200:
215:
with an edit summary that includes a link to the talkpage discussion. WHOOSH, out of nowhere, another person or possibly the same person reverts you again. You send notes on both their talkpages, asking them to discuss their reverts, but they are nowhere to be found. You make a third revert, and again, the same thing happens! Frustrated, you look at the users' contributions and see that since reverting you, they've done the same thing on several articles!
226:
24:
84:
214:
You are editing an article quietly to yourself, sipping a cup of tea. Suddenly, WHOOSH, out of nowhere, you're reverted. You made sure to put in an edit summary, you make a note on the talkpage as to why you made the edit and ask the person to discuss the edit. You revert the person who reverted you,
300:
Five minutes later, you look at the talkpage to see another ten-page essay. Again, the cycle continues. You respond in a few sentences and perhaps the person themselves even responds in a few sentences, but the conversation goes on and on and on, in such a way that it's clear that it's more of an
296:
Rather than making a string of silent edits to articles, filibusterers will do the exact opposite: They will make edits, possibly bold and usually contentious, to a single article. Once they are reverted, they will write a ten-page essay on the talkpage. A person will respond to them with a few
261:
but then doesn't discuss the reasons for reverting or address prior discussion of the material that they reverted. They don't cultivate the anonymity of the ninja, and are more obstructive than destructive. They probably think of themselves as staunch defenders of
Knowledge (XXG). They need to
238:
and they are often successful by working together in clans. They are silent, but deadly. Like real ninjas, they combine astounding accuracy, cunning, and skill with senseless and pointless destruction and mayhem. The ninja and edit ninja both act like machines instead of real human beings.
297:
sentences and they will reply, "But you didn't respond to my points!" You ask what points they want you to respond to and they say, "All of them!" So, you go through with the tedious task of responding to every single trivial point they make and click "Publish changes".
233:
The ninja is an accurate but polite description, useful in place of more antagonistic terms which can be regarded as epithets. Edit ninjas are users who move from article-to-article, making edits, often in violation of
367:
258:
155:
If the advice suggested doesn't work then unfortunately there's nothing you can do other than to let them win, at least temporarily, until you seek outside community support elsewhere.
239:
Recognizing and respecting each other, they act like a cabal. If you edit-war with them, you are more than likely going to be blocked, in accord with a misuse and misinterpretation of
336:
362:
372:
312:
So, you revert the person, and they revert you too, with edit summaries containing, "There's no consensus! Stop edit-warring, I declare! See the talkpage!"
222:
come by – ZING! ZAP! POW! – they each make a sudden objectionable string of edits to the article all at once and there's apparently nothing you can do!
341:
122:
36:
246:
The key to dealing with an edit ninja is to force them to discuss their edits. Call them out for being edit ninjas and let them know about
43:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
44:
207:
277:
357:
108:
282:
199:
189:
48:
164:
58:
302:
32:
327:. Editors may not abuse BRD to force users to engage in overwhelmingly unnecessary discussion.
324:
316:
235:
320:
290:
263:
247:
240:
126:
94:
306:
315:
The key to dealing with a filibusterer is to point out that they're filibustering and to
309:, to see who will give up first, rather than an actual rational, meaningful discussion.
351:
51:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
286:
264:
The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD
121:
There are at least two types of editors exhibiting behaviors that misuse the
225:
293:
in the exact opposite of an edit-ninja, but just as annoying, if not more.
278:
Knowledge (XXG):Gaming the system § Gaming the consensus-building process
229:
The edit ninja viewing his watchlist. Don't expect him to say anything.
250:. You may not make one bold edit after another or a series of reverts
193:
224:
219:
78:
18:
262:
understand that the point of BRD is not the R but the D. "
203:
Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.
368:
Knowledge (XXG) essays introducing or defining new terms
179:
172:
66:
257:
Related to the ninja is the editor who flies in with
337:Knowledge (XXG):Don't revert due to "no consensus"
8:
342:Knowledge (XXG):BOLD, revert, revert, revert
363:Knowledge (XXG) essays explaining processes
37:Knowledge (XXG):BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
319:. If they continue reverting, put in an
254:attempting to discuss why you did that.
198:
45:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
373:Knowledge (XXG) essays about consensus
7:
111:and consented revert. And, shortly,
323:or report them for edit-warring on
208:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution
49:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
82:
22:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
99:remember that from an existing
1:
289:" or "stonewalling") abuse
259:"I'm reverting you per BRD"
123:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
115:comes again with consensus.
389:
275:
187:
162:
56:
188:Not to be confused with
90:This page in a nutshell:
218:Suddenly, several more
358:Knowledge (XXG) essays
230:
211:
196:for a similar concept.
228:
202:
47:, as it has not been
231:
212:
344:, a prime example
119:
118:
77:
76:
380:
285:(who engage in "
182:
175:
86:
85:
79:
69:
26:
25:
19:
388:
387:
383:
382:
381:
379:
378:
377:
348:
347:
333:
307:staring contest
280:
272:
197:
186:
185:
178:
171:
167:
161:
83:
73:
72:
65:
61:
53:
52:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
386:
384:
376:
375:
370:
365:
360:
350:
349:
346:
345:
339:
332:
329:
271:
268:
184:
183:
176:
168:
163:
160:
157:
153:
152:
145:
117:
116:
87:
75:
74:
71:
70:
62:
57:
54:
42:
41:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
385:
374:
371:
369:
366:
364:
361:
359:
356:
355:
353:
343:
340:
338:
335:
334:
330:
328:
326:
322:
318:
313:
310:
308:
304:
301:intellectual
298:
294:
292:
288:
287:filibustering
284:
283:Filibusterers
279:
274:
270:Filibusterers
269:
267:
265:
260:
255:
253:
249:
244:
242:
237:
227:
223:
221:
216:
209:
206:
201:
195:
191:
181:
180:WP:EDITNINJAS
177:
174:
170:
169:
166:
158:
156:
150:
146:
144:
140:
136:
132:
131:
130:
128:
124:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
96:
91:
88:
81:
80:
68:
64:
63:
60:
55:
50:
46:
40:
38:
34:
28:
21:
20:
314:
311:
299:
295:
281:
273:
256:
251:
245:
232:
217:
213:
204:
154:
149:filibusterer
148:
142:
138:
134:
120:
112:
104:
100:
93:
89:
30:
317:ignore them
276:Main page:
159:Edit ninjas
103:edit comes
67:WP:BRDWRONG
31:This is an
352:Categories
190:WikiNinjas
305:, like a
205:See also:
165:Shortcuts
331:See also
173:WP:NINJA
59:Shortcut
325:WP:ANEW
252:without
236:WP:NPOV
109:Discuss
291:WP:BRD
248:WP:BRD
241:WP:3RR
220:ninjas
194:Lurker
192:. See
139:revert
127:WP:BRD
143:ninja
97:cycle
33:essay
303:game
137:(or
135:edit
107:for
321:RfC
266:."
133:an
129:):
95:BRD
92:In
35:on
354::
243:.
147:a
141:)
105:RD
210:.
151:.
125:(
113:B
101:B
39:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
