Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/Archive 3

Do "tags" and/or templates initiate the cycle?
I've thought of the BRD cycle as pertaining to edits alone and never thought of tags as edits. Two reasons: one, edits change text whereas tags and templates simply alert readers & editors as to problems. Two, tags and templates really aren't Bold, and as such would not create the first condition for BRD. A third reason for not considering tagging or templating as initiating the cycle is because tags & templates should be resolved on the merit of their concern, and not be removed because someone disagrees with the placement of the tag. To give an example, an editor might see some OR or SYNTH, and wish to get community input for the perceived problem. Accordingly, the editor tags the particular material. Is it proper to say "Placing the tag was the Bold move, I am now going to Revert (and remove it)." Does the tagging editor have to start the Discussion? But in so doing (that is, starting the discussion), is the SYNTH or OR the topic of the discussion? Or is the placement and removal of the tag the topic? With this background in mind, I invite editors to comment and to propose essay improvements that address the issue. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My guess is "it depends on circumstances". At least a few tags have instructions that say tags should be removed if there is no talk thread and it isn't obvious what the issue is.  Personally, I favor requiring many tags to include a pinpoint thread link.  The tag that most commonly appears on my watchlist with no thread and no obvious basis and for which I think a pinpoint thread link should be a requirement, is Template:POV. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that stale or vague or clearly inapplicable tags should be removed. But my concern is much earlier in the BRD cycle. I'm looking for consensus to say we can or should modify the essay to say tagging is part of the BRD process. That is, say something like "add a tag the particular section or sentence that will pinpoint the area of dispute and encourage discussion." – S. Rich (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? Is there a grammar error in the proposed example text? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this? I'm thinking of adding a bullet in the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle section. We add:
 * Tag the change to encourage discussion and attract other editors: For example, you might feel the reverted edit creates original research or synthesis. You might add a OR or Synthesis-inline tag to pin-point the text.
 * or
 * You might tag the change to encourage discussion and attract other editors: For example, if you feel the reverted edit creates original research or synthesis, you might add a OR or Synthesis-inline tag to pin-point the text.
 * – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 16:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we still discussing the original question? At any rate, if we were to add that some wikilawyers would cite it has a prohibition against reverting. "But BRD says tag it, not downright revert it!!"  Lots of edits don't merit retention via tagging while the discussion is underway, so I think I'm opposed to adding the bold bulleted text in your comment above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The original question is whether adding or removing a tag constitutes a Bold or Revert in the cycle. Besides giving rationale which says tagging is not part of the cycle, I think my suggestion can moot the point. (If tagging is mentioned as an optional part of the Discussion process, the argument that adding a tag is a Bold move does not apply.) I've added an alternative suggested bullet above.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, if that's what you want to say then I think your target for tweaking ought to be the part above the table of contents that starts "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As it says on the top of the page, this is not a policy or guideline. I think that it basically lays out a good norm to operate within policies, guidelines and norms. So IMHO it's a mistakke to read more into it. It emphasizes certain aspects, such as "just try it, but then slip into a more careful mode if there is opposition". Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I see the paragraph you mention in the lede. I'd rather put my addition further down in the essay. 1. The point I'm making is not important enough for the lede. 2. It does need 2-3 sentences to explain it. (BTW, I'm going out of town for a few days, so I might not check this page again until next week.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have fun. Unless this appears later in my watchlist I am considering the subject to be closed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

BRD nut shell
There was a change to the nutshell that was considerable. As the previous consensus was to discuss this nut shell for what is appropriate I have reverted that based on the fact that the edit seems to change the meaning considerably and gaining consensus is the very reason for the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The nutshell is considerably wrong, in that it implies that to follow BRD to to remain discussing on the talk page until WP:Consensus is achieved. This is quite wrong.  The spirit of BRD (and WP:Consensus) is that consensus is acheived through editing.  To require consensus before a bold edit is to fail BRD by falling into BRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD...  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell:
 * 1. Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article,
 * All edits should be motivated by an intention to improve the article.
 * 1a. or stimulating discussion.
 * This is over-stated. It is not OK to make a Bold edit specifically to stimulate discussion, if you don't honestly believe the edit is an improvement.  It fails WP::POINT
 * 2 Therefore,
 * I do not think sentence two is a logical consequence of sentence 1, therefore "therefore" should not be used.
 * 2. if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again.
 * Good
 * 3. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties
 * Exactly
 * 3a to establish consensus.
 * How long do you have to discuss? Until "consensus"?  No.  Discussion should go no further than the realisation that there is a better edit to try.  And it is important to make this compromise edit so as to re-focus discussion on the current point of discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BRD is a part of Dispute Resolution and Editor Retention. The point of discussion is to gain a consensus. However, if a consensus is not gained another bold edit may be attempted that is different from the original. In this manner you have a point, however the way the nut shell made it out to be was that discussion was almost not even important to BRD but it is one of the more important parts of BRD. What you say directly above my post here is very true and the first question is the crux of the issue and the essay does go on to explain that. Is it possible that you might have a different way at arriving at that point? What is missing from the essay is that even 3RR makes it clear that reverting based on an exemption covered by policy (such as BLP concerns or RS violations etc.) can be done, but is not always clear and is better to discuss. Is it possible that we can get the point across in a different way, other than changing the nutshell or are you fully convinced that it is the nutshell that is the issue? The thing was so overly cooked I don't doubt there may be a better way but lets collaborate and see if we can work together to fund a solution.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "The point of discussion is to gain a consensus." Yes, but consensus is a nebulous concept, it is at best a goal that can only be incrementally approached. There are methods that seek to measure consensus.  One is to hold a talk page survey and have everyone agree.  This is the antithesis of this essay.  Another is to see which version persists through future editing.  This requires a putative consensus edit to be made before it is known that it has consensus.


 * "if a consensus is not gained another bold edit may be attempted that is different from the original". This touches a point that I think is not well presented.  Suppose there is a Bold Edit, Reverted, followed by a bit of discussion that finds a degree of common ground.  Here I think that the original Bold editor is NOT entitled to make a second, similarly Bold edit, even if different.  I think he should be obligated to make a smaller, more conservative, lesser-bold edit, seeking to avoid another revert, if not to hit consensus squarely in one go.  This is another tangent, but I think the nutshell should mention that bold edits, in parallel with discussion, should proceed with diminishing boldness.


 * Yes, discussion is important, is critical, following a revert. It is great if the reverter opens the dicsussion, but the onus is on the bold editor before he edits again similarly (but a less bold edit may be OK?).  The reverter must respond, or be considered to have been persuaded according to WP:Silence.  An editor repeatedly reverting without explanation (Note Don't revert due solely to "no consensus") is not OK.  I think we agree on the impportance of discussion.


 * I think BRD can and should work within WP:3RR. BRD starts a cycle that should not lead to a repeated Bs and Rs.  The Bs should be of diminishing boldness, and the Rs should become modifying edits.  If it fails three times, with discussion, then maybe everyone should have a meal and go to bed.


 * BLP and removing Copyright policy violations trump BRD.


 * So... BRD nutshell.  A Bold edit is welcome, whether to break intransigent unfocused discussion, or silence.  A bold edit may be reverted (it is NOT encouraged).  BRD begins after a bold edit was reverted.  Both editors must then discuss before editing again.  WP:AGF must be followed.  Either editor, following discussion, may attempt a different that takes into consideration the point of the other editor.  The other editor is encouraged to refine that edit, but may, though discouraged, revert it, restarting the cycle.  The end goal is consensus, incremental improvement demonstrated by agreement that the current version is better than previous versions.  Too long for a nutshell, but what do you think?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I would endorse adding the underlined sentence to the end of the nutshell so that the entire thing read as follows
 * Nutshell - ''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. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus. It is OK to make a second bold edit in an attempt to improve on the first one even if the discussion is still underway, and if others feel there is insufficient discussion to go along with continued they they should consider initiating one of the lower levels of dispute resolution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 April 2014‎


 * I don't think that's going to prove helpful.
 * Yes, sometimes you need to have another bold edit. But too many people will read this as "feel free to re-instate your original bold edit, and now you can called that 'virtuously following BRD' instead of 'evil edit warring'".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Try a compromise edit.
Formerly "Step Four. Try a compromise edit" and changed by me, because it is not step 4. Rather, if it is a revised edit that tries to respond to the discussion then it is not #4, but rather the first edit in a bold new BRD cyclea. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, User:NewsAndEventsGuy, "Try a compromise edit" necessarily follows 1=Bold edit; 2=reverted; 3=discussion. The next step, unless you insist that "consensus" must be proven by a talk page agreement/vote, which is completely contrary to the spirit of BRD.  It is step 4 on a cycle.  I suppose you might want to called step 1#2, or 1.1?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision 604066400 by Beyond My Ken (talk).

User:Beyond My Ken appears to have made a clumsy revert contrary to Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Multiple editors had made good, productive, agreeable edits. I have therefore reverted, the onus is in Ken to explain himself. The text in question is:
 * When you think the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, try a compromise edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Beyond My Ken now appears to be editwarring over this, while refusing to give a substantive reason for his preferred version. Would someone else please comment?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably because you are calling his edits "clumsy" and referencing some random essay as if following it were a requirement. Stop edit warring yourself, . Personally, I do not have strong feelings but this version seems to say it more concisely. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec)@SmokeyJoe: If there is no consensus, then you cannot restore your edit. Period. The "compromise" wasn't. The "edit warring" started with the first re-revert, which was yours. Stop it. Get a consensus for the changes you want here. If you don't have a consensus, then don't make the edit. Period. Don't re-revert, don't tinker - your ideas have been rejected so far, so you haven't a leg to stand on to keep trying to wedge them in with "compromises". Cut the crap and follow WP:BRD. The next step is to get admins involved. BMK (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @Beyond My Ken, there is a consensus achieved in the discussion at above. So far, you haven't advanced any argument as to why those changes wouldn't match the positions of editors that participated in that discussion, other than "reverts have been made". If you  want to make an argument as to why that consensus should change again, make it explicitly in this talk page instead of reverting to the status quo ante version (you're really close to crossing WP:3RR now); WP:STATUSQUO is an essay too, so in order to continue discussion there's no need to remove the improvements we have already agreed to make. Diego (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * False No consensus (yet) in that thread.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Brainfart, nevermind. Precoffee I was remembering a former objection I had, which I later resolved before posting it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's not? I thought that your comment (in particular, "the first ed is justified in attempting a new-and-improved edit in response to the discussion right away. It is can be suggested to propose it at talk first, but not required" and "we should avoid a requirement that we get an affirmative "yeah that sounds good") was consistent with your addition of the "standard of proof", to which I agree and which (with the previous changes that you also left in place) I think solves the problem with the previous wording. What would it take for you to consider that these additions have consensus? Diego (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Ah, OK. It seems that the new version solves several problems, and that it matches the concerns raised in the discussion. Diego (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Three times, Beyond My Ken reverted to 04:42, 9 April 2014‎ (by Nikkimaria). 10:16, 13 April 2014; ‎21:31, 13 April 2014; 06:12, 14 April 2014. These three reverts reverted edits by User:Diego Moya, User:Collect, User:SmokeyJoe, User:NewsAndEventsGuy. All, I think, created unique versions. Not once has Beyond My Ken given a reason.

The talk page recently has been hard to understand. NewsAndEventsGuy says sensible things, but the post of 14:00, 13 April 2014 leaves me scratching as to what he would like. Maybe NewsAndEventsGuy is simple critiquing?

I think this staus quo ante thing needs sorting before the nutshell.

I am happy that the revision of 04:42, 9 April 2014 should stand should someone object to every attempt to change it, but only if the objector explains his objects. Reasons to change it have been given. The onus is on the objector.

User:VQuakr, I said, clumsily I guess, "clumsy" because he reverted multiple editors leaving it very unclear to the multiple editors whether he disagreed with some or all of them. In BRD, "Don't revert solely due to no consensus" is far more significant than "some random essay".

Another question, and apologies if it is inflammatory, is: Have all you guys appeared here after having a dispute elsewhere? And did it involve the concept of "status quo ante"?

Version 2 is better than version 1 because version 1 enables a filibuster. Version 2 allows the creation of a definite focus for continued discussion, as we have here. Do you like version 2, or is version 1 better. Or could something else be better than both. Note that some, such as I, say that version 1 is critically flawed by enabling filibustering, or the right to veto progress in the absence of a proper vote, and holding a proper vote in order to move forward is definitely contrary to the spirit of BRD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I had suggested "suggest a compromise edit" which may clearly be done either on the talk page or by making such an "offer in compromise" on the article page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In my real world quasi legal writing, my various meters peg whenever I see the word "clearly" or "obviously" because usually when those words crop up, neither one actually applies. When I read "suggest a compromise" earlier in this process I thought it meant on the talk page specifically.   So obviously that phrasing was clearly unclear.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would prefer a fourth option like the following: "When you think the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, propose a compromise edit that may be acceptable to all parties on the article talk page, or make a new bold edit that you think will address their objections." Your option 3 still makes it look like having an explicit consensus at discussion is required prior to trying new bold edits; this would prevent the common pattern "Bold edit-Revert that provides a reason in the summary-Bold edit that addresses the stated reason-New consensus", which doesn't need to take discussion to the talk page. I know my version won't have many followers, but IMO is more consistent with WP:EDITCONSENSUS ("An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording") and WP:BEBOLD. Failing that, I prefer option 2 - the "When you think the discussion has achieved mutual understanding" makes it clear that any amount of discussion may happen first. Diego (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Discussion via edit summary" is an interesting wrinkle, and certainly reflects actual current practice. How about adding a version 4 to the table? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you propose a wording along those lines? I assume that "a new bold edit that you think will address their objections" will not be exactly popular with the crowd that yells "you must achieve consensus before any edit can be made" at every occasion. Maybe you could craft some proposal with the "discussion via edit summary" idea, and add it to your table as option 4? You seem better at it than me. Diego (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The task is to explain to this crowd that once the discussion arrives at
 * Party A concisely says "Merits = 1" and
 * Party B says "Blah blah yeah reluctantly I suppose Merits sorta = 1, more or less, and besides blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah '''
 * BRD does not really give weight to Party B's demand (Don't post because there's no consensus!) because on the only thing that matters (the merits) consensus has indeed been achieved. Thus the concept we are talking about satisfies even that crowd's demand.  Except for the part where someone in that crowd might go blah blah blah blah blah, of course.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD"
I think this snippet needs to be moved up into the "nutshell". I've been accused of violating this essay despite being the first to discuss on the article Talk page because apparently my accuser believed that an onus to discuss did not arise until after he had reverted my "bold edit" and then, having thereby started the clock, I'm the party on watch for potentially becoming a "re-reverter" so was under obligation to respect how the cycle is timed by returning to the Talk page to provide a second comment despite my first comment still sitting there unanswered! Supposedly a second comment is required whereas a first is optional so I failed to do what was required!

I frankly do not understand the policy rationale for postponing the emergence of the onus to justify one's reversions so that it does not include the first reversion. Why the "freebie"? The whole concept of flagging the "re-reverter" strikes me as misguided. The onus should be on the reverter as opposed to the revertee. A revertee who reverts his reverter is at that point a reverter who can simply be cautioned on the basis of being a reverter, no? A reverter of a reverter is still a reverter, friends. You don't need to find your bad guy in the form of "re-reverter" because he's already there in the form of a reverter. What original reverters get out of this is an entitlement to revert and a cause of action against their revertees when their sense of entitlement to their freebie isn't respected. The introduction of this essay is all good, with a paragraph each on "Bold," "Revert," and "Discuss" that does not support the postponement or evasion of the obligation to discuss (as it says "When revertING..." not when revertED) and the rest of the essay should remain consistent with this introduction instead of undermining it by suggesting that somehow the problem is not reverters who fail to justify their behaviour but revertees who don't take their being reverted lying down. You're undoing someone else's work? Justify it. Why can't we stick to that simple principle?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. (And my edit to the essay was to give more emphasis to the "best following" aspect.) IMO, once the Discuss is posted, the editing should stop. That way the quibbling as to when the original Bold or Revert took place can stop and editors can focus on what text works best. So, if a Bold edit comes about accompanied by a Discussion, the Reverting should be delayed until consensus is achieved.  – S. Rich (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure on Brian Dell, but "once the Discuss is posted, the editing should stop" is wrong, is contrary to BRD. Discussion should be brief, focused on the problem of the previous edit, and followed up by a new, compromise edit. Absolutely not does a revert, then talk page discussion point, authorise a filibuster, or create a talk page discussion consensus prerequisite for a fresh edit.  If there is one little Rule that can be inferred it is that "no editor may save the page to the same exact version more than once". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree there shouldn't a consensus prerequisite and I agree with the point about reverting to "the same exact version" but I believe there is a discussion requirement. What one person deems "filibustering" another person may deem discussing.  How long does it take to at least give a one line response on the Talk page when there's an open section there about the material at issue?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that a revert can be blocked by starting a preemptive discussion sounds like a strategy rather than a policy. Do you wish to set up a protocol in which an editor makes an outrageously bold edit and then instantaneously begins a discussion in order to prevent any other editor from reverting?

