Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/Archive 2

Status as an essay
This is a great essay, but it has never had any consensus to be policy or a policy supplement. It is a set of opinion based advice which while wonderful is not related to policy. I have removed the "policy supplement" tag, which never has any consensus, and restored the long standing "essay" tag. Please discuss if you disagree. 1 != 2 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that BRD explains empirical experience on using the (on the chart) left hand cycle of the consensus process in a somewhat creative way. It also provides some advice on how that can be applied. In short, it provides supplemental information about the consensus process, which is not necessarily provided in (or even relevant to) the description of the process itself. Does that cover your concerns? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To say it is a supplement is one thing, fine it is. But it is also an essay. The tag is misleading. The tag used to make it clear that it was an essay, but it has changed since then. What is wrong with being an essay? 1 != 2 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with not being an essay? :) I don't really like the essay concept you see. I'm just as fine with no tag at all, but we need something to stop obsessive taggers. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 != 2 When you say: I have removed the "policy supplement" tag, which never has any consensus, and restored the long standing "essay" tag. Do you mean that the "policy supplement" tag never had any consensus to exist or that it never had any consensus to be on this page? If the former, certainly it has been in dispute - even at this moment - but replacing it on this page hardly seems the right way to handle that issue.  If the latter, show me.  It looks to me like it has been there a long time and most of the discussion is about whether this page is good or bad or just a fact of life not how it should be tagged.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant this page never had consensus to be become a "policy supplement". At the time of posting that template had a message that did not indicate it was an essay, but gave the impression it is a policy. (1 == 2)Until 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, supplement has changed back to an older version due to the TfD and it's really valuable to see the reference in the tag to the policy that is being discussed, particularly for relatively new editors. This isn't just an essay.  It's an essay about how a particular policy and a particular guideline work in the real world when you're actually editing.  I say change it back.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree it is not just an essay, it is an essay in that its content is advisory, and has never been intended to be policy. Now that the template is changed back to reflect that it is an essay, I have not objection to it. My only concern was that the template did not make that clear before. (1 == 2)Until 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We've had several iterations of what template to put on this page. The concept of essays is very very wrong for this page, because it describes empirical observations, as opposed to an opinion. We've already gone through this several times (see rest of talk page). It would also be dangerous to make it a guideline. This has also been discussed on this page. It would be preferable to have no tag. Would people please stop playing with tags thanks? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You opinions that essays are wrong for this and that is one thing, but the fact is that essays are just exposition. This particular editing style is not for everyone, and it is an opinion that it is good technique. Others may feel differently. Some users would not be well suited to use this the bold revert discuss cycle, they can take or leave the advice offered here. What is wrong with being an essay? Why is the essay tag "very very wrong"? Even good advice can be an essay, it is not a lesser state of being. (1 == 2)Until 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's see. You are of the opinion that policy is "not a big deal" right? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are a big deal, that is to say creating policy is a big deal, deciding to follow policy less of a big deal but one should still have a dam good reason if they don't. Anything that adds extra rules to the 6 foot high bundle of rules new and established users already need to know better have a dam good reason to exist. The community does not want an overabundance of rules. Making advice into a rule is a big deal and needs good solid reasoning that I have not yet seen. (1 == 2)Until 16:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is a form of essay and that the current tag is fine. I don't understand the argument for no tag, the tag makes it easier to find by putting it in a category and it also gives a very necessary link to the policy that is discussed.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a lot of people use "essay" to try to deprecate things they don't want to hear. It's a form of wiki-nomic :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that it's very relevant what people don't want to hear, only what they don't want others to hear. ;)  And I don't think it works, the essay tag doesn't do anything to dissuade me from reading essays, it does however explain that I'm not reading an official policy and I'm not on a project page, I'm somewhere else.  The special essay tag here, tells me that I'm on an explanatory page that suggests a way of behaving without openly mandating it.  I too, find this particular essay to be one of the most influential on me and it really helped me understand.  And I don't agree that it's a nomic at all, but I'd be happy to discuss that it more detail, probably not here though, it's a whole other essay waiting to be written.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If people don't want to hear an essay, they don't have to. That is the whole point. People are not going to appreciate the advice more if you remove the tag. (1 == 2)Until 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, a little more succinct than I said it, but that's what I meant!--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also people who think they can get away with deliberately ignoring, or doing the opposite of what is on an essay page. And there are people who wish to encourage that attitude. That can be slightly more dangerous. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me reword what I just said: People can deliberately ignore an essay. In fact they can never use BRD in their lives if they want. They can go directly against the advice on this page if they want. If they do so they may run afoul of existing policies and guidelines such as WP:EW, WP:DISRUPT etc. However they may ignore the advice here and stay well within policy, guidelines, and the acceptance of the community. If the community want this page to be enforced they would decide to make it policy.


 * They can ignore this essay because it has never has consensus to be mandatory, nor should it be because it describes just one of many ways one can edit here. (1 == 2)Until 15:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And I fail to see how tagging it as an essay somehow encourages people to ignore it. Yes, there are people who think they should ignore this and other good ideas.  There are people who think they can ignore policies and guidelines as a norm.  Yes, there may be people who think they should encourage others to do the same. That has nothing however, to do with this tag.  To suggest otherwise would be to not WP:AGF with respect to those tagging or advocating tagging and seems to suggest the tag is bad on any article, which is a discussion for Template_talk:Supplement, not here (yes, I know the template is being discussed everywhere right now it seems - but most of those places are the wrong places).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, people are told that it's ok to edit essays whatever way they like, as opposed to according to either consensus or empirical findings, and that can make things tricky :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, sounds like a complaint with the way the template text is worded. I don't know that we want to caution people from editing though on this essay of all essays.  It would be sort of hypocritical, but again that same argument would apply any essay this tag would be used on - we're not talking about the plain vanilla essay tag anymore.  (Obviously though, if this essay gets edited in any substantial way, someone is going to notice - I expect at least one someone will be you :-)  ).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Darn! You're being entirely too reasonable! Alright, one last try. So I don't actually agree with the template text, and the template is transcluded here. Shouldn't I just untransclude it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I have a feeling you'll bean me over the head with subst... but at least I want to be able to say I was valiant to the last ;-)


 * Now that is a criticism I wish I got more often! Sure you can remove the template - if consensus is that it doesn't apply to this page. :-P (Why do I feel like the template and positions of the other editors have rotated around me and I didn't move?)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't actually consider forewarning
Do not forewarn, as dynamics make it likely that you will be accused of bad faith. I never found out why this is, but every time I forewarned before applying BRD, I caught a lot of flack.

So if possible, make it so your edit and the explanation for that edit appear on-wiki at roughly the same time, so that people can't squeeze in a comment or edit inbetween.

In short: aim for "atomicity"

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, personally I rarely forewarn on the talk page, but for removal of content, I nearly always use a tag of some description. Addhoc (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I often make a bold change for my first attempt at a change, and if I am challenged I attempt to seek consensus. The trick is to not keep being "bold" about the same thing over and over. In fact if I see someone else's bold new alteration get reverted I don't put it back even if I agree with it, that is because the existing status has priority over a challenged change until consensus indicates otherwise. While policy, guidelines, essays, and for that matter anything can be difficult to change I know from experience it can be done. (1 == 2)Until 06:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that foreworning on the talkpage (of an intending BOLD edit) can actually make the process more painful. And that continuing to make the same (so-called) BOLD edit in the face of opposition is likwise not a good idea, unless the cavalry is already on the way, and your hands are really, really clean. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Favorite essay
Just wanted to mention, this is one of my favorite essays and it has had a strong and positive effect on my editing patterns. (1 == 2)Until 06:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a supplemental essay, which is derived from the policies and guidelines it's based on. I admit, though, it should probably be tagged with policy or guideline. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an essay, "supplements" are essays. It should be an essay, policy is not for things that are just one way of doing things. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 03:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

BRD violations.
I've dealt with people regularly ignoring WP:BRD or calling it "just an essay."

I wrote an essay on the matter and also I think the essay better clarifies what BRD is not better than this essay itself.

See BRD violations. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * BRD is not mandatory; it is just a very healthy way of getting things done on Wikipedia. There are no "violations" of it, just people getting nowhere due either to timidity or obstinacy.


 * I believe ownership is the real problem you're complaining about here, and while ownership is wrong in principle, in practice, it's nearly impossible to counteract.--Father Goose (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * BRD is not a healthy way of getting things done. It describes what to do in a particular dysfunctional situation when editors are being possessive about a page. Ordinary edits are not "bold", and good-faith edits should not be reverted without discussion. An unfortunate side-effect of the existence of this page has been the encouragement of an adversarial viewpoint for editing and the encouragement of hasty reverting, both of which are poisonous to healthy editing. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to place a big disclaimer with letters 5 miles high to that effect.


 * Even so, apparently BRD is one of the few pages that is actually based on "how things really work". See the trouble we have explaining things at WP:SILENCE for instance. (At least 1 person asked me if that page is not a rewording of BRD.... errr... no).


 * Alternately, what this page really describes is "fishing for interested parties" and perhaps should be renamed. (And then we can name the 2 main cycles for wikiediting BRD and normal editing respectively). Would that clear up confusion?
 * Possibly some more reorganization too. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, "fishing" is an inappropriate word. There are some users who, during page disputes, will attempt to troll Wikipedia (or off-wiki) to gather a false consensus of users that agree with them. An alternative term: "A desperate cry for help." &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh what? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Relationship between WP:SILENCE and BRD
Kim said above with respect WP:SILENCE: (At least 1 person asked me if that page is not a rewording of BRD.... errr... no); yes, but I am surprised that neither page has a link to the other. They are related. When nobody reverts, you get kicked over to the other side of the flow chart and go directly to consensus. Likewise, when someone does revert you no longer have silence. They are two sides of a coin (or maybe of a dodecahedron). --Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you sketch/draw what you mean? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Inkscape is handy for this)


 * Sketch a dodecahedron? - only if I use AutoCAD. :-)  But I think you already have this on your chart, where it says "Make an edit" -> "Was the article edited further?" if the answer is "no" you jump over to the grayed out right side of the chart and go straight to "New consensus" - you have practiced silence = consensus by making a bold edit and getting no response, there is nothing more you can do other than go back to the beginning and make more edits, if they are warranted, which is one of the reasons the BRD edit should be a good one: it may not get reverted and you'd rather not have to change it substantially later by making a weak edit that stands unchallenged.  (oh yeah, occasionally someone will talk to you about it if you raise the issue yourself on the talk page, but normally if they didn't revert they'll just say, "great idea").  At the same time if you go into an article to make an edit with the understanding up front that silence = consensus, maybe even the assumption that no one will say "boo!", but someone does revert, then there is no silence and you need to work further to determine consensus - probably by implementing BRD, since you're already to the "R", you've discovered the Most Interested Person.  Both Silence and BRD compel an editor who doesn't agree with an edit (or more correctly, who doesn't agree that the edit has the support of consensus) to do something about it.  BRD suggests that the editor who disagrees with the edit should (or will commonly) revert and that the proponent should then discuss with that editor; Silence, or its complement, isn't that specific, the opponent of the edit needs to speak up (civilly) or else consensus may be assumed, one possible way is to revert with the intent to discuss, you could also just discuss, or you could edit without talking I suppose.  It is entirely reasonable that an editor would edit a page with no particular concern whether there would be discussion or not: if it gets reverted I'll discuss, if it doesn't it will stand per WP:SILENCE.  In other words, often you don't know if there even is a Most Interested Person to talk to.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was the point I was making earlier: BRD is the optimal way to edit, even if you never have to go beyond the "B". Though the page as currently focuses heavily on the R and the D as steps in dispute resolution, it's the very existence of those steps that makes boldness acceptable in all but the most contentious of situations (and even then, as the page points out, it's needed as a safety valve).
 * BRD encapsulates the complete how-to-edit-a-wiki methodology; the dispute resolution portion of it only comes up in a minority of cases (thank goodness).--Father Goose (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This page might be seriously misnamed, or I am doing something totally wrong, since the current description is how to basically bend the long cycle of the consensus process into ways of getting things done in a dispute resolution-ish situation. (Ie, NOT a good idea for general usage). We should probably have a separate page describing the wiki-process, which is what you folks are actually discussing? :-) It's odd that we don't have a page on one of the foundation issues, eh? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, again, it's focusing extremely heavily on the dispute resolution aspects of wiki editing. But the basic mechanism -- make edits boldly, accept that anyone may revert you if they disagree with your changes, and discuss your differences with the reverter -- is all you'll ever need to know about editing a wiki, whether a conflict arises or not.--Father Goose (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Better yet, it's not good to revert non-vandalism, actually. It's much better to edit or improve such changes. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In theory, maybe, but in practice, there are all sorts of non-vandalism changes that are simply wrong -- so you revert and proceed to discuss why it's wrong. You yourself do that often -- you've done it to me -- but it's the right way to do things.  There are some cases where you can add a change to a change to make it right, and that's the wiki at its best.  That's how things worked out with our edits on A treatise on essays, and the end result was quite good (that reminds me -- name change!).
 * I was thinking about the general subject of "when to revert" earlier tonight. I realized the habit I've adopted is, if I don't like an edit, but it's not wrong, I don't revert it.  To behave otherwise would just make me a control freak, and a pox on the wiki.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to expand on my earlier explanation. BRD finally "clicked" for me -- and with it, wiki editing in general -- when I realized that because anyone has a right to revert my edits (though they need to explain why to set the dispute resolution process in motion), that gives me the right to make any edit, no matter how seemingly bold.  Every edit can be seen as a proposal-cum-change, and if the change isn't reverted, the proposal is implicitly accepted.  It takes the sting out of being reverted if you think of all your edits as "How about this change?" "How about this one?" but without having to ask for approval beforehand.  BRD is what allows the wiki to work like a colony of ants instead of a gridlocked committee.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that if you think something "does not have the support of consensus" (whatever that means) you should not revert on that basis. You cannot know that something has the support of consensus on a wiki, and who are you to judge anyway? A revert is an edit. You should only make edits that improve the page in your own personal opinion. Let other people make their own decision. It's actually similar to how elections work. You vote for the person or measure that you think should win, you don't vote for the measure you think someone else wants, right? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more.--Father Goose (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree that "does not have consensus" is no reason to revert, "I oppose this change and it does not have consensus, whereas the existing version does" is a valid reason. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  15:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first part of that statement, "does not have consensus" begs the question, "how do you know?". I'm not sure that the second version is any better though; it seems to be saying "I believe that past consensus is current consensus (and I oppose this change)".  Since, one cannot know current consensus until a discussion (using the term broadly) ensues and past consensus is not necessarily any indicator, all one is really saying is "I oppose this change", which itself is no argument at all.  Using consensus as an argument will always lead to "this is best text because I support it".  Until the discussion occurs consensus is of no relevance because it is unknowable, it is the conclusion that we have not yet reached.  Past consensus is of no relevance and creates a logical circle because the point to a good faith edit (at least under BRD, but I would suggest any situation) is: "I believe that I have an idea that upon consideration by all interested parties will lead to a change in consensus" (or a consensus for a change - not sure if there is a difference, the former is a more common statement but I don't really like it).  To argue past consensus is the same as to argue current consensus because it is to say "consensus is what consensus was" (I guess more correctly it is the argument that "consensus is x because consensus was x", which is simply logically false and results in no encyclopedia at all).


 * In the context of BRD, I believe one is not making any statement with respect to what consensus is when one reverts except that it is not known (and as pointed out can't be), one is saying "Revert, you've found me, now let's talk and see if consensus can be found". So, when nobody responds one has consensus per WP:SILENCE and because that's just the way things are, the position stands because it's effectively the only position for the time being - it may be that there are no other interested parties or it may be that there are hundreds but they all agree, either way, there is consensus.  But when one makes a good faith edit and someone reverts, there is no consensus because it hasn't yet been discussed; one cannot have any idea what consensus is or will be (except that it will most likely be one of the two, or more, positions or a mid-point) one can only know one's own position and make educated guesses about what other positions might be.  Using consensus as an argument is only valid when there is some way in which consensus could have been determined conclusively; E.g. "we've discussed this and after serious consideration x is the best text, at least for now (and because you are a civil and competent editor you understand that consensus now exists even if you prefer a different version personally)" - and then, that's not an argument at all, it's simply true (or at least perceived to be by the speaker).  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Either way, it's best to not even mention consensus in your revert, but to give the specific reason why you feel the change is not good. If you don't give the person you're reverting a reason that can be potentially disputed or agreed with -- neither "I disagree" nor "your change does not have consensus" are such reasons -- you're failing to engage in the D portion of BRD, and the "bold, revert" cycle is what is known as an edit war.  Surely that's not what you seek?--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, say for example the talk page is full of people endorsing a particular version, and that is the version that has stood for months, then I don't think it is unreasonable to think it has greater consensus than an undiscussed change. However I do agree it is not always so clear cut. Regardless a person making a bold edit has no special protection from being reverted. By the same reasoning reverting an undiscussed change you do not agree with to a version you think has greater consensus is reasonable. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  16:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, there's the problem. If an article (or policy page) has consensus, that cannot be taken to mean any changes to the page will not have consensus.  If you personally object to the change, say so, and say why.  If you don't personally object to a change, you shouldn't revert it.  You also can't revert a change on the basis that it hadn't been discussed in advance; per WP:BOLD, that is never a requirement for making an edit.--Father Goose (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly! Though I think it is fine to revert an edit that you don't personally object to, particularly if the point of the reversion is BRD.  I often see edits that I don't really know how I feel about but I would like to discuss.  (Obviously, if I agree with the edit, reversion would be silly). --Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, you don't have to hate a change to still have legitimate concerns with it. Raising objections to change in general -- that is problematic.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the reason I did not give a specific reason for objection in my hypothetical revert reason, was that it was hypothetical and there was no real argument to rebut. Of course in the field I would either explain exactly why I objected or referred to the talk page where I explained my reasoning. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  17:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, I've actually recently unreverted someone who had basically given almost that exact edit summary though. Could you show what a real edit summary of yours might look like? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also will revert changes where I think they did visibility and discussion, regardless of my views on the question. The [proper use of revert on a good faith edit isnt for edit warring, its to force a discussion. Personally, though, I'd rather eliminate the acceptance of BRD altogether. Its a recipe for drama. Anything substantial should be proposed on a talk page--if nobody objects after a reasonable time, then Ok, do it, and see if someone reverts. That's a reasonable use of consent for silence. DGG (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By using a revert on a good faith edit, you stifle editing, and stifle discussion. It is a very destructive and rude way to edit. Some people have considered even 1 revert to be the start of an edit war at times.


 * Wikipedia is a wiki. We should edit the fine wiki. If you would like to abandon the wiki-model, that is your problem.


 * When well used, BRD does not lead to drama. It is used as part of a strategy for restoring consensus and wiki-process when editing a (mediawiki based) wiki. The page itself mentions that this is rather difficult, that's why you need to be careful.


 * It is based on experience of what works in the field. The only way to "Eliminate BRD' would be to completely alter the editing model on wikipedia, ban consensus, and ban the wiki editing process (foundation issue #3). Good luck. :-)


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

private and/or real time communications
It is much faster to reach agreement using private and/or real time communications.

The optimal method to reach consensus between any two people is in real life, at the bar, over a pint of beer (I learnt that from User:sannse :-) ). Any method that gets you closer to that ideal will let you reach consensus faster.


 * Real time communications allow you to instantly reply to people's concerns. This way they don't stick around and eat at people.
 * real time communications lets you go through the OODA loop so much faster, reducing decision time, and improving tactical and strategic behaviour of the community. (The latter is especially important in high profile cases, but added efficiency is always a plus, and practice is always good.)
 * 1-on-1 communications removes the temptation to try to reach agreement with too many people at once.
 * skype (voip) allows the transmission of voice. This adds an extra layer of communication (tone of voice), reducing misunderstandings. Also, the "extra channel" tends to be good at auto-reducing assumptions of bad faith for some reason, which is a huge bonus.

In short, using more channels for communication (especially real time and private communications) next to the wiki is realistically superior using the wiki alone, at least when using BRD in a dispute resolution context. We are describing this fact here, even if we don't happen to like that fact.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it also helps you detect if you're dealing with a sockpuppet. If you go to meet them and they're fuzzy and made of textiles, hmmm...


 * I've had several conversations with Abd on the phone and it's been helpful.


 * One thing that is useful about communicating online, though, is that you have more time to put your thoughts together. I don't always think on my feet particularly well, but I'm a pretty good writer, so that gives me an advantage. Also, on the wiki, everything is permanently recorded, and often cross-referenced, etc. so years from now, it's apparent to others what the context of a decision was. Admittedly, it's more fun to meet in person. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My rule-of-thumb (covered by policy someplace) is that every action on the wiki must be documented by something on the wiki. At the very least this keeps you out of trouble.


 * In a very small number of unique cases, I was unable to make certain edits, because I had secret information that was not available on the wiki (and which I wasn't supposed to talk about). My choice at that time was indeed to not make the edit, rather than make the edit and not have a valid rationale (as required by WP:WIARM). --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what got User:Durova. I think she was treated unfairly, but the problem wasn't the private mailing list, it was taking action based on private evidence, developed by her, that she couldn't reveal. Since then, I've seen checkuser action that may have been based on something like Durova's evidence, i.e., out of the blue, a checkuser blocks somebody directly based on private communication. Durova's error was to discover something (she thought) that she couldn't reveal (without damaging anti-sock efforts), and then, without any clear emergency, to act on it alone. The private mailing list was a huge flap about what everyone has the right to do, unconditionally, at least in reasonably free societies: talk to each other privately. Even if we wanted to make a rule against it, we could not enforce that rule.--Abd (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That all seems pretty right, user:Abd, so I will pose this counter-argument: What if all the editors for say WP:IAR decided to shun the IARdiscussion page, and carry on a myriad private conversations, on talk-pages, and telephone etc. There would be good ideas missed simply because the wrong post went to the wrong person. [Straw-man argument, slightly]. Some things can be done in private, that is a right as you say, but many things benefit from centralized discussion, with private comms. as a small, I think, part. (And note the other problems it raises, to be treated with care). --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there would not be good ideas missed. No outside conversation can do anything of substance here except through the actions of individual editors, who are responsible for their actions, individually, and who cannot defend those actions based on "we agreed privately." Private agreement may develop some preliminary consensus among those participating in it, but this is not a Wikipedia consensus. Note that WP:PRX would have set up a network of users through voluntary assignments of proxies (which have no power here, it's just a name implying some level of trust or rapport). So if there are a "myriad" of conversations, they are between people who can effectively communicate with each other, so what idea is it, exactly, that is lost? If I tell my friend about my idea, and my friend pooh-poohs it, do I give it up? Maybe, if I come to agree with my friend. Otherwise I'll bounce it off someone else, maybe I'll bring it to the Talk page here, where it actually might do some good. However, important point: if I can't convince my friend that my idea is worth considering, how likely is it that I an convince others? I'd say we need much more private communication, so that what comes here is a bit more coherent, but it must all, still, be explained here or it is indefensible.


 * Yes, there is potential abuse. However, this abuse is already happening. It's extraordinarily difficult to detect, and attempts to sanction it have been problematic. What we really need to make clear, and insist upon, is "Votes don't count." If votes don't count, then sock puppetry is irrelevant, as is vote canvassing, and meat puppetry is only a problem where an army of editors conspires to violate policy simply by outnumbering everyone else. Which would tend to get people pissed off, arousing counter-organization. Unless everyone is asleep. ZZZZ ZZZZZZZ (snort) ZZZZZ --Abd (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Concerning the recent REVERT-
 * Well, reading this section has only increased my concerns vis-a-vis private channel comms.
 * I believe that the greatest advantage of OPEN, CENTRALIZED discussion is that another user who "overhears"' the conversation may be just the person with the solution, but would not get to know of a problem being discussed on IRC, or Skite, or Backchat.
 * And, just look at the mess en.Adminchat, or whatever it is called got into, an Arbcom case.
 * KB, I have posted to your talk-page, it is possibly best, if you can enlighten me, to do so there, or, here. Thanks --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of of (for instance) IRC channels are open, centralized and quite thoroughly public. I'm none-too-pleased with irc channels that layer on additional rules making them less-than-public, as I think that that subverts the IRC model. This is especially the case for #wikipedia-en-admins. It needs a lot more watching than other channels (and I have a level 30 access to do my part to ensure that it is well-watched).


 * E-mail is supported by the wiki-software itself. It often helps to discretely send people mail when they've made a howler, and there's no need to embarrass them.


 * Mailing lists are very old, and are used by everyone to stay in touch.


 * skype and phone are useful to hear another person's voice. There's nothing so reassuring as to hear another person's calm voice on the other end of the line, especially if you thought they were actually being mean and sarcastic on-wiki (they almost never are).


 * But that said, there is simply no way to stop two humans from meeting each other. If we were to meet in the pub, or bump into each other on the street, would that be a disaster?


 * And sometimes a short chat is exactly what the doctor ordered. Basically the best way to solve something varies from situation to situation. But the more tools you have, the more likely that one of them will work. :-)


 * Especially during dispute resolution, talking on the phone or on skype is the best thing you could possibly do.


 * So yes, on the one hand, I agree, a wiki is a wonderful tool. But on the other hand, no matter how wonderful wikis are, if we were to only be able to communicate through wikis, the world would be a poor, sad place indeed. Fortunately, there are many other tools, and of course, when we use them, we should use them smartly and responsibly.


 * Does that make sense so far?
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is, we might run into a fellow Wikipedian at any public place, and not realize it. It could be the person we've been edit warring with or, to use an opposite example, someone we think is really cool based on their edits, and we just sit there on the train or whatever and don't even realize the connection. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. :-) I met an en.wikipedian sitting next to me on the plane to Berlin once. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks KB, as I say, I am waiting to be convinced, but have not been yet. (May be I lack certain knowledge, and experience.) A) I agree, you could meet a Wikipedian anywhere!. However, you and I are unlikely to meet F2F, as you're in The Netherlands, I believe, and I in the great southern land, (Australia). Actually, I do not think I will attend Wiki-meetup in Brisbane next year, I like a little mystery, and also tend to reclusiveness, as many do. Yes, I use email, though I dont check often, and tired of blinkin' SPAM (Nigerians? writing to me?). Documentation, useful "butters-in", authentification, meat-puppeting, I still have issues. But the main one, I guess, is time. Time to learn, and time to DO, and enough time to learn by Doing. Thanks, not being anti- but just wishing to understand more better. ;) --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I've lived in Melbourne and have family in Perth and in Brisbane. :-) Also. I might be in Hong Kong in a little while, and am considering a hop to Brisbane while I'm at least halfway there. Where in Australia are you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, you got that right. Might see ya, in person, some day, that would be fine. Or, get on the old dog-and-bone, to discuss, not "scheme" the Great Wiki-pedia!<!__ might look up that family's of yours, too. -->--Newbyguesses - Talk 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we'll meet in an Amsterdam coffee house sometime... Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, some actually even sell coffee (my preferred poison ;-)). --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can't indulge in the greenery anyway. When I interviewed with the CIA, they said that even consuming cannabis in the Netherlands could be an issue in getting a security clearance, as the concern is not only the legality of it but what it says about someone's judgment that they would willingly ingest a psychoactive drug. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll drink to that.--Father Goose (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * sure, it's faster to discuss matters between a limited group of people. What it does, though, is exclude the rest of the community. Of course people will talk to one another--a good place, not mentioned, is the local meet-ups, which have the advantage of usually have a fairly broad selection of people present. At least the NYC one sometimes keeps minutes & a recording, & summarizes substantive discussions on-wiki. Kim has some good points: multiple channels. For one, there's a limit to what people can follow, at least for some of us--though there seem to be some people with an infinite channel capacity, & it gives them an advantage.  There's 3 things i try to do off wiki by email: counseling someone who is submitting disruptive edits in the hope of getting an acceptable one, warning people about things for which I do not want to embarrass them, and reaching commercial spammers when I can find their real email. DGG (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. You talk with a small group of people at a time (preferably 1 at a time, but Real Life happens). Then, you talk with another person, and another person, until you have discussed what you're trying to do with everyone in the community who has demonstrated an interest. BRD allows you to actually find as many of those people as is humanly possible (even those who only have the page on their watchlist).


 * Example situation (using easy numbers)
 * You can discuss and discuss with 100 people at once, for months, and nothing will happen because


 * The 100 people do not have any actual interest, they just want to participate and feel important


 * Talking to 100 people causes huge discussions, where no-one can keep track of what is going on


 * When you finally move to implement your decision, you will discover that there are now 105 people participating in the discussion, and the 5 new people immediately cause you so much trouble that you must abandon your plan, or at best you'll have to delay it for months.


