Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nilmerg (talk | contribs) at 09:44, 10 March 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I tried reverting and I did *not* get a warning. By design? Sebastian 04:38 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

You do get a warning, it's just not very obvious in my opinion. I have suggested before that you get a pop-up box warning, but it's wasn't thought a good idea, by various people. Mintguy
count my vote on your side. Sebastian 04:55 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Policy vote: 24 hour bans for revert wars?

The below poll ("Revert wars considered harmful") and discussion indicate that a large majority of the community are in favor of the guideline "do not revert the same page more than three times in the same day".

For the purposes of this proposed policy, since it is more rigid than the current guideline, the rule would be no user may revert 6 or more times in one 24 hour period - these 6 reverts may be to one page, or spread across several pages. This rule is not intended to grant an allowance of 5 reverts per user per day, reverts should be avoided.

The only exception to this rule will be in cases of clear vandalism — not content disputes, but cleaning up after a user who goes on a spree on vandalism, like the current case of User:Bird and his never-ending list of proxy IPs with which he is circumventing a hard ban.

Currently, when users engage in a revert war, sysops may decide to protect that page. A temporary page protection is supposed to allow the users to calm down and discuss the problem on the article's talk page. However, this prevents all users from editing the page in question, and does nothing to stop the warring users moving on to another article and engaging in exactly the same destructive behaviour.

This proposal is to turn the guideline into a policy, and to back this up with a 24 hour ban for any user who breaks it. This ban could be enforced by any sysop.

Arguments in favor:

  • Sysops already have the power to ban any anonymous user for 24 hours if they engage in destructive behaviour. This extension of their powers to ban logged in users would be clearly defined and their actions would be open to scrutiny.
  • Sysops would not be given the power to extend the 24 hour ban. Once a user returns after a 24 hour ban they have a clean slate and are given a second chance.
  • This ban could be put in place as swiftly as pages are currently protected by sysops; destructive users would no longer be able to disrupt the community for weeks before any action is taken against them.
  • If a sysop were to make a mistake, or abuse this power, the worst that any user would face is not being able to edit this website for 24 hours.
  • Any sysop abusing this new power would be an obvious candidate for desysopping.
  • Banning a user for 24 hours will give them time to calm down and to step back and examine their actions. The present system does little to slow a user down if they lose their sense of proportion and move from page to page as they are protected due to their warring.
  • When one or two users misbehave, the rest of the community is no longer punished by being prevented from editing certain pages and having to follow warring users around, cleaning up after them.
fabiform | talk 09:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedians in favor of this proposed policy:

  1. mav (revert wars solve nothing and only lead to ruined edit histories, high tempers, and increased attrition of valuable contributors. A 24 hour time-out should lesson the harm from edit disputes and encourage people to engage in consensus editing)
  2. Nilmerg

Wikipedians opposed to this proposed policy:


Abstentions:


Comments, suggestions for refinements, arguments against

Revert wars considered harmful

Wikipedians who support the guideline: "do not revert the same page more than three times in the same day" include:

