Wikipedia talk:Revert only when necessary/Archive 1

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)

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)

Consistency

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)

Not a guideline (yet)

There needs to be some sort of concensus that this is a generally accepted guideline before adding the tag onto the page. Take a look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for more info. Carbonite | Talk 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you put a proposed tag on any of dozens of other guidelines that people created without going through the Cabal's official Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines? What difference is there? The only difference is that the Cabal loses power when people are voluntarily nice to each other. A policy like this one, where people show respect for other editors without being forced goes against your Modus operandi of required top-down power and despotism at Wikipedia.

Carbonite, you have no clothes on. --Peter McConaughey 20:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. Note that I've also changed the one-revert rule page to a proposed guideline. Carbonite | Talk 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

See how many rules you have to make up to avoid showing respect to someone? I suggest talking about things and incorporating the contributions of others if you want the same respect shown to you. --Peter McConaughey 21:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What rules have I made up? There's a big difference between making up rules and asking you to respect the rules we currently have. I'm not asking for respect. Carbonite | Talk 21:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You're not asking for respect? If "No personal attacks, please," isn't a request, the only other possiblity is that it's a demand. If that is the case, please allow me to rephrase:

See how many rules the cabal has to make up to avoid showing respect to people? I suggest talking about things, incorporating the contributions of others, and thereby winning their esteem instead of demanding that people give you respect by citing "rules." --Peter McConaughey 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not asking for, requesting, demanding or expecting respect from anyone. If my actions cause an editor to respect me, that's a great bonus, but I'm not here to ask people for respect. "No personal attacks" isn't about respect, it's about civility. As that policy says "We cannot always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility." Carbonite | Talk 03:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be part of the "obey" thing? --Peter McConaughey 04:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Peter, please see Wikipedia:How to create policy. If you would like this to be an enforced policy or guideline, this will guide you through the proper steps. Of course, you can always just follow a personal policy as many editors do with the 1 revert rule. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the page to cool-down the dispute. Peter, please listen to some of the other editors's advice, and also try and follow the guideline on your proposed page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

LMAO You can take off the protection tag. I won't restore any more reverts. If the Cabal doesn't want to call this a guideline, that is fine with me. I don't see any difference between this and 1RR, but you're the Cabal and what the Cabal says goes.

Why don't we just remove the tag altogether? I have no interest in subjecting the limits that I impose on myself to the acceptance of the Cabal. --Peter McConaughey 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the others. I have no doubt that your proposal is made in good faith, but if you want this to pass without a hitch, you should go through the proper process. As for other guidelines, they were either discussed in other places, or have generally been followed by Wikipedians for a long time. New guidelines should go through the approval process. The very existence of the {{proposed}} template suggests that this is the proper way to go about getting a guideline approved. --Deathphoenix 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider this to be a proposal. It is a guideline that I follow. If the Cabal has a monopoly on what can be called a "guideline," then I will call it something else. The Cabal's official approval process doesn't interest me. --Peter McConaughey 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

See also

• Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club

Questions

Do I assume correctly that being bold is still possible under this proposed policy, as in: instead of reverting someone else's changes incorporate them with any changes you want to add? Perhaps something to that effect should be added to the policy? Is the goal to reduce the chances of inadvertent censorship that often happens with reverting? This proposed policy makes no mention of what to do after the other side has been given an opportunity to debate but chooses not to? What to do in a situation of outright censorship or obfuscation, an assumption of good faith would be incorrect and may decrease the chance of discerning the other editors' duplicitous partisan motivations? I agree it is good to give fellow editors the benefit of the doubt and work positively, but directly assuming anything can be detrimental to comprehension and awareness. zen master T 21:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point. I've started adding that under advanced methods. --Peter McConaughey 21:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the "assume good faith" policy should be renamed to "give the benefit of the doubt (but don't necessarily stop doubting or thinking)" policy, or some such. zen master T 22:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Benefit of the doubt" is close to the way I think about it, but it is perhaps not strong enough for me. The key word in that guideline is "assume." Wikipedia's "assume good faith" tells us to trust people as a default. If there is any way to attribute good motivations to their actions, we should do so. Even members of the Cabal and vandals desire to make Wikipedia strong in their own disparate misguided ways.