 * Why? Hidden among those 105 people, were just 10 who actually had a solid interest, and who were willing to fight for it if need be. You convinced or wore out 5 of those somehow, and you failed to find the other 5, who consequently teamed up and sunk your plan. I'm sure you've seen situations like this before! (it gets to be more fun if a couple of the "support" people suddenly see an opening and switch sides, too ;-) )


 * By applying BRD, you find the 10 interested people, 1 or 2 at a time. They will be antagonistic towards your position. You will need to negotiate, and you will have to give and take and make concessions. Then you need to talk with the next 1 or 2, which hopefully will be easier, because you'll already be drifting in their direction, etc.. until you've talked with all 10. At that point, no one will oppose your plan, and you can execute it.


 * typical ranges irl can be 10-200 "chatters" and 2-10 "interested parties" --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Yes, KB, but it wasnt BRD which got things moving a bit at WP:IAR, it was the Rfc! perhaps? --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was using a BRD variant to achieve something else O:-) (related to what's now at Lectures). The RFC may have interesting consequences, but different ones. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Urk, but Until 1==2 just chased away 6SJ7! :-( :-( Why did you tempt me to look again? :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, Until(1==2) has asked 6SJ7 to not take it personally. However, I shall not ask yourself to return there against your better judgement. I looked at the DIFF, its always a fifty-fifty split kinda situation, isnt it, even when only one person is addressing the issue, I think, or maybe not. --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, I just came back to delete my last comment (because I shouldn't be too negative, as that might sabotage Ryan's best intentions as much as anything else... oops! ^^;;) . I think we should see how things go, and folks should try their best to get along. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that it was BRD that got things moving at IAR. Chardish's agitation, for better or worse, got everyone else agitated, and the stagnation was broken.  That's not to say that things might not return to stagnancy, but at least for now, the hornets are in the air instead of in the nest.--Father Goose (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was BRD that worked, but it seems to have taken ten months to do so? --Newbyguesses - Talk 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh, it's a tool. Maybe it was the wrong tool for IAR? :-) I've been trying to figure out other methods too.  --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to the page.
Improvements to the page. Normal editing will continue, but this page is looking rather good, particularly the diagram.

Any suggestions for improving the page? --Newbyguesses - Talk 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be too much to ask people to use BRD to edit this page? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of BOLD, revert, discuss. As usual, the page stayed the same. I think it was the 'effing edit summary which convinced me. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so much as usual. Rather, you made the change, and discussed it with others, and learned things. The page doesn't have to change when you BRD. Sometimes there's information you weren't aware of yet. If you're still not convinced about things, feel free to keep talking, or reword.
 * On the other hand, don't give up so quick! Remember that this apge is mostly descriptive, rather than prescriptive. If you're aware of troublesome situations where discussing offwiki got people into trouble (like with Durova), you could try researching that and document what you learn here (though possibly Durova wasn't using BRD, and you may want to document elsewhere, like at WP:WIARM, perhaps). :-)
 * And if what you say is true, then there's nothing I can do to stop you. ;-)
 * So what say you?
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement, but I will allow myself a little negativity - CONSENSUS doesn't grow on trees, CIVILITY is in the eyes of the beholder, IAR isn't the secret key to Wikipedia, and BRD is not a magic wand. BRD is a technique, which works some of the time. It is not as reliable as, say, making a cup of tea, or picking one's nose, but it has it's uses. There are NO magic wands. --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not negativity, that's budding wisdom, I figure. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert-troll toll problem
Increasingly, I see reverts not for any problem in the improvements I contributed, but with a given reason my Edit Summary explaining them was insufficient to placate the reverter.

Our mission with Wikipedia is a world-beating encyclopedia -- not a world-beating set of Edit Summaries or discussion pages. Commonly using reverts to extort long edit summaries or even discussion-page essays as a condition of not being reverted interferes with the development of our encyclopedia.

Part of the burgeoning problem may that Wikipedia's BRD instructions inadvertently encourage reverting changes as a way to get discussions started -- but does not directly refer to or reflect the cautions against routine use of reverts given in the "how to revert" explanations. Readers of only the BRD instructions who do not read the separate reverting cautions can come away with the idea that blind reverts are helpful, approved, or condoned.

The lazy blunt-weapon reverts I'm seeing (giving no comment on what I wrote, just instructions to write an essay) are being used instead of rewrites and are quite unlike the sparing and tactful use of reverts called for in WP's "how to revert" instructions and caveats.

Before re-reading the BRD discussion, I thought the revert-Trolls were demanding a fuller Edit Summary explaining my additions or changes (which are in any event generally self-explanatory). It was unclear where to start with such an essay if I cared to contribute it, because the reverter gave no clue of how he/she found my contribution lacking in comparison with the original article.

Now after reviewing the BRD instructions, I suspect that the rising mob of self-appointed revert vigilantes believe that they have found in the BRD article a license to use blind reverts to require volunteer editors to supply a long essay on the discussion page, and followed by a long discussion with the reverter, if the volunteer editor's edit is to survive.

The proliferation of these "Revert Trolls" diminishes my enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia. An effective mechanism for identifying them and educating them about the reverting guidelines is needed.

As soon as possible, they should be fed less, by making sure that each reference to reverts explicitly refer to the reverting guidelines.

Our BRD article should be clarified to indicate that the BRD method is intended to be used in rare and contentious situations. It should emphasize that on the rare occasions where a revert, rather than a rewrite, is required for non-vandalistic changes, the BRD method does not license lazy blank reverts. Instead, the reasons the reverted-to original text is preferred by the reverter should be stated plainly, both as a courtesy to the revertee and as a way of jump-starting any subsequent dialogue -- i.e., giving the reasons why the reverter deems the original article text superior.

And our BRD article should be emphatic that reverts are only for problems with the text of the article itself not otherwise fixable within the revert guidelines; that reverts are not an encouraged, condoned, or helpful way to address any perceived insufficiencies in any Edit summary or discussion page entry. The BRD article should make clear even to readers who fail to find the "Reverting" article that the BRD discussions have created no license to require routine creation of a long talk page entry followed by extended discussion as a troll-toll before a WP main page entry improvement will be allowed to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.203.129 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 March 2008


 * I have seen people misreading this page as well. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing here's a centralized discussion on the topic of people reverting too early.
 * Wikipedia talk:Consensus is currently discussing methods used by some people to edit wikipedia, which seems to follow the revert-pattern, and may be strongly related.
 * Ignore All Rules is an example of a page that (ironically) is controlled by revert-type people.
 * Lectures is an attempt to instill clue in more people.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim B said: Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules is an example of a page that (ironically) is controlled by revert-type people. That statement, in my opinion, is either hyperbole, wrong-headed, or just a bit un-civil, I am not sure which. This page needs a re-write, it makes claims that are unsubstantiated, as well as having purely stylistic deficiences. BRD, with the emphasis on R, is not a good idea, it is a Bad Idea. You CAN have a discussion that isn't started by "Hey! Why did YOU revert MY edit?" That starts discussions off on the wrong foot, usually.

Part of the burgeoning problem may be that Wikipedia's BRD instructions inadvertently encourage reverting changes as a recommended way to get discussions started --

Stylistically, (to give just one example) "Take it to the talk page" is poor word-use - it promotes an adversarial attitude - it could be parodied as "OK Pardner, grab your six-gun and let's shoot it out!". There is a combative edge to much of this writing which rubs me the wrong way, and I think it is unnecessary to emphasise inter-personal conflict in the way that this approach BRD does. Seeing as I have an obvious bias at this point in time, I will not be "pro-active" in editting here against consensus; rather, I would be happy for anyone to provide a better rationale for BRD than has presently been supplied - I will eat my words gladly if that is the case. Thanks --Newbyguesses (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In my experience, articles often reach a larely static state that represents consensus or compromise between otherwise entrenched editors. When a new editor full of enthusiasm happens along and makes massive changes, the old order is upset with the entrenched editors thinking "these edits go too far" as they hit the undo button.  Regardless of if the changes were good (perhaps the new editor was updating the article to reflect a newly published source) or bad (maybe the new editor was not familiar with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT), WP:BRD provides a useful framework for both old and new editors to come together and build consensus.  That consensus might be new (such as when new sources are integrated into an article) or old (like when an enthusiastic but brand new editor realizes that the edits they wanted to make do not meet WP:NPOV), but BRD is the path they take together to achieve that consensus.  --Kralizec! (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This particular page describes how to resolve conflicts in entrenched situations. The stress on inter-personal conflict is because it is an inter-personal conflict resolution tool . ;-)
 * The page also probably has a good description of (one branch of) the normal consensus process, that isn't described elsewhere.
 * Probably we should split out the dispute resolution parts from the normal consensus process parts.
 * What is true is that this "trick" works. Feel free to edit however you want, but make sure that what you write is factually true.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Take it to the talk page" isn't a shoot-out; edit-warring is a shoot-out. Now, some editors just stomp, argue, and threaten on talk pages, but more often (thank god!) they state their point of view, and you state yours, and maybe one party convinces the other, or an intermediate point is agreed upon.  That's the wiki at its second best (the best is where two or more editors hash out their differences in an iterative series of edits; you end up with a true synthesis of ideas).


 * This page does need a rewrite to suitly emphazai better emphasize the non-dispute-resolution aspects of BRD. I've been meaning to for a while... maybe if you put it up for MfD it'll spur me; the specter of deletion always gets me off my ass. ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Essay or supplement
This started as an essay and I see no consensus to make it a "supplement to policy", which in my mind gives the impression it is part of policy. I don't think we should be back door promoting essays into supplements of policy. Looking at, this has already been discussed and gained no consensus. Please get consensus before changing this again. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 14:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh? "While this essay is not a policy or guideline". Supplement == Essay. :-) Consensus is this is an essay. We are done here. --Kim Bruning (talk)

That "supplement" tag says "essay" one day and not the next. It does not seem like a reliable tag to mark something as an essay with. For example when I removed it, there was no mention that it was an essay giving the clear indication it was part of policy. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 15:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, actually it's been stable since at least January... but would you be willing to change supplements to not be essays? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what a "supplement" even is in the context of Wikipedia, it sounds like something someone made up one day, and unless clearly marked otherwise gives the impression that it is part of the guideline or policy. I think if we need to mark something as a supplement then that should be a tag separate to the essay tag. but I really don't think we need to mark things as "supplements", we have a see also section to show related guidelines and policies. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so essay supplements foo is the best we can do. I can live with that. *sigh* --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Supplement" is useful for essays which give advice elaborating upon existing policy or guidelines in a non-controversial way. They're more than pontification or opinion, like some essays; they are actionable, but in a way less compulsory than policies or guidelines (IAR notwithstanding).  To label them merely "essays" would obscure that they document actual and important wiki practice; to label them "guidelines" would push them into the world of wikilawyering, which is wrong because the advice they give is Good but entirely non-prescriptive.--Father Goose (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure if that is so, then consensus will be to make them more than essays. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 21:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly -- "supplements". We have these artificial categories, "essay", "guideline", "policy", which approximate each page type's social role, but there are ones that fall in between roles in such a way as to work best described as yet another category.  Radiant was long an advocate of getting rid of supplement, but I think he was working according to an aesthetic of simplicity that didn't correspond to the social realities of the wiki.--Father Goose (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Before we add another class of "rules" it will take considerable discussion Things are confusing enough already. Essays callign themselvef supplements--anyone can go ahead and do that. I have a few ideas of my own here for some other "essays" I'd liketo upgrade although I know they'd never get the consensus for doing so. Perhaps we do need a MfD on the supplement tag. DGG (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a worthwhile essay, user:DGG, and you propose adding it as a link on WP:V, for instance, then you have to speak up at WT:V for that idea. If the idea is compelling, and gains consensus, the link to "Essay- Foobars are fine" goes in. And, if anyone can be bothered to, they update from template essay to template Supplement at "Essay Foobars still fine". Or not: the linked-to item remains in CAT:ESSAY, so it remains an essay, and not a policy or guideline. However, there HAS been consensus gained at WT:V to add it as a link at WP:V. Congratulations, your essay is now a "supplemental" essay! --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There was, and it was kept. But I don't think the problems with the tag were properly explained, or understood. Perhaps the next MfD will have some diffs to demonstrate these issues. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  04:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If "supplement" is to be deleted, we need some kind of category that applies to pages that give critically-important documentation about how the wiki works, on a social level, but are not policy, in the sense of being enforceable. I'm not sure why supplement is not respected in this role.--Father Goose (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Supplements are essays. Supplements are essays. Supplements are essays that have been added as links to a policy page where there has been agreement at the policy discussion page to add that particular link. That is my understanding, which goes back to about August 2007.

See Template talk:Supplemental essay, that should be pretty clear. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * More like Supplements are not essays, oh wait supplements are essays, oops, now they are not essays, oh now are essays again. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  14:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)



This DIFF from February 2008?? (now they are not essays, -- ???) It says page, not essay, sure, and it adds it to CAT:ESSAY making it an essay in any case and it has since January 2008. In any case, that doesn't matter to me one way or the other. If there are any improvements however, that ought to be made to that situation is a question for the template talk page, or another Mfd, I would think. --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a debate for the template talk page, I think. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the question here is do we want a template on this page that does not seem to have settled into a stable state yet. That is a discussion for this talk page. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the question. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently we need a translator. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  18:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (trans:-) That is a question for the template talk page. --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, in my opinion, if this page is a supplement to WP:CON or not is a matter for discussion there. (trans:-) --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, who knows. Well, at least we're arguing in good faith, that's a start :-P
 * Oh wait... do you mean you think the template is unstable. Is that really a problem though? What's the worst that can happen? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I could well want to argue in favour NOTAG, NOTAG for all pages in wikipediaspace; upon reflection, I can live with the current setup. Mfd? Why not. I dont think I got anything new to say there though, myself. --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * essay has gone through more changes in the past year than supplement. I'm not sure a few edits to supplement really warrants calling it "unstable".--Father Goose (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When there is doubt, discuss first on the talk-page.
When there is doubt, discuss first on the (policy) talk-page. (per Policy. discuss edit revert all done. NewbyG 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, in other words: Only apply BRD if you are confidently certain of yourself. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that wasn't BRD, That was D-E-R-D, and it worked fine, though there was no change at the end of the DERD cycle. --NewbyG (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The DERD cycle worked fine, and as a bonus following completion of the DERD cycle, this was added here and this was added here. --NewbyG (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Images
I'm putting in some images to give people some coathangers/mnemonics. alternate for stuck truck:

I like this one too, because people are actively solving the problem. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of something for when the process fails, where impenetrable barriers exist.



Although, perhaps there's still hope:



Just some ideas I'm playing with. Anyone else?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes those are impressive images. Got any good ones that might work for Something from the Greek myths or Ducks or Gratitude --NewbyG (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

BRD, does it work?
Bold, Revert, Discuss, --NewbyG (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Name
This is a good essay and process. I tend to find that the people that follow this instead of just being revert happy get much more done. However, the name seems to imply the opposite of the advice. I realize after reading the essay that the revert in the title is watching for any revert, but upon first encountering the title of the essay I was expecting something revert happy. In other words encouraging being bold about reverting which we certainly don't need. Maybe I'm the only one, but the title was striking to me and not in a good way. Unfortunately I don't have any good suggestions. - Taxman Talk 17:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the title gives the wrong impression. It should be called Bold Wait Discuss (BWD).-- Lester  01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, if there is consensus to the bold change, the later discussion will show that and it will go back in after the reversion. Don't forget that by being bold it is likely that there is no consensus, which will be established during the discussion phase.  Of course rather than being bold, the discuss bit can occur first, then consensus established, then changes made.  The problem(s) start when there is no discussion but b-r-r+ rather than the d bit.  The key is the second r, which shouldn't happen before discussion (but seems to) and then it leads to lots of problems.  Shot info (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The revert is a vital part of the process, so it shouldn't be glossed over. I have an unlimited right to be bold precisely because everyone else has the right to disagree and revert.  (Then we are both compelled to discuss our respective positions and see if there's a compromise position to be found.)
 * The comma between bold and revert ought to be enough to show that this essay is not about "bold reverting" (though the right to one revert is automatically granted) -- and ultimately you have to read the essay to understand what the full cycle is about.
 * It's not the prettiest title for an essay, but it is accurate, and it is a solid mnemonic for the process: Bold. Revert. Discuss. Repeat.--Father Goose (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Father Goose. The revert is an essential part of the process, especially in the respect that if used properly in this context it can enable you to determine exactly what it is someone disagrees with you on, incrementally.  In good faith or sometimes otherwise, consensus-building done entirely through the talk page can get bogged down if people misunderstand what it is you're trying to do or if the objections they raise are tangential or unrelated to the change you made.
 * I have sometimes felt unable to get my interlocutors to discuss the actual change I made to a page; from my admittedly usually frustrated point of view in that case they appear to be engaging in some sort of paranoia or axe grinding of little relevance. I only just came across this essay now, but the way I've dealt with it was similar: I would break down my edit into small components or individual sentences and make the edit one bit at a time.
 * This forces your interlocutor to identify exactly what they disagree with and revert that specifically. I'll even say in the talk page, "Okay, this conversation has wandered away from discussion of the original change so I want to determine what specifically you're objecting to.  So I'm going to make incremental change X and please feel free to revert it if you do not agree with it."  Making that effort and taking that kind of sober and methodical approach seems to be able to sometimes better focus people on what they're doing when discussion alone has failed.  And when I've done this I've usually been able to achieve some level of compromise, even with one person I was having a general dispute with across multiple articles and project namespace pages - and it was even a change to a guideline page that we managed to come to an agreement on! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof
It's not clear to me who has the burden of proof on a revert. The assumption seems to be that a discussion will happen, but who starts this discussion? In my experience, discussions don't happen because reverters tend to employ a "revert-first, ask questions later approach" that is very off-putting to good faith edits, and invisibly raises the bar to unreachable and unexplained subjective levels. There needs to be a means to counteract this.

Clearly, there are two major cases to consider: good faith and bad faith edits. I think it would be beneficial if the "reverter" makes it clear whether or not he believes the original edit was good faith or not.


 * 1) If it was a good faith edit, the reverter should have the "burden of proof", and should be expected to point out at least one actionable alternative.  Recognition of good faith opens the door to further discussion.  Putting the burden on the reverter puts the burden on those that have the most interest in maintaining status quo to justify it.  It also gives the original editor something to respond to, while preventing hand-waving justifications, shrouded in subjectivity.  Objective and actionable ideas are the key to moving forward.  What if there is no actionable alternative?  Doesn't seem likely.  If someone is making a good faith effort to change something, there's something that isn't meeting their needs.  They expect some kind of action.  A way needs to be found to communicate their requirements without driving them away by the revert.  Maybe they just couldn't find what they were looking for.  That may be an actionable problem.  Maybe more information is required, maybe less.  There's no one way to do this, but actionable ideas can be productively discussed.
 * 2) If the edit was deemed in bad faith, the original revert should explain why, such as vandalism.  This also gives the original editor something to respond to, without hand-waving.


 * As a brief corrollary, note that BRD has the default effect of converting action into talk. This is sometimes good, but not when it results in paralysis and alienates useful contributors.  70.252.96.143 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't actually agree here. We revert edits all the time, giving only a short edit summary. It is in my opinion enough to say something like "unjustified change" or whatever. the burden of showing a change is necessary is on the person who makes the change.  Ideally, I do think it wise to put something on the talk page immediately, if I know there will be an argument about it, to start off the discussion, instead of just being bold and hoping to put off discussion until later--it tends to work better. If I revert, it is similarly often helpful to discuss at the time. But if the first person didn't start discussing,  and the reverter thinks the matter might not be pursued, then  the time to discuss, just as the rule says, is after the revert.  It's a 3-step process, designed to weed out the matters that don't really require discussion.

Re-reverting without discussion is often a start to edit warring. Anyone who does that is probably in the wrong. Even if its not a good faith revert, one should least say so when re-reverting. If i make a change, and someone reverts me in good faith, I must now decide if i want to press the matter. If I don't, perhaps because i don't consider it terribly important, I stop there. Otherwise, it is now up to me to start the discussion. DGG (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words
To the IP editor who repeatedly added weasel to the page: if you can write comments like "Does this just happen by magic?" you either do not understand what weasel words are, or you approve of their use. In either case you should not be applying weasel anywhere. You might also need to refer to "Avoid trite expressions".


 * Regarding trite expressions, you will note that the discussion you point to refers to articles, not text that is invisible to the reader. Yes, it's trite, but valid.  If you think it's too trite, replace it with something that isn't or remove it;  I'll even do that for you.  The point still stands.

If you think there needs to be an improvement to the article, make it or propose it here. Don't misapply templates like that to make a point. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You will see in the very discussion above, Burden of proof that I have already done so. As there has been no follow-on discussion, I'm being bold.

70.250.189.189 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Discuss
The third stage of the BRD cycle needs to be more explicit about who is doing what, and how. Just the word "Discuss" doesn't explain how this happens at all. Is it on the Talk page, a Project page, with God, or whom? Likewise, how this happens needs to be *stated*. The word "Discuss" does not explain who bears the burden of initiating the conversation following the revert. Is it the original editor, or the reverter? The implied answer seems to be that the *original editor* bears the burden of starting the conversation, but this is *not stated*. Simplifying to just the word "discuss" makes it very hard to distinguish who the subject of the sentence is. This is because the subject is "You", which is still ambiguous. 70.251.251.175 (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then offer some wording that clarifies the ambiguities. The discussion should happen between the two parties.  I don't think it's necessary to specify how the discussion should be done.  Simple situations can be resolved with little or no discussion at all, if the edit summaries are clear. Article talk pages are the best place for such discussions, but user talk pages, or even email, work. --Ronz (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would, but I can't figure out what you actually mean. You don't every say.  70.250.176.80 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Discuss, genrally on the relevant talk page" might be clear enough as a wording. That's almost always the right place.  Project space shoud beseen as a sort of centralized article talk space, DGG (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the subject of this sentence? 70.250.176.80 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Though it's worth mentioning project space as a good additional outlet, if talks get bogged down; one can ask for other editors' input on one of the village pumps, open an RfC, or if things start getting nasty, AN might be appropriate.
 * Is it just me, or are WP:3O and WP:EA mostly useless? I've never gotten a satisfying result from either one; at best, a single editor fancying himself to be Solomon delivers a superficial pronouncement and walks away, resolving nothing. Rant much? --Father Goose (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert?
The 'Revert' section of this encourages edit wars. Reverting should be a last resort, not something to routinely do before discussing. Some people use BRD as an excuse to roam around Wikipedia reverting the things they don't like, without discussion. Reverting should only be used for extreme content, such as vandalism or libellous accusations. But some people revert referenced content, and this 'BRD' essay encourages it. BRD is a bad idea.-- Lester  05:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverting without discussion is not BRD, it's WP:BRRR, which are two extremely different things. Reverting is a right as much as boldness is -- in fact, it's essentially what makes boldness a right.  Since you have the right to disagree with my edits, I can make them freely without having to check in advance if you'll have a problem with them.  I can just assume there's no problem, and if you do disagree, you'll let me know by reverting.  Then we resolve our dispute through discussion (the key remaining step).


 * It can be hard to not take a revert personally, but on Wikipedia, that amounts to taking every disagreement you might have with someone as an affront. A revert merely signals a disagreement; the destructive step only occurs if a person is then unwilling to discuss their points of disagreement honestly and openly.  But then, people who revert repeatedly but are unwilling to discuss their positions tend to receive negative scrutiny.--Father Goose (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with some of what Lester is saying. This article does a poor job of explaining BRD in a way that models good behavior, which I think we all want.  I think one thing that Lester points out is that reverts should be used sparingly.  The distinction here is easily discerned.  Vandalism, bad faith edits, inaccurate and unsourced information are easily identified as such by diligent editors.  A reverter should be held to a higher standard when dealing with good faith edits, and make it clear why the edit is unsatisfactory.  This is not contrary to BRD.  It can be accomplished by a comment in the revert, a discussion before the revert, or a discussion coinciding with the revert.  This models the optimal behavior of BRD, providing a show of good faith on the part of the reverter, and opening the door to a reasoned response from the initial editor, setting the stage for a productive discussion.  70.250.176.80 (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with that. I always provide a rationale in the edit summary when I revert good-faith edits.--Father Goose (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but my recent experience is that few reverters do. That is why it is frustrating to read a page like this that people point to to defend bad behavior.  If you want to read this page to mean that arbitrary reverts are okay, you can.  I think we should be clearer that reverts should be held to the same (or higher) standards as normal edits, and that discussion is encouraged at all stages, not just after a revert.  I'm working on some wording that I think does a better job of this.  In particular, I'm using a sample exchange between Alice and Bob that makes it clear who is doing what, and what things they are thinking about as they do them.  Again, I think it is most productive to model good behavior here.  70.250.191.46 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, sounds good, I look forward to seeing it.--Father Goose (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We need it. In a content dispute, I often see WP:BRD used to give the one who reverts first the upper hand.  A case in point is Rodeo.  Buttermilk1950 (a new contributor) worked for days on the article, contributing hundreds of edits and numerous reliable sources.  Then Montanabw did this, deleting 44% (23K bytes) of the article.  Per WP:BRD, it would seem Buttermilk1950's only recourse is to discuss.  Buttermilk1950 tried discussing, and got stonewalled.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If no reply within 24 hours, revert back and continue as before. If the preson reverting really feels strongly, they'll come back. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of discussion should be mentioned
Frankly, I came here looking for advice, and I'm afraid there's one huge whole. My common experience with reverts is

1) some heavily interested new editor creates an article / section in which the subject is either universally castigated or lauded.

2) I come along and try to add some balance with refs from opossing views.

3) that content is reverted

4) I try to start a discussion, saying, "I'm not going to get into a revert war on this".

5) since the article is now in the shape the original editor wants it to be, they do not engage in discussion and leave it

6) I forget I'm waiting the week (or whatever) for a response, and the content stays reverted

There should be some advice here as to how to determine if a silent reverter is not interested in discussion, and at what point some additional movement should be taken. Unfortunately, this essay is prefaced on the assumption that an invitation to discuss will result in an actual discussion. Most people with serious pov pushing problems are NOT long time editors, and have no interest in debating wikipedia policy.

Ideas? T L Miles (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC) As a practical matter, it is often appropriate to ask specifically on the person's talk page. DGG (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally just revert back and continue editing if I don't get a response within 24 hours. I specifically use the 24 limit, because after 24 hours the 3RR counter resets itself. It shouldn't matter in theory; but of course in practice, it can sometimes save your bacon ;-). --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BRD being used to justify what it's trying to stop?
I've noticed a couple times BRD being used by the reverter as a justification for a revert. If I understand this essay, BRD is a proactive edit by the bold editor to smoke out reverters and owners, not a justification for using reverts in order to "generate discussion". People seem to think that BRD means that reverts should be used to generate discussion and are using it as a first approach to an edit they don't like. They will then justify using reversion as a first resort on the ground of BRD, saying that they are just trying to "generate discussion". This seems horribly backward, since a method for smoking out intransigent reverters is being used to justify intransigent reverting. Here's a good example. Basically, BRD is being confused with "RD". Any sense of how to get rid of this kind of misinterpretation (assuming that's what it is)? (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC))


 * People bend things to their own interpretations. If you can figure out a way to improve the wording of the page, somehow, be my guest! It's a free wiki. :-)
 * (I'm also wondering how WP:POINT can be fixed. I think that's the record-holder for amount of times it's been misunderstood or misquoted. ;-)) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Most Interested Person" refuses to discuss
I've added information (which accurately reflects actual consensus; it's an explanation of existing practice for newbies) to WP:ORG, and two different editors have removed it recently. Both said that their objections were solely procedural (which is not ever allowed in guidelines). Both of them (mistakenly, but presumably it was an honest, if careless, error) claimed that the expansion was wasn't discussed on the talk page. Both of them have failed to discuss it. One directly refuses to discuss the changes, and asserts that BRD favors her reverting the material and fully justifies her refusal to discuss anything.

