Wikipedia talk:Revert only when necessary

Proposal: Nominate essay as a guideline

I want to nominate this essay as a guideline. Who's with me? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I am. The basic message of this essay is more deserving of being a guideline than any I've seen in a long time. Some material might need to be excluded because is written more like persuasion and explanation than guidance. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Not me. And that's for the same reasons that I and others rejected the proposal to elevate WP:BRD to a guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I support this. I find the undo function necesssary but very problematic as it diminishes tools like and most of all the most basic and most accessable Wikipedia tool the talk page. It destroys discussion outside of the established users. It makes possible content often invisible. Reasons for undoing are too often problems with language or form, and not because of unresolveable issues. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I would support it too. Too often, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater from a good faith edit. Inevitably there would have be some changes to fit it into the guideline format. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Nah. Honestly much of this essay strikes me as naive. Edits that may be good faith, yet misguided and unsalvageable, are very common. We don't do such people a favor by keeping poor additions, and certainly not our readers. And what's also common is people coming on here to promote personal or fringe ideas. We should not try to keep some of such content and create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also, changes are scrutinized the most when they've just been done. Better to uproot poor content while it's new and we're examining it than let it sit around misleading people for possibly many years. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, though it'll need some rewriting to be in guideline language not essay language. The place for such a proposal is probably WP:VPPOL, with notice at WP:VPPRO, WP:CENT, and some other good places, like WT:POLICY, WT:EDITING. In response to Crossroads's objection: misguided and unsalvageable content, including WP:FRINGE and WP:PROMO material, would surely qualify as "necessary" to revert. Lots of stuff is not, including material that passes WP:V (verifiable but doesn't have a citation yet), and my personal peeve: mass-revert of 20 cleanup changes to get at one thing you disagree with (e.g. undoing 19 citation repairs because someone also inserted a serial comma in that editing pass and you hate serial commas).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the essay allows reverts in the scenarios Crossroads describes. Particularly where it says reverting is appropriate if "the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement." Anywikiuser (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I know that the essay does allow for reverting in such scenarios, but it still pushes too hard for trying to save it. It states: It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit. On average, this will result in more bad content being preserved. Especially because if editors are discouraged from reverting poor additions, rather than going through the effort to comb through them, they will be tempted to just save it all. As for mass reverting good edits to get at a bad one, I haven't seen much of that, which I agree is bad. What I have seen often is bad content that ends up deleted, and when its origin is investigated, it was added by a user with an obvious agenda, and it stuck around for years because people decided at the time to leave it be. As for me, I myself do save the good parts of mixed quality edits, as do most editors I've interacted with. So, this essay is unnecessary as a guideline, as it would take us in the wrong direction. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent addition -- about not edit reverting an edit one believes is an improvement.

Regarding this addition by WhatamIdoing? I reverted, stating, "I don't agree with this. It's been discussed before, I think including at the BRD talk page. Editors revert to the status quo for discussion all the time. While an editor might think an edit is an improvement, they may also know that it's going to be controversial or an issue in some way and want to forestall that by first discussing it. If the addition is truly no problem, the talk page will resolve that." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to Slow Down Impulsive Reverts

Closed discussion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus against implementing these proposed changes (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

---

If my experience is anything to go by, most reverts do not follow the guidelines on this page. I've been reverted with inadequate explanation or no explanation at all. When I make changes, designed to make the text clear or less misleading, I might be reverted by somebody who likes the old version better. I've even been reverted for failing to provide a citation.

I do realize that this page is an essay, not policy. But it would still be helpful if reverters were forced to consider these ideas. In any case, reversion needs to be a lot less impulsive.

To accomplish this, I propose these software changes:

1. Instead of simply telling editors that revert comments are required, refuse to accept reverts without one.
2. Provide a message about limiting use of reverts, with links to WP:OWN and/or WP:RV.
3. Force the editor to acknowledge these issues by checking a box to indicate that they're sure that reversion, instead of editing or discussion, is the right thing to do. Admins would be exempt, to make their vandalism cleanup less onerous.

Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose in strongest possible terms. While impulsive reverts are bad, WP:BRD requires that people be willing to revert freely; boldness is only possible when objections can be easily lodged and WP:BOLD editing slowed down for discussion without having to jump through hoops or red tape. While certainly reverts ought to have edit summaries, so should all other edits; singling out reverts here is inappropriate. And the checkbox idea in particular is a wretched idea that would make vandalism-patrolling more onerous for the sake of pointless, poorly-considered time-wasting that would do absolutely nothing to slow the people it is aimed at. --Aquillion (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Bold editing is a good thing. "Bold" ("obnoxious" is a better word) reverts discourage bold editing.
  • Indeed, objections should be easily lodged. But a revert of a good-faith edit is not "lodging an objection." Especially when the revert is made with no explanation.
  • Taking a fraction of a second to check a box is hardly "jumping through hoops." And making people think about what they're doing is often effective.
  • I agree, edit summaries should be mandatory. But that's beyond the scope of this RFC.
  • If you're doing vandalism patrolling, maybe you should be an admin?Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Before this proposal would make sense, we'd have to get major parts of this essay adopted as at least a Wikipedia guideline, if not policy. I have seen very few examples in Wikipedia where the system forces any kind of editorial discipline on editors, even a "think twice about this" warning. Wikipedia is about freewheeling consensus-based activity and few rules. And a lot of that is based on the fact that any bad edit (including a reversion) can simply be reverted, so what have we lost if someone impulsively reverts something?