We are all pushing Wikipedia in generally the same direction, but exploring different paths to getting there. Social Darwinism will eventually weed out the paths that are least efficient. In a worst-case scenario, the Cabal would win their fight to control Wikipedia and Social Darwinism would find the entire project less fit to survive than its competitors, but even Wikipedia's death would promote knowledge of what went wrong and a more viable collective intelligence in the future.

We can assume good faith in every instance where bad faith has not been established because good faith for the strength of Wikipedia is the underlying motivation for almost all members, even those that may appear to have a strange way of showing it. More importantly, the collective intelligence of a vast collaborative consensus is far greater than any individual's intelligence quota. When we subjugate ourselves to the will of the entire collective (not the control of a biased minority like the Cabal), we see the ebbs and flows of the edit process as necessary fluctuations in Wikipedia's overall evolutionary growth. --Peter McConaughey 03:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Assuming is exactly the wrong thing we should be encouraging. 80% of the time I've seen someone refer to "assume good faith" it's been by outright POV pushers, refering to that policy after a conflict has already started can have the affect of stifling critical thought, which I hope you will agree would be a bad thing? Wikipedia has the potential to be a great and vast collaborative consensus collective intelligence wonderland but it's a long ways off yet. "Give the benefit of the doubt" has the consensus building positivity plus no potential to be used to stifle. zen master T 03:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The cabal can obfuscate "Give the benefit of the doubt" just as easily as "assume good faith." In the end, it is all just words. We choose to follow the decorum to which we consent. A strong set of laws have the strong consent of the governed. A weak set of laws does not. I do not consent to "assume good faith" being used to stifle my critical thought, so it doesn't. I didn't have to ask permission. I didn't have to take a stand. I didn't have to change the wording or become aggressive in any manner to make that happen, because I am the only person who can control my mind. Nobody else has even the slightest ability to stifle my critical thought. --Peter McConaughey 04:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think "assume" has the effect of causing people to just accept a course of action unquestioningly whereas giving someone the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean you have to stop doubting. Also, benefit of the doubt is more clear it is a good policy the first time or at least not endlessly. I am not concerned about you or I being stifled necessarily but how the phrase is or will be used upon the masses, I've seen it used problematically (80% of the time), the policy should be renamed or editors should be flagged when they refer to it for the purpose of stifling. zen master T 06:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, I think you have a point there -- and I also support your proposal to rename that rule to Benefit of the doubt. If you propose it, you may copy this support of mine. (Sorry that this isn't the subject of this paragraph). Harald88 22:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think most people would agree with you, but we can let them choose for themselves. I've made a Self-rule template to create pages such as the one you propose. We don't have to ask the Cabal to change their made up "guidelines" that they enforce as canon law. As Wikipedians, we can rule ourselves. --Peter McConaughey 06:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How can people choose for themselves if they are perhaps stifled by a policy that advocates assumption? I don't suppose the cabal will hold itself to higher standards too? zen master T 08:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The Cabal doesn't have the inherent ability to control people. Those who submit themselves to the claimed authority of the Cabal give it its power. (This isn't much different than WP:TINC, except for the blatant internal inconsistency of the TINC first asserting that a Cabal can exist, and later asserting that it can't.)

It's funny to watch the subtle ways that the Cabal claims authority. For instance, when Carbonite "moved" the Zero-revert rule to my user space, he wrote in his edit summary, "template has been moved to user space," as if it were an act of God that he was reporting as a dispassionate observer.

An even funnier one was last night when Carbonite forced jpgordon into a "time out": User_talk:Jpgordon#Personal_attack.

In response, jpgordon says "Good call." --Peter McConaughey 19:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The guideline itself

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)

Proposed re-wording

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)

Vandalism and "unnecessary incivility," apparently. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

	Only revert vandalism. Improve any changes you don't like or discuss them on the article's or the user's talk page, but don't revert them.

I like the "improve". Perhaps we should go for wording that even more completely disassociates between how an editor and what an editor are saying, which are two separate considerations. The guideline could state something to the effect of: if you don't like the way an editor presents or organizes facts or sources then feel free to try to add clarity, but if you don't like what they are saying then you should be aware wikipedia includes all citable content and viewpoints from various sources. Though, there is also the perhaps separate possiblity of valid sources being illegitimately recharacterized dismissively. How should someone that follows the 0RR go about trying to "improve" upon an outright deletion or viewpoint mischaracterization? In that case the article should include a superset of the various presentation methods perhaps, though generally and to be neutral each viewpoint should be allowed to characterize itself. zen master T 22:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• It's mostly a matter of common sense, and I don't see how you could define it otherwise without resorting to instruction creep. Note also that some edits (especially by newbies) may be good faith but a patently bad idea, and thus warrant reverting. Radiant_>|< 01:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Objection to the 0RR