  1. Martin (and preferably less)
  2. Jimbo Wales
  3. Angela
  4. Viajero
  5. Andrewa
  6. RickK
  7. Bcorr
  8. Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
  9. JamesDay (you'd do it as many times as that?)
  10. Baldhur
  11. Stan Shebs (Wik's opposition convinced me)
  12. Kosebamse
  13. Uncle Ed (same as mav, except for admin trying to stop an edit war)
  14. Alexandros
  15. mav 18:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) (3 revert rule - more than that is vandalism and should result in a 24 hour block)
  16. Jor
  17. Metasquares There is no reason to revert a page more than 3 times in a single day. If there are that many, the page should be temporarily protected and sorted out by a sysop.
  18. till we *)
  19. Dori - drugs are bad, m'kay...I mean reverts are bad :)
  20. Hephæstos|§
  21. Anthony DiPierro In theory, though there are exceptions.
  22. Tannin Note: as a guideline, people seem to be claiming it is a rule. To my astonishment, I find myself agreeing with Anthony DiPierro, who writes: "In theory, though there are exceptions."
  23. Fennec - if it's a problem with vandalism, then get someone else to revert it. If it's an edit war, mere reversion is pointless. If someone else breaks the rule, get them censured and/or banned, as necessary, and have someone else revert it. :)
  24. Wow. Lir, Wik, and Anthony all agreed on something. Scary. →Raul654 05:19, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
  25. —Eloquence (if consistently enforced)
  26. Tuf-Kat <Insert witty caption here>
  27. Infrogmation
  28. Bryan though it will be necessary to make allowances for dealing with people who simply ignore this guideline, since otherwise it puts the "law-abiding" Wikipedians at a significant disadvantage.
  29. Cyan
  30. Sam Spade 04:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) But only if there are NO exceptions for ANYONE (no matter how big their ego is ;). There needs to be a better version of article disputes that is similar to the Conflict resolution process.
  31. Dandrake My naive question: if it's in a triple-revert war, isn't it time to stop messing around? I.e., Metasquares is right.
  32. DanKeshet
  33. 217.204.254.211
  34. Danny
  35. Seth Ilys. This is a good idea only if it is strictly enforced.
  36. User:Fred Bauder
  37. Ruhrjung 13:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) - three a day is far too much already
  38. RoseParks 18:18, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  39. Ams80 18:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  40. Flockmeal 20:50, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
  41. Nohat 21:09, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
  42. silsor 02:38, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  43. James F. (talk) 03:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  44. Meelar 13:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC). Recent experience has changed my thinking--the cost of not having this policy is a little too high.
  45. Catherine 19:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  46. denny vrandečić 20:15, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  47. Ryan_Cable 14:59, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  48. Delirium 00:34, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
  49. Kingturtle 06:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedians who oppose the guideline: "do not revert the same page more than three times in the same day" include:

  1. Daniel C. Boyer
  2. Taku
  3. Daniel Quinlan
  4. Wik 13:27, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
  5. NetEsq 00:06, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  6. Lirath Q. Pynnor If you don't like reverting -- then protect the page in question
    Anthony DiPierro Not sure how useful this is, but I'm not opposed to it as a guideline.
  7. FirmLittleFluffyThing definitly as a guideline, not decided as a rule.

Wikipedians who think its pointless to declare an "end to revert wars" without advocating another means of solving disputes:

  • Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Anthony DiPierro I don't see what's wrong with revert wars in the first place. They're a symptom of a much more difficult problem: getting thousands of people across the world to agree on a single version of a page. Stopping people from reverting an article more than a certain number of times a day isn't going to solve that.
  • Tannin (With reservations: i.e., I respect the point but recognise that we have to be more proactive with persistent troublemakers.)
  • Cyan

In rare cases, one might consider having more than one version of the page. Sounds radical, but might resolve some edit wars and since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, it doesn't have to be exactly like a paper encyclopaedia.

Having more than one version should be routine.

  1. User:Fred Bauder There is more than one valid way of looking at many things.
  2. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Discussion

I don't know about you lot, but I'm going to follow this rule for myself, as much as I can - and I hope others will follow it too. Revert wars on Wikipedia are typically an indication that two or more people need smacking around the head with a clue stick. Martin 21:18, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

...or one person is an unrepentant vandal or spammer, as with the person who tried it on the various belly dance related articles today. --Modemac 21:27, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Looks to me like you didn't revert belly dance or other articles more than once. Eg Raqs al Sharqi - you reverted once, and Mav reverted once.
You're right: there are times when this guideline is inappropriate, but I think they're surprisingly rare. Martin 21:33, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Two issues come to mind:

  • What about vandalism? Perhaps an exception needs to be made?
  • What about this problem
Person 2 makes edit
Person 1 reverts - 1
Person 2 reverts - 1
Person 1 reverts - 2
Person 2 reverts - 2