Does anyone have any advice for dealing with people that simultaneously demand that you discuss changes and flatly refuse to discuss them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You could try getting a clue that TWO editors have now reverted your major additions to a guideline, that does NOT have any specific discussion nor consensus on the talk page. Why don't you actually follow the proper channels and open a real discussion noting your suggested additions and getting community consensus instead of presuming that you are somehow in the right to continue adding material no one has supported and then trying to badger those who removed it by demanding they have to justify it. The onus is on you to gather support for your additions, not the other way around. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Both you and UnitedStatesian have reverted the addition solely on the grounds of your two demonstrably false assertions:
 * That the change wasn't discussed on the talk page (the discussion began on 19 December and has received zero opposition)
 * That prior discussion is somehow required by Wikipedia -- a claim that is directly contradicted by the following policies:
 * WP:Consensus, which says "Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented....you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it."
 * WP:NOT, which says "A procedural error made in posting anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post."
 * WP:Policy, which says "Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page"
 * WP:Ignore all rules, which says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
 * Don't revert due to "no consensus" (an essay)
 * You might also like to read both WP:BRD and WP:BRD misuse. Since you have demanded that I comply with this essay, I particularly draw your attention to this essay's insistence that I discuss your reversion with you, and not merely with anyone who happens to comment on the talk page.
 * After you've read BRD, perhaps you'll tell me whether you choose to have me follow this suggested procedure (and therefore you choose to discuss your reversion) or whether you no longer choose to have me follow this essay.
 * I remind you, as well, that there is no longer any consensus for the previous version of WP:ORG, so standing on "there's no consensus for changes" as a way of leaving the guideline in some hypothetically ideal state is specious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unable to find any related discussion on the article talk page. Perhaps you should link to it? --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WT:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). You will find three comments explaining the problem with the old version of the page, three comments specifically about the change (two from me), and three complaints from me about editors who have demanded discussion while refusing to discuss the change.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You forgot WP:WIARM: ''"Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus.''

A major requirement for any consensus system, that actually has never been written down (and we probably should): you may challenge any editor to explain any edit. After all, if they do not explain, you may revert them with impunity, because obviously "edit was not discussed" and therefore "there was no consensus".
 * Note that you should only really revert undiscussed edits *AFTER* you have attempted to edit or discuss them, not before, otherwise WP:BOLD breaks (and that's why we consider Bold->revert to be a problem in the first place).
 * Note that reverts are also edits for the purpose of this discussion.
 * Note especially that undiscussed edits are perfectly permitted and normal *UNLESS* challenged; and a challenge need not be a revert. Else wikipedia would be a bureaucratic hell-hole requiring multiple forms in triplicate for every keystroke, and we'd never get around to actually writing anything. (WP:NOT a bureaucracy, WP:SILENCE)

Taking the above into account, we can solve the impasse:

You're perfectly justified to do the following: "rv revert that was undiscussed after 24 hours". It looks dirty, *is* dirty, but onus is on the person who forgot to explain the revert. After all, you can't very well stand around holding the ball all week, just because the other side isn't coming out to play.

Maybe I need to write some more meta-policy pages. (Surprisingly, it might lead to less bureaucracy overall... odd but true. :-/ )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

BRD vs OWN
Despite only being an essay, I've noticed several editors try to use WP:BRD as a way to circumvent WP:OWN, which is policy.

Short of deleting WP:BRD, is there any way to prevent this / prevent people thinking that its an appropriate thing to do?

Newman Luke (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you describe the problem more fully, or give an example? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For examples, please see Requests for comment/Newman Luke and the various times the above user has been brought to ANI and been discussed on project talk pages for his refusal to accept consensus and his continued unilateral changes. -- Avi (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * More discussion. Less reverting.--Father Goose (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is one where the users trying to circumvent WP:OWN are the ones doing the reverting. Newman Luke (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For examples, please see Requests for comment/Avraham, and Requests for comment/Debresser. Newman Luke (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no vs. BRD describes how policy works and is applied. You edit boldly, and preferably do not get reverted. If you do get reverted, figure out what is wrong, fix it, and go back to bold editing. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Figure out what is wrong? Shouldn't the revert privilege come with the responsibility of explanation?  70.250.199.84 (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should. Far too many people seem to treat the R in BRD as a mandate; reverting valid edits should be done only sparingly, and only if one is prepared to discuss why one thought an edit was inappropriate. In my experience there's a strong correlation between those who treat BRD as an instruction (rather than a description of a common cycle) and those who exert overly-strong stewardship over articles to the point where WP:OWN is applicable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with this statement assuming that you define "should" in the canonical way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It would seem, then, that we should just set up the revert system to require an explanation. You could pick from a list for the mundane options such as vandalism, but at a minimum the explanation could establish good faith/bad faith rationale behind the revert, and force the editor to at least *consider* that the change was intended in good faith.  In my experience, that kind of consideration doesn't always happen.  70.247.171.83 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a wiki... ?
Some folks removing this bit:. Ahhhh, guys, that's called wiki-editing. That's how it's (supposed to) work.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss content
Recently I placed a section in an article (decibel) that clarifies the great diversity of definitions and explanations (some of them inconsistent) found in the literature by a uniform and simple explanation that makes this rather elusive concept easier to understand (especially by the layperson) and at the same time fully consistent. The principle is explaining the semantics of actual engineering practice.

A small number of other editors (4) keep in turn deleting the section on the grounds that it violates WP:OR, even though it was made clear that it is based on material already published by reliable sources (WP:SOURCES). These editors consistently maintain that the material is unsuitable for WP as long as it has not become widespread, especially in secondary sources. Some maintain that the section is prescriptive, whereas it is descriptive of actual current practice. Most seem to agree that the existing article contains convolved, vague, evasive and to some extent inconsistent explanations, but some claim that this is intentional to reflect the majority of the literature. (Of course, in my opinion, readers are better served by simplicity and clarity).

On these grounds the editors consistently refuse to discuss content, saying that the above "policy" considerations preclude all other discussion. Although I repeatedly made thorough changes and ended up by eliminating all elements that might remotely look original, they keep reverting. Even my proposal to keep the section on trial for some time so that others can read and comment is ignored. The impression is that the article as it stands may not be touched.
 * But Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. There's been a great deal of text used to describe a very simple idea; textbooks in the field devote an astonishingly small amount of their space to defining and using a decibel, and don't need to introduce complex and original notations for it. The point of defining something like a "decibel" in teh first place is to make things simpler. It's a definition, scarecly an encyclopedia article at all.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) Does not something cease to be original research as soon as it has been published by reliable sources?
 * (b) I fully agree that simplicity is the goal. What can be simpler than x dB = 10^{x/10}? No power ratios (which are just one of many applications), no other extraneous variables, no complex original notations.  It also directly answers the layperson's questions like "what does dB mean?". Boute (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hence my primary question is: how can I bring about discussion of the content?
 * The Talk:Decibel page has an increasingly large amount of discussion of the oontent. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a fortunate recent development. Boute (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A secondary question: if it is true that material is suitable for WP only if it is widespread (especially in secondary sources), which means a long time lag, what is the advantage of having a digital online encyclopedia as opposed to a paper version? Can being out of date truly be policy? (Of course, I am not considering crackpot material, but peer-reviewed material by reliable sources). Boute (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no deadlines. If the idea gets wide circulation, it will eventually get here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

At first blush, it sounds like Boute has the correct end of the stick here (one would have to read up to be sure, I suppose). Did you try to contact one person at a time, to see how consensus might be reached? Usually if you tell someone that you're there to reach consensus, they'll at least give you the time of day (be prepared to compromise, think of what you think needs to be in there, and think of what you can live with. ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)== Status as an essay ==

This is a great essay, but it has never had any consensus to be policy or a policy supplement. It is a set of opinion based advice which while wonderful is not related to policy. I have removed the "policy supplement" tag, which never has any consensus, and restored the long standing "essay" tag. Please discuss if you disagree. 1 != 2 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that BRD explains empirical experience on using the (on the chart) left hand cycle of the consensus process in a somewhat creative way. It also provides some advice on how that can be applied. In short, it provides supplemental information about the consensus process, which is not necessarily provided in (or even relevant to) the description of the process itself. Does that cover your concerns? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To say it is a supplement is one thing, fine it is. But it is also an essay. The tag is misleading. The tag used to make it clear that it was an essay, but it has changed since then. What is wrong with being an essay? 1 != 2 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with not being an essay? :) I don't really like the essay concept you see. I'm just as fine with no tag at all, but we need something to stop obsessive taggers. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 != 2 When you say: I have removed the "policy supplement" tag, which never has any consensus, and restored the long standing "essay" tag. Do you mean that the "policy supplement" tag never had any consensus to exist or that it never had any consensus to be on this page? If the former, certainly it has been in dispute - even at this moment - but replacing it on this page hardly seems the right way to handle that issue.  If the latter, show me.  It looks to me like it has been there a long time and most of the discussion is about whether this page is good or bad or just a fact of life not how it should be tagged.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant this page never had consensus to be become a "policy supplement". At the time of posting that template had a message that did not indicate it was an essay, but gave the impression it is a policy. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, supplement has changed back to an older version due to the TfD and it's really valuable to see the reference in the tag to the policy that is being discussed, particularly for relatively new editors. This isn't just an essay.  It's an essay about how a particular policy and a particular guideline work in the real world when you're actually editing.  I say change it back.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree it is not just an essay, it is an essay in that its content is advisory, and has never been intended to be policy. Now that the template is changed back to reflect that it is an essay, I have not objection to it. My only concern was that the template did not make that clear before. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We've had several iterations of what template to put on this page. The concept of essays is very very wrong for this page, because it describes empirical observations, as opposed to an opinion. We've already gone through this several times (see rest of talk page). It would also be dangerous to make it a guideline. This has also been discussed on this page. It would be preferable to have no tag. Would people please stop playing with tags thanks? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You opinions that essays are wrong for this and that is one thing, but the fact is that essays are just exposition. This particular editing style is not for everyone, and it is an opinion that it is good technique. Others may feel differently. Some users would not be well suited to use this the bold revert discuss cycle, they can take or leave the advice offered here. What is wrong with being an essay? Why is the essay tag "very very wrong"? Even good advice can be an essay, it is not a lesser state of being. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's see. You are of the opinion that policy is "not a big deal" right? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are a big deal, that is to say creating policy is a big deal, deciding to follow policy less of a big deal but one should still have a dam good reason if they don't. Anything that adds extra rules to the 6 foot high bundle of rules new and established users already need to know better have a dam good reason to exist. The community does not want an overabundance of rules. Making advice into a rule is a big deal and needs good solid reasoning that I have not yet seen. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 16:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is a form of essay and that the current tag is fine. I don't understand the argument for no tag, the tag makes it easier to find by putting it in a category and it also gives a very necessary link to the policy that is discussed.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a lot of people use "essay" to try to deprecate things they don't want to hear. It's a form of wiki-nomic :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that it's very relevant what people don't want to hear, only what they don't want others to hear. ;)  And I don't think it works, the essay tag doesn't do anything to dissuade me from reading essays, it does however explain that I'm not reading an official policy and I'm not on a project page, I'm somewhere else.  The special essay tag here, tells me that I'm on an explanatory page that suggests a way of behaving without openly mandating it.  I too, find this particular essay to be one of the most influential on me and it really helped me understand.  And I don't agree that it's a nomic at all, but I'd be happy to discuss that it more detail, probably not here though, it's a whole other essay waiting to be written.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If people don't want to hear an essay, they don't have to. That is the whole point. People are not going to appreciate the advice more if you remove the tag. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, a little more succinct than I said it, but that's what I meant!--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also people who think they can get away with deliberately ignoring, or doing the opposite of what is on an essay page. And there are people who wish to encourage that attitude. That can be slightly more dangerous. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me reword what I just said: People can deliberately ignore an essay. In fact they can never use BRD in their lives if they want. They can go directly against the advice on this page if they want. If they do so they may run afoul of existing policies and guidelines such as WP:EW, WP:DISRUPT etc. However they may ignore the advice here and stay well within policy, guidelines, and the acceptance of the community. If the community want this page to be enforced they would decide to make it policy.


 * They can ignore this essay because it has never has consensus to be mandatory, nor should it be because it describes just one of many ways one can edit here. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 15:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And I fail to see how tagging it as an essay somehow encourages people to ignore it. Yes, there are people who think they should ignore this and other good ideas.  There are people who think they can ignore policies and guidelines as a norm.  Yes, there may be people who think they should encourage others to do the same. That has nothing however, to do with this tag.  To suggest otherwise would be to not WP:AGF with respect to those tagging or advocating tagging and seems to suggest the tag is bad on any article, which is a discussion for Template_talk:Supplement, not here (yes, I know the template is being discussed everywhere right now it seems - but most of those places are the wrong places).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, people are told that it's ok to edit essays whatever way they like, as opposed to according to either consensus or empirical findings, and that can make things tricky :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, sounds like a complaint with the way the template text is worded. I don't know that we want to caution people from editing though on this essay of all essays.  It would be sort of hypocritical, but again that same argument would apply any essay this tag would be used on - we're not talking about the plain vanilla essay tag anymore.  (Obviously though, if this essay gets edited in any substantial way, someone is going to notice - I expect at least one someone will be you :-)  ).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Darn! You're being entirely too reasonable! Alright, one last try. So I don't actually agree with the template text, and the template is transcluded here. Shouldn't I just untransclude it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I have a feeling you'll bean me over the head with subst... but at least I want to be able to say I was valiant to the last ;-)


 * Now that is a criticism I wish I got more often! Sure you can remove the template - if consensus is that it doesn't apply to this page. :-P (Why do I feel like the template and positions of the other editors have rotated around me and I didn't move?)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't actually consider forewarning
Do not forewarn, as dynamics make it likely that you will be accused of bad faith. I never found out why this is, but every time I forewarned before applying BRD, I caught a lot of flack.

So if possible, make it so your edit and the explanation for that edit appear on-wiki at roughly the same time, so that people can't squeeze in a comment or edit inbetween.

In short: aim for "atomicity"

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, personally I rarely forewarn on the talk page, but for removal of content, I nearly always use a tag of some description. Addhoc (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I often make a bold change for my first attempt at a change, and if I am challenged I attempt to seek consensus. The trick is to not keep being "bold" about the same thing over and over. In fact if I see someone else's bold new alteration get reverted I don't put it back even if I agree with it, that is because the existing status has priority over a challenged change until consensus indicates otherwise. While policy, guidelines, essays, and for that matter anything can be difficult to change I know from experience it can be done. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 06:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that foreworning on the talkpage (of an intending BOLD edit) can actually make the process more painful. And that continuing to make the same (so-called) BOLD edit in the face of opposition is likwise not a good idea, unless the cavalry is already on the way, and your hands are really, really clean. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Favorite essay
Just wanted to mention, this is one of my favorite essays and it has had a strong and positive effect on my editing patterns. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 06:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a supplemental essay, which is derived from the policies and guidelines it's based on. I admit, though, it should probably be tagged with policy or guideline. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an essay, "supplements" are essays. It should be an essay, policy is not for things that are just one way of doing things. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 03:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

BRD violations.
I've dealt with people regularly ignoring WP:BRD or calling it "just an essay."

I wrote an essay on the matter and also I think the essay better clarifies what BRD is not better than this essay itself.

See BRD violations. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * BRD is not mandatory; it is just a very healthy way of getting things done on Wikipedia. There are no "violations" of it, just people getting nowhere due either to timidity or obstinacy.


 * I believe ownership is the real problem you're complaining about here, and while ownership is wrong in principle, in practice, it's nearly impossible to counteract.--Father Goose (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * BRD is not a healthy way of getting things done. It describes what to do in a particular dysfunctional situation when editors are being possessive about a page. Ordinary edits are not "bold", and good-faith edits should not be reverted without discussion. An unfortunate side-effect of the existence of this page has been the encouragement of an adversarial viewpoint for editing and the encouragement of hasty reverting, both of which are poisonous to healthy editing. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to place a big disclaimer with letters 5 miles high to that effect.


 * Even so, apparently BRD is one of the few pages that is actually based on "how things really work". See the trouble we have explaining things at WP:SILENCE for instance. (At least 1 person asked me if that page is not a rewording of BRD.... errr... no).


 * Alternately, what this page really describes is "fishing for interested parties" and perhaps should be renamed. (And then we can name the 2 main cycles for wikiediting BRD and normal editing respectively). Would that clear up confusion?
 * Possibly some more reorganization too. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, "fishing" is an inappropriate word. There are some users who, during page disputes, will attempt to troll Wikipedia (or off-wiki) to gather a false consensus of users that agree with them. An alternative term: "A desperate cry for help." &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh what? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Relationship between WP:SILENCE and BRD
Kim said above with respect WP:SILENCE: (At least 1 person asked me if that page is not a rewording of BRD.... errr... no); yes, but I am surprised that neither page has a link to the other. They are related. When nobody reverts, you get kicked over to the other side of the flow chart and go directly to consensus. Likewise, when someone does revert you no longer have silence. They are two sides of a coin (or maybe of a dodecahedron). --Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you sketch/draw what you mean? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Inkscape is handy for this)


 * Sketch a dodecahedron? - only if I use AutoCAD. :-)  But I think you already have this on your chart, where it says "Make an edit" -> "Was the article edited further?" if the answer is "no" you jump over to the grayed out right side of the chart and go straight to "New consensus" - you have practiced silence = consensus by making a bold edit and getting no response, there is nothing more you can do other than go back to the beginning and make more edits, if they are warranted, which is one of the reasons the BRD edit should be a good one: it may not get reverted and you'd rather not have to change it substantially later by making a weak edit that stands unchallenged.  (oh yeah, occasionally someone will talk to you about it if you raise the issue yourself on the talk page, but normally if they didn't revert they'll just say, "great idea").  At the same time if you go into an article to make an edit with the understanding up front that silence = consensus, maybe even the assumption that no one will say "boo!", but someone does revert, then there is no silence and you need to work further to determine consensus - probably by implementing BRD, since you're already to the "R", you've discovered the Most Interested Person.  Both Silence and BRD compel an editor who doesn't agree with an edit (or more correctly, who doesn't agree that the edit has the support of consensus) to do something about it.  BRD suggests that the editor who disagrees with the edit should (or will commonly) revert and that the proponent should then discuss with that editor; Silence, or its complement, isn't that specific, the opponent of the edit needs to speak up (civilly) or else consensus may be assumed, one possible way is to revert with the intent to discuss, you could also just discuss, or you could edit without talking I suppose.  It is entirely reasonable that an editor would edit a page with no particular concern whether there would be discussion or not: if it gets reverted I'll discuss, if it doesn't it will stand per WP:SILENCE.  In other words, often you don't know if there even is a Most Interested Person to talk to.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was the point I was making earlier: BRD is the optimal way to edit, even if you never have to go beyond the "B". Though the page as currently focuses heavily on the R and the D as steps in dispute resolution, it's the very existence of those steps that makes boldness acceptable in all but the most contentious of situations (and even then, as the page points out, it's needed as a safety valve).
 * BRD encapsulates the complete how-to-edit-a-wiki methodology; the dispute resolution portion of it only comes up in a minority of cases (thank goodness).--Father Goose (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This page might be seriously misnamed, or I am doing something totally wrong, since the current description is how to basically bend the long cycle of the consensus process into ways of getting things done in a dispute resolution-ish situation. (Ie, NOT a good idea for general usage). We should probably have a separate page describing the wiki-process, which is what you folks are actually discussing? :-) It's odd that we don't have a page on one of the foundation issues, eh? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, again, it's focusing extremely heavily on the dispute resolution aspects of wiki editing. But the basic mechanism -- make edits boldly, accept that anyone may revert you if they disagree with your changes, and discuss your differences with the reverter -- is all you'll ever need to know about editing a wiki, whether a conflict arises or not.--Father Goose (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Better yet, it's not good to revert non-vandalism, actually. It's much better to edit or improve such changes. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In theory, maybe, but in practice, there are all sorts of non-vandalism changes that are simply wrong -- so you revert and proceed to discuss why it's wrong. You yourself do that often -- you've done it to me -- but it's the right way to do things.  There are some cases where you can add a change to a change to make it right, and that's the wiki at its best.  That's how things worked out with our edits on A treatise on essays, and the end result was quite good (that reminds me -- name change!).
 * I was thinking about the general subject of "when to revert" earlier tonight. I realized the habit I've adopted is, if I don't like an edit, but it's not wrong, I don't revert it.  To behave otherwise would just make me a control freak, and a pox on the wiki.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to expand on my earlier explanation. BRD finally "clicked" for me -- and with it, wiki editing in general -- when I realized that because anyone has a right to revert my edits (though they need to explain why to set the dispute resolution process in motion), that gives me the right to make any edit, no matter how seemingly bold.  Every edit can be seen as a proposal-cum-change, and if the change isn't reverted, the proposal is implicitly accepted.  It takes the sting out of being reverted if you think of all your edits as "How about this change?" "How about this one?" but without having to ask for approval beforehand.  BRD is what allows the wiki to work like a colony of ants instead of a gridlocked committee.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that if you think something "does not have the support of consensus" (whatever that means) you should not revert on that basis. You cannot know that something has the support of consensus on a wiki, and who are you to judge anyway? A revert is an edit. You should only make edits that improve the page in your own personal opinion. Let other people make their own decision. It's actually similar to how elections work. You vote for the person or measure that you think should win, you don't vote for the measure you think someone else wants, right? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more.--Father Goose (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree that "does not have consensus" is no reason to revert, "I oppose this change and it does not have consensus, whereas the existing version does" is a valid reason. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  15:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first part of that statement, "does not have consensus" begs the question, "how do you know?". I'm not sure that the second version is any better though; it seems to be saying "I believe that past consensus is current consensus (and I oppose this change)".  Since, one cannot know current consensus until a discussion (using the term broadly) ensues and past consensus is not necessarily any indicator, all one is really saying is "I oppose this change", which itself is no argument at all.  Using consensus as an argument will always lead to "this is best text because I support it".  Until the discussion occurs consensus is of no relevance because it is unknowable, it is the conclusion that we have not yet reached.  Past consensus is of no relevance and creates a logical circle because the point to a good faith edit (at least under BRD, but I would suggest any situation) is: "I believe that I have an idea that upon consideration by all interested parties will lead to a change in consensus" (or a consensus for a change - not sure if there is a difference, the former is a more common statement but I don't really like it).  To argue past consensus is the same as to argue current consensus because it is to say "consensus is what consensus was" (I guess more correctly it is the argument that "consensus is x because consensus was x", which is simply logically false and results in no encyclopedia at all).


 * In the context of BRD, I believe one is not making any statement with respect to what consensus is when one reverts except that it is not known (and as pointed out can't be), one is saying "Revert, you've found me, now let's talk and see if consensus can be found". So, when nobody responds one has consensus per WP:SILENCE and because that's just the way things are, the position stands because it's effectively the only position for the time being - it may be that there are no other interested parties or it may be that there are hundreds but they all agree, either way, there is consensus.  But when one makes a good faith edit and someone reverts, there is no consensus because it hasn't yet been discussed; one cannot have any idea what consensus is or will be (except that it will most likely be one of the two, or more, positions or a mid-point) one can only know one's own position and make educated guesses about what other positions might be.  Using consensus as an argument is only valid when there is some way in which consensus could have been determined conclusively; E.g. "we've discussed this and after serious consideration x is the best text, at least for now (and because you are a civil and competent editor you understand that consensus now exists even if you prefer a different version personally)" - and then, that's not an argument at all, it's simply true (or at least perceived to be by the speaker).  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Either way, it's best to not even mention consensus in your revert, but to give the specific reason why you feel the change is not good. If you don't give the person you're reverting a reason that can be potentially disputed or agreed with -- neither "I disagree" nor "your change does not have consensus" are such reasons -- you're failing to engage in the D portion of BRD, and the "bold, revert" cycle is what is known as an edit war.  Surely that's not what you seek?--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, say for example the talk page is full of people endorsing a particular version, and that is the version that has stood for months, then I don't think it is unreasonable to think it has greater consensus than an undiscussed change. However I do agree it is not always so clear cut. Regardless a person making a bold edit has no special protection from being reverted. By the same reasoning reverting an undiscussed change you do not agree with to a version you think has greater consensus is reasonable. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  16:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, there's the problem. If an article (or policy page) has consensus, that cannot be taken to mean any changes to the page will not have consensus.  If you personally object to the change, say so, and say why.  If you don't personally object to a change, you shouldn't revert it.  You also can't revert a change on the basis that it hadn't been discussed in advance; per WP:BOLD, that is never a requirement for making an edit.--Father Goose (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly! Though I think it is fine to revert an edit that you don't personally object to, particularly if the point of the reversion is BRD.  I often see edits that I don't really know how I feel about but I would like to discuss.  (Obviously, if I agree with the edit, reversion would be silly). --Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, you don't have to hate a change to still have legitimate concerns with it. Raising objections to change in general -- that is problematic.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the reason I did not give a specific reason for objection in my hypothetical revert reason, was that it was hypothetical and there was no real argument to rebut. Of course in the field I would either explain exactly why I objected or referred to the talk page where I explained my reasoning. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  17:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, I've actually recently unreverted someone who had basically given almost that exact edit summary though. Could you show what a real edit summary of yours might look like? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also will revert changes where I think they did visibility and discussion, regardless of my views on the question. The [proper use of revert on a good faith edit isnt for edit warring, its to force a discussion. Personally, though, I'd rather eliminate the acceptance of BRD altogether. Its a recipe for drama. Anything substantial should be proposed on a talk page--if nobody objects after a reasonable time, then Ok, do it, and see if someone reverts. That's a reasonable use of consent for silence. DGG (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By using a revert on a good faith edit, you stifle editing, and stifle discussion. It is a very destructive and rude way to edit. Some people have considered even 1 revert to be the start of an edit war at times.


 * Wikipedia is a wiki. We should edit the fine wiki. If you would like to abandon the wiki-model, that is your problem.


 * When well used, BRD does not lead to drama. It is used as part of a strategy for restoring consensus and wiki-process when editing a (mediawiki based) wiki. The page itself mentions that this is rather difficult, that's why you need to be careful.


 * It is based on experience of what works in the field. The only way to "Eliminate BRD' would be to completely alter the editing model on wikipedia, ban consensus, and ban the wiki editing process (foundation issue #3). Good luck. :-)


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

private and/or real time communications
It is much faster to reach agreement using private and/or real time communications.

The optimal method to reach consensus between any two people is in real life, at the bar, over a pint of beer (I learnt that from User:sannse :-) ). Any method that gets you closer to that ideal will let you reach consensus faster.


 * Real time communications allow you to instantly reply to people's concerns. This way they don't stick around and eat at people.
 * real time communications lets you go through the OODA loop so much faster, reducing decision time, and improving tactical and strategic behaviour of the community. (The latter is especially important in high profile cases, but added efficiency is always a plus, and practice is always good.)
 * 1-on-1 communications removes the temptation to try to reach agreement with too many people at once.
 * skype (voip) allows the transmission of voice. This adds an extra layer of communication (tone of voice), reducing misunderstandings. Also, the "extra channel" tends to be good at auto-reducing assumptions of bad faith for some reason, which is a huge bonus.

In short, using more channels for communication (especially real time and private communications) next to the wiki is realistically superior using the wiki alone, at least when using BRD in a dispute resolution context. We are describing this fact here, even if we don't happen to like that fact.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it also helps you detect if you're dealing with a sockpuppet. If you go to meet them and they're fuzzy and made of textiles, hmmm...


 * I've had several conversations with Abd on the phone and it's been helpful.


 * One thing that is useful about communicating online, though, is that you have more time to put your thoughts together. I don't always think on my feet particularly well, but I'm a pretty good writer, so that gives me an advantage. Also, on the wiki, everything is permanently recorded, and often cross-referenced, etc. so years from now, it's apparent to others what the context of a decision was. Admittedly, it's more fun to meet in person. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My rule-of-thumb (covered by policy someplace) is that every action on the wiki must be documented by something on the wiki. At the very least this keeps you out of trouble.


 * In a very small number of unique cases, I was unable to make certain edits, because I had secret information that was not available on the wiki (and which I wasn't supposed to talk about). My choice at that time was indeed to not make the edit, rather than make the edit and not have a valid rationale (as required by WP:WIARM). --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what got User:Durova. I think she was treated unfairly, but the problem wasn't the private mailing list, it was taking action based on private evidence, developed by her, that she couldn't reveal. Since then, I've seen checkuser action that may have been based on something like Durova's evidence, i.e., out of the blue, a checkuser blocks somebody directly based on private communication. Durova's error was to discover something (she thought) that she couldn't reveal (without damaging anti-sock efforts), and then, without any clear emergency, to act on it alone. The private mailing list was a huge flap about what everyone has the right to do, unconditionally, at least in reasonably free societies: talk to each other privately. Even if we wanted to make a rule against it, we could not enforce that rule.--Abd (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That all seems pretty right, user:Abd, so I will pose this counter-argument: What if all the editors for say WP:IAR decided to shun the IARdiscussion page, and carry on a myriad private conversations, on talk-pages, and telephone etc. There would be good ideas missed simply because the wrong post went to the wrong person. [Straw-man argument, slightly]. Some things can be done in private, that is a right as you say, but many things benefit from centralized discussion, with private comms. as a small, I think, part. (And note the other problems it raises, to be treated with care). --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there would not be good ideas missed. No outside conversation can do anything of substance here except through the actions of individual editors, who are responsible for their actions, individually, and who cannot defend those actions based on "we agreed privately." Private agreement may develop some preliminary consensus among those participating in it, but this is not a Wikipedia consensus. Note that WP:PRX would have set up a network of users through voluntary assignments of proxies (which have no power here, it's just a name implying some level of trust or rapport). So if there are a "myriad" of conversations, they are between people who can effectively communicate with each other, so what idea is it, exactly, that is lost? If I tell my friend about my idea, and my friend pooh-poohs it, do I give it up? Maybe, if I come to agree with my friend. Otherwise I'll bounce it off someone else, maybe I'll bring it to the Talk page here, where it actually might do some good. However, important point: if I can't convince my friend that my idea is worth considering, how likely is it that I an convince others? I'd say we need much more private communication, so that what comes here is a bit more coherent, but it must all, still, be explained here or it is indefensible.


