Wikipedia:Obversion
In today's article, we are going to delve into the fascinating world of Wikipedia:Obversion and discover everything that this theme has to offer us. From its origins to its relevance today, through all the advances and changes it has experienced over time, in this article we will thoroughly explore every aspect of Wikipedia:Obversion. In addition, we will learn about the opinions of experts in the field and the experiences of people who have lived closely Wikipedia:Obversion. So get ready to immerse yourself in a journey of knowledge and discovery that will leave you with a complete and enriching vision about Wikipedia:Obversion.
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: An obvert is an "un-revert" or "de-revert" that restores a bold contribution after it was reverted. The term was coined to emphasize the distinction between this kind of revert and a regular revert, during this RFC on the WP:BRD talk page. |
To obvert an edit is to BOLDly restore a proposed contribution by undoing a Reversion of it, sometimes also called the "un-revert", "de-revert", or "counter-revert". A cogent argument in the edit summary can function as acceptable Discussion, and obversion is a justifiable response to Status quo stonewalling
Use of the Term
The term was newly coined upon the numismatic analogy in order to avoid equivocation in use of the term "revert", while clarifying the parties to Content dispute. The practice of obverting may simplify scholarly discourse over multiple drafts, encourage a balance between Bold persistence and outright EDITWAR, prevent false accusations of the latter, and assist in their adjudication when these occur. An obversion with refinements and an edit summary that answer the objection given in the primary reverter's edit summary, is a CIVIL manner of developing WP:Consensus § Through editing.
We were forced to adopt this idiom by a long, tortured, and hopelessly ironic RFC discussion on the TENDENTIOUSness of reverting without DISCUSSion, on the BRD essay talk page, of all places.
We agreed that obverting and restoring may be an appropriate response to WP:Status quo stonewalling, and that talk page discussion is not always required during good-faith content dispute, although discussion in the edit-summary field is required.
How to obvert
From the history page, just hit the "undo" link next to a prior edit, as with any other reversion. The particularity of an obversion is that the prior edit is itself a reversion, making this operation a "restoration" of a positive contribution rather than mere maintenance of the status quo ante. Obversion can be unwarranted or tendentious, just like the broader class of reversions in general, or it can be warranted and virtuous, depending on the circumstance. How to do it virtuously is the question, and its answered here: WP:Bold-refine § How to obvert
Editorial opinions and commentary
 | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. |
It is important that you obvert carefully. Otherwise, you could start an edit war. Instead of obverting the whole revert, just revert the parts that you think are mistaken.