So now Person 2 will always "win" this revert war, no matter what limit is alowed... Dysprosia 22:15, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Person 1 may make another edit to an alternative third version. Now person 2 may not revert without going against our guidelines on numbers of reverts. Person 3 may come along. In any case, Person 2 will only "win" for a day - the following morning, person 1 may, if they still believe they are correct, revert again. Martin 22:35, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Oh right, I see now, so this limit applies to reversions of the same version, not absolute reversions... What about vandalism, still? Will this be excluded? Dysprosia 22:46, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Some of LibertarianAnarchist's edits/vandalism has been reverted many more times than that. This doesn't work with vandalism :( Secretlondon 22:49, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

It's a guideline - in some cases of vandalism you might want to make an exception - but a quick scan of wikipedia:vandalism in progress suggests that with vandalism, a revert war is rarely necessary - most vandals make a few dodgy edits, and then leave.

LA is obviously a difficult case, and I don't want to be simplistic about him, because there are no easy answers to such problems. I think the spirit of the guideline is clear enough, even if attempting to apply it too rigidly could be a mistake. Also, I note that LA is very definately going against this guideline, both in spirit and in letter. It's another thing to point him to when explaining to him why his behaviour is inappropriate... and that may even lead to a ban, as a last resort. Martin 23:17, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I mean the problem is the prevalence of relentless edit wars that may weed out valuable contributors in the worst case, but not the number of reverting. A kind of imposing numerial limitation is analogous to protecting the article and it cannot be the answer. -- Taku 23:48, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Surely if the problem is that the edit was are relentless, then this would be a good solution?
One difference between this guideline, and protecting the article, is that this guideline is soft security, whereas getting a sysop to protect an article is hard security. Thus they are very different things. Martin 00:25, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
If the guidline is that soft then what is difference between it and just saying don't engage in edit wars. I personally don't revert someones' edits several times aside from vandal reasons because I don't want to go to the edit war. -- Taku
It's not a soft guideline: it's "soft security". To quote MeatballWiki: That's not the same as weak security. The idea is to protect the system and its users from harm, in gentle and unobtrusive ways. Soft security is like water. It bends under attack, only to rush in from all directions to fill the gaps. It's strong over time yet adaptable to any shape.
I could say "don't engage in edit wars" (and, elsewhere, I say something similar) but on this page I'd like to strongly discourage revert wars, which I feel are a particularly counter-productive instance of the edit war species. Martin 00:47, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I moved a following section from the main page. It is not a consensus at all. -- Taku 00:08, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

That's cool - I reworked it back above. Martin 00:22, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think it's important to point out that it doesn't have to be a fight between two people. If person 1 is right, then the chances are person 3 will come in to support them, and if person 1 and 3 have both reverted three times, then it's probably time to protect the page. This happened tonight on Freemasonry and Knights Templar where I decided to stop reverting after the third one. Reverts were also made Cyan, Cimon avaro and Hephaestos and then the pages were protected by Minesweeper and Cimon avaro. I think the fact that there was more than one person involved in reverting may have helped Chiramabi to understand what was happening, rather than thinking it was just one person who didn't agree with him. So, even though Freemasonry was reverted 15 times, no one apart from Chiramabi had to revert it more than three times in the same day. Angela 05:10, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well put, Angela! Perhaps you could alter the proposed text to make that more explicit? Martin 13:37, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I haven't changed it much. I think the "If the edit really needs reverting that much, somebody else will do it" covers it really. Angela

I worry this proposed change will only benefit people who don't play nice, I would prefer to have the ability for sysops to block/unblock pages for specific problem users. Saying three reverts indicates a problem is unfair to typical editors who run into unreasonable people. Daniel Quinlan

But whether you are reasonable or not is just your point of view. By sticking to the policy, you can see whether other people support you and whether you really are reasonable or not. Everyone in an edit war claims they are the reasonable one. Angela

