Wikipedia talk:Revert only when necessary/Archive 1

message: um, don't you need a number of collaborating editors before you can call an article an actual Wikipedia guideline?--MONGO 05:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a guideline for all those who accept its use. Just like every other rule, law and guideline, it gets its power through consent. I consent to this guideline as does any other person who edits it. --Peter McConaughey 19:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

message: The guideline template delineates standards that are used by only part of the members of Wikipedia. If we want to use a different template to delineate that function, we have to be consistent about it, including use on guidelines that are similar to this one, like the Wikipedia:One-revert rule. --Peter McConaughey 20:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency

message: Pity all the discussion here is meta-discussion, about whether it's a guideline or not! Anyway I like this guideline a lot and I try to follow it.  Basically I think reverting any good faith change upsets people. Maybe the reverter didn't know it was a good faith change, but still.  I make a slight exception for anons' edits, because it's really hard to tell the difference between vandalism and good faith but bad changes, and it's not generally worth the time to find out.  But when any two people are honestly trying to improve an article - whatever their differences in point of view - the whole process is generally improved by never reverting anything. Stevage 21:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The guideline itself

message: The "This excludes vandalism" bit is just a bit ugly.
	Only revert vandalism. Discuss any other changes you don't like on either the article's or the user's talk page.	
	                                                                                                                	
Stevage 21:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sentence should be reworded to take into account being bold, as in: instead of removing other editors' changes incorporate them into your own. Though, discussions should always be encouraged in parallel. zen master T 22:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Re: incivility, that's a talk-page issue, and we're probably dealing with articles here, no? Stevage 22:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think those are some excellent ideas. I lean toward objectively defining things like vandalism as much as possible. --Peter McConaughey 22:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed re-wording