 * Yes, there is potential abuse. However, this abuse is already happening. It's extraordinarily difficult to detect, and attempts to sanction it have been problematic. What we really need to make clear, and insist upon, is "Votes don't count." If votes don't count, then sock puppetry is irrelevant, as is vote canvassing, and meat puppetry is only a problem where an army of editors conspires to violate policy simply by outnumbering everyone else. Which would tend to get people pissed off, arousing counter-organization. Unless everyone is asleep. ZZZZ ZZZZZZZ (snort) ZZZZZ --Abd (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Concerning the recent REVERT-
 * Well, reading this section has only increased my concerns vis-a-vis private channel comms.
 * I believe that the greatest advantage of OPEN, CENTRALIZED discussion is that another user who "overhears"' the conversation may be just the person with the solution, but would not get to know of a problem being discussed on IRC, or Skite, or Backchat.
 * And, just look at the mess en.Adminchat, or whatever it is called got into, an Arbcom case.
 * KB, I have posted to your talk-page, it is possibly best, if you can enlighten me, to do so there, or, here. Thanks --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of of (for instance) IRC channels are open, centralized and quite thoroughly public. I'm none-too-pleased with irc channels that layer on additional rules making them less-than-public, as I think that that subverts the IRC model. This is especially the case for #wikipedia-en-admins. It needs a lot more watching than other channels (and I have a level 30 access to do my part to ensure that it is well-watched).


 * E-mail is supported by the wiki-software itself. It often helps to discretely send people mail when they've made a howler, and there's no need to embarrass them.


 * Mailing lists are very old, and are used by everyone to stay in touch.


 * skype and phone are useful to hear another person's voice. There's nothing so reassuring as to hear another person's calm voice on the other end of the line, especially if you thought they were actually being mean and sarcastic on-wiki (they almost never are).


 * But that said, there is simply no way to stop two humans from meeting each other. If we were to meet in the pub, or bump into each other on the street, would that be a disaster?


 * And sometimes a short chat is exactly what the doctor ordered. Basically the best way to solve something varies from situation to situation. But the more tools you have, the more likely that one of them will work. :-)


 * Especially during dispute resolution, talking on the phone or on skype is the best thing you could possibly do.


 * So yes, on the one hand, I agree, a wiki is a wonderful tool. But on the other hand, no matter how wonderful wikis are, if we were to only be able to communicate through wikis, the world would be a poor, sad place indeed. Fortunately, there are many other tools, and of course, when we use them, we should use them smartly and responsibly.


 * Does that make sense so far?
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is, we might run into a fellow Wikipedian at any public place, and not realize it. It could be the person we've been edit warring with or, to use an opposite example, someone we think is really cool based on their edits, and we just sit there on the train or whatever and don't even realize the connection. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. :-) I met an en.wikipedian sitting next to me on the plane to Berlin once. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks KB, as I say, I am waiting to be convinced, but have not been yet. (May be I lack certain knowledge, and experience.) A) I agree, you could meet a Wikipedian anywhere!. However, you and I are unlikely to meet F2F, as you're in The Netherlands, I believe, and I in the great southern land, (Australia). Actually, I do not think I will attend Wiki-meetup in Brisbane next year, I like a little mystery, and also tend to reclusiveness, as many do. Yes, I use email, though I dont check often, and tired of blinkin' SPAM (Nigerians? writing to me?). Documentation, useful "butters-in", authentification, meat-puppeting, I still have issues. But the main one, I guess, is time. Time to learn, and time to DO, and enough time to learn by Doing. Thanks, not being anti- but just wishing to understand more better. ;) --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I've lived in Melbourne and have family in Perth and in Brisbane. :-) Also. I might be in Hong Kong in a little while, and am considering a hop to Brisbane while I'm at least halfway there. Where in Australia are you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, you got that right. Might see ya, in person, some day, that would be fine. Or, get on the old dog-and-bone, to discuss, not "scheme" the Great Wiki-pedia!<!__ might look up that family's of yours, too. -->--Newbyguesses - Talk 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we'll meet in an Amsterdam coffee house sometime... Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, some actually even sell coffee (my preferred poison ;-)). --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can't indulge in the greenery anyway. When I interviewed with the CIA, they said that even consuming cannabis in the Netherlands could be an issue in getting a security clearance, as the concern is not only the legality of it but what it says about someone's judgment that they would willingly ingest a psychoactive drug. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll drink to that.--Father Goose (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * sure, it's faster to discuss matters between a limited group of people. What it does, though, is exclude the rest of the community. Of course people will talk to one another--a good place, not mentioned, is the local meet-ups, which have the advantage of usually have a fairly broad selection of people present. At least the NYC one sometimes keeps minutes & a recording, & summarizes substantive discussions on-wiki. Kim has some good points: multiple channels. For one, there's a limit to what people can follow, at least for some of us--though there seem to be some people with an infinite channel capacity, & it gives them an advantage.  There's 3 things i try to do off wiki by email: counseling someone who is submitting disruptive edits in the hope of getting an acceptable one, warning people about things for which I do not want to embarrass them, and reaching commercial spammers when I can find their real email. DGG (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. You talk with a small group of people at a time (preferably 1 at a time, but Real Life happens). Then, you talk with another person, and another person, until you have discussed what you're trying to do with everyone in the community who has demonstrated an interest. BRD allows you to actually find as many of those people as is humanly possible (even those who only have the page on their watchlist).


 * Example situation (using easy numbers)
 * You can discuss and discuss with 100 people at once, for months, and nothing will happen because


 * The 100 people do not have any actual interest, they just want to participate and feel important


 * Talking to 100 people causes huge discussions, where no-one can keep track of what is going on


 * When you finally move to implement your decision, you will discover that there are now 105 people participating in the discussion, and the 5 new people immediately cause you so much trouble that you must abandon your plan, or at best you'll have to delay it for months.


 * Why? Hidden among those 105 people, were just 10 who actually had a solid interest, and who were willing to fight for it if need be. You convinced or wore out 5 of those somehow, and you failed to find the other 5, who consequently teamed up and sunk your plan. I'm sure you've seen situations like this before! (it gets to be more fun if a couple of the "support" people suddenly see an opening and switch sides, too ;-) )


 * By applying BRD, you find the 10 interested people, 1 or 2 at a time. They will be antagonistic towards your position. You will need to negotiate, and you will have to give and take and make concessions. Then you need to talk with the next 1 or 2, which hopefully will be easier, because you'll already be drifting in their direction, etc.. until you've talked with all 10. At that point, no one will oppose your plan, and you can execute it.


 * typical ranges irl can be 10-200 "chatters" and 2-10 "interested parties" --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Yes, KB, but it wasnt BRD which got things moving a bit at WP:IAR, it was the Rfc! perhaps? --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was using a BRD variant to achieve something else O:-) (related to what's now at Lectures). The RFC may have interesting consequences, but different ones. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Urk, but Until 1==2 just chased away 6SJ7! :-( :-( Why did you tempt me to look again? :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, Until(1==2) has asked 6SJ7 to not take it personally. However, I shall not ask yourself to return there against your better judgement. I looked at the DIFF, its always a fifty-fifty split kinda situation, isnt it, even when only one person is addressing the issue, I think, or maybe not. --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, I just came back to delete my last comment (because I shouldn't be too negative, as that might sabotage Ryan's best intentions as much as anything else... oops! ^^;;) . I think we should see how things go, and folks should try their best to get along. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that it was BRD that got things moving at IAR. Chardish's agitation, for better or worse, got everyone else agitated, and the stagnation was broken.  That's not to say that things might not return to stagnancy, but at least for now, the hornets are in the air instead of in the nest.--Father Goose (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was BRD that worked, but it seems to have taken ten months to do so? --Newbyguesses - Talk 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh, it's a tool. Maybe it was the wrong tool for IAR? :-) I've been trying to figure out other methods too.  --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to the page.
Improvements to the page. Normal editing will continue, but this page is looking rather good, particularly the diagram.

Any suggestions for improving the page? --Newbyguesses - Talk 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be too much to ask people to use BRD to edit this page? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of BOLD, revert, discuss. As usual, the page stayed the same. I think it was the 'effing edit summary which convinced me. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so much as usual. Rather, you made the change, and discussed it with others, and learned things. The page doesn't have to change when you BRD. Sometimes there's information you weren't aware of yet. If you're still not convinced about things, feel free to keep talking, or reword.
 * On the other hand, don't give up so quick! Remember that this apge is mostly descriptive, rather than prescriptive. If you're aware of troublesome situations where discussing offwiki got people into trouble (like with Durova), you could try researching that and document what you learn here (though possibly Durova wasn't using BRD, and you may want to document elsewhere, like at WP:WIARM, perhaps). :-)
 * And if what you say is true, then there's nothing I can do to stop you. ;-)
 * So what say you?
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement, but I will allow myself a little negativity - CONSENSUS doesn't grow on trees, CIVILITY is in the eyes of the beholder, IAR isn't the secret key to Wikipedia, and BRD is not a magic wand. BRD is a technique, which works some of the time. It is not as reliable as, say, making a cup of tea, or picking one's nose, but it has it's uses. There are NO magic wands. --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not negativity, that's budding wisdom, I figure. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert-troll toll problem
Increasingly, I see reverts not for any problem in the improvements I contributed, but with a given reason my Edit Summary explaining them was insufficient to placate the reverter.

Our mission with Wikipedia is a world-beating encyclopedia -- not a world-beating set of Edit Summaries or discussion pages. Commonly using reverts to extort long edit summaries or even discussion-page essays as a condition of not being reverted interferes with the development of our encyclopedia.

Part of the burgeoning problem may that Wikipedia's BRD instructions inadvertently encourage reverting changes as a way to get discussions started -- but does not directly refer to or reflect the cautions against routine use of reverts given in the "how to revert" explanations. Readers of only the BRD instructions who do not read the separate reverting cautions can come away with the idea that blind reverts are helpful, approved, or condoned.

The lazy blunt-weapon reverts I'm seeing (giving no comment on what I wrote, just instructions to write an essay) are being used instead of rewrites and are quite unlike the sparing and tactful use of reverts called for in WP's "how to revert" instructions and caveats.

Before re-reading the BRD discussion, I thought the revert-Trolls were demanding a fuller Edit Summary explaining my additions or changes (which are in any event generally self-explanatory). It was unclear where to start with such an essay if I cared to contribute it, because the reverter gave no clue of how he/she found my contribution lacking in comparison with the original article.

Now after reviewing the BRD instructions, I suspect that the rising mob of self-appointed revert vigilantes believe that they have found in the BRD article a license to use blind reverts to require volunteer editors to supply a long essay on the discussion page, and followed by a long discussion with the reverter, if the volunteer editor's edit is to survive.

The proliferation of these "Revert Trolls" diminishes my enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia. An effective mechanism for identifying them and educating them about the reverting guidelines is needed.

As soon as possible, they should be fed less, by making sure that each reference to reverts explicitly refer to the reverting guidelines.

Our BRD article should be clarified to indicate that the BRD method is intended to be used in rare and contentious situations. It should emphasize that on the rare occasions where a revert, rather than a rewrite, is required for non-vandalistic changes, the BRD method does not license lazy blank reverts. Instead, the reasons the reverted-to original text is preferred by the reverter should be stated plainly, both as a courtesy to the revertee and as a way of jump-starting any subsequent dialogue -- i.e., giving the reasons why the reverter deems the original article text superior.

And our BRD article should be emphatic that reverts are only for problems with the text of the article itself not otherwise fixable within the revert guidelines; that reverts are not an encouraged, condoned, or helpful way to address any perceived insufficiencies in any Edit summary or discussion page entry. The BRD article should make clear even to readers who fail to find the "Reverting" article that the BRD discussions have created no license to require routine creation of a long talk page entry followed by extended discussion as a troll-toll before a WP main page entry improvement will be allowed to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.203.129 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 March 2008


 * I have seen people misreading this page as well. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing here's a centralized discussion on the topic of people reverting too early.
 * Wikipedia talk:Consensus is currently discussing methods used by some people to edit wikipedia, which seems to follow the revert-pattern, and may be strongly related.
 * Ignore All Rules is an example of a page that (ironically) is controlled by revert-type people.
 * Lectures is an attempt to instill clue in more people.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim B said: Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules is an example of a page that (ironically) is controlled by revert-type people. That statement, in my opinion, is either hyperbole, wrong-headed, or just a bit un-civil, I am not sure which. This page needs a re-write, it makes claims that are unsubstantiated, as well as having purely stylistic deficiences. BRD, with the emphasis on R, is not a good idea, it is a Bad Idea. You CAN have a discussion that isn't started by "Hey! Why did YOU revert MY edit?" That starts discussions off on the wrong foot, usually.

Part of the burgeoning problem may be that Wikipedia's BRD instructions inadvertently encourage reverting changes as a recommended way to get discussions started --

Stylistically, (to give just one example) "Take it to the talk page" is poor word-use - it promotes an adversarial attitude - it could be parodied as "OK Pardner, grab your six-gun and let's shoot it out!". There is a combative edge to much of this writing which rubs me the wrong way, and I think it is unnecessary to emphasise inter-personal conflict in the way that this approach BRD does. Seeing as I have an obvious bias at this point in time, I will not be "pro-active" in editting here against consensus; rather, I would be happy for anyone to provide a better rationale for BRD than has presently been supplied - I will eat my words gladly if that is the case. Thanks --Newbyguesses (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In my experience, articles often reach a larely static state that represents consensus or compromise between otherwise entrenched editors. When a new editor full of enthusiasm happens along and makes massive changes, the old order is upset with the entrenched editors thinking "these edits go too far" as they hit the undo button.  Regardless of if the changes were good (perhaps the new editor was updating the article to reflect a newly published source) or bad (maybe the new editor was not familiar with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT), WP:BRD provides a useful framework for both old and new editors to come together and build consensus.  That consensus might be new (such as when new sources are integrated into an article) or old (like when an enthusiastic but brand new editor realizes that the edits they wanted to make do not meet WP:NPOV), but BRD is the path they take together to achieve that consensus.  --Kralizec! (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This particular page describes how to resolve conflicts in entrenched situations. The stress on inter-personal conflict is because it is an inter-personal conflict resolution tool . ;-)
 * The page also probably has a good description of (one branch of) the normal consensus process, that isn't described elsewhere.
 * Probably we should split out the dispute resolution parts from the normal consensus process parts.
 * What is true is that this "trick" works. Feel free to edit however you want, but make sure that what you write is factually true.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Take it to the talk page" isn't a shoot-out; edit-warring is a shoot-out. Now, some editors just stomp, argue, and threaten on talk pages, but more often (thank god!) they state their point of view, and you state yours, and maybe one party convinces the other, or an intermediate point is agreed upon.  That's the wiki at its second best (the best is where two or more editors hash out their differences in an iterative series of edits; you end up with a true synthesis of ideas).


 * This page does need a rewrite to suitly emphazai better emphasize the non-dispute-resolution aspects of BRD. I've been meaning to for a while... maybe if you put it up for MfD it'll spur me; the specter of deletion always gets me off my ass. ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Essay or supplement
This started as an essay and I see no consensus to make it a "supplement to policy", which in my mind gives the impression it is part of policy. I don't think we should be back door promoting essays into supplements of policy. Looking at, this has already been discussed and gained no consensus. Please get consensus before changing this again. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 14:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh? "While this essay is not a policy or guideline". Supplement == Essay. :-) Consensus is this is an essay. We are done here. --Kim Bruning (talk)

That "supplement" tag says "essay" one day and not the next. It does not seem like a reliable tag to mark something as an essay with. For example when I removed it, there was no mention that it was an essay giving the clear indication it was part of policy. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 15:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, actually it's been stable since at least January... but would you be willing to change supplements to not be essays? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what a "supplement" even is in the context of Wikipedia, it sounds like something someone made up one day, and unless clearly marked otherwise gives the impression that it is part of the guideline or policy. I think if we need to mark something as a supplement then that should be a tag separate to the essay tag. but I really don't think we need to mark things as "supplements", we have a see also section to show related guidelines and policies. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so essay supplements foo is the best we can do. I can live with that. *sigh* --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Supplement" is useful for essays which give advice elaborating upon existing policy or guidelines in a non-controversial way. They're more than pontification or opinion, like some essays; they are actionable, but in a way less compulsory than policies or guidelines (IAR notwithstanding).  To label them merely "essays" would obscure that they document actual and important wiki practice; to label them "guidelines" would push them into the world of wikilawyering, which is wrong because the advice they give is Good but entirely non-prescriptive.--Father Goose (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure if that is so, then consensus will be to make them more than essays. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until 21:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly -- "supplements". We have these artificial categories, "essay", "guideline", "policy", which approximate each page type's social role, but there are ones that fall in between roles in such a way as to work best described as yet another category.  Radiant was long an advocate of getting rid of supplement, but I think he was working according to an aesthetic of simplicity that didn't correspond to the social realities of the wiki.--Father Goose (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Before we add another class of "rules" it will take considerable discussion Things are confusing enough already. Essays callign themselvef supplements--anyone can go ahead and do that. I have a few ideas of my own here for some other "essays" I'd liketo upgrade although I know they'd never get the consensus for doing so. Perhaps we do need a MfD on the supplement tag. DGG (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a worthwhile essay, user:DGG, and you propose adding it as a link on WP:V, for instance, then you have to speak up at WT:V for that idea. If the idea is compelling, and gains consensus, the link to "Essay- Foobars are fine" goes in. And, if anyone can be bothered to, they update from template essay to template Supplement at "Essay Foobars still fine". Or not: the linked-to item remains in CAT:ESSAY, so it remains an essay, and not a policy or guideline. However, there HAS been consensus gained at WT:V to add it as a link at WP:V. Congratulations, your essay is now a "supplemental" essay! --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There was, and it was kept. But I don't think the problems with the tag were properly explained, or understood. Perhaps the next MfD will have some diffs to demonstrate these issues. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  04:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If "supplement" is to be deleted, we need some kind of category that applies to pages that give critically-important documentation about how the wiki works, on a social level, but are not policy, in the sense of being enforceable. I'm not sure why supplement is not respected in this role.--Father Goose (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Supplements are essays. Supplements are essays. Supplements are essays that have been added as links to a policy page where there has been agreement at the policy discussion page to add that particular link. That is my understanding, which goes back to about August 2007.

See Template talk:Supplemental essay, that should be pretty clear. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * More like Supplements are not essays, oh wait supplements are essays, oops, now they are not essays, oh now are essays again. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  14:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)



This DIFF from February 2008?? (now they are not essays, -- ???) It says page, not essay, sure, and it adds it to CAT:ESSAY making it an essay in any case and it has since January 2008. In any case, that doesn't matter to me one way or the other. If there are any improvements however, that ought to be made to that situation is a question for the template talk page, or another Mfd, I would think. --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a debate for the template talk page, I think. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the question here is do we want a template on this page that does not seem to have settled into a stable state yet. That is a discussion for this talk page. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the question. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently we need a translator. <font color="Red">(1 == 2)<font color="Green">Until  18:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (trans:-) That is a question for the template talk page. --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, in my opinion, if this page is a supplement to WP:CON or not is a matter for discussion there. (trans:-) --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, who knows. Well, at least we're arguing in good faith, that's a start :-P
 * Oh wait... do you mean you think the template is unstable. Is that really a problem though? What's the worst that can happen? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I could well want to argue in favour NOTAG, NOTAG for all pages in wikipediaspace; upon reflection, I can live with the current setup. Mfd? Why not. I dont think I got anything new to say there though, myself. --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * essay has gone through more changes in the past year than supplement. I'm not sure a few edits to supplement really warrants calling it "unstable".--Father Goose (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When there is doubt, discuss first on the talk-page.
When there is doubt, discuss first on the (policy) talk-page. (per Policy. discuss edit revert all done. NewbyG 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, in other words: Only apply BRD if you are confidently certain of yourself. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that wasn't BRD, That was D-E-R-D, and it worked fine, though there was no change at the end of the DERD cycle. --NewbyG (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The DERD cycle worked fine, and as a bonus following completion of the DERD cycle, this was added here and this was added here. --NewbyG (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Images
I'm putting in some images to give people some coathangers/mnemonics. alternate for stuck truck:

I like this one too, because people are actively solving the problem. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of something for when the process fails, where impenetrable barriers exist.



Although, perhaps there's still hope:



Just some ideas I'm playing with. Anyone else?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes those are impressive images. Got any good ones that might work for Something from the Greek myths or Ducks or Gratitude --NewbyG (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

BRD, does it work?
Bold, Revert, Discuss, --NewbyG (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Name
This is a good essay and process. I tend to find that the people that follow this instead of just being revert happy get much more done. However, the name seems to imply the opposite of the advice. I realize after reading the essay that the revert in the title is watching for any revert, but upon first encountering the title of the essay I was expecting something revert happy. In other words encouraging being bold about reverting which we certainly don't need. Maybe I'm the only one, but the title was striking to me and not in a good way. Unfortunately I don't have any good suggestions. - Taxman Talk 17:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the title gives the wrong impression. It should be called Bold Wait Discuss (BWD).-- Lester  01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, if there is consensus to the bold change, the later discussion will show that and it will go back in after the reversion. Don't forget that by being bold it is likely that there is no consensus, which will be established during the discussion phase.  Of course rather than being bold, the discuss bit can occur first, then consensus established, then changes made.  The problem(s) start when there is no discussion but b-r-r+ rather than the d bit.  The key is the second r, which shouldn't happen before discussion (but seems to) and then it leads to lots of problems.  Shot info (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The revert is a vital part of the process, so it shouldn't be glossed over. I have an unlimited right to be bold precisely because everyone else has the right to disagree and revert.  (Then we are both compelled to discuss our respective positions and see if there's a compromise position to be found.)
 * The comma between bold and revert ought to be enough to show that this essay is not about "bold reverting" (though the right to one revert is automatically granted) -- and ultimately you have to read the essay to understand what the full cycle is about.
 * It's not the prettiest title for an essay, but it is accurate, and it is a solid mnemonic for the process: Bold. Revert. Discuss. Repeat.--Father Goose (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Father Goose. The revert is an essential part of the process, especially in the respect that if used properly in this context it can enable you to determine exactly what it is someone disagrees with you on, incrementally.  In good faith or sometimes otherwise, consensus-building done entirely through the talk page can get bogged down if people misunderstand what it is you're trying to do or if the objections they raise are tangential or unrelated to the change you made.
 * I have sometimes felt unable to get my interlocutors to discuss the actual change I made to a page; from my admittedly usually frustrated point of view in that case they appear to be engaging in some sort of paranoia or axe grinding of little relevance. I only just came across this essay now, but the way I've dealt with it was similar: I would break down my edit into small components or individual sentences and make the edit one bit at a time.
 * This forces your interlocutor to identify exactly what they disagree with and revert that specifically. I'll even say in the talk page, "Okay, this conversation has wandered away from discussion of the original change so I want to determine what specifically you're objecting to.  So I'm going to make incremental change X and please feel free to revert it if you do not agree with it."  Making that effort and taking that kind of sober and methodical approach seems to be able to sometimes better focus people on what they're doing when discussion alone has failed.  And when I've done this I've usually been able to achieve some level of compromise, even with one person I was having a general dispute with across multiple articles and project namespace pages - and it was even a change to a guideline page that we managed to come to an agreement on! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof
It's not clear to me who has the burden of proof on a revert. The assumption seems to be that a discussion will happen, but who starts this discussion? In my experience, discussions don't happen because reverters tend to employ a "revert-first, ask questions later approach" that is very off-putting to good faith edits, and invisibly raises the bar to unreachable and unexplained subjective levels. There needs to be a means to counteract this.

Clearly, there are two major cases to consider: good faith and bad faith edits. I think it would be beneficial if the "reverter" makes it clear whether or not he believes the original edit was good faith or not.


 * 1) If it was a good faith edit, the reverter should have the "burden of proof", and should be expected to point out at least one actionable alternative.  Recognition of good faith opens the door to further discussion.  Putting the burden on the reverter puts the burden on those that have the most interest in maintaining status quo to justify it.  It also gives the original editor something to respond to, while preventing hand-waving justifications, shrouded in subjectivity.  Objective and actionable ideas are the key to moving forward.  What if there is no actionable alternative?  Doesn't seem likely.  If someone is making a good faith effort to change something, there's something that isn't meeting their needs.  They expect some kind of action.  A way needs to be found to communicate their requirements without driving them away by the revert.  Maybe they just couldn't find what they were looking for.  That may be an actionable problem.  Maybe more information is required, maybe less.  There's no one way to do this, but actionable ideas can be productively discussed.
 * 2) If the edit was deemed in bad faith, the original revert should explain why, such as vandalism.  This also gives the original editor something to respond to, without hand-waving.


 * As a brief corrollary, note that BRD has the default effect of converting action into talk. This is sometimes good, but not when it results in paralysis and alienates useful contributors.  70.252.96.143 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't actually agree here. We revert edits all the time, giving only a short edit summary. It is in my opinion enough to say something like "unjustified change" or whatever. the burden of showing a change is necessary is on the person who makes the change.  Ideally, I do think it wise to put something on the talk page immediately, if I know there will be an argument about it, to start off the discussion, instead of just being bold and hoping to put off discussion until later--it tends to work better. If I revert, it is similarly often helpful to discuss at the time. But if the first person didn't start discussing,  and the reverter thinks the matter might not be pursued, then  the time to discuss, just as the rule says, is after the revert.  It's a 3-step process, designed to weed out the matters that don't really require discussion.

Re-reverting without discussion is often a start to edit warring. Anyone who does that is probably in the wrong. Even if its not a good faith revert, one should least say so when re-reverting. If i make a change, and someone reverts me in good faith, I must now decide if i want to press the matter. If I don't, perhaps because i don't consider it terribly important, I stop there. Otherwise, it is now up to me to start the discussion. DGG (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words
To the IP editor who repeatedly added weasel to the page: if you can write comments like "Does this just happen by magic?" you either do not understand what weasel words are, or you approve of their use. In either case you should not be applying weasel anywhere. You might also need to refer to "Avoid trite expressions".


 * Regarding trite expressions, you will note that the discussion you point to refers to articles, not text that is invisible to the reader. Yes, it's trite, but valid.  If you think it's too trite, replace it with something that isn't or remove it;  I'll even do that for you.  The point still stands.

If you think there needs to be an improvement to the article, make it or propose it here. Don't misapply templates like that to make a point. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You will see in the very discussion above, Burden of proof that I have already done so. As there has been no follow-on discussion, I'm being bold.

70.250.189.189 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Discuss
The third stage of the BRD cycle needs to be more explicit about who is doing what, and how. Just the word "Discuss" doesn't explain how this happens at all. Is it on the Talk page, a Project page, with God, or whom? Likewise, how this happens needs to be *stated*. The word "Discuss" does not explain who bears the burden of initiating the conversation following the revert. Is it the original editor, or the reverter? The implied answer seems to be that the *original editor* bears the burden of starting the conversation, but this is *not stated*. Simplifying to just the word "discuss" makes it very hard to distinguish who the subject of the sentence is. This is because the subject is "You", which is still ambiguous. 70.251.251.175 (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then offer some wording that clarifies the ambiguities. The discussion should happen between the two parties.  I don't think it's necessary to specify how the discussion should be done.  Simple situations can be resolved with little or no discussion at all, if the edit summaries are clear. Article talk pages are the best place for such discussions, but user talk pages, or even email, work. --Ronz (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would, but I can't figure out what you actually mean. You don't every say.  70.250.176.80 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Discuss, genrally on the relevant talk page" might be clear enough as a wording. That's almost always the right place.  Project space shoud beseen as a sort of centralized article talk space, DGG (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the subject of this sentence? 70.250.176.80 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Though it's worth mentioning project space as a good additional outlet, if talks get bogged down; one can ask for other editors' input on one of the village pumps, open an RfC, or if things start getting nasty, AN might be appropriate.
 * Is it just me, or are WP:3O and WP:EA mostly useless? I've never gotten a satisfying result from either one; at best, a single editor fancying himself to be Solomon delivers a superficial pronouncement and walks away, resolving nothing. Rant much? --Father Goose (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert?
The 'Revert' section of this encourages edit wars. Reverting should be a last resort, not something to routinely do before discussing. Some people use BRD as an excuse to roam around Wikipedia reverting the things they don't like, without discussion. Reverting should only be used for extreme content, such as vandalism or libellous accusations. But some people revert referenced content, and this 'BRD' essay encourages it. BRD is a bad idea.-- Lester  05:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverting without discussion is not BRD, it's WP:BRRR, which are two extremely different things. Reverting is a right as much as boldness is -- in fact, it's essentially what makes boldness a right.  Since you have the right to disagree with my edits, I can make them freely without having to check in advance if you'll have a problem with them.  I can just assume there's no problem, and if you do disagree, you'll let me know by reverting.  Then we resolve our dispute through discussion (the key remaining step).