If you need to revert more than once for something other than vandalism, it's time to get the community involved, IMO. That sends a much better message to those doing the problematic things. Look over Wikipedia:WikiProjects, seek Wikipedia:Peer review, ask for others to assist in the Wikipedia:Village pump or do other things instead of participating in escalation. JamesDay 12:25, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The problem with edit wars is not that the Recent Changes are cluttered up. Forcing a reduction in the frequency is not solving the underlying problem of how to settle a content dispute where a consensus can not be reached by discussion. I see only two options there, either a voting procedure or a decision by a special authority to be created for that purpose. In any case there would have to be a final decision which would then be binding on both sides in the dispute. --Wik 13:27, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Well continuing to revert more than three times isn't going to solve a content dispute either. Angela
A consensus on the text of Wikipedia articles can always be reached by discussion, where both parties are prepared to discuss. The aim should not be to "settle" the dispute, judging one side right, and the other side wrong, but to create a text with which neither side disagrees. That is the definition of a neutral point of view. Martin 18:59, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That is quite obviously not true in practice. --Wik 19:10, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
Counter-example? Martin 19:23, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Republic of Macedonia, Mother Teresa, Silesia, Adolf Hitler, ... --Wik 19:37, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
Republic of Macedonia is chiefly a dispute on the title of a page, not the text of the page. The dispute on the text of the page is basically solved - it's at the tweak stage. Certainly, I agree that in some cases it's not possible to get a unanimous consensus on the best title for a page. On the other hand, a series of move wars won't help either, as Angela points out.
Mother Teresa is being solved, by discussion. This will take time and effort, for it is a controversial subject close to people's hearts. I didn't say that consensus can be reached instantly, or without effort - merely that it can be reached. See this post for evidence that discussion was producing.
On Silesia, we currently have one party who is refusing to discuss: Caius2ga. Prior to that, we had someone else refusing to discuss. However, note that the conflict between Nico and szopen was solved, and it was solved by discussion, once both were prepared to discuss. This is evidence for my approach, not yours.
Adolf Hitler is much closer to consensus than it was prior to discussion, because the alternate solution of having a spelling note at the end of the article (rather than in the introduction) has been suggested and implemented. People seem sufficiently happy with the current version of that endnote, which was arrived at through discussion. Again, evidence for my approach, not yours.
Reaching a consensus requires effort. It requires research. It requires communication. All in all it involves a bigger investment in Wikipedia than a series of random revert wars. But once it produces, it produces solutions that last. Revert wars only ever get as far as an uneasy ceasefire - broken as soon as the balance of power twitches momentarilly. Think in terms of the Long Now. Martin 21:46, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't think consensus is always going to be possible. What about September 11, 2001? I don't think there will ever be a consensus as to whether or not to use the word terrorist in certain situations. Sometimes you've just gotta vote, it seems. Hopefully you can make the votes broad enough so that they'll cover lots of different situations, but that's the best you can do. Anthony DiPierro 05:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why not automate page protection?

I made this propoal a while ago in an article entitled meta:Edit wars on Meta-Wikipedia: Why not automatically page protect an article for 48 hours when it has been reverted to the same version three times? -- NetEsq 00:11, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Interesting idea but not practical IMO. I'm assuming that sysops would be able to remove protection in need, in case say the last reversion was to a clearly objectionable version. A more serious problem is that it would be easily circumvented, by doing an edit rather than a reversion. Andrewa 20:11, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Eminently practical, not unlike forcing a draw in a game of chess: Non-sysops could simply revert to a previous version of an article; after three such reversions, the article would be protected, and the status quo would be maintained, all without the intervention of any sysops. However, after investigating an automatically protected page, a sysop could revert to a previous version that preceded the automatic page protection, if such action proved necessary, or even make the automatic page protection semi-permanent. The idea is to mitigate the damage done to an article's edit history by an edit war; an added benefit would be to force a cool down period between the adversaries in an edit war. -- NetEsq 21:35, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea because I think page protection is generally a bad idea. If you're going to make a technical solution, make page protection unnecessary. Work on making it easy to delete redundant history entries. Then we won't need page protection in the first place. Anthony DiPierro 06:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This would unquestionably be abused (to use the "forcing a draw in chess" analogy, people deliberately try to invoke this rule when they're losing), and would certainly give sysops a lot more to worry about than they have already. Metasquares 12:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

premature reversion

I'm sure this will be viewed by some as an attempt at a troll-led coup or something, but here goes:

I propose a change to what I observe to be a prevailing, popular culture around here. That culture seems to condone hasty reversion of a controversial edit.

As I see it you can categorize a given edit scenario in one of two ways. The first type would be an unexplained edit, by which I mean an edit that is not either in discussion or led quickly to discussion on that entry's "talk" page. The second type, obviously, would be an edit that was either announced or challenged and responded to on that entry's "talk" page.

The current prevailing attitude seems to be that if the edit is unpopular, it's okay to revert it because "nobody" wants to see it there. As I understand the process, editing an entry to add and/or delete text is going to increase the size of the database. That is a given. It's the nature of the beast. If you want user-modifiable text, you pay that price for overhead. Should we all also have to pay the price for users who simply want to add another copy of the "accepted" entry? I suggest that we should not.

Reverting to an "original" entry without a thorough discussion of the issue does two things that I feel are detrimental. The added bloat to the database is one. The other is the removal of the "unpopular" edit, which skews the reactions to it (by depriving it of adequate coverage), and immediately sets up a confrontation with the author of an edit in good faith, who of course would like his entry to have its "fifteen minutes" so to speak. The page histories aren't going anywhere, so why the rush to bury new edits that one person disagrees with? And make no mistake, one person is always responsible for every decision to "revert" an entry. Whether others INTENDED to is of no consequence, just as it is of no consequence in this matter if hundreds view the entry WITHOUT reverting it.

For the above reasons I would suggest that all users be less hasty to revert an edit, as it can always be reverted later, the page history will be fine, I promise. Reverting an edit does not remove it from the database and does not afford the previous entry any more or less protection than it enjoys while the edit is being viewed and debated. For these two compelling reasons alone, I feel the case is made to caution people more strongly about hasty reversions. The third reason, of allowing controversial views (which are practically by definition MINORITY views), is one check against tyranny of the majority. Refusing to look through Gallileo's telescope is one thing, but knocking it over so nobody behind you can look is quite another. - Plautus