message: *Agree. -- Jbamb 16:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: ::This Carbonite just doesn't give up, does he? If he can't delete it, he moves it. When he gets busted for moving it and it gets moved back, he makes up a guideline that sounds the same but isn't and proposes a merge. I've seen him do similar and worse things with articles.
::I've got an alternate merge proposal. How about User:Carbonite & Wikipedia:Troll? --Peter McConaughey 19:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Carbonite is well within his right to suggest a merge. He discussed it here on the talk page, and acted in proper fashion. Please, Peter, I urge you to follow WP:CIVIL or there may end up being an RfC, or worse (an RfAr) against you. No one wants to have to go through all that trouble. Carbonite is welcome to his opinion. State yours, and seek consensus. Thank you, Peter. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Peter, very suspicious that a user against WP:0RR (Carbonite) is the one proposing a merge of this to a very different and less effective guideline. It is well within Carbonite's right to propose a merge but it taints any possibility of assuming good faith, his motives are obviously not genuine. I came up with a numer of differences between 0RR and ROWN here but I will include them below too. Feel free to add to the list. zen master T 19:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's one way to look at it. However, my actual motive was to centralize information in one location, polish it up, and attempt to get it made into a Wikipedia guideline. I mostly do disagree with having all sorts of X-revert rules and believe that a general guideline to limit reverts would be more helpful. I encourage everyone to edit the proposal as much as they see fit. I am sorry you're having difficulty in assuming good faith in this situation, but I can assure you that I'm looking to solve a problem, not create one. Carbonite | Talk 19:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my interpretation given the many differences between 0RR and ROWN listed below I don't believe your claimed motivation to "centralize information". I am sorry you are having difficulty being duplicitous. The 0RR doesn't just "limit" reverts it frees editors from thinking in terms of "reverting". zen master T 19:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite willing to have a civilized discussion about the merits or shortcomings of this proposal, but I'm not going to listen to your accusations that I'm lying or being duplicitous. I've noted your opposition to this proposal but still welcome any improvements you wish to make. Other than that, I don't believe we have anything further to discuss. Carbonite | Talk 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only incivility took place when you proposed a merge of a policy you seemingly disagree with to a completely different guideline. Apples should not be merged with oranges, have you even acknowledged I've listed numerous differences between the two guidelines? Though, aren't merge proposals bi-directional, why haven't you advocated the possibility of merging ROWN to WP:0RR if you really, as you claim, care about "centralizing information"? Please attempt to refute the list of differences below one at a time. I am not necessarily against ROWN I just interpret it to be a very different and less important guideline that this one (WP:0RR). zen master T 20:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I fail to see any "motives" Carbonite has might influence him to develop ROWN. He seeks to merge 0RR as well as 1RR and possible other RR there might come. I genuinely don't think he developed ROWN to "punish" Peter or take anything away from 0RR, that is why it is a merge and not an MfD. 0RR is just a small part of the revert guidelines encompassed by ROWN. ROWN is a much broader tool that includes 0RR. I think everyone just needs to calm down a little bit. Let us just keep building the list below, however, the two policies are not mutually exclusive. One is a part of the other. It doesn't seek to wholly replace 0RR, it just seeks to incorporate it, and other "rules", into a broader context. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't like the merge proposal much. Either nominate it on WP:MfD or leave it here where it can be made clear that this is a guideline followed by an extremely small number of editors. Merging it with ROWN would give it more cachet than it deserves. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline would be to "Revert only when necessary". The 0RR, 1RR and others would be suggestions of how to best avoid or limit reverts. Carbonite | Talk 20:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The ORR is not about limiting reverts it is a guideline that frees people from thinking exclusively in terms of reverting, which is needlessly confrontational. There are many other differences between the two guidelines. What I've seen of ROWN so far does not include the principles of 0RR so it can not be called a superset nor even an accurate "merge"... zen master T 00:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: * ORR encourages editors to improve upon but don't remove changes you don't like, it is unclear whether the "necessary" in "revert only when necessary" applies to changes you don't like or not.
* ROWN perpetuates an "us" vs "them" mentality of one point of view somehow "winning" out over another.
* There is much less chance of direct or inadvertent censorship with 0RR compared to ROWN.
* There is much less chance of viewpoint mischaracterization with 0RR compared to ROWN as 0RR will encourage an article to be a superset of all viewpoints and sources instead of one side stifled into accepting a reverted version of an article. 
* The 0RR allows editors to be bold as it encourages the inclusion of other editors changes in addition to your own changes, the ROWN discourages being bold.
* Any "reverting" of a fellow editor's changes or additions that were made in good faith can have the effect of stifling contribution to wikipedia and/or inflaming tensions. When not obvious or simple vandalism editors should be given the benefit of the doubt that their contributions add something to an article.
* Clue: some of the editors that have come out against WP:0RR are the ones supporting a merge of that to ROWN...
==== Differences comments ====
*In light of the above, a better proposal would be to delete 0RR and stick with ROWN instead. As I explained above, 0RR is entirely unrealistic. If people make additions that are unnecessary, frivolous or downright stupid (as people frequently do) then these additions must be reverted to keep article quality high. Anybody who claims otherwise should spend an hour on the RC patrol and/or get whacked with several cluebats. Radiant_>|< 22:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So in light of the differences between apples and oranges we should delete apples and stick with oranges instead? That makes negative sense. You don't have to support or even acknowledge a guideline you interpret to be unrealistic, but please don't thwart or discourage people that consider the guideline beneficial. zen master T 22:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is why Peter created a custom header that says "This page is a set of principles adopted by some editors. It is not an official guideline or policy of Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which some editors agree with in principle", see WP:0RR... zen master T 23:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: All new guidelines require time to garner community support. The current header does not include any reference to the "cabal", I think Peter came up with that as a response to Carbonite's vigorous insistence of the {proposed} header. zen master T 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Once more, you are wrong. Guidelines evolve from support, not the other way around. Radiant_>|< 23:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the more people that support this guideline the more support it will have. Feel free to help us evolve this guideline if you support it. What is the proper procedure for new guidelines to go about garnering community support and evolvement? I believe Peter had some valid criticisms with the {proposed} template which is why he didn't want to use that. zen master T 23:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Peter's point, and I agree with it, is that guidelines don't require approval and are not actually "proposed", they simply are followed by a small or large number of editors which is directly proportional to the number of editors exposed to it. I agree WP:0RR is not currently an "official" guideline but hopefully one day if enough editors support it it can be officialized. How many editors does it generally take before a guideline can be labeled as "official"? zen master T 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: **Well, Peter's point is wrong, and your agreeing with it doesn't make it any less wrong. Please read up on what Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines actually are. As to how many editors, the answer is "consensus". Radiant_>|< 23:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Both Jbamb and Radiant seem to be using a different language than I, "consensus" does not mean "majority", and a "guideline" doesn't need to be approved as they are simply followed or not. Though, I am curious to understand how anyone could be against ths new and unofficial WP:0RR guideline, please elaborate, what don't you like about it? At this point all I know is some editors feel this new guideline was at one point inappropriately labeled as "official", they have yet to articulate an actual argument against it directly which makes Jbamb's vote against it seem all the more puzzling. Please assure me you are not trying to thwart this guideline before the community is exposed to it? zen master T 00:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *The point of consensus is to work positively and collaboratively toward unanimity, it seems Wikipedia's definition has been corrupted. Here is the relevant dictionary.com definition:
consensus An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
Are you working collaboratively or positively? zen master T 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between 0RR and ROWN 

