Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) |
→What to do when faced with WP:BRR editors?: Great idea! |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 88:
* BRD makes the boundary between the acceptable and the disruptive. It is not best practice, but is efficient if used well by experienced editors.
: D means that both editors must discuss and not repeat either the Bold edit or a Revert. There is onus on both. Repeated B or R in the absence of D amounts to edit warring. Some have held the notion that edit summaries can handle the D, but others disagreed because edit summary discussions are hard to follow by others at a later time. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 03:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
== What to do when faced with WP:BRR editors? ==
I notice that there is an increasing proportion of editors using WP:BRR rather than WP:BRD. The procedure involves reverting, not joining the discussion or avoiding direct answers, and then issuing 3RR warnings if other editors try to modify the disputed content.
For a WP:BRD editor, what would be the best approach to deal and continue collaborative editing when meeting this kind of editor? --[[User:Signimu|Signimu]] ([[User talk:Signimu|talk]]) 17:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:When there's merit to your version (i.e. you have reliable sources that, in your view, support the edits you want to keep), in such cases I tend to place a {{tl|disputed-inline}} tag in the article, right there in the part of text subject to reverts. This way, the article stays in the version they prefer, but they are forced to keep talking if they want their text to be shown in a clean slate. Once you have them talking, you can follow dispute resolution procedures to reach a consensus. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 18:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::{{re|Diego Moya}} Oh, that's a great idea! Thank you for sharing! {{=D}} My current technique is a lot less elegant, but I simply propose alternative solutions and discuss by edit comments (as I noticed this kind of editors do in fact discuss, but in their revert's comment XD). I think in any case, it's important not to take the reverts personally and not let things heat up in these cases {{=)}} --[[User:Signimu|Signimu]] ([[User talk:Signimu|talk]]) 17:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 17:49, 8 October 2019
Essays High‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Editor Retention | ||||
|
Bold, revert, revert?
WP:BRR says:
Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". A move towards consensus through discussion must occur before starting the cycle again.
However, "Bold, revert, revert" is listed as one of the legitimate § Alternatives to BRD. This seems contradictory. Since the whole process is optional, I think it makes sense to allow for good-faith second reverts in certain situations, while still making it clear that edit-warring is unacceptable. I propose changing the first bullet point under WP:BRR to read:
Do not edit war. Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions, such as a block. The objective is to seek consensus, not force one's own will upon other editors. If you encounter several reverts, it is best not to escalate the situation by reverting again. Instead, try to build consensus through seeking additional input. Several methods for this are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sometimes (perhaps rarely) reverting is the right choice. The example I usually give is when someone removed a duplicate sentence, I didn't realize it was a duplicate, so I reverted to restore it, and she reverted me again, with an edit summary that explained that the sentence had been accidentally duplicated on the page. That's good and efficient behavior, when all the facts align. I doubt that the facts all align very often. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Sangdeboeuf:: Maybe I see a slight problem in your proposal. Where there is a disagreement between two Users it is often the case that one of them is inclined to discuss collaboratively so starts a new thread on the Talk page, but the other is not similarly inclined. The article remains in the configuration preferred by the non-communicative User while the other waits for someone to respond to the new thread. The non-communicative User sees no incentive to contribute to the Talk page because the article says exactly what he wants it to say.
- A better alternative is that the User who initiates the new thread on the Talk page is then free to edit the article into the configuration he is advocating in the new thread. After that we should strongly disapprove any User reverting without contributing to the Talk page to explain his action.
- My alternative provides an obvious incentive to “get in first” and initiate a new thread on the Talk page. Dolphin (t) 00:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- That encourages gaming the system. The one who has an obligation to start the discussion is the one who made the BOLD edit, although nothing prevents the one who reverted from starting the discussion. The object of BRD is to preserve the status quo version until a discussion has led to an agreement to change it. This allows no gaming of the system. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer: Tell me what you think of this scenario in relation to BRD. You see something of long-standing on Wikipedia that you believe is inappropriate or in error. You edit the article to improve the situation. To your surprise a User named Bozo reverts your edit. Rather than engage in edit warring you go to the Talk page, start a new thread and carefully explain why you believe the offending material is inappropriate or in error. You also argue persuasively why your edit represented an improvement. You invite Bozo and other interested Users to join you in seeking a consensus. Unfortunately no-one joins your discussion. The offending material remains in place in the article; Bozo is never seen again; and you have voluntarily quarantined yourself from making your preferred change to the article. What have you achieved?