A sensible case, but incorrect, becaues it overlooks one of our primary goals. Database size is barely a concern - hard drive space is cheap and text is small. What we are strongly concerened about letting blatantly POV comments stay in the articles even a second longer than they should.→Raul654 05:17, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the text being small, it should be noted that the entire article is saved in the database for every single edit. Of course, if that ever became a problem (and it's getting there, the compressed backup of the reversion history is almost 4 gigs), the best solution would be to store the history in a smarter format. Anthony DiPierro 05:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is really a difficult one. What you say is correct. Reverts do happen too rapidly sometimes. On the other hand, what Raul says is also correct. The page is on public view with what is often a bad edit on it. Maybe there needs to be a mode in between the two which are currently implemented. Currently, either pages can be immediately edited, or they are completely protected from editing. Perhaps the solution is to have a sandbox mode for pages too. This mode would allow a page to be edited, but it wouldn't show up as the current version until a set period of time elapsed, or perhaps until someone pressed the publish button. That way work could progress, without risk of wikipedia looking bad for having innacurate material on it. ShaneKing 05:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why not have a voluntary one-hour wait on reversions of edits that are being debated? All the edits are timestamped, if it's less than an hour old, wait for a response on the talk page before you revert. Would that be so hard? - Plautus
Unfortunately, experience indicates that those whose edits are reverted are often unwilling to discuss before making the edit again. Since what is reverted usually merits removal, a time limit for reversion would increase the residence time of inaccurate or misleading information. The vast majority of initial reversions are appropriate removal of simple vandalism like deliberately misleading edits, such as replacing 1066 with 1067, or inserting swearing. There are exceptions, yours being one of them, where another course is likely to be more productive, overall. Jamesday 11:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Simplier idea. Why not just have a 2-3 minute "cool off" period following a revert? Either way, discussion like that is pointless - you've have a better chance of being picked for the space program than getting a new requested feature on wikipedia. →Raul654 05:46, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Raul654, you should not be posting any more here until you've removed your comments on the personal behaviour of others. You have no credible voice here until you do. - Plautus
I did reply to the above, and (as I said), I consider the matter finished. As far as credibility, (what's a tactful way of saying this?) with a track record like yours, you should not seek to make it an issue. →Raul654 07:21, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
You mean my track record of being harassed and hounded by you wherever I post? - Plautus satire 22:05, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Even simpler idea. Let's call this "sandbox mode" the talk page. And call the publish button "unprotect." Now, all you need is to change the policy so that the page reverts back to the pre-edit-war version whenever there's an edit war. Anthony DiPierro 05:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Talk pages don't address the issue of database bloat, they contribute to the problem. And what's at issue here is not the search for yet another new method for protecting "accepted" pages. What's at issue is the very real phenomenon of valid data being supressed by a handful of very active, very insistent users who would prefer this be their own private Idaho. - Plautus
The reason I suggest something other than the talk page is because the talk page isn't as tactile (for want of a better word). I think it's sometimes helpful to put changes in context that you get when seeing the entire article, rather than snippets on the talk page. Not that it really bothers me, I try to avoid controversy. ShaneKing 05:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I do see your point. But there's no rule that you can't put whole paragraphs or even whole articles on the talk page. In fact, you could even start a subpage of the talk page to mock up your complete changes. Rather than bloat the code with "sandbox mode," just use talk:thepage/sandbox.Anthony DiPierro 06:04, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There's also no rule that says "accepted" data is more valid than a recent edit. - Plautus

So-called "bad edits" are not something that the user base of wikipedia needs to be protected from. The assumptions that VOLUNTARY easing back on kneejerk reversion would lead to rampant idiocy and inaccuracy in the entries implies that all the "accepted" edits that get through these dedicated self-appointed gatekeepers are inherently "more right" than the edits.

Every "accepted" edit on every page on this site has a page history. If you check these page histories you'll find that nearly every large page has had plenty of "accepted" information that was later found to be erroneous and edited out. And there are even cases where valid, verified information was "reverted" many times back to an inaccurate entry. Why is protecting "accepted" data deemed more important than ensuring accurate data? If we are seldom exposed (due to hyperactive "gatekeepers") to ideas contrary to the "accepted" edits, how will erroneous information be removed? How will new relevant information be added? Are we to simply trust that the most active users of wikipedia are the most wise, and should determine not only what is right and what is wrong, but which ("right" or "wrong") version people should even be allowed to see.

The progress of science is as much reliant on falsifiability as it is on verifiability. If hypotheses can not be falsified, they are of little use. For example, I can hypothesize that a rock I picked up keeps away tigers. There are no tigers in my city. Do I now have the right to claim my hypotheses about my rock is valid? There are no tigers around for me to test the hypothesis, and according to my hypothesis there never will be (since the rock prevents it), so I can now claim victory? My hypothesis about my tiger rock is valid?

Falsifiability also applies to statements of fact such as "arbitrary person performed arbitrary act". If no tests exist to falsify this statement, no conclusion can be drawn as to the statement's conformity with observable reality. In short, it's crap. If you don't think your "good edit" crap notions (note, not all accepted notions are crap, but some clearly are) can stand challenges, the best course of action is to prevent challenges. Which is exactly what kneejerk reversion does.