message: *In light of the above, a better proposal would be to delete 0RR and stick with ROWN instead. As I explained above, 0RR is entirely unrealistic. If people make additions that are unnecessary, frivolous or downright stupid (as people frequently do) then these additions must be reverted to keep article quality high. Anybody who claims otherwise should spend an hour on the RC patrol and/or get whacked with several cluebats. Radiant_>|< 22:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So in light of the differences between apples and oranges we should delete apples and stick with oranges instead? That makes negative sense. You don't have to support or even acknowledge a guideline you interpret to be unrealistic, but please don't thwart or discourage people that consider the guideline beneficial. zen master T 22:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is why Peter created a custom header that says "This page is a set of principles adopted by some editors. It is not an official guideline or policy of Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which some editors agree with in principle", see WP:0RR... zen master T 23:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: All new guidelines require time to garner community support. The current header does not include any reference to the "cabal", I think Peter came up with that as a response to Carbonite's vigorous insistence of the {proposed} header. zen master T 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Once more, you are wrong. Guidelines evolve from support, not the other way around. Radiant_>|< 23:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the more people that support this guideline the more support it will have. Feel free to help us evolve this guideline if you support it. What is the proper procedure for new guidelines to go about garnering community support and evolvement? I believe Peter had some valid criticisms with the {proposed} template which is why he didn't want to use that. zen master T 23:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Peter's point, and I agree with it, is that guidelines don't require approval and are not actually "proposed", they simply are followed by a small or large number of editors which is directly proportional to the number of editors exposed to it. I agree WP:0RR is not currently an "official" guideline but hopefully one day if enough editors support it it can be officialized. How many editors does it generally take before a guideline can be labeled as "official"? zen master T 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: **Well, Peter's point is wrong, and your agreeing with it doesn't make it any less wrong. Please read up on what Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines actually are. As to how many editors, the answer is "consensus". Radiant_>|< 23:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Both Jbamb and Radiant seem to be using a different language than I, "consensus" does not mean "majority", and a "guideline" doesn't need to be approved as they are simply followed or not. Though, I am curious to understand how anyone could be against ths new and unofficial WP:0RR guideline, please elaborate, what don't you like about it? At this point all I know is some editors feel this new guideline was at one point inappropriately labeled as "official", they have yet to articulate an actual argument against it directly which makes Jbamb's vote against it seem all the more puzzling. Please assure me you are not trying to thwart this guideline before the community is exposed to it? zen master T 00:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *The point of consensus is to work positively and collaboratively toward unanimity, it seems Wikipedia's definition has been corrupted. Here is the relevant dictionary.com definition:
consensus An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
Are you working collaboratively or positively? zen master T 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences comments 

message: There are cases in which it is a good idea to revert for reasons other than simple vandalism (for which all current policies and guidelines make allowances).  For instance, if a good-faith edit made by an honestly misinformed user (not a POV-pusher, just someone who doesn't know what he's talking about) adds nothing but blatant falsehoods to the article, a revert (rather than finding them in an unformatted text box and explicitly deleting them--and possibly having to rewrite the sentences around them to restore grammatical integrity) is plainly the simplest and easiest way to get the job done.  Certainly, the user making these reverts should tell the user adding the false statements what is going on, but if the misinformed user insists on replacing his changes, I do not see why there should be a limit placed on removing content that simply isn't true.
A blanket rule limiting users to a certain number of reverts in a certain time period is prone to the obvious abuses (and there's a discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule) by people with actual malicious intent, so that won't work (and fact, there is empirical evidence that it doesn't work).  All this does is tie the hands of the honest editors (who will follow the spirit and the letter of such a rule) who are simply trying to ensure that everything presented in the encyclopedia is factually correct.
Perhaps what is needed, then, is a complete thinking of current revert policy.  Rather than limiting the NUMBER and FREQUENCY of reverts, it is the REASONS and EFFECTS of the reverts that should be considered.  Kurt Weber 01:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline already has a response to your point:
Even in instances where you know the other editor's viewpoint is dead wrong, the fact that some people have this viewpoint is relevant in itself. Those people should be cited.
The goal with the 0RR is to ensure that information and viewpoints are preserved. 1 single revert of an editor who is posting in good faith can have the effect of stifling further contribution to wikipedia, that should never happen. The 0RR only limits initial non-vandalism reverts to 0, it does not limit "reverts" that restore content or information or viewpoints. See the "encouraging others to be politce" section in the guideline.  zen master T 03:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all reverts are bad 

message: # Peter McConaughey 20:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  People who support this guideline 

message: # User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 00:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *What argument over semantics and how is it anywhere close to out of hand? zen master T 21:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *The one just above, about whether it's proper to call it a guidline, or a rule, or neither. I just don't want to be seen as supporting a "zero-revert rule" for Wikipedia in general; I'm merely stating that I choose to follow such a rule in my own editing. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 21:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I feel too. When people ask how I can express my opinion without kissing anyone's ass at Wikipedia and without getting kicked out, I would like to simply give them a link to this principle. Taking a little more time to show respect to an editor pays off ten-fold in the long run. People assume the best about you when you assume the best about them. --Peter McConaughey 21:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  People who very much like the idea of a zero-revert rule of thumb, but do not wish to become involved in the argument over what it should be called 

message: # Gene Nygaard 15:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  People who oppose this non-guideline 

message: #Radiant_>|< 11:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: People who know that guidelines are not created by voting on them