Wikipedia talk:Reverting/Archive 1

Rollback bug?
If a user makes an edit and I open the diff page for that edit while it is the most recent for that article, and the same user then edits the same article, but I don't reload the page (so the rollback link is visible and the most recent edit isn't), the effect of clicking rollback is to revert both edits, rather than to warn me that the article has been changed since the version I am viewing. Is this the intended behaviour? It took me by surprise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Ivorson (talk • contribs) 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Last stable version
An editor at Talk:Safe sex appears to misinterpret parts of this essay (and others) as requiring him to revert to the "last stable version" (that is, the last version personally acceptable to the editor before the last two weeks of edit warring). If someone here would like to address this issue explicitly, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing equals improving
Reverting says "if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it". Context implies "...rather than remove it". Now, here an admin claims removing an unsatisfactory edit is improving it. Is that the consensus view here? 69.3.72.9 (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen before the view expressed that removal is Bad. But sometimes people add cruft (or errors, or interpretations), in good faith, that we're clearly better off without. A blanket assumption that good faith additions should be improved only; and that you have a choice of leaving them alone, or improving them, rather than removing them, is wrong. I've updated the essay a bit to say so, I hope William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

REMOVING and REVERTING are two different things. Aren't? If the first, "removing", can make an editor feel unhappy, the second will also be counted as a DELETED edit. Imho, there is a big difference. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 07:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The same textual change could be reverting or removing. Arguing exactly which it is matters little. "the second will also be counted as a DELETED edit" - I'm not sure what you mean by this. In the technical sense, a deleted edit is one that an admin has deleted, and is no longer visible in the revision history. That isn't the same thing as a revert William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to incorporate WP:STATUSQUO into WP:BRD
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please request protection rather than reverting
Can anyone provide insight into the statement "Please request protection rather than reverting", the last paragraph of the essay, in the "Exceptions" section? This is presented as a rule ("Violation of this rule ..."), but the context is not clear to me, i.e. when does this rule apply? Also, if this really is a reference to a policy or guideline, shouldn't we link to the authoritative source, since the essay is not itself a set of policies or guidelines? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing and conflicting revert policy
As a relative new editor I find the revert policy somewhat confusing and believe it could do with clarification. There is a essentially a conflict between the basic policy of don't revert good faith edits (GFEs), and then the subsequent policy statement that the good faith reversions should not be undone (and the further policy that if there is dispute the edit should be left out until resolved - notably the BRD approach). This means that a determined reverter can get their way: if they are prepared to ignore the basic policy and revert a GFE, the subsequent policies support their actions. If the original editor then undoes their reversion the reverter can (and does) claim the editor is acting in bad faith, conveniently ignoring their own original bad faith reversion. Ultimately if they get into a dispute then the dispute rules support their reversion and they get their way. To improve matters, and strengthen support for many of the issues mentioned in the policy (I can testify to the harm that reversions to one's willingness to edit WP) I would like to suggest: There are also a lot of pages on reverting practices, which sometimes conflict or confuse, and could usefully be consolidated (into this one?). BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; BRD misuse; Overzealous deletion; Revert only when necessary Marqaz (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The basic policy is more strongly emphasized - don't revert good faith edits - and in particular views over the notability or significance of a GFE don't justify reversion (flag and talk instead). Reverts (I feel) should be primarily a tool for dealing with vandalism, factual inaccuracies and formatting errors quickly. The BRD approach should be used far more sparingly than it is (and be made clearer too).
 * 2) Following on from this reverts shouldn't count as good faith edits unless clearly justified on an objective basis (whereas positive edits can be justified by their content) This reflects the fact that an edit requires work, whereas a reversion is easy. A editor is in their right to reinstate a GFE reverted without proper justification (though they should ideally justify the reinstatement).
 * 3) If a dispute continues, then the disputed edit should only be left out if (2) has been followed from the start - otherwise the original edit should be allowed to stand while the dispute is resolved.

Status quo reigns statement removed
The WP:STATUSQUO section used to say:
 * If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change.

It now says:
 * If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way.

I'm not sure this change reflects community consensus. I'm under the impression that while editors are certainly encouraged to work towards consensus, and not have one's own way, that during a dispute the status quo reigns.

I've reinserted the long-standing statement as follows:
 * During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.

--B2C 22:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me; thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Harmonizing the various essays on reversion
I've been reading through the various essays and guidelines about reverting and have found a lot of overlap and some contradictions. I suppose this is the natural consequence of their being updated individually over time, but I would like to clean that up.

I'd like to start with the "When to Revert" section in this essay. The answer to that question is the title of another essay, "Revert Only When Necessary," (WP:ROWN) so I propose to replace the contents of this section with a reference to that and a one-paragraph summary of it. WP:ROWN in turn contains a lot of material that goes beyond the simple "should I or shouldn't I revert?" question and duplicates material in WP:REVERT, so I would replace that with a reference.

Comments?

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've expanded WP:ROWN to include all the "when to revert" advice from here, and replaced most of that section with a reference to WP:ROWN. Some of the section wasn't really about "when to revert" and was already covered in other sections.


 * There is a lot more work to do on the various essays about reversion, just to make them readable and consistent (I mean where they were meant to be consistent - different viewpoints aside), and I'm going to try to do that gradually. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Explain reverts
We should always explain our edits, of course. But asking editors to remain available for half a day after reverting? That needs to go as it is unreasonable and suggests that editors should not revert for the last half of their day - so editors who work during the day shouldn't revert at all if the only time they can edit is the evening. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. What's the hurry?


 * Also, not everyone who reverts is preparing for war. If one wants to revert, provide a thorough explanation, and then walk away, letting the reverted editor reject the explanation and re-edit, I think that's perfectly reasonable.


 * Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Partial revert title
I'm wondering if you're only doing a partial revert, then is it still accurate to keep the "Undo revision XXXXXXXX by XXXX (talk)" title?

E.g. If the article originally states:
 * The Earth is a member of the solar system.

..which someone changes to:
 * The Earth is an member of the Solar System.

..and then you 'back' to:
 * The Earth is a member of the Solar System.

--Diblidabliduu (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That edit is not a reversion, and should not have the "Undo ..." edit summary. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's amazing how an admin at another Wiki site can actually think that. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Clear definition of revert; no such thing as partial reversion
I've added a clear definition of reverting, which properly distinguishes reversions from edits in general. Part of this is eliminating the concept of "partial" reversions. If you're only undoing part of a prior edit, that's just ordinary editing and does not merit any of the special considerations this essay advises. In fact, keeping part of a prior edit and throwing out another part is the very compromise process that we advise instead of reverting.

Also, it wasn't clear when a single edit reverses two prior edits, whether that's one reversion of two prior edits or one edit that constitutes two reversions. I'm not aware of any consensus on that, so I picked the latter and included that in the definition.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A "partial reversion" could be normal editing, and it could be plain old reverting. The complication in defining it is that editors can make more than one unrelated change in a single "edit".  This is easy:
 * I change the sentence from "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." to say "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, don't try to get your proposed version into the article." because I think that the flowery language is a little weird and because I think it misses the point, which is that you should stop trying to get your idea into the article, in favor of some anti-policy and anti-BRD stop-work order that people can (and do) misunderstand to mean that nobody is allowed to make any edits to a disputed section unless and until they all agree that there is "consensus".
 * Someone else likes the flowery language, and reverts it.
 * Simple reversion, right?
 * Now let's pretend that I made two changes:
 * I make the same change to that sentence and I expand the ===Exceptions=== subsection to explain that opaque sentence about requesting page protection, in the same edit.
 * Someone else likes the flowery language, but agrees with the expansion of the ===Exceptions=== subsection. They remove one of my changes but not the other.
 * What is this? Well, according to the Wikipedia community, that's a partial reversion, because some straight-out reverting was happening, but not to everything I did.  It seems very silly to call restoring the flowery language "a revert" (and therefore the possible beginning of an edit war) if that was the only change that I made but "just normal editing" if I made other changes.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would call the edit that leaves some of your edit and undoes some of it a compromise, not a partial reversion, and would expect it not to invoke any of the special considerations for reversions. If you feel strongly about the work that was undone, you can put in another edit that redoes only that piece, and a true reversion and all that entails can properly ensue.  (Of course, this example also points out why if you suspect someone may object to some part of your edit, it would be best to put that in its own edit in the first place).
 * And I don't think the Wikipedia community says any different. The only place I've seen the term "partial reversion" was in one essay that appeared to be typically butchered by independent edits so it wasn't consistent anymore.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR classes what you call a compromise as a reversion. Whether admins at WP:AN3 call it a compromise is a different matter, as there are multiple opinions. I've seen decisions go both ways. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"How to revert" section
With this edit, Gap9551 added a "How to revert" section, which was a section discouraging manual reverts since the editor being reverted is not alerted to the revert. Giraffedata tweaked the section. And I removed it (inadvertently reverting an IP on Alice and Bob wording), with the following statement. "Should we really have this new section? That's an opinion. In some cases, editors don't want to alert the editor to the revert, especially if that editor is a disruptive edit warrior. And WP:Rollback should be used carefully."