The page histories are the only fossils left behind to tell the tale. And more often than not that tale is colored by glib remarks disguised as debate. - Plautus

Plautus, please stop deleting information from this page. You're not the arbitrator of right and wrong, your constant revisionist tactics are tiring and futile, you can't just erase the thoughts and words of people that don't agree with you. - SheikYerBooty 17:06, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)~

Sheikyerbooty, go peddle this nonsense anywhere. I did not delete information, I moved it to its proper home. I took comments about my conduct and moved them to the talk page with my name on it. Now stop this idiocy. You and I both know I erased nothing, but merely moved information to a page where it was on-topic instead of tangental. This is a common practice on wikipedia, why are you suggesting otherwise? Cease these futile attacks on me, Sheikyerbooty. - Plautus satire 17:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sheikyerbooty, here, once again, is what I posted above in an attempt to get Raul654 to remove his off-topic posts from this page:

"If you care to discuss my conduct or responses to that conduct, I suggest you use the Plautus satire "talk" page. - Plautus[emphasis added - PS]"

I now give you the same advice. I you wish to discuss page reversion, this is the place. If you wish to discuss my conduct, my talk page is the place. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Once a suitable amount of time has passed I will also delete your personal comments, particularly your lies that I deleted information that clearly I moved to a more appropriate venue instead. Plautus satire 17:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To save others the trouble of looking up the page histories, here are what you removed from here and what you put on your talk page. Jamesday 11:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On one hand, it's common sense that reverting a page more than one time is a pointless waste of time for both parties. On the other hand, a "guideline" like this one, will make it impossible for new users to get their point through. Ofcourse, new users doesn't know what the Wikipedia:-namespace is and therefore shouldn't be affected by this "guideline", amiright? I don't think the reverts in themselves are the problem, the problem is that the revert wars are so often carried through without any discussion at all. I think all revers should have a reason and whoever is reverting should always be prepared to discuss his or hers reasons. BL 00:09, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Enforcement of the three revert rule

On the "vile mailing list", there's been some talk of making the so-called three revert rule an enforceable rule. I can see two obvious routes to enforcement, each with advantages:

  1. Temp-ban option: Sysops may apply a 24 hour temporary ban on those who revert the same page more than three times in the same day.
  2. Protection option: Sysops, in choosing to protect pages, may choose to protect the version whose supporters have (individually) not violated the three revert rule. So, if Martin reverts 4 times, and 5 people revert once - the version the 5 people want, and that Martin doesn't want, gets protected.

I'm leaning towards the protection option, personally. What do folks think? Martin 23:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I personally like the protection option. Sysops should use a light touch, and that option encourages it. It also allows users to edit other articles (which in some cases may be a bad thing, but I think it's mostly good) →Raul654 23:25, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to ban anyone who accumulates six reverts of things which are not simple vandalism in one day for 24 hours. That indicates a pattern of reverting which is unlikely to be in a single article and suggests that protection is getting in the way of legitimate contributors. We know that there are comparatively few contributors who habitually choose revert wars rather than discussion and consensus seeking. Better to try to act against those not choosing to act within the community than to protect every page those people choose to fight over. If someone accumulates seven bans for this reason within some moderately short period, that suggests to me that it's arbitration committe time. Jamesday 23:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Banning is the better option in the case of continued reverts as it affects only the person doing the reverting, rather everyone else who wants to edit the page, which is the effect protection has. Angela. 00:57, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Pages with prolonged edit wars tend to get protected anyway, so I'm just proposing we use that as leverage.
The complaints over "meta:The Wrong Version" indicate that people who often succumb to revert wars may be particularly susceptible to this form of stick - if they did not mind it, they would not squeal so. Martin 21:42, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm liking the protection option. -- Cyan 22:02, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Temp ban is much better. Page protection hurts everyone. But temp bans are a bad idea too. If a logged in user continually adds various different non-obvious vandalism (but trolling nonetheless), many people would quickly run out of their reverts for the day. Anthony DiPierro 06:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version&oldid=2705378"