 * It can be hard to not take a revert personally, but on Wikipedia, that amounts to taking every disagreement you might have with someone as an affront. A revert merely signals a disagreement; the destructive step only occurs if a person is then unwilling to discuss their points of disagreement honestly and openly.  But then, people who revert repeatedly but are unwilling to discuss their positions tend to receive negative scrutiny.--Father Goose (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with some of what Lester is saying. This article does a poor job of explaining BRD in a way that models good behavior, which I think we all want.  I think one thing that Lester points out is that reverts should be used sparingly.  The distinction here is easily discerned.  Vandalism, bad faith edits, inaccurate and unsourced information are easily identified as such by diligent editors.  A reverter should be held to a higher standard when dealing with good faith edits, and make it clear why the edit is unsatisfactory.  This is not contrary to BRD.  It can be accomplished by a comment in the revert, a discussion before the revert, or a discussion coinciding with the revert.  This models the optimal behavior of BRD, providing a show of good faith on the part of the reverter, and opening the door to a reasoned response from the initial editor, setting the stage for a productive discussion.  70.250.176.80 (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with that. I always provide a rationale in the edit summary when I revert good-faith edits.--Father Goose (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but my recent experience is that few reverters do. That is why it is frustrating to read a page like this that people point to to defend bad behavior.  If you want to read this page to mean that arbitrary reverts are okay, you can.  I think we should be clearer that reverts should be held to the same (or higher) standards as normal edits, and that discussion is encouraged at all stages, not just after a revert.  I'm working on some wording that I think does a better job of this.  In particular, I'm using a sample exchange between Alice and Bob that makes it clear who is doing what, and what things they are thinking about as they do them.  Again, I think it is most productive to model good behavior here.  70.250.191.46 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, sounds good, I look forward to seeing it.--Father Goose (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We need it. In a content dispute, I often see WP:BRD used to give the one who reverts first the upper hand.  A case in point is Rodeo.  Buttermilk1950 (a new contributor) worked for days on the article, contributing hundreds of edits and numerous reliable sources.  Then Montanabw did this, deleting 44% (23K bytes) of the article.  Per WP:BRD, it would seem Buttermilk1950's only recourse is to discuss.  Buttermilk1950 tried discussing, and got stonewalled.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If no reply within 24 hours, revert back and continue as before. If the preson reverting really feels strongly, they'll come back. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of discussion should be mentioned
Frankly, I came here looking for advice, and I'm afraid there's one huge whole. My common experience with reverts is

1) some heavily interested new editor creates an article / section in which the subject is either universally castigated or lauded.

2) I come along and try to add some balance with refs from opossing views.

3) that content is reverted

4) I try to start a discussion, saying, "I'm not going to get into a revert war on this".

5) since the article is now in the shape the original editor wants it to be, they do not engage in discussion and leave it

6) I forget I'm waiting the week (or whatever) for a response, and the content stays reverted

There should be some advice here as to how to determine if a silent reverter is not interested in discussion, and at what point some additional movement should be taken. Unfortunately, this essay is prefaced on the assumption that an invitation to discuss will result in an actual discussion. Most people with serious pov pushing problems are NOT long time editors, and have no interest in debating wikipedia policy.

Ideas? T L Miles (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC) As a practical matter, it is often appropriate to ask specifically on the person's talk page. DGG (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally just revert back and continue editing if I don't get a response within 24 hours. I specifically use the 24 limit, because after 24 hours the 3RR counter resets itself. It shouldn't matter in theory; but of course in practice, it can sometimes save your bacon ;-). --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BRD being used to justify what it's trying to stop?
I've noticed a couple times BRD being used by the reverter as a justification for a revert. If I understand this essay, BRD is a proactive edit by the bold editor to smoke out reverters and owners, not a justification for using reverts in order to "generate discussion". People seem to think that BRD means that reverts should be used to generate discussion and are using it as a first approach to an edit they don't like. They will then justify using reversion as a first resort on the ground of BRD, saying that they are just trying to "generate discussion". This seems horribly backward, since a method for smoking out intransigent reverters is being used to justify intransigent reverting. Here's a good example. Basically, BRD is being confused with "RD". Any sense of how to get rid of this kind of misinterpretation (assuming that's what it is)? (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC))


 * People bend things to their own interpretations. If you can figure out a way to improve the wording of the page, somehow, be my guest! It's a free wiki. :-)
 * (I'm also wondering how WP:POINT can be fixed. I think that's the record-holder for amount of times it's been misunderstood or misquoted. ;-)) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Most Interested Person" refuses to discuss
I've added information (which accurately reflects actual consensus; it's an explanation of existing practice for newbies) to WP:ORG, and two different editors have removed it recently. Both said that their objections were solely procedural (which is not ever allowed in guidelines). Both of them (mistakenly, but presumably it was an honest, if careless, error) claimed that the expansion was wasn't discussed on the talk page. Both of them have failed to discuss it. One directly refuses to discuss the changes, and asserts that BRD favors her reverting the material and fully justifies her refusal to discuss anything.

Does anyone have any advice for dealing with people that simultaneously demand that you discuss changes and flatly refuse to discuss them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You could try getting a clue that TWO editors have now reverted your major additions to a guideline, that does NOT have any specific discussion nor consensus on the talk page. Why don't you actually follow the proper channels and open a real discussion noting your suggested additions and getting community consensus instead of presuming that you are somehow in the right to continue adding material no one has supported and then trying to badger those who removed it by demanding they have to justify it. The onus is on you to gather support for your additions, not the other way around. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Both you and UnitedStatesian have reverted the addition solely on the grounds of your two demonstrably false assertions:
 * That the change wasn't discussed on the talk page (the discussion began on 19 December and has received zero opposition)
 * That prior discussion is somehow required by Wikipedia -- a claim that is directly contradicted by the following policies:
 * WP:Consensus, which says "Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented....you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it."
 * WP:NOT, which says "A procedural error made in posting anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post."
 * WP:Policy, which says "Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page"
 * WP:Ignore all rules, which says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
 * Don't revert due to "no consensus" (an essay)
 * You might also like to read both WP:BRD and WP:BRD misuse. Since you have demanded that I comply with this essay, I particularly draw your attention to this essay's insistence that I discuss your reversion with you, and not merely with anyone who happens to comment on the talk page.
 * After you've read BRD, perhaps you'll tell me whether you choose to have me follow this suggested procedure (and therefore you choose to discuss your reversion) or whether you no longer choose to have me follow this essay.
 * I remind you, as well, that there is no longer any consensus for the previous version of WP:ORG, so standing on "there's no consensus for changes" as a way of leaving the guideline in some hypothetically ideal state is specious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unable to find any related discussion on the article talk page. Perhaps you should link to it? --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WT:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). You will find three comments explaining the problem with the old version of the page, three comments specifically about the change (two from me), and three complaints from me about editors who have demanded discussion while refusing to discuss the change.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You forgot WP:WIARM: ''"Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus.''

A major requirement for any consensus system, that actually has never been written down (and we probably should): you may challenge any editor to explain any edit. After all, if they do not explain, you may revert them with impunity, because obviously "edit was not discussed" and therefore "there was no consensus".
 * Note that you should only really revert undiscussed edits *AFTER* you have attempted to edit or discuss them, not before, otherwise WP:BOLD breaks (and that's why we consider Bold->revert to be a problem in the first place).
 * Note that reverts are also edits for the purpose of this discussion.
 * Note especially that undiscussed edits are perfectly permitted and normal *UNLESS* challenged; and a challenge need not be a revert. Else wikipedia would be a bureaucratic hell-hole requiring multiple forms in triplicate for every keystroke, and we'd never get around to actually writing anything. (WP:NOT a bureaucracy, WP:SILENCE)

Taking the above into account, we can solve the impasse:

You're perfectly justified to do the following: "rv revert that was undiscussed after 24 hours". It looks dirty, *is* dirty, but onus is on the person who forgot to explain the revert. After all, you can't very well stand around holding the ball all week, just because the other side isn't coming out to play.

Maybe I need to write some more meta-policy pages. (Surprisingly, it might lead to less bureaucracy overall... odd but true. :-/ )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

BRD vs OWN
Despite only being an essay, I've noticed several editors try to use WP:BRD as a way to circumvent WP:OWN, which is policy.

Short of deleting WP:BRD, is there any way to prevent this / prevent people thinking that its an appropriate thing to do?

Newman Luke (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you describe the problem more fully, or give an example? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For examples, please see Requests for comment/Newman Luke and the various times the above user has been brought to ANI and been discussed on project talk pages for his refusal to accept consensus and his continued unilateral changes. -- Avi (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * More discussion. Less reverting.--Father Goose (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is one where the users trying to circumvent WP:OWN are the ones doing the reverting. Newman Luke (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For examples, please see Requests for comment/Avraham, and Requests for comment/Debresser. Newman Luke (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no vs. BRD describes how policy works and is applied. You edit boldly, and preferably do not get reverted. If you do get reverted, figure out what is wrong, fix it, and go back to bold editing. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Figure out what is wrong? Shouldn't the revert privilege come with the responsibility of explanation?  70.250.199.84 (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should. Far too many people seem to treat the R in BRD as a mandate; reverting valid edits should be done only sparingly, and only if one is prepared to discuss why one thought an edit was inappropriate. In my experience there's a strong correlation between those who treat BRD as an instruction (rather than a description of a common cycle) and those who exert overly-strong stewardship over articles to the point where WP:OWN is applicable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with this statement assuming that you define "should" in the canonical way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It would seem, then, that we should just set up the revert system to require an explanation. You could pick from a list for the mundane options such as vandalism, but at a minimum the explanation could establish good faith/bad faith rationale behind the revert, and force the editor to at least *consider* that the change was intended in good faith.  In my experience, that kind of consideration doesn't always happen.  70.247.171.83 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a wiki... ?
Some folks removing this bit:. Ahhhh, guys, that's called wiki-editing. That's how it's (supposed to) work.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss content
Recently I placed a section in an article (decibel) that clarifies the great diversity of definitions and explanations (some of them inconsistent) found in the literature by a uniform and simple explanation that makes this rather elusive concept easier to understand (especially by the layperson) and at the same time fully consistent. The principle is explaining the semantics of actual engineering practice.

A small number of other editors (4) keep in turn deleting the section on the grounds that it violates WP:OR, even though it was made clear that it is based on material already published by reliable sources (WP:SOURCES). These editors consistently maintain that the material is unsuitable for WP as long as it has not become widespread, especially in secondary sources. Some maintain that the section is prescriptive, whereas it is descriptive of actual current practice. Most seem to agree that the existing article contains convolved, vague, evasive and to some extent inconsistent explanations, but some claim that this is intentional to reflect the majority of the literature. (Of course, in my opinion, readers are better served by simplicity and clarity).

On these grounds the editors consistently refuse to discuss content, saying that the above "policy" considerations preclude all other discussion. Although I repeatedly made thorough changes and ended up by eliminating all elements that might remotely look original, they keep reverting. Even my proposal to keep the section on trial for some time so that others can read and comment is ignored. The impression is that the article as it stands may not be touched.
 * But Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. There's been a great deal of text used to describe a very simple idea; textbooks in the field devote an astonishingly small amount of their space to defining and using a decibel, and don't need to introduce complex and original notations for it. The point of defining something like a "decibel" in teh first place is to make things simpler. It's a definition, scarecly an encyclopedia article at all.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) Does not something cease to be original research as soon as it has been published by reliable sources?
 * (b) I fully agree that simplicity is the goal. What can be simpler than x dB = 10^{x/10}? No power ratios (which are just one of many applications), no other extraneous variables, no complex original notations.  It also directly answers the layperson's questions like "what does dB mean?". Boute (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hence my primary question is: how can I bring about discussion of the content?
 * The Talk:Decibel page has an increasingly large amount of discussion of the oontent. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a fortunate recent development. Boute (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A secondary question: if it is true that material is suitable for WP only if it is widespread (especially in secondary sources), which means a long time lag, what is the advantage of having a digital online encyclopedia as opposed to a paper version? Can being out of date truly be policy? (Of course, I am not considering crackpot material, but peer-reviewed material by reliable sources). Boute (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no deadlines. If the idea gets wide circulation, it will eventually get here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

At first blush, it sounds like Boute has the correct end of the stick here (one would have to read up to be sure, I suppose). Did you try to contact one person at a time, to see how consensus might be reached? Usually if you tell someone that you're there to reach consensus, they'll at least give you the time of day (be prepared to compromise, think of what you think needs to be in there, and think of what you can live with. ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you discuss with a missing person?
This is my first edit as a registered user, but I've done a few before and one of them is posing a problem: When I, long ago, tried to look up dexterity, I saw that there was no page for it. It did however redirect to Fine motor skill, which while not quite the same thing, is fairly related. It contained nothing of interest however, as it pretty much consisted of nothing more than information about how fine motor skill develops in children/infants, and how to deal with that. While such information would be nice in a page called Fine motor skill in child development or some such thing, or as a little section in a Fine motor skill page, which is otherwise filled with information about fine motor skills, it does not belong where I found it. I also found that I was hardly the only one to think so (As seen in the Talk page).

I checked in later, a couple of times, but still the same.

No changes whatsoever.

So while I hardly thought I could write an informative page about fine motor skill, I decided that I'd be better than nothing. I decided to Be Bold and made an edit. As I didn't know what to add, I simply removed everything that didn't belong on the page (almost all of the contents), and the best of what remained, resulting in a page that was actually about fine motor skills. It didn't contain much, but I hadn't really reduced any relevant information.

To recap: I waited a long time before interfering, I made an edit in accordance with consensus (the opinion of everyone on the talk page) and I tried to put as much thought into it as I could. I was, as far as I can see, completely justified in my edit and followed Wikipedia policy.

Then someone came along and reverted my edit, with seemingly no care as to how that impacted the quality of the page. Just considering it to be to extreme I guess? I responded in the talk page ...and tried to revert it back (I have since realised the foolishness in such an action, after reading the relevant Policy pages). What I am supposed to do now is, as far as I've understood it, to discuss this matter with the user in question.

Okay fine.

Just one problem:

She's apparently on holiday. (as of 12:25, 18 July 2010, according to when she stated it on her Talk page)

I've stated my reasons, and have requested her reasons. Both on Talk:Fine_motor_skill and User_talk:Lova_Falk, but there is no response. BOLD, revert, discuss. I was BOLD, I got reverted... months later and the one I'm supposed to discuss with is still absent. What am I supposed to do in such a situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Frustrating, isn't it! I know the feeling. Been there, done that as a newbie. Now that you have a registered username you can be more effective. You don't have to discuss with "that" person, but with anyone watchlisting the article. Start the discussion again (with a new heading) on the talk page and see where it goes. I can see why your large deletion was reverted. As a newbie you didn't realize that that's considered vandalism. The existing content was likely the result of lots of people's hard work. Major changes, and ANY controversial change, must be discussed and created through consensus. Make small changes. Work forward systematically and discuss each change as necessary. Never edit war. Be patient because the article isn't going away and all content is saved in the history. It's never really "gone" and can be referenced and even recovered if necessary. You will usually have more success if you build rather than delete. I wish you success in improving the article. Note that "improvement" will be as determined by the combined efforts and ideas of what others consider "improvement". You'll all have to work together and the end result may well be somewhat dissatisfying to many editors, but's sometimes a sign that the article is getting close to NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be implying that someone else would pay attention, any at all, to the page. Trust me, no one does. Also, as to your assertion that my original edit was vandalism... Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've looked around on the policy pages about that and as far as I can see, it doesn't qualify as vandalism. It didn't go against any other policies either, as far as I can tell. It was done quite in accordance to policy (and consensus). I don't see how adding is actually any different from reducing, other than how it is perceived (due to flawed instincts) ...which affects how well it gets accepted, if not how well it should be accepted (it's annoying how what should be, so often differs from what is). "discuss each change as necessary" you say? I explained my edit and further clarified after the revert (as I've mentioned above).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...oh and why do you try to console me by saying that the previous contents is still there in the history? Sure, you can't be expected to know that I am already well aware of that fact, but... I didn't add anything. There is nothing I would want/need to recover, from the history.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Nothing has happened, and User:Lova Falk still seems to be on holiday, even though she has made a few edits since.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone answer the question I asked here? Brangifer's attempt at an answer did not explain anything to me, and was mostly irrelevant to the issue I faced. I have now, I hope, solved the problem (through a different route, where I'll get no complaints of removing content), but I would like to know an answer to the question, for future reference.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you don't get an answer for a reasonable amount of time, I would say you can revert again. If you are reverted again without any discussion, I'd suggest WP:DR. If the other side fails to participate and just keeps reverting, then you can ask for administrator intervention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems overly complicated
It really seems like you guys are making BRD much more complicated than necessary. This is a wiki, so of course people are going to make edits. If someone doesn't like your edit, they can revert. And if they revert, then that means there is not consensus, telling you that you need to discuss the topic before doing anything else.

It's pretty much common sense, not some weird nefarious way to fish out the owners of the article. There's no reason for it to just be some technique to get people to discuss things. Just use it as a natural extension of WP:BOLD and WP:3RR.

It's closer to just saying "Don't just revert a revert." If you are reverted, that means somebody has a problem with your edit, which means you don't have consensus. The only way you are going to get consensus is to discuss.

I think it's this stuff about trying to make people talk to you that makes this come off as offensive. — trlkly 14:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can discuss until hell freezes over. But when you finally do edit (on return from your skiing holidays in the newly opened hell resort), you may discover that some previously silent person disagrees with you and reverts you. Oops.
 * Alternately, during discussion, you can make an edit, and the other person goes "Oh, yeah, actually that's actually not too bad", and doesn't bother reverting.
 * In the end, the first, last, best, worst, only and final arbiter of consensus on a normal wiki-page is whether an edit sticks or not.
 * Since wikipedia is a wiki, your mission (should you choose to accept it) at all times is to make (productive, good faith) edits; as many as you can. Discussion is not your objective per-se.
 * I'm not saying that discussion isn't important at times! It's important to talk with people so that everyone is on the same wavelength. But wikipedia is not a discussion forum or social network. At the end of the day, we're here to edit and build an encyclopedia.
 * Pretty much every statement you make *anywhere* is supposed to (eventually) lead to a productive edit (even if it takes all day, or longer, to get there), and to lead back to regular editing with mutual trust in general (aka. no more reverts).


 * People who revert others for no reason are a hindrance to this process.
 * In general: To make consensus work, you have to provide a reason for everything you do). People taking actions without explaining themselves are demonstrably acting in bad faith.
 * You can exploit this fact to get reverters to talk with you, and thus get the process back on track.


 * TL;DR:
 * Discuss, Discuss, Discuss is not productive. Don't do that!
 * Bold, Bold, Bold is productive. Do that!
 * In Bold, Revert, Discuss; Discuss doesn't mean Discuss the topic, your feelings, or the unseasonably cool weather in hell this year. It means: hold a focused discussion on how to get back to being Bold! (and conclude that discussion as quickly as practical)
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is deletion privileged over addition?
According to this article, deletion is privileged over addition. When an editor adds material, if any other editor deletes it, the advice of the article is that you must consider that other editor a "Most Interested Person" and at this point you should stop editing (i.e., let the deletion stand) until a consensus is reached.

Is this in fact the desired operation procedure of Wikipedia? That material that has been deleted once should not be reposted? --this seems to be the way at least one editor is interpreting the BRD policy (i.e., ).

The article states "This method can be particularly useful when other dispute resolution for a particular wiki is not present, or has currently failed." This is hard to interpret; in what way can one say that "dispute resolution is not present or has currently failed" when there has not yet been a start to dispute resolution; it is still at the point of a single revert by a single editor.

I would have thought that the correct editing technique would be to put the material back and add a section on the discussion page to explain why the material should be included? No? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. ;-) Then see who responds and why! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Resolve a dispute, and a wikipedian is happy for a day. Teach a wikipedian to resolve disputes, and they make everyone around them happy for the rest of their wiki-days.

Can a single revert make an editor part of an edit war and sanctionable for edit warring?
I thought that making a single revert to an article is always allowed, per WP:BRD. Was I wrong? Please see the discussion here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I was under the impression that WP:3RR still applied. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Upgrade to Guideline
I think it's high time this essay was upgraded to the status of Guideline, as almost everyone agress with it, and it is widely referenced. Thoughts, objections? LK (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Given this text from the opening of the essay: "BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure," is it desirable to make this a guideline?
 * Is there any documentation showing that the BRD guideline is useful? 128.156.10.80 (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Should the reverter be the one to fix up what's wrong when the revertee does not want to act?
See Talk:GMA Network, Inc.. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 16:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day we're here to edit. Give 'em 24 hours (they might be in an opposite time zone or so, after all!), else proceed and edit. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does BRD work?
The BRD policy, as written, does seem to be phrased as a zero-revert rule: if you make an edit and somebody reverts your work, BRD says you can't restore your edit. At a minimum, I think this would better rephrased as a statement that the BRD process is initiated with the discussion post: if the other editor reverts your work and posts to the talk page, BRD has been started; if the other editor reverts your edit without starting a discussion, and you disagree with the reversion, then you should revert the edit and start a discussion.

I notice that an earlier edit that added "citation needed" to parts of the article saying how effective BRD is... was reverted. ARE there some examples showing cases where the BRD process actually worked? (And, is there actually a policy saying that articles that are named "Wikipedia: xx" don't benefit from citations?)

BRD, unfortunately, will fail if the other editor involved is not interested in discussion. The BRD flow chart shows "find a reasonable compromise" as the step following "Discuss," but obviously this does not happen if the editor who reverted fails to respond to the discussion. BRD also fails if the other editor responds, but is unwilling to compromise. In short, BRD can't find a compromise if none is available. NumberC35 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing really works at Wikipedia (every noticeboard and every rule is abused). However, the encyclopedia exists. BRD is an excellent essay and part of the WP:RETAIN and WP:BURDEN family: if someone wants to make a change, they need to be prepared to explain why. It is not up to other editors to first justify why material should be removed (although they should have done that to a limited extent in their edit summary on removal of the contested material).
 * I said BRD is an excellent essay. However, and not relevant to this discussion, I will mention that the essay is far too mysterious for an editor referred to WP:BRD for the 99% primary usage case, namely that someone adding contested material needs to justify it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the statement that BRD is an excellent essay. It not very useful in practice, and the essay is a compilation of completely unsubstantiated assertions.  There is no evidence that it actually does work, and it is not even clear how BRP is supposed to work.  The essay basically says that when somebody reverts an edit, they're right and you're wrong.
 * The essay might work if all the editors on Wikipedia were reasonable... but if that were the case, the essay would not be needed. If the editor doing the reverting is not reasonable, the BRP process fails.
 * NumberC35 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reading it again, I'm wondering whether this essay has any significant content at all. The "BRD" cycle consists of three parts.  The first is Bold. On examination, "bold" part states: "make an edit."  Given that this is advice for editors, yes, that's what editors do, make edits.  This advice is hardly needed.  The second part is "Revert."  That's not under your control.  Somebody else reverts your edit, or doesn't; either way, it's not advice for what you should do.  Third part is "Discuss."  The specific instructions here are "stop editing the article and discuss it on the talk page."  Is there any content to the essay other than this?
 * I would say we could delete the entire text of the article except for the single sentence "You should be bold in editing, yes, but if anybody reverts your additions for any reason (or for no reason), you should stop editing the article immediately and move all your future discussion to the talk page." That would shorten the article considerably, but not change the content significantly.
 * On the other hand, I've wasted enough time reading and commenting on this, and I've expressed my opinion enough. So maybe I'll take the article's advice, and exit. Fix it, or don't fix it, but in either case please stop telling yourself "BRD is an excellent essay."  No, it's not.
 * NumberC35 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have energy to contemplate this in detail now, but I think you are correct. Some of the current essay could be an additional section because the idea that if there is a stalemate in some long discussion, then a bold edit might cut through and demonstrate a way to proceed is valid (sometimes!). When I said "excellent", I meant the concept—I tried to indicate that the essay is incomprehensible for the 99% usage case. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Next to WP:POINT, WP:BRD is the most mis-cited page in the wikipedia: namespace. :-P
 * As with WP:POINT, it is often mis-cited to mean the opposite of what it actually says.
 * What makes a wiki -you know- a wiki, is that people make should be making edits to a wiki-page. All your activity should be aimed at doing just that. If someone quotes BRD and says "and now you must discuss until the heat death of the universe", they just blew it in a HUGE way !
 * Instead, what BRD describes is a way to find out who is doing that, so that you can give them a big telling off -or better yet- a big hug (whatever works), so that you can get back to actually doing what we're all actually here for, which is to edit. :-)
 * And of course BRD and Consensus work, they've been working for a very long time. O:-)
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC) So it's a bit naughty: "Which @#*#* has been randomly reverting all the time!?" ... well, why not make an edit and find out? ;-) A lot of the old tricks are a bit naughty. O:-)

Is there any reason why this page shouldn't just be merged into WP:Be bold? --Kotniski (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh? I can't rightly fathom why you would think that that could be possible. It's a supplement to Consensus. The procedure described here can be used to try to salvage the consensus process, in cases where it gets stuck.  It does apply concepts from WP:BOLD for the first step. It then applies  Consensus, WP:WIARM, WP:1RR, and WP:TALK, among others, for the rest of the steps (which are all just as important). Shall we merge the lot then? :-P  --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh shoot, maybe you have a point, people have been watering things down a lot. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge the lot? Possibly a good idea. All these pages (and doubtless others) tend to cover a lot of the the same ground, and end up making things look a lot more complicated than they are. --Kotniski (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We sort of did that with WP:SR->WP:TRI->WP:5P. That didn't quite work out the way we wanted either. (for one, the originals are still out there ) Go ahead and create a page where you merge the lot, if you like, I'll definitely help edit. We'll have to keep the originals around for hysteric historical reasons though, mind you. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"The procedure described here can be used to try to salvage the consensus process, in cases where it gets stuck." Does it? Is there any evidence that this procedure ever salvages the consensus process, or even "tries" to salvage the consensus process? Can anybody cite an example? How exactly would it do that, anyway--in a case where editors are not coming to consensus, how exactly does BRD change this? 128.156.10.80 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you can systematically find every M.I.P. . You then build a partial consensus with 1, then 2, then 3, then 4... M.I.P.s until you have exhaustively discussed and reached consensus with all of them.
 * There may be other methods that systematically and exhaustively find everyone who you need to talk to, and reaches consensus with them all, but I haven't used them. :-)
 * This process generally happens this way anyway, you're not going to be able to actually modify a page if there's still an M.I.P. out there reverting you anyway ;-)
 * Being conscious of what needs to be done to ensure that everyone is happy just happens to speed things up a LOT.
 * For instance, you won't spend weeks going over commas and dotting the I with one person upfront, when you are aware that your entire plan might still change due to having to reach consensus with a number of others. Also, you don't feel as frustrated when your carefully negotiated consensus does get reverted by some random 3rd party you've never met before, because you're already expecting that to happen during the process. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is supposed to apply in a situation where people are already discussing anyway. So you can already see who's interested (you don't need a bold edit to find that out); and in any case, I don't see how you can turn an ongoing multi-participant discussion into a series of private conversations each between you and one other person. Unless the edit you want to make is unrelated to the subject of the ongoing discussion, or reflects the clear result of the discussion (in which case it's not "bold" anyway), or is a well-crafted compromise that might just satisfy everyone, I don't think it's going to be helpful.--Kotniski (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well they'll either have been discussing for way too long, or they're all reverting newcomers (or both). Neither of these situations are conducive to the writing of an encyclopedia (after all, there's not much writing going on!). The people involved in the discussion are not necessarily M.I.Ps. You should only discuss with people interested in editing or reverting. Local color is welcome, but not relevant to the writing of the encyclopedia. :-P
 * If you edit once, (obviously attempting an edit as close as possible to the current consensus/compromise, why try for anything less?), there's going to be only one person who reverts you first (or no-one reverts you, in which case you're done ;-)) . You now have 1 person to talk with of whom you are certain that they are interested in your edit. You can then meet their remaining concerns first. When one next makes an edit, it will be someone else who reverts, etc... until people finally do stop reverting, and everyone makes bold edits again.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Why not meet everyone's concerns all at once? Well, that's very very very hard. If you just take it 1 step at a time, you will get there in the end. It might be counter-intuitive, but since you're working systematically, you'll probably be done sooner, as well
 * I'm not entirely sure this would work quite so idyllically. Once you've met everyone else's concerns (assuming that's somehow possible, which it often isn't, given that the concerns in situations like this tend to contradict), you might find you've made an edit quite different from the one you wanted to make in the first place - and one that you might not even agree with. And if you only agree to talk to people who are prepared to revert you, then it ends up being the most belligerent editors that have the greatest input in the final decision - and experience often shows that those who are keenest to revert are those are least blessed with wisdom. --Kotniski (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh. Idyllic. Heh. Interesting values of idyllic you have there. :-P
 * When there are contradictory concerns, then usually the obvious approach is to take The Third Option(tm). So far there has always been a third option
 * Yes the edit will be quite different from the one you intended in the first place, but that's normal on WP. You are supposed to make an edit you can live with though (don't forget to think of your own position too!).
 * There is no final decision yet. There was belligerence, which is why you got called in in the first place, perhaps. Your objective was to handle the most belligerent folks so that we can get back to normal editing. (At which point the less belligerent editors get a chance too.)
 * I plead the 5th on my opinions of those who are keen to revert; I still use this method occasionally. O:-)
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that BRD works VERY well if you take it as what it is....a non-specific statement which names and urges and legitimizes that sequence/process/concept. But if you take it to be more than that (e.g. try to read a detailed rule into it) you have a mess. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We call these kinds of things "Patterns" (more specifically: Community Patterns in this case). At which point we come around a (very large) full circle, because of course the world's first wiki was created to assist in the documentation of patterns, by one Ward Cunningham. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC) (If we ever reboot wikipedia, my first move would be to abolish all rules, and make everything patterns; as it's a much more powerful and useful concept, especially when dealing with wikis :-P)

Recent changes

 * Diff of changes, which includes a whole lot of edits spanning the past 3 days.
 * Version before changes

I looked at this page this morning to find it noticeably different than what I remembered. It seems someone I'm in a dispute with has made some substantial changes. I'm wondering how much consensus there is for it.