Its intent and spirit is not meaningfully different from the 1RR. Since there's no need to have redundant guidelines, I suggest we merge the two, before somebody comes up with a 2RR and a 4RR. Radiant_>|< 23:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

agree Jbamb 23:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In my interpretation this is fundamentally different, the 1RR, like 3RR, may encourage an us vs them sort of content "winner" take all mentality, whereas 0RR encourages including other people's content, sources and viewpoint in addition to your own. An article should be a superset of all includable (citable, notable) sources and viewpoints. Feel free to create a counter guideline to the effect of "editors who object to WP:0RR". zen master T 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that you could combine any number of reverts together into one article, but the concept of never reverting requires humility and produces a content-friendly environment that you just don't find when egos are flaired by reverts. --Peter McConaughey 00:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• That view is idealistic but not based on reality. You're assuming that nobody in good faith ever makes an inappropriate addition, or places things in the wrong article, or renames or categorizes an article counter to conventions, etc. I would strongly recommend that you spend an hour on the Recent Changes patrol to find out entirely how unrealistic that view actually is. Radiant_>|< 01:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Some viewpoints need not be considered... there are vandals, trolls, vanity posts, etc...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbamb (talk • contribs)

• Exactly. Do not revert unless you have a very good reason. And that, my friend, is exactly what the WP:1RR states, hence my suggestion to merge the bunch. Radiant_>|< 01:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There's an important difference: the 0RR says "don't revert" whereas the 1RR says "if someone reverts you, don't revert" back. In that sense, they are complementary. It's not clear whether 1RR says that reverting is ok or not. I would like to see a single guideline that brings the two together. Essentially, what we have is that 3RR is a binding rule that all must obey. 1RR is a good rule for a pleasant working environment (and one I follow almost always). 0RR is an ideal that takes a bit more work, but keeps everyone happy if the working environment is already positive. 1RR can work in warzones with a bit of cooperation (sort of like a ceasefire) - 0RR probably can't. Stevage 01:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• But the 0RR won't keep everybody happy, because people regularly make well-intended but pointless or inappropriate edits (not to mention honest mistakes) that have to be undone. It degrades article quality. Radiant_>|< 01:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• The WP:1RR is harder to implement than the WP:0RR. Once a revert has been made, ego comes into play and everyone's tolerance level shrinks. It takes an incredible amount of self control to show a reverter more respect than he shows you. The environment is much friendlier when nobody shows disrespect in the first place. --Peter McConaughey 02:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Harder to implement? Both are behavioral suggestions. Neither is enforceable. What, then, do you mean by 'implement'? Radiant_>|< 03:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps time should be a consideration: "Don't revert any change, except for vandalism, within 12 hours of your noticing it". Stevage 02:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Arbitrary time limits are unwiki. Also, see my comment above. Radiant_>|< 03:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary

I've created a proposed guideline that basically covers the essentials of the 0RR, 1RR, and 3RR (although this is a policy and needs to have its own page). I believe that much (possibly all) of the content from the 0RR and 1RR pages could be merged there. This would avoid creating additional "rules" (I'm sure the 2RR is on the horizon) and keep the guidelines in a central location. Please edit the proposal mercilessly. Carbonite | Talk 03:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge into Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary

I propose that this page be merged into the more general Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. As I mentioned above, having a single page would avoid creating additional pages for each new "rule" (I'm sure the 2RR is on the horizon) and keep the guidelines in a central location. Carbonite | Talk 16:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

• Agree. -- Jbamb 16:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Agree Don't see a functional difference. Arkon 05:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Disagree The differences are listed below in the "differences" section. zen master T 06:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Agree. The zero-revert rule already has its own section at WP:ROWN. This is about centralizing the location of revert guidelines. If there are differences, the wording can always be edited. Carbonite | Talk 11:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, and we could probably also merge with WP:1RR. Radiant_>|< 22:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Differences between 0RR and ROWN

• 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)

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)