Oxymoron Worry about who is "best" at BRD reflects something of a WP:BATTLE mentality, in my view. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right: That sentence partly exists because, unfortunately, some editors have a battleground mentality.  They're often the people reverting and then telling bold editors that the bold editor is required to stop editing, that the bold editor is required to stop trying to incorporate the reverter's concerns, and that the bold editor is required to be the person to start the discussion.
 * Because not all editors are perfect and pure, we have added statements in this page that are addressed to them, especially the direct statement that you cannot require someone else to follow BRD, and the statement that anyone can start the discussion, not just the bold editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Nutshell: "Cannot require"
I propose adding "Although one cannot require his opponent to follow this recommendation, it prevents edit wars if at least one party does." into the nutshell. See WP:VPP for motivation. I think that many editors (including me until recently) tend to expect (and ofter require) others to follow BRD. &mdash; Petr Matas 03:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree that a purpose of BRD is to prevent edit wars. Also, if BRD does prevent edit wars, that's great, but it is not the core purpose of BRD to prevent edit wars.  Actually, I do not think BRD prevent edit wars.  BRD is an advanced editing technique requiring both skill and good faith, things generally not present in an edit war.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * However, requiring others to follow BRD (insisting on status quo ante until dispute resolution) actually promotes edit wars. I fell victim to that and I want to spare others from it. &mdash; Petr Matas 03:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are completely right about not "requiring others to follow BRD", especially considering that BRD is difficult for some. However, the underlying precepts are sound.  If reverted, discuss, do not repeat; if reverted seek compromise through discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And how about putting it next to where status quo ante is mentioned? &mdash; Petr Matas 05:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't completely understand your edit, nor Nikkimaria's reason for reverting. Perhaps you could explain exactly what part of BRD should not be required to follow.  On one hand, all of it need not be followed.  One the other hand, the whole BRD philosophy is built on pretty simple and reasonable concepts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wanted to emphasize that if a Bold edit is reverted, one should not insist on the article being left in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made while the discussion is in progress. Specifically, do not insist on the Bold edit not being redone. In my opinion, misunderstanding of this makes most troubles. &mdash; Petr Matas 17:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We already say that we cannot require others to follow BRD, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't get the problem we're trying to fix here. We do compel boldly editing parties to follow BRD and the evidence that we compel them to do this is that they can be sanctioned if they simply restore their bold edit without any discussion and without a really-really-really knock-'em-dead reason (despite fact that WP:3RR has not been reached). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Have a look at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive241. &mdash; Petr Matas 15:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to read your analysis and conclusion, but I decline to try to repeat that thought process from scratch.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a slow edit war, where VM deleted many citations of RT and I struggled to keep status quo ante until the dispute is resolved. VM argumented for the large edit as a whole, which is difficult to disprove. While discussing, we were reverting back and forth from time to time, both guilty by warring. As you can see from the link above, the admins won't help you much in this case. We were not getting anywhere until I left the article alone, chose a piece of VM's edit and started to question him about it. &mdash; Petr Matas 20:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The cursory summation of your personal perception in that single experience doesn't actually demonstrate that there is a problem with the existing nutshell, sorry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced either. I'm reading that a dispute leads to BRD, which requires a halt to editing, which leads to a version of WP:The Wrong Version. I read a dispute not solvable by BRD. Along the way, I note: BRD is not required. BRD is not even recommended. The Revert is not recommended, but is allowed.  WP:BOLD is recommended in some conditions, and BRD is the last safety net to save you from crossing the line into WP:Edit warring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is useless to modify the nutshell, but the notice in the article (after we refine it) can't do any harm, can it? &mdash; Petr Matas 05:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That note is a good addition. Too many times editors wield BRD as if it was a requirement for a reverted editor (but never for the WP:OWNer of the article, which is not ashamed to revert the article to the WP:STATUSQUO over and over), forgetting that WP:EDITCONSENSUS is a legitimate way to reach consensus. I'd rather have an editor watching an article to tweak to their liking any problematic edit made by another editor, thus incorporating their additions in an acceptable way, rather than making a plain revert and requiring a lengthy discussion before anything can change. Diego (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I support Diego's edit of 10:37, 13 April 2014. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @NewsAndEventsGuy, BRD would be disruptive if it ever become mandatory. The call to leave the status quo in place after a revert is good advice to try to follow for yourself, but a terrible idea if intended to be imposed on others, as the current wording is often interpreted; were BRD ever be proposed as a behavior guideline, I would oppose it on that single point. This encourages editors to WP:OWN articles, by opposing any change to the article and requiring full consensus at the talk page before any change is even attempted. The best behavior is often a combination of discussion intertwined with constructive edits by all editors involved; BRD should remind us that attempting to incorporate the concerns of the other part in the debate is a good way to achieve consensus, recommended by policy, that both parties should follow. A strict interpretation of BRD often grinds everything to a stall, with no advances made, and everyone taking more and more extreme positions with no point in common; while trying to tweak the wording to one's liking will often arrive to a status where most editors agree with the outcome, or at least can live with it, in a way that maintaining the status quo can't achieve. Diego (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (A) Whether BRD should be mandatory (or not) < > "should BRD require leaving articles at status quo ante". Those are separate questions.
 * (B) For straight reverting with no changes to the attempted edit BRD is de facto mandatory because in these cases WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR lead to ANI and blocking. In that way, BRD is implicitly mandatory.
 * (C) For truly cooperative collaborators we don't need to fret over the text of BRD because those people don't need it.
 * (D) Seems we only need the BRD essay for editors who are not - by nature - "truly cooperative collaborators". In other words, they're competing somehow.  In particular, in contentious subject areas we have the problem of stubborn asses (SAs)trying to establish their preferred version as the "correct status quo" thru endless discussion often involving brilliant redherrings, tactics of illogic, and general gishgallop-ing.  They would like it to be BRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD until last man standing gets their way.   SAs almost never say "I agree" because they're either POV editing or recreationally trying to drive others batty.   Yes, sure.... we can take each example through meticulously civil and gradually escalating WP:DR.   But in addition, BRD should say
 * (D1) Meaningful BRD is mandatory but
 * (D2) If an ed in the discussion hears the other party give a reasonable criticism to an edit, and the first ed agrees, the first ed is justified in attempting a new-and-improved edit in response to the discussion right away. We suggest proposing it at talk first, but we should not require it.  If the ed on the other end is not an SA, then the collaborators among us don't need a rule book for how to proceed at this point and they don't need the lawyers to micromanage.  But if the ed on the other end actually does seem to be an SA, we should avoid a requirement that we get an affirmative "yeah that sounds good" from the SA before attempting the new-and-improved edit.  So what's missing is the notion of editor #1's reasonable good faith belief that a new edit can address the points raised in the discussion (in other words, a reasonable belief that there is consensus on points raised during the discussion up to that point). We should not require an affirmative approval before trying it out.


 * (E) SO that's the conceptual goal I would like to see. Existing practice is already doing a reasonable job of that so I'm dubious we really need anything more than gnomish wordsmithing to reflect actual practice.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy, your analysis is simply wrong. Not following BRD does not automatically result in an edit war.  Not following BRD even in the presence of "straight reverting with no changes to the attempted edit".  I'll give you an example:  An editor boldly removed a sentence.  I thought the sentence, although not critical, was an improvement to the article, so I reverted it.  There's your "B" and "R".  She reverted me to remove it again.  This was not an edit war, even though we're up to "BRR" now.  Why?  Because her edit summary explained why she removed it:  The sentence was already present in the adjacent section, and having exactly the same sentence appear twice in two consecutive paragraphs was obviously not good for the article.  Nobody with any sense would call that an edit war; nobody with any sense would even think about going to ANI in that case.
 * Also, BRD is not the only possible response to "straight reverting". You can discuss, which BRD recommends to bold editors.  You can also walk away, which I strongly recommend to editors who like to weed external links.  If you're cleaning out Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup, your most efficient response to a reversion is to move on to the next one, with no time wasted in a discussion.  "Meaningful BRD" is therefore not mandatory, even in the case of straight-up use of the WP:UNDO button.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well of course an editor always has choices, e.g., instead of replying they can dunk their entire PC in burning crisco oil.  Isn't it sort of innate that the question "Is BRD mandatory?" implies a context of continued editing?   As for your example of the explanatory edit summary, somewhere in this thread we have acknowledged the shortened form of "discuss" represented by edit summaries, so your example pokes no holes in my "analysis" (your word). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Worn in on?
"These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis."

This phrase doesn't seem right. Can someone think of a clearer way to say this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * usually helps to discuss the goal. What do you suppose it is intended to say  mean ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I spot checked a rev from 2006 and it was there. I think it means "overused" or "worn out". I changed it to the prior. VQuakr (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose today's bold rename

 * I oppose today's bold rename of this page. Please put it back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why, did it break anything?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the newer name is not an improvement. If nothing else, it is hard for most users to type en dashes. Aesthetically, I simply prefer the commas, too. VQuakr (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, purely on aesthetics, the I also liked the old way better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah...let's not do that. Mkay?--Maleko Mela (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

WT:EW
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring related to WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BRD that may interest some editors who watch this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Poll
Question From the table above, do you prefer version 1, version 2, or "other" (please use strikeout and underline to show your phrasing). In all cases, please provide your reasoning with your vote but (I beg thee) stick further comments under the "discussions" heading to take pity on the poor closer. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Version 1

 * 1) Oppose. Overly strong wording that creates an unrealistic barrier to a return to editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Version 2

 * 1) Support this version the best so far. Of version 3 I like that it mentions both advancing the discussion or making news edits, but it places too much emphasis on the former. Diego (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Clearer expression and reasonable conditions for a return to standard wiki editing and standard consensus building. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Preferred version as first step. Other suggestions are modifications on this, and discussion of modifications should follow agreement to move to #2.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Although there are times that suggesting the edit may be more prudent, but as long as the edit is clearly aimed at compromise, it is a good idea. Collect (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Version 3

 * 1) Support Version 1 can be easily twisted in defense of a filibuster tactic, something version 2 is explicitly intended to prevent. However, version 2 sort of reads like it is not ok to propose a draft at talk first.  These are both good ideas for different circumstances, so be explicit about both. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Essentially the same as version 2, but clearly states a logically allowed option, the extra guidance would probably be helpful to some. To get out of the BRD cycle, you don't have to be Bold, you may of course propose tentatively. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support is conditional on removal of "bold" in "make a new bold edit". This advice offers divergent options, super-conservative propose on talk page (an option obviously always available) and a non converging re-bold.  Once there are participants in the discussion, and discussion is productive, it is not appropriate to again be Bold.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support with caveat The new edit likely ought not be "bold" - which implies a bit of impetuousness which is not desirable at that point.  Collect (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, I agree.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also agree. The great feature of the original Bold is to 1) clearly state your ambit position and 2) attract interest from other editors in a situation of no activity. At this point, these are not needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I suspect y'all are overthinking this. This is an essay, one that outlines one particular editing method that works efficiently for experienced editors - particularly when there is a collegial atmosphere. It requires both (all) to respect each other, and also be secure enough to not interpret a revert as a challenge. Statements above like The new edit likely ought not be "bold" - which implies a bit of impetuousness which is not desirable at that point, while not wrong, make it appear that editors are confusing BRD with a dispute resolution method. While a bold edit can highlight the need for dispute resolution (for example, if one party refuses to discuss at all), it is not really itself a method of dispute resolution at all. We are also in the lede here, so we want to summarize the rest of the essay while staying concise (which is my biggest concern with "option 3". I think this addresses the viewpoints raised in the poll while staying closer to the purpose of BRD and WP:LEDE; what do people think? VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd call your edit a small improvement on #2. Agree with your point on lede and concision, but that is a smaller point after opposing #1. Overthinking? Agreed, with no opposition statements of substance, why do we need to do this the hard way? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I'd like to see "this" added as proposal 4, formatted to look like the other things, so as to facilitate orderly discussion of pros/cons of each. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Polling is, of course, no substitute for discussion. What specific issues do you have with the edit I made? VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the nutshell at your link (polling) "Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion".  I find it much easier to discuss options in a poll than various diffs in the blizzard of fiddlings shown in the version history.  I'll add it myself later, and then answer your question.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exasperating, and contrary to the spirit of BRD, is when people like you revert to an opposed version, a version modified by multiple editors, explicitly opposed on the talk page, which has received zero support on the talk page. "Get consensus on the talk page first", alone, is a very weak position.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Discussion is about the last sentence of the last paragraph of the lede. That paragraph begins:
 * Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). ...

In each case, "attempt a new edit" or "try a compromise edit" or something is wikilinked to the policy section Consensus.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To me, 3 is way too verbose for the lede. 2 and 4 are very similar, but I think 4's "has improved" is superior to 2's "you think" phrasing, and that 4 eliminates repetition compared to 2 by removing the word "compromise" and then immediately following up with the definition. Beyond just concision, 4 places greater emphasis on bold edits as a means toward progress, which is the core concept of BRD (as long as discussion is improving understanding, bold edits can help -- no need for discussion to be exhaustively completed). VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. 1's "has achieved" and "will" are so absolute that they can arguably be never achieved, as evident in this very situation.  I like "attempt a new edit" over "try a compromise edit".  I think 4 is an excellent version, appropriately balancing the amount of talk page achievement with the importance of a return to normal editing.  Do you agree that we've definitely moved beyond #1?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I like version 4—actually, I think that either 2, 3, or 4 would be an improvement over 1—but I think that it's useful to retain the "you think" language, which 4 currently omits. An alternative is "When the discussion has improved your understanding...", but I think that "When you think the discussion has improved (everyone's) understanding" is perhaps better.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Grammatically, I think it is better to keep the essay third person. This is not an article so avoiding "you" is not a hard requirement. But it does not flow well. "Improved understanding" is an inherently subjective assessment, so the fact that this is in the reader's assessment is intrinsic to the direction. Does anyone have any objection to making #4 the new status quo? VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (A) Me, the author of 3, revised it to be shorter without changing the intended meaning. Version 3B wordcount ~25, compared to #4 wordcount of ~20. I'll leave it someone else to decide what should be bolded.  Point is that it is also punchy and short.
 * (B) 3B also avoids the word "you"
 * (C) 3B avoids the weird result in #4, where we attribute cognitive powers to a group activity Do discussions with improved understanding also ace their calculus exams?
 * (D) My primary complaint throughout all - and primary complaint in #4 - is that #4 should really be presented like this
 * "When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion."
 * IMO, under #4 it remains ambiguous when an Editor-A can post a revision that addresses all of Editor-B's objecitons, even though Editor-B still wants to blab instead of just saying "that looks good".  I think I heard above that it is implied that one way to propose the new edit is by posting to the article.  Sheesh, I edit in the warzone of climate change.  It might be implied by us parties to the discussion but it needs to be overtly stated.  Thus, I say the five extra words in 3B compared to 4 are worthy every letter.   I suppose it doesn't help my salepitch to observe that #4 could be even shorter if we change "that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion" to "accordingly". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The audience of this essay is the reader. I am unable to parse #4 in the way you describe in point C. Probably a missing parenthesis somewhere. I would be fine with your final proposed improvement to #4. Remember that this is the lede; we want to summarize the body and can flesh out the finer details in the body of the essay. VQuakr (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your reply overlooks my main reason for opposing #4 Given the frequency with which people justify (good faith or otherwise) filibuster and other forms of delay with empty cites to BRD, the nutshell should explicitly approve of unilateral posting of good-faith-revised edits (ones which genuinely try to address points from the discussion).  The alternative is to do things like we have done in this thread (which someone described as "the hard way"), or going up the DR ladder to ANI.  Instead, we should explicitly approve of unilateral posting of good faith, discussion-responsive, revised compromise edits.  This isn't a nuance to be crammed into an ocean of text.  It's a main nutshell point. At least in my opinion.


 * That said, I observe you vaguely said we could do something-or-other on that point. Well shoooot.... a good way for you to advocate for #4 so as to not have my main point in the nutshell is to show me how you actually propose to cover my main point via "fleshing out" in the main body.  In other words, satisfy me that the main body can address my main point, and maybe I'll agree to leave it out of the nutshell.


 * Re-C, first focus on my main point above because C is a distracting side issue. But I'll explain anyway.  My typing and grammar in C are correct.  To a virgin reader, the phrase 'When X has Y' might be read the same as 'When X has acquired Y'.   Thus, when our house has insulation, our house will keep us warmer.  When the discussion has improved understanding, the discussion will type up a proposed compromise edit.  Weird.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your reply overlooks my main reason for opposing #4.... we should give explicit approval of unilateral posting of good faith, discussion-responsive, revised compromise edits. #4 explicitly does this, so I do not understand your objection. VQuakr (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-re-C, the verb conjugation "attempt" is imperative: (you) attempt; the discussion attempts. Every other sentence in the paragraph is also imperative, so I think the risk of confusion here is nil. The "parenthesis" smalltext was a programming joke, not a dig at your typing or grammar. VQuakr (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Number 4 lacks explicit statement that unilateral determination of "improved understanding" is sometimes OK.


 * Re C, I never even dreamed that there was a dig in your comment, just a good faith attempt to improve understanding! Virgin readers haven't read the whole thing and don't know it is in the imperative voice, so that syntax in the first sentences a virgin reader sees still makes the expression weird.


 * Do you have an objection to 3B other than its a half dozen words longer than 4? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I like 3B, it's in much better shape than 3A which I opposed. Diego (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the the purpose of discussion is to reach consensus (and ultimately, of course, to improve the article). Shouldn't this be mentioned before instructing the reader to make more potentially controversial edits?   I would suggest "Once the discussion reaches consensus, make the agreed-upon edit.  If the discussion bogs down or it looks like no consensus will be reached, consider other forms of WP:Dispute resolution, or make another bold edit to revitalize the discussion.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The underlying concept of BRD is to encourage editors to be bold. Discussion is not needed for every edit. VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don’t think I’m understanding what you’re saying. Are you really suggesting that discussion is not an integral part of the Bold, Revert, Discuss process?--Wikimedes (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)--Wikimedes (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a common misunderstanding that, once a bold edit and a revert are made, discussion needs to reach consensus in order to make any new edit; but that's the opposite of what BRD is about (for that reason it's called a cycle, not a dead-end). Both bold edits and discussion are encouraged by WP:BOLD and WP:CONSENSUS as ways to advance consensus-building, and only unproductive edit warring is discouraged - continuous, repeated reverts that don't take into account the concerns of the other party. Making edits that *do* address the stated concerns is usually a good idea, and the only discussion required is that which clarifies what the other part in a debate thinks is acceptable. Diego (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense. I still think that consensus is worth mentioning.  Also WP:compromise is usually discouraged on Wikipedia, and for good reasons.  Perhaps this would be better:  “If the discussion reaches consensus, make the agreed upon edit.  Alternatively, use information gained from the discussion to make another bold edit.”

As I read it, everyone with substantive comments agrees the existing text is wrong, or at least poorly phrased. So which of the multiple better suggestions should we use? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Disastrous
In my experience, so far, this page is being referenced by people who only Revert, and revert freely, even immediately (because they have a WP:OWN problem). There's nothing "bold" about repeatedly reverting to one's own last edit (or, the last edit before a certain editor got involved), and they're not discussing anything. I'm explaining my edits on the article's Talk page, only to get minimal cryptic and/or insulting replies that don't address my concerns in any way. I make good-faith edits with inline citations, and they get reverted without explanation, with Edit Summaries like "See WP:BRD and WP:MOS". That is not a proper Edit Summary.

I had one editor tell me, after reverting my source-citing edit "I'm not going to go through it line by line, checking each citation, because that would be a waste of my time." In other words, I was guilty (of something) before proven innocent.

I explain all my edits on the Talk page, how they are meant to bring balance to a biased article, and my explanation is dismissed simply because it is lengthy.

BRD is a disastrous guideline. This article should be deleted. WP:ONLYREVERT ("Revert only when necessary") should be the over-arching guideline:

'''Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. . . . Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text.'''

Also, articles should not be reverted merely because the new edit includes poorly-sourced or even unsourced material, as long as it is not harmful or contentious to a living person. (WP:CITE) That is what the "citeneeded" tag is for. But people are using BRD as an excuse to skip the step of using "citeneeded" tags. BRD is being seen as an invitation to be lazy, and revert repeatedly. There's definitely not much Discussion going on. It's a complete disaster.

--Ben Culture (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I know it feels good to pound on the table, but you'll make more headway by learning to make effective use of dispute resolution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you: Your comment is a perfect example of the kind of unhelpful, counter-productive, mocking replies I've been getting on the aforementioned Article Talk page, after I've taken the trouble to describe the reasons for my edits in detail. Replies like yours don't impress or help anybody. I got even worse when I tried a polite, direct appeal to the inital reverter on his User Talk page. He referred to it as "patronising claptrap", made some personal insults, and followed up with "Don't edit my Talk page again." Like that's his choice to make? I reminded him that he had the freedom to censor me, so he did. The guy's got a big boxed message atop his User Talk page saying he refuses to enter into any dispute resolution, and if anybody thinks he's owning an article or being uncivil, they can "shove it".
 * If your reply is representative of how you talk to people on Wikipedia, then you're part of the same problem.
 * There are too many people abusing BRD to go through WP:DR. It will look like I have an unspoken agenda. If you would like to read my User page, you will see that I am slowly but surely leaving Wikipedia, after about ten years, because it simply does not work for me anymore. WP:BRD is one reason why: It's too easy to game the system. If you're someone with a WP:OWN problem, all you have to do is revert any changes to your article, then refuse to engage in substantiative discussion. Without discussion, no consensus can occur. Therefore, according to this totally fucked up essay, the article should stay reverted until consensus is reached, which can't happen. In other words, people are using WP:BRD simply to prevent change.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * BRD is not a guideline; it is an essay. It also already notes, for example, "Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it that results in a net positive rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible." Assuming this is related to The Final Cut (album) - that is a content dispute, and neither the content dispute nor the poor behaviors exhibited on that article's talk page are going to be solved by deleting essays. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You can see me referring to WP:BRD as an "essay" in the penultimate sentence of my comment; it follows the phrase "totally fucked-up". Giving BRD the axe may or may not improve the aforementioned article -- I believe it will, because NO ONE has objected (or even referred) to my actual new content when reverting my edits; they're doing it because of BRD and thus violating the spirit of WP:BOLD. Deleting BRD (which IS being cited as if it was a guideline), and tossing the whole concept of BRD out the window, will improve Wikipedia in general, particularly in editor retention. Although the BRD essay emphasises that in any conflict between it and WP:BOLD, one should defer to WP:BOLD, that isn't happening in my experience.


 * It isn't the worst essay in the world, IF people follow it properly (although "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement" is wrong; it should be Revert an edit only if it makes the article significantly worse.) It's self-contradictory, but some parts are damn good. If "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD", then that would be ME. But I got no consensus for a long, long time, because the three people reverting my edits did not respond (substantially) to my explanations of edits on the Article's Talk page. The essay states "No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion ...", but I have had an admin, no less, revert my edit because I had not reached consensus with the prior reverter, who was refusing to discuss it. The BRD essay may advise "Consider reverting only when necessary", but again, that isn't how it's working out in practice. People are now saying consensus must be reached before making significant edits, which is also in conflict with WP:BOLD. I think a lot of people taking the essay to mean "Boldly revert edits", which of course, is not the point of the essay at all. It's a pretty badly-written article, with some really bad ideas in it. --Ben Culture (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , you're right. It's a common problem.  I tried to address some of this today, but Flyer22 reverted both my changes and Mark Miller's less than an hour later.
 * BRD is not actually supposed to be invoked by anyone who is reverting. Of course, if you haven't been around for years and years, then you wouldn't know that, because a lot of editors play it like it's a Get out of jail free card when they're reverting any change for any reason.
 * My changes covered the following:
 * that the "ideal" method of improving articles does not involve reverting (and thus does not involve BRD), but involves good collaboration and editors building on each other's contributions (see WP:CONSENSUS);
 * that dropping WP:CRYPTIC letters in your edit summary is not the best way to communicate with inexperienced editors; and
 * that equally bold collaborative improvements are better than wholesale reversions, and especially not to revert all of an edit if you only disagree with part of it.
 * Mark Miller's change covered:
 * removing a tag that nobody has any clue what it refers to.
 * I assume that was just sloppiness rather than intentional, but if Flyer22's a decent editor, and if she knows what that tag is about, she'll come tell us, and if it was a mistake, she'll clean it up.


