User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer

This proposal sets out the aims of the BRD enforcement project:

Proposal

What is BRD?

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is an approach to editing that places an emphasis on obtaining a consensus for your edits. The concept behind it is that if someone reverts your edits to an article you should start a discussion on the talk page to try and reach an understanding rather than simply reinstating your edit.

What is BRD enforcement?

The BRD enforcer project will simply be a page where an editor can list an article where an editor keeps trying to push through an edit that has not obtained independent support. An editor who belongs to the BRD enforcer project will revert the article to the previous consensus version for you.

Why is BRD enforcement needed?

BRD enforcement is needed because some editors simply do not understand the concept of consensus-based editing. Wikipedia is founded on a type of peer review: as with the academic process you don't get to publish if your work is rejected. The principle behind this is that no-one is right all the time, no-one is objective 100% of the time, so in a content dispute an independent opinion is required. If you want to make changes to an article, the onus is on the editor initiating the changes to obtain the independent opinion. Unfortunately BRD is often ignored because it is not an enforceable policy. However, any editor who wishes is entitled to incorporate it into their editing practices, and the aim of the BRD enforcer project is to co-ordinate a response to non-consensus-based editing among editors who subscribe to the BRD approach.

Does this replace third opinions, RFCs, dispute resolution et al.?

No. These are processes that are in place to reach a consensus. The aim of BRD enforcement is to complement the existing processes on Wikipedia, and to encourage editors to adopt a more consensus based approach to their editing. RFCs and dispute resolution facilitate discussion to reach a consensus, and the purpose of BRD enforcement will be to steer a dispute towards an appropriate resolution process while maintaining the integrity of the article.

Do we need an independent initiative? Can't I just shop a troublesome editor to ANI or a get a page protected?

In theory you should be able to, but since BRD is not a policy many administrators will not enforce it, either by blocking the editor or protecting the article. Unfortunately the factual integrity of an article is only a secondary concern for many admins. One incident I observed recently was an editor on the Film project enforcing a MOS guideline against a disruptive editor; the project member also requested independent intervention at the project but was still threatened with a block despite his actions being consistent with our approach to problem resolution on Wikipedia. Recently another editor received a two week block for reverting the addition of statistics to a living person's article, sourced through a user edited database. Our own policy compels us to remove such sources from a living person's article, but that was not a consideration in blocking this editor. The priority for editors on the otherhand is primarily the integrity of the article, so there will hopefully be a faster and more painless response when just dealing with a single editor.

What BRD enforcement is not

It is not a shortcut for you to protect pet articles by getting collaborators to revert an article for you. Articles will only be eligible for BRD enforcement in cases where a SINGLE editor is attempting to push through an edit. If there is more than one editor trying to push through the same edit, or there is support for the edit from more than one editor in a discussion then an article will not be eligible for BRD enforcement. The aim of BRD enforcement is to encourage editors to obtain support for their challenged edits, so it is important that it does not override a process it is designed to encourage!

How will BRD enforcement work?

Any editor can sign up to be an "enforcer", and they will be expected to add the enforcer page to their watchlist. If an article is added to the list of articles requiring BRD enforcement then an enforcer will check what the most recent stable state of the article is and revert to that state. If an enforcer finds themself agreeing with the edit that they are expected to revert, then they are not compelled to revert the edit; they have the option of voicing support for the edit on the talk page which will stop it being eligible for BRD enforcement. After putting the article back to its stable state, the enforcer will remove the request from the enforcer list.

Who can request BRD enforcement?

Anyone can! Regardless of whether they belong the enforcer project or not. The only requirement for someone to request enforcement is that they give reasons on the talk page for why they are against the edit and to notify the editor they are in dispute with of their comments on the talk page.

Questions and comments from editors about participating in such a project

If you would be interested in joining such a project please add your name below, or if you have any questions/suggestions feel free to add them here.

• Definitely interested. Recent events at the Braveheart article indicate this would be very useful. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Definitely. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 14:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Interested. BRD enforcement sounds bad because "enforcing" has a really authoritarian connotation, plus (as you pointed out) BRD isn't policy. But "Neutral revert" or "Request for stable state" would definitely be a good thing to help out with. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Definitely support this. However, you say "Articles will only be eligible for BRD enforcement in cases where a SINGLE editor is attempting to push through an edit." So what about the case where 2 or three editors are trying to edit war something in, and 2 or 3 editors are objecting? This is equally a violation of BRD, and should be treated the same. The overarching object here is to give support to the consensus process, and the number of editors involved in a BRD violation isn't relevant. Per Shooterwalker, suggest changing the name to "Consensus Editing Support Initiative (CESI)". Also, I think that if this is going to work, we need to take out this: "If an enforcer finds themself agreeing with the edit that they are expected to revert, then they are not compelled to revert the edit; they have the option of voicing support for the edit on the talk page which will stop it being eligible for BRD enforcement." The BRD enforcer should just revert to the stable version, and then if they wish join the discussion. They will thenceforth be ineligible as a BRD enforcer on that article till a different dispute comes along. B^e——C_ritical 18:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Definately interested. If it helps to stop the ocassional outburst of the tyranny of the individual, then I could see it being very useful. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• I am interested. I would have some concerns. I think that Becritical pointed out an interesting scenario. I would like to see some onus on our editors to seek out the discussion. I have seen (and even been part of) edit wars where you "know" you're right and just leave edit summaries of "take it to the talk page to discuss". I think for an article to be accepted for "protection", so to speak, the editor requesting "enforcement" should be able to show that they have done everything they can (reasonably) do to get the other editor to respect BRD and discuss the edit on the talk page. To me, that's edit summary explaining why they are reverting, alerting the other editor on their talk page about their actions (not all first time editors know about the history tab) and the reason for reverting with directions on how to start an article talk page discussion to come to a consensus. I don't think that they need to start the discussion themselves, but there should be some effort to get the other editor involved to go to the talk page. Otherwise, it's going to be "edit, revert, edit, revert, edit, revert, edit, revert, warning of 3RR, edit, request for help, revert...).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Yes! I am in full support of this initiative. The sooner, the better. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 22:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm interested. Came here through Bignole's talk page. I have the same concerns that are already expressed above, but we should be able to work those out. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'd be interested in such a project. I saw you post on User:Sjones23's page, so if you were only looking for those specific editors, please forgive me, but I think that this is a terrific idea. Would you support making this be an official "Wiki-Policy" if you will, or just a task force of some kind to sidestep, for lack of a better term, ANI? Go Phightins! (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• I am definitely interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• WP:BRD is not policy, it is an essay, and therefore cannot be "enforced". Further, having someone come and revert an edit for you when you list a page is canvassing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am interested if we include a World BRD Championship belt with lots of gold and shiny things. And I am the holder of said belt. And the holder of the title associated with said belt. World BRD Champion. And I want entrance music when I enter BRD incidents. WIthout the belt... I can still take part. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is no more canvassing than our current practice of asking for others' input or comment on the WT:FILM page. A practice which will presumably continue when more than one BRD violating editor gets involed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Betty, I'm one of Bignole's talk page stalkers so I came over when I saw the note you'd dropped him. I like your idea a lot. Very interesting proposal and it seems like a potentially good middle step before Admin action is required (and I've seen some of the same types of bad blocks you give in your examples). It always makes me a little crazy when we can't just get a revert to a stable version prior to a bold edit so that the details can be hashed out on the talk page. One of the very first edit conflicts (not war, just differing viewpoints) I was in worked swimmingly when the other editor (the bold one) and myself (the reverter) did it that way and the plot summary for that particular film is kind of brilliant as the result of our efforts. I agree with those who question your name choice; I'd go with BRD support, myself. It seems so... supporty. Also, agree with taking some consideration over Becritical 's hypothetical and very much liked Bignole's ideas. WHy I don't think of it as canvassing myself, I can see why others might be concerned so some thought should probably be given to making sure that doesn't become the norm. Millahnna (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is going to sound really stupid, but I find your choice of SchroCat as an ally to be incorrect. There are also various disputes involving you, so you can show off your ability at resolving disputes by preventing any disputes to which you would be a party. Now that SchroCat is retired, maybe things will be different. Maybe you should take some time before enforcing BRD. 130.105.197.39 (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Responses

It's probably time for me to address questions, suggestions and concerns.

1. I think User:Shooterwalker has a valid point about the title of such a project. "Request for stable state" (or any other sensible option, but let's keep it simple) seems like a neutral title. As has been pointed out by myself and others, BRD is not a policy so not enforceable, we are simply applying the philosophy to a particular scenario.
2. I think User:Becritical highlights some valid shortcomings in the scope of what I have outlined: however this was intentional on my part, and I have purposefully limited the jurisdiction of this project to unilateral edits for several reasons. I think it is sometimes better to solve one problem well, rather than setting out to try and solve all the problems at once. The unilateral editor pushing through edits without engaging in discussion or obtaining a consensus is a common problem on Wikipedia, and I think a semi-automated response is particularly suited to that type of editing. When such an editor is supported to various degrees by other editors, then the nature of the problem shifts from an editor requiring a consensus for their edits to whether there is or isn't a consensus for those edits, and that is what RFCs/dispute resolution/project pages are for. Against consensus editing will continue, but hopefully such a venture will remove the single POV pusher from the equation.
3. As for an enforcer being compelled to restore a stable version, ideally that is what they would do in the spirit of neutrality, but since we can't anticipate every scenario we should probably stop short of actually mandating it.
4. As per User:Bignole, I agree there should be an effort to engage in discussion rather than using enforcement as a lazy cop out to enforce the preferred version, so an editor must meet a prerequisite threshold for their request to be satisfied. It probably won't be too difficult to draft out such a process.
5. Anyone is welcome to participate, User:Go Phightins!, provided we are all willing to hold ourselves to the same standard. I imagine everyone here has been in the situation of the unilateral editor, having their edits reverted by another editor. However, in such scenarios if we ourselves are prepared to contract third opinions through talk page discussion, project pages and RFCs, then it is not unreasonable to expect others to do so.
6. This will not become a policy, it's probably most comparable to article protection if anything. Currently, ANI and article protection do not express any preference between the stable state of an article that has previously satisfied consensus and a contested/disputed version. Those procedures still have a place, but their focus is on editor behavior whereas the objective here is article integrity.
7. As for the observation it is canvassing, then I agree with User:Gothicfilm that it is no more canvassing than posting a request on a project page; in fact it is less so. CANVASSING itself is a guideline, not a policy, and the problem with canvassing is not the canvassing itself, but the nature of it. The principle behind it is that it is bad form to contact regular collaborators or misrepresent a dispute and push through edits on that basis. This proposal is different in two important ways: the aim is a neutral response regardless of who is requesting i.e. such intervention could in theory be requested against anyone who participates in the task force. Secondly, such a reponse indicates no consensus for any particular version—a reverted editor can effectively remove us from the equation by contracting a third opinion, which you can not do with a canvassed opinion.

Anyway, I hope I have satisfactorily addressed all concerns/questions, so I will re-draft the proposal to account for the above revisions in a couple of days time. Betty Logan (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, limit the scope. If that works, then it can be a template for a broadened approach. B^e——C_ritical 06:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Welll??? Should we put this up on noticeboards or something? B^e——C_ritical 20:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I was intending to re-write the proposal this weekend but have been caught up in some monumental stupidity at Commons. I will redraft it tomorrow and let everyone look it over to make sure everyone is happy with it, and then we can get this thing rolling. Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've drafted out the proposal below. I've tried to weed out the 'polemic' aspects and limit it to its operational objectives, since it is a project proposal (that requires editors to carry out certain actions) rather than a guideline proposal. I have removed the BRD aspects from it, since it would be shot down straight away if it looked like we were trying to turn BRD into an enforceable policy, and tried to align it with page protection. It hopefully addresses the concerns that some editors had that it must be used as a tool to encourage consensus seeking editing, and not a tool for page ownership. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. It all seems okay with me. Let us hope that the committee give the go-ahead. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 10:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The proposal has now been formalized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Request for stable state. Remember folks,it has to get support at the formal proposal page, so if you still support the concept then add your support there. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Request for stable state" project proposal

The problem of unilateral editing

Editing Wikipedia is based on a form of peer review: editors are free to edit articles, but if your edits are challenged you need to obtain a consensus for them. This can usually be achieved through discussion on the talk page and reaching a compromise, or by soliciting independent third opinions. Unfortunately a frequent problem on Wikipedia is that an editor will persist in pushing through their edits despite opposition to them. This can threaten the stability of the article and result in inaccurate content being added.

Request for stable state

A request for stable state will be a project that enables an editor to make a request that an article is reverted to its most recent stable state, in the face of challenged unilateral editing. A request will be subject to certain provisos, and will only apply in cases where a single editor is attempting to push through a challenged edit.

How will it operate?

It will operate in a similar way to how requesting page protection works. However, it allows a much more flexible response in several ways:

1. Integrity of the article – page protection does not distinguish between versions of the article.
2. A faster response – page protection has to be undertaken by admins, whereas this is an initiative anyone can participate in.
3. Not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut – protecting an article severely limits the type of editing that can be undertaken; this initiative would not impose such restrictions on edits that are accepted by the community.

The aim of the initiative

The aim is quite simply to persuade an editor to obtain support for their edit, either via the talk page on the article, by soliciting a third opinion either through the appropriate project or an RFC, or entering dispute resolution. For that reason, requests for stable state will be limited to only unilateral editing i.e. edits undertaken/supported by just one editor. The project will not address contentious edits that are backed by more than one editor, since such edits enjoy a degree of support, and the extent of that support is probably best determined via a discussion process.

Provisos

An editor that submits a request must fulfil two simple requirements:

1. They must give a full explanation on the article talk page.
2. They must provide the editor on their talk page with i) a link to their explanation on the article talk page, and ii) a link to a relevant project page where the editor can solicit a third opinion.

Responses to such requests

A restorer should select the most recent stable state from the edit history, from directly before the challenged edit. They should ensure the two criteria have been met, and should also check the talk page and edit history to ensure the edit is not supported by other parties.

Concerns

During the drafting of this proposal, a concern was raised that it may be construed as canvassing. There are two important distinctions between this project and canvassing: support for a preferred version cannot be solicited i.e. like requesting page protection, it is a neutral response that simply restores the stable state of an article; secondly, an editor can eliminate the project from the equation by simply obtaining some support for their edit. In that sense a "consensus" cannot be canvassed from the project.

Who can be involved?

Anyone can sign up to be part of the project, and anyone can request assistance.