• Please read up on terminology. If a page lacks consensual support (or indeed, if it's unrealistic) then it's not a guideline. Radiant_>|< 23:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Having seen no evidence of the editors who agree with this in principle other than Peter and yourself, it seems logical that he keep it in his userspace instead. It obviously has no consensual support, and tagging it with "this is not supported by the cabal" is not helpful. Radiant_>|< 23:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Once more, you are wrong. Guidelines evolve from support, not the other way around. Radiant_>|< 23:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• You could start with actually listening to people's criticisms. Radiant_>|< 23:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)

As for consensus, my vote is for disagree. -- Jbamb 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Consensus doesn't mean majority, consensus means more than a majority. As pointed out several times before, if something doesn't have consensual support on Wikipedia, then it is NOT a guideline. I don't care what definitions you use personally, but this is the definition that Wikipedia uses. Radiant_>|< 12:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

Let's rename this to Zero-revert guideline to avoid confusion?

I think this guideline should be renamed to "Zero-revert guideline" to avoid confusion with rules or "official" wikipedia policies. Also, the entire point of this is to encourage inclusive editing, rather than enforce "rules"? Even though it seems a bit weird we can also refer to it as 0RG for short, though perhaps it should keep 0RR too if possible. What do people think? zen master T 01:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• For the umpteenth time, it is NOT a guideline. Radiant_>|< 12:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A guideline only a small number of editors follow is still a guideline. Here is the relevant dictionary.com definition:

guideline n a rule or principle that provides guidance to appropriate behavior

People either follow guidance or they do not. zen master T 19:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines can be for self-control or for control of others. I think Radiant is trying to say that there isn't any way the 0RR can be used to control other people. Therefore, it wouldn't be useful to the Cabal and would never receive the official Cabal stamp of approval allowing us to call it a guideline. --Peter McConaughey 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the 0RR can be used to "restore" a revert but not "create" one, especially if the principle of information and viewpoint preservation is being violated, right? I suspect that is exactly what the "cabal" doesn't want? Separately, how should we go about garnering community support for this guideline, are there any relevant category tags we should add that people may be following? zen master T 21:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a good point about the "restore" issue. Since all categories are affected by this topic, perhaps we should add it to every category. -- j/k Peter McConaughey 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, guideline has a specific meaning: "less rigid rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases" (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). The dictionary definition does not apply. You can call it a (personal) rule, but not a guideline. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that is exactly why Peter created a custom header for this guideline that states it is not an official guideline or policy of wikipedia. I pretty much only mentioned the dictionary.com definitions of "guideline" and "consensus" to show how far Wikipedia's definitions have strayed at a fundamental principle level... zen master T 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So putting "guideline" in the article title would be total nonsense, a dishonest attempt to counter the header box saying it is not a Wikipedia guideline. Gene Nygaard 15:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then how about Wikipedia:Zero-revert guideline (unofficial)? I understand you feel it is mislabeled as a "guideline" but what don't you like about its underlying principle of encouraging harmony and preservation of information and viewpoints? In other words, what is your reason and/or rationale for voting against this other than having to do with labels? zen master T 16:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "official" is always in reference to the group or individual that considers it to be so. For instance, the 0RR is my official guideline and a common (unstated) guideline of many of the most loved editors of Wikipedia, but it not an official guideline of the Cabal because it cannot be used to control others.

The control freaks love the ability to revert and destroy the work of other people. They feel the rush of power knowing that the lowly editor will have to rewrite their contribution to appease the reverter, often with very little or no information about what part the reverter found offensive. The snubbed editor will have to walk a higher path than the revert-warrior, assuming good faith and a neutral POV when the same respect has not been shown for him, if he wants to avoid Cabal RfC/RfAR trials by established public opinion.

The rules that I follow are ones to which I consent. I don't pretend that someone else controls me because I choose not to be a victim. --Peter McConaughey 21:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Great points. I wasn't seriously suggesting retitling this guideline as above, it just seemed somewhat out of place that Gene Nygaard would be so adamantly against this personal guideline because of a header/naming/semantic dispute, I was basically asking why didn't he simply suggest an alternative name. Have the 2 users separately against this personal guideline actually stated a rationale for being against it other than because it's a "non-guideline"? Seems odd to me. zen master T 23:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not all reverts are bad

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)

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)

People who support this guideline

1. Peter McConaughey 20:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
2. zen master T 20:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 00:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• What argument over semantics and how is it anywhere close to out of hand? zen master T 21:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

People who oppose this non-guideline

1. Gene Nygaard 15:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Radiant_>|< 11:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Hedley 19:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