 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (See? I told you that she's a good editor.)
 * Flyer, I like your tweak. Feel free to tell me what else you're thinking about these other ideas.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, WhatamIdoing. When you stated "if Flyer22's a decent editor," I took offense to that and I was going to ask: "So you don't know if I'm a decent editor or not after having been familiar with me for years? And if I disagree with your interpretation of when WP:BRD should be cited, I'm not a decent editor?" For the record, I restored a part of your changes and Mark Miller's change before you commented in this discussion. I would have restored Mark Miller's edit sooner, but I was comparing your changes with the previous changes to see if maybe there is something that you added that should clearly be kept. I'd considered manually removing your changes so that Mark Miller's change wouldn't be affected, but I was too lazy to do that.


 * Yes, I reverted you here, stating, "WhatamIdoing, I don't agree with these changes, changes that seem to be a result of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. If an editor makes a drastic change, it is perfectly fine to revert that edit citing WP:BRD...for various reasons." I reverted because, in addition to believing in that statement, your changes used some authoritative language that I disagree with, which is why I tweaked a bit of the part I added back; regarding that part, I realized that it's not too different than what was already there. But regarding the rest, I feel that it needs discussion. By that, I mean that (as noted in my revert) you came to alter the essay because of the A2 milk matter (a WP:Permalink to that discussion is here), and two editors in that discussion (Bhny and Roxy the dog) have different opinions on WP:BRD than you, while BlackCab was somewhat in agreement with you on WP:BRD in addition to having a different take on how WP:BRD was used in the case being discussed there.


 * There's also the fact that, as shown at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 61, User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 11 and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 62, you and I have somewhat different beliefs on how reverting should be handled. I don't think that WP:BRD alone is a good reason for reverting; I simply think that there's often a good reason for citing/using it, such as when an editor is changing a definition to one at conflict with WP:Due weight, and that it is a good form of WP:Dispute resolution. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a disastrous typo: I have struck and apologize sincerely. (I'd started typing "but if she knows what the tag is about" and then it occurred to me that having accused you of a sloppy revert, that I should also give credit where due.  So naturally my own typing was sloppy.)
 * There are sometimes good reasons to revert. Sometimes a good-faith edit simply can't be salvaged.  But the purpose of this essay is not to give people excuses to revert, and cryptic edit summaries are always unhelpful to the "inexperienced editors" that the original instruction was directed to.
 * As you can see from the top of this section, Bhny and Roxy are certainly not the only people who have an understanding of this essay that is not entirely consistent with the WP:Editing policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I did consider that "if Flyer22's a decent editor" was in contrast to "See? I told you that she's a good editor.".


 * As for the rest of what you stated, I understand. I know that simply citing "WP:BRD" in an edit summary often is not helpful to a WP:Newbie; but the same can be stated of our policies and guidelines, and yet many (perhaps the vast majority of) very experienced Wikipedians, including me, often cite policies or guidelines when reverting a WP:Newbie. Yeah, there are many WP:Newbies who won't think to click on the policy, guideline or essay that is being cited, despite the fact that it's there in front of their faces and they are being directed to it. But there are many WP:Newbies who do stop and take the time to read one or more of those pages, even if they decide to revert anyway. There is only so much that we can do as very experienced Wikipedians when helping WP:Newbies (unless we decide to WP:Adopt them or essentially WP:Adopt them). If a WP:Newbie decides not to click on WP:BRD, that is the WP:Newbie's fault. Since WP:BRD is an essay that can help WP:Newbies understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work, I don't think that not citing WP:BRD in an edit summary is a solution to helping the WP:Newbies. What do you think of the changes that NewsAndEventsGuy recently made to the page, as seen here, here, here, here, here and here? As seen with this edit, I tweaked one of his changes. Flyer22 (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to this, I also added more of your text back and tweaked it, as seen here, here and here. In practice, it's not just WP:Newbies or other inexperienced editors that more experienced editors cite WP:BRD to when reverting, so I removed "inexperienced." Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that this and this edit that I made is a good compromise regarding linking to WP:BRD in an edit summary and WP:Newbies often needing an explicit explanation in the edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Instead of the step by step analysis, let's just look at the result. See below (beneath the outdent)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This essay documents an editing method that exists without reference to this essay. This essay attempts to document best practice for the BRD process.  Deleting this essay would not stop the practice.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

One bullet under the details for "revert" has been the subject of editing the last 24 hrs. OLD
 * Not counting a Slight tweak in Jan 2014 between Jan 1 2013 and yesterday the text read
 * "Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible.

Two problems with the old text is that it is somewhat vaguely phrased, and more importantly, it implies that only 100% undoing is a "revert". That is explicitly contrary to the nutshell bubble at WP:3RR, which states that a partial modification of another's work (such as changing a bold edit with a different bold edit) is also a "revert". I'm not sure what other issues other eds might have been rying to fix. But in any case the result has been..... NEW
 * Several eds tweaked that text this month, and in the most recent version as of this post the text read
 * "Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way and then make that bold edit instead. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit. Because editors who engage in edit wars can be blocked, when you become involved in back-and-forth editing it is wise to stop editing and promptly move to the next stage, 'discuss.'"

Any better ways to say that? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR does not state that any modification to another's work is a revert; if it did, then almost any edit would be a revert, considering that Wikipedia text is continually being revised. WP:3RR instead states: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." That is quite different than the text you added, which I'd changed because it is quite different. Like I stated, it has been made clear at the WP:Edit warring talk page in recent discussions, spanning months (not just the recent discussions currently on that talk page), that not every modification to an editor's edit is a revert; this sentiment was especially echoed during the Definition of "Revert" and "Undo" and "Does Change = Revert?" matters. Flyer22 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we have had at least one admin explicitly state that any change at all is a reversion: if I start a new article, and you helpfully categorize it, then you have "reverted" me (my "decision" not to categorize the article) as far at the edit warring policy is concerned.  That's clearly nonsense, but people have been blocked and warned using that definition (though not, as far as I know, over that particular example of it).  I tried early this year to get a clearer definition written into the policy, but the effort failed.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding that administrator, it seems that you are referring to the Definition of "Revert" and "Undo" discussion. At least the administrator commented in that discussion that: "As a major patroller of WP:ANEW, I evaluate each report on a case-by-case basis. Just because I gave the literal interpretation of a revert doesn't mean I block someone because they made a minor change to an article." As for being blocked for any modification of another editor's edit counting as a revert, in relation to WP:3RR or WP:Edit warring in general, I think that happens sparingly. And in the Does Change = Revert? case, you can see that it was criticized for having happened. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What is BRD, and what should it be?
Reading the essay, the recent edits to the essay, and the talk page, it looks like there are differing opinions on the basic nature of Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. These opinions seem to fall into 3 main categories:

1) BRD is a specific tool in which an experienced editor makes a bold edit with the intent of engaging with other editors to determine consensus (or interest), or to move a stalled content dispute forward. 2) BRD is a suggestion for behavior to minimize edit warring which includes the reccomendation that after a bold edit is reverted, rather than re-reverting, the bold editor should discuss the reasons for his or her edit on the talk page, even if BRD was not the original intent of the bold edit. 3) BRD is an extension of WP:BOLD: BRD is a method for continuing to constructively make bold edits after a bold edit has been reverted.

From the first author’s version until at least May 2012, the essay seemed to adhere very much to the first interpretation. By August 2013 there was some emphasis on BRD as a harmonious editing behavior, with recommended use of bold edits, reverting, and discussing being addressed separately without really being part of a BRD cycle. The current essay appears to be a somewhat messy mixture of 1 and 2, which I think has been driving a lot conflict over the essay; different editors want the essay to be about 2 different things. (Version 3 is so different from my original interpretation (version 2) that I’m not sure I quite understand it yet, but it appears to be an attempt to make sure that BRD is not used to turn Wikipedia editing into a gab fest in which little meaningful editing gets done.)

So it seems to me that there should be two separate essays: one in which BRD is a specific tool for use by experienced editors to determine consensus or interest or to move a stalled dispute forward, and another as a more general recommendation for harmonious editing. Any thoughts?--Wikimedes (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why BRD would be seen as effective at promoting 1 or 3, since the only thing it introduces into ordinary editing that might not otherwise occur is "Discuss". People edit articles to make what they see as improvements and are encouraged to do so (i.e., "be bold"). Problems only arise if another dissents enough to make a contrary edit, so the "Revert" part is what we all expect to encounter any time someone disagrees. BRD only makes sense to me if its intent is to pre-empt an edit war at that point by driving both parties immediately to the talk page. Since "Revert" means at least one editor dissents from the changed version, and the burden of proof for retention of a change lies with the editor who introduces it, it seems the status quo ante is the natural point from which discussion ought to then proceed. Edit wars simply reflect a "I won't stop until you do" mentality, which may be unproductive but is predictably human -- and therefore a "problem" for which BRD is a reasonable solution. Why wouldn't 1 and 2 usually occur without BRD? FactStraight (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There are already lots of essays about harmonious editing. This essay is about a specific editing pattern that is useful to cool headed, experienced editors. It is not mandatory (you could skip the R and just discuss an unsavory change on the talk page, for example). The answer to your question is partially answered by the fact that it is linked from our policy on edit warring: Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring... This policy, WP:EW, already covers your item #2 above so there is no reason for this essay to address it. #3 just seems to me like a less precise rephrasing of #1. VQuakr (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @FactStraight - who says that "the burden of proof for retention of a change lies with the editor who introduces it"? Neither WP:Consensus nor WP:Editing policy support that view, and WP:BURDEN only backs it insofar no reliable sources are provided; for problematic content such as Copyvio or BLPs, actually the opposite is true - policy sides with the one making changes for removing it.
 * I find the idea that the status quo receives special treatment a dangerous one, and quite contrary to Consensus (WP:CCC in particular) and WP:EDIT. Diego (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus says "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." But if the new edit is promptly challenged (by talk page commentary or revert) and if the previous version of the article had been substantially stable, the previous version is presumed to reflect consensus while the new edit, having been challenged, needs to build consensus or a third version, reflecting compromise, needs to emerge and obtain consensus. FactStraight (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is not true. Your consensus-based edit might be reverted because I made a mistake.  Or because I'm trying to WP:OWN the article.  Or because I misunderstood the relevant policies.  Or because I'm reverting every single edit made with a tool that I dislike, even if the edit is perfectly correct (I actually saw an editor say he was doing this last summer).  Or because you added a template that I'm trying to get deleted as "unused" over at TFD.  Or because I didn't understand what you did (I had an editor revert a technical change that I made: there is never "consensus" for a page emitting invalid HTML, especially when the fix only involves following the instructions on the template's documentation page).  Or because I want to claim that I wrote the entire article myself.  Or because I know perfectly well that consensus is on your side, but I don't want that material added (or removed) anyway, and every hour that WP:The Truth™ is showing on the page is an hour of triumph for me.
 * I could go on, but the point should be clear: Reversion to a previous version does not mean that the bold edited didn't have consensus, or that anything was wrong with the bold edit.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hear ya -- people have all sorts of rationales for why they feel their behavior is justified despite Wikipedia's established practices. But that doesn't mean our policies and guidelines don't say what they do: bold edits are welcome, but once challenged, must demonstrate a new consensus of support to change the previously consensus. FactStraight (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Flexibility! If a bold edit on a highly watched article isn't challenged for years, that's good evidence of consensus. But in absence of dicussion at time of a bold edit, the mere passage of time loses its persuasiveness as article traffic, number of watchers, and general editing activity decrease.  Attempts to write one-size-fits all, B&W instructions are the realm of wikilawyers rather than consensus-minded collaborators.  And that drives newcomers away.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the opening post BRD's primary objective is to eliminate edit-warring and create a collaborative environment for seeking consensus. BRD's method is to layout a process for editors to follow when a bold edit is reverted BRD comes into play either So all 3 of your numbered paragraphs are kinda true. One reason BRD is a bit of a mess is because it isn't only written by sages seeking to impart wisdom of how to work together, but is also written by wikilawyers and editors still miffed about some recent argument. The latter types generally aren't seeking to impart wisdom, but to write a black-and-white manual as though we were assembling some pre-designed parts into a pre-designed package. Trust-building is obviously not the reason the latter eds show up to edit this essay. Ironically, the more they add their contributions, the further we are from the objective I just described. Why? Because that objective is entirely dependent on mutual trust. The more we try to write B&W text, the less we are operating on trust and the further we are from true collaboration. And that's why this essay is a bit of a mess, in my opinion. The best antidote might be to just rise above the drama and make calm patient use of the WP:DR process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After the bold edit (without the bold editor thinking about it first) which I think is more or less your item 2 & 3 or
 * Before the bold edit (when a talk thread for something that is expected to be contentious fails to get much response and the bold editor wants to wake up the page-watchers) which I think is more or less your item 1
 * We need User:Kim Bruning here.
 * Failing that, it might be helpful for some of the newer editors to read a few old versions of the page, so that they can see how much it has drifted, and therefore why it's seeming a bit muddled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like two of three responders to the original question think that BRD is primarily the second interpretation. I’m fairly certain that the original intent of the essay was the first interpretation: BRD is a method for an experienced editor to make a bold edit to provoke a response in order to gauge consensus, drive towards consensus, or get past a deadlock.  This original intent is still present in much (even most) of the essay.  I think the clearest example of this is that it doesn’t require a great deal of experience to discuss a reverted bold edit – this is good advice for any editor, especially a completely new editor - but the essay still recommends use by experienced editors.  Another example is that about all of the “when to use” and “cases for use” sections are about when it is a good idea to begin the cycle by making a bold edit, and do not suggest beginning BRD after a bold edit has been made.
 * Although it is a common misinterpretation, the original intent (and much of the current essay) is not about how to dispute an edit or respond if one’s edit has been reverted. However many editors (including me) read this interpretation into the essay and find this interpretation useful. This brings me back to suggesting that there be a separate essay for civilly disputing edits and reaching consensus based on the 2nd interpretation.  Going by my own previous interpretation and wishes, a better title for the new essay might be “Revert, Discuss, Edit”.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am Mark Miller. I am a major contributor to this essay. Since this appears to have some bearing on my edits, please feel free to ask me directly if there was any change that I made (that has stuck) that you are confused by, need clarification on, or any general inquiry about my edits here. I also contribute now and then to WP:DR, and a volunteer at WP:DRN and also a member of WP:WER.


 * What is BRD? Since at least 2008 BRD has been considered to be written "in the language of dispute resolution".. In Kim's first edit (the creation of the essay) she adds the following line: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a method that can be used to change any page on any consensus based wiki". I believe BRD actually originated off Wikipedia from one of the other "consensus based wikis". It underwent great changes from that original wording and intent, which was for guidance beyond Wikipedia itself. The page began as part of a group of editors trying to encourage a harmonious editing atmosphere. I actually disagree that this is a "cycle", as that implies a circular pattern as the illustration shows but I prefer the original straight forward design myself.. BRD is a behavioral process. It can be seen as a hiccup when it occurs naturally as it tends to happen when editors are generally editing without issue, but that is only when the revert is used to begin the process.


 * The intent of BRD is for the BOLD edit to be the beginning of the actual process as intended by the essay as part of breaking deadlocks or where the talk page has become bogged down and hopelessly. Make a bold edit and when it is reverted discuss exactly what is objected to and work around it or compromise. The essay could just as easily have been titled Bold, Revert, Discuss, Consensus as that is really the true full process of the original essay. "First, be bold and make a change to the page as you see fit. Wait until someone reverts or makes a just as substantial edit. DO NOT Revert back! discuss with the reverter once you reach agreement, be bold again, implement it, and wait to be reverted again. Wash, rinse, repeat. If no one reverts after a couple of days, congratulations! You got out of the impasse and got changes done." The idea that this is a cycle originates with that line "Wash, rinse, repeat", but that really just means to continue to edit peacefully. As the essay states: repeatedly reverting a bold edit could get you blocked for violating the 3RR, so even though we have long since lost that section and have made it clear that one should not be repeating this over and over....we still call it a cycle and it really isn't. It's just a process of behaving a certain when a dispute occurs....after the dispute has become endlessly bogged down to the talk page and no edits are being made to the article. That is when the article has stalled. The very point of BRD is to encourage editors to keep editing and not just discuss, even during a dispute. The essay is meant for editors to understand that, regardless of a personal conflict, or a content dispute, the article can and should still be edited and this is the process in which experienced editors should use.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your past contribs, Mark. Some thoughts
 * (A) I dislike the "oriiginal straightforward design" because I frequently contend with disruption and/or obstruction in politically charged pages, and while I understand the intent behind the straight-forward design, it can also be interpreted as representing the classic bad faith tactic known as BRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD to infinity and beyond!  Were it not for a fatal flaw in the following change, I could support the following change - re-name to WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss, Consensus and changing the straight line image to include the consensus bubble.  We'd need a section on ways of having outsider party measure the consensus and render judgment, and an appeal process.  In an ideal world that could end the BRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD approach.   The fatal flaw in that straightline approach is that admins are already overwhelmed and this would produce a great deal of closing-requests.   The present cycle-based functional dysfunction works well enough, for me anyway.
 * (B) The notion of "breaking deadlocks" is interesting. How does a deadlock arise without prior B's, R's, and D's?  It rather sounds like the essay is designed to come to rescue when some aspect of B or R or D broke down.  Without any BRD taking place before the essay arrives to the rescue, what kind of deadlock can there be?  If that is a key goal, then the essay could be improved by defining that type of "deadlock" and stating that purpose.
 * (C) Kudos to the essay originators, who anticipated a future filled with nothing but good faith and competence. Alas, we edit somewhere else.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

From C to B going backwards with your concerns I would say that the originators of the page were already dealing with incivility in many forms and that this was an optional tactic that seemed to work well in certain situations to create the opposite of the "chill effect"; To make it so editors would know they are encouraged to make a bold edit to move forward. I understand that editors use BRD as a weapon or tool against good faith editors. Political articles are not special really. Any article can have editors that use BRD to their advantage in a dispute similar to the way editors will sometimes use 3RR to their advantage in roping others in to crossing that line. But, in the same way that 3RR has warnings, BRD should as well. Something that an administrator can clearly say is not in the spirit of the essay and how it is or is not being misused or manipulated. A deadlock where BRD is useful is when editors are to afraid to cross 3RR and make no further edits then begin detailed discussions in good faith to find an acceptable way to make a particular passage of the article, how to reference it or give it due weight etc.. This is the mud that discussions get stuck in where BRD 'comes to the rescue".....although that's just a cute humorous caption and is not part of the essay per se. Disruption is not a time to use BRD, but...if you are truly talking about BR and D already taking place and that the D is just dragging out.....it isn't a loop to use the process again to try and kick start a discussion in a more focused manner. What becomes a loop is if editors become dependent on reverting each other to get their point across just to discuss. As long as editing is happening and no reverting is happening.....there is enough consensus for stability and that would seems to indicate some sort of collaboration. BRD is not a blunt instrument meant for bashing an editor across the brow with as it cannot be forced on others. But it is generally only disrupted as a process when the process itself is not adhered to. Editors do not need BRD to edit together and collaborate. They need BRD when they are not editing together and collaborating.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That still makes the idealistic assumption that eds are really trying to build each other up even if they disagree vehemently. But the fact is that there are plenty of people who want to make the other ed feel smaller.  Whatever this essay says has to be written to make the overall project better, and that means it has to be something at least semi-usable when one of the parties gets off on stomping the other guy/gal. It's a dark truth, but true nonetheless.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let’s see if I can clear up the apparent contradiction of “breaking deadlocks” (point B):
 * In the original essay BRD was not meant to be used all the time. (In early versions of the essay, one of the goals of BRD was to get out of the BRD cycle and get back to the normal editing cycle.)  Also, BRD was not a guide (small g) to each of its components; if discussion had broken down, that discussion may not have been part of a BRD cycle as described in the essay.  The BRD process described in the essay need not have even been employed prior to the breakdown.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Stomping" another editor is probably better dealt with using other means, such as WP:Civil, WP:Battle, WP:nothere, wp:harassment, etc.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * True, if we're talking about dumb stompers. There are plenty of smart ones that don't leave obvious evidence of their deepest motivations appear in what they type. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Replying to the OP, Wikimedes (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2014,


 * 1) BRD is not a "tool". It is not something to be invoked.  It is a method or a technique.  Yes, it features the BOLD edit with a variation in its use to provoke a response in order to find other interested editors.  This is the opposite of making changes by doing it very quietly in tiny bits.


