User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 2

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) was originally an optional method of resolving disputes by making a bold edit and then opening negotiations with whoever reverted you. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, and it's not what editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. Care and diplomacy should be exercised.

Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and in this situation, the goal is to solve a problem by making a bold edit. Your bold edit should be big enough to solve the problem. Your bold edit might be the cure for discussions that aren't making progress.

A revert is what the BRD-following bold negotiator is patiently waiting for. If you're lucky, the reverter will be specific and substantive about objections in the edit summary. If you're not, the reverter will revert unnecessarily, out of a desire for bureaucratic process, or even out of the belief that some other, hypothetical editor might object to your edit. Sometimes the reverting editors refuse to engage in discussion. If any of that happens, you might not be able to follow BRD.

Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, engage in back-and-forth reverting, or even start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.

Cycle. To avoid getting bogged down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring.

General overview



 * When to use: While editing a particular page that many editors are discussing with little to no progress being made, or when an editor's concerns are not addressed on the talk page after a reasonable amount of effort.
 * How to proceed: Discover a Very Interested Person (VIP), and reach a compromise or consensus with that person, in one-on-one discussion.
 * 1) Be bold, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information.
 * 2) Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered your first VIP.
 * 3) Discuss the changes you would like to make with this VIP, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach an agreement. Apply your agreement. When reverts have stopped, you are done.

Use cases
BRD is most useful when seeking and achieving consensus in advance of the bold edit could be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear who is interested, or because the editors engaged in a dispute seem to be unable to resolve it.

Examples cases for use include where:
 * Two factions are engaged in an edit war, and a bold edit is made as a compromise or middle ground.
 * Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached.
 * Active discussion is not producing results.
 * Your view differs significantly from a rough consensus on an emotionally loaded subject.
 * Discussions about any part of the page get overshadowed by a long-standing dispute over one part.
 * Local consensus is currently opposed to making any changes whatsoever (when pages are frozen, "policy", or high-profile).

BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors. It may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged.

In general, BRD fails to produce changes when:
 * ...there is consensus in the community against the specific change you'd like to make.
 * ...the page is protected. (You may request unprotection.)
 * ...the page is subject to some other access control. (Get the control lifted.)
 * ...you lose tempo.
 * ...a single editor is reverting changes and exhibiting other forms of ownership attitudes. (Move on to another form of dispute resolution.)
 * ...individuals who are disinterested revert bold changes.

BRD is especially successful where: In short: boldly negotiate where no one has negotiated before.
 * ... people haven't really thought things through yet.
 * ... people are only discussing policy or theory, and are not applying reasoning or trying to find solutions.
 * ... people are talking past each other instead of getting down to brass tacks with concrete proposals.

What BRD is not

 * BRD is not a justification for imposing your own view or for tendentious editing.
 * BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
 * BRD is never a reason for reverting. Although the bold negotiator awaits a reversion, all reversions must be compatible with policies, guidelines or common sense.
 * BRD is not mandatory. Editors are not obliged to follow it. Any editor may try one of the alternatives given below, or even an alternative not mentioned here.
 * BRD is not for admin actions. Editors with permissions such as administrator or template editor can take actions which few editors are able to revert, which prevents the R step of BRD, and therefore prevents the bold negotiator from identifying the Very Interested Person.

Process
After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page. While discussing the disputed content, neither editors should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached. Each pass through the cycle may find a new, interested editor to work with, or new issue being disputed. If you follow the process as it is intended each time, you should eventually achieve consensus with all parties. As such, BRD is in general not an end unto itself; it moves the process past a blockage, and helps people get back to cooperative editing.

If the BRD process works ideally (sometimes it does not), people will after a time begin to refrain from outright reversion, and edits will start to flow more naturally.

For each step in the cycle, here are some points to remember.

Bold

 * Stay focused: Make only changes you absolutely need to. A bold edit doesn't have to be a huge edit, and keeping your edit focused is more likely to yield results than making an over-reaching change. If you want to encourage a reversion, consider using an edit summary that says something like "(revert if inappropriate)".
 * See what happens next: Stop editing the page long enough to see if anyone objects.  Depending on the nature of your change and the traffic on the page, this may take anywhere from mere minutes to more than a week.
 * Expect resistance—even hostility: Be ready to start a discussion as soon as you notice that anyone has objected. If you want, you can even plan your response while you are waiting to see who will revert your bold edit.
 * Be respectful: Regardless of what others say, keep your composure. The advice in pages such as Staying cool when the editing gets hot may be helpful to you.

Revert

 * Editors should think before reverting. Partial reversion, countering with another bold edit, or refining your bold edit would all be helpful to solving the problem.  However, in practice, you can't require other editors to be thoughtful or collaborative.
 * Explanations help. As the bold negotiator, though, what you're really hoping for is that the Very Interested Person will explain their disagreement with the content of your bold edit.  You can't negotiate with someone who merely has a concern that some hypothetical other editor might disagree with your bold edit, or someone who thinks that bold editing is a violation of proper procedures.  BRD works when the revert presents a path forward by expressing a concern with the content of your bold edit.  Check the edit summary.  If you're lucky, the Very Interested Person will have named a substantive reason for the reversion.  Alternatively, sometimes a Very Interested Person will start a discussion on the article talk page about the issue.  If so, join that discussion, and see what you can learn!

Discuss

 * If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. Trying to force your bold version on to the page now might make the Very Interested Person less willing to negotiate freely with you.  Let the Wrong Version stay on the page for now.  Instead, take it to the talk page (see below). If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD.
 * 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, or invite the editor to the talk page if they insist on using only edit summaries, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.
 * Negotiate with one person (or perhaps two). As long as the discussion is moving forward, do not feel the need to respond to everyone.  Expanding the number of people involved increases the chance of discussion losing focus and going far afield. Stay on point and pick your responses. If discussion dies off, you can always go back and get yourself reverted again to find (or re-find) other interested parties.
 * Win friends and influence people: Being rude, sarcastic, or unkind could intensify the dispute and make it unsolvable.  Set an example of being civil and even friendly, which can help the Very Interested Person respond in the same style.
 * 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 are wasting everyone's time.  Get more information than bald assertions that "It's policy" or "This is the consensus".
 * Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not solving problems. 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 when you think others should compromise, but do not expect it to be exactly even.

Bold (again)

 * Let the other editor apply agreed-upon changes. If they don't want to, that's okay, but be sure to offer. The offer alone shows deference and respect.  If that editor accepts, (1) the history will show who made the change and the other editor will have control over the precise wording (keeping you from applying a change different from the one agreed upon). And, (2) such a practice prevents you from falling afoul of the three-revert rule.
 * Assume this revision will not be the final version. You do not have to get it all done in one edit. If you can find consensus on some parts, make those changes, and let them settle. This will give everyone a new point to build from.  Having completed one successful cycle, you may also find it easier to get traction for further changes, or you may find you have reached a reasonable compromise and can stop.
 * If people start making non-revert changes again, you are done: The normal editing cycle has been restored.

Edit warring

 * Do not edit war. Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors. If you encounter several reverts, it is best not to escalate the situation by reverting again. Instead, try to build consensus through seeking additional input. Several methods for this are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
 *  However, don't get stuck on the discussion. Whichever side you happen to be on, try to move the discussion towards consensus by getting pro/con points identified so that a new edit may be attempted as quickly as possible. Feel free to try a new bold edit during the discussion if the new edit reasonably reflects some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns.  This approach quickly determines whether the important issues have been resolved; if not, it brings the core sticking points into focus.
 * Warning: Repeatedly doing this can easily violate the 3RR policy and get good-faith editors blocked even during a productive editing exchange. Any such edits must be clear attempts to try a modified solution that reflects some aspect of the other editor's remarks. If you have reached three reverts within a 24-hour 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.

Additional considerations

 * Because of the nature of Wikipedia, a BRD cycle may begin naturally, without either editor even realizing it. Once begun, its purpose requires that no reversion be counter-reverted. If this happens, something akin to stalling an aircraft happens. If you're not feeling up to it, it might be best to walk away for a while. Unlike the immediate danger of an aircraft plummeting to the ground, Wikipedia will be here a long while, so you can always come back later. Otherwise, if you have the energy and the time, use the suggestions on this page to "pull out". Then continue working as per consensus.
 * BRD is a way of letting you focus on one editor: You cared enough about the page to try to improve it, someone else cared enough to revert your bold change, and you both cared enough to find a compromise through discussion.  This is an excellent collaborative style.  But there may be other editors interested in that page, so a third editor might revert your compromise, or might revert your next attempt to improve it.  If so, that's okay:  You can repeat the BRD cycle with that third editor.  Just start a new discussion, and find a new compromise.

Alternatives
"BOLD, revert, discuss" doesn't work well in all situations. It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a few people, all of whom are interested in making progress. There are many other options, and some may be more suitable for other situations.
 * Discuss first: Don't be bold with potentially controversial changes; instead, start a discussion on the talk page first.  Make no edits to the page until you have agreement.
 * Bold, discuss: You do not need to revert an edit before the discussion can start. If you see (or make) a bold edit and you want to talk about it, then you can click on the talk page and start discussing it. You might discover ways to refine it, or you might discover that you're satisfied with the edit as it is.
 * Bold, discuss, revert: You make a bold edit, then open a discussion. The edit is found to be problematic or lacking, so it is reverted. This sometimes happens when people attempt to make an edit that has severe flaws or problems that cannot be resolved via other methods. If this cycle happens, it might be best for you to step away from the article, and consider the discussion feedback.
 * Bold, discuss, bold: You make a bold edit, then open a discussion. After the discussion, you or others boldly improve the edit based on the discussion suggestions. This cycle is useful if your edit is helpful, but needs to be improved, and if feedback would be valuable to improving the edit.
 * You edit, they edit, you edit again: Also called WP:Bold-refine, if the other editors are improving your edit rather than improving a different part of the page.  This is successful, collaborative editing.  Keep at it.
 * Bold, revert, bold again: Don't stop editing, and don't discuss.  Make a guess about why the reverter disagreed with you, and try a different edit to see whether that will be accepted.  It's often helpful if your next effort is smaller, because that may help you figure out why the other editor objected to your change.
 * Bold, revert, revert: If you genuinely believe the reversion was a mistake you might try speeding things up by reverting the revert, but you should explain why you think the other editor made a mistake in a note or edit summary to reduce the risk of edit warring.  An example of such a mistake is when someone reverts your removal of duplicate material because they didn't realize that the same sentence was on the page twice. Not an example of such a mistake: A revert with a rationale that you disagree with, or that does not make sense to you.
 * Let it go: Move on to another article.  You might be able to improve a hundred articles in the time that it takes you to discuss this one.  Why not move on?

Several dispute resolution processes may also be useful to break a deadlock.