alice re-phrases the wording in the first paragraph of an existing article. || A normal change, not a reversion.
|-
| You reverse all of Alice's changes in wording, restoring the article to the previous version. || A complete reversion.
|-
| Alice adds a new paragraph at the end of the article. || A normal change, not a reversion.
|-
| You remove most of Alice's new paragraph, but leave one or two sentences. || A partial reversion.
|}

Number of times Alice has made a reversion: Zero.

Number of times you reverted Alice's edits: Two.

==When to revert==
{{anchors|STATUSQUO}}{{shortcut|WP:STATUSQUO|WP:QUO}}
{{See also|Status quo ante bellum|Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary}}

Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other [[WP:Disruptive editing|disruptive edits]]. The [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|Wikipedia edit warring policy]] forbids repetitive reverting.
If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it. Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit—leave the [[status quo]] up, or try [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing|an alternative way to make the change]] that includes feedback from the other editor.

If there is a dispute, editors should work towards [[WP:consensus|consensus]]. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which [[#Edit wars are harmful|is harmful]], propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution alternatives]]. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced|contentious material should be immediately removed]], such as [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living people]], or material about living people in other articles). Note that this process is meant for managing resolution of disputes while discussion is taking place. It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through [[Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling|status quo stonewalling]].

Do not revert an otherwise good edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary or has a bad username. You cannot remove or change prior edit summaries by reverting, even if you made the edit in question. If an edit summary violates the privacy policy or otherwise qualifies for oversighting or deletion, then see [[Help:Edit summary#Fixing]]. Otherwise, ignore it. In the case of a bad username, see [[WP:BADNAME]].

==Do a partial reversion when appropriate==
{{shortcut|WP:CAUGHTUP|WP:REVONLY}}

[[File:Baby being bathed on the kitchen table, ca. 1918 (7001966537) (cropped square).jpg|thumb|left|150px|[[Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater]]!]]

{{Further|Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit}}

Ideally, each edit should contain one distinct change. But in practice, editors often bundle multiple changes into a single edit, such as adding a new section while also fixing a copy error elsewhere on the page. If you object to only part of an edit, consider ''[[wp:fixfirst|reverting only that part and leaving the rest alone]]''. The encyclopedia is damaged when positive contributions [[WP:PRESERVE|that should be preserved]] are caught up and lost in a revert. It is often difficult for an editor to restore an uncontroversial portion of their edit without seeming like they are edit warring. If you do feel that all parts of a multi-part edit warrant reversion, it is good practice to note so in your edit summary for clarity.

==Different ways to revert==

When you have decided to revert, please consider whether you will use the [[WP:UNDO|undo]] link in the page history, or revert manually. If you use the undo link, the editors whose edits you revert will receive a [[Wikipedia:Notifications|notification]] (if they have requested notification of reversions). If you revert by manually changing the text to the old version, they will not receive a notification, which some editors appreciate. If the edits you revert are clearly [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive]] or [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]], it may be better not to notify the disruptor or vandal of your correction, by reverting manually.

Note that when intermediate edits have been made, it is sometimes not possible to use the undo link.

==Explain reverts==
{{shortcut|WP:REVEXP}}
Edit summaries, [[WP:FIES|always a good practice]], are particularly important when reverting. Provide a [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions|valid]] and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.

A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to [[wp:assume good faith|assume good faith]]. This is one of the most common causes of an [[wp:edit war|edit war]]. A substantive explanation also promotes [[wp:consensus|consensus]] by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.

In addition to helping the reverted editor, providing information regarding the reversion will help other editors by letting them know whether – or not – they need to even view the reverted version, such as in the case of [[Wikipedia:blanking a page|blanking a page]]. Explaining reverts also helps users who check edit histories to determine the extent to which the information in the article is reliable or current.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an [[Wikipedia:edit summary|edit summary]], leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page ''first'' and ''then'' revert, rather than the other way around; this gives the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page.

==Edit wars are harmful==
{{further information|Wikipedia:Edit warring}}
===Reasons===
[[Wikipedia:Edit warring|Edit wars]] are usually [[Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary|considered harmful]], for the following reasons:
# Edit wars destabilize the article in question, and may be off-putting to the observant and wary editors who would otherwise contribute stabilizing improvements to it.
# Edit wars tend to cause ill-will and probably delay editor development and reduce editor retention. An editor can feel a revert is "a slap in the face"{{mdash}}"I worked hard and someone reverted it!"
# Edit wars do waste space in the database, make the [[Wikipedia:page history|page history]] less useful, and flood recent-change lists and watchlists.
# Edit wars are often myopic, occurring while neither participant is familiar with the big picture. The editors involved tend to focus only on one part of an article without considering other sections of the article or other articles linked dependently to the area in question, resulting in inconsistencies with the big picture concerning the content in question. The noticeboard is part of the big picture too.

====Resolutions====
Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement. Instead, explore alternative methods, such as raising objections on a talk page or following the processes in [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]].

===Three-revert rule===
{{further information|Wikipedia:Three-revert rule}}
As a means to limit [[Wikipedia:edit war|edit war]]s, [[Wikipedia:policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] state that one may not revert any article more than three times in the same 24-hour period. This is a hard limit, not a given right. Attempts to circumvent the [[Wikipedia:three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], such as making a fourth revert just after 24 hours, are strongly discouraged and may trigger the need for remedies, such as an [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|editing block]] on one's account.

===Exceptions===
Edits that do not contribute to [[Wikipedia:edit war|edit war]]ring are generally considered to be exceptions to the three-revert rule. These include reverts of obvious vandalism, reverts of banned users, and removal of potentially libelous text.

Please [[Wikipedia:Requests for protection|request protection]] rather than reverting. Violation of the three-revert rule may lead to protection of the page on the version preferred by the non-violating party, blocking or investigation by the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]].

==See also==
===Policies===
*{{Section link|Wikipedia:Edit warring|The three-revert rule}}
*{{section link|Wikipedia:Editing policy|Try to fix problems}} (policy)
*{{section link|Wikipedia:Vandalism|Template and CSS vandalism}} (policy) – if the edits don't appear in the page's edit history, or the history and edit tabs are obscured

===How-to===
*[[Help:Reversion]]

===Essays===
*[[Wikipedia:Alternatives to reversion]]
*[[Wikipedia:Baby and bathwater]]
*[[Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary]]
*[[Wikipedia:Monroe's law]]

[[Category:Wikipedia reverting| ]]

Wikipedia:Reverting - Revision history

Tachyony: Imported page