 * 2) No. BRD is not a remedy to edit warring.  Editors who have difficulty resisting edit warring will have the greatest difficult following BRD.  The connection to edit warring is that BRD defines the last line of aggressive editing on the acceptable side of edit warring.  It may be considered to counter edit warring in forbidding the revert of a revert.


 * 3) Yes. BRD is the answer to a revert BOLD edit.  There must be some (not zero, not endless) discussion before the next edit.


 * BRD should not be confused with the notion of "determining consensus". BRD is about moving forward.  Consensus is a goal towards which editors work, but the definition or determination of consensus is a nebulous concept.  "Get consensus first" is an unfortunately common mantra that is contrary to the wiki way, and contrary to BRD.


 * Recent argument here has been about "status quo ante". I oppose status quo ante in BRD, because it enables a minority to filibuster.  I support not allowing a reverted BOLD editor to remake the bold edit without support (which is a weak status quo ante), but I do not support prevention of a third editor, as yet unreverted, making a less-BOLD edit, and I do not support any single editor reverting multiple others in the name of "status quo ante".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. . Now there you gave us something to quote. Consensus is something you achieve through the process of writing and discussing, not the other way around. Diego (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The wiki way is consenus.  There many paths to the mountaintop.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Consenus isn't on the mountain top, but over the horizon. If we could see where it is, there'd be no difficulty. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's lotsa ways to get there too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If your point is that there are lots of ways to work towards a consensus, I definitely agree. I agree that BRD is not the only way, and do not argue that BRD is the best, or even a good way.  It is just one way, perhaps the most aggressive way, for the most impatient.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * repeat my point
 * Broadly speaking, one way to categorize content disputes is in two main groups
 * A Vehemently disagreeing eds who from the get go are nonetheless respectfully working towards consensus don't need this essay


 * B Vehemently disagreeing eds who have stopped working respectfully toward consensus break down into two sub groups and those are


 * B1. Where the eds started out with the potential to be in group A, then the text of BRD doesn't really matter all that much ; simply invoking a laudable attempt at describing that nirvanna is usually enough to get these eds back on track.
 * B2. All others, where WP:CIR might be lacking, bad faith could exist, obsession with winning gives one side a battleground attitude, etc.   This category will breakdown into even smaller subgroups


 * B2(i). The problems are easy to document in straightforward manner depending on the behavior and so they are easily addressed through ANI or other means without invoking this essay.


 * B2(ii). The problems are expertly covert (whether intended or not), so at first there is not enough evidence to deal with them directly at DR or ANI.   The community needs a tool to smoke these out so we can improve our articles and keep the project going strong.   The community desperately needs tools to do this, and many eds appear to have embraced this essay as a chief if not the primary tool.  For them, the details of this essay matter a lot.


 * B2(iii). Both sides lack basic wikipedia competence and are duking it out.  These types embrace the essay as a weapon, and we should expunge any edits resulting from such interactions if they can be identified.


 * SUMMARY
 * X. What I hear in the above comments about the original vision for this essay sound to me like category B1. I have strong conviction over that perception, but I'm still listening if someone wants to convince me I didn't get it yet.  A strongly held hypothesis that probably needs some sort of testing is... my belief that for category B1 the actual detailed content doesn't matter all that much.
 * Y Despite that nice original idea, the essay has been embraced by many in the community for category B2(ii). By its nature that is an evidentiary sort of process where good faith eds are still hoping the other party will meet them in group B1, but nonetheless are proceeding in a semi-formal manner to smoke out hidden problems in group B2(ii).   The details of this essay matter a lot to this group, whatever the original intent may have been.
 * Z Edits in this essay originating with group B2(iii) should be ruthlessly purged.
 * So to get to consensus,there's a lot of different means. Sometimes status quo might make sense, other times not so much so.  Sometimes the legalistic workings of BRD might be relevant, other times not so much so.  Sometimes the optimistic vision of the original authors will manifest.  Other times... stealth hell in a covert handbasket.  Sad but true.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NEG, the basic flaw to your above premise is simply that it assumes bad faith. That editors (if even some editors) are using BRD in a particular way needing a fix. I believe all our guideline and policies are manipulated by some editors are totally confused by others, but as long as they are well meaning there shouldn't be an issue. I am concerned that you place too much emphasis on such phrases as "expertly covert" and "The community needs a tool to smoke these out". That is simply not how Wikipedia works and not How BRD works now or ever has. SmokeyJoe is dead about what this essay is about. I think we just might (maybe not) need to adjust some of the wording to remove some stuff not really need and adjust some other wording and even add text to clarify that BRD IS NOT and editing technique to be used on regularly and must never be forced upon editors while in a dispute for any reason. BRD is a voluntary. Editors have the option to just keep editing or to go directly to a notice board depending on issues raised. But discussion is a part of BRD and extensive discussion is a part of the dispute resolution process. Noticeboards are not a replacement for collaboration and discussion. If you can't work together with others and depend on or threaten the use of noticeboards for all issues pertaining to an editor, that could be seen as a threat. Doing so could also be seen as disruptive. BRD is simply not a blunt instrument and is not practical for use during a dispute that involves edit warring. Once edited warring starts, BRD has dissolved. If you are edit warring, you are not using BRD correctly. Frankly the community does still say to each other "You need to follow BRD" or even just evoking BRD out of the blue and complain when and editor continues to revert. Hey...they do have three shots at reverting. That isn't BRD but it is allowed and just because someone makes three reverts doesn't mean anyone should ever be warned that they are not following BRD because they do not have to.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark, the nutshell bubble at our WP:AGF policy acknowledges that bad faith can happen and that's what I wrote.  I think what I wrote is 100% consistent with the AGF policy but it also tries to deal with the reality of various forms of dysfunction, good faith or otherwise.  Being male, I would like it if women on the street at night assume that I might be a nice guy.   Regrettable, I'm going to teach my daughter to still be aware of her surroundings.  This is no different. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to make changes to this essay based on your own unwillingness to assume good faith and make this a tool to deal with supposed bad faith editors...you will never get my support on that. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I never suggested any such thing. Quite the opposite, this essay is widely used to show good faith when people are emotionally hot but still wanting to improve the project.  It is the inability to follow this essay that many community members already cite as evidence of real problems. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on that? I don't get what you are saying.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Split?
Would it be desirable to split out a separate essay, BRD for reverters? Then we could minimize the stuff about reverting on this page (because what the BOLD editor needs to know is "don't do it") and add some specific information, like "Don't demand that the bold editor get written permission in advance; that's bureaucracy, not BRD. Revert stuff only if you actually disagree with its content." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to do so. I read your post above and see several editors disagree with it. I don't support splitting the essay at this time.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

BRD editors follow 1RR

 * NewsAndEventsGuy above reads to me as describe BRD inextricably linked to WP:DR in the minds of problem editors, and how this BRD page fails to well advise these editors. I accept what he says, he has experience I don't in managing problem articles.
 * I have added "Editors following BRD do not repeatedly revert. Follow WP:1RR; in any one dispute, you may revert only once. If another revert is needed, leave it for someone else to do, after you have explained the situation on the talk page."
 * I see that this as implied since the beginning, in allusions to "harmonious editing", but never explicitly stated. Reverts are confrontational.  Discussion and compromise de-escalated confrontation, reverting escalates.  Following BRD, if you have reverted, you should then be committed to talk page discussion or moving forward with a compromise edit.  A second revert on the same topic is bad.  If you are not the only one with your view, then you can leave it to someone else.  If you are the only one, you cannot assume you are right.  1RR being required of any editor who cites BRD should help.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (A) Thanks for accepting some of my impressions on how this essay has become used by many in the community, at least as it seems to me from lots of climate page battles.
 * (B) That's close but change the first sentence a bit. True, some problem eds see it the way you describe.  Describing myself, I think BRD is inextricably linked to DR in the minds of good faith editors as a means of mentoring and if necessary corralling problem editors, and bearing in mind in all cases the goal of prevention instead of punishment at all stages.  (Prevention not punishment is an ideal borrowed from our WP:BLOCK policy.)
 * (C) A frequent misunderstanding I see (and probably do without thinking about from time to time) is with respect to this part "Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.".   I've seen trouble arise from over-reliance on edit summaries as "DISCUSSION" so often, it might help to bump this up to the lead without soft language.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reverted that. It is instruction creep to begin suggesting that kind of specific advice and makes no since if this is a cycle. I also doubt this improves anything.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought of reverting for the same reason, and I have clarified my "thanks" above since I guess it was ambiguous. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.". I can support something like this, but I did actually put some language similar to this in the lede a while back and it was reverted and a discussion showed a consensus to not emphasize to editors that they engage on their user talk pages. I would support this if we are re-visiting that and perhaps we can alter the consensus to add the language.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm probably waffling a little here.... thoughts...
 * (A) Edit summaries are fast and work a lot of the time, if not most of the time. The time to stop, start a talk thread, is not a lot of time but it IS a psychological exercise that chops up work flow, thus reducing productivity.  In an ideal world, everyone would just know when an edit summary is enough and when it isn't, and in an only less perfect world we'd be able to write something that defines this flexibility (pardon the oxymoron).  Maybe that's why it didn't fly before?
 * (B) Side discussion at an eds individual talk page are great, unless there are >2 interested eds. I'd like to see TPG tell people to followup at article talk before assuming there is a consensus, just because a couple of us went into a smoky back room and came out grinning and shaking hands. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are waffling, I just think you may not be familiar with all the relevant policies and guidelines in the area. The edit summary is never to be used for discussion. A revert with a comment that attempts to use the edit summary as a discussion begs for another revert simply to reply. An edit summary is just that...a summary of what the edit edit was. The reason given for the consensus (that I lived with and accepted) was that this process is used when editors are generally conflicted and in dispute with content and it was believed that the essay should not emphasize using an editors talk page as it can easily be seen as aggressive in itself. I have seen this happen multiple times so I have to agree that in the lede we may not want to mention going to the other editors talk page. Consensus is not what two editors decide anyway, or even three. Consensus is what all contributing editors live with. One editor may make a change and then no one even notices it for months, but when they do see it will object.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend to be up on every obscure policy, but I have read WP:Edit summary and it says "Give reasons for the change, if there is a reasonable chance that other editors may be unclear as to why it was made."  That appears inconsistent with your opinion that "The edit summary is never to be used for discussion." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What I stated is very much consistent with WP:Edit summary, although it is neither a policy or a guideline page. As I said, "[A] summary of what the edit was". However, there are far more things to consider and if you are not prepared for that...you may lack the knowledge needed for this discussion at the moment. I suggest reviewing all of the relevant policies and guidelines before moving forward any further here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I was sorta interested in identifying weakness in the community's consensus and improving the technical writing of our howto pages, but I'm not really interested in arguing with unilateralism. Actual living practice demonstrates that a lot of experienced eds use edit summaries as mini dsicussions.  I suppose they're all ignorant also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't have time to make another tweak before being reverted. Perhaps this is better? (with or without the suggestion to follow 1RR): --Wikimedes (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If your bold edit has been reverted, try to avoid re-reverting to reinstate your edit - leave that for someone else to do. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, or to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, and/or get them to make an edit themselves.
 * Revert-wars do not help build consensus: Consider folowing the One revert rule.
 * No, 1RR is not something we should be suggesting here for any reason. It goes against the very idea that this is either a cycle or a process. If you follow 1RR you are just giving an advantage to those that do not follow that. It is a bad idea because BRD does require more than one revert if you are working as this essay states (Bold, revert, discuss and then make another Bold edit..but any edit that changes any content whether it be the same or different content on the same article is a revert). 1RR is over a 24 hour period and would simply make things drag out far too long and give an advantage to any editor not following BRD. It really makes no sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And without the suggestion to follow 1RR? I believe I've only clarified the existing bullet and moved "Revert wars do not help build consensus" to its own bullet.  It seems to apply to both the bullet it is in and the previous bullet beginning "A revert of your revert...".
 * (BRDBRDBRD etc. would mean that every other edit to mainspace is a revert, which looks remarkably like an edit war to me. Something to think about.)--Wikimedes (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Any edit that changes the content to the same article is a revert (unless it adds totaly new content). It is. That is the very basis for the 3RR. The point here is that, 1RR as a limit is not what BRD is about. I don't have an opinion on bulleting the revert wars issue...only that "revert war" may not be the actual term to be used. Also, I am still a bit concerned that we are trying to fix something that is not broken.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's would make a good question. WhatamIdoing, can you please articulate the shortcoming or problem you're proposed addition/change is trying to address? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean me since Whatamidoing hasn't posted to this section. Without the addition of the 1RR, which Mark Miller opposes, I think it's just a minor edit.  See if it makes the bullet clearer and improves organization or ignore it.  No big deal either way.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dope! Of course I meant you. I had been thinking of replying to WhatamIdoing in another thread, but didn't, just beforehand. Sorry. )
 * In that part of section BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle you have tried to improve, I think
 * "Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself"
 * Is more clearly written as
 * "Try not to reinstate your edit without discussion at the talk page"
 * I don't particularly like the "try not to" in either version because it is ambiguous. A raw newbie might read it as authorizing reinstatement sometimes, or alternatively as "try to resist the urge to".  Just guessing but, from observation of living actual practice I bet their are a lot of good faith experienced eds on both sides of that fence, also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I took the “try not to” out and changed the bullet to this, which I consider a minor change:


 * If your bold edit has been reverted, avoid re-reverting to reinstate your edit - leave that for someone else to do. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, or to get them to make a similar edit to your bold edit.
 * Revert-wars do not help build consensus.


 * I’m sure clarity can be improved further (and scope also - another interested party could reinstate your bold edit), but I’ll leave it here.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would only suggest changing revert war to edit war to clarify that even an edit may be a revert in these situations. Otherwise editors will be wikilawyering that they did not revert, they just changed the text.


 * In order to alter the scope of the essay, a village pump discussion should be started. All major changes need to be discussed at the village pump per a consensus of the community.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

1RR is a good rule of thumbs for most situations. In some situations 2RR is not edit warring and can be productive. Using the modded 3RR rules is silly because it is meant to stop edit warring. Removing another persons content by adding something new that you think will be accepted is techically an R, even though it could be constructive. Chillum 19:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing content and adding new content in the same edit is absolutely a revert. Yes, I agree. ONLY adding new content is not. In many situations even 3 reverts is not edit warring but we place a limit there to keep things from becoming such.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "revert" is wrong. If I correct a spelling error in section #1, you make an edit in section #2, and I correct another spelling error in section #3, have I reverted you?  Have I really reverted anyone?  If you add content to section #1, and I copyedit section #2, have I reverted someone?
 * To be a reversion, the text must be returned to some previous form, either exactly (character-for-character) or in overall effect (you didn't accept my unsourced statement in the lead, so now I add it, slightly rephrased, to the body of the article). Normal editing, including small corrections, copyediting, and rearranging is not reverting, even if it adds nothing new.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope and I don't really care for your argument. This is established in both policy and guidelines. ANY change in content, either the same of different, is considered a revert. Period. End of story. Don't like that...change the policy and/or guideline. Only when adding original content that does not remove or change the original in any way is not a revert. Sorry...but you are barking with no bite here. --Mark Miller (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes...correcting spelling/grammar is a revert. Did you think that such was an exception? It isn't. Many a dispute has started from such a revert. --Mark Miller (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark. Normally you make a lot of sense.  But at 07:00, 29 July 2014 you sound positively nutty.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather you didn't make personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've re-read. Your expansive definition of "revert" is completely unusual, unpersuasive and unattractive. Applying that definition renders so much other documentation absurd.  A revert, most narrowly defined is a return to the preceding edit.  A reasonably tight and eminently workable technical definition of a revert is an edit that returns a page to the exact same state as a previous versions (aka superko).  Some would also consider it a revert if it were a return to something trivially different to a previous version (not technically definable), but your definition would allow what most would call a refinement to be called a revert.  Sorry, that's nutty.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ and . OK, I understand that. I just disagree strongly with it. Nope...I see why that sounded nutty and have to agree as I have actually been arguing that a "refinement" (such as spelling and grammer) is a revert when it does not take the article to a previous state. The problem there, is that arguing that a specific change of any sort to the page is a revert for the 3RR is actually just wrong. Apologies. The argument I made is way off base and based on a bad interpretation of a "change" to content". I was very much wrong here and see that now as this is a revert (and nothing more): "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion". Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark, what WhatamIdoing means is what I stated at the end of the section above. I relayed the following: WP:3RR does not state that any modification to another's work is a revert; if it did, then almost any edit would be a revert, considering that Wikipedia text is continually being revised. WP:3RR instead states: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." ... ... Like I stated, it has been made clear at the WP:Edit warring talk page in recent discussions, spanning months (not just the recent discussions currently on that talk page), that not every modification to an editor's edit is a revert; this sentiment was especially echoed during the Definition of "Revert" and "Undo" and "Does Change = Revert?" matters.


 * To elaborate: Often, editors reporting WP:3RR at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard will have it pointed out to them by an administrator and/or another editor that one or more of the edits was not a revert because it did not reverse the opposing editor's edit (in part or in whole).


 * But, Mark, if you still disagree with WhatamIdoing on what a revert is and therefore what a WP:3RR violation is, which also means that you disagree with me on the matter, I'll leave it at that. Editors obviously sometimes interpret policies, guidelines or essays (such as the WP:BRD essay) differently. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I guess we do disagree Flyer, as a modification is still considered a revert by Wikipedia standards. I don't know if there has been any consensus that changes the meaning of the 3RR language. Any revert, in whole or in part. "In part" means that you do not reverse the entire contribution, you just "modify" it, but it is still considered a revert by administration and one can be both reported for the violation if it continues after a warning. Yes, I am aware that consecutive edits count as a single revert. To be honest I am not sure what you disagree with but that some modifications of existing contributions are not a revert. I just don't see how that has been relayed into the language at 3RR. A revert is a change to another editors contribution. it is not just literally hitting the undo botton.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

several E/C s
 * @WhatamIdoing, I agree with you to the extent there is confusion on this point and I arrive at that conclusion as follows - If we assume that (1) most experienced editors are WP:COMPETENT and (2) the competent experienced editors all have a good faith belief in their understanding of "what is a revert?", then how can one explain the perennial disagreement on this subject? POSSIBLE ANSWERS include
 * (a) the community consensus on the definition of "revert" is not as strong as we think,
 * (b) ineffective writing at Help:Reverting, WP:EDITWARRING, etc leads to confusion even on the part of experienced competent eds
 * (c) despite my perception, this is not really a perennial disagreement
 * (d) any other explanations?
 * Personally, I think it's (a) and it arose - understandably - because admins have an understandable need for simple yardsticks, which may vary from admin to admin, and the collective gist of admins' simple yardsticks might not really reflect the collective true feeling of the community as to how it should be in the ideal happy world.  On the other hand, trying to craft a workable alternative (nailing jello to the wall) isn't a big enough concern to enough individuals to wrestle this beast, so we muddle along.   I also think that making 3RR complaints based on trivial edits serves to drive away potentially productive eds, and as more time goes by, tolerance for this state of affairs will be rued more and more.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good post. I think we agree on at least this much.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

BRD is a set of good techniques for editing. It is not a set of rules to be obeyed. I don't see the need to specifically mention 1rr or any rr. Simply put if you are working well with BRD you will not be engaging in edit warring or any type disruptive editing.

Adding 1RR makes it too prescriptive rather than being descriptive. It is an essay not a guideline or policy.

