https://gw1wiki.ezgame.cc/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Guild_Wars_Wiki%3AOnly_revert_once 2026-10-18T07:38:54Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.39.17 https://gw1wiki.ezgame.cc/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki:Only_revert_once&diff=8025&oldid=prev 2008-06-23T22:33:31Z

<p>change for policy status template</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{Policy|rejected}}<br /> &lt;!--The Guild Wars Wiki, unlike Wikipedia, is based on both fact and opinion. We include information and data on skills, but we also include best practices for using the skill, good combinations with other skills, and commentary about why the skill is better or worse than another. This is a good thing; the more information we can present, the more useful we can be.<br /> <br /> However, this policy adds difficulty to maintaining the general quality of information here. Often, we'll get contributors who may not be particularly good at the game or at strategy who add advice that is... well, bad advice. While the contributor's intentions are good, the information is not, and should be removed. Thus, we have a general tradition that allows users to revert a non-vandal contribution once if they know the information is incorrect.<br /> <br /> Please note that this does '''not''' mean it won't be heavily edited later! Strategy and opinions change over time, and each new contributor at the Guild Wars Wiki brings with them a new perspective.--&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Only revert once''' (&quot;1RV&quot;) states that no editor should revert the revert (&quot;re-revert&quot;) of another editor without discussion on the talk page first. Consecutive reverts risk starting a revert-war (two or more editors reverting each others edit repeatedly). We strongly prefer discussion about different opinions on the talk page to reverting.<br /> <br /> An editor who had his edit reverted should take his case to the article's talk page. He can then explain why he believes his edit is beneficial and belongs in the article. The articles' editors can then work towards consensus. If an article is popular, support for a reverted edit may spring up immediately; however, less popular articles may not garner the talk page traffic needed to generate a strict consensus. In these cases, if nobody objects, a reverted edit can be reinstated after three days after justifying on the talk page.<br /> <br /> When you see somebody breaking the &quot;Only Revert Once&quot; policy (ie, an article getting reverted twice), please do ''not'' revert it back to the only-reverted-once state. Just leave it along and note the occurrence in the talk page.<br /> <br /> ''Corollary'': Do not re-revert, do not re-re-revert, do not re-re-re-revert.<br /> <br /> ==What is a revert?==<br /> <br /> A revert, in this context, means undoing, ''in whole or in part'', the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, undoing page moves (&quot;move warring&quot;), undoing [[Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship|administrative actions]] (&quot;wheel warring&quot;), or recreating a page. In order to prevent misunderstandings, reversion should generally be mentioned in the edit summary, however there is no obligation to do so.<br /> <br /> ==Exceptions==<br /> <br /> Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule. Exceptions to the rule include:<br /> <br /> * Reverting your own actions (&quot;self-reverting&quot;).<br /> * Reverting simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking (this ''only'' applies to the most simple and obvious vandalism).<br /> * Reverting by a user within their own user space.<br /> <br /> Any of these actions may still be controversial; thus, it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule. '''When in doubt, do not revert'''; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance.<br /> <br /> ==Enforcement==<br /> <br /> If an editor violates the 1RV rule, they may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeat violation. Administrators may use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and may take other factors into account, like edit warring on multiple pages, or incivility, when assigning a block. In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.<br /> <br /> Additionally, the rule is enforced by:<br /> <br /> * Educating editors who may not be aware of good practices in the matter;<br /> * Peer pressure and leadership by example.<br /> <br /> Apparent breaches of the rule may be reported to any administrator.</div>

gww>Poke