The editor making these changes, User:Amadscientist, has been engaged in a heated dispute with myself and another editor at Talk:Occupy Wall Street for about 3 weeks now, in which multiple reverts have been an issue. He's used the phrase "BRD isn't policy" (or some variation thereof) pretty prolifically in response to it. You can see some of his thoughts on BRD and edit warring here: Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 28; and a resulting proposal he made here: VPP (which got no responses).

There are several aspects of the new version that now seem unclear to me, and I'm wondering if the best person to be making substantial changes here is someone who's currently in a conflict regarding it. This may not be a policy, but it is an oft-applied resource. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  11:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm watching, not super closely, but I've not yet felt an urge to revert. I am however starting to question the terminology. BOLD is good, but not really in every cycle. And reverts should be avoided where possible, not used in every cycle. I'm thinking change Bold to Edit, and diminish Revert.
 * Thanks for discussing SmokeyJoe. Interesting comments. Could you elaborate? Thanks! Any changes I made that don't reflect the spirit of Wikipedia or the BRD cycle should be discussed if I errored in some way. I have been in a dispute of course, but not about BRD. I am in no way edit warring as he seems to stating as that was between him and another editor also a part of the dispute he mentions. You can see my thoughts on BRD by looking at my edit summaries and ny changes and contributions here. I don't disrespect it...I disrespect the use of it as a magic sword to defeat the "evil disrupters of "Truth""...or in other words...when it is shoved down the throats of editors as an absolute, do or be blocked cycle. It is not. I understand the cycle, its intent and meaning, its usefulness and its origins. It was meant originaly to be in reference to all wikis and is a simple essay from what I see in history. I can not locate anything that shows that BRD is a supplment to any policy. It was badly written with multiple problems and mistakes and had an odd and mean spirited tone that has been taken too far in many instances for many years. I have stayed away from the essay but I am a contributor now and watch this page like a hawk. I hope to collaborate on improving it and other possiblities. Hope you like what I have done and anything you really think is just absolutely wrong I extend the trust and good faith of and for you to make what changes or corrections you feel fit. Should I take issue or dispute anything I will not edit war and will discuss or make a bold edit without reverting your contribution before discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Changing "Bold, Revert, Discuss" to "Edit and Discuss" with mention about what reverting is and how it effects editing would be a great start!--Amadscientist (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No that would not be useful at all. The usefulness of BRD is that it basically says - if someone reverts your edit: discuss. It is supposed to mean that it is OK to be bold, but any bold edit is liable to be reverted and any reverted edit should be discussed before it is reinstated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be a bit too far for most, but...doesn't mean another essay can't be written. They are kinda fun to write actually.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I kinda think the current version is the one with multiple problems though, and it concerns me that someone who's shown derision at being thrashed with BRD in a current dispute (seeing themselves as having been characterized as "evil disrupters [sic] of Truth" on the basis of BRD) is now taking it upon himself to change BRD. This smells bad to me. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  14:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speak to the edit and not the editor. Just because you say I have shown derision "at being thrashed with BRD" or you give an interpretaion of what I "see myself as" (by the way that was absolutely not my perception of myself LOL!) does not mean any of that is even close to what is going on here. Equaz needs to be far more accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

To me the changes look like a lot of personal thoughts and comments with respect to particular specialized situations. Knowing the back story raises the concern that they are oriented towards a particular dispute. I don't think that any of the additions/changes are "violation" of anything but IMHO they are overall not a good idea. I might "R" in BRD (back to the version before this series of changes) or suggest that someone else do that just to get this to a good starting point for a more thorough discussion of potential changes. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * None of the changes I made have anything to do with "personal thoughts and comments with respect to particular specialized situations". Knowing what backstory? Mine or another editors accusation? There is a village pump discussion where all of this is being discussed. What edit or change do you see as "personal thoughts and comments with respect to particular specialized situations" If there are no violations and just an accusation that there is a dispute that mentions BRD, what does that mean? I can't edit this essay and any edit I make should be scrubbed because an editor has assumed bad faith? What is a good starting point. You mean before i made an edit that does't violate of anything but in your opinion is not a good idea?--Amadscientist (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of that I never said or advocated so I'm not going to respond to things that I never said. But there may be one area where I as unclear which is my first sentence.   What I meant is that that there are a whole lot of additions that sound conversational, giving thoughts and advice on particular hypothetical situations, which are overly narrow/specialized/conversational  to be included in the wording of the main page.   Also some good, succinct wording has been removed.  My opinion is that the April 24th version is overall much better than the current version and IMHO we should revert to it as a starting point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement there, for the record (though that should probably be obvious). This was just suggested at ANI as well, FYI. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  16:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly prefer not engaging in wholesale reversions. I might prefer bits and pieves of the older versions, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Perhaps one of you would start by undoing the changes to whichever single sentence or paragraph you think was the least desirable change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if nothing else this will be a lesson in what editors see this essay as and how much respect they really have for it. I would hope that you would not choose an up or down vote on a version before and a version after, but DISCUSS the changes and how they can be improved. Seriously. I'm not kidding or trying to prove a point...and the article is an essay hence the "giving thoughts and advice on particular hypothetical situations".--Amadscientist (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't the slightest doubt that your edits are a sincere effort to improve it. That is also clear from reading them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If there were good, succinct wording that has been removed make an edit that adapts that portion and see if it is discussed or disputed?--Amadscientist (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The challenges that the changes are a net result of 43 edits by you in a few days. Too many / too fast for anybody to review individually, and huge task for somebody to try to sort out separately. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but just using the diffs to view versions can show exactly what changes were made if that is an issue, but more importantly we can address each issue that there MAY be as they come up if there are objections, but to specific changes. Its as easy as the reverse and its respectful to the edits themselves and doesn't make this a reaction a simple good faith contributions. I am not adverse to changing this. I am not set on a version, just on things I see as needing to be addressed. If they need further refinement or changes, removal etc, why can't we collaborate. Not just me and you but all who see this and anyone who has concerns and wants to work together. It isn't really a challenge, it's just the way wikipedia works. If I am the boldest editor at Wikipedia...then we are seriously in trouble. LOL! (that was a joke...don't quote me" ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just giving my opinion and suggestion and thoughts for the discussion. Even my thought behind "I might revert" we just that it might be a better way to sort this out. I have no opinions that are so strong as to try to push through a reversion on, nor to spend a whole days' worth of my wikipedia time on to try to evaluate and possibly  debate 43 edits individually. So I'll think I'll just leave my comments as vague suggestions and thank you for your sincere efforts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems ass backwards that you can make a large number of edits to a widely-used essay and then insist that others must contest your edits one-at-a-time. It should be the opposite: You propose your edits gradually so others can evaluate them and the burden of work is shared instead of placed entirely on others. ElKevbo (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not insisting on anything. I am editing and discussing. I am not asking or stating that anything needed to be "contested" but discussed or edited to adapt as needed. What seems backwards is to state what any editor is doing by making edits. All you did was edit war your version of what you want based soley on the assumption that I made "a bunch" of edits on an essay that many use "seems ass backwards". Sure and the argument can be made that an essay that so many people "use" should be allowed to be improved. I dispute your reversion in that you didn't edit, you edit warred, but I accept your reversion as I have to be able to move forward ONE WAY OR ANOTHER even if the ultimate result is back to square one. So, now that Elkevbo has reset back lets go from there.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit war? Really?  Have you read the essay you've taken over?  The one called "Bold, Revert, Discuss" ?  You were bold and made edits, I objected and reverted, and now we should be discussing the issue.  But instead you've decided to label my actions an "edit war."  And you stand by while one of our colleagues begins an actual edit war by reverting a reversion.
 * I'm out of here. It's clear that you don't really want to discuss anything now that you've successfully rammed your version of the essay through.  If you were interested in discussion, you'd have taken things slower and actually discussed things with others instead when objections were raised.  ElKevbo (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A revert is a dramatic but easy thing. That's a disconnect. I think a substantive reason should be required for any revert. "Due to no established consensus" is rhetoric without substance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Process matters but apparently it doesn't matter to you or Amadscientist.
 * Don't bother responding; I'm removing this essay from my watchlist as those editing it clearly don't even believe in it. ElKevbo (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's clearly no consensus for these changes. Not sure what the justification for that revert is (back to the changed version). A big alteration to a "big" page generally = big proof of consensus. The pre-change version has it, this doesn't. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  07:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that ElKevbo feels that way, but I have reviewed the recent changes and I find them all to be improvements. Thankfully, the sections were preserved, making the smaller and combined diffs easy to review. There has been a lot of criticism of this essay on other fora recently, including by Amadscientist, and it was undeniably in a state of neglect. The images of the diagram at WP:Consensus is out-of-date by how many years? Also, the changes, although many edits, were not big changes. They helped clarify the existing intent, and now to my reading help reveal certain flaws. The biggest is that BRD is not a cycle but the first steps in stirring up activity, and is a very poor model for continued editing. I think a lot more change is to come. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that ElKevbo feels that way, but I have reviewed the recent changes and I find them all to be improvements. Thankfully, the sections were preserved, making the smaller and combined diffs easy to review. There has been a lot of criticism of this essay on other fora recently, including by Amadscientist, and it was undeniably in a state of neglect. The images of the diagram at WP:Consensus is out-of-date by how many years? Also, the changes, although many edits, were not big changes. They helped clarify the existing intent, and now to my reading help reveal certain flaws. The biggest is that BRD is not a cycle but the first steps in stirring up activity, and is a very poor model for continued editing. I think a lot more change is to come. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion and suggestion would be to revert to the April 24 version and then deal with proposed changes from there. Saying that somebody has to untangle a blast of 43 edits and deal with individual ones in order to contest the changes is a barrier for entry into the discussion and not correct. North8000 (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a single change that you disagree with, that you are able to say why you disagree? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Requested example:  OK Looking at the net effect of the 43 edit blitz, the first one that I spotted was DELETION of this succinct core wording:
 * "BE BOLD and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. Any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort. Your change might involve adding, removing, rearranging, re-writing information."
 * And REPLACING it with this rambling wording which says the exact opposite of the title and concept of this essay and the accepted BRD concept:
 * "Sometimes editing a particular page can become complicated. Many different editor discussions are still resulting in little movement within the article, and little to no progress is being made. Discover the Most Interested Persons, and reach a compromise/consensus that each party can live with. The assumption is that Most Interested Persons will be quickest to respond.."
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I see what you mean, although I have reservations about the text you like. I have a problem with the "any edit will do" part. Let me think about it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to rule out any changes, or even to rule out trying changes on a "bold" basis (in BRD). But even BRD implies a practical ability for others to see and think about them, which is not practically possible for most in a rapid sequence of 43 edits.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Undo of revert as unjustified
No. That was intirely innaccurate at BEST and somewhat manipulative at worst. North800 just used a comparison of two different pieces of information.

The first line North showed was the FIRST STEP IN THE CYCLE and the other line was prose from the introduction to it. I will show the original and altered prose with content in both that was altered in bold. The actual line he shows (original):

"1.BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. Any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort. Your change might involve adding, removing, rearranging, re-writing information."

was copy edited to:


 * 1) Be bold, and make a change you currently believe to be the optimal edit. It is wisest to proceed based on your best effort. Your change might involve adding, removing, rearranging or re-writing information. Do not be reckless.

The line of prose he "claims" I changed to "rambling wording" was this:

"Sometimes editing a particular page can become complicated. Many different editor discussions are still resulting in little movement within the article, and little to no progress is being made. Discover the Most Interested Persons, and reach a compromise/consensus that each party can live with. The assumption is that Most Interested Persons will be quickest to respond.."

Which is, in fact the introduction copy edited from this:


 * Problem: Editing a particular page has become tricky, too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made.
 * How to proceed: Discover the Most Interested Persons, and reach a compromise/consensus with each, one by one.

The assumption is that Most Interested Persons will have a page watchlisted or will quickly discover if a particular page is changed. (end of prose from essay)

North800 failed to make a good argument for his belief that the prose is either rambling or inaccurate. His comparioson was not accurate and could be seens dishonest, but i would say it is simply his inability to see the situation fairly from the outtage he is feeling. I will not doubt his good faith but feel at this time I myself have justified my reasoning to revert the edit made by another editor based on Nort800's comments.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you have to deal with multple editors so I took out "one by one' but that can easily go back in with some explanation--Amadscientist (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you just said, and the comments about what I wrote seem to bear no relationship to what I actually said. All of that aside, what should happen now is clear. You made changes to a prominent, highly quoted and linked essay  and they are disputed.   We're at "D" of BRD; you need consensus for any changes.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I understood what you said and you are incorret. I do not need consensus to make changes. That IS NOT a policy. Bold edit actualy means that I can make an edit without consensus. Consesus cannot be fabricated and it is not a straight up vote. Consensus is a collaboration and all you did was throw up an argument (anyone will do) and then allow others to agree with or disagree with a version. You have made no argument, proven nothing and are fabricating a consensus that does not exist. Consensus is not us bersus them. It is not mob rule or an occupation. There are editors that are for the changes and editors against BUT edit warring without anything more then excuses that have no basis in reality is edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverted
I've reverted to the pre-changed version. Per North8000, the language that was once concise and meaningful had become odd and rambling. I waited for someone else to revert before getting involved, but now that someone has (and was himself reverted), I've gone ahead and done it. I really feel all these various "copyedits" lowered the quality of this page. It required a cleanup that would've basically been a total revert anyway. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  14:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I will not edit war, but I have proven above that North800 was innacurate and incorrect. I feel I can undo based on that. See above.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your reversion. You do not boldly change a guideline and then editwar to keep a contested change in. That approach simply doesn't work.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Maunus is right. This whole mess reveals what can happen when too many changes are made in a short period of time, no matter how well-intentioned (and I don't think anyone doubts the good intentions here). It's simply impossible to deal with, so a mass revert is made and one starts over again, but using discussion to guide anymore restoration or changes.
 * Even if Maunus were entirely right, rather than half right (bold changes are permitted on guidelines; edit warring is not), this page is not a guideline. It's an essay.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The BRD cycle needs to be followed here. The restoration after the first revert was the beginning of an edit war. That's one of the brilliant things about this guideline - it's the only surefire way to determine when an edit war has started and who started it. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. The first revert was an edit war. It changed content for no other reason than to change content. The second revert by SmokeyJoe reverted an unjustified undo of content. BRD is not a sacred cow. It's an essay and editors have the right to edit. You are edit warring by just changing it and furthering the edit war out of confusion of the cycle itself with NO regard or respect to the content, just the outrage of an edit on an open source encyclopedia that everyone can edit. You just don't want the change for various reasons and none of them seem to be about the content just that it was actually boldly edited.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The first edit can be an aggressive act by a stalker or other enemy, but it's not edit warring according to BRD. The BRD concept considers a failure to follow the cycle an act of edit warring, and the earliest possible spot for that to happen is to revert the first revert (=restore), IOW BRRD. (The "D" in this version is superfluous, because it makes no difference if discussion is occurring or not.) The whole idea is that the contested content isn't restored until the discussion has hopefully resulted in a consensus version. OTOH, if the matter is ignored for some time, then a revert/restoration becomes a new Bold edit, thus (re)starting the cycle again. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Undo as edit warring"??? You've GOT to be kidding me. You don't "undo" edit warring. You "undo" to continue the edit war. We selectively apply policy to ourselves it seems. Contested bold edits do not stand. I may be contributing to the edit war now, but so be it. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  20:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, not kidding. A single edit can be edit warring, but the intent of the edit as well as if it just goes over 3 reverts in a 24 hr period is just as important. There is no consensus that the page should be reverted to the "old version". There are many people discussing this and that is great, but no argument has been made to establish the changes themselves are in anyway wrong. The one attempt did not use the correct lines of prose to compare as one being a re-write of the other. Probably just got confused with the 43 edits. That is a number of edits. In the time i made those "43edit" I was never reverted. In fact I was helped by one editor that corrected my spelling. I thanked them. The suggestion that people did not have time to object is simply not the case here. And now that there are objections there are no clear objections to anything specific just basicly "Oh no, you d'nt", and a revert. So, in the spirit of collaboration I offer the following. In order to discourage further "edit warring" I propose to work backwards myself on some of the last edits I made and discuss them here with others that may be interested.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no consensus for your changes, and that's where the burden of proof lies. There doesn't need to be "consensus for the revert". BRD has been in its April 24th form more or less for a long time and there is consensus for it. The revert is to the consensus version. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, "there is no consensus for my changes" is not an argument unless you're 3 years old and you are not. As I said there was actually a contribution to my edits. That at least shows I was collaborating with another on changes he made to my edits with respect and thanks. You are just being stubburn. We could just let editors "Single edit war" themselves into sanctions I guess. I have made the good faith effort to adress all concerns. There is no consensus for the removal of all content. Equazcion "just no" is edit warring. So, now what? Do you own the article? Are all my contributions to be edited out now as the editor who made the changes Equaz didn't want cause he just said no?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is exactly hy you shouldn't beediting this guideline. When you boldy edit a policy and that edit is contested then the previous version stays untill there is consensus for change. That is the entire point of BRD. You were bold - you ere reverted - now we discuss and arrive at a consensus for how to change to a compromise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no reason I should not be editing this guideline.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes there is - the reason is that you obviously have a very different interpretation of what BRD (and the concept of editwarring) is supposed to mean than other most other people. It makes no sense for you to edit the page untill you're sure that everybody is on the same page on that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) I agree, you simply don't understand the intent of this guideline.


 * (2) You are exhibiting pretty strong ownership attitudes and you need to cool off. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think cooling off isn't a bad idea, however I disagree that it has been established that don't understand the intent of BRD as that is what I am claiming and at least I can show where it is being interpreted wrong, like the last revert that claims discission must take place Before edits or changes being per BRD. It is not. I do not own this article nor am I even attempting to own it. I attempted to work with another editor and he just went to what I saw as a personal attack. At any rate I am still allowed to edit the page and there is still a question of the essay as it is written. There are others that agreed as well but I can see why they don't wish to engage here.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project BRD proposal
If ever there was a project that was a good idea this would be it. We could even attempt to set up a Notice Board, create a basic guideline, a peer review page and encourage collaboration by multiple editors to engage in a meaningful way to improve BRD and other essays on editing behavior, conduct, methods or cycles etc. Basicly BRD incompasses the very basics of editing policy and guidelines as do other methods. The scope could be as wide or narrow as consensus agrees on. Lets improve them, list them and have a place that they can all be collaborated on and spot light in project feature sections on the project page.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Like! BRD is intimately connected with the whole issue of edit warring and should be connected to that page. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit
I am doing a good copy edit to the article. Please help out if you'd like.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added wikilinks and copyedited the lede and the "note" by adding the term "civil". Perhaps we could use a wikilink to Civility on that?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to my edit summary, "this" to "it" was a bad change since the object of the sentence was care and diplomacy, so "this" would refer to "care and diplomacy" being possibly seen as a challenge; while "it" correctly refers back to BRD. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  20:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the intent of the statementis that care and diplomacy ARE a challenge to some editors and is NOT refering back to BRD. This is a Lede reference to what is in the essay, but we should clarify both.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind about the reason you shouldn't be editing this page. It's because you're terrible at it. I'm sorry it came to saying that, but you're bad at writing (especially the instructional kind) and your grasp of the English language might even be askew. I'm not sure if that's uncivil but it was either that or keep on dealing with trying to tweak your copyedits so it doesn't look like total reverts with "it really just read better the other way" in the summary. I don't know what else to do here. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  21:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Amadscientist, please stop editing the Project page for a few days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK SmokeyJoe. You have been reasonable and I can respect your request. I won't make any guarantees of days but I can stop the editing for now. At least 24 hrs as a direct commit ment to you.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You could start with no further personal attacks and address the edits and not the editor. Yes, that was incivil. As for the remark about my ability to write "instructional kind", I leave my contributions to those areas to stand. Collaboration means to help each other. That is not your objective. Attempts at humiliation and persoanl will no longer be put up with. Collaborate and work together and keep your personal opinions about other editor abilites to your self.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, in this page your arguments have had repeated large flaws regarding the process, and also you keep getting unduly nasty with people, especially in your interpretation of what they said. Why don't you just slow down and mellow out here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You have been playing fast an loose with the facts and opinion there North800. Please tell us the flaws you see and I will state the flaws in your argument.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding "arguments have had repeated large flaws regarding the process" people have already told you about all of those specifically. North8000 (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

linking to Ownership of articles and Quickstart guide
I could use a bit of help here, linking through to the ownership policy, as BRD is sometimes used that way, often by relative newbies, but I can't quite get the best way to grasp it's effect on new editors, ideas ?
 * BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas. No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion.

Also if we can help with the 'large changes must be discussed first' idea that would be fantastic, it is such a common misconception that leads straight to reverting.

Please do go ahead and edit my comment on this page. Penyulap  ☏  04:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas. No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion, but large edits, and any edits that are potentially controversial, are often the targets of reverts, so - in the spirit of collaborative editing - prior discussion is often wise.

New improved version by BullRangifer Penyulap  ☏  06:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Very well worded.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

BRD, copyedits can't fix a flawed heart
(Inserted text) before and after SmokeyJoe's edit, SmokeyJoe please feel free to edit or delete my text here as you see fit. Penyulap  ☏  04:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have read two versions again (either side of my revert). Again, I consider Amadscientist’s rewrite to be a fairly neutral rewrite. I thank him for his interest and effort. I have for years thought that this page needs a rewrite. Personally, although I find the basis compelling, I find the details unconvincing, the logic unpersuasive.

On the quality of writing, although I am not a great writer, I believe I can appreciate good writing/speaking. Neither version has it. I think the reason that neither version has it is because there is a flaw at the heart.

I Amadscientist wishes to argue for acceptance of his rewrite, I think he would do best to produce an alternative version on a subpage, and propose acceptance section-by-section, and with section restructures discussed separately.

Personally, I’m feeling that I should start a new essay, because I think some central flaws are too great. These are: --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BRD is not a cycle. It is the first steps of a fresh effort to stimulate a focused discussion, whether from a period of silence, or an attempt to move on from an existing unfocused discussion.
 * For the BOLD edit, “BE BOLD, …. Any change will do” chokes. This is not OK.  How did it get in there?  Later the page reads “Stay focused: Make only the changes you absolutely need to. Bold doesn't have to be big”.  That’s OK, and contradicts the earlier text.  However, I think it is not OK, and that it hurts, for this page to attempt to redefine, or modify, the message of WP:BOLD “If you see something that can be improved, improve it!”).  In the editing cycle, an editor should make an edit to improve the page.  They must believe that their edit, if accepted, can be left indefinitely.  Their edit should not be a gambit, or an ambit.  Such games are unappreciated, and editors that use them loose the trust of their colleagues.  No, a bold edit, must be a sincere edit intending to do nothing other than to improve the page.
 * ”Revert” on this page is way too prominent, and presented as a way-too-easy option. Revert only when necessary is better respected advice and this essay should not contradict that essay.  I think revert is a dangerous edit.  It hurts the reverted.  It is face-to-face confrontation.  It hinders progress.  Of course, non-constructive, non good-faith edits should be reverted.  And any edit that goes diametrically opposite to the right direction should be reverted.  But when reverting a considered, good faith edit, I think the onus on starting the discussion (yes, Revert should lead directly to discussion) should lie with the reverter, and they should have to say at least one sensible thing about what the edits makes worse.
 * Discussion, in general, should not be followed by a BOLD edit. A brief discussion among a few edits should lead to some simple local consensus.  Implementing that result is not “BOLD”.  It is an edit that needs to be done.  It needs doing so that everyone, the discussion participants, and the lurkers, can see the actual result of the discussion.  A multi-party discussion can be difficult to interpret.  An edit is well defined, and is a suitable focus of the next round of discussion.


 * I agree very much with this SmokeyJoe including your suggestions to me and the idea of writing another essay. I would be more than happy to collaborate on such an effort.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My ideas are incorporated in the figure.


 * This is a work in progress. I see that BRD is still in there.  One can begin with an edit or with discuss.  The most dramatic edit allowed is the level 5 BOLD edit, but do feel free to edit more gently.  Any edit may be reverted, but I feel that any reverter of a good faith edit must give an substantive explanation, even if brief.  The explanation should go in the edit summary.  If you are reverted, you must discuss.  Begin by discussing the reverters reason as given.  Discussion often goed wayward.  Agreement in discussion may be tested somewhat by strawpoll, but ultimately agreement, or consensus, is only tested by whether the edit sticks.  Discussions and polls have their own problems not covered here.  It is a cycle, but I do not recommend that a bold edit should be repeated without clear support from the discussion.  It is preferable to look for an alternative solution.  I suggest that BOLD edits and Reverts should be treated similarly.  Repeated BOLD editing, like repeated Reverting is disruptive and leads to blocking.  An easy solution, if you are right, is to ask for someone else to repeat the BOLD edit, or to do the Revert.
 * File:Edit and discuss.png --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely breathtaking work SmokeyJoe, it is the best clarity that can be added to the essay. It's quite a secret desire of mine that all policy and (editing) process be explained in such visual charts. It helps so many editors to better understand the process, and many groups of editors too. To those that are artists, somewhat of a minority, and understandably so, wikipedia is so hostile at the moment, but this type of chart creates clarity for artists, and a much larger group, the programmer-oriented editors, and there is no shortage of those, as well as countless more who don't even realise their own visual orientation, they just look and then understand without realising they used the chart to gain the understanding. The translation is such important work, and there is so little of it, this is such a breath of fresh air in such a suffocating environment because it is such a better rewrite of the old confusing one the page has. It should go in immediately as it is such an improvement at this stage, even unfinished. Penyulap  ☏  20:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

BRD is just one method?

 * "It can be useful..." (emphasis added)
 * "BRD is ... not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

It seems to me the whole "not required" thing needs major clarification. If what happened recently on this very page is any indication, it would seem the general theory is that we can indeed require other editors to follow it. The fact that the page itself says we can't, and that it's merely "a method" (as in one of a possible many), is just a brain-scramble for editors who lack experience in contentious disputes.

I'd suggest a slight rewrite to clarify how the term "BRD" is actually used. And that is this:


 * If you make a bold edit,
 * And it is reverted,
 * You have no other option (to facilitate your idea's implementation) than to discuss.