I can think of plenty of situations where 1RR would simply get in the way. It is not a standard anywhere else except for people under sanctions. I don't think an editor following BRD will be better for being limited to 1RR. Chillum 22:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much my feelings on this, or as we say...per Chillum's well put reply!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that requiring 1RR is a bad idea. 1RR is a good idea, meaning that you try to rely on others to share in the reverting of the rare entirely bad edit if it is repeatedly made, but prescribing or requiring 1RR is not a good idea, I agree.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just an aside as an FYI sort of thing.... 1RR is common in that subset of articles that are under DS and the scene of frequent EWing.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

BRD editors follow 1RR

 * NewsAndEventsGuy above reads to me as describe BRD inextricably linked to WP:DR in the minds of problem editors, and how this BRD page fails to well advise these editors. I accept what he says, he has experience I don't in managing problem articles.
 * I have added "Editors following BRD do not repeatedly revert. Follow WP:1RR; in any one dispute, you may revert only once. If another revert is needed, leave it for someone else to do, after you have explained the situation on the talk page."
 * I see that this as implied since the beginning, in allusions to "harmonious editing", but never explicitly stated. Reverts are confrontational.  Discussion and compromise de-escalated confrontation, reverting escalates.  Following BRD, if you have reverted, you should then be committed to talk page discussion or moving forward with a compromise edit.  A second revert on the same topic is bad.  If you are not the only one with your view, then you can leave it to someone else.  If you are the only one, you cannot assume you are right.  1RR being required of any editor who cites BRD should help.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (A) Thanks for accepting some of my impressions on how this essay has become used by many in the community, at least as it seems to me from lots of climate page battles.
 * (B) That's close but change the first sentence a bit. True, some problem eds see it the way you describe.  Describing myself, I think BRD is inextricably linked to DR in the minds of good faith editors as a means of mentoring and if necessary corralling problem editors, and bearing in mind in all cases the goal of prevention instead of punishment at all stages.  (Prevention not punishment is an ideal borrowed from our WP:BLOCK policy.)
 * (C) A frequent misunderstanding I see (and probably do without thinking about from time to time) is with respect to this part "Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.".   I've seen trouble arise from over-reliance on edit summaries as "DISCUSSION" so often, it might help to bump this up to the lead without soft language.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reverted that. It is instruction creep to begin suggesting that kind of specific advice and makes no since if this is a cycle. I also doubt this improves anything.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought of reverting for the same reason, and I have clarified my "thanks" above since I guess it was ambiguous. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.". I can support something like this, but I did actually put some language similar to this in the lede a while back and it was reverted and a discussion showed a consensus to not emphasize to editors that they engage on their user talk pages. I would support this if we are re-visiting that and perhaps we can alter the consensus to add the language.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm probably waffling a little here.... thoughts...
 * (A) Edit summaries are fast and work a lot of the time, if not most of the time. The time to stop, start a talk thread, is not a lot of time but it IS a psychological exercise that chops up work flow, thus reducing productivity.  In an ideal world, everyone would just know when an edit summary is enough and when it isn't, and in an only less perfect world we'd be able to write something that defines this flexibility (pardon the oxymoron).  Maybe that's why it didn't fly before?
 * (B) Side discussion at an eds individual talk page are great, unless there are >2 interested eds. I'd like to see TPG tell people to followup at article talk before assuming there is a consensus, just because a couple of us went into a smoky back room and came out grinning and shaking hands. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are waffling, I just think you may not be familiar with all the relevant policies and guidelines in the area. The edit summary is never to be used for discussion. A revert with a comment that attempts to use the edit summary as a discussion begs for another revert simply to reply. An edit summary is just that...a summary of what the edit edit was. The reason given for the consensus (that I lived with and accepted) was that this process is used when editors are generally conflicted and in dispute with content and it was believed that the essay should not emphasize using an editors talk page as it can easily be seen as aggressive in itself. I have seen this happen multiple times so I have to agree that in the lede we may not want to mention going to the other editors talk page. Consensus is not what two editors decide anyway, or even three. Consensus is what all contributing editors live with. One editor may make a change and then no one even notices it for months, but when they do see it will object.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend to be up on every obscure policy, but I have read WP:Edit summary and it says "Give reasons for the change, if there is a reasonable chance that other editors may be unclear as to why it was made."  That appears inconsistent with your opinion that "The edit summary is never to be used for discussion." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What I stated is very much consistent with WP:Edit summary, although it is neither a policy or a guideline page. As I said, "[A] summary of what the edit was". However, there are far more things to consider and if you are not prepared for that...you may lack the knowledge needed for this discussion at the moment. I suggest reviewing all of the relevant policies and guidelines before moving forward any further here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I was sorta interested in identifying weakness in the community's consensus and improving the technical writing of our howto pages, but I'm not really interested in arguing with unilateralism. Actual living practice demonstrates that a lot of experienced eds use edit summaries as mini dsicussions.  I suppose they're all ignorant also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't have time to make another tweak before being reverted. Perhaps this is better? (with or without the suggestion to follow 1RR): --Wikimedes (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If your bold edit has been reverted, try to avoid re-reverting to reinstate your edit - leave that for someone else to do. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, or to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, and/or get them to make an edit themselves.
 * Revert-wars do not help build consensus: Consider folowing the One revert rule.
 * No, 1RR is not something we should be suggesting here for any reason. It goes against the very idea that this is either a cycle or a process. If you follow 1RR you are just giving an advantage to those that do not follow that. It is a bad idea because BRD does require more than one revert if you are working as this essay states (Bold, revert, discuss and then make another Bold edit..but any edit that changes any content whether it be the same or different content on the same article is a revert). 1RR is over a 24 hour period and would simply make things drag out far too long and give an advantage to any editor not following BRD. It really makes no sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And without the suggestion to follow 1RR? I believe I've only clarified the existing bullet and moved "Revert wars do not help build consensus" to its own bullet.  It seems to apply to both the bullet it is in and the previous bullet beginning "A revert of your revert...".
 * (BRDBRDBRD etc. would mean that every other edit to mainspace is a revert, which looks remarkably like an edit war to me. Something to think about.)--Wikimedes (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Any edit that changes the content to the same article is a revert (unless it adds totaly new content). It is. That is the very basis for the 3RR. The point here is that, 1RR as a limit is not what BRD is about. I don't have an opinion on bulleting the revert wars issue...only that "revert war" may not be the actual term to be used. Also, I am still a bit concerned that we are trying to fix something that is not broken.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's would make a good question. WhatamIdoing, can you please articulate the shortcoming or problem you're proposed addition/change is trying to address? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean me since Whatamidoing hasn't posted to this section. Without the addition of the 1RR, which Mark Miller opposes, I think it's just a minor edit.  See if it makes the bullet clearer and improves organization or ignore it.  No big deal either way.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dope! Of course I meant you. I had been thinking of replying to WhatamIdoing in another thread, but didn't, just beforehand. Sorry. )
 * In that part of section BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle you have tried to improve, I think
 * "Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself"
 * Is more clearly written as
 * "Try not to reinstate your edit without discussion at the talk page"
 * I don't particularly like the "try not to" in either version because it is ambiguous. A raw newbie might read it as authorizing reinstatement sometimes, or alternatively as "try to resist the urge to".  Just guessing but, from observation of living actual practice I bet their are a lot of good faith experienced eds on both sides of that fence, also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I took the “try not to” out and changed the bullet to this, which I consider a minor change:


 * If your bold edit has been reverted, avoid re-reverting to reinstate your edit - leave that for someone else to do. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, or to get them to make a similar edit to your bold edit.
 * Revert-wars do not help build consensus.


 * I’m sure clarity can be improved further (and scope also - another interested party could reinstate your bold edit), but I’ll leave it here.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would only suggest changing revert war to edit war to clarify that even an edit may be a revert in these situations. Otherwise editors will be wikilawyering that they did not revert, they just changed the text.


 * In order to alter the scope of the essay, a village pump discussion should be started. All major changes need to be discussed at the village pump per a consensus of the community.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

1RR is a good rule of thumbs for most situations. In some situations 2RR is not edit warring and can be productive. Using the modded 3RR rules is silly because it is meant to stop edit warring. Removing another persons content by adding something new that you think will be accepted is techically an R, even though it could be constructive. Chillum 19:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing content and adding new content in the same edit is absolutely a revert. Yes, I agree. ONLY adding new content is not. In many situations even 3 reverts is not edit warring but we place a limit there to keep things from becoming such.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "revert" is wrong. If I correct a spelling error in section #1, you make an edit in section #2, and I correct another spelling error in section #3, have I reverted you?  Have I really reverted anyone?  If you add content to section #1, and I copyedit section #2, have I reverted someone?
 * To be a reversion, the text must be returned to some previous form, either exactly (character-for-character) or in overall effect (you didn't accept my unsourced statement in the lead, so now I add it, slightly rephrased, to the body of the article). Normal editing, including small corrections, copyediting, and rearranging is not reverting, even if it adds nothing new.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope and I don't really care for your argument. This is established in both policy and guidelines. ANY change in content, either the same of different, is considered a revert. Period. End of story. Don't like that...change the policy and/or guideline. Only when adding original content that does not remove or change the original in any way is not a revert. Sorry...but you are barking with no bite here. --Mark Miller (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes...correcting spelling/grammar is a revert. Did you think that such was an exception? It isn't. Many a dispute has started from such a revert. --Mark Miller (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark. Normally you make a lot of sense.  But at 07:00, 29 July 2014 you sound positively nutty.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather you didn't make personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've re-read. Your expansive definition of "revert" is completely unusual, unpersuasive and unattractive. Applying that definition renders so much other documentation absurd.  A revert, most narrowly defined is a return to the preceding edit.  A reasonably tight and eminently workable technical definition of a revert is an edit that returns a page to the exact same state as a previous versions (aka superko).  Some would also consider it a revert if it were a return to something trivially different to a previous version (not technically definable), but your definition would allow what most would call a refinement to be called a revert.  Sorry, that's nutty.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ and . OK, I understand that. I just disagree strongly with it. Nope...I see why that sounded nutty and have to agree as I have actually been arguing that a "refinement" (such as spelling and grammer) is a revert when it does not take the article to a previous state. The problem there, is that arguing that a specific change of any sort to the page is a revert for the 3RR is actually just wrong. Apologies. The argument I made is way off base and based on a bad interpretation of a "change" to content". I was very much wrong here and see that now as this is a revert (and nothing more): "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion". Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark, what WhatamIdoing means is what I stated at the end of the section above. I relayed the following: WP:3RR does not state that any modification to another's work is a revert; if it did, then almost any edit would be a revert, considering that Wikipedia text is continually being revised. WP:3RR instead states: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." ... ... Like I stated, it has been made clear at the WP:Edit warring talk page in recent discussions, spanning months (not just the recent discussions currently on that talk page), that not every modification to an editor's edit is a revert; this sentiment was especially echoed during the Definition of "Revert" and "Undo" and "Does Change = Revert?" matters.


 * To elaborate: Often, editors reporting WP:3RR at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard will have it pointed out to them by an administrator and/or another editor that one or more of the edits was not a revert because it did not reverse the opposing editor's edit (in part or in whole).


 * But, Mark, if you still disagree with WhatamIdoing on what a revert is and therefore what a WP:3RR violation is, which also means that you disagree with me on the matter, I'll leave it at that. Editors obviously sometimes interpret policies, guidelines or essays (such as the WP:BRD essay) differently. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I guess we do disagree Flyer, as a modification is still considered a revert by Wikipedia standards. I don't know if there has been any consensus that changes the meaning of the 3RR language. Any revert, in whole or in part. "In part" means that you do not reverse the entire contribution, you just "modify" it, but it is still considered a revert by administration and one can be both reported for the violation if it continues after a warning. Yes, I am aware that consecutive edits count as a single revert. To be honest I am not sure what you disagree with but that some modifications of existing contributions are not a revert. I just don't see how that has been relayed into the language at 3RR. A revert is a change to another editors contribution. it is not just literally hitting the undo botton.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

several E/C s
 * @WhatamIdoing, I agree with you to the extent there is confusion on this point and I arrive at that conclusion as follows - If we assume that (1) most experienced editors are WP:COMPETENT and (2) the competent experienced editors all have a good faith belief in their understanding of "what is a revert?", then how can one explain the perennial disagreement on this subject? POSSIBLE ANSWERS include
 * (a) the community consensus on the definition of "revert" is not as strong as we think,
 * (b) ineffective writing at Help:Reverting, WP:EDITWARRING, etc leads to confusion even on the part of experienced competent eds
 * (c) despite my perception, this is not really a perennial disagreement
 * (d) any other explanations?
 * Personally, I think it's (a) and it arose - understandably - because admins have an understandable need for simple yardsticks, which may vary from admin to admin, and the collective gist of admins' simple yardsticks might not really reflect the collective true feeling of the community as to how it should be in the ideal happy world.  On the other hand, trying to craft a workable alternative (nailing jello to the wall) isn't a big enough concern to enough individuals to wrestle this beast, so we muddle along.   I also think that making 3RR complaints based on trivial edits serves to drive away potentially productive eds, and as more time goes by, tolerance for this state of affairs will be rued more and more.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good post. I think we agree on at least this much.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

BRD is a set of good techniques for editing. It is not a set of rules to be obeyed. I don't see the need to specifically mention 1rr or any rr. Simply put if you are working well with BRD you will not be engaging in edit warring or any type disruptive editing.

Adding 1RR makes it too prescriptive rather than being descriptive. It is an essay not a guideline or policy.

I can think of plenty of situations where 1RR would simply get in the way. It is not a standard anywhere else except for people under sanctions. I don't think an editor following BRD will be better for being limited to 1RR. Chillum 22:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much my feelings on this, or as we say...per Chillum's well put reply!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that requiring 1RR is a bad idea. 1RR is a good idea, meaning that you try to rely on others to share in the reverting of the rare entirely bad edit if it is repeatedly made, but prescribing or requiring 1RR is not a good idea, I agree.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just an aside as an FYI sort of thing.... 1RR is common in that subset of articles that are under DS and the scene of frequent EWing.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

BRD editors follow 1RR

 * NewsAndEventsGuy above reads to me as describe BRD inextricably linked to WP:DR in the minds of problem editors, and how this BRD page fails to well advise these editors. I accept what he says, he has experience I don't in managing problem articles.
 * I have added "Editors following BRD do not repeatedly revert. Follow WP:1RR; in any one dispute, you may revert only once. If another revert is needed, leave it for someone else to do, after you have explained the situation on the talk page."
 * I see that this as implied since the beginning, in allusions to "harmonious editing", but never explicitly stated. Reverts are confrontational.  Discussion and compromise de-escalated confrontation, reverting escalates.  Following BRD, if you have reverted, you should then be committed to talk page discussion or moving forward with a compromise edit.  A second revert on the same topic is bad.  If you are not the only one with your view, then you can leave it to someone else.  If you are the only one, you cannot assume you are right.  1RR being required of any editor who cites BRD should help.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (A) Thanks for accepting some of my impressions on how this essay has become used by many in the community, at least as it seems to me from lots of climate page battles.
 * (B) That's close but change the first sentence a bit. True, some problem eds see it the way you describe.  Describing myself, I think BRD is inextricably linked to DR in the minds of good faith editors as a means of mentoring and if necessary corralling problem editors, and bearing in mind in all cases the goal of prevention instead of punishment at all stages.  (Prevention not punishment is an ideal borrowed from our WP:BLOCK policy.)
 * (C) A frequent misunderstanding I see (and probably do without thinking about from time to time) is with respect to this part "Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.".   I've seen trouble arise from over-reliance on edit summaries as "DISCUSSION" so often, it might help to bump this up to the lead without soft language.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reverted that. It is instruction creep to begin suggesting that kind of specific advice and makes no since if this is a cycle. I also doubt this improves anything.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought of reverting for the same reason, and I have clarified my "thanks" above since I guess it was ambiguous. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.". I can support something like this, but I did actually put some language similar to this in the lede a while back and it was reverted and a discussion showed a consensus to not emphasize to editors that they engage on their user talk pages. I would support this if we are re-visiting that and perhaps we can alter the consensus to add the language.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm probably waffling a little here.... thoughts...
 * (A) Edit summaries are fast and work a lot of the time, if not most of the time. The time to stop, start a talk thread, is not a lot of time but it IS a psychological exercise that chops up work flow, thus reducing productivity.  In an ideal world, everyone would just know when an edit summary is enough and when it isn't, and in an only less perfect world we'd be able to write something that defines this flexibility (pardon the oxymoron).  Maybe that's why it didn't fly before?
 * (B) Side discussion at an eds individual talk page are great, unless there are >2 interested eds. I'd like to see TPG tell people to followup at article talk before assuming there is a consensus, just because a couple of us went into a smoky back room and came out grinning and shaking hands. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are waffling, I just think you may not be familiar with all the relevant policies and guidelines in the area. The edit summary is never to be used for discussion. A revert with a comment that attempts to use the edit summary as a discussion begs for another revert simply to reply. An edit summary is just that...a summary of what the edit edit was. The reason given for the consensus (that I lived with and accepted) was that this process is used when editors are generally conflicted and in dispute with content and it was believed that the essay should not emphasize using an editors talk page as it can easily be seen as aggressive in itself. I have seen this happen multiple times so I have to agree that in the lede we may not want to mention going to the other editors talk page. Consensus is not what two editors decide anyway, or even three. Consensus is what all contributing editors live with. One editor may make a change and then no one even notices it for months, but when they do see it will object.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend to be up on every obscure policy, but I have read WP:Edit summary and it says "Give reasons for the change, if there is a reasonable chance that other editors may be unclear as to why it was made."  That appears inconsistent with your opinion that "The edit summary is never to be used for discussion." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What I stated is very much consistent with WP:Edit summary, although it is neither a policy or a guideline page. As I said, "[A] summary of what the edit was". However, there are far more things to consider and if you are not prepared for that...you may lack the knowledge needed for this discussion at the moment. I suggest reviewing all of the relevant policies and guidelines before moving forward any further here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I was sorta interested in identifying weakness in the community's consensus and improving the technical writing of our howto pages, but I'm not really interested in arguing with unilateralism. Actual living practice demonstrates that a lot of experienced eds use edit summaries as mini dsicussions.  I suppose they're all ignorant also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't have time to make another tweak before being reverted. Perhaps this is better? (with or without the suggestion to follow 1RR): --Wikimedes (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If your bold edit has been reverted, try to avoid re-reverting to reinstate your edit - leave that for someone else to do. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, or to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, and/or get them to make an edit themselves.
 * Revert-wars do not help build consensus: Consider folowing the One revert rule.
 * No, 1RR is not something we should be suggesting here for any reason. It goes against the very idea that this is either a cycle or a process. If you follow 1RR you are just giving an advantage to those that do not follow that. It is a bad idea because BRD does require more than one revert if you are working as this essay states (Bold, revert, discuss and then make another Bold edit..but any edit that changes any content whether it be the same or different content on the same article is a revert). 1RR is over a 24 hour period and would simply make things drag out far too long and give an advantage to any editor not following BRD. It really makes no sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And without the suggestion to follow 1RR? I believe I've only clarified the existing bullet and moved "Revert wars do not help build consensus" to its own bullet.  It seems to apply to both the bullet it is in and the previous bullet beginning "A revert of your revert...".
 * (BRDBRDBRD etc. would mean that every other edit to mainspace is a revert, which looks remarkably like an edit war to me. Something to think about.)--Wikimedes (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Any edit that changes the content to the same article is a revert (unless it adds totaly new content). It is. That is the very basis for the 3RR. The point here is that, 1RR as a limit is not what BRD is about. I don't have an opinion on bulleting the revert wars issue...only that "revert war" may not be the actual term to be used. Also, I am still a bit concerned that we are trying to fix something that is not broken.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's would make a good question. WhatamIdoing, can you please articulate the shortcoming or problem you're proposed addition/change is trying to address? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean me since Whatamidoing hasn't posted to this section. Without the addition of the 1RR, which Mark Miller opposes, I think it's just a minor edit.  See if it makes the bullet clearer and improves organization or ignore it.  No big deal either way.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dope! Of course I meant you. I had been thinking of replying to WhatamIdoing in another thread, but didn't, just beforehand. Sorry. )
 * In that part of section BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle you have tried to improve, I think
 * "Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself"
 * Is more clearly written as
 * "Try not to reinstate your edit without discussion at the talk page"
 * I don't particularly like the "try not to" in either version because it is ambiguous. A raw newbie might read it as authorizing reinstatement sometimes, or alternatively as "try to resist the urge to".  Just guessing but, from observation of living actual practice I bet their are a lot of good faith experienced eds on both sides of that fence, also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I took the “try not to” out and changed the bullet to this, which I consider a minor change:


 * If your bold edit has been reverted, avoid re-reverting to reinstate your edit - leave that for someone else to do. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, or to get them to make a similar edit to your bold edit.
 * Revert-wars do not help build consensus.


