Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. A partial reversion involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it.

A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit.^[a] The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button on the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text.

A single edit may reverse multiple prior edits, in which case the edit constitutes multiple reversions.

Any edit to existing text could be said to reverse some of a previous edit. However, this is not the way the community defines reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.

Number of times Alice has made a reversion: Zero.

Number of times you reverted Alice's edits: Two.

Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting.

If you see a good-faith edit that you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it. Similarly, if you make an edit that is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.

If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives.

Do not revert an otherwise good edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary or has a bad username. You cannot remove or change prior edit summaries by reverting, even if you made the edit in question. If an edit summary violates the privacy policy or otherwise qualifies for oversighting or deletion, then see Help:Edit summary § Fixing. Otherwise, ignore it. In the case of a bad username, see WP:BADNAME.

To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes.

Exceptions to this recommendation include the following:

• Living persons – Always remove unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious.
• External links – Always remove disputed links from the "External links" section until there is a consensus to include them.
• Copyright violations – Always remove copyright violations. Err on the side of removing suspected copyright violations. Ask for help if you need it.
• Libel – Always remove libelous or defamatory material. Err on the side of removing suspected libel.

Edit warring to maintain a "status quo version" is still edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing this. If a dispute arises regarding which version is the status quo ante bellum, be the adult in the room and don't revert. Tag instead. There is no rule on Wikipedia that requires anyone to revert, but if the page has already been reverted to an older, pre-dispute version, then it's especially helpful if you^[b] avoid reverting to a different version.

Nobody can be compelled to follow the advice in this essay. However, favoring the status quo while discussion is taking place is one way to prevent edit warring. Because it protects the "wrong version", it should not be used for any other purpose. See, for example, Wikipedia:Consensus § Through editing (presumed consensus exists only in the absence of a dispute) and status quo stonewalling (editors favoring an older version should provide substantive reasons).

Ideally, each edit should contain one distinct change. But in practice, editors often bundle multiple changes into a single edit, such as adding a new section while also fixing a copy error elsewhere on the page. If you object to only part of an edit, consider reverting only that part and leaving the rest alone. The encyclopedia is damaged when positive contributions that should be preserved are caught up and lost in a revert. It is often difficult for an editor to restore an uncontroversial portion of their edit without seeming like they are edit warring. If you do feel that all parts of a multi-part edit warrant reversion, it is good practice to note so in your edit summary for clarity.

When you have decided to revert, please consider whether you will use the undo link in the page history, or revert manually. If you use the undo link, the editors whose edits you revert will receive a notification (if they have requested notification of reversions). If you revert by manually changing the text to the old version, they will not receive a notification, which some editors appreciate. If the edits you revert are clearly disruptive or vandalism, it may be better not to notify the disruptor or vandal of your correction, by reverting manually.

When intermediate edits have been made, it is sometimes not possible to use the undo link.

Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.

A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor, and greater harmony.

In addition to helping the reverted editor, providing information regarding the reversion will help other editors by letting them know whether – or not – they need to even view the reverted version, such as in the case of blanking a page. Explaining reverts also helps users who check edit histories to determine the extent to which the information in the article is reliable or current.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; this gives the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page.

Edit wars are usually considered harmful, for the following reasons:

1. Edit wars destabilize the article in question and may be off-putting to the observant and wary editors who would otherwise contribute stabilizing improvements to it.
2. Edit wars tend to cause ill-will, delay editor development, and reduce editor retention. An editor can feel a revert is "a slap in the face" – "I worked hard and someone reverted it!"
3. Edit wars do waste space in the database, make the page history less useful, and flood recent-change lists and watchlists.
4. Edit wars are often myopic, occurring while neither participant is familiar with the big picture. The editors involved tend to focus on only one part of an article without considering other sections of the article or other articles linked dependently to the area in question, resulting in inconsistencies with the big picture concerning the content in question. The noticeboard is part of the big picture too.

Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement. Instead, explore alternative methods, such as raising objections on a talk page or following the processes in dispute resolution.

As a means to limit edit wars, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state that one may not revert any article more than three times in the same 24-hour period. This is a hard limit, not a given right. Attempts to circumvent the three-revert rule, such as making a fourth revert just after 24 hours, are strongly discouraged and may trigger the need for remedies, such as an editing block on one's account.

Edits that do not contribute to edit warring are generally considered to be exceptions to the three-revert rule. These include reverts of obvious vandalism, reverts of banned users, and removal of potentially libelous text.

Please request protection rather than reverting. Violation of the three-revert rule may lead to protection of the page on the version preferred by the non-violating party, blocking or investigation by the Arbitration Committee.

• Wikipedia:Edit warring § The three-revert rule
• Wikipedia:Editing policy § Try to fix problems (policy)
• Wikipedia:Vandalism § Template and CSS vandalism (policy) – if the edits don't appear in the page's edit history, or the history and edit tabs are obscured

• Help:Reversion

• Wikipedia:Alternatives to reversion
• Wikipedia:Baby and bathwater
• Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary
• Wikipedia:Monroe's law