BRD could be defined as a method, but the truth is that in the case of a bold → revert, it is really the only acceptable method that the original editor is expected to follow. This page is really meant to communicate that fact, and not much else. There's been a lot of creep involved, I think, in expanding on the fact that it's not the only way things can possibly go -- but the page's intention was always to lay out what a bold editor is expected to do when reverted. I'd propose editing the page to clarify this fact. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  00:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you make a bold edit, And it is reverted then You have no other option (to facilitate your idea's implementation) than to discuss. Sounds OK.  But (devil's advocate) why can't you make a (one) less BOLD edit in the same direction?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Equazcion, you've summed up the whole idea here. Very nice. I suggest that wording be used as a "nutshell", like we have on some other essays and on all policies and guidelines. I'm surprised we don't have a nutshell box. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the proposed nutshell wording (if it's indented, it won't make a box):


 * Brangifer (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Before we think about nutshells, which are meant to sum up the page's contents, we should see whether there's consensus to make those corresponding content changes. Right now the page doesn't articulate BRD as any kind of requirement, so this nutshell wouldn't be an accurate summation. Due to the resistance to it becoming policy, we'll need to wait some more input; but policy or not, the page should reflect actual practice -- and the practice, as we've seen, is to tell people "BRD!" when their bold edits are reverted, as if it is indeed a requirement -- because it frankly is. BRD tells people what policy says they should do when their bold edits are reverted. The page currently just presents it as an option, which is confusing -- it is an option before anyone starts editing, but once a bold → revert occurs, it ceases to be optional. That needs to be specified. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  02:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree on all counts. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now on that I do disagree completely. The BRD cycle, process or method that cannot be required, whats required is the policy issues of editing in general. There are other methoda of editing that do not require adding or removing information. The the manner mentioned above is just making others submit to a standard that is not within editing guidelines and would overide general community consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * SmokeyJoe, yes, in some cases a further edit is justified, but it's justified because the edit summary left by the reverting editor indicates one should take certain considerations or make some other change. In such a case, the need for talk page discussion was obviated by the edit summary. This only works for minor things. Major things should still be discussed on the talk page, and not resort to using edit summaries while carrying on what amounts to an edit war. Edit summaries cannot replace full discussion for more serious matters. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the requirement is too much myself. But why not a more neutral tone:

--Amadscientist (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think if you're reverted, it means someone is against what you're trying to do fundamentally, because otherwise they would've tweaked your edit as opposed to reverted it -- or at least, that should be the original editor's operating assumption. They should discuss to then determine whether a modified edit would be more agreeable, rather than try again with no discussion. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  00:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think attempting to change the wording to somehow state that editors may be required to adhere to BRD after the VP discussion about making it policy is not at all in the spirit of consensus of the wider community. The situation here was not an application of BRD (which is indeed a method among other things) but of local consensus against changes or even specificly the "43" edits I made. So I dispute the need to make any changes to the essay until such time that the consensus agrees changes should even be made at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * BRD was referred to several times by admins and other editors alike in their rationale for why you shouldn't be continuing to edit this page. They explicitly said you were bold and you were reverted, so you shouldn't be editing but discussing now. That's how BRD is referred to in practice and that should be clarified here. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  00:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. Not accurate. I may still edit edit this page and the reference to BRD by admin was about REVERTING. Dennis Brown requesting we revert back as a compromise, he made no reference to me not editing there. Another reasonable editor suggested I not revert him and I said I would not have but I already agreed to Smokejoe's request that I take a few days to cool off from editing the project page and I agreed to at least 24 hrs and perhaps a full 3 days, but I am not blocked and there is no sanction on me from edting the page. The suggestion was that discussion needs to take place now on the talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What you are allowed to do and what you ought to do are two different things. It is clearly a bad idea to make further undiscussed edits in a situation like this one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable and I certainly agree to at least some degree.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Maunus, I agree. It would definitely violate the requirement to edit in a collaborative manner. I'm glad to see that Amadscientist is a good sport. Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What I'd like to see you post here on the talk page is a short list of the things you disagree with about this essay with accompanying reasons. That would be a really goo way to get a discussion started about the actual topic instead of about who can edit the article when. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, lets wait and see where the current changes are leading before I return to actually editing the page or listing anything in particular. I do have some response to the above nut shell and can post my concerns and an alternative to consider that sort of thing for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I like that. Simple and to the point.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been naughty and gone in another direction to avoid ambiguous dynamics and tried to quash that ambiguity by turning up the volume on the spirit of the process. Penyulap  ☏  05:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your version is long, can it fit in the shell of a large nut? I do like it.  Who do you think is the seamonster.  I'm not so sure about the peril.  It puts you in peril of abuse, but I think that mentioning BRD gives you 1 free pass for editwarring.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The seamonster is a conceptual embodiment of the idea to steer newbie editors to the simple uses, there is a section it summarises here:

BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. You can also try using it in less volatile situations, but take care when doing so.


 * but as BRD is good to go for newbies now, what do you figure, do we need that sort of thing at all ? it's for everyone or not ? I don't know what everyone wants there, I think everyone can use it myself.


 * But for now allow the mischievous Magician to misdirect everyone by asking W T F is "brusque" doing in the article. I thought a seamonster was a refreshing new animal, but what a rare exhibit we already have here. Penyulap  ☏  06:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I link yesterday to WP:OWN to stop the edit-warring, but what kind of invocation still works, can you illustrate a little for me please. Penyulap  ☏  07:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What? Was it your linking that stopped the edit warring?  Or does it stop future edit warring? Are there invocations that work? I try to follow the theory that politeness promotes politeness, and even if politeness doesn't work, it makes for a more pleasant environment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, let me explain, I was saying that I had added in the text "BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period" to help stop BRD being used as a reason to revert lots of changes over a long period, which is one kind of edit warring. Then, when I saw you say "but I think that mentioning BRD gives you 1 free pass for editwarring." I thought that you had seen another way in which BRD can be used for as an excuse for edit warring behaviour, so I wanted to find out what loophole you were able to see in the BRD wording, so I can help address it.


 * For politeness, I am so totally all for it, do you mean me or the essay ? I'd like to put more effort into either one, I put a lot of effort into myself already, so it's just pointing out the area that you feel needs attention and I can work on that issue. Penyulap  ☏  09:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah. The "I'm following BRD" invocation, yes.  Invoking the name "BRD" intimidates anti-editwar admins from blocking/protecting.  It works for a limited duration.  "Politeness" was a guess at another invocation that protects from sanction.  The impolite reverters are more likely to get blocked quicker.  This to me is all just musing on the subject of how cycling through BRD very strongly resembles a multi-party edit war, and leads to a drive-by page protection (for example).  This tendency of page protection on just a few reverts has hindered my studies of BRD.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe] (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We must include some of these musings. At the very least a few points to for roving admins to consider. A hint at these dynamics are can lead to which articles/ essays/ musings. At the very least a plain text sentence would not go astray, somewhere near links to wp:revert. Penyulap  ☏  10:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

New changes
I like the idea of a "quick start" guide, but the line "If you have been cautious, and already asked about something on the articles talkpage and it's had no response for a few days, just go ahead and edit the article itself." Makes this DBRD. Bold means to do so without discussion. This may be a problem for some editors and can be a contentious edit, but the quick start now implies that discussion goes before the bold edit. At the very least, to keep it from actually becoming Discuss, be bold, wait for a revert and then discuss, perhaps it could read: "To be cautious an editor may wish to ask about something on the articles talkpage before an edit. If it garners no no response after a reasonable amount of time, just go ahead and edit the article. If you wish to be bold and make a change without discussion first you are free to do so, but be aware this can be a seen as disruptive."--Amadscientist (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "can be seen as disruptive" is too strong - I think perhaps just note that such bold undiscussed edits are more likely to be reverted than if they are discussed before hand. I.e. if you are bold a revert shouldn't be taken as a surprise or an attack - but simply as an invitation to discuss. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about: "Note: An editor may discuss changes on the talk page before an edit is made. This is recommended. You may be bold first and make a change without discussion but be aware a revert is an invitation to discuss these changes before further bold editing".--Amadscientist (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I did have trouble with the 'If you have been cautious, and already asked about something' part at the time, and couldn't quite articulate the spirit there, but I have revisited it now.


 * Where it says wait a day regarding vandalism, it needs a link to a note at the bottom stating that it is not actually a day that they need to wait because vandalism is not actually vandalism and blah blah. I'll return to it later on I guess, but a note is good, or just linking to a fuller explanation. Penyulap  ☏  05:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This needs some clarification I think: "If after a few minutes or a few days your edit has been reverted, have a look on the article talkpage and have a look at the article history, either it will tell you why in plain words, or maybe have some Gibberish like NPOV or WP:SPS or anything with a WP: or capital letters, have a look on this list and see if you can find it and read the page it links to. Often good editors will be so busy that they can only leave short notes like this for you to follow, or just explain in words if they have time." Perhaps something like: "If your edit has been reverted (either in minutes or in days), look on the article talkpage for discussion and the article history for the edit summary. A response to your edit may be in the form of plain words, or Gibberish like NPOV or "WP:" followed by text. If the text is not wikilinked, have a look on here to see if it may be listed. Often good editors will be so busy that they can only leave short notes like this for you to follow, or just explain in words if they have time."--Amadscientist (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was trying to make it a fast read, and kept the train going at a good high speed rate, rather than slowing down so readers to go into the fine detail, I was laying the track through all the most scenic spots though, but I certainly missed that blue lake. I relaid the tracks to skim by that one which is important. I kept the train travelling at the same speed for a quick guide otherwise. But maybe it is too quick a guide and should slow down into more detail ? or maybe we should start cleaning up the rest of the essay with all the fine detail as well, I don't know, what do you think ? Penyulap  ☏  11:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we bring the nut shell that is currently on the project page to the talk page along with the other examples being discussed and not have any nutshell until a consensus on that specific portion is established? We should continue the discussion and let that finish out.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First I couldn't see the real need, because anyone could do it if they thought it a problem, but a few seem to like it. Then I thought, well why not remove it for now, and I opened the window for editing.... then I reconsidered yet again, figuring why not just ask anyone to do a better job of it.


 * I am sure that alternative ways of expressing the idea can be found. I thought the newbie guide within the nutshell is about as short and to the point as I could reasonably manage.


 * I guess everyone could also sit and come up with alternatives, but it's a lot of work for little reward in my view, so I will leave it to others who see there is a significant improvement to justify the effort required. But the advanced guide is a different matter, improving that is easier


 * It outlines the cases where BRD can be used by some editors, but expresses the idea that there are numerous problems in those cases, that caution should be used, whilst you certainly can go ahead and use BRD in that way, as nobody is stopping you (the newbie reading) from 'sailing off the edge of the ocean' you may well attract scepticism that BRD can be used in that way by a newbie, but on the other hand a smart youngster with clear thinking can actually succeed.


 * The difficulty in compressing the entire advanced process, including it's application, method, and cautions seemed a bit of a tough task when I did it, so the humour for the time being points out that the sentence is an unfinished work rather than a guide of the same quality as the newbie guide, which by comparison I think is right on target. People read the second sentence and won't "take it as Gospel" they will look further knowing the process can be used for "talkpages where everyone agrees improvement is necessary, but nobody can agree on the best way and discussions just go in circles" but as to how that is done, and further, how it can be compressed into the last half of that sentence is well, I guess when I read you or anyone explain it to me or put it in, then I'll know. :) Penyulap   ☏  06:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have to bring your version here to discuss. You our correct, we can make are own edits and collaborate in that manner. I have no problem with it.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that the changed version is doing this:


 * "Where improvement is necessary" suggesting there are things that can't be improved.
 * "Where improvement is necessary, editors should begin discussion." slowing down the work across the entire encyclopaedia.
 * "If there is no response you can make a bold edit to kickstart talk." this is BRD, it's good.
 * "If a revert is made, do not edit war by reverting again but discuss and collaborate on consensus." this is about edit warring.
 * "Be bold again and implement the consensus, if applicable." this describes normal editing as being bold.

Combining the sentences, it doesn't describe BRD so much as it describes a new process where no editing can be done without prior discussion, and it seems to move normal editing into a place where it's called being bold. I'd ask if there is anyone else who feels that yesterdays nutshell reflects BRD better, that they repeat that edit, or improve it, either way is good for now I think. Penyulap  ☏  08:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps softing up "Should" to "are encouraged" to keep the suggestion of discussion first from being a part of the cycle and/or a requirement. We should remove the mention of "edit warring" to not sound judgemental and stick to the nutshell information of process only. Last part I disagree with and is within every understanding I have of BRD and is actually how the cycle was originally written. We should discuss this here is we want to keep that out.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I invite you to criticise yesterday's version, please be brutal. I think this might be a faster way forward. Penyulap  ☏  08:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That summary makes no sense whatsoever - it doesn't summarise but satirize the content of the essay.It also misrepresents the spirit of the essay which is that it is OK to be bold but that bold edits are liable to be reverted upon which discussion must follow. If you completely mean to change the meaning of this very highly used essay you will have to get a wider consensus than just two people. I would suggest having a full FfC for changes this substantial. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Local consensus rules articles, and you are welcome to add your input and contributions but we have been asked to discuss this and there is no requirement for a wider consensus to make changes to any article. However, editors can dispute any material and local consensus can change. If you think a wider audience is required to make changes you can make an RFC.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you realize that a local consensus of two is not really a very good way to change basic policies fundamentally.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If this were policy, I would say that there are far more than two editors contributing to consensus and that editing is not proceeding first... but discussion. This is just an essay. One that, as many people, or as few people contributing may edit. I would welcome a lot more though. It really would be nice, but is not a requirement.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then take it like this: I disagree fundamentally and basically with the changes you are proposing to the essay. I think most other people would to if they were aware of them. I think that the proposed changes take one of the most useful principles that we have for avoiding editwars and protracted polarized disputes and renders it useless.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My proposal:
 * ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What changes am I proposing sir? Remember, my edits were all reverted. I have made no proposals since but have added to discussion on issues being raised to collaborate on this article. Seriously. This isn't about me...it's the article. Do you think we should remove the nutshell until consensus agrees on what it should say? Penylup would prefer it stay and editors be allowed to copy edit it. I think we have not yet established a consensus agreement to put in place on the project page as nearly every editor has had a different version they have suggested and no one seems to have consensus other than the one you just reverted to. Should that stay or should we just move it to the talk page as the last nutshell used and go from there?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasmeant to be a plural "you" - a "y'all" if you will. I realize the suggestion was Penyulap's but you seemed supportive of it so I attributed it to both of you. If there is no consensus for the "in a nutshell" then I don't mind removing it untill there is.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The change you've made to the essay I feel, at best, seems to say the same thing in twice as many words, as well as the critique already given above. Apart from the slip? above is your action meant to be opposite to your words for a reason ? Penyulap  ☏  03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which freudian slip? How do you find my action to be opposite to my words? (you were bold, I reverted, now we're discussing no?)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No that is not what we are doing at all. The discussion was in progress prior to your arrival, your editing is less of an illustration of how to kick-start a discussion, because the discussion is clearly underway already, and more of an illustration of a trap belonging in the section called quick caution.


 * The freudian slip is here,




 * I would suggest that we use the contemporary approach to air crash investigations, where looking for someone to blame is incorrect, and is replaced with open discussion to examine the cause, whatever that may be. I don't like being upset, and I'm sure you don't like me blaming you, so why don't we analyse what has happened here and use and incorporate it into the essay instead ? Penyulap  ☏  06:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, that is a funny slip. I'm not sure it qualifies as freudian without somekind of sexual element but funny nonetheless. I meant to rite "edit" of course. I'm not looking to blam anyone - I just don't understand what it is you find to be problematic with the current state of the essay. And I can't imagine the kind of problem that your proposed version of the "in a nutshell" would be a solution to. I believe very strongly that the essay is meant to be normative - i.e. "you should follow BRD" not "some editors occasionally follow BRD". And that it should be clear that the purpose of BRD is to encourage discussion instead of editwarring. And I don't think the humourous elements of your version (seamonsters etc.) have anything to be doing in this essay. For me BRD is a cornerstone in the disute resolution process, and honestly I haven't seen any problems occurring as a result of people following it (at leas not problems that wouldn't have been just as likely to occurs anyway). So my basic standpoint is that it is not broken and doesn't need fixing. You'd have to convince me that something is broken before I ould endorse a radical change - and still it wouldn't be in the direction that you (pl.) seem to be taking.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't direction. It is guidence. Not being broke in any perception makes no since when we are talking about Wikipedia. We are editors...we edit. Hopefully in collaboration with others...but we do edit and you have gevin no real reason not to edit...but to edit with your concerns in mind......even when you are not editing yourself. It's remembering the discussion and the concerns others raise that are legitimate. Not broken is not a legitimate reason to ask editor not to edit a Wikipedia essay or article. But i do actully get your point. And I missed the non-fruadian slip...but then, sometime a cigar is just a cigar. ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not asking you not to edit - I am asking you not to change the meaning of the essay to something other than hat it was originally intended as. Editing is supposed to be improveing the content - I do not consider the edits that have been proposed so far to be improvements.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes...but does anyone know what we're talking about? At this point I think we're kinda wandering.=)--Amadscientist (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * analysis I would hope, and I think I had asked you if you could find faults with the phrase "If you feel you can improve an article, but you would like confirmation and cannot find it, go ahead and make the improvement to kick-start discussion." Penyulap  ☏  06:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think it's a bit confusing and a little wordy. I prefer what is there right now only becuase it allows the issue of discussion first as encouragement. Confirmation doesn't seem accurate any way. It isn't confirmation but concern of other editors. It almost sounds like asking for permission to say "confirmation".--Amadscientist (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for cases where one side does not discuss
I think this guideline needs a period of time after which the initial "bold" user is entitled to make the change and not be reverted if there is no response in talk. In other words:

1. User A makes a change. 2. User B reverts. 3. User A starts a discussion in talk. 4. For one week [or pick another period of time you prefer], no one responds. 5. At this point, user A should be entitled to assume they have "won" the talk discussion by default. They should get to make their change. If others then want to re-discuss, fine, but at this point, user A's version should become the "default" version from which further changes can be made. William Jockusch (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If A makes a reasoned support of the edit, and B doesn't respond in 24 hours, and B didn't provide a useful edit summary, then B should not be allowed to again revert without providing a strong rationale. However, a third editor, C, may revert. It may depend on the time between #1 and #2. If it was ten seconds, then A's edit is not default. If it was ten days, then maybe yes. It's a good thing we don't run by rules. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think a requirement to discuss is enforceable, and I'm not sure that a set time period is appropriate. I've dealt with editors who only visit Wikipedia once a week, and others that are here six times a day.
 * I've also dealt with editors who avoid discussion. For example, I've encountered one POV pusher who reverts to a biased version, and then refuses to comment on the discussion page unless and until the bias is removed from the article again.  Then you promptly get one basically worthless comment, which I think is supposed to be some sort of magic talisman to prevent a block over "failure to discuss", and a reversion to the biased version.  From that editor's perspective, real discussion seems to be a losing game (and probably is, because obviously biased BLP problems aren't tolerated—once they're noticed).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

nutshell
current is "Where improvement is necessary, editors are encouraged to begin discussion; however, if there is no response you may make a bold edit to kickstart talk. If a revert is made, do not revert again but discuss and collaborate on consensus. Implement the consensus, if applicable."

problem is this applies to very well developed articles, if at all. It suggests discussion first rather than improvement, which is not correct, and this is especially the case with new undeveloped articles. can't think off the top of my head an alternate though. Penyulap  ☏  02:31, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it isn't being seen in any way other than that in my opinion. While I understand the reasoning (since I wrote that nutshell) I winder if that couldn't be soften to something more like:

--Amadscientist (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * improving through editing is always universally encouraged. Discussion is not. Penyulap  ☏  06:10, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I disagree and the page here does bear that out starting with Equazcions concerns. I can't really see just ignoring that. Even a number of Admin have noted that discussion is encouraged, but BRD does allow for a bold edit to be made first.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I really like the nut shell right now with adaptions by Equazcion and Maunus:

--Amadscientist (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (grumble) wha&#$*@ shell (more grumbling) outnumbered (mumbling) filling up wiki with hot airPenyulap ☏  21:38, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

My version would be: ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  21:48, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

or: ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would leave out the "however". We already said it might stimulate discussion, then we go on to describe how that happens (revert -> discuss). "However" implies a caveat, but the revert is actually part of the process. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  22:00, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. We could in clude "therefore" or "for this reason" in stead then.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like those, slightly leaning towards "for this reason". <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  22:03, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I implemented it with "therefore", it seems to flow better. They both mean the same thing anyway. Hopefully everyone's concerns are addressed now. I'm pretty happy with this nutshell. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  22:10, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this a lot!--Amadscientist (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

wow! lets lock in that first sentence of the nutshell!
"Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion."
 * support that, whoever wrote it, well done ! Penyulap  ☏  02:41, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Quick start guide copy edits
I am loving the quick start guide after recent edits. Excellent work in my opinion from Equazcion.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BAH HUMBUG. POO ON YOU ! Penyulap  ☏  21:39, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * (cough) well I'm lost for words on who I can blame for that, and I really have no experience making excuses, so umm, Sorry ? Penyulap  ☏  02:39, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Question
It tells (at the very top). "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. Therefore, if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again..."

Consider this hypothetical example. I was bold and inserted new sourced and relevant materials in an article. Someone X came and reverted my edit. I am not supposed to revert him back according to this essay. That's fine. Now someone else, Y came and reverted X back to my version. User X do should not revert his edit back. Is that what you mean? As usual, there is a discussion on the article talk page, but there is no consensus about anything. My very best wishes (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The point of not reverting a revert, is so that an edit war does not begin. Even one revert by user Y could be disruptive and considered edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Be bold.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a small general edit to When to use for brevity.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * One thing to keep in mind is that BRD is an optional approach. So "User X" should not just keep reverting if User X wants to follow the BRD model, but User X could decide that he doesn't like BRD and therefore choose another editing model.  For example, there's a fairly popular model that could be called "Let's see if they really block people like me for edit warring" that some editors seem quite happy with in the short term.
 * I think your best bet is to see if you can find a compromise that everyone agrees is better than the old version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to incorporate WP:STATUSQUO into WP:BRD
Following the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772 , could I ask for editors' views on incorporating WP:STATUSQUO into WP:BRD. In many ways they are the same, with WP:STATUSQUO providing the marginal additional guidance useful to calm disputes, and since the WP:BRD essay holds more sway than the WP:RV essay (according to WP:ANI admin User:Dennis_Brown), it would tidy things up to consolidate the two into an even stronger combined. Grateful for others' thoughts on this. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change of template
Currently, this page uses Template:Supplement. I would like to propose using Template:Information page instead. The wording of the latter seems clearer to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No objection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I waited a week just to be sure nobody else would object, and have now made the change. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I reverted this change as Template:Information page uses the wording "community consensus" which BRD is not. Unless you can show proof that BRD was put to discussion and the outcome of said discussion was a consensus to establish BRD, we cannot use that template. BRD remains an advisory page, an essay, and we cannot use a template that makes it seem like BRD is based on the outcome of a discussion and community consensus. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS to move. While the opposers (just barely) have a majority here, the oppose arguments deployed are quite weak. Two main oppose arguments were deployed. The first was that bold is not a verb. I fail to see the significance of this. I appreciate that the rest of the list items are verbs, but how that translates to non-verbs should be bolded I have completely failed to grasp. The other argumnet was that it refers to WP:BOLD. This argument also has no basis in either policy or normal practice on other pages. The support camp at least has WP:BOLD on their side so has a better basis in policy. But given the level of opposition, I don't think that this can be closed in favour of moving.  Spinning Spark  13:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle → Bold, revert, discuss cycle – The title should use normal sentence case here, and as "bold" is not an acronym there's no benefit in writing it in all caps. I guess it's written like that because it refers to WP:BOLD (why not WP:Bold?), but we don't write REVERT just because we're referring to WP:REVERT either. Jafeluv (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)]
 * Support. Can't think of a good reason to leave BOLD all caps.  --B2C 00:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. It's tempting to display as "Bold, revert, discuss cycle", but that's a separate issue.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER POLICIES. WE NEED TO RESERVE UPPER CASE FOR ANNOYING PEOPLE DURING REQUESTED MOVE DISCUSSIONS. --GUY MACON (TALK) 01:25, 23 MAY 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose; "bold" is not a verb (at least not in the meaning intended here), and so the caps are needed to make clear that we're referring to WP:BOLD. Powers T 01:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to support the move until I read this comment. The upper case is weird, but it makes sense since it refers to WP:BOLD. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. BOLD doesn't refer to bold.  Bold is not a verb, unless you mean embolden, but this page doesn't encourage editors to embolden, although it does encourage editors to be emboldened.  Or unless it means write in bold font, which it doesn't.  It is an obvious reference to WP:BOLD, which means "be bold".  If it must be changed, it should be changed to Be bold, revert, discuss cycle. There is no must, and the change would break the abbreviation; WP:BBRD - we already have too much misinterpretation of BRD without suggested that one should be bold first twice before discussing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:Be bold, revert, discuss cycle is less than ideal, but I don't see Bold as functionally different from BOLD as a reference to WP:Be bold, and I agree that WP:BBRD would be ill-advised. Why not "Bold" instead of "Be bold" in this context? <font face="Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur, Old English Text MT">Wilhelm Meis <font face="Helvetica">(&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 00:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It must be explicit in its reference to our hugely important mega-policy page, WP:BOLD. (Don't be fooled by the word "guideline". It's a mega-policy Face-smile.svg.)  Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not discuss before revert? That may save a lot of trouble, people usually get hurt when reverted. Hafspajen (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the Bold edit is the focus of subsequent discussion, if it is needed. Discussion without focus frustrates improvement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is not an article, the rule you're referring to does not apply. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What rule is that? WP:NCCAPS? Just because this is not an article in the main namespace doesn't mean most of the naming conventions do not still apply in a general "good idea" sort of way. <font face="Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur, Old English Text MT">Wilhelm Meis <font face="Helvetica">(&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 00:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: I see two reasons why this page has been kept at WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle up to this point: 1) the direct reference to WP:BOLD, which is actually a redirect to WP:Be bold (just as WP:BRD is a redirect to here); 2) ALL-CAPS is a form of emphasis, like boldface, but not boldface (so as to convey emphasis on the "bold" portion without implying that BOLD means bold rather than WP:BOLD). In my opinion, WP:Bold is just as valid a reference to WP:Be bold as WP:BOLD.  I see no reason why the "bold" portion of the bold, revert, discuss cycle should be emphasized.  If anything, the "discuss" portion should be emphasized, as the whole idea is to avoid edit warring by taking up discussion at the talk page after the first revert.  I also see no compelling reason to directly reference the WP:BOLD redirect to WP:Be bold.  I could see moving to WP:Be bold, revert, discuss cycle as a reasonable alternative, but I would prefer WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle as proposed above, as this is the familiar title of a guideline that has been in place for years, only changing the capitalization to match normal sentence case (as we are encouraged to do with articles). <font face="Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur, Old English Text MT">Wilhelm Meis <font face="Helvetica">(&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 00:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Prefer WP:Be bold, if Reverted, Discuss; cycle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not bad at all. How about WP:Be Bold; if Reverted, Discuss? Slightly improved punctuation, and the cycling doesn't need to be in the title. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe. In support of cycle, it is important that discussion leads quickly to a refined bold edit, this essay is opposing conducting a poll or RfC on every question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Shout-ey. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. For the above-mentioned reasons. Lientinge (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Weak oppose Why upset tradition and de-emphasize the most important part of the cycle? NCCAPS is about article titles, and this is not an article. There wouldn't exactly be anything wrong with this move, but in W-space, I feel ok making a judgment more based on opinion. --BDD (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ain't bust. Not an article. Works well as is. No fix required. Andrewa (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "bold" in the title is a reference to WP:BOLD, which is capitalised. -- RA (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * It's not the closer's role to see or not see the significance of "bold is not a verb". The closer also refers to "no basis in either policy or normal practice on other pages", but there is very very little policy or "normal practice" on titling of project space essays, so I don't think that the statement fits well in the closing statement.  I agree with the conclusion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is certainly the closer's role to judge whether or not arguments are policy based, which is what I did here. If that were not so, we would not need closers, merely tellers to count the votes.  As for seeing the significance of an argument, it is unreasonable to expect the closer to give credence to an argument that is not explained sufficiently well for the closer to understand it.  Spinning  Spark  09:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Spinningspark on this one. In fact, I rather depend on the closer doing exactly that. When I comment on an RfC my comments are (to me) always firmly policy based and (to me) easy to understand and compelling. Alas, there is often some (to me) misguided individual who says that my comments are (to him) not at all policy based and (to him) hard to understand and unconvincing. I count on the closer to say that I am right determine who is right. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I too agree with Spinningspark that it is the place of the closer to determine consensus based on how well the respective arguments are based in policy. What I don't understand is why there was a finding of no consensus here. While there was "no consensus" among those who happened to participate in this discussion, that's not what the closer is supposed to determine.  The question is, what is community consensus about this question? And that's supposed to be determined by how well arguments are based in policy. When one side is supported by policy, and the other side is not at all, how can community consensus about the issue be any more clear? Accordingly, I have featured this decision at WP:Yogurt Principle. --B2C 23:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Throw in another behind Spinningspark's opinion. The closer must not take a straight vote and as stated above, must be able to judge whether or not arguments are policy based.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I thanked SpinningSpark privately for his answer, which I am happy with. I found his closing comments unclear and he clarified.


 * To B2C and Amadscientist, yes policy is important, but policy isn't everything. I don't think much policy was intended to be directed at ProjectSpace titling, although I agree with Wilhelm Meis 00:13, 25 May 2013 (mainspace precedent is a good idea to consider).  Sometimes factors outside written policy matter.  Of course, as per SpinningSpark, non-written-policy reasons must be well enough explained as to be understood.


 * I would say that this had to be called a "no consensus" because of divergent ideas on the preferred target. The nominator's suggested new name shows very little preference over other suggestions, and no other suggestion appears to have seriously considered by many.  This means that the discussion needs to continue.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. Not just policy, but the overall strength of the argument. If the argument has no basis or is inaccurate etc., the closer would normally dismiss that opinion and argument being made.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Graphic changes
I will be making a few bold edits to the graphic look of the page without any change to the wording. I will work slowly and wait to see if reaction shows that the attempt should be halted/reverted etc.. Thanks!--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 22:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I just reverted someone else's added image. I agree that some presentation changes might be welcomed.  However, BRD is not linear, it is a cycle.  The image added was linear.


 * Bold edits may be reverted. The reverts must be discussed before further bold/reversions.  The discussion must happen, but within limit.  (How long is a question that should probably not be defined).  After some discussion, a fresh BOLD edit is required, required to refocus, and to again attract new participants. This cycle has no beginning, and could have been called "Revert, Discuss, make a bold edit", etc, as long as it is obvious that the last step is followed by the first.


 * A summary image must reflect the cyclic nature of this.


 * Perhaps worthy of clearer mention is that a Bold edit need not be followed by a revert. Ideally, a Bold edit is followed by a refining edit.  Sorry, I couldn't easily refine the added image.  I'd have liked to have turned it into a cycle.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we talking in the third person? Someone else's added image. You seem to have mistaken the image for something it is not. It is not an illustration of the cycle. It is a representation of the cycle's title, which begins with a "BOLD", is followed by "revert" and then "discussion". Regardless of the "linear" nature of the image, it does, in fact, reflect the linear nature of the essay title. I am, however also going to update the cycle illustration. Would you like to discuss how that could be best achieved? You seem interested in the discussion above.


 * I am going to return that image based on your misunderstanding of it's purpose with an edit summary. Before you delete again I ask that you give that a little chance since it is not intended to illustrate the cycle, just be the main image on the essay. The image itself is based on the "BOLD" graphic found at WP:BOLD and the others based on images for "revert" and for "discussion".--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark. Sorry, I didn't work out that were are User:Amadscientist.


 * I don't like your image of the title because it can be mistaken for an illustration of the concept, and as such it is misleading. There are four parts to the cycle, BOLD, Revert, Discuss, Cycle.  Don't illustrate three and not the fourth.  Maybe add a cycle.


 * You want to update File:BRD1.svg? I like the current content of the image.  I was moderately well involved in the creation of these images some time ago at WT:Consensus.  As I said just previously, I think it needs to illustrate a cycle, and it would be better if it were clearer that the process can be entered at any time, at any step, and also that the Revert step is the least ideal.  When editors begin to understand each other, BRD can talk the path B-R-D-B-R-D-B-b-edit-b-edit-edit-edit..., which is good.


 * My last work on illustrations here lead me to come up with this image: File:Edit and discuss.png. I think I was thinking that the prominence of "Revert" could be diminished.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you are certainly the most interested party here! OK, I tell you what, I will self revert and ask if you would like to discuss how the image I created could be improved. I think I am getting what you are saying more after your last post. Give me a moment and let me try something.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have updated the image to better depict the cycle which was needed to emphasize the circular nature of BRD. I am going to take a closer look at your image and the image on the page and see if there is something from both that can be used to better illustrate that section and the working of the cycle in more detail.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 03:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are others who are interested. I personally haven't been saying anything because I think it is going pretty well so far. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are others who are interested. I personally haven't been saying anything because I think it is going pretty well so far. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Also, thanks SmokeyJoe for showing me this. The current Brd illustration appears to be a variation on an earlier version of the consensus flowchart so I have include that as well.

--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 05:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't followed recent developments, but have always thought this page was a bit lacking. Some comments above, and the new diagram, appear to suggest that the following is ok:
 * New user X makes bold change.
 * Editor Y reverts X.
 * A discussion occurs on talk page. Editor Z supports Y.
 * X repeats change (possibly with a tiny adjustment, but essentially the same thing).
 * Y or Z reverts X.
 * The previous discussion is repeated.
 * X repeats change.
 * And so on, indefinitely.

What is supposed to occur is that X and Y revert each other (usually a couple of times with a new editor), then discussion occurs, and the change is not repeated unless supported by consensus. In this view, BRD is saying that the repetition should occur on the talk page, not by edit warring in the article.

An alternative view of BRD is that it is a tool for resolving a difficult problem where a group of editors are trying to find some improved wording. One of them makes a bold change, then everyone discusses it. If ok, the situation is resolved. Otherwise, discuss some more, although an editor may try another bold edit for a slight variation on the wording. In that view, BRD is a sequence of incremental changes, leading to an improved article.

These two views of BRD are fundamentally different—in the first, a new editor (who thinks "anyone can edit" means they can hit undo forever), or a returning POV warrior, are boldly changing against consensus, and the WP:BRD link is intended to tell them that if they have to repeat themselves, it must be done on the talk page.

Re the new diagram: I think it's a bit mysterious. There is no need to have the bottom row showing (right-to-left) "B" then a revert icon then a discuss icon—just show a horizontal arrow reaching around to the start of the top row. Even then, I'm not sure that the image is useful as it suggests that it is ok to do anything you like on the article, so long as you make one comment on the talk page each time you are reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In order to follow your points above though we have to assume the factors involved. That is, that we don't need to assume why the bold edit was made, or why the revert was made to identify an interested contributor/s. I don't understand what you mean by mysterious. Could you elaborate? It seems to me it is quite obvious: B > R > D > B > R > D is the proper cycle which goes in a circular motion. it need not be the same editors, however ...yes, in some cases articles are edited by the same group. In order to keep the page from stalling BRD would be implemented, but even when editors are working together, consensus can be, and often is, achieved by continuing to edit. What you bring up is whether BRD is a natural flow of editing or for only difficult situations. It really is all of the above. BRD is so circular that, as SmokeyJoe states, one can enter the cycle at any point. You may be the bold edit, or the revert or the one who begins the discussion. BRD is a natural progression of consensus in that editing is a natural part of contributing towards changing that consensus.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 06:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "BRD is a natural flow of editing or for only difficult situations" is my understanding. Reverting (others, and repeatedly) is only for difficult situations.  Natural editing should be:  Edit-Edit-Edit(with edit summaries)... with the occasional B and D.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that expert editors should be editing (articles) directly, with the talk page used only as a safety net. Editors should avoid reverts. Instead, editors should try to understand others’ edits, and to add and refine by further editing. Even in the case of a bad edit, it should be considered constructive in highlighting an existing section that confuses at least one person. You then don’t revert, but improve the previous version.

In an extreme case, an edit may be impossible to understand, or clearly understood and completely disagreeable. In this case you use Revert, which then mandates that the previous editor (and all others on the same line) must take their case(s) to the talk page.

Then, BRD says that discussion should be focused and finite, and once the reverted edit has been discussed enough for everyone to understand each other, an attempt at solution should be made by editing the article (BRDB). This new Bold edit should be in response to the talk page discussion. It similarly should preferably be refined by edits by others; it should only reverted in an extreme case of disagreement.

To Johnuniq, dot point three (X repeats … essentially the same). does not follow the rules because the new edit must be consistent with the talk page discussion.

“What is supposed to occur	 …”. Yes. A challenged, unsupported edit should not be repeated. A later Bold edit must not be the same as the previous Bold edit, and must take into account the mandated Discussion on the Reverted edit.

On the new diagram, I think that it fails to encourage a return to editing without reverts. However, if it is just an illustration of the title, OK. I think that the illustration for Revert is non-obvious. Maybe if it included a big red “R”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem adjusting the image as consensus determines, but as SmokeyJoe says, it is just an illustration of the title. But I do want to address a couple of things. Give me a minute.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 07:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BRD itself, as a cycle does not assume the edit or the content or the editor. A good deal of the issues brought up in past community discussions have in many ways shown that BRD is misused, misquoted or misunderstood. BRD, when used properly, helps encourage, even the same group of editors, to collaborate first and dispute last. BRD is just a part of a natural system of editing on Wikipedia, but has no definite and/or specific place/situation where it must be applied. Best practice with BRD produces collaboration that results in editing that resolves issues instead of disputing content.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 07:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's noble, but WP:BRD is also used to tell POV warriors that they need to stop making bold edits, and engage in discussion until consensus supports their proposals. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The diagram is mysterious because using "BOLD" in one place and "B" in another is confusing—I can see that was done to get an attractive result, but it just raises questions. I don't see a response to my comment that the bottom row should be replace with an arrow. Even with that, I think the icons are non-obvious—a diagram needs to illustrate, not raise questions (what does that icon mean?). Also, the diagram gives no clue about the essential point: discuss until consensus is reached. I think boxes with words would be better: Bold edit → Reverted → Discuss until consensus reached (a vastly simplified form of the flowchart). Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discuss until consensus is reached? No.  A tenet of BRD is that discussion alone is not a good way to reach consensus, that discussion alone is prone to loss of focus, and that a return to edits, informed by discussion to that point, is required to refocus and test consensus on the refocused question/problem.  Discussion is a means to achieve better edits.  Discuss means discuss so as to understand the perceived problem that was supposedly to be improved by the reverted edit.  Discussion leads to a fresh Bold edit.  Discussion does not necessarily lead directly to consensus.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I didn't mean to gloss over your comment about the bottom of the image. However, earlier in the discussion we had discussed the fact that, as a cycle, BRD may be entered into by editors at any point. The Circular nature of BRD assumes only the behavior not the content, reasons or any specifics about any situation. Remember that BRD happens be chance nature of editing patterns in most cases. Stalemates that use BRD are where only experienced editors should be attempting to enter or kick start the cycle in some manner, but in every day editing with others in a collaboration, a bold edit may not be followed by a revert if it follows a discussion. But that is also not be bold. This cycle is dependent on the other behavior to be applied at a certain point, it does not assume what that point would be. Reaching consensus may sometimes require someone make a bold edit before everyone decides to live with it. Once that happens we have consensus, but it isn't BRDC because consensus isn't a part of the cycle. it should be the result of it.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

BRD flow chart and edit and discuss chart
I see the two charts as having some very different information that I would like to see updated in a manner. First, the Edit and Discuss chart is very similar to the Dispute resolution's File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement1.svg cart. There is clearly some great use here and it looks like a good deal of work went into the charts.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 06:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking that BRD is on the interface of editing and dispute resolution. Yes, I am and was familiar with Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.  I think I was thinking of placing WP:BRD in context with dispute resolution, noting that many editors dragged through ANI or DR make occasional claims referencing BRD.


 * The Edit and Discuss chart was mainly the result of some brainstorming and general dissatisfaction with descriptions of BRD. If you find it helpful in coming up0 with something useful, I would be very pleased.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Add specific instructions about about BRRD, BRRRD, etc.?
I would like to see explicit instructions about about BRRD, BRRRD, BRRRRD, etc., including what to do when you see them. Something like this (details may change; I am asking about the overall concept of adding this):


 * B: Making WP:BOLD changes is encouraged. You should explain why you made the change in the Edit Summary (ES).


 * BR: Reverting the bold changes is allowed, but BB is preferred. Explain why you reverted, either in the ES or on the talk page. Do not revert without any explanation.


 * BRD, BRDB, BRDBR, BRDBRD, etc.: Following the bold-discuss-revert cycle is strongly encouraged.


 * BRRD: Do not do this. Leave the page in the state it was in before you made your bold change while discussing the change.


 * BRRRD: Just because BRRD is not allowed, that doesn't mean that BRRRD to undo the BRRD is is allowed. See WP:EW for guidance.


 * BRRRRD, BRRRRRD, etc.: At this point you are edit warring and may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.


 * BRDR: Acceptable only if the result of the discussion is a consensus for the bold change. Note that "discussion: does not mean "post a comment and then go back to reverting".


 * BRDRR: Just because BRDR without consensus is not allowed, that doesn't mean that BRDRR to undo the BRDR is is allowed. See WP:EW for guidance.

As I said, the details about which cases to list and the instructions after each case are open for discussion. My question is whether we should create the list at all, not the details of what we should put on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. All correct. I'm a fan of "Do not revert without any explanation". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I like this.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Taggery status of this page
Some people think it is remarkable that this page is *only* an essay, think it should be more. Others think it should remain only an essay, because we mustn't give editors the message that they *must* edit this way. Tentative editing, broaching ideas on article talk pages before diving in headfirst, is welcome. However, we might like to tag the essay indicating that it more than just an essay supplementing Consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, although tagged essay, is extremely prominent and respected among essays, and would be well considered as behavioral policy. It applies to all editing, represents a minimum standard for advanced editing, a minimum standard that when carelessly crossed leads to trouble. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A while back I made a bold change to the basic formatting of the page with a number of edits that no one objected to and got some positive feedback. However, User Equazcion felt that these changes, even while incremental and over a period on about two or three days, needed more discussion here at the talk page and even suggested that I could simply discuss implementing some of the changes again over time, with discussion. The village pump discussion had some good insight into how the community felt about BRD and whether or not it should be marked as a guideline. The community was split but the majority did seem to be for leaving it as an essay. If you really feel this should be raised, we should have a wider community discussion about all the changes we want to make and that we also wish to discuss raising BRD to a behavioral guideline (wouldn't be marked as a policy), possibly best linked through the dispute resolution process for certain situation as a last step before seeking a DR venue.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 05:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to start WikiProject BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.(Amadscientist)--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 00:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk page discussion
A recent revert was changed back as it suggested that A) it was giving advise to new editors. No, this is not an article for new editors. BRD is supposed to be used by experienced editors, not new editors. B) it suggested that editors are not supposed to discuss the article on their user talk pages. Again, this is inaccurate and the very link for "Discuss" directs to WP:DR, which states:

These discussion need not be on the article talk page as DR/N makes clear: "Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.". Talk page guidelines also state(bolding for emphasis):

--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 16:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The statement When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply. is for the eventuality that a discussion has taken place in userspace. It is not an endorsement of such practice and for sure it does not call upon to its codification in this essay. Trying to codify such practice by adding it to this essay is not a good idea. User talk is of low impact and visibility and should not be used as substitute for article or project space talkpages where this community-based project engages in a community-wide discussion. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις   17:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't just that statement and there is no codification. It is common practice. There is absolutely no policy or guideline that I can find that supports this assessment. Could you provide a link to demonstrate this?--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 17:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONSENSE. If the matter involves an article issue then the issue should be discussed on article talk not on user talk, so that other editors are made aware of the issue, instead of confining the discussion on user talk which cannot/should not be used as a surrogate place for community discussion. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  17:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * that is an essay, not a policy or guideline. There is no "Should". Actual common sense dictates that discussion take place, not that it must take place in a specific place.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 17:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am aware that COMMONSENSE is an essay. But you asked me: Could you provide a link to demonstrate this? So I provided a link that made sense. Also you cannot legislate common sense, so an essay should suffice. In addition, discussion about articles created by the community should take place in article talkpages so that the community is made aware of their occurrence. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  17:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether or not this is accurate, and it is. The article talk page is not the only location for discussion. Nothing you said in your last post is false, but is does not limit the location of discussion. By attempting to censor the BRD essay in this manner we are setting up conflict and excluding actual common sense. It is common sense to engage the editor with who you have a disagreement. There is no limitation to where the discussion must take place. But I cannot re-add the content when consensus for inclusion has not been reached.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 17:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed the editor must be engaged. So a simple ping or notification at their talk should suffice. If the editor is experienced he will know where to go, i.e. the article talk. If the editor is new he may have to be shown the article talkpage link. But a substantive content-related discussion cannot take place in multiple fora. It has to be confined to the most natural, purpose-built forum, easily located and affording access to the most editors possible, which is the talkpage of the article in discussion. Jumping from one forum to the other is not optimum and can be confusing. Only in situations involving disruptive editing the user should be engaged on their talk, not so much for discussion of the issues but mainly  for being informed of the disruption. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις   23:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no real policy or guideline for discussion in this manner besides "Centralized discussion". In fact, it is our policy and guideline to accept these discussions regardless of where they take place as there are many venues. What we do not allow is for all of these discussions to take place at once. It is very common for a DR/N request to be denied because another DR venue is still open. Other than that, we are allowed to discuss content on any talk page and I feel it is very important that editors are not mislead into believing that they must stay on the article talk page just so as may editors as possible will see it. Anyone can edit on the talk page of the editor and it is not the responsibility of the editors involved in a discussion to advertise or promote it. Major policy discussions differ if consensus is at stake, but not a BRD discussion.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 23:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Only extreme nonsense is prohibited, so there are plenty of things that are "allowed" but which should not be recommended. Take the current issue—it has led to discussions here, and User talk:North8000, and User talk:Johnuniq, and WP:Village pump (policy). The latter is fine as it asks for clarification on whether relevant procedures are documented somewhere, but the two user talk page discussions are less desirable. Please bear in mind that whereas the person leaving a user talk page message is undoubtedly acting with very good faith, and is only working towards the best outcome for Wikipedia, but there are many editors who do not like receiving such messages because there is no good way to handle them. For example, if I fail to reply on my talk, or if I give a dismissive reply like "please discuss at BRD talk", then I accummulate a reputation as being unwilling to engage with good-faith editors. However (I'm talking in general, and not about the particular post in this case), it would be difficult for me to take ten minutes to write a detailed response—it is quite possible that no one will even see such a response, and it very likely that other editors who may be interested in my thoughts on the matter would not see them. Again speaking in general, frequent posting at a user's talk can be seen as badgering. Regardless of the intentions of the poster, it is a fact that some editors regard posts at their talk on an article issue to be intrusive—why is the matter so important that it must be discussed now when most other issues are discussed in due course and in the proper place?
 * Regarding WP:DRN: Things generally get really out of hand before going to DR, and it is common for the editors involved to have first explored the issue on article talk pages and noticeboards. It is likely that in the arguments, at least one editor has made inappropriate remarks, and those remarks may have been addressed at that editor's talk (advice about possible violations of WP:EW or WP:NPA or WP:BLP, for example). That's how it should be—discuss article issues on article talk, discuss editor issues on user talk.
 * Essays such as BRD should give advice on good procedure, and it is good to discuss article issues on the article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with your all of your points. Especially someone going to an editor's talkpage to discuss any project-related, substantive issue in the absence of the wider community may be engaging in pressure tactics, trying to subdue the opposition without the participation of the wider community and this could indeed be viewed as badgering. To avoid even the appearance of this type of behaviour the discussion should be open to all so that the chance for participation and opinions from the wider community is maximised and the pressure on the individual editor and therefore the chance of badgering is minimised. Let's not forget that BRD applies to edit-wars. Edit-wars are often very heated affairs. The last thing an editor needs is someone upset with them due to edit-warring to discuss things on their talkpage. Going to an open, accessible, neutral place like the page where the edit-war occurred to discuss things is a much better idea and makes the discussion process transparent and more visible. Other editors may offer their opinions, and the pressure is off the individual editor while the decision-making process is open to the community and becomes the product of teamwork. In fact I think it is a disservice to the wider community when issues involving any project space are not given the widest possible visibility so that the full potential of the community may be utilised. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  02:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree wholeheartedly. This is policy making by exclusion on an essay that actually SHOULD have pertinent information at hand about all the proper routes for discussion. A great deal of what the two of you are agreeing on is simply to pull the wool over the eyes of editors...just in case. In case of what? The worst case scenario? Seriously, this is the BRD article, but we don't discuss the proper routes to actually discuss an article because some editors may not wish to be contacted. Then they can say so when and if that occurs We do not delete the information on this article. Seriously John, you are way off when you say that my contacting you and the other editors is not desirable. That is just outright wrong. There is absolutely no reason I may not engage editors directly. it is indeed a best practice and yet we are saying it isn't even desirable? We don't even seem to be arguing the same thing anymore. You want to limit information that is accurate for your own personal point of view. That is unacceptable. Just because you find it undesirable does not mean it really is.


 * Here is the most common issue that BRD has. Someone reverts but then refuses to discuss. That isn't BRD. BRD requires discussion to further consensus. If the reverting editor refuses to engage on the talk page, one has every reason to engage directly to that editor on their talk page. If there is no reply within 24 hours then BRD has not been invoked, just a single edit, edit war. What you are suggesting is that we not even mention that editor talk pages are an acceptable option just because your perception is that it isn't desirable. I hate to say this, but why do you think editor even have a talk page. it isn't to discuss your personal life. it is to discuss the Wikipedia subjects and allow editors a contact point to each one of us. The editor talk page is not personal property and there are no rights of ownership. All editors may post on en editor talk page until they cross a line and are asked to stop posting. Proactive does not mean we manipulate the essay to hold our own POV on discussion policy. it just isn't.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 02:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A great deal of what the two of you are agreeing on is simply to pull the wool over the eyes of editors. "Pull the wool over the eyes of editors" when I advise discussion in the most accessible page available, article talk? I am afraid there is a huge disconnect here. How can you pull the wool over the eyes of editors when you engage in a wide-open discussion in the best forum available, article talk? I would say going to an individual editor's talkpage is when the wool is being pulled. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις   02:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Badly worded. I meant to "pull the wool over the eyes of those reading the BRD essay". In other words, we should not exclude pertinent information that editors will be seeking from this article, as it is the "Bold, revert, discuss" essay.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 03:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be exactly the same if DR/N didn't mention that extensive discussion must take place before requesting mediation, then declining every request that didn't have such a discussion. In fact, DRN purposely emphasized on the main page of the board because it was not as visible enough. The same applies here and the wording, of course, can be made to reflect the various concerns.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 03:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot see anything in the above that is correct or desirable. Taken in isolation, an "editor talk page is not personal property and there are no rights of ownership" is obviously correct, but given that no one has said anything on that topic, mentioning it here might be interpreted as suggesting that I regard my talk page as personal property and that I have violated WP:OWN—nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, nonsense is correct,since you stated: "Again speaking in general, frequent posting at a user's talk can be seen as badgering. Regardless of the intentions of the poster, it is a fact that some editors regard posts at their talk on an article issue to be intrusive—why is the matter so important that it must be discussed now when most other issues are discussed in due course and in the proper place?". So, now you want to discuss what I wrote in "Isolation, but you're just speaking in general terms? Come on John. Let's be fair here.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 03:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD should not be suggesting that editors take discussion to user_talk. Editing disagreement, and certainly any editing disagreement resulting in a Revert, requires discussion that belongs with all interested editors.  The obvious place for the discussion is the talk page.  If it is taken to user_talk, then it is likely out-of-sight for other potentially interested editors, and this is not preferred.  The discussion should only be taken to user_talk if it is more concerned with issues specific to the editor than issues of the article.  This whole essay is based on a loosely assumed premise that the issues are not editor-specific.  If the issues are unavoidably editor-specific, with WP:BRD is not the page for guidance.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

BRRD, BRRRD, etc.
I just boldly added the following to the edit warring section:


 * If you encounter BRRD, do not escalate the situation to BRRRD.

Is there a better way to phrase this? We certainly don't want anyone going to 2RR in a misguided attempt to "make things the way they would have been if BRD had been followed instead of BRRD", but should there be advice for the editor who is frustrated by someone getting their way by ignoring BRD? Do we tell them to let someone else deal with the BRRD? This is problematical when there simply is not a third editor watching the page. Do we tell them to report it? That doesn't fly -- it's only at 1RR at that point. Or do we just accept that there are no consequences for going to BRRD and reward the editor who does it? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't work at its core.
Let's say, in this section, an edit is an improvement iff it is better (like, better brought out by consensus or whatsoever).

Now, suppose there is an edit, which is an improvement, the following revert on such edit is now "bold" AND it is not an improvement. More confusingly, BRD ignores the fact that a revert is also an (bold) edit, too!

In other words, it doesn't matter what your edit is, an edit which is also a revert doesn't make you "follow BRD", ie. you can be BOLD, the reverted edit can be better. No ones know for sure who is bold because no one knows for sure which is better, everyone thinks their edit is better. Therefore, there is no such thing like "who didn't follow WP:BRD". When there is a "revert war" and no one opens a talk, i.e. It is violation on BRD for both side. Consequently, whoever opens a talk first also doesn't make the other violates BRD, we already violated BRD!

In my opinion, this workflow of such broken nature is in very low quality. This page serves at best a suggestion AND it is not a rule for/against one's edit but applies on both side instead. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BRD is neither policy or something you can force on another editor. BRD will usually be done on more difficult article but the fact of the matter is, when someone says you have violated BRD, they mean the spirit of the cycle, not a requirement. There is no such requirement on Wikipedia. A Bold edit may be reverted but so may that revert. it is not an automatic edit war. Many times editors will revert with no explanation and reverting after the edit summary "Gain consensus first" or "There is a consensus) are not legitimate reasons for reverting a bold edit. Usually there is another reason behind their revert and a revert of that revert will sometimes get a discussion going when they refuse to add input on the article talk page. When does BRD start? When the first bold edit is reverted for a legitimate concern.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Many times editors will revert with no explanation and reverting after the edit summary "Gain consensus first" or "There is a consensus) are not legitimate reasons for reverting a bold edit.
 * Thank you for telling me that. I fell on this a few times and was immediately pissed off, the admins sadly thought it is only me being unreasonable, gave only me a warning and revert my edit, too!
 * When does BRD start? When the first bold edit is reverted for a legitimate concern
 * Agree. Actually, no. There are too many problems on this workflow I don't agree with. I do agree that it is hardly more than a suggestion though. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, you're complaining here because you were slow to DISCUSS desired article improvements at a couple of pages, such as Scientific consensus. The trouble you received from the rest of us is not indicative of a flaw in the process.  Next time someone doesn't like your edits, try starting a constructive discussion as your first effort to resolve the issue.  If you think people are being "unreasonable", then you have lots of dispute resolution tools available to you.  Like third opinion for starters.  If you choose to thump the table instead, you likely won't like the outcome. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to guess my intent or are you using WP:PA? Your complaint on "slowness" is quite original too, I can't see anything like this on talk page, admin also didn't mention it on my talk page, please WP:FOC --14.198.220.253 (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to reply on my own talk page. Stop by please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with part of what said
 * "reverting after the edit summary....."There is a consensus" are not legitimate reasons for reverting a bold edit."

and I disagree because the policy on WP:CONSENSUS says that there are indeed times when "prior consensus" is a valid reason to object. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The same goes for the others, the problem is that you simply can't fit consensus in edit summary, or it has to be convincing enough to be a legitimate reason. How do we expect people understand that it really is the consensus and eventually agree to it? A troll can revert your edit under the name of "consensus" too. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Simple... if you get reverted, you start a thread at the talk page, and work through the process including using the tools of WP:DR when necessary. The world doesn't end if your desired change takes a few days to "stick".   When you short-circuit the process and don't use the tools, but instead challenge our policy and guideline pages as the cause of your troubles, that's one form of WP:WIKILAWYERING.   The antidote - which I will stop repeating now - is to use bold-revert- DISCUSS, whether WP:BRD bears the holy scepter of policy or not.  If your goal is collaboration and consensus you can never go wrong with the BRD approach. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Challenge our policy and guideline pages as the cause of your troubles"? That's an interesting theory you have, WP:AGF man. Wikipedia is where everyone can edit. Regarding your theory on "short-circuit the process and don't use the tools", I don't think you respond to (or even read..) my argument. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This wouldn't have anything to do with your edit warring, as documented at User talk:14.198.220.253, would it? Wikipedia is not going to change our edit war policy just because you want to be allowed to edit war, even if you do post your dissatisfaction with WP:EDITWAR in multiple places. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia
About this revert. Most Non-English Wikis are applying English Wikipedia policies, implicitly or explicitly. I am not saying we should explicitly say that all wikis are using this but there is no need to indicate this is "English Wikipedia" method instead just "Wikipedia" method. This is not meta wiki so just saying "Wikipedia" can also means "English Wikipedia" and this has not really difference as the page is just an essay on English Wikipedia project namespace and not an Wikipedia article. –ebraminiotalk 12:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)