 * I’m sure clarity can be improved further (and scope also - another interested party could reinstate your bold edit), but I’ll leave it here.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would only suggest changing revert war to edit war to clarify that even an edit may be a revert in these situations. Otherwise editors will be wikilawyering that they did not revert, they just changed the text.


 * In order to alter the scope of the essay, a village pump discussion should be started. All major changes need to be discussed at the village pump per a consensus of the community.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

1RR is a good rule of thumbs for most situations. In some situations 2RR is not edit warring and can be productive. Using the modded 3RR rules is silly because it is meant to stop edit warring. Removing another persons content by adding something new that you think will be accepted is techically an R, even though it could be constructive. Chillum 19:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing content and adding new content in the same edit is absolutely a revert. Yes, I agree. ONLY adding new content is not. In many situations even 3 reverts is not edit warring but we place a limit there to keep things from becoming such.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "revert" is wrong. If I correct a spelling error in section #1, you make an edit in section #2, and I correct another spelling error in section #3, have I reverted you?  Have I really reverted anyone?  If you add content to section #1, and I copyedit section #2, have I reverted someone?
 * To be a reversion, the text must be returned to some previous form, either exactly (character-for-character) or in overall effect (you didn't accept my unsourced statement in the lead, so now I add it, slightly rephrased, to the body of the article). Normal editing, including small corrections, copyediting, and rearranging is not reverting, even if it adds nothing new.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope and I don't really care for your argument. This is established in both policy and guidelines. ANY change in content, either the same of different, is considered a revert. Period. End of story. Don't like that...change the policy and/or guideline. Only when adding original content that does not remove or change the original in any way is not a revert. Sorry...but you are barking with no bite here. --Mark Miller (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes...correcting spelling/grammar is a revert. Did you think that such was an exception? It isn't. Many a dispute has started from such a revert. --Mark Miller (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark. Normally you make a lot of sense.  But at 07:00, 29 July 2014 you sound positively nutty.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather you didn't make personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've re-read. Your expansive definition of "revert" is completely unusual, unpersuasive and unattractive. Applying that definition renders so much other documentation absurd.  A revert, most narrowly defined is a return to the preceding edit.  A reasonably tight and eminently workable technical definition of a revert is an edit that returns a page to the exact same state as a previous versions (aka superko).  Some would also consider it a revert if it were a return to something trivially different to a previous version (not technically definable), but your definition would allow what most would call a refinement to be called a revert.  Sorry, that's nutty.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ and . OK, I understand that. I just disagree strongly with it. Nope...I see why that sounded nutty and have to agree as I have actually been arguing that a "refinement" (such as spelling and grammer) is a revert when it does not take the article to a previous state. The problem there, is that arguing that a specific change of any sort to the page is a revert for the 3RR is actually just wrong. Apologies. The argument I made is way off base and based on a bad interpretation of a "change" to content". I was very much wrong here and see that now as this is a revert (and nothing more): "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion". Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark, what WhatamIdoing means is what I stated at the end of the section above. I relayed the following: WP:3RR does not state that any modification to another's work is a revert; if it did, then almost any edit would be a revert, considering that Wikipedia text is continually being revised. WP:3RR instead states: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." ... ... Like I stated, it has been made clear at the WP:Edit warring talk page in recent discussions, spanning months (not just the recent discussions currently on that talk page), that not every modification to an editor's edit is a revert; this sentiment was especially echoed during the Definition of "Revert" and "Undo" and "Does Change = Revert?" matters.


 * To elaborate: Often, editors reporting WP:3RR at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard will have it pointed out to them by an administrator and/or another editor that one or more of the edits was not a revert because it did not reverse the opposing editor's edit (in part or in whole).


 * But, Mark, if you still disagree with WhatamIdoing on what a revert is and therefore what a WP:3RR violation is, which also means that you disagree with me on the matter, I'll leave it at that. Editors obviously sometimes interpret policies, guidelines or essays (such as the WP:BRD essay) differently. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I guess we do disagree Flyer, as a modification is still considered a revert by Wikipedia standards. I don't know if there has been any consensus that changes the meaning of the 3RR language. Any revert, in whole or in part. "In part" means that you do not reverse the entire contribution, you just "modify" it, but it is still considered a revert by administration and one can be both reported for the violation if it continues after a warning. Yes, I am aware that consecutive edits count as a single revert. To be honest I am not sure what you disagree with but that some modifications of existing contributions are not a revert. I just don't see how that has been relayed into the language at 3RR. A revert is a change to another editors contribution. it is not just literally hitting the undo botton.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

several E/C s
 * @WhatamIdoing, I agree with you to the extent there is confusion on this point and I arrive at that conclusion as follows - If we assume that (1) most experienced editors are WP:COMPETENT and (2) the competent experienced editors all have a good faith belief in their understanding of "what is a revert?", then how can one explain the perennial disagreement on this subject? POSSIBLE ANSWERS include
 * (a) the community consensus on the definition of "revert" is not as strong as we think,
 * (b) ineffective writing at Help:Reverting, WP:EDITWARRING, etc leads to confusion even on the part of experienced competent eds
 * (c) despite my perception, this is not really a perennial disagreement
 * (d) any other explanations?
 * Personally, I think it's (a) and it arose - understandably - because admins have an understandable need for simple yardsticks, which may vary from admin to admin, and the collective gist of admins' simple yardsticks might not really reflect the collective true feeling of the community as to how it should be in the ideal happy world.  On the other hand, trying to craft a workable alternative (nailing jello to the wall) isn't a big enough concern to enough individuals to wrestle this beast, so we muddle along.   I also think that making 3RR complaints based on trivial edits serves to drive away potentially productive eds, and as more time goes by, tolerance for this state of affairs will be rued more and more.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good post. I think we agree on at least this much.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

BRD is a set of good techniques for editing. It is not a set of rules to be obeyed. I don't see the need to specifically mention 1rr or any rr. Simply put if you are working well with BRD you will not be engaging in edit warring or any type disruptive editing.

Adding 1RR makes it too prescriptive rather than being descriptive. It is an essay not a guideline or policy.

I can think of plenty of situations where 1RR would simply get in the way. It is not a standard anywhere else except for people under sanctions. I don't think an editor following BRD will be better for being limited to 1RR. Chillum 22:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much my feelings on this, or as we say...per Chillum's well put reply!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that requiring 1RR is a bad idea. 1RR is a good idea, meaning that you try to rely on others to share in the reverting of the rare entirely bad edit if it is repeatedly made, but prescribing or requiring 1RR is not a good idea, I agree.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just an aside as an FYI sort of thing.... 1RR is common in that subset of articles that are under DS and the scene of frequent EWing.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

BRD and group edit-wars
My understanding is that this is how BRD is supposed to work: This is not BRD: In the second scenario, there's clearly an edit-war going on although no single editor reverted more than once. To me, this is not BRD. However, WP:BRD-NOT states ""BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors" (emphasis mine). I've been told by at least one editor, that as long as it's different editors reverting each other, then BRD is being correctly followed. To me, that seems insane. One of the points (or at least benefits) of BRD is that it should be discouraging edit-wars, but this sentence seems to be encouraging it. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Editor A makes bold edit.
 * Editor B reverts bold edit.
 * Editors discuss on article talk page.
 * Editor A makes bold edit.
 * Editor B reverts bold edit.
 * Editor C reverts editor B
 * Editor D reverts editor C.
 * Editor E reverts editor D.:


 * Scenario 1 is not BRD, becuase it doesn't return to productive editing.


 * Scenario 2 is not even half of a BRD cycle.


 * "I've been told by at least one editor, that as long as it's different editors reverting each other, then BRD is being correctly followed." No.  As long as it's different editors reverting each other, then BRD is not being violated.  But neither is it being followed.  If someone doesn't make an edit that is a compromise of the reverted edit, a compromise informed and encouraged by some reasonable discussion, then it is not the BRD cycle.


 * The wording is poor. Under BRD...
 * A revert should not be reverted. (If it is, and though there may be a good reason, it is not BRD)
 * A bold edit should not be repeated if it was reverted or weakened.
 * A second bold edit should not be made, by anyone, without some minimal discussion
 * A new edit should be made following a minimal advance evident in the discussion.


 * Scenario 2 may be judged an edit war, but it has nothing to do with BRD. If A, C and E have previously teamed against B & D, then some blocking might be in order.  If they are all just newly encountering each other, then they need to take it to the talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure that I follow. Under scenario 1, I did leave out the result of the discussion, but that's because the result of the discussion is unknowable.  The result of the discussion could be in favor of the bold edit.  It could be against the bold edit.  Or it could be some compromise.  My understanding is that BRD should be encouraging editors work out content disputes through discussion, not through edit-warring, and this particular sentence seems to be encouraging edit-warring.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What happens at the discussion step is the part that people don't understand, and it is essential for an understanding of BRD. It is not BRDDDDDDDDDDDDD.  BRD is supposed to allow a speedy return to productive editing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Scenario 1 needs to make it clear that editing of that content is suspended until a consensus has been reached through discussion. THEN the consensus version is edited in and things return to normal. Obviously if no discussion follows for some time, then a resumption of editing may occur, but it should not be controversial. Slow edit warring over several days, with even only one repetition of the disputed edit, isn't good either. Basically BRD should stop an edit war and force editors to discuss and reach a solution. That's collaborative editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Scenario 1 needs to make it clear that editing of that content is suspended until a consensus has been reached through discussion."


 * NO. completely wrong.  BRD DOES NOT mandate endless filibustering as long as someone is unhappy.  Instead, BRD requires discussion between edits.


 * You can't insist on waiting for "consensus" to return to editing because consensus is VERY difficult to gauge from talk page discussions. Because talk page discussions are prone to meander on idiosyncratic tangent.  After some discussion, a skilled edit is required to refocus discussion, if disagreement remains.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This was subject to extended discussion at the poll above, and the resulting wording ("improved understanding") was the result. BRD does not expect nor intend that consensus is reached at talk pages; quite the opposite, it tries that editors return to constructive editing (i.e. abandoning mere reverts) as a way to reach consensus. As such, it only requires that editors expect their edits to improve the article according to discussion, not that the consensus has been already achieved at the talk page; it acknowledges that WP:EDITCONSENSUS is a valid dispute resolution method and tries to encourage it while avoiding edit wars. Diego (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. "When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion" is well worded.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we're kind of losing focus on the problem I'm trying to address. The current wording seems to indicate that BRRRRRRR is following BRD as long it's not the same editors doing the reverting.  That's the problem I'm concerned about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point. The bit about "the same editors" is not a blanket allowance to perform unlimited reverts by different editors, though; I see it as a poor wording to justify this reasonable situation:
 * Editor A makes bold edit.
 * Editor B reverts bold edit as a one-to-one disagreement that it's an improvement, without giving any solid reason grounded in policy.
 * Editor C reverts editor B, signaling that more than one editor sees it as improving the article.
 * If edits A and B are based on mere subjective criteria, editor C here would be still justified in the revert, given her understanding that at least two editors share the same opinion (an understanding that neither A or B could have before this third edit).
 * If editor B now sees that the bold edit has support from several editors, that can settle the dispute and achieve consensus. But if either editor B or D disagree with the last change, they should start a discussion to increase understanding, as a fourth revert won't improve it.
 * Also, if editor B gave a policy-based reason for the revert, then C should not re-revert without discussing policy first, as it's not a subjective situation. Diego (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * BRRRRR is indisputably outside BRD, and editors engaging in repeated reverts without discussion will find themselves judged under the policy Edit warring, weak throws to this essay won't save them. Only the most inexperienced headstrong editors would try that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that a simple change, removing the phrase "by the same editors" is all that is needed to fix this issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I agree, and have removed those words. The case above doesn't merit mudding the guideline, and common sense should make clear when a second revert is reasonable given the right edit summaries. That also gets documented here in the talk page archive should anyone need to know about it. Diego (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So, if I am following this correctly...we just removed the prose "by the same editors so that it is clear that a single revert by even another individual is still edit warring? I think that is a little bit outside of BRD myself as this seems to now say a single revert or edit by an editor is now edit warring. "Group"? Uhm....now we are lumping all together as a group for just reverting once? ''"if editor B gave a policy-based reason for the revert, then C should not re-revert without discussing policy first, as it's not a subjective situation" Oh yes it is. Editors try to use incorrect interpretations of policy all the time for a revert. I don't support the change at the moment. The heart may be in the right place but this is a major redefinition of BRD. It makes anyone at all, no matter what there reason is for reverting a BRD defined tag team which is not something BRD can really do. This wasn't broke...why did you guys try to fix it?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * BRD is an essay anyway; what counts is WP:EDITWAR. If the intent of the revert is to improve the article addressing the concerns raised by all other editors (e.g. a misunderstanding, or adding a reference for content that didn't have one the first time), it's not against BRD even if the same editor does it, so "by the same editors" would be wrong too. If the revert is done to restore WP:THERIGHTVERSION, it's edit warring and no editor should do that. Diego (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly with this recent change. I feel it undermines the very fabric of BRD and assume far too much. We can not say that another editor is trying to restore the right version. And using a soft redirect to a humor page is a horrible argument.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So, what do you have to say about the link to policy, the thing that would override anything we write here anyway and which is the actual basis of my argument? Diego (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh that's actually pretty easy...there is no policy that calls a single edit an edit war and policy does not, nor has it ever dictated how this cycle works. Bold, Revert and discuss is not based on Wikipedia policy, its based on a fundamental principle that an editor must not revert more than once. If another editor reverts the cycle is either broken or started over. Now...I wouldn't mind seeing some caution to any additional editor reverting that revert in a manner that warns that some could see this as "tag teaming" but..... we cannot place that as an absolute definition. Grouping multiple editors as a part of BRD is not what this cycle tries to accomplish. It attempts to break a long and intense discussion that goes nowhere.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion of what BRD should be is actually the opposite of what the BRD essay actually says in the Cases for use section: "(When two factions are engaged in an edit war), engaging in similar behavior by reverting a contribution during an edit war could be seen as disruptive and may garner sanctions", "Never continue an edit war as an uninvolved party", and "A bold change during an edit war should be an adaptive edit to discourage further warring and not to escalate it; it should never be another revert". So no, BRD is not about individuals, and it also forbids tag-teaming. Not as "needing some caution", but as plainly "don't do it". Diego (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

How editors see things

 * Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.

I think this bold statement in the lead misses the point entirely. It's not that some editors see a revert as a challenge, it's that the reverts themselves are not necessarily explicit, and therefore, some editors may not necessarily understand why they were reverted. The "challenge" that the reverter perceives is not necessarily one of aggressive territoriality (although it might very well be interpreted that way), but one of understanding. Editors who explain their reverts on the talk page before reverting, should be respected and acknowledged, whereas reverters who use poor edit summaries or have some semblance of bias, may not be respected, and probably shouldn't be given the same weight. Posing this only in terms of a "challenge" misses the point. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a consensus version?
This essay currently states There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. There is, consequently, no requirement that "the consensus version" or "the long-standing version" or any other version of the page be visible during discussion. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version. But this is flatly false. Of course, consensus can be reached. A revert only indicates that an editor disagrees with a particular version. If, for example, 99% of editors agree with a certain version and 1% don't, that doesn't mean there isn't consensus. If anything, that's very strong consensus. Yet, this section currently basically states that as long as one editor disagrees, there is no consensus. Let's say for example, that there's a 30-day RfC that's closed with consensus in one direction or another. If an editor who disagrees with the result of the RfC, that doesn't mean that consensus wasn't reached. It simply means that an editor disagrees with consensus. This section, as currently written, basically gives any editor (or small group of editors) veto power over everyone else. I think that this section flies in the face of BRD and needs to be changed or removed. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Two points:
 * The problem that needs to be addressed here is that some people believe the status quo ante, aka "the consensus version" is a Real Thing. Let's say that you start writing a page.  There are five versions.  I add something:  that's edit number 6.  Which of these is now "the consensus version"?  Mine?  Yours?  SmokeyJoe will add another:  that's edit number 7.  Is his "the consensus version"?   We'll have an RFC.  The RFC concludes that—at this time, and based on the opinions expressed—that we should add an image.  We do so.  Is the whole article now "the consensus version"?  Or just the one bit that the RFC addressed?  When does it stop being the "consensus version", and how will you know?  Let's say that I add the image.  Then I discover that there's a nearly identical image with a higher resolution.  Is it okay with you if I replace the image, or should I stop because adding that image is "the consensus"?  Maybe the true "consensus version" is actually the one that I'm about to create, that uses the higher-quality image.
 * BRD is fundamentally written with two editors in mind: the one who makes a bold edit, and the one who reverts it.  Nobody else matters.  Once you've got an RFC involved, or even a discussion involving multiple other people, you're no longer engaged in BRD.  (This is yet another reason why BRD shouldn't be pushed as some ideal editing system.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A Quest For Knowledge, I agree with you completely on this matter. Thankfully, WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is an essay and not a guideline or a policy, no matter how much it is cited. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Consensus version" is defined at The Wrong Version. The WP:Consensus policy does not agree that there is a single version of any page at all that deserves the title "the consensus version".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The WP:Consensus policy is quite clear to me: When editors have reached a WP:Consensus, that's the WP:Consensus until it is changed. An editor coming along and making an edit that is not in line with that WP:Consensus does not mean that the WP:Consensus is now over. WP:Consensus is not unanimity; the policy is clear on that. It is up to the challenging editor to convince others to work toward a new WP:Consensus. If a new WP:Consensus is not formed, then the previous WP:Consensus remains intact. Every very experienced Wikipedia editor knows that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Consensus, it's something that happens when the last edit is not reverted or disputed. So when an editor comes along and makes an edit, there is no longer consensus; consensus happens when edits stop being made and discussed. What doesn't work is unilaterally declaring that there's consensus; it may very well happen that the new consensus is the same as the old one, but as long as there's changes being made or dispute resolution keeps evolving, the previous consensus is disputed so there's no consensus in place. If a new consensus is not formed, then there's no consensus (although it's easy to build a new consensus - it only requires discussion to die and the article to remain stable). Diego (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see that in the WP:Consensus policy, and that's certainly not how WP:Consensus works in practice; no, an editor does not just come along and then there is no longer WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, there would be no use for WP:RfCs and the like. Flyer22 (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And Wikipedia policies and guidelines would not be treated so delicately when it comes to WP:Consensus. An editor cannot simply show up and make an edit to a Wikipedia policy or guideline and declare that there is no WP:Consensus because they have challenged the way that the policy or guideline has been for years, months or weeks. Everyone knows that the WP:Consensus at that policy or guideline will remain in place until, or if, that editor can convince others watching that policy or guideline to go along with the new proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It depends. If an editor is being disruptive, it doesn't change consensus. But if the editor raises valid concerns, WP:C requires that those concerns are addressed in a way that is generally acceptable; until an edit has been made that addresses those concerns, there is no consensus. This is consensus policy, it's written in every procedure that describes how consensus is reached. RfCs are a way to make sure that the last change is "generally acceptable", but consensus lasts only as long as no new concerns are raised; concerns that have not been previously made do trigger a new round of consensus-building.
 * (And changes to guidelines don't change consensus, but that's for a different reason; guidelines document existing consensus, don't mandate it. A change to a guideline can't change consensus because this consensus has been reached elsewhere, either throughout articles talk pages or at community-wide RfCs). Diego (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We clearly disagree on the WP:Consensus policy. I don't see us coming to full agreement on that; so, now, I'm simply going to state that I stick to what I've stated above on that matter. And as for whether "it's easy to build a new consensus" or not, that depends on the situation. It certainly has not been easy for the people at Talk:Circumcision who continually try to forgo WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, this was about the idea that a "consensus version" exists - No matter our opinions about consensus, it's clear that there's no such thing mentioned in WP:CONS, so WP:BRD shouldn't be written as if there was one.
 * When I said "it's easy to build a new consensus" I really meant it's easy to "tell if there's a new consensus" - it only requires seeing that the article and talk pages remain stable. It's also possible to tell that there's no consensus at all, if discussion and reverts go on for ever; having consensus is by no means the default status, and controversial articles are the opposite of it. Diego (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Like I stated, I disagree with your view of WP:Consensus, the vast majority of it anyway; the WP:Consensus policy, from my view, is clear that there is a WP:Consensus version...one that is only changed by new WP:Consensus. But I'm not going to sit here and continue debating this. Flyer22 (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There has never been a consensus for your view, so pardon me if I see it as a wee bit contradictory. Diego (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel the same way about your view, especially since I, someone who is usually very active on Wikipedia, tackling all sorts of disputes daily, see WP:Consensus working day in and day out the way that A Quest For Knowledge and I have described above. You clearly think that's the wrong way to go about WP:Consensus; I don't. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I should do formal introductions now: Diego, this is Flyer, who is very active and who is often seen in messy disputes. Flyer, this is Diego, who has not only been editing longer than you, but who has also spent years dealing with guidance pages like this one.

