Template talk:American politics AE/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rename "Enforced BRD"

There has been some criticism that the name "Enforced BRD" is misleading, and that it implies something similar to the "consensus required" rule. At the root of the disagreement, I think, is a difference in opinion about the nature of BRD. I interpret BRD as being a cycle where the Bold editor uses discussion to identify the reason their edit was reverted, and then quickly attempts a new BOLD edit that accounts for the other editor's objection. (Call it BRD...BRD...BRD). The other interpretation is that that a new edit should not be attempted until a clear consensus emerges in the discussion. (Call it BRDDDDD...implement) I think the second interpretation is disproved by the actual wording of WP:BRD, but is still widespread because we always abbreviate "WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" as just "WP:BRD" and (in this case) because it is often conflated with the "consensus required" rule.

The other problem with the name "Enforced BRD" is that this sanction isn't vanilla BRD because it has the additional 24-hour per-editor limit on reinstatements.

Given these two problems, I suggest renaming the sanction to something like 24-hr BRD cycle that solves these two problems (indicating it's a cycle and that it's throttled). Slow BRD cycle is another option.

So the full sanction would read:

24-hr BRD cycle: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion, you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.

Pinging users who have expressed interest in or who have placed the sanction @TonyBallioni, JFG, Mandruss, L235, Lord Roem, Swarm, El C, GoldenRing, and GeneralizationsAreBad:

~Awilley (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Works great for me. Best. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I see a couple of holes in your approach. First, it's often/usually more than a one-on-one, and it's impossible to "quickly" come up with an alternative that addresses the concerns of all present. That takes discussion, and usually considerably more than 24 hours' worth. Secondly, there is often/usually little room for a compromise, since the opposition strongly feels that there should be no content at all. Moreover, the ability/willingness to be moved off one's initial position is an all-too-uncommon trait and that is not going to change until we repeal human nature. The only way out of that is consensus, ideally discounting arguments that lack policy basis (often/usually requiring uninvolved close), and agreement to disagree. I've yet to conceive a remotely efficient way to do this. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss, I think 24 hours is a reasonable compromise as a time to identify concerns. Yes some will take longer, but others are simple enough to be resolved almost immediately, or even by edit summary. The other problems you mention are indeed big problems, and I don't know the best way to deal with them either. The best idea I've got is to find ways to empower the users who are willing to compromise, who are willing to reconsider their initial positions, and who do make policy-based arguments. Doing that with page-level sanctions is really hard. Doing it with user-level sanctions is really hard in a different way. If I had unlimited time to digest all the interactions on article and talk pages in the topic area I could just identify the tendentious POV pushers and hit them with appropriate individual sanctions (1RR, consensus required, topic ban, etc.) But nobody's got time for that. ~Awilley (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I've got time for that. You don't need to digest all the interactions on article and talk pages in the topic area, you just need to spend some time around the topic area and those editors will make themselves quite visible. You're one of the few admins who does that, and you're already aware of a few, proving that point. We just need to stop allowing editors to turn sanctions into atrocities worthy of Nuremberg. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss, yeah, the fallout from placing even a single user-level sanction has been a huge time sink for me. Maybe I need to act meaner and just tell people to live with it. ~Awilley (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Since there were no objections I've changed the name of the sanction as proposed. ~Awilley (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I belatedly approve the renaming. — JFG ^talk 07:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)