People who know that guidelines are not created by voting on them

1. Radiant_>|< 11:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Stevage 11:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

   I think you may be missing the point. Nobody's suggesting the "zero revert rule" as a global Wikipedia guideline... so there's nothing to create! And furthermore, this isn't a vote! It was merely a show of support for the idea until someone created an "oppose" heading. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

   • Well obviously, a show of support tends to call into being a show of opposition. Don't start half a vote if you don't want a full vote. Radiant_>|< 22:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Peter McConaughey 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

People who use this guideline regardless of what other people do

1. Peter McConaughey 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
   • So would you object to moving it to your userspace? It seems like the most reasonable response. Being in Wikispace may seem to give this rule the appearance of consensual support when such is in fact lacking. Radiant_>|< 22:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

   • This guideline clearly states it is "unofficial" and guidelines do not actually need "consensual" support which I interpret is the precise reason Peter titled the header of this section the way he did. Separately, please actually articulate what you find disagreeable with this guideline in one of the appropriate sections on this discussion page? I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt but it seems increasingly reasonable that a highly coordinated group of editors are trying to directly and indirectly thwart the acceptance of this guideline. zen master T 22:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
     • Once more, you are entirely wrong. A guideline does need consensual support. And all guidelines are unofficial. Radiant_>|< 22:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

   • How can something have consensual support and be unofficial at the same time? I am still waiting for detractors of this guideline to actually articulate a rationale for being against it. If it's a rule of thumb you will choose not to follow then simply do not follow it. Please explain why this guideline needs to be "rejected" in your view? zen master T 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
     • It has been pointed out several times and you bluntly ignored it every time. Simply put, many edits are well-intended but ill-advised, and therefore need reverting. Radiant_>|< 23:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
       • By voting against this guideline are you arguing everyone must revert? Can people that disagree with you simply be allowed to do something different? I don't see any justification within wikipedia policy to in anyway penalize editors that follow this guideline so what does voting against this accomplish? Those of us that disagree with you believe the most harmonious course of action is to ensure the preservation of information and viewpoints and lessen the chances of stifling contribution to wikipedia. The entire concept of "reverting" and the WP:3RR has created an "us" vs "them" content war mentality which is needlessly confrontational, the 0RR frees editors from those chains. zen master T 23:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
         • You have just pointed out exactly why WP:HEC, WP:1RR and WP:ROWN are good ideas, and 0RR is not. By voting for this would-be guideline, you are implying that people must never revert (except in case of vandalism). You allege that the 3RR has created a war mentality - I find that assertion wildly exaggerated and would challenge you to provide decent evidence. Radiant_>|< 01:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
           • The WP:ROWN guideline actually includes the principles of WP:0RR in a sub section at the bottom. The WP:0RR is a personal guideline some editors choose to follow, not a "would-be" guideline. Based on my experience on wikipedia the majority of non-vandalism "reverts" have been to censor content from, or perpetuate mischaracterization and ambiguity in, an article. How can an edit be both well-intentioned and ill-advised as you stated above? If the edit is well-intentioned then re-wording rather than reverting it is probably the better course of action to take generally? Now that I think about it, reverting a well-intentioned edit actually violates the assume good faith policy. If an edit is not vandalism then what is it, by what justification are non-vandalism edits ever reverted? If an edit is not vandalism then it's in some way worthwhile to an article. Perhaps you use "ill-advised" to mean an editor is adding sources and viewpoints you personally disagree with? As far as "war mentality" goes, for starters my evidence is your and other arguments against this guideline on this talk page. Why be so adamantly against a rule of thumb some other editors simply choose to follow? zen master T 02:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Radiant, I put everything that might relate only to me in my user space, but many people use the 0RR. It doesn't belong to me. Everyone can benefit from it and its volunteer foundation means that nobody can get hurt. If you don't want to follow it, don't. Nobody will think less of you. This guideline is one unique tool in a toolbox of things that can assist editors to have a friendlier experience at Wikipedia. If the WP:1RR works better for you, use that diametrical tool instead. Different tools help different people for different jobs. You don't have to throw away the hammer because you want to tighten a screw; you simply select the screwdriver for your need and leave the hammer for those that find it useful. --Peter McConaughey 05:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please provide evidence of your allegation that many people use the 0RR? Radiant_>|< 10:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You know very well that people follow this guideline. They are the same people who do not enjoy fighting over whether or not others follow a guideline. They are the editors who don't buy into all of this internal-political blather, who concentrate on providing great content for Wikipedia, and who are the reasons that Wikipedia is as successful as it is.