The idea that any given revision is "the consensus version" is almost self-refuting. It presupposes that the existing version actually reflects "the consensus". It takes a very limited set of facts and comes to an unwarranted and inflated conclusion:


 * I make a change.
 * Nobody else makes a change.
 * It's consensus!

Except, you know, when it isn't. I might have added spam on a page that nobody's watching. It doesn't matter how long that version is on top; there's a firm consensus against spamming. There might be a dispute raging on the talk page, in which case there is no consensus and no consensus version of the article. I might have made only part of the edits that I plan to make. In that case, even I, the most recent editor, do not agree that the current version reflects consensus!

Let's say that there was an RFC about best section heading for the fourth section. We come to unanimous agreement, and we make the change. Is that particular page revision now "the consensus version"? Certainly not: that RFC only identified a temporary consensus for a single phrase on the entire page! The rest of the page may be disputed as well, or at least may be something that someone believes requires improvement. Unless there is a true consensus for every single jot and tittle on the page, then that revision of the page cannot be considered "the consensus version". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with Diego Moya; we sometimes see each other at a sexual orientation article or two, like the Heterosexuality article, and even at the Lesbian sexual practices article. I've seen him elsewhere as well. I am well aware that he is an established Wikipedia editor with strong opinions (who edited Wikipedia three years before I edited Wikipedia, not that I see those three years as an advantage whatsoever after all this time I've been editing Wikipedia) and that he's been in his fair share of messy disputes, including ones going on at the Gamergate controversy article. But all of that is beside the point. Like I stated, I can't agree with your or Diego Moya's interpretation of WP:Consensus. And by that, I mostly mean your view that there is no WP:Consensus version. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And, really, it should be no surprise that editors have different interpretations of the WP:Consensus policy and passionately stick to those interpretations, calling the opposing view(s) wrong. As you and I know, WhatamIdoing, such differences happen enough at the WP:Edit warring talk page, especially regarding WP:3RR, and regarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines in general. Such different interpretations will always happen. You and I don't always agree on such matters, and I doubt we ever will. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Given all the trouble that this bullet point is causing, I'm simply going to remove it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus
Please see proposals at Village pump (policy)/Archive 116. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Page's name/title
Hello. Currently, this page's name/title is "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle", which has left me wondering: Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) why "BOLD" is all uppercase;
 * 2) whether, as the name of a cycle, its punctuation should be less list-like (e.g. "Bold–revert–discuss cycle", or, as its abbreviation seems quite common, "Bold–Revert–Discuss cycle"). Something like "Bold–revert–discuss cycle" also seems less ambiguous on first sight than "Bold, revert, discuss cycle".


 * Title changes have been proposed (and rejected) before. The last one which resembled yours was rejected here. Also check the page's history around April 24, 2014. The change was actually implemented and then reverted to the status quo version we have. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these pointers – it looks as if the title may've included "BOLD" from its inception. If so, would anyone object to either/both:
 * sentence-casing it, i.e. changing it from "BOLD" to "Bold";
 * replacing the list-like commas with en-dashes (ndashes) as above..? (What, after all, is a "discuss cycle"?)
 * Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Revert Essay (was Policy)
The WP:CYCLE page says: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement."

The WP:ONLYREVERT page says: "Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse."

Reverting policy is fundamental to Wikipedia's operation. I propose that the written policy, at least, should be consistent. How say you? 50.48.205.73 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What "reverting policy" are you referring to? Both the pages above are essays. BRD, while an essay, is a widely accepted method to break a deadlock and to stop edit warring. It forces contributors to use the talk page, where discussion and collaboration takes place. It's also the way to determine who started an edit war. (Any deviation from BRD, such as BRB, is the first step in an edit war.) In such a case, a further revert back to the status quo is often necessary to force the edit warrior to stop warring and stick to discussion until a consensus has been reached about the disputed content. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, read the word "policy" as "essay". (BTW, have you noticed that the shortcuts begin with WP: and not WE:?) Once again, I am pointing to the inconsistency between these 2 essays: one says to "revert if it is not an improvement" and one says to "revert only if it makes the article worse". This is a big difference and I submit that this inconsistency is the basis for many edit wars. 50.48.205.73 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the significance of "shortcuts begin with WP: and not WE:"? I don't recall seeing any which begin with WE:. The WP: means that the content is not part of the encyclopedia proper, but is behind-the-scenes content for editors. It can be policies, guidelines, essays, humor, news, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The "P" in "WP:" stands for "pedia", not "policy." The purpose of an essay is to voice an opinion. By their nature, not all opinions will be in lockstep and artificially making them so is not an improvement. Not edit warring is indeed a policy. You can our see our actual policy on editing (including reverts) here. VQuakr (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The onus to initiate the discussion
Is there an established consensus on which party has the onus to initiate the discussion within the BRD cycle? Is it the bold editor or the reverting editor? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The latter, I imagine – not least as it's one step to assume good faith but another to assume editors are psychic/clairvoyant! Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes, there is an established consensus (bolding for emphasis):
 * "If you make a bold edit in regards to any material under discussion and you do not engage on the talk page, you are not applying BRD properly. Discussion is best applied as soon as a bold edit is made to encourage further talk, but is not required until your edit is questioned, either in an edit summary accompanying a revert, or at the discussion itself." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Miller (talk • contribs)
 * Well, yes: The "onus to initiate the discussion" is on nobody, because following BRD is optional.  Perhaps we need to make that clearer (again).  However, assuming that all parties are voluntarily following this model, then the relevant line from the essay is, "Note: The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ,, thank you for your replies. I know that BRD is optional, but have observed way too many people hang their hat on it (whether they know the same or not, or whether they choose to ignore it). In most cases where I've observed this becoming a hat rack, an editor boldly makes a change to longstanding stable content in which the change is incorrect or against past consensus. I revert with an explanation in the edit summary and even suggest that it be taken to the talk page. The bold editor reverts the revert and pushes BRD on you. In my opinion I should not be bullied into BRD when this occurs, and they should be the ones initiating the discussion. Hwy43 (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Once there has been a second reversion, then nobody is following BRD any longer. You could quote the relevant line from WP:BRD to them: "If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD" (emphasis added; it's sometimes present and sometimes not in the page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. They have broken BRD. BRD might be "optional" among many other options, but edit warring is not optional, and BRD is the best way to stop it. The one making the bold change (addition or deletion) to the status quo is the primary one who should start a discussion to explain why they want a change, but nothing prevents another editor from starting the discussion. The first deviation from BRD (BRB...) is the start of an edit war. I often then restore the status quo version, add a warning on their talk page, and remind them to follow BRD, as edit warring is not acceptable. They must use the talk page. Not only does this wake them up to the fact that others consider their actions to be edit warring and uncollaborative, it's also establishing a "paper trail" of evidence that they have been warned. They cannot claim innocence or ignorance after that. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, responding to a reversion with a completely different bold edit isn't the beginning of an edit war (e.g., I reverted your education-related change, and you boldly added a sports-related change). But if the goal of the second bold edit is to achieve the same end as the first, then it might be the start of an edit war.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. That's a good example of an exception. BRD doesn't always apply. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that reverting to the status quo version a *second time* is completely against BRD - you're only extending the edit war by doing it, and warning the other user against edit warring is a bit hypocritical when you're engaging in it too. If another editor re-reverts your first revert, the preferred action to follow according to WP:Edit war is to let the change stay, and discuss it to see what the first editor intended to achieve. That's the logical outcome when two editors adhere strictly to the 3RR anyway. Diego (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since BRD has already been broken, such a reversion to the status quo is obviously not an attempt to follow BRD, but is an attempt to follow the spirit of BRD, which is to force discussion of any disputed change of the status quo version. The situation is now governed by the 3RR rule, and reversions up to the limit, but not over, may follow. If the editor who started the edit war refuses to get the message, then a complaint to ANI follows. Fortunately most editors accept such strong warnings and stop editing the article and just stick to discussion. In nearly every instance where they refuse, they get blocked for edit warring.
 * We can't allow edit warriors to hold the article hostage in the wrong version while discussion occurs. Discussion is supposed to determine whether a change will be accepted by a consensus of editors. If a consensus determines the change is an improvement, then editing of the article can resume. Otherwise it won't. Editors must learn that they cannot force their version against objections by other editors, even if they are 100% right. They must discuss before making disputed changes, and the R in BRD is evidence that their bold change is disputed. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The spirit of BRD is not to keep an article unchanged, it's to improve edits through better understanding of why they're done. Someone repeatedly edit warring to keep the previous version is as bad as someone repeatedly pushing the same change - the status quo is as WRONGVERSION as the changed one, and those willing to keep it above all are not given exemption by WP:EDITWAR; they're as guilty of not trying to achieve consensus as the editor making the bold change - or even worse, as WP:OWN (which is policy) explicitly warns against doing just that.
 * You say "Editors must learn that they cannot force their version against objections by other editors, even if they are 100% right", and that applies to those wishing to keep the previous version as well. Sorry, but BRD is not an excuse for WP:STATUSQUO, and has never been; those edit warriors pushing back to keep the article unchanged should be facing an ANI themselves; WP:CONSENSUS is pretty clear that it applies to all editors, and that the dispute isn't solved without addressing those valid concerns that motivated a change. Diego (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Diego, I'm not sure that we actually disagree. I have never indicated that the status quo version is necessarily the best version, or that BRD is supposed to keep an article unchanged. We want improvement, and that can only happen through change, but there can be lots of change without improvement. One of the primary functions of BRD is to ensure that changes are made through collaboration, especially when there is any dispute or disagreement. When there is no disagreement, lots of changes and improvements can be made without ever invoking BRD. This is about collaboration, rather than attempts to force change over the objections of others.
 * BTW, my scenario above is nearly always when one editor violates BRD, and their edits are reverted by multiple other editors who all disagree with their attempt to force a change against their objections. They often get to make 5-10 improper edits before they get blocked, which is well beyond 3RR.
 * Discussion is the proper way to improve an article, not by some edit warrior commandeering the article and treating it as if it was their own website. I think we can agree that such ownership behavior is not proper. Discussion will determine whether the change is an improvement, and local consensus and collaboration is the way Wikipedia works. Those who will not discuss do not get their way, even if they are right. They must be willing to convince other editors that they are right. If they can do that, the article will see improvement. If they are wrong, the article will have been protected.
 * You wrote: "WP:CONSENSUS is pretty clear that it applies to all editors, and that the dispute isn't solved without addressing those valid concerns that motivated a change." Bingo! That's exactly what I'm talking about. The "D" is where it happens. Those who try to bypass "Discussion" aren't editing according to consensus. They need to stop editing the article and stick to discussion until a consensus determines what to do with their disputed change. I don't know of any other way to reach a consensus when there is a dispute. (Obviously DR would be next if a local consensus cannot be reached, but that's another subject.) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ,, to clarify on my most recent case of a bold editor pushing BRD on me after I reverted the bold edit, this user changed factually accurate content that was verified by a reliable source to inaccurate content. The editor removed the pre-existing supporting reference that verified the content's accuracy and replaced with another indicating that it verified the bold change. Turned out it not only did not verify the change, it actually reinforced the accuracy of the original reference and content. In this case, I'm confident this was simply an instance of a bold editor suffering from WP:DONTLIKE. I find 's recommendation to quote "If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD" very helpful in this regard. Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I share WAID's opinion. If I understand the scenario correctly, your "Revert" should have been met with a "Discussion", and the status quo version remain in place until a consensus was reached to change it. It almost sounds like you were fixing vandalism, so you did nothing wrong. You disputed their edit and reverted it. They should then start a Discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, except for I would have characterized the bold editor's first edit as a good faith error, with the re-revert being the vandalism (as the error was explained in the edit summary of my revert). All of the discussion above, including both this and other scenarios, has been very helpful. I'm better equipped to handle hostile pushes into BRD when the pusher truly isn't even engaging in it properly. Thanks to all! Hwy43 (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I also agree with WhatamIdoing and Brangifer - for that particular scenario, where an editor is repeatedly pushing the same change. My point is that there are other scenarios where the user doing the revert multiple times is the disruptive one. If we're looking at anecdotes, my last one involved an editor rejecting a change with "I don't like it" reasons while making self-contradicting claims for opposing all the proposed alternatives.
 * In such cases, "discuss things first" is being used to filibuster against a reasonable change. People reading this essay should have it clear that "this needs to be discussed first" is by itself not a reason to perform the R step in BRD - that's WP:OWN behavior, and thus not allowed. The user doing the revert should provide a valid reason why the bold edit can't be improved instead of reverted; and "the article has always been this way" and "we should keep the status quo version until we reach a consensus through discussion" are not valid reasons per policy, and BRD has been designed to avoid such stale mates, not to justify them. Diego (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, such abuse can happen. I haven't seen it very often, even though I edit some of the most controversial subjects we have, but when it does happen the editor usually ends up at ANI and gets blocked, then topic banned, or even gets a full community indef ban for disruption and pushing a fringe agenda. Sometimes the article has to be locked down to force discussion. The one in the wrong is usually pretty obvious and their actions are opposed by several other editors. They usually stand alone.
 * When I say "in the wrong", I'm speaking of their actions in abusing BRD to stonewall. Other editors can usually discuss with them so their silly agenda becomes obvious and the stalemate gets broken. The one making the Bold edit must not allow themselves to think that being right justifies edit warring. They must discuss. The more reasonable one will usually win the day.
 * So, when such abuse occurs, and their stonewalling is disruptive, other dispute resolution measures come into play. With BRD we must remember to use edit summaries for every single edit, just as we are supposed to do with every other edit. Our edit summary statistics should be 100%. That usually helps to avoid problems, but there will always be that occasional editor who doesn't communicate well.
 * In those cases, when BRD is abused, we must not lay down and let them walk over the community and hold it hostage. Editors need to be united on ONE thing, regardless of their POV on the actual subject matter or state of the article. That ONE thing is that edit warring is not productive, and discussion is the way forward. Being right with one's Bold edit does not give one the right to use force and bypass discussion. Follow BRD, even when it's abused. I have many times seen the Bold editor (who is right) get blocked, and rightly so. Uncollaborative Bold editors don't survive here, even when their edit is right, and we don't need them, and editors who misuse the "Revert" part, although rare, also get exposed and blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"The spirit of BRD is not to keep an article unchanged, it's to improve edits through better understanding of why they're done." – I like this. Shall we add something like this to the lead, or maybe to the nutshell?

"People reading this essay should have it clear that "this needs to be discussed first" is by itself not a reason to perform the R step in BRD - that's WP:OWN behavior, and thus not allowed. The user doing the revert should provide a valid reason why the bold edit can't be improved instead of reverted; and "the article has always been this way" and "we should keep the status quo version until we reach a consensus through discussion" are not valid reasons" – maybe we need to put this information under the ===Revert=== section so that it stands out. We have a lot of editors who believe that BRD is a Get Out of Jail Free card (for the first reversion), when it's supposed to be a "how to react when someone reverts you" page instead. (Brangifer, I see this fairly often on policy and guideline pages, even for minor grammatical changes. It's especially infuriating when the person reverting leaves an edit summary indicating that he personally supports the change, but is reverting it solely because it wasn't Officially Discussed first). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "The spirit of BRD is not to keep an article unchanged, it's to ensure that controversial changes are discussed so that the resulting changes are truly improvements reached by a collaborative decision." Such changes are very stable, because they enjoy the support of many editors, who will all defend the improvement from attempts to vandalize and degrade the article. It ensures that content creation remains a collaborative process. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with starting to edit this page is that you notice that the next line is off-topic, and the one after that only makes any sense if you know what it's supposed to mean (rather than what it actually says), and so forth. I'm going to give up now. Sometimes I wonder if we ought to revert everything back to a version from about 2006 or so, when BRD hadn't acquired the nature of a children's taunt ("Nyah, nyah, I reverted your change, and I say you're not allowed to edit again until you start a discussion, so there!") WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The number of repetitions

 * ...to ensure that controversial changes are discussed so that the resulting changes are truly improvements reached by a collaborative decision. But that's true of all consensus building, not anything particular of BRD. What's specific for BRD is that it's a fast cycle where bold edits are encouraged as soon as concerns are explained at the talk page, therefore long and unproductive discussions are discouraged in favor of reaching consensus through good edits. It's a shame that so many editors talk about BRD instead as if it meant "you can't change the article until consensus is reached through discussion at the talk page", when it was intended as the opposite. Diego (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've added emphasis in the lede to the idea of a "cycle" in which returning quickly to edits is what makes BRD work well. Maybe we could also expand the first sentece this way to highlight the purpose of BRD as a tool for WP:EDITCONSENSUS?:
 * The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus that encourages frequent editing and focused discussion. Thoughts? Diego (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and has just reverted my changes to the lead. Nikkimaria, where is "elsewhere on the page" the idea of fast iterations covered? The reason you give for your revert doesn't support removing that idea from the lede - the introduction can contain important information even if it appears in the body as well. Diego (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea of "fast iterations" can be misunderstood to mean what it says. "Iterations" means "repetition", and we don't want to see the same bold edit again, unless it's a consensus decision. The cycle isn't BRD...mentioned on talk page and then make the bold edit again. Only if the next bold edit is a different edit designed to meet the objections raised by the reverter in their edit summary can we not wait for discussion. It's BRD...discussion reaches a consensus...BRD. Without that time to reach consensus, "fast iterations" is just edit warring. If we want to make it clear, it would be BRDC, where C is Consensus.
 * BRBRD refers to the same Bold edit, and that's edit warring. If it's a different bold edit, then we're not following BRD, but using normal editing where the new bold edit is designed to meet the concerns of objectors and avoid previously contested territory. If fast iterations is happening, then it better be B1RB2RB3R, where each bold edit is different, and only made after edit summaries or discussion are considered.
 * My point is that BRD happens once. It's a complete cycle. It's not meant to be repeated, at least not immediately. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed Diego, the lead is meant to be a summary of the body, and "When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion" is the most appropriate summary of what the page actually says about cycling. It would be a mistake to oversimplify the purpose of BRD as "fast cycling"; Brangifer explains the issue very well. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We need to make it clear that BRD is not the normal editing process. Most editing is small bold edits which are not contested. Only when an edit is contested does BRD begin to apply, and on controversial articles that is often a frequent occurrence. I like to look at my contribution history (over five thousand articles, plus their talk pages, on my watchlist), and see that nearly all my edits have been untouched for the last three days. That means they were improvements and uncontested....unless no one was noticing.... -- Brangifer (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right that "fast" may be misunderstood. Yet a more common misunderstanding of BRD, often quoted by those using it to oppose changes, is that it requires reaching consensus before restarting the cycle. Not so; as described in WP:EDITCONSENSUS, it only requires that the editor tries to address the concerns raised so far through discussion (either at Talk or the Revert edit summary). The C in BRDC would be for "compromise", not "consensus"; any edit is allowed if it tries in good faith to accommodate the other user, even if it doesn't concede their point in full, without a requirement that the other editor(s) agree to the change before it's made.
 * Consensus is the byproduct of the many iterations of BRD, not a precondition for any of them (and that's why it's a difficult technique); if you waited to reach agreement before implementing a new edit, that edit wouldn't be bold!
 * The whole point of this technique is that specific edits convey more information about each editor's intent than lengthy discussion; so it's easier to reach consensus by providing examples of the desired changes, instead of describing them.