When WP:Patrolling, reverting a problematic editor manually so as to not alert that editor to the revert can contribute to stopping the disruption, including minutes or an hour before the editor is blocked. Furthermore, due to intermediate edits, reverting using the undo button is not always an option...whether reverting a productive or problematic editor. And, lastly, Wikipedia got by for years without having alerts when reverted; it was up to the editor to see if their edit was reverted, and I don't view this as necessarily a problem. If anything, from what I've seen, being alerted to a revert seems to frustrate some of our editors and often leads them to revert the other editor in turn, as though it's a challenge that needs to answered with a revert; when WP:Echo was installed, that was one of my complaints about the feature, and other editors made the same complaints. That stated, I'm not opposed to reinstating the section if it's not titled "How to revert," and instead states that an alert type of revert may be preferred, rather than implying that it should be done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Flyer22 Reborn, I agree that notifying clearly disruptive editors is not a good thing, I should have mentioned that as an exception. And sure, sometimes it is technically not possible to 'undo', which should also have been mentioned. Editors not wishing to be alerted would be best advised to simply opt out, but if I understand you correctly, you may mean that some editors actually want to receive the notifications but act improperly on it. I reinstalled the section taking into account the points you brought up. I left out rollbacking for now. That is generally used by more experienced editors who made not need the advice in this section in the first place. Thanks for the help. Gap9551 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Gap9551, thanks for the revised addition; I'm fine with that. As for "some editors actually want to receive the notifications but act improperly on it," well, yeah, I mean that some editors get frustrated or annoyed by receiving a ping telling them that they have been reverted, even if simultaneously being thankful for knowledge that they were reverted; I've felt that way too. And then these editors might revert on impulse or as though the revert is a challenge that needs to be answered with a revert right then; this was discussed at some point on my talk page in the past. If I find that discussion, I'll link to it here, but that's really a discussion for the WP:Echo talk page, and it won't change anything anyway.


 * On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, there's no need to ping me to it. If you'd rather I keep pinging you if responding to you or mentioning you here, I will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Fortunately, reverting is often done for a good reason, and occasionally by being reverted I learn about a specific guideline or custom that I wasn't aware of. Reversions (except of vandalism) without helpful edit summary are a very bad practice, and this essay states that clearly. Gap9551 (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem
According to the passage, "If the edits you revert are clearly disruptive or vandalism, it is probably better to avoid having a notification sent.". I am sorry, but, the way how I have read it, it sounds as though the essay were here to teach disruptive editors how to hide their disruptive edits from faithful users, potentially hurting the Wikipedia environment. I suggest that it be either changed or simply removed. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 03:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. I was reading it incorrectly, so I have replaced that with . Disregards! Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 03:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have clarified it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Status quo is not favored
I've been researching the policy and guidelines on exactly this issue, and there is nothing in policy or guideline pages that supports the idea that the status quo is favored in disputes. The only thing that is favored in disputes, apart from consensus, talking things out, and not reverting, is that there is a bias for removal of unsourced material, especially if it is negative, and especially in BLPs. This essay shouldn't make false claims about a bias for status quo (I've removed it from WP:STATUSQUO). If I am wrong, please point me to the policy or guideline page that talks about a bias for the status quo during disputes. LK (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea of WP:STATUSQUO is that it stops edit-warring while contentious edits are under discussion and it works in well with both WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR. When an edit is reverted it shouldn't simply be restored. Editors should discuss contentious edits rather than edit-war over them, and the community certainly agrees that edit-warring shouldn't occur. We have WP:AN3 specifically for such situations. When an editor makes an edit that is reverted, the WP:BURDEN is on he or she to gain WP:CONSENSUS to add the content. It's not up to other editors to gain consensus to remove a contentious edit. This is why the status quo reigns. My experience is that it has wide support. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The policies and guidelines are unfortunately vague about what should happen to an article when there is no consensus, which is guaranteed to be the case at least while all the consensus-reaching procedures are being followed. But it seems pretty obvious to me that people would rather have the article stable during such times than continuously oscillating between the disputed versions.  And if we have to make an arbitrary blanket rule to mechanically pick one of the two versions, status quo is the obvious one to choose, because at least we know a lot of people didn't object to that version for a long time, whereas the new version might be truly heinous.
 * But I definitely want to draw a distinction between this limited preference for the status quo during active disputes and the principle that you have to have a good reason to change something in Wikipedia and then only if no one else objects.
 * And a favored position of status quo is not the reason one should not simply re-revert. The reason one should not simply re-revert is that simple re-reversion is belligerent and just leads to edit wars.  A non-belligerent re-reversion (which I do think is possible) is fine.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I and many others agree with WP:STATUSQUO. It is a long-standing essay and should be retained. Therefore, I support this revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This is still, I believe, a false claim about Wiki policy/guideline, unsupported by any policy or guideline page I know of. I gather from responses here that no one else knows of any policy/guideline support either.  Essays shouldn't make false claims. I know there is policy support for removal of various material, and guideline support for change (see WP:BOLD), but I have never seen policy/guideline support for status quo. I'll leave it for a while to see if anyone can find any support for status quo anywhere except here. If not, it should be removed. If people object, I'll call for a wider RfC, as local consensus doesn't trump policy (that's in the policy somewhere). LK (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In "This is still, I believe, a false claim ...", what is "this"? I don't find any claim relating to this in the essay.  What I find is what one normally finds in an essay: advice and opinions about editing Wikipedia.  The great majority of the material in all the various essays is something other than a statement or even interpretation of guidelines and policies.
 * If you think favoring status quo during an active dispute is not the consensus of Wikipedia editors, then by all means do an RfC; I'd be interested in the debate. But I'll bet someone can point us to somewhere where that debate has already happened.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The claim is this, that "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." This statement is made in Wikipedia's voice, making it appear to be policy. Essays shouldn't make statements in Wikipedia's voice about Wikipedia policy that is not true. LK (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's advice, not a claim. Essays are nothing more. They don't have the authority of policies or guidelines. They just reflect (usually) common sense. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But LK has a point. While it isn't Wikipedia's voice - according to the box at the top of the page, it is the voice of one or more Wikipedia contributors - the sentence is not worded as advice either; it reads like a statement of fact on which advice is based.  If you write an essay advising people to tip in restaurants, do you write, "tipping is mandatory"?  Or rather, "you should tip" or "you should consider tipping mandatory"?  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That could be fixed with a minor tweak to the wording. It's not grounds for deletion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Your changing "reigns" to "should reign" resolves my concern.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discouraging reverts
This is the only policy I've found that sorta supports status quo. From WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it."' I suggest editing that sentence to bring it more in line with policy. Something like "During a dispute, until a consensus is established, the status quo should remain, except in WP:BLPs, where contentious material should be removed." LK (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * So the proposed differences are the softer term "remain" instead of "reign" and an exception for libel. I wouldn't object to the former.  Where did you get that BLP exception?  I looked briefly and didn't find it.  I found the rule that when someone adds bad stuff to a BLP, we're supposed to remove it immediately, which seems to mean status quo reigns even more then, but nothing that would say that when someone removes allegedly bad stuff, we're supposed to leave it removed while consensus builds.
 * And this brings me to an underlying question that's been bugging me about your objection to status quo reigning: What rule would you prefer?  The latest version stays?  The article oscillates daily between versions the disputing editors prefer?
 * One further point: I just read the consensus policy and I'm disappointed in how much of it, including what you quote above, doesn't actually state a standard that all editors should normally follow (that's what a policy is), but just describes what they normally do. I wouldn't consider the quoted passage above to have any authority.  On the other hand, I found this disturbing statement, which seem much more on-point:


 * "An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted."


 * In context, "salvage" in the second sentence means, "makes the edit a clear improvement", which says only changes that are clearly improvements are allowed and the status quo truly is king. I disagree strongly with that, and I think lots of other people do, and I suspect this is not the policy the authors of this intended.  If an editor wants a change and everyone else is ambivalent, that's a good edit.
 * Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The rule that 'contentious material about living people should be removed until consensus is reached', is well established BLP policy (see WP:BLP), and is also referenced in point 2 of WP:NOCON which I reference above. Removing contentious material from BLPs is so well supported in policy, that it is even exempt from the 3 revert rule (see WP:3RRBLP). LK (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Somehow, I confused myself with all the double negatives, because I knew about this policy, but still didn't see how it is anti-status quo. I see now.  This essay says as to competing versions of a page in an active dispute, the one that was there first (and for a while) is the preferred one.  But to be in line with policy, it needs to except BLPs and say in that case the preferred version is the one with the least material in it.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * About the other sentence you wrote of, perhaps changing it to "An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it can be reverted." would be better?


