Wikipedia talk:Revert only when necessary

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

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

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

To accomplish this, I propose these software changes:

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - worth discussion, and maybe lead to essay edits but as stated is this contradicts the essay, is not proposing article edits, and just goes too far. The #1 ‘refuse to accept reverts without an edit summary’ is stated a mandate as if this were a policy which conflicts with this is only an essay not even a guideline. It also conflicts with the essay line “Do not revert an edit as a means of showing your disapproval of the edit summary.” Besides, “an edit comment” is not saying the explanation should match the edit size. In one direction that seems too much — going to demand anyone removing a 4-letter word vandalism or 1-letter typo write a detailed explanation or else the vandalism gets reinstated? In the other direction that seems too little - going to bless trivial comments as sufficient? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - worth discussion to look for a more appropriate smaller first step. The OP’s motives appear genuine and reasonable, but the proposals display a lack of grasp of how WP works in practice. Why is being reverted for ‘ failing to provide a citation’ described in the essay as “even...”; this is often a good reason for a revert, particularly if the addition concerns a living person or is a significant or controversial change to the article. The OP’s suggestion that vandalism reverts should be left to admins displays a certain unfamiliarity with the nature of editing; regular WP’ers know how common it is for mostly IPs to damage pages (often with bad language or personal content totally unrelated to the article), and these need to be removed quickly and easily. Admins would be overwhelmed if all vandalism were left to them to remove! MapReader (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposing software changes to implement the recommendations of an essay is certainly a, well, unique proposal but one which ignores fundamental editing cycles. This is a solution in search of a problem. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.