 * My point is that BRD happens once. It's a complete cycle. It's not meant to be repeated, at least not immediately. Where did you get that idea? When I read the BRD essay, I see the exact opposite - it's an expert way to use repeated edits to move consensus forward without pointless debate. It even says so: However, don't get stuck on the discussion. Try to move the discussion towards making a new, and different Bold edit as quickly as possible. If it was meant to be used once, it wouldn't be a cycle; cycle means "repetition" (not the same edit, but the same steps) - it would be a sequence. If you require lengthy debate before allowing any edit, you're not doing BRD, you're doing something else (most likely, WP:OWNING the article).
 * BRD's power stems from it being able to make changes without needing a full agreement between all parties involved, while avoiding the WP:WIN mentality of "my version (either the bold one or the status quo) is the only one that matters" that would turn it into edit warring. Your interpretation of BRD, while common, is too often used to entrench an WP:OWN behavior of "the article can only be changed if I agree to it", which is not what this essay is about, although it's often quoted to imply just that.
 * We need to make it clear that BRD is not the normal editing process. That's true; I think the current text already makes it clear, mentioning that it's "an optional method" and that "BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors". That logically implies that it shouldn't be mentioned to new users, because 1) it's optional, not policy and 2) it's likely to WP:BITE them, as they won't be able to use it properly. Diego (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are indeed various ways to interpret BRD, and as long as an editor isn't trying to repeatedly force the same edit against the objections of others, experienced editors are pretty forgiving of attempts to try out altered versions and tweaks ("not the same edit") which reveal that the editor is listening to the objections. I doubt they would be taken to ANI for edit warring.
 * OTOH, if they are a pusher of fringe POV who insists on trying to squeeze in poor sources and fringe POV, their repeated attempts, even if slightly different, may be examples of IDHT behavior, and they may still get warned and eventually blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to elevate this essay to guideline status
Please see this RfC at the Village Pump. RGloucester — ☎ 01:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Case studies - real discussions illustrating why BRD should be elevated or not

 * Here's one going on right now (well, I just terminated my participation in it). This may well be best example in the history of Wikipedia of how BRD fails and can be abused: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.  Short version (it's a text-wall, as BRD tends to lead to; it just seems nitpicky until round 2, when the "fun" starts):  I opened a discussion in good faith, after a revert of a bold edit, showing my copyedit and insertion of some new content, plus a clear rationale.  This was then nitpicked in virtually every possible way, in a circular WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:IDHT and WP:TROLL pattern, through three nearly identical cycles, while agreement to accede to the edit was withheld until conditions that are literally impossible are met, yet the D in BRD must continue!  It borders on the unimaginable. I'm actually changing my !vote above, in favor of just redirecting BRD to WP:CONSENSUS on the basis of this abuse of (voluntary) process, and am unlikely to ever agree to BRD again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Bold revert discuss doesn't actually work
I am amused by the level of meta in the fact that my edit to Bold revert discuss is reverted without discussion.

The Bold Revert Discuss cycle is not intended as, and should not be used as a justification for excess reversion. Reverting another editor's work should only be done as a last resort. Editing is the part that is encouraged to be bold-- not reverting. NumberC35 (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * NumberC35, I am amused that you decided to WP:Edit war at this essay page, which is about being bold but taking the matter to the talk page when reverted. I am equally amused that you are WP:Edit warring while citing WP:Revert only when necessary. Your reverts are not necessary in the least in this case. WP:Revert only when necessary is a WP:Essay, not WP:Policy or guideline, and it is an essay for a valid reason. In other words, there are various times when an editor should revert in cases where others might not think the revert is necessary. That is why you were reverted by Jytdog, and by me twice (as seen here and here). If reverting once or "only when necessary" was always ideal, then the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle would be a guideline instead of an essay. And the majority of editors would not currently be rejecting its elevation to guideline status at Village pump (policy). Flyer22 (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And, likewise, I am amused that you are edit warring, and even more amused that your edit warring consists of reverting edits that say "revert only when necessary"... and then you tell me that I'm the one edit warring.
 * "Revert" is word number two in the title of this article. Discussing reversion absolutely is central to the discussion. You seem to take the attitude that BRD means "revert whenever somebody else makes an edit on an article that you and your friends claim personal ownership of, and make the other editor take it to discussion."  If you actually did own the article, that would make sense.
 * If the object is to actually write an encyclopedia-- or, perish the though, actually to encourage others to edit-- this does not make sense. NumberC35 (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your behavior here is perfectly counter to what this widely-cited essay (perhaps soon to be guideline) actually says and its very heart, which is that it is great to be bold, but if you are reverted, open a discussion. You edit warred instead. Jytdog (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "but if you are reverted, open a discussion." I did.  This is it. NumberC35 (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * you opened it after edit warring twice, per the diffs provided by Flyer22 above. Your 3rd insertion of the material was at 03:40, 30 June 2015; you opened this thread one minute later just at the 3RR line.  Per BRD you open the discussion after the first reversion, not after the third one. Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * NumberC35, I'm not interested in what you think I was doing or what you think I think; what I know is that your sporadic edit history tells me that you need to become more familiar with the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work and generally works. Flyer22 (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the concept you just propose-- basically, "I've done a lot of edits, so I own Wikipedia: you get out"-- shows instead that possibly you need to become familiar with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.
 * I will repeat my early comment. Discussion of revert absolutely is relevant to an essay "BOLD revert discuss cycle". Saying "WP:Revert only when necessary is an essay, not a policy or guideline," doesn't really address anything.  This article is an essay not a policy or a guideline.
 * However, the main reason I've stuck around here so long is the mild amusement I find from the fact that you are reverting without discussion a edit suggesting editors try not to revert without discussion. But I've spent far too much time on this, and have other things to do, so I am logging out and exiting this discussion.  Have a nice article. NumberC35 (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pointing out another editor's lack of familiarity with the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work and generally works is not WP:Own behavior. I'm done replying to you on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your ownership accusation did remind me of a different matter, however. Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Tag this page as historical, as a teaching tool it has failed

 * So many discussions like this demonstrate that this page fails its readers. See BRD refers to a common and effect edit style, but if you need it explained you shouldn't be using it.  Per [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * SmokeyJoe, there is no WP:Consensus in that discussion to tag the essay with Template:Historical. So why did you feel comfortable tagging it with such, when, like Jayron32 stated in that discussion, "It's [...] still frequently cited. In many cases, it does represent best practices, even if it does not carry they weight of policy or guidelines. We should not mark historical those pages which are still widely supported and actively used."? Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comfortable? No.
 * The pump discussion has demonstrated widespread and strong dissatisfaction with BRD, as referred to, if not as practised. I think that is undeniable.
 * When cited in from talk posts and edit summaries, overwhelmingly it points to a case where it is being used very poorly. Typically, the person citing it has a poor understanding of harmonious editing.  As a teaching tool, this page has failed.  This is not to say that BRD hasn't been good and won't continue to be used well.  BRD when well used is entirely within the description of WP:EDITCONSENSUS.  There is just something seriously wrong about how it reads to many editors.
 * In contrast, when used well, it needs, and gets, no citation.
 * I disagree quite strongly that BRD ever much represent best practice. Perhaps the overly-bold edit in a backwater to stir attention from another interested editor can be argued, but even that can be said to be a very crude method for advertising.
 * BRD is supported, but this presentation of it, apparently advocating its widespread use is not. I think that has come through very clearly at the pump.
 * The page as currently written, and as always written from my perusing of its history, does a very poor job of either explaining how to do BRD well, or of providing a study of how BRD has been done. I think we'll need a new essay for the second, but for the first goal, of teaching BRD to a newcomer, this page fails.  Why it fails might be the subject of an essay, it is not obvious why, but it is obvious that it does.  Nearly every comment at the pump on this essay demonstrates this, as does every second thread on this talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

An attempt to re-tag the page was reverted. The edit summary is odd. This page is far from required to encourage discussion following a revert. WP:EDITCONSENSUS for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of threads relating to "MOS:IDENTITY clarification" at WP:VPP and other issues won't get serious attention until that is finished and archived. The RfC to make BRD a guideline started on 6 June 2015 and various side discussions have been going on for over three weeks. All that shows is that people have a wide variety of ideas about BRD, with no consensus to do anything. Some of the objections expressed about BRD come from a concern of how it might be used rather than a consideration of how it is in fact used most often. Every procedure at Wikipedia has been abused—the only thing known for sure is that no rule is problem-free, so it is no surprise that BRD does not magically solve editing disputes. At heart, the BRD thesis is that a drive-by edit warrior should not be given first-move advantage whereby they can slap their favored text into an article, then demand that other editors prove that the text should be removed. Instead, anyone wanting to change an established article has to be able to explain why the change would be helpful per policy and editorial judgment. At any rate, there is no consensus to mark BRD as historical. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For documentation on this talk page, here is a WP:Permalink of the aforementioned WP:RfC closure. On a side note: Sending this and this edit warring warning reminded me that WP:BRD is also cited in our vandalism/unconstructive editing tools. Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be good to address the issue of BRD being well accepted when done well, and that if an editor doesn't know how to do it, the instructive nature of this essay seems to be more unhelpful than helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Change this page
My suggestion is to change the current title to "BOLD, discuss, re-edit", and the current content likewise. I suppose everyone understands the underlying reasons; just look at the discussions above here and at the pump.

x Carlotm (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have thought something similar for some years, and was considering writing a new essay to be perhaps called "BOLD, discuss, revert". I am rather tired, as are I suspect some others, of users who feel that it's not just acceptable to revert a good faith edit, but that this essay encourages the use of the revert tool before a discussion. I don't think it is ever acceptable to revert a good faith edit simply due to disagreement or not understanding the reasons for it (usually described in edit summaries as "no consensus" or - ironically - "discuss first") - discussion should take place before reverting, not after. I don't think, though, that this essay should be changed; there are some people who misunderstand or misuse it, but the principles behind it are sound: "If you are reverted, don't revert back; discuss first".  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:Drafts
This essay is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Drafts. Unscintillating (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert
I've reverted a note added by that was unclear and IMO doesn't correspond to the spirit of the BRD procedure. First, the terms "BRDRDRD" and "BRDCE" are not explained and take a time to figure out what they're talking about. Second, achieving an explicit full consensus before resuming editing is not a requirement of either BRD nor WP:EDITCONSENSUS.

The idea of being BOLD is that the new edit might be the one that achieves consensus; BRD is about making informed edits instead of pure edit warring, not to stop editing altogether. BRD is a cycle, so following your terminology the proper procedure would be "BRDBRD...BRDBC", not "BRDCE". Diego (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my note, it was a pre-existing essay note by User:GTBacchus that has been linked from this page for five years. I simply merged it in, as it was rather short, and hardly worth its own page. Your revert is an example of why reverting first and discussing afterwards is rarely the best option. ;-) Think of like: Do we shoot first and ask questions afterwards? Or do we ask questions first and then decide the best option? In this case you didn't ask questions, you just shot! Because you didn't ask questions, you didn't understand the situation, and your revert put in a link to A note regarding BRD which redirects back here, even though you had just removed all the content related to that redirect. Now, if you feel the note isn't clear enough, then removing it from Wikipedia is not the way we do things. We prefer folks to attempt to improve, and move things forward. No worries, we live and learn, and next time you probably won't be so quick on the revert trigger!
 * Anyway. From my understanding of the note, it is saying that BRD doesn't mean we should discuss revert discuss revert discuss revert, as that is an edit war, it is saying we should discuss until we get consensus and then make the edit, or the amended edit. There are four options open to us now: 1) Restore the edit with the same wording, 2) Restore the edit and improve the wording, 3) Restore the A note regarding BRD page, 4) Delete the A note regarding BRD page. Well, there is the fifth option of leaving things as they currently stand with a See also link that simply redirects back to this essay, but that's not really a viable option. I am not on Wikipedia much these days, so I won't have time to help you sort out the situation. I'll leave it up to you as you are a well meaning editor, and I trust you to do the right thing. (PS, I turned off ping years ago - if you do wish to discuss this matter with me, please leave a note on my talkpage).  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started an AfD discussion regarding the note so that the community decides what to do with it. Diego (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is also another solution: replace the entire page with text and title that encourage editing and discourage reversions and edit wars (see above). Carlotm (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Relation to BURDEN and statute of limitations
I recently removed some dubious material, and was immediately reverted with a BRD rationale. But when I checked, it turned out the material was not protected by a long-standing "implied consensus" that it should stay in: it was only four weeks old, and hardly anything from either of the article's two owners gets challenged to begin with. So I was wondering, how "old" does an edit have to be to be "un-BRD-able"?

Also, should this page specify that unsourced material that is challenged should never be re-added without sources and discussion?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:ESSAY describing one particular method of collaborative editing and consensus building. WP:BURDEN is part of a WP:POLICY. VQuakr (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I know. That's why I think this essay should never trump our policy. And yet I have been involved in countless conflicts where users link to this essay in order to overrule the policy that says the burden is on the party wishing to add material to the project. Wouldn't it be better if the essay stated directly that this interpretation is wrong? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * BRD just expresses something in the heart of the Wikipedia, that when there are content disputes, you work it through on the Talk page. There is no deadline here, so whether the content is in the article or not in the article while that discussion is taking place, is generally not a big deal (unless it involves a very very clear COPYVIO or BLP violation).  BRD urges the one who made the change that got reverted to open a discussion and not edit war.  This also makes sense practically,  because that first editor is also the one who would cross past the three revert rule first, so they would lose an edit warring duel - they cannot "win" by edit warring anyway.  Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait ... if someone else makes a bold edit and I revert it, haven't I made the first revert, so that the other party would be the one "winning" an edit war? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * BRD is an optional process. If someone implies it is mandatory, call them out on it. WP:BURDEN is policy - uncited information should not be restored without a source. Rather than edit warring, bring it to a noticeboard or use an RfC if normal talk page discussion is unproductive (don't edit war even if you are right). VQuakr (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll try... but I have been doing so virtually every time. I have found that attempting to use the talk page to discuss with dnse users who just won't change their opinions no matter what I say only makes things worse, as both of us wind up making a dozen edits to the talk page in one day, and then if the dispute goes somewhere else I get accused of "bludgeoning the discussion"... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What is "dnse"? VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * using the DR processes in WP is an art, indeed. It is not one that can be worked through in a hurry, and most content disputes that get ugly that I have seen, are driven by some strange urgency.  Generally if you talk nicely and have a few go-rounds exploring things, and that fails, it is time to give up or use some content dispute DR mechanism to get wider input.  If you do the latter it is usually good to propose that first before just doing it.  btw If you are consistently hearing that you are bludgeoning, you are maybe going too many rounds on Talk before going to DR, or are doing those rounds too aggressively. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry.I meant "dense". I wasn't trying to be clever by hiding a potential insult behind a misspelling. I recently upgraded to an iPhone and I'm still getting used to the keypad and the total lack of a functioning auto-complete in English.
 * Thing is, I don't even have a content dispute. I agree completely to 90% of the article content in question. I just think a section title should be changed to properly describe the material that all the other parties and I agree belongs in the article. But it's one of those trouble topic areas where a couple of incredibly prolific editors make mostly good-looking edits that only some of them only turn out to be poorly-sourced on close inspection, and any opposition is kind of ... unwelcome. Almost as unwelcome as I am on ANI -- three years ago this problem would have been solved in under 24 hours with a short block and a warning against OWN behaviour and abusing the policies and guidelines -- and essays! -- to this end, but the normal forums for dealing with user problems seem to have broken down of late; everything is a content-dispute being forum-shopped.
 * By the way, it's incredibly ironic that the old "Request for comment/User conduct" is no longer in use but DRN is still up and running. DRN has something like a 5% success rate, and in the other 95% of cases looks to only make disputes worse...
 * But that's about all I can say without this counting as forum-shopping and/or canvassing. I don't think any reasonable case for the latter could be made, since I have no idea who has this WT page on their watchlist, but I'm probably in the wrong place to post the above either way.
 * Cheers!
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is probably not the right forum, as the issue doesn't seem to be solvable by making changes to the essay. You would probably find other editors more amenable to your input if you quit calling them dense co-owners, though. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I never used that terminology until just now, and it's been going on for about a year. Anyway, I still think this essay should explicitly state that the BRD process does not supersede BURDEN, and unsourced or dubiously sourced material must stay out, even if it was the status quo, while discussion is taking place. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems too rule-based and against the spirit of WP:CREEP. If having it in the policy isn't enough, adding it to an essay will accomplish squat. You could always point out that "optional" is the 9th word of this essay, though. VQuakr (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes the key thing is to focus on solving the problem Hijiri88 - don't try to just "win" via a rule-based game. Take the longview, be patient, work it out and use DR.  I looked at the revert that was bothering you and I reckon it was this one? If so based on the subsequent talk page discussion it looks like you have a long-running issue with the other person, and fine points of guideline interpretation are not going to be of much help.  I'm sorry. That kind of thing is hard. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

How about we get the shortcut WP:BRD deleted, and replace it with WP:BRDISPURELYOPTIONAL?

This has been a serious problem for a couple of years now. I think we should probably figure out if there's some welcome template or something that misrepresents it. Or maybe we should try to get a new "mandatory policy" created that says if someone cites BRD but doesn't start a discussion, then they can be banned from editing until they affirm that they have re-read every word of the essay.

Okay, those aren't likely to work, but we need to be thinking about why this keeps happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Too long

 * This page is so long, many concepts are very same. Such like instruction creep.....--Liaon98 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

A couple new shortcuts
I've added two shortcuts to the page that de-emphasize the "BRD" part and focus on the Cycle part, to help dispel the myth that BRD means "the article should not be further edited until full consensus is achieved at talk page". WP:NOTSTALE stands for "do not allow discussion to become stale (do something about it)", and WP:EDITASAP means "resume editing as soon as possible (but not earlier)". They are in line with the Cycle part of "advance consensus-building by improving the article through bold edits that acknowledge the previous discussion". Diego (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm also thinking of adding the following to "What BRD is, and is not":

"BRD is not compulsory. As an essay describing an optional method of reaching consensus, it doesn't have any official status and may be voluntarily followed by editors, but doing so is not necessary and it is not enforceable."

This could be pointed out to people trying to "enforce BRD" as if such thing was supported by the guidelines, luckily enticing them instead to explain their reasons for a revert other than per BRD. Diego (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose making points by more clutter in the linkboxes. See WP:LINKBOXES. Create and use redirects/shortcuts all you like, but at least attempt to demonstrate their existing useful uses before advertising them for common use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * past controversy over this essay implies that more work on the essay is a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In general I also don't think adding shortcuts is desirable. They just add clutter and cause confusion—which one am I supposed to use? The shortcut WP:BRD is very widely recognized and using something else will waste time while people wonder what it is. The suggestion of emphasizing that BRD is not compulsory seems undesirable. By all means, emphasize that a good reason to revert an addition is needed, and "WP:BRD" is not a good reason to revert—in fact, it's not any reason to revert. However, if someone adds text, and that text is reverted with a reason and then re-added, an additional revert should mention WP:BRD to remind onlookers that someone should not edit war just because their text is above reproach—discussion is always the next step, even if it's only a very short discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a shortcut at the Don't edit war/don't get stuck section, which didn't have any. This way the shortcut is not redundant with BRD, it emphasizes a specific part of advice which is seldom mentioned (the bit that says "Any such edits must be clear attempts to try another solution, not ones that have been tried and rejected"). Diego (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's good, as was removing WP:BRDC. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

One weakness of the "don't get stuck" section is that it ambiguously says "try another solution". What it does not explicitly say is that the solution tried during the "D"iscussion part of BRD should reasonably reflect some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns. Otherwise, such an edit may appear to be nothing more than a re-revert of an edit warrior's perferred text even though its worded a little differently. I thought I'd float this concept before attempting to draft text. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not too long ago we included a sentence in the lede to that effect: "When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion." We extensively debated to achieve that particular wording, and it aligns well with the cases for use of "Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached" and "Active discussion is not producing results".
 * We could restate any of those at WP:NOTSTUCK, or even your own wording "Discussion part of BRD should reasonably reflect some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns", which I like. Diego (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've attempted a section edit that reflects this discussion and in my opinion also adds some "punch" and "flow". Thoughts?   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Consistent with this thread, I have also made a bold tweak to the lead sentence Diego mentioned. Truth-in-advertising disclaimer... I participated in that 2014 debate (see archives). Today's change is not intended to alter the operation of this essay, only to improve the language to encourage editors for not bogging down in discussion and making it feel a bit safer to attempt an edit that only partially fixes the objections... which is a method of fleshing out the true sