Wikipedia talk:Revert, block, ignore

This page is within the scope of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, a WikiProject dedicated to combating vandalism on Wikipedia. You can help the CVU by watching the recent changes and undoing unconstructive edits. For more information go to the CVU's home page or see cleaning up vandalism.Counter-Vandalism UnitWikipedia:Counter-Vandalism UnitTemplate:Counter-Vandalism UnitCounter-Vandalism Unit articles

Wikipedia essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives

Archive 1

Opposing view section

Normally, if there is an opposing view the person or persons supporting that view write a separate essay and the two are linked. I find the opposing view to be less of a view and more of a list of assorted pages that, seen in a certain light, may appear to contradict this essay. In short, I don't think it is helpful, needed, or well executed. I am going to remove it, if there are still those who feel it is necessary please discuss the matter here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"IBRL"

When would one use "ignore but revert later"? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 22:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess an alternative to this one is just 'ignore', but that has no meaningful initials. Say someone writes 'poop' on your talk page, you have options. One is to hastily revert, only to be reverted, and revert, so on until a block arrives. That's RBI, or maybe edit-warring. Another is to block first, only to find a different IP or sock reverting, revert, and so on. That's BRI, or maybe Whac-a-mole. But when it doesn't entirely matter if your talk page contains the word poop, or you can get around to cleaning it up the next day or the next time you're around, the vandal can often be mightily unimpressed by the lack of response. The same can apply to other backwaters of Wikipedia, where hundreds or millions of readers are not going to come across the offending changes, you can often take your time. Vandals can get bored of waiting for a response. Or at least they may be wasting their time and might not be doing other things. Another common example, is where some vandal gets blocked, and starts trashing their talk page. The consequences of doing nothing about it are usually approximately zero. Maybe clean it up later, maybe not ..but ignoring it, at least in any immediate time frame, is often best. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of BRI

I am a bit confused – my inquiry at User talk:MarnetteD#User talk:Rosguill was rejected and the user does not seem to be interested in communication. Could anybody comment on my interpretation of the phrase "A variation of this method, BRI (block, revert, ignore), should be employed against edit-warring vandals"? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would just say that this is not a policy page, it contains advice, and not everyone listens to or gets advice. Given the choice of reverting a vandal 15 times, or blocking them, I would usually go with a block. That's BRI. I'd also point out that this page isn't called RRRRRRRRRBI. It's just RBI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]