- In my preferred scenario (you say gaming the system) you start a new thread on the Talk page inviting discussion; then you return to the article, restore your edit and leave an Edit Summary saying “Edit as discussed in new thread on the Talk page”. If no-one contributes anything, you have achieved your improvement because your preferred material is in place in the article. If Bozo or anyone else wants to revert your edit they are morally obliged to join the discussion on the Talk page. If they revert your edit without contributing to the Talk page they are inviting condemnation as an edit warrior. In my scenario, what have you achieved? Lots! - either you have brought about an improvement to the article, or you have moved Bozo and others to the point where they must join the discussion on the Talk page (or stay away from the article.)
- What is the flaw in my thinking? Dolphin (t) 05:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- That encourages gaming the system. The one who has an obligation to start the discussion is the one who made the BOLD edit, although nothing prevents the one who reverted from starting the discussion. The object of BRD is to preserve the status quo version until a discussion has led to an agreement to change it. This allows no gaming of the system. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Dolphin51, I'd rather not focus on any possible "flaw" as I see other factors that might resolve this.
It's been some time since I got involved with this essay, which I have contributed to over the years. I've been here since 2003 and have always defended BRD as often the only way to definitively determine who started an edit war, thus determining who should be warned or blocked. It's an important essay that is treated as a de facto guideline in some policies.
I think this thread can be resolved by looking at a factor that may or may not be mentioned in the essay. That is the time factor.(*) I think it is reasonable that, if there is no response within a "reasonable time" to the Discussion created as part of the current BRD cycle, the cycle can restart anew. IOW the old cycle has expired. That could be 24 hours or 48 hours. I tend to favor 48 hours as not everyone can respond immediately. This should require that the other editor is properly pinged.
The status quo is a silent !voter in this (and many other) situation, as we tend to favor it because existing content is assumed to be the product of good faith editing my many other editors, and their hard work should be treated respectfully. Since most bold changes are not improvements, we tend to be suspicious of them. If the bold edit is a genuine improvement, then it should be easy to convince other editors, but that may require some discussion before it is accepted. Fair enough.
The one making the bold edit has the burden of proof. If an editor wants their bold edit accepted, they are expected to invest the time in a discussion to defend its inclusion. Of course, if the bold edit is not reverted, then it is assumed to be accepted by other editors, provided they even see it. The BRD cycle was never invoked as the Reversion is what really triggers the cycle.
Articles with few page watchers are often subject to vandalism and degradation because no one notices that some bold changes are not improvements. I cringe when I discover vandalism that has existed for many hours or days, and that happens surprisingly often.
(*) Time is mentioned here:
"Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article."
Would it be a good idea that we include a defined "time factor" in the essay? A "reasonable amount of time" isn't clear enough. What do others think? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer: Many thanks for your comprehensive and well-considered response. It has given me a lot to think about, and I will do so over coming days. I’m sure I will agree with you.
- I think it is desirable to give some guidance as to what qualifies as a reasonable amount of time. The minimum amount of time would be 24 hours. I also regard current & active Users as those who check their Watchlists at least every 24 hours, so I suggest 24 hours be inserted in the essay as the minimum reasonable time for the purpose discussed here. Dolphin (t) 23:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- If we go with "24 hours," it should be "at least 24 hours." It might be better to state or add "a couple of days" (in addition to "at least 24 hours"), however, given that editors (both active and sporadic) can be away from Wikipedia for a couple or few days. They can also be away for a week, but adding "a couple of days" is obviously more reasonable than adding "a week." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:BRR at RfD
WP:BRR is currently listed at Redirects for discussion. Interested editors may wish to participate there. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Should bold edits be discussed specifically with the reverter?
Does "Discuss" of WP:BRD mean "Discuss this with any interested party on the article's Talk page", or does it mean "Specifically engage the reverter in discussion, along with any other interested parties"? It seems to me to at least be a matter of good WP:Etiquette to discuss with the reverter, but it does appear to me that it is an essential part of the BRD process, if this language is to be taken literally:
- "
Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution.
