Ensure thatdispute resolution is never used, or elsethe terrorists will have won. Instead,re-education onWikipedia's rules, initiatingmassive escalation to rapidly defeat your adversary's will toever edit Wikipedia again, and cutting the power to their house, all work to blockade hostilepropaganda anddisinformation from corrupting the pristine, entirely-neutral (when it aligns with your view) bastion of fully-verifiable information that is the great yet fragile Wikipedia, of which you are the sole defender. Nevernegotiate with the enemies of verifiability. Only initiate dispute resolution when it is to your tactical advantage—this will save you wasted time and aggravation, while easily and quickly forcing them upon those whose edits with whom you disagree.
Note that this process should be used with extreme aggression and without diplomacy, so as to surprise your opponent and forceunconditional surrender. Some editors will be extremely upset with this approach, andthat is the idea. Give nomercy, and feel noremorse.
Wait until someonereverts your change or makes another substantial edit.
Revert that change immediately with an edit summary designed to get your opponent as upset as possible (e.g. "rv vandalism" or "rv to consensus version")
Some misguided editors (probablyvandals) may try to confuse you using meaningless acronyms like "WP:3RR" and "WP:BRD".Ignore them, and continue reverting untilyou win.
Be sure not to get caught inWP:3RR violations; be sure that you have learned how togame the system before ever attempting BRRR!
Wash, rinse, repeat. If no one reverts after a couple of days, congratulations! You won!
BRRR is most useful when you want to escalate anedit war and get all editors involved worked up. It is an excellent strategy to keep your opponents on their toes, as most people will react with indignation, which you can latercall upon as a personal attack on your "good faith" edits.
BRRR is best used by experienced edit-warriors. It requires no more diplomacy or skill to use successfully than other methods. Use popups or similar tools to revert your opponent, and always use "rv unhelpful" or "rv POV", or something to that effect in the edit summary. Sometimes BRRR is used to indirectly bully newcomers to Wikipedia (particularly for their perceived lack of experience), but bear in mind that one day these Wikipedians might just evolve into legends (and then your—totally justified but easily misconstrued—deployment of scorched-earth BRRRing will have made it difficult to toady). For an example, look inthe history of this very page. Take inspiration, young editor, then rise up tostealthe spotlight andmake yourself a legend!
You can try using it in less volatile situations, but take care when doing so. BRRR is a way to ensure the imposition of one's own view, and to succeed intendentious editing without consensus. It is a technique for editors who have realized that if they start edit-warring, it will attract other editors with the same POV, and help in forcing the desired outcome: getting the article reverted to the preferred version, regardless of merit, and the other side blocked for "disruption".
But most importantly, BRRR is notBRD! BRD is for improving Wikipedia, while BRRR is a POWERFUL WEAPON for WINNING EDIT WARS!
Stay focused: Make only the changes you absolutely need to. Bold doesn't have to be big, and keeping your edit focused is more likely to yield results than making an over-reaching change. Actually, that's not really necessary. Make any changes you want; if the BRRR process goes correctly, you'll be fine.
Expect strong resistance—even hostility: Deliberately getting people to revert or respond to you feels a bit like disruption. Trying to change things certainly does, even when it's an obvious change for the better! If you do this cycle perfectly, most people will grudgingly accept you. Do it less than perfectly, and they will certainly be mad at you. Do it wrong, and they will hate your guts. Actually, that's the whole point. What can they do? As long as you haveconnections, you're always a step ahead.
Revert-wars do not help build consensus: Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, or to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, and/or get them to make an edit themselves. Revert as much as possible, as long as you don't overshoot3RR.
If people start making non-revert changes again, you are done: The normal editing cycle has been restored. This is the result you want. Break out thechampagne and pour out atall glass for each of yourallies andsock puppets; you've won the edit war!
Don't adhere toWikiquette orcivility guidelines: The easiest way to intensify this cycle and infuriate your adversary is to be uncivil. Try to lead by example and keep your partner in the same mindset—then you can switch your mindset to that of extreme aggression, and strike at the weaknesses of a civil mindset. Use profanity to demonstrate that you're not fucking around.
Talk with at least three partners at once. Raise an army to fight with you. Train them in the way of the Wikiwarrior.
There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. There is, consequently, no requirement that "the consensus version" or "the long-standing version" or any other version of the page be visible during the discussions. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind ofconsensus version.
Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay. Do not back off immediately,BUT:
Listen very carefully: You are trying to get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit. If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you arewasting everyone's time. You should not accept,"It's policy, live with it."
Don't listen at all. That's what aWikiweakling would try to do. Instead, make sure to ignore all walls-of-text you may have angered your enemies into producing; this is a good waste oftheir time, butyou have better things to do—after all, this encyclopedia isn't going to alignitself to your (objectively correct) views!...yet.
Be ready tocompromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.
Never compromise, but be asunclearas possible about it. Actively lie about it, in fact: suggest a tiny "concession" about something that is not at issue at all, and then use your opponent's refusal as "evidence" that they areWP:NOTHERE or whatever. (Bonus: if you hit just the right tone of condescension, they will be driven into a frothing rage—makingyou look reasonable!)
Alternatively, or additionally, continually agree to offered compromises—and thenimmediately violate them in spirit, but not in letter. Practice your air of wounded innocence:Wow, look how thisWP:BADFAITH editor flies off the handle for no reason!Perhaps you need to take a break, friend!
Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.
Use legal threats to get your way: They ALWAYS work.Wikipedia:No legal threats is a complete lie. Don't be afraid to sue someone, or threaten to sue them. Sue everybody and their mother! If their mother is dead, sue their estate! If you can't get what you want, and a person is standing in your way, sue them. Simple as that!(Further Information:Wikipedia:Yes legal threats)
Edit warring (who cares, as long as you don't violate3RR?)
If the 3-revert rule gets in your way,make 1000sock puppets and turn it into the 3003-revert rule.
Do notedit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". It should.Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but could incur sanctions, such as a temporary block. The objective is to seek consensus, not force one's own will upon other editors. That never works. Whoever wrote these guidelines is not areal gamer. They're for fakey fake fakelamers. Forcing your will upon others is fun! And a rational behavior of any reasonably-ambitious Wikipedian. In fact, that's whatadmins do all the time. Don't you want to be an admin? Get some practice in!
However, don't get stuck on the discussion. Try to move the discussion towards making a new, and different, Bold edit as quickly as possible. One should seek to have an iterative cycle going on the page itself where people "try this" or "try that" and just try to see what sticks best.Warning: Repetitively doing this can easily violate the (recently strengthened)3RR policy and get good-faith editors blocked even during a productive editing exchange. Any such edits must be clear attempts to tryanother solution, not ones that have been tried and rejected. If you have reached three reverts within a 24 hr period (3RR bright-line rule), do not edit that content in any manner that reverts any content, in whole or in part, even as little as a single word, for over 24 hours. Doing so just past the 24-hour period could be seen as gaming the system and sanctions may still be applied. Don't discuss at all.
BRRRC(Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Complain to admin) has been proposed as a more faithful description of Wikipedian behavior, especially if a basic BRRR is unsuccessful due to unaccountable interference from multiple enemy editors. If you haven't got a handful of friends among the active admin corps who are willing to do you a few tiny favors no-questions-asked, thenWP:ANI is the most appropriate venue for the complaint; however, the complaints can also be presented atWP:AN,WP:AIV,WP:AN/3RR, and other suitable noticeboards.
If other editors attempt to discuss the issue, the simple tactic of refusing to be drawn in will work for a while, and is often all you need. If the discussion doesn't die down, or an opposing editor maliciously persists in restoring, join inbriefly: add a disparaging one-liner, then—if necessary—a long rant about how expert you are on the topic, and how the opposing editor has committed every Wikipedia sin you can find a link for.Do not return to the discussion unless it is to mis-read some valid criticism of you, in which case repeat as before.
BRRRC is the ultimate weapon on Wikipedia. Using it nearly always leads to your success, and therefore creates a better encyclopedia. In the rare case that it is not successful, however, consider BRRRT.
BRRRT(Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Terminate) is a proposed policy for reducing edit wars by encouraging escalation frominformation warfare andpsychological warfare tokinetic warfare, thus permanently eliminating one or all edit-combatants. If youkill an enemy editor with anAGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missile or othermunition before they can make that pesky fourth reversion, you don't need to worry about the 3-revert rule at all!
Eventually, Wikipedia will be free of thosecourageous foolish enough to challenge you, so that there is no longer any possibility of edit wars against you, and you alone will rule the entirety of this encyclopedia.
A final recourse—if, for some reason, BRRRT isstill unsuccessful—isBRRRTN(Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Tactical Nuke): a relatively expensive option, but an almost foolproof one. Plus, the damage is almost impossible to revert!
.jpg)
