Wikipedia talk:Reverting

"Wikipedia:REVERT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:REVERT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 3 § Wikipedia:REVERT until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

clarification about this essay

I do not fully understand the section "Avoid reverting during discussion".

What does "status quo ante bellum" referes to? If I do an edit, someone reverts it without discussing it, is the status quo the version I had made before the reversion? And without reverting myself how can I tag that material as discussed in x place?

Also I guess this doesn't matter at all for BLP pages, which can be reverted immediately favoring the status quo? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The first shot of the war ("bellum") is your original edit (A). Status quo ante bellum is what was there before. The next editor reverts it (B) to the status quo ante bellum, which is OK. Were you to re-revert (C) to restore your change, that would be reverting away from status quo ante bellum, which is not OK. To tag the material as discussed in x place, you do a forward (not revert) edit (C') that adds the tag to the status quo (which is there after (B)).

Is that clear? Is there a wording we can use that makes it more clear? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Cinemaandpolitics, I think the part you need to pay the most attention to is this:

Edit warring to maintain a "status quo version" is still edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing this. If a dispute arises regarding which version is the status quo ante bellum, be the adult in the room and don't revert. Tag instead. There is no rule on Wikipedia that requires anyone to revert, but if the page has already been reverted to an older, pre-dispute version, then it's especially helpful if you avoid reverting to a different version.

Also, no, you can't revert immediately for BLP pages. On BLPs, you can only remove unsourced or badly sourced information. Mind the gap between "revert" and "remove", and keep in mind that if the stuff you want to remove is already decently sourced, then the BLP exception no longer applies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Giraffedata Your explanation is clear. The page, and the interactions of multiple pages with this, are not clear at all.

1) The whole paragraph makes no sense to me on the definition of "repetitive reverting". It states that revert is not encouraged, limited for vandalism and such... but if one reverts first it basically get's the priviledge to keep things like they are. And without even starting a discussion. The burden falls entirelly on the person that added a new element.

2) Then we get to the status quo ante bellum. How should I tag with "under discussion" something that doesn't exist, since the second person reverted everything new I added? This also makes very little sense to me.

3) This way more confusing definition seems to contradict entirelly the page WP:DONTREVERT which states "Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation."

Even though I understand the concern of not promoting edit warring, giving all the burden of the discussion on the new editor clearly favor the status quo.

@WhatamIdoing The part you highlight basically say "be the adult and don't revert, start a discussion" which makes sense... but also favor those that don't. People revert immediatelly in both BLP and no BLP pages. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cinemaandpolitics, we are more interested in preventing an edit war than we are in preventing a second-mover advantage.

I agree that people will behave badly. We get about 800,000 registered editors each year, and 95% of them have less experience than you. Purely as a statistical matter, half of them are below the median level of editor for just about any measurement you could name, including intelligence, maturity, and how much sleep they got last night. You are going to encounter bad behavior. You are probably also going to make your own mistakes. One of my friends likes to say that you aren't a real Wikipedia editor until you've made at least 50 mistakes.

Starting a discussion isn't difficult. If the other editor didn't do so, then start one yourself. In fact, the (optional) Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, in its purest form, is about making an edit and then waiting to see who you get to discuss it with. The person who reverts you is BRD's "Very Interested Person" – someone who cared enough to notice the change you made and reverted it. It's good to talk to people who care. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cinemaandpolitics, I noticed your section heading and want to be sure you're aware that this page is an essay, not a guideline. WP:DONTREVERT is also just an essay. It's better to concentrate on learning the actual policies and guidelines. Schazjmd (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Thank you for the precision. Looking at the guideline I am under the impression that they say basically the same thing. They give a general idea of the editing process:

"Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. "

and a clear cut rule of no 3 consecutive reversions in 24h WP:3RR

As I was able to observe until now people interprete this as revert first... discuss later. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If you'd like some more specific advice: Less than 8% of your article edits have ever been reverted, and most of those touch on real-world legal disputes (example). If you feel that it's impossible to reach a resolution on the talk page and through normal editing, then you may need to involve the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or start an Wikipedia:Requests for comment to make progress. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the percentage, how were you able to calculate that?

I do not feel that it is "impossible to reach a solution" I feel that these essays are contradictory enough to give leverage to users to "revert first, discuss later". Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)