Bharatpedia:Reverting

This page is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Bharatpedia editors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Bharatpedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts: BP:REVERT · BP:REVERTING

This is an essay on Bharatpedia. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Bharatpedia editors. It is not an encyclopedia article, and it is not one of Bharatpedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

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

What is a reversion?

A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button on the article's history page, but it is not any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text. A single edit may reverse multiple prior edits, in which case the edit constitutes multiple reversions. Multiple reversions may be counted as one for purposes of applying the three-revert rule brightline rule for identifying edit warring.

Any edit to existing text could be said to reverse some of a previous edit. However, this is not the way the community defines reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions — complete reversal of one or more previous edits — are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.

Editor action	Classification
Alice rephrases the wording in the first paragraph of an existing article.	A normal change, not a reversion.
You reverse all of Alice's changes in wording, restoring the article to the previous version.	A complete reversion.
Alice adds a new paragraph at the end of the article.	A normal change, not a reversion.
You remove most of Alice's new paragraph, but leave one or two sentences.	A partial reversion.

When to revert

Revert only when necessary

Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting. Before performing a revert, carefully consider the consequences of dismissing another editor's contributions, as well as any subsequent edits linked to the original change. Assess the specific elements of the edit that are problematic and contemplate the editor's intentions. Rather than reverting entirely, consider improving the edit to enhance the article's quality. If only a portion of the edit is objectionable, a partial reversion may be more appropriate. Complete reversions should be used sparingly.

If you see a good-faith edit that you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it. Similarly, if you make an edit that 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. If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives.

Do not revert an otherwise good edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary or has a bad username. You cannot remove or change prior edit summaries by reverting, even if you made the edit in question. In the case of a bad username, see the username policy.

Please do not revert edits — other than your own — that you personally support or agree with. Let someone who actually disagrees with the edit do the reverting. In particular, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle depends on the bold editor being able to identify someone who disagrees with the substance of the edit. If you revert because you believe someone else will object, then the BRD process will break down.

Avoid reverting during discussion

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 disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate.

Editors who favor the status quo version during a dispute should provide substantive reasons for doing so, but they should not stonewall discussion by repeatedly reverting and refusing to engage.

Do a partial reversion when appropriate

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

Always remove

Some material should always be removed, regardless of any consideration of the status quo:

• Vandalism — revert on sight.
• Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced — always remove unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious.
• External links — always remove disputed links from the "External links" section until there is a consensus to include them.
• Copyright violations — always remove copyright violations. Err on the side of removing suspected copyright violations.
• Libel — always remove libelous or defamatory material. Err on the side of removing suspected libel.

Edit warring to maintain a "status quo version" is still edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing this. There is no rule on Bharatpedia that requires anyone to revert, but if the page has already been reverted to an older, pre-dispute version, then it is especially helpful if you avoid reverting to a different version. Favoring the status quo while discussion is taking place is one way to prevent edit warring, but because it protects the wrong version, it should not be used for any other purpose.

Different ways to revert

When you have decided to revert, please consider whether you will use the undo link in the page history, or revert manually.

• Undo — the most commonly used method. If you use the undo link, the editors whose edits you revert will receive a notification, if they have requested notification of reversions.
• Manual reverting — the most basic method: an editor undoing an edit without the use of a revert button. Editors will not receive a notification, which some appreciate. If the edits you revert are clearly disruptive or vandalism, it may be better not to notify the disruptor or vandal of your correction, by reverting manually.
• Restoring a past version — opening an older revision from the page history and saving it.
• Rollback — available to editors with the rollback user right, which reverts all consecutive edits by the most recent editor in a single action.

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

Explain reverts

Edit summaries are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation, including, if possible, a link to the Bharatpedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor, and if the reversion is not adequately supported, then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war.

A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor, and greater harmony.

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

Edit wars are harmful

Reasons

Edit wars are usually considered harmful, for the following reasons:

• Edit wars destabilize the article in question and may be off-putting to the observant and wary editors who would otherwise contribute stabilizing improvements to it.
• Edit wars tend to cause ill-will, delay editor development, and reduce editor retention. An editor can feel a revert is "a slap in the face" — "I worked hard and someone reverted it!"
• Edit wars waste space in the database, make the page history less useful, and flood recent-change lists and watchlists.
• Edit wars are often myopic, with editors focusing on the immediate dispute rather than on the broader question of what the article should contain.

The three-revert rule

The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. The rule is not an entitlement to revert three times, and breaching it may lead to a block.

See also

• Bharatpedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• Bharatpedia:Edit warring
• Bharatpedia:Three-revert rule
• Bharatpedia:Consensus
• Bharatpedia:Dispute resolution
• Bharatpedia:Assume good faith
• Bharatpedia:Ownership of content
• Bharatpedia:Status quo stonewalling
• Bharatpedia:The wrong version
• Help:Reverting
• Help:Page history