 * A slight improvement, but this policy on consensus would still suggest reverting new text that you think is or may be as good as what was there before, and that hardly seems like the right way to build consensus. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that you and I agree that editors should really try to avoid reverting. Policy and guidelines are unclear on when that first revert is OK (except in BLPs, where contentious material must go). What policy and guidelines are clear about is that revert wars are not OK. This essay should try to try to convey that nuance. i.e.: Reverts should be avoided, and that first revert should not be taken lightly. Don't revert a second or third time, reverting a fourth time is crossing the line. LK (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. In particular, I believe many people think reverting is a way to oppose an edit war.  My mother taught me it takes two to fight, but I think a person who reverts a fourth time in a day often thinks he is on the high road because the other guy broke policy by doing the same edit four times.  I.e. "He started it."  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * How about changing the two sentences to "If you see an edit which is not clearly an improvement, try to improve it by rewording. Only if you cannot do so should you consider reverting the edit." LK (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I like it. That's a good consensus-building strategy.  I'd like it better, though, if instead of "is not clearly an improvement" it said, "you think is detrimental".  If you see an edit that you think neither improves nor harms an article, you should declare consensus reached and move on.
 * This is a moot point for me, though. I don't have the courage to propose changes to policy pages; the status quo is tenacious with those.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I do have an issue with two of the recent edits. This edit and this edit summary conflict. The requirement to "remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately" is stated in the lead of Verifiability, which is a core policy. The requirement is expanded in WP:BLPREMOVE, which is also policy. It's not just widely accepted, it's pretty much mandated, and since essays can't override policies, it is not necessary to qualify in an essay that you have to follow policy. The other issue is replacing "reign" with "remain". It leaves the sentence incomplete. "the status quo should remain" what? Under consideration? On a shelf somewhere? If you use "remain" you need to qualify that it means that the status quo should remain as the current version. "Reign" eliminates that need. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't see anything but good coming from explicitly stating the BLP exception here. Many people won't know about the BLP policy and will rely on the editors who wrote this essay not to advise them to do something against policy.  One function of essays is to explain policy.  Others may be familiar with the policy but it won't occur to them as they read this generalization.  It didn't occur to me when I first read it.
 * I'm just not seeing the ambiguity with unqualified "remain", especially if "reign" doesn't have the same ambiguity. Without qualification, "remain" just means continues to be there.  "My friends went home, but I remained".  "If there are extras, you can take them, but one should remain".  But if you think people don't get that meaning, I would tolerate something like "remain as the current version".  I just think it's the kind of thing a copy editor would trim as redundant excess verbiage.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you answer the question though? If something that is widely accepted does not need qualification, why does something that is almost mandated need qualification? "Remain as the current version" is appropriate but, as you said, it's the kind of thing a copy editor would trim as redundant excess verbiage. That's not the case with "reign", which qualifies itself. "Remain" definitely needs qualification, while "reign" does not, as it eliminates the need for excess verbiage. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Why would you remove something that you agree is policy, when doing so could be misleading? Imagine the following situation. Someone who never edits wikipedia, sees something wrong in an article about someone they are familiar with, so they remove it. The removal is quickly reverted by the writer, with a comment like "don't change till you get everyone's agreement see WP:STATUSQUO". They give up and walk away. The qualification about BLPs can only improve the situation. LK (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * About your other question, IMO, reign and remain are equally (un)ambigous. What should reign? What should remain? The answer to both questions is the same. LK (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't saying that we should remove something that is policy. I was questioning the contradictory edits that you made. In one edit you add something that is "widely accepted, so not necessary to qualify" and in the next you removed something for that very reason. Reign is unambiguous. "The status quo should reign" means "The status quo should remain as the current version", while "remain" needs qualification. "Reign" does not. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually misread your comment (I didn't follow the links to figure out what you were saying; following links is a pain). Here's how those two edits are not only consistent, but drive toward the same goal - having an essay consistent with policy.  One removes a qualification that is not policy and the other adds a qualification that is policy.  In both cases, the change makes the essay less likely to be interpreted in a way contrary to what is widely accepted.  The purpose of removing "considered" from "edit wars are considered harmful is not that "considered" is widely accepted, so unnecessary.  It's that "are considered harmful" is widely accepted, so "considered" is unnecessary.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Upgrade to explanatory supplement?
I propose changing

to

This will change

'''This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

to

'''This is an explanatory supplement to the Editing policy, Disruptive editing and Edit warring pages. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of comment on the above proposal, I am WP:BOLDLY making the change. If anyone disagrees with the change, I encourage them to revert and discuss per WP:BRD (which was itself converted from as essay to an explanatory supplement ten years ago.)

Should STATUS QUO should be stated in Wikipedia's official voice?
I have serious concerns with two relatively recent independent changes to this page, which although individually are acceptable, together have produced an undesirable outcome.

The basic idea in WP:STATUSQUO (that, in case of dispute, the previous version should be retained) has never been accepted by consensus of the community, and is somewhat contradicting WP:EDITCONSENSUS, WP:OWN and possibly WP:ONUS. Some changes last year introduced this idea explicitly in the text of this page. In the above section, this idea was met with some opposition, but there was consensus to at least mention that STATUSQUO does never make sense for BLPs; and thus the expression of the STATUSQUO idea was kept in the text.

This is OK for an essay, as essays are allowed to express the views of just some part of the community. But the recent promotion of the page from essay to a supplementary information page (which has more weight with respect to Wikipedia rules, as they are considered "valid unless they contradict policies and guidelines"), gave STATUSQUO a status that it never had. I thus have reverted that change back to an essay, to make it clear for people that are directed to WP:STATUSQUO that it is "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors", and "not Wikipedia policies or guidelines" nor a "supplement" to them. Diego (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree and have reverted your change. What you appear to be missing is that when part of an article has been in place for years, with hundreds of editors reading it and failing to see anything that they want to change, that is a form of consensus as well. When there is a content dispute over such material, deference should be given to the status quo. This is not absolute; a good, sound policy-based argument trumps the status quo, but when the arguments are otherwise equal, and especially when there is edit warring, reverting to the last stable version before the edit war is not only common, but follows our longstanding consensus regarding acceptable techniques for dealing with edit wars. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose any rule that the status quo has priority in Wikipedia, and I'm not aware that this page says it does. In fact, I remember rewording something long ago on this page that said that, and I don't think there was any objection.  The exception is a temporary one: While a fully developed dispute is active, we keep the status quo.  As far as I can tell, that has been the practice forever, and practicality pretty much demands it.  Otherwise, we'd see articles flip-flopping multiple time a day as people argue over whether the status quo has consensus.  And people don't seem to like that.
 * I agree that the fact that some text survived a long time without someone changing it is an indicator of consensus, and that's the reason that I think we have to lean toward the status quo while we debate whether the status quo really does have consensus. But that's all.  We can't say an editor with a new idea has the burden of providing better arguments than the implied arguments of a bunch of unidentified editors over the last 10 years.  The status quo and the new idea enter today's debate on equal footing.
 * If this page says or seems to say that it's OK to revert a change just because the change doesn't have demonstrated consensus, we need to fix that.
 * Now as for the essay vs information page: The issue appears to be the active dispute exception. I said above I believe this is longstanding consensus, but when the proposal to change to informational page was discussed, I forgot that at least someone disagrees.  If this is disputed, we need something more than "it's been said in essays for a long time" to give it informational page status.  People may have disagreed with it over the years and left it here because it was only an essay.  The recent discussion of that went exactly that way: people (including me) argued that it's OK because it's just an essay.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree that the status quo has does not have priority in Wikipedia other than in cases where there are disputes. I strongly agree that the status quo exception is a temporary one and that while a fully developed dispute is active, we keep the status quo. I wouldn't mind seeing a rewording making this clear.


 * As for the essay vs information page dispute, I await consensus. If we cannot find a consensus during this discussion, we may have to post an RfC. My !vote is for information page. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you reword that? There might be a typo, because you say "I strongly agree that ..." and then say the opposite of the post to which it is a response.  And then you talk about an exception which does not seem to be exceptional to the previous sentence.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You are right. I mangled that one. Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia... I tried to fix it (which probably involved mangling something else). What I am trying to say is that I agree with you. To expand on that, I would say that when two editors are going head to head in an edit war, making it so that whoever reverted last before an admin protected the page "wins" encourages reverting. In those cases, I think it best to restore the last stable version from before the edit war while the edit warriors discuss it on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of WP:STATUSQUO
It would appear that this section has been discussed a few times here and its wording may be contentious. I have encounter editors who repeatedly use WP:STATUSQUO to justify their reverts, but refused to discuss their reverts in any meaningful way, sometimes ignoring clear policies and MOS guidelines. It should be clearly stated here that WP:STATUSQUO cannot be used to justify revert in contravention of rules or guidelines, and that editors are not permitted to refuse to discuss the revert when they claim WP:STATUSQUO. There is no reason why something should stay the way it is just because some editors don't like any new edits, and they must justify their revert when claiming WP:STATUSQUO. Some use WP:STATUSQUO to bamboozle new editors into believing that it is a guideline. WP:STATUSQUO is simply an essay, and must never be used to override actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Hzh (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally when a new edit is disputed, it's best to remove it and discuss it to reach consensus on including or fixing it (or fail to reach consensus) if the issue can't be fixed with a quick edit. That's definitely in the spirit of WP:EW, WP:CON, etc. If someone is basically gaming the system though by status quo stonewalling without engaging in discussion, that is a form of edit warring that should be dealt with at AN3, although it's tricky behavior to show or get action on since it's not counting reverts.


 * Part of the reason for the usefulness of STATUSQUO though is editors will often insert a new edit, get reverted with an edit summary explanation, and revert the edit back in saying discuss first before removing the edit. A lot of times that is also an attempt to avoid discussion, or else discussion will start and not reach consensus with the edit remaining and whatever issue it had. So basically, what you mention is indeed a problem, but the opposite can also happen pretty regularly too. It's tough to craft language that's less open to WP:GAMING, but I'd definitely be glad to see suggestions too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have never read the piece on stonewalling. Given that it is a response to WP:STATUSQUO, perhaps it should be mentioned or linked in that section as it is directly relevant. I think WP:STATUSQUO should be worded in such a way to indicate that it is meant to be a temporary holding position while a meaningful discussion takes place (and that those who invoke it MUST be prepared to discuss the edit in meaningful terms), that it is not an end in itself, and certainly cannot be used to override policies and guidelines. For example, I made an edit in accordance with WP:LEAD, someone then reverted it demanding consensus citing WP:STATUSQUO -, but in the following RfC refused to contribute apart from complaining about the RfC. The fact is that it was not a controversial or contentious edit in any way as it was simply following the guidelines on WP:LEAD, and as it should not really need a RfC it shows how WP:STATUSQUO is being misused. Those who don't like an edit for no reason apart from not liking it are using it to get their own way (because it is often difficult to get a consensus without an RfC), wasting other editors' time and effort in the process (I can give other examples of pointless discussion and consensus being demanded citing WP:STATUSQUO). Hzh (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I looked at the WP:STATUSQUO paragraph in this essay, and I do think it could be more clear so it doesn't sound like anyone can veto a change and the person proposing the change has the burden of proof that the change is good. But as for your specific points, one about status quo vs Wikipedia guidelines and one about editors refusing to defend a reversion except by reciting "status quo", I don't see any need; it would just clutter the essay.
 * I don't think anyone believes maintaining the status quo takes precedence over implementing guidelines. I rather think what you're seeing is editors who believe the status quo meets the guidelines.
 * The obligation to explain or defend a reversion to the status quo is the same as for any edit, and there really isn't any obligation. If the status-quo-demanding editor won't participate meaningfully in the discussion, and no one else supports his position, someone is going to close the discussion finding consensus for change, and ultimately the status-quo-demanding editor can be made to stop reverting even if it takes a ban from Wikipedia to do it.  But it probably wouldn't come to that, because the editor would eventually realize there is no preference for the status quo on Wikipedia.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikiepedia cannot operate on vague advice, any advice must be clear. The editor involved in the example I gave had use WP:STATUSQUO repeatedly over many years despite numerous protests and outraged reactions, there is no evidence she will stop doing it.  The reason she can get away with it is because what is written here is not clear, so she can simply revert a edit because she doesn't like it, not because there is a good reason for it. There is nothing here that suggests an editor would need to engage in meaningful discussion (in the example given here, she simply walked away from the discussion while demanding consensus).  What's written here is a boon to people who behave as if article are theirs WP:OWN - they can keep reverting demanding consensus, but because very often there are few editors who would contribute in a talk page, you'd wind up keep having RfC to get a consensus even if an edit is not controversial, and many simply don't bother getting to that stage and give up. Hzh (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What surprises me is the existence of the piece on status quo stonewalling (I've been editing for many years and I have never read it before), showing that the issues caused by WP:STATUSQUO had already been identified for many years. What's even more surprising is the lack of acknowledgement in the essay here of the misuse of WP:STATUSQUO and the problems it had caused. At the least WP:Stonewalling should be mentioned in the essay as it has advice on what to do and what not to do. Hzh (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition to all the above -status quo stonewalling definitely should be disparaged in the wording-, I think the section should take into account the level of consensus. When a particular version has been through one or several request for comments and is the result of close collaboration, we usually consider that version stable and defend it against new changes. Even if consensus can change, we usually require a formal discussion to assess this new consensus. In these cases, we do tend to use WP:STATUSQUO as WP:THERIGHTVERSION and go back to it while discussion is ongoing.