Sarah has a quote on the top of her user page by Rumi, "Beyond ideas of right and wrong, there is a field. I'll meet you there." When you see those around you as valuable contributors:

• you don't need to create constructs of right and wrong for other people;
• you take responsibility for yourself; and
• you no longer fall prey to the illusion that you can successfully take responsibility for other people. --Peter McConaughey 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• No, I don't know very well that people follow this guideline. And apparently, neither do you, or you would have been able to show evidence, and resort to ad hominems instead. many people follow the WP:1RR, which is substantially different. Radiant_>|< 00:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• How would you suggest trying to prove or disprove whether editors are reverting less and are generally more harmonious because of the 0RR compared with the 1RR? zen master T 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Zen, by just reverting me (not to mention being censured for revert warring on other pages) you have proven that you don't actually believe in the 0RR. Radiant_>|< 01:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Over half a dozen editors are against the merge proposal so why are you redirecting? The merge proposal has failed. The 0RR encourages restoring a revert, but not creating a revert. zen master T 01:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Let's see, four votes in favor, one vote opposed, 80% equals consensus. And your last sentence doesn't even make sense. My edit was creating a new version, your edit was restoring an old version. Hence, you reverted. Ah, the irony. Radiant_>|< 01:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Seriously, Zen, you are being rather spurious here. Nobody likes this proposal, except for its creator and you (who are a known revert warrior, per the recent ArbCom case). Consensus indicates this should either be merged (to 1RR or ROWN) or userfied. Please cease your spurious arguments. Radiant_>|< 01:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• You reverted to exclude rather than preserve information and viewpoint, the last section of the 0RR (and ROWN) states that the 0RR can be used to restore a "revert" in such situations. Perhaps you are unaware of the 3+ people that have supported this guideline and the multiple other people that have commented on the other talk page Wikipedia Talk:Revert only when necessary that the 0RR is distinct from ROWN? If you seriously believe the merge proposal to have passed poll all the people that have commented on both talk pages. In my interpretation there is nothing close to true consensus to merge the two proposals. More people have voted to support 0RR than ROWN... zen master T 01:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Feel free to edit ROWN if you think it is lacking something important. It is a matter of comprehensiveness to keep related suggestions on one page. Radiant_>|< 01:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Out of courtesy I will give you time to justify your merge/redirect, if you'd read both talk pages it would be clear to you there is no support for the merge. More people support 0RR than ROWN, so if anything the merge should be in the opposite direction. At this point is seems reasonable to interpret that your actions is additional evidence of a campaign to undermine this guideline. zen master T 01:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing a chunk of the discussion here... you make reference to half a dozen people who support 0RR and oppose the merge, do you have a link where I can read that bit? Ty, User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 06:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I was going to wait for Radiant to explain the merge first and/or put this in the "merge voting" section above but here goes:

The following 6 editors (3 uncertain) have seemingly been against merge or are at least in favor of one of the two guidelines, all the editors in favor of merge are interestingly enough against both guidelines it seems. Feel free to clarify your position Glenn.

• Peter McConaughey
• Zen-master
• Blu Aardvark [1]

Possible:

• Glenn Willen [2] [3]
• Harold88 [4]
• Dan100 [5]

Separately, it's curious that the one guideline of the two that had begun support vs non-support voting was the one moved and not the other way around. zen master T 07:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Zen, earlier on this page your posts indicate you don't quite know the meaning of "consensus", "revert" and "guideline". So please stop wikilawyering about the issue. The main point here is simply that related subjects in Wikispace should be put on the same page for greater comprehensiveness. This avoids giving undue apparent credence to any of them. Radiant_>|< 16:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• What you call "wikilawyering" is often actually someone merely utilizing the uncorrupted abstract definition for a principle. "Consensus" means unanimity achieved through (not necessarily vigorous) debate, not majority. Guideline means rule of thumb that people choose to follow or not. Why are the people that are so adamantly against this guideline the ones voting for merge? As a side question, do you support ROWN? Many people that may end up supporting ROWN may follow the core principle of the 0RR in that they won't believe reverting is ever "necessary" for non-vandalism edits. zen master T 17:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)