Incidentally, I assume when you say "revert", you mean "undo", because the software isn't smart enough to identify any other kid of reversion. If there were really interest in getting rid of impulsive reversions, I would start by eliminating the undo button (leaving the rollback button, strictly for use against vandalism). The undo button presents the image that you're not actually editing; you're just blocking someone else's edit, so all the rules about what constitutes an appropriate edit don't apply to your undo. And it makes it look like the Wikipedia community wants people to act as gatekeepers and liberally reject stuff. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - worth discussion, and maybe lead to essay edits but as stated is this contradicts the essay, is not proposing article edits, and just goes too far. The #1 ‘refuse to accept reverts without an edit summary’ is stated a mandate as if this were a policy which conflicts with this is only an essay not even a guideline. It also conflicts with the essay line “Do not revert an edit as a means of showing your disapproval of the edit summary.” Besides, “an edit comment” is not saying the explanation should match the edit size. In one direction that seems too much — going to demand anyone removing a 4-letter word vandalism or 1-letter typo write a detailed explanation or else the vandalism gets reinstated? In the other direction that seems too little - going to bless trivial comments as sufficient? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - worth discussion to look for a more appropriate smaller first step. The OP’s motives appear genuine and reasonable, but the proposals display a lack of grasp of how WP works in practice. Why is being reverted for ‘ failing to provide a citation’ described in the essay as “even...”; this is often a good reason for a revert, particularly if the addition concerns a living person or is a significant or controversial change to the article. The OP’s suggestion that vandalism reverts should be left to admins displays a certain unfamiliarity with the nature of editing; regular WP’ers know how common it is for mostly IPs to damage pages (often with bad language or personal content totally unrelated to the article), and these need to be removed quickly and easily. Admins would be overwhelmed if all vandalism were left to them to remove! MapReader (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose proposing software changes to implement the recommendations of an essay is certainly a, well, unique proposal but one which ignores fundamental editing cycles. This is a solution in search of a problem. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. The discussion above 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.

Later conversation

I, for one, agree with Isaac Rabinovitch's proposal; WP has made it just too easy to revert edits. Far easier than editing, that's for sure. That, by itself, contradicts this essay's assertion that Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation. Perhaps this is due to an abundance of caution against vandalism, but that only means it is not true Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo. In fact, the exact opposite is true. And the fact that this discussion was closed, in a clear attempt to shut off the proposal and shut up anyone who might agree with it, is further evidence of that. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• As you can see in my comments above, I wholeheartedly agree that reverting is too easy and too encouraged, though I don't think the proposal by itself is the right way to address that. I also agree that the undo button isn't entirely consistent with Wikipedia's supposed bias (or even neutrality) toward change. But the closing of the discussion was not an attempt to shut off the proposal; it was an acknowledgement that the proposal had been shut off by consensus of the community. Closing a discussion shuts people up so they don't waste everyone's time, including their own, beating a dead horse. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • You're correct: closing the discussion was the only possible response, given the negative reaction to my proposal. On the other hand, I really wish Wikipedia people would stop using the word "consensus" to mean "the loudest voices all agree." It's not what "consensus" means in any dictionary. It's not even what it means in wp:con. Just say "negative response." Saying "consensus" when there's significant dissent is dishonest. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree that reverting is too easy and too encouraged, though I don't think the proposal by itself is the right way to address that.
    What do you reckon would be the right way to address it, Giraffedata? — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I was just alluding to what I said in the original discussion - there would have to be guideline or policy statements deprecating reversions and requiring an edit summary indicating an acceptable reason, and then webapp changes. (I don't think that will happen, though). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
      • How's that different from what Isaac Rabinovitch proposed, Giraffedata? We seem to be in agreement. — Guarapiranga ☎ 11:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Isaac Rabinovitch's proposal doesn't say anything about guideline or policy changes. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

          Ah, I see. That to me went without saying it here:

          1. Instead of simply telling editors that revert comments are required, refuse to accept reverts without one.

          Evidently, such a rule would need to be codified in policy. Other than that, I think Isaac Rabinovitch wisely chose not to propose big policy changes to minimise attrition. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    • Meanwhile, there's Wikipedia:Don't revert without explanation. Of particular interest may be the See also section, which lists Wikipedia space articles that relate to the issue. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

      Of those linked, WP:REVEXP seems most relevant. Unfortunately, it's in an essay, not a policy (as is WP:DRNE).

      Regardless, beyond policy, Isaac Rabinovitch's proposal to refuse to accept reverts without one (comment) and to force the editor to acknowledge these issues (of abuse of needless reversions) by checking a box to indicate that they're sure that reversion, instead of editing or discussion, is the right thing to do would be particularly helpful restoring the bias toward change WP advocates in this essay (and fails to deliver). — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

"fruits of their crimes"

What exactly is the intended implication and purpose of the end of: "No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson or keeping an editor from enjoying the fruits of their crimes."

This doesn't really seem to be a useful thing to say here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the paragraph that argues against reversions made to affect the feelings of the reverted editor and lists a few ways an editor might be compelled to make such a change. One of those is a belief that when a person does something wrong, he should not profit from it, regardless of whether it hurts anyone else. For example, if a person builds a house without a permit, even though he would have been issued one if he had applied, the house must be torn down. In legal discussions, this is called the "fruit of the crime" doctrine.

In reversions, I've seen this in grammar edits. Some grammatical restrictions are hotly contested and people get offended by others applying them to a Wikipedia article or even believing in them. So imagine that editor A writes a split infinitive and editor B rewords it. Editor A believes the new wording is fine, but so was the original and is offended by the change (and by the existence of Editor B's contempt for the split infinitive). Editor A reverts the change so that Editor B will not enjoy having the article free of split infinitives.

I'm sure it's a reversion motivation in content issues too.

I think it adds to the paragraph. We're trying to list all the reasons someone might feel like reverting something. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)