On the other hand, the current wording of WP:STATUSQUO does not make this precision, and instead states that the previous version is the one to go back. This is where it becomes unacceptable as policy, since WP:EDITCONSENSUS does not favor either the previous version nor the new one, and WP:EDITWAR discourages STATUSQUO mentality. Diego (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

How about something like the following. This replaces the current status quo mention which is, in its entirety:

if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.

Proposal: It is sometimes appropriate to revert a change to maintain the status quo during an active dispute.

When there is a fully developed and active dispute over the content of a page, disputants should be discussing and attempting to establish consensus. While this is happening, if the disputants do not readily agree to what version should be in place during the process, the status quo ante bellum is the default choice. Thus, it is appropriate to revert to the version before the dispute began as part of starting a discussion and not appropriate to re-revert while the dispute is active.

In the popular WP:BRD method of consensus gathering, a person makes an initial edit and a person who prefers the original text reverts it and begins a discussion of which version is better.

But this is a matter of procedure, not content; Wikipedia does not in general prefer the status quo and it is not appropriate to revert simply because no one has previously established consensus for a change. It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling.

Note that reversion is not required in a dispute. If no one objects to keeping the new version in place while consensus is sought, the new version should stay.

Keep in mind this is an essay on reverting and a section on when to revert, so this should address only the aspects of status quo that relate directly to that.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems rather too wordy, probably something more concise is preferable. I see difficulties in trying to cover as many possible situations as possible without becoming long-winded, but I think in general it is better to keep things short and concise, ideally summarised in a few sentences. However, I think appending the sentence to the end of the present section would be fine. Also the wordings of some of the other sentences currently in the section could be adjusted (for example I don't think violations of the BLP policy could be the only exception mentioned given that there are other violations that should not stay in an article, e.g. copyright violations). Perhaps a general statement on not applying STATUSQUO to clear violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines using BLP as one example.  Hzh (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * BLP violations are in fact treated uniquely. It's the only example I know where one side of a conflict is favored.  Remember, we're talking about cases where there is difference of opinion whether some version of the article violates policy and guidelines.  As I recall, there is a clear guideline that says when that difference of opinion is whether some text is libelous, the opinion that it is libelous takes precedence and the material comes out.
 * As for changing wording of other parts of the essay, I thought the problem was people mistakenly referring to this particular section, WP:STATUSQUO, as authority for status quo being preferred and as endorsement of simply reverting anything one doesn't like without debate. That problem can be fixed only in this section.
 * I don't think people who believe they have a right to revert anything that hasn't been proven necessary are going to be moved much just by being referred to WP:SQS, but if so, the cleanest way to do that is just to add the reference to the "see also" at the top of the section. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you are talking about a different scenario which is WP:NOCONSENSUS, where contentious BLP material must be removed if there is no consensus (whether the material is a long-standing one would be irrelevant as STATUSQUO cannot apply). However, there are plenty of other material that should not stay per WP:NOT3RR as they violate Wikipedia policy and guidelines (therefore also outside the scope of STATUSQUO, so BLP violation is not unique in this case). What I'm proposing is simply to make it absolutely clear that where there are unambiguous violations of policy and guidelines, STATUSQUO must not be used. Sometimes there may be ambiguity on whether something violates the guidelines or not (therefore discussion may be necessary), but where something is a clear violation, we cannot be expected to discuss things that have already clearly established as good practices. STATUSQUO cannot be used to override existing policy and guidelines, and if people want to challenge particular policy or guideline they would need to do it in the relevant guideline's talk page and not on the article's.
 * You are right that people do mistakenly use STATUSQUO as an authority, therefore a few sentences clarifying its purpose is a good idea. For example, the status quo is not the final favoured position, but merely a temporary measure that allows discussion to take place without endless reverts. WP:SQS needed to be stated as it is crucial on how STATUSQUO is not be misused. It also need to make it clear the STATUSQUO should not be used without an attempt to engage in meaningful discussion, therefore the "are encourage to" in the line "" needs to be changed to "should". Editors cannot considered it an option not to discuss when invoking STATUSQUO. Hzh (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. How about this (which includes changes to keep it grammatical):  "".
 * Then add the sentence to the end of the section as you suggested above, but with a transitional sentence to make it fit in context: ""
 * It's a start, anyway, right? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds fine to me apart form minor copyediting, although "rather than toward having their own way" is unnecessary since that is implied in "work towards establishing consensus". Hzh (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made that change. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

“Edit war” link
This discussion might not be necessary, but there’s been a bit of back-and-forth editing on this. includes the phrase, “Instead of engaging in an …” where “edit war” had been linking to a (apparently since renamed) section of this page about why edit wars are bad. I thought that, per the principle of least astonishment, it would be better to link these words to WP:Edit warring, which is all about edit wars themselves. Thoughts? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think if the words "edit war" are a hyperlink, it should link to details on what "edit war" means, i.e. WP:Edit warring.
 * If we want to refer readers to the section "Edit wars are harmful", we should do that directly, perhaps as a parenthetical expression. There's no need to hide it in a textual link.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone reverted it back. So now I’ve changed it to: “… an edit war, which, …”. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we want to refer readers to that section? I mean, the link’s been there a while, but that may have been because it wasn’t clear what it was. Seems worth discussing. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The original reason for the link change was simply stated as "dead link". This was only because the section had been renamed. There is already a link to WP:EDITWAR in the section so, per WP:REPEATLINK, we don't need another. There are also two links to WP:CONSENSUS. A second is also unnecessary, although I think the text around the first needs to be reworded. "should" should not link to WP:BRD. As for whether we need the link to "Edit wars are harmful", the section contains valid advice on why they are harmful so I don't see why we shouldn't link to it. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure what the original reason has to do with the edit you reverted, which gave another reason that was also discussed here and which I don’t think you addressed. But if you have no objection to my most recent edit, that’s irrelevant now. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But yeah, that section was kind of a mess of bad links, now that you mention it. Thanks for cleaning up more of it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

More about STATUSQUO
Would anyone object to a change like, “the status quo should not be reverted ”? Some methods of settling a dispute are rather difficult without editing, because, well, they involve editing. Or does that line not apply specifically to reverting? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This has previously been discussed above and the consensus was for the existing wording. I preferred the original wording. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know other wordings have been discussed, but I don’t see where anyone has proposed this wording or similar. The status quo trumps edit warring and re-reverting, but surely it shouldn’t prevent WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BRD and alternatives, right? But that’s the implication. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve made the change. I don’t think any intended meaning was lost, but it should now be free of unintended meaning, assuming the purpose of the line was not to contradict policy. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that wording makes sense. You don't revert state; you revert a change.  The status quo is a state of the article.  What does "revert the status quo" mean?
 * I'd say if there's an active dispute, any change at all from the status quo is going to complicate consensus building as well as upset people. People can try their alternatives on the talk page in that case; they don't need to boldly propose them with changes to the article.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * “should not be reverted from,” then? Is there anything in P&Gs that discourages non-revert editing during a dispute? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's at least grammatically correct. Too passive-voice, though.  "You should not revert from the status quo" is better.
 * I know of no policy or guideline that discourages non-revert editing during a dispute, but I also don't know of any that discourages revert editing from the status quo. This essay is it.  I could support approving of changes to any version that hasn't been objected to yet during a dispute, but I don't know how many others would.  One way I can see that causing a problem is that when a new person joins the discussion, such as from an RfC, he typically likes to read the article first, then look at the discussion to see what the issue is, and if the current version of the article is not what it was when the discussion started, this is really hard.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s why we have a history link at the top of every article, and timestamps on talkpage comments. Also, dispute discussions generally include links to contemporary revisions. A genuinely interested party would make use of all that and look at the revision(s) that started it off, no? Anyway, I agree with your active-voice refinement. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I'm sold, especially since this is a page about reverting, not consensus building.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

