Wikipedia:Mutual withdrawal
 | This is an essay on conduct policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: I'll back down if you will. |
.jpg){kind=spacer}
Mutual withdrawal is a trick for interrupting non-productive lines of discussion, in order to reduce conflict and make discussions more concise and productive.
How it works[edit]
When an editor invokes mutual withdrawal when replying to another comment, e.g. with a link to this essay, they are saying: "If you wish to remove your comment, you have my permission to remove this reply as well."
The other editor can then, if they chose, remove both comments, and only those two comments, preferably citing WP:MUTUAL in their edit summary. They can leave another comment if they wish, but good faith requires that the new comment not include or address the matter of contention raised by the old comment. If an editor chooses not to remove the comments, they are discouraged from leaving a comment to that effect.
Reasoning[edit]
Normally, with certain exceptions, it is considered unacceptable to change or remove comments left by another user, or to radically change or remove your comments after others have replied to them. So what often happens is this:
- Editor A leaves a comment that doesn't foster productive discussion: maybe it's incivil, maybe it's in error, or maybe it's counterproductive in some other way.
- Editor B leaves a reply criticizing Editor A's comment, while possibly being incivil or counterproductive as well.
- Editor A, after some time to reflect, and maybe even with insight gained from Editor B's comment, realizes their comment didn't do any good and wishes they hadn't left it at all. However, there is already a reply, possibly a nasty one, so Editor A can't very well remove their comment and pretend it never happened. Instead, they may add a reply to the reply, which garners another reply, and so on, with both editors trying to save face in a pointless volley that only irritates them and everyone else, and maybe even leads to a formal dispute – i.e, mutual assured destruction.
By suggesting mutual withdrawal, an editor is essentially saying: "Hey. I don't think your comment gets us closer to resolving this issue, and I want to give you a chance to take it back, no consequences, so we can get back on track. You can, of course, choose to ignore this." If the suggestion is accepted, and the two comments are removed, that's the end of it. Both editors are agreeing not to bring conduct complaints against the other over anything in the removed comments. Everyone gets to pretend it never happened, and in the end, the discussion is shorter, more polite, and more useful to all.
This works much better than saying, "If you remove your comment, I'll remove mine", because it doesn't rely on an act of faith that the editor will honor their promise, and it doesn't leave a comment devoid of context – both offending comments are removed at the same time.
Caveats[edit]
Mutual withdrawal involves exactly two editors. If there are any other replies to the original comment from other editors, mutual withdrawal cannot be used and WP:REDACT applies.
If anyone else involved in the discussion objects to the removal, then the original comments should remain, unless they are removable on other grounds.
Mutual withdrawal should not be invoked when either or both comments have been in place for an extended period, usually a day or more.
It's not a good idea to invoke mutual withdrawal in your signature; it should be invoked explicitly and only in appropriate circumstances.
No one is obligated to accept or respond to an offer of mutual withdrawal.