Do not revert another user's revert on an article, especially on matters of opinion. Use the talk page to reach consensus or at least a compromise before any additional revisions of the article occur. Exceptions occur when in cases of obvious vandalism or when obviously false information is added to articles, in which this rule would obviously not apply. However, users must remember to assume good faith.

  • Do not revert another user's revert because it is in violation of this policy, as this will only escalate the problem.
  • Discussion about the disputed content should remain on the talk page of the article in question.
  • Discussion about possible violations of this policy can go to the talk page of the user in question, the article's talk page or IRC (provided all participants are involved in the discussion).


While users are encouraged to be bold and edit freely, not all edits are equal. For instance, edits may introduce bad advice or erroneous information, and this should be removed.

However, such revisions should be used only once.

Since many articles contain matters of both fact and opinion, disputes about notes, trivia, or other content will inevitably occur. If your edit has been removed, use the article's talk page to discuss the information in question, and why it was removed or readded. Explain what you think about the info, and why. As long as general consensus is reached, the edit(s) in question will be restored/deleted. With the proper use of talk pages, many conflicts can be resolved peacefully- and without a war of constant reverting.

Should such a war result from a dispute, both participants will be issued warnings. If the conflict persists, blocks will be administered to the offending users at a minimum of 3 days. Continual revert warring despite warnings and/or blocks will result in longer blocks. However, if one user attempts to take it to the talk page, even if the other ignores, whichever user at least attempted a discussion will not be penalized. In the case of an edit war that contains more than three people, for example, user 1 makes an edit, user 2 reverts it, user 1 adds his edit back, and a third user reverts it and 1 and 3 begin an edit war, user 2 in this scenario would not be penalized.

Don't revert solely due to "no consensus"Edit

Sometimes, users will reverse an edit with the justification that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to discuss the change. Not only is this unhelpful, it should be avoided. Your reverting of the edit will go to show that there really is no consensus, yet you must also explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so as not to build a consensus solely on your wishes. If you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no good reason to revert it immediately. Consensus does not imply unanimity and will not be caneled out by one editor's objection. Silent consensus can exist, when users will agree on something but not state so on Wikitroid. While you should be bold in making contributions, reverting one on the basis of "no consensus" will suggest that the reverting editor dislikes the edit. No one can own an article. If one editor, such as its contributor favors a new addition while another, such as the potential reverting user opposes it, then consensus is no closer to being reached for either angle until more editors make comment or edit, or until the two editors in question can compromise.

It should be taken into consideration whether there is an actual problem with the edit in question. If it added unsourced or poorly-sourced information, you should make an effort to find said information yourself, or failing that, note it in the revert summary, or tag it with the fact or verify templates. If the material looks awkward or strange, edit it so that it is not. If the edit was biased in nature, recast it into a more neutral perspective. If it removed content with no or a poor explanation, note in the edit summary (in short form due to its text limitations) that you are restoring valid content, and why you believe the previous editor's explanation was unconvincing.

If you feel that an edit should not stand but cannot point to any specific reason, stop and think, then consider how you will act.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.