STATUSQUO CONSIDERED HARMFUL
There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that favors the status quo over a beneficial edit that's backed by policies and guidelines; in fact Wikipedia policy states that such behavior is detrimental. This section, which pushes the status quo over a good-faith effort to improve the article, encourages ownership behavior that prevents articles from improving. Bright☀ 08:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The status quo is not favored, merely that if there is a dispute, keep the status quo while the new edits are being discussed. It also makes it clear that harmful edits (particularly on contentious BLP information) are not kept if they violate Wikipedia policies. Note also the link to WP:Stonewalling about using WP:STATUS QUO inappropriately to control article. In any case, this is merely an essay advising on how to avoid edit-warring, it is not an actual guideline. Hzh (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Formatting issues in the last section
The see also section contains three sub-sections without edit links in their headings. And that's because they aren't really headings. Here's what I'd suggest changing:
 * Change ;Policies to  ===Policies=== 
 * Change ;How-to to  ===How-to=== 
 * Change ;Essays to  ===Essays=== 

I figured I'd propose it here on the talk page rather than just fix it. I'd rather have a proposal declined than have an edit reverted. – Pretended leer { talk } 20:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. Headings should be declared as headings and formatting left to Wikipedia style.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Pretended leer { talk } 17:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"Do not revert good edits with poor edit summaries or bad usernames."
WhatamIdoing, regarding this and this, as you can see in my edit summary, I stated that I know you added the addition per Help talk:Edit summary (a permalink for it here), but what is meant by the first part is not clear. For example, when I first read it, I read it as saying that an editor shouldn't revert with a poor edit summary rather than an editor shouldn't revert someone else who has used a poor edit summary. One could state that either interpretation is fine, but the section is called "When to revert" rather than "Appropriate edit summaries." Also, "good edits" can be subjective and "poor edit summaries" is vague. If you reply, I'd rather not be pinged. The page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, "good edit" and "poor edit summary" are always going to be subjective, but there's a fairly narrow meaning here: Don't throw away appropriate contributions just because they come with an edit summary that you don't like.  For example, if the actual content edit fixes a spelling error (or any other change that you, as the person reviewing the edit, think is helpful to the article), then you should not revert that edit, even if the username is prohibited by the Username policy and the edit summary is a 500-character series of swear words.  In this example, reverting would restore the spelling error but will not fix the poor edit summary.  It will make the article worse.
 * I take your point about it being possible to read that sentence two ways, though, so I've had another go at it. Is that part clearer?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In terms of changing the text to "Do not revert good edits that have poor edit summaries or bad usernames." it's an improvement, WhatamIdoing. But it's still vague. Again, good edits can be subjective. And what is the text trying to state by "poor edit summaries"? I get that the rest of the paragraph is supposed to explain, but it doesn't explain what is meant by "poor edit summaries." And it would be better worded by adding "This is because," so that the rest of the paragraph begins with "This is because you cannot remove or change prior edit summaries by reverting, even if you made the edit in question." Also, "do not" is a bit strong since, per WP:EVASION, it's common for editors to revert good edits that have poor edit summaries or bad usernames. The editor who is being reverted might be a sock. What you want to get across is that an editor shouldn't revert another simply because the edit summary is poor or simply because the editor has a bad username. But "poor" should still be clarified. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I would change the first sentence to "Do not revert an edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary or has a bad username." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I like this wording ("Do not revert an edit solely ...") better. There's really no need to qualify this advice by limiting it to good edits; it goes without saying that it's OK to revert a bad edit.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * EVASION isn't primarily concerned with reverting edits because of the username itself. It's about reverting edits because of the human who made them.
 * I agree with Bryan about this applying to any edit, but edits don't really fall into a binary good/bad system. An edit could fall somewhere in between "good" or "bad".  Applying it to all edits could increase the scope.  Right now, the "rule" is more like "Hey, if he reverted vandalism but left an edit summary that you don't like, then don't be so stupid as to restore vandalism to the article in a doomed attempt to do something about the edit summary, 'kay?"  An expanded rule would be more like "You know, if he split that long paragraph into two short ones, and used a stupid edit summary, then don't revert that".  I'm okay with that expansion (if you wouldn't revert that change if it had a good edit summary, then you really shouldn't bother reverting it when it has a stupid edit summary), but it does constitute an expansion.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, I know what WP:EVASION is primarily concerned with. My point on the sock aspect is that "Do not revert good edits that have poor edit summaries or bad usernames." doesn't consider a person reverting a sock who has made good edits with a poor edit summary. The sock making a good edit doesn't automatically mean that the edit should stay. Often, it is important to enforce the block or ban by reverting the editor...no matter their good edit. My point is that "Do not revert good edits that have poor edit summaries or bad usernames." is a little broad and does not get the point across as well as "Do not revert an edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary or has a bad username." What we want to focus on in this case are poor edit summaries and bad usernames, not whether or not the editor made a good edit. As for "edits don't really fall into a binary good/bad system," they sometimes do, which is why policies like WP:Vandalism, WP:BLP and WP:Harassment exist. What is a BLP violation or harassment can be subjective, but editors are usually in agreement on such matters. "Do not restore vandalism" is clearer. We could add that wording as clarification, although it should be common sense to editors. Even if the editor is a sock, one shouldn't restore the vandalism that the sock removed. Do you object to me changing that first sentence to "Do not revert an edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary or has a bad username." If so, why? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no strong objection to you adding the word solely. I would recommend saying "Do not revert an otherwise good edit solely because...", as I think that will be clearer to some editors.
 * The existence of the extreme ends of the spectrum doesn't change the fact that it's a spectrum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If the edit is good enough that if done by an anon with no edit summary you wouldn't revert it, don't revert if done with a disruptive user name or edit summary. The one exception is a copyrightable edit done by a RevDel-worthy username, per the attribution requirement in the license here. 89.138.131.240 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The rule we all seem to agree on is much stronger than that: If the edit is good enough that with some other username (including none) or edit summary (including blank) you wouldn't revert it, don't revert it. But the wordings that are proposed above say that more simply.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"Status quo does not apply to recently mainspaced drafts"
I propose adding the above text to WP:STATUSQUO; I've noticed a problem with articles being created in the draftspace months or years before their topics meet our inclusion criteria, usually by a single editor or a group of editors, then immediately being moved into the mainspace once something IRL happens that pushes the topic into "includability", and the "status quo" being invoked to justify reverts to a preferred version thereafter. This is a user problem and should be dealt with at ANI or other venues, but it seems like something that really should be clarified here as well. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"Do not revert otherwise good edits because they included a misprint or other minor problem unrelated to content; consider fixing it instead"
What do folks think? This seems less WP:CREEPy than Do not revert an otherwise good edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary or has a bad username. discussed above, which should be a given. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems narrower. And "unrelated to content" isn't clear. WhatamIdoing and Giraffedata, thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes an entirely different point from all the other proposals. The original is about a problem wherein someone attempts to remove an edit summary or username from the history with the undo button, which of course does not work, but maybe some beginners think it does.  Also, I think there is an issue with people using a reversion to register an objection to an edit summary (it's happened to me), which is not an appropriate use of a Wikipedia edit.  The proposal above doesn't address this at all.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * An obvious typo is a poor reason to revert a more extensive change, but rather than calling that out, perhaps a more general comment to make the general point that WP:PRESERVE is policy would be worth considering. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a reference under "When to revert" to WP:Revert only when necessary, which does say not to do a full revert if you can just fix what's broken. Adding points from that essay here would be WP:CREEPy.  In fact, maybe that's where the paragraph here about reverting because of bad edit summaries belongs.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Deplorable page moving
Please somebody of the admin can help me to revert this this deplorable inversion of redirect :( --Kasper2006 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
Sdkb, regarding this? I disagree with that addition and you adding links to it to other pages. There are often good reasons to revert all of an editor's addition, regardless of whether or not the reverting editor personally agrees with the text. WP:Fringe is one reason. WP:Due weight is another. A strong suspicion that the material is WP:OR is another. Editors are not required to explain why each piece was removed. And the WP:Revert only when necessary essay already tackles what you addressed. Before adding a lot of text there, I also suggest you propose text on the talk page of that essay first. This is because this reverting topic has been discussed times before and editors do not consistently agree on this matter.

Please don't WP:Ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I didn't phrase the addition as well as I might have, and that's possibly caused some misinterpretation. When I said "only the part you disagree with", I probably should have said "only the part you think warrants reversion". My main point wasn't about that; it was about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater when an editor makes a multi-part edit and you only feel one part warrants reversion. And that's not something that's addressed elsewhere on this page, at WP:Revert only when necessary, or (that I can find) above on this talk page. I'll try improving the language and reintroducing the section; if there are still objections, I'd be happy to discuss further. Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sdkb, I object to the section regardless. I think it's best that you propose wording on the matter here or at Wikipedia talk:Revert only when necessary and wait for others to comment. Furthermore, I really do not see that such a section should be included here when the WP:Revert only when necessary essay already exists. We have the "When to revert" section and point readers to the WP:Revert only when necessary essay for more detail on that consideration. We don't need duplication on this. Your text is not an idea that is truly different than the concept of "revert only when necessary." Your proposed text can go there if editors agree on it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, I tried again per WP:BRB before I saw your reply. Will expand on my thoughts in a minute. Sdkb (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, that is not a policy. It's a supplement page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused about the connection you see between this and WP:Revert only when necessary. My proposed subsection is more about how to revert than it is about when to revert. Could you explain further what exactly you think I am duplicating? I read through this page and WP:Revert only when necessary before I introduced the text, and I didn't see anything else expressing the same thought. Now, there is a lot of overlap with Restoring part of a reverted edit, which I didn't come across until after I wrote the section, but since that essay is so undeveloped/low-prominence, I think the concept (which I run into while editing all the time) deserves some mention on this slightly higher-profile page. Sdkb (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How is telling editors to revert only when necessary not essentially the same thing as "revert only the part you think warrants reversion", or essentially equate to your proposal? For example, the WP:DOREVERT section states, "In the case of a good faith edit, 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 as for your "it is best practice to explain or at least note your objection to each change in the edit summary" wording, there is Revert only when necessary. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess the "and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement" counts as a mention, but it's extremely incidental and not at all the main focus of the page. And the explain reverts section you're pointing to doesn't say anything about multi-part edits, which is the main point I'm making in the proposal. I have to say, overall, I'm a little surprised the proposal is generating any opposition; I expected when I added it that it would be pretty universally agreed upon that not catching up good contributions in reversions is something we should all at least aspire to. Sdkb (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice before that your proposal includes the following wording: "The encyclopedia is damaged when positive contributions are caught up and lost in a revert." I agree with that, but it's sometimes the case that restoring intermediate edits is too time-consuming or that all of the material should be reverted right then because of a BLP violation. But I can see arguing that the good edits should be restored after the BLP violation is removed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason reverting only the part you think warrants reversion is about when to revert is that if you modify the article so that just some of what a previous editor edited looks like it did before, that is not a reversion. That's just an evolutionary edit.  I know some people recognize the concept of "partial reversion", but I don't.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I came upon your "no such thing as a partial reversion" argument above. Honestly, I think it's a meaningless semantic distinction — if we want to call them "partial undos" or "jabberwockinous unverts" instead, that's fine by me, but they still exist, and I think this page is the most relevant place editors are going to look for guidance on them. Sdkb (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * if you modify the article so that just some of what a previous editor edited looks like it did before, that is not a reversion. - As I wrote above 5 years ago, WP:3RR says that is still a reversion. The definition is quite clear "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." If you undo anything that an editor wrote, that's a revert. In the past 5 years, that has been upheld at WP:AN3 numerous times. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Reversion counter"?
Per this conversation, we may want to remove the reference to some "reversion counter" that appears not to exist. Sdkb (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to add section encouraging partial reversion when appropriate
Should we add the following section directly after the "when to revert" section?

- Sdkb (talk)extended 09:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 08:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Slightly refactored to turn into an RfC 04:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my arguments in the section immediately above. WP:Avoid instruction creep. And the WP:Revert only when necessary page is enough.
 * On a side note: Maybe turn this into an RfC? This page doesn't get much traction. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll turn it into an RfC in a minute; thanks for the suggestion. Per my arguments above, I don't think WP:Revert only when necessary covers the same topic, and regarding WP:Avoid instruction creep, I come across good edits that get caught up in reversions all the time, so I don't buy that this is a "every conceivable outlying case" type of matter. And this page is pretty short, so I don't think allowing one small section will turn it into a bloated mess. Sdkb (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Replied above. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that it came across on a second reading! That's very much the central point of the proposed section, so I'm a little concerned it wasn't worded well enough to come across clearly on a first reading. Sdkb (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't think this is instructions as much as it's essay/guideline material, and would be much more at home at WP:Revert only when necessary (where it pretty much already exists). Some editors don't even agree with it - I've heard from bellicose editors who believe it is the job a newcomer to an article to supplicate the guardians of the article with an edit that meets their approval, so if an edit is less than perfect, a guardian should revert it as a way of saying "Denied.  Try again." -- That the burden of composing an acceptable edit falls on the proposer, not the objecter.  (Can you tell I don't subscribe to that position? :-) ).  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm very much with you in not subscribing to that view haha. Perhaps someone who subscribes to it will come along and offer a more compelling argument for it, but in the absence of that, I think we ought to pursue consensus that such a view is wrong, i.e. by incorporating language into this guideline that advises against it. Sdkb (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. I think positive contributions getting caught up in reverts is a real issue, and this guideline is an appropriate place to remind editors to do their part to minimize it. Sdkb (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sdkb, because you are the proposer, it's clear that you support it. There's no need for you to vote in this section. If you hadn't added "as proposer", it could be confusing. It could still be confusing since your vote shouldn't count. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * On second thought, it's not clear from the first RfC post (the initial content) that you proposed the text. So you giving your vote is appropriate. Like your small text says, you "slightly refactored [it] to turn [it] into an RfC." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:CREEP. I don't think this is a big enough problem to warrant the addition. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * would you (and others objecting on WP:CREEP grounds) be willing to change to a support if the proposal was made significantly shorter? If wordiness is the issue here, that's something we can address without rejecting the idea (so far, I don't see anyone arguing that good edits being caught up in reversions is a positive thing). Sdkb (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, see this where editor's good-faith copyedits and MOS fixes got swallowed up by a massive edit war for like 6th time... Not that having this paragraph will stop edit warriors, but it might be helpful to have a shortcut to throw at them. Renata (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see the logic in this proposal, but if we go in this direction would also like to see more encouragement for editors to make edits which really don't fit together in multiple separate edits with multiple separate edit summaries. This makes it easier for other editors to follow the changes made and helps avoid intentional or unintentional revision of good edits combined with bad. -Pengortm (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. We can safely say that that is best practice, and in an ideal world, that would always be the case. As for reality, especially when the unrelated change is minor, I often can't resist the convenience of just making it in the same edit. I do try to be pretty scrupulous about mentioning it in my edit summary, though, which often takes the form of adding "; ce" after whatever the main change was. Leaving that out feels stealthy — if someone objects to my methods of fixing comma placement, it's their right to know I did so haha. Sdkb (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, like Pengortm, I see the logic and generally support this but also agree that editors should be encouraged to create, if you will, logical breaks in their edits. It becomes a bit of an undue burden on the person rejecting part of an edit to have to sort thought a complex edit to revert one specific change.  Additionally, what becomes the "prior consensus" in such a case?  Still, I think the sentiment is good.  Perhaps with modified language?  Springee (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This goes too far in supporting junky tangled edits.  I could see merging in the content of Restoring part of a reverted edit, and generally 'try to remove just the bad parts instead of a complete revert.'   But not a strong demand or the focus when supposedly dealing with a junky tangle.  ONUS and guide should be driving the adding editors to do good edits and use good edit practices.   It should not focus on the someone nicely removing junk to say they are impolite and damaging the encyclopedia - they should be thanked and told tha going an extra mile would be really very nice.  But I'm also thking that a partial revert wold not ping the first editor the wy a whole revert would, so revert does have that benefit.   And if the issue is a situation of WP:PRESERVE versus the mandates in WP:V to delete unsupported material -- V should have primacy and people should be allowed to throw the whole bathtub out.     Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Partial reversion section with softer language
The sentiment I'm reading above seems to be that there could be a place for this, but that the text was too long, too strong, or some combination of both. So I'd like to try once more with a shorter/softer version:

Please note, since there was a little confusion above, that this page is an essay, not a policy or guideline. I'd also point to the four-paragraph section already present on explaining reverts as a comparison for WP:DUE considerations. Pinging previous discussants would this addition be okay? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd love to have feedback, but it seems this essay may not have many active watchers. I'm going to wait a few more days and then go with WP:SILENCE if there's no response. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've read the page again, and have changed my mind about this advice being fundamentally out of the scope of the page. I'm fine with this addition.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it to this. To repeat: "Should" is not soft. As noted on the talk page, editors don't always have the time to examine all of an edit, especially if it is big. If one part of it is problematic, it may be that all of it is problematic and it's best to revert all of it pending further investigation/discussion on the talk page. This is often the case with WP:Fringe topics, for example, and topics where those reverting may need to read up on the matter.


 * When an editor reverts, it's not always because they personally object to the edit (in its entirety or in part). Sometimes it's due to WP:Consensus and wanting to get the opinions of others to gauge whether consensus has changed. Sometimes it's because they suspect that all of the material should be reverted and they need to investigate the matter. Both cases take place often and are valid reasons to revert. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tweak/copy edit; it looks fine to me. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can comments in a talk page be reverted?
Not sure this is the place to ask this, but anyway. I've been contributing to a talk page in the Catalan Wikipedia. I've used sarcasm (only after I used arguments and these were ignored), and my sarcasm has been reverted. Is this permissible? Can comments, however wrong or bad-mannered, be erased from a talk page? --Josep Amunt i Avall (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally, not unless they are clearly attacks or gibberish or something else clearly non-constructive; the shortcut to refer to is WP:TPO. That said, sarcasm is discouraged—if you're having trouble being heard, it might help more to seek a third opinion (if there's only one other editor) or use another method of dispute resolution. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Using undo for an edit that isn't a revert
What does not appear to be discussed or even mentioned (here or over at H:Reverting) is the occurrence of editors using the undo functionality but then making a constructive edit.

That is, making an edit that (1) sends a notification ("Your edit was reverted"), and yet (2) contains new useful content, such as a fix or an improvement.

Why this is done we can only speculate (is it to spite the editor reverting your stuff even while you fix or improve the content he or she reverted?) but that's not important.

What's important is: what is our response? I suggest we state outright "don't use undo unless you actually are reverting that user's edit".

In other words, undoing something is a misuse of the notification system. An edit summary that starts with "Undid revision 123456 by ExampleUser (talk)..." should be reserved for when that user's edit is actually reverted, or we should consider the edit summary misleading.

If you add something, get reverted, and want to fix it, try another phrasing or otherwise make a new attempt, do not use the undo functionality. Doing so sends the message you disapprove of that user's revert, and are willing to argue it was in error and your previous revision is better. But if you also in the same edit add new stuff this is not true, and you should have accepted getting reverted, and then making a new regular edit to implement your fix or improvement.

What do you think? How do you want to phrase this? Personally, I believe it belongs on a policy page, and not just in an essay. But as far as I can see this is the place where I'm asked to discuss the issue. CapnZapp (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on why this is a problem. I've seen occasions where an editor made a number of erroneous changes in an article but their edit also included a productive fix. The most efficient way to deal with it is to use undo to revert the mass of bad changes and edit the undo-version to put back the good change. How is that an issue? Schazjmd   (talk)  15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would call this a matter of misleading edit summaries, which should in general be against policy. There is a note at the Editing policy to be helpful and explain changes, which broadly construed should be interpreted as "don't not use edit summaries" and "don't be misleading", though a specific callout of misleading summaries could be warranted. I would consider an undo+extras fine as long as the edit summary says so, instead of just the default "Undid...". – Anon423 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just so I can get my head around this, are you specifically referring to the use of the undo feature? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I sometimes undo partially good edits that are not fixable with regular edits. In those cases, I usually try to reimplement the good portions of the reverted edits (with an appropriate edit summary), or leave an edit summary explaining the problem and encouraging re-implementation of the good parts. In either case, the notification helps the original editor understand that they did something undesirable.
 * Some guidance about providing a clear edit summary when undoing a partially good edit, while preserving or enhancing the good parts of that edit, would probably be helpful. Sometimes I get a notification of a constructive edit being reverted because someone has rolled back bad edits that came before mine; those notifications are helpful, as I can take a look to see whether my edit needs to be performed again (such is the life of a gnome) or whether it is moot because my edit fixed up content that was undesirable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly, if someone leaves the default "undid edit X" edit summary while making an edit that doesn't strictly undo edit X, that's wrong. If the editor wants to use some phrasing such as "undo edit X except ..." or "undo the Y part of edit X ...", that's fine with me, as would something nonadversarial presenting the edit as forward motion.  If there are people who do not understand they are responsible for every part of the edit, including its summary, even if they use the Undo button to start the edit, then we should document that here.
 * The notification generated when someone uses the Undo button may or may not be appropriate in one of these non-pure-revert edits. It might be appropriate because the edit could be thought of as a pure revert plus a related edit.  I don't even know what that notification looks like, since I turned off notifications of use of the undo button as soon as notifications were invented, so it's hard for me to have an opinion here, but I'd say a spurious notification is not a big deal.
 * Use of the Undo button is not, by the way, a declaration that the reverted editor did something wrong. It's a statement that one editor thinks the article was better before the edit in question.
 * Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I am responding to each and every one of you, but since the specifics are intertwined, I have opted to do so here, in one block, rather than to create several sub-threads above. In other words I believe it is worthwhile to read the whole block, and then you can respond below it. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate getting a notification "you have been reverted" when I have reverted or edited a mistake or error, and the editor fixed their mistake but used Undo to do so. Using Undo (so a notification is sent) should be reserved for when the notified editor's attention is warranted: "I oppose your edit, you need to look at this". Using Undo when you aren't actually opposing my edit (in whole or in part) is irritating and we should probably be more clear in telling people to not do it. CapnZapp (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as you are actually opposing my edit (in whole or in part) we are in agreement. I just want our policy to specifically tell editors not to send a notification (i.e. use Undo) when there is no reason to believe the receiving editor needs to look at your edit. Such as a case where the editor just reverted a mistake you made - you should fix this without bothering that editor. CapnZapp (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am talking about the case(s) where you get a notification that says "you have been reverted". If there are more ways to make an edit that triggers this than Undo, then I am talking about those ways as well. CapnZapp (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am specifically talking about cases when an editor is... careless... about the fact a notification is sent. If you can post your edit without using Undo, you should definitely do it. It is not uncommon for editors in an edit war to want to "get in the last word". Making an edit that actually isn't an edit-warring edit through Undo is a way to achieve this. A final spite even though you give up the edit war, as it were. Using undo should, in my opinion, be reserved for when the notified editor's attention is called for. When you get this notification, only to find that a mistake was corrected, and that your edits are in fact not opposed is aggravating, and this is what I want us to discuss. CapnZapp (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank for you to start thinking about what I am getting at: the (mis)use of the "alarm bell" that is the "you have been reverted" notification. Thanks all, CapnZapp (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Starting your editing from an earlier revision is one way to avoid notifications, I believe. Per WP:BEANS, I would strongly oppose any guidance encouraging editors to do that simply to avoid notifications that someone might make the wrong assumption about. That sort of editing has too much potential for abuse. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * From WP:UNDO: There is a default edit summary, but this can be modified before saving. That means, an editor can slef revert, partially edit, or use the feature for whatever reasons they want, with an appropriate edit summary. I have fixed my own mistakes many times with appropriate edit summaries, on heavily watched pages. No-one ever took an objection. Same goes for "partial reverts", with appropriate edit summaries, there is no problem at all. —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 09:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverting from poor sources
is it good practice to revert an edit because it has a citation from a source you consider unreliable, even if you have no reason to think the information is wrong or unverifiable? Dan88888 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dan88888, it's somewhat a personal preference, but it depends on the type of statement being sourced. If it's about a living person or medical or controversial content, you should probably revert. If not, maybe just tag it with better source needed. If you have the time, the best option is to find a better source yourself and switch to that. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In spite of the official rule that everything in Wikipedia needs to be backed up with citations to reliable sources, I find it exceedingly rare for anyone to remove material that isn't sourced well or even at all unless the editor doubts the material. Instead, people just pepper an article with the maintenance tags.
 * I tend to delete material which just isn't verifiable by nature when it has no citation or the citation is to a non-objective source (for example, "the CEO was well-liked"; "the company shocked the industry with its speed"), but otherwise I let poorly sourced but probably true objective facts stand. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The rule is that material must be "verifiable", not "already cited". If you have no reason to believe that the material is unverifiable, then you probably shouldn't remove it.  See the policy WP:CHALLENGE, "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."  See also the WP:PRESERVE section of the Editing policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But that is all just about timing. The fundamental rule is that material has to be from reliable sources, with citations to prove it.  All the advice above is just about material that does not meet that standard existing temporarily.  In practice, most editors let it exist indefinitely unless they have reason to believe the facts aren't true, but we're not really supposed to do that.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not just about timing. The material has to be from reliable sources, but unless it is WP:MINREF material (e.g., direct quotations), there is no rule saying "with citations to prove it".  Uncited content is still verifiable if you can find a reliable source in your favorite web search engine.  No policy requires you to provide a citation for non-MINREF material in any article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Revert of April 17
Okay, user:Nikkimaria, I'll bite. What about "the premise of the whole para" do you find objectionable? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that it is appropriate and civil to "obvert" a reversion of a bold edit, solely because of a perceived inadequate explanation. This does not seem to have any basis in policy or guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: The text doss not say "inadequate" explanation, it says "no" explanation. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This rationale seems to be a version of "discuss first." Why not allow an "obert" when the revert edit summary is blank? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone who reverts a good faith without attempting an explanation is a kind of vandalism.Dan88888 (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not including an edit summary is specifically called out at WP:NOTVAND as not being vandalism. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I withdraw the word vandalism if Wikipedia defines that term more narrowly. But I do strongly object to it. It is akin to vandalism because it moves *away* from consensus.Dan88888 (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTVAND also specifically calls out edit warring as not vandalism. I'm not sure that "not vandalism" is your strongest argument against the disputed text. Better, perhaps, to leave it at Sdkb's "it's bad but infrequent." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some circumstances where if someone just reverted with e.g. a rollback I'd be fine reinstating the edit, but those circumstances are narrow, and I'm not sure we ought to spell it out here in the way that edit did. In practical terms, anyone who would need to cite that line as justification for their edit probably shouldn't have made the edit. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the substantive rationale for omitting the text ("those circumstances are narrow"). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, given that as noted this assertion has no basis in policy or guideline, it would not be appropriate to encourage editors to revert on that premise. Certainly no substantive rationale for the addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're agreeing to. Sdkb says they'd "be fine" with the addition but that the circumstances where it applies are too few to warrant inclusion in this essay. Are you agreeing with that rationale? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you're misreading what both of us said: "I'd be fine reinstating the edit" was referring to reinstating a bold edit on a page where it had been reverted. I'm agreeing that the addition to this page was ill-advised since it will be applied far more broadly than that would be appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm still confused. If you're fine with reinstating bold edits then what were you referring to when you said "this assertion has no basis in policy or guideline"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The blanket assertion that one can re-revert any edit one feels is not explained. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree that assertion should not be made. If we were keeping the text (which we aren't for the reasons Sdkb gave) then we certainly would modify it to make it clearer that "unexplained" means "without any explanation" (that is, a blank edit summary). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Where this came from
This page was copied from Help:Reverting, as large parts of that page were unsuitable for a help page (being rather opinions or proposed guidelines). Previous discussion on those topics is now archived at Help talk:Reverting/Archive 1. Please refer to that archive, or retrieve discussion from there and paste it in here if felt necessary (there was a recent discussion about WP:STATUSQUO which may still be ongoing).--Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute tags
What leads you to believe that Template:Dispute templates is a more appropriate target than DISPUTETAG for the instruction to add a tag instead of reverting? The latter contains a clearer explanation on appropriate tag application, and a more complete list of grounds on which content in an article may be disputed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I am applying the KISS principle. The linked phrase is "appropriate tag" and Dispute tags gives a quick list of "under discussion" tags. Yes, DISPUTETAG is more comprehensive, but who is going to take the time to read it? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The linked phrase is "appropriate tag"; there are more appropriate tags than are listed at the proposed target. If we're going to argue on the basis that no one will read instructions, we might as well delete this entire page . Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that nobody will read lengthy discussions. DISPUTETAG is a lengthy, generic discussion. Dispute tags give a link to a brief list of tags appropriate to an on-going discussion. As I said in my revert edit summary, "restore link targeted to list of dispute/discussion tags (had been replaced by generic link to all dispute tags)."
 * Why do you think a link to a long list of all dispute tags (preceded by paragraphs of text) is more useful/appropriate on this page than a link to dispute/discussion tags? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The "paragraphs of text" give people a clear understanding of how to use these tags, which is absent from this page. That page also provides, and clearly shows (unlike the "targeted" page), the available options for tagging. All of these tags can be appropriate to an ongoing discussion; there's nothing special about most of the tags on the "targeted" pages. In fact, the only tags on the "targeted" page that are only appropriate for an ongoing discussion are the ones not meant for articles. If you want to add a section on approaches to non-article pages and put this link there, great. But that is not this section. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of these two, I prefer WP:DISPUTETAG, because it is a coherent understandable documentation page that covers an identifiable topic. I can't even tell what Template:Dispute templates#Templates is.  It's in the template namespace, and I've seen it transcluded into the "see also" section of the help page for another template, but it doesn't stand alone.  It has no introduction telling what it is supposed to be.  The collection of tags there doesn't fit any obvious criteria.
 * But neither page is appropriate for the reference in question. None of the dispute tags are relevant to ongoing discussions.  None of them are relevant to the advice, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is under discussion and leave the tag in place until the discussion concludes."  The only tag that says, "don't mess with this because it's currently being discussed" is under discussion (which is not, by the way, a dispute tag, but is included at Template:Dispute templates#Templates).  The dispute tags just say someone perceives a problem with the article as written.  They tend to stay in place indefinitely while the article gets edited normally.
 * So I would replace "appropriate tag" with a reference to under discussion (and the associated under discussion inline). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I would replace "appropriate tag" with a reference to under discussion (and the associated under discussion inline). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately under discussion/under discussion inline are not meant to be used in articlespace so are not a good option for that spot. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I wonder why.  The documentation says, "This template is not for use in the main namespace, as it is an unnecessary self-reference",  but that makes no sense.
 * Given that there is no under-discussion tag for use in an article, I guess putting one of the generic "this content is disputed" dispute tags on the article is probably the next best thing for making a status quo with which one disagrees tolerable. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A generic tag would work, but what tag is generic? disputed is specifically for accuracy issues. That's part of why I think it makes sense to link to the broader list, since there are many more bases on which something might be disputed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How about "add disputed (for main space), under discussion inline (for Wikipedia space), or another appropriate tag to indicate the text is under discussion"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: I see that disputed inline is a better link for our purposes than disputed. - 21:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not bad, but because people may be unaware that disputed is specific to accuracy problems, suggest amending the first part to indicate "add disputed (for accuracy concerns in mainspace)". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that dispute tags do not indicate the text is under discussion. They do not discourage anyone from editing it.  There are two distinct objectives in adding a tag in lieu of reverting from the status quo:  1) tell editors the text is under discussion, so don't change it now; and 2) tell readers the material is disputed, so should be taken skeptically.  Note that hardly any dispute tags will give a reader any useful information about what specifically should be doubted in the article, and that is what makes a simple reference to the entire list pretty useless for (2).
 * It seems we don't have a tag that does either of these things in all cases. But maybe we could just list a few?  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the editor we are targeting is one who really doesn't like it that The Wrong Version is in place during a discussion. The tag gives that editor some comfort that the world knows there is problem and can click on the tag to find out what it is.
 * Might some other editor come along and edit the text? Yes, but I don't see that happening enough to warrant turning this text into a reference guide. Better to have the "another appropriate tag" text be the gateway for more templates. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly the editor I think we are targeting. But as most dispute tags cannot give that comfort, referencing the long list of dispute tags and saying "choose an appropriate one" is disingenuous and confusing.  Looking at the list again, I see that the inline tags for articles WP:DISPUTETAG all fit the purpose for an article (but don't cover every case); there isn't an equivalent for non-article pages.  As mentioned before, under discussion inline always works for a non-article.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please give us proposed text that would "list a few." (P.S., I've added disputed inline to WP:DISPUTETAG.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, how about this (considering my subsequent discovery of the article inline dispute tag section -- see above):


 * Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverting during discussion
I think there's a contradiction between WP:QUO and what WP:V is saying.

Footnote 3 in WP:BURDEN contradicts that explicitly:

The list is open-ended, explicitly includes NPOV violations (undue), and explicitly forbids restoration of status quo even for non-verifiability problems (note the "any problems").

There also seems to be an agreement in Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_162 that WP:ONUS should be interpreted to mean that the content for which no consensus exists shouldn't stay in the article.

Have no opinion on the remove vs preserve debate, but I feel the policies (and frequently referenced essays) should be written in a more straightforward way without internal contradictions. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: A discussion regarding this issue has started on the Verifiability policy talk page. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think the requirement that challenged material (for verifiability) be omitted unless there is consensus to keep it actually conflicts with the idea of maintaining the status quo to facilitate discussion. If you take the instructions as literal steps, it might, but these policies aren't nearly precise enough to read them that way.  I think what it says is that in the big picture, once material is challenged, if no consensus is reached that it should be in the article, then it should not be in the article.  It's not a statement about the day-to-day state of the article and sequence of edits while it is being determined whether there is consensus to keep the material.
 * Note that the WP:Reverting essay specifically notes the exception for biographies of living people, which are exceptional because it hurts so much to have unverifiable material present for even a day where someone is being maligned. The exception proves the rule that it doesn't generally matter if unverifiable material is present temporarily while it is being discussed.
 * I did not see in the referenced RfC discussion that in general there has to be consensus to include material for it to be included.
 * I have noticed, however, that there is not a strong consensus among Wikipedia editors about whether the status quo should be king or whether one side in an argument should ever have the burden of demonstrating consensus. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think QUO doesn't communicate there is not a strong consensus among Wikipedia editors about whether the status quo should be king or whether one side in an argument should ever have the burden of demonstrating consensus. sufficiently clear, leaving an impression that the general expectation is that the material should be kept in the article during discussion unless BLP applies.
 * I realise that it doesn't say so literally, but it's the impression its tone makes (IMO). PaulT2022 (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW I think people thinking about this issue inadvertently assume (because I did at one point) one of the following equally likely scenarios: 1) John adds a fact to an article, and Mary, watching the article, objects because it isn't verifiable; 2) John finds a fact that's been in an article for years and removes it because it is unverifiable, and Mary, watching the article, objects because she thinks it's fine.  In (1) QUO says to remove the fact and not put it back at least until discussion is over, while in (2), QUO says to put the fact back in and leave it there at least until discussion is over.  (In neither of those cases, though, does Wikipedia policy say what to do when discussion has ended without consensus).  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding (2), QUO also recommends tagging the disputed content during discussion. With regard to what happens when discussion ends without consensus, see wp:NOCON and wp:ONUS. (While the meaning of ONUS is unclear, many editors believe it conflicts with NOCON.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the citations. I don't think I've seen wp:NOCON before.  If one translates "commonly results in" to "normally requires" because this is a policy, not an information page, and so is supposed to tell us what to do, this contradicts the rule I have always perceived that Wikipedia does not favor the status quo (e.g. the essay WP:DONTREVERT says this).  The status quo is in fact king.  But if one reads it literally, then NOCON gives no guidance whatsoever -- it just says the proponents of change often back down.  I guess I'll add this to my frustration at the maddening lack of structure in Wikipedia.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, failing to discuss in good faith is a strategy employed by status quo stonewallers. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Giraffedata, you should not translate "commonly results in" to anything even remotely like "requires". I helped wrote most of NOCON, and I don't ever confuse popularity with requirements in policies and guidelines.
 * NOCON is not meant to create actual rules (merely to be a handy summary of rules found elsewhere), and the particular problem of ONUS vs NOCON/QUO was (a) intentionally and explicitly omitted when I created NOCON, because there wasn't really a consensus for it, and (b) added after several inconclusive discussions, by someone who's since been indeffed for semi-related editing problems. It's basically true (QUO often wins), but it's really complicated when you try to apply it to specific situations.  The exceptions end up swallowing the rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If NOCON is not meant to create actual rules but to summarize rules found elsewhere, it is in the wrong place, because it is in a Wikipedia policy. You can't fault people for interpreting everything within the context of a Wikipedia policy as a rule, even if they have to stretch the words to do so.
 * And "commonly results in" isn't even a summary of a rule found elsewhere. It's just a statement of what happens in reality.  People would be more likely to take it literally and not a statement of Wikipedia policy, as you seem to want, if it were on an information page.
 * People look to policy pages for actual guidance. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See also No original research, which summarizes WP:V and NPOV; Verifiability, which summarizes COPYVIO, NPOV, WP:N, and NOR; Biographies of living persons, which quotes WP:V; and Set index articles, which summarizes so many guidelines that they sorted them into a table. It is not unusual for policies and guidelines to summarize rules found elsewhere.  (NB that I don't say that it's desirable; I only say that it's done.)
 * I think that section might make more sense if you look at an earlier version, such as this one. Four other pages are summarized.  Two have statistically common but not mandatory outcomes; they say what "normally" happens.  Two have actual rules; they say what the rules are.  The current version has problems; for example, it completely omits WP:CHALLENGE.
 * I agree that people look to our advice pages (policies as well as others) to find actual guidance. However, I think that argues in favor of including such summaries, as it makes it more likely that people will find the guidance that they're looking for.  I also think that argues in favor of including information about what's typical, as people are often trying to find out what the normal thing to do is, rather than trying to find a rule saying that something is absolutely required.  Years ago, I did a survey of popular names for section headings before the list of refs.  The results have been in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout ever since.  It does not say what you "should" or "must" use, but the disputes over what to call that section promptly evaporated.  I expect that if we counted up popular choices now, we would find that ==References== is even more popular now than it was back then, and that options such as ==Works cited== are even less popular.  People did not find a rule there, but they did find guidance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Someone recently re-inserted another bit like this; I've taken it out. WP:ONUS has constant ongoing disputes over its applicability and shouldn't be referenced here until / unless we have a clear consensus on that, which none of the prior discussions there have reached. --Aquillion (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)