" - "
Discover the Very Interested Persons (VIP), and reach a compromise or consensus with each, one by one. [...] Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a VIP. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this VIP.
" - "
After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page.
For example, would it be against the spirit of the guideline to speak of the reverter in the third person and invite other editors in?
If BRD just means "Discuss with any interested party", then maybe that should be made more clear in this guideline. Thoughts? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've always taken it to mean "start a thread on the article talk page, and form consensus with any ed who cares enough to participate". If the reverter does not participate, I take that as a sign they have conceded or withdrawn the original objection. Others may view it differentlyNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with N⪚ Wikipedia operates on consensus, and it doesn't matter who forms that consensus, as long as it conforms to policy. Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't mean to suggest that this guideline would require that the bold editor discuss with the reverter, but I interpret it to mean that the bold editor should attempt to discuss specifically with the reverter. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please elaborate, Kolya. Do you think that attempt requires more than simply starting a thread on the article talk page? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- For instance, I think it would be against the spirit of BRD for the bold editor to start a talk thread such as "the reverter insists on [this edit], what do others think?" Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sure... we probably all agree that those sorts of battle threads don't count as "discussion" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Without the "insists" or any incivil language, is it against the spirit of the guideline to speak of the reverter in the third person and invite other editors in? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sure... we probably all agree that those sorts of battle threads don't count as "discussion" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- For instance, I think it would be against the spirit of BRD for the bold editor to start a talk thread such as "the reverter insists on [this edit], what do others think?" Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please elaborate, Kolya. Do you think that attempt requires more than simply starting a thread on the article talk page? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't mean to suggest that this guideline would require that the bold editor discuss with the reverter, but I interpret it to mean that the bold editor should attempt to discuss specifically with the reverter. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with N⪚ Wikipedia operates on consensus, and it doesn't matter who forms that consensus, as long as it conforms to policy. Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
arbitrary break
I regularly start threads with this basic syntax,
- In [[Diff|this edit]], {{u|OtherEd}} added/deleted/changed text. The old (or new) text reads {{tq|blah blah blah}}. In my view, XYZ. Their reason, in the edit summary was {{tq|whatTheySaid}}. I disagree because reason-reason-reason, and would like the article to say (something else). What do others think?
Sometimes, but not all, I will include a specific ping to the other ed, usually when I have a specific question. But not always. This syntax provides a way for me to say out loud what I think happened. This way the other ed can jump in to clarify, withdraw, elaborate, whatever.... while also encouraging others to join in, whether they agree with me or not. Others mileage may vary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that we're expecting too much out of this "supplement" to define the overall process. IMO it merely emphasizes three things: 1. Truly be bold ONCE in a change/addition. . 2. Truly be bold in reverting ONCE if you don't agree 3. If those two steps have occurred, it's time to discuss. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- BRD makes the boundary between the acceptable and the disruptive. It is not best practice, but is efficient if used well by experienced editors.
- D means that both editors must discuss and not repeat either the Bold edit or a Revert. There is onus on both. Repeated B or R in the absence of D amounts to edit warring. Some have held the notion that edit summaries can handle the D, but others disagreed because edit summary discussions are hard to follow by others at a later time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
What to do when faced with WP:BRR editors?
I notice that there is an increasing proportion of editors using WP:BRR rather than WP:BRD. The procedure involves reverting, not joining the discussion or avoiding direct answers, and then issuing 3RR warnings if other editors try to modify the disputed content.
For a WP:BRD editor, what would be the best approach to deal and continue collaborative editing when meeting this kind of editor? --Signimu (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- When there's merit to your version (i.e. you have reliable sources that, in your view, support the edits you want to keep), in such cases I tend to place a {{disputed-inline}} tag in the article, right there in the part of text subject to reverts. This way, the article stays in the version they prefer, but they are forced to keep talking if they want their text to be shown in a clean slate. Once you have them talking, you can follow dispute resolution procedures to reach a consensus. Diego (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Diego Moya: Oh, that's a great idea! Thank you for sharing! My current technique is a lot less elegant, but I simply propose alternative solutions and discuss by edit comments (as I noticed this kind of editors do in fact discuss, but in their revert's comment XD). I think in any case, it's important not to take the reverts personally and not let things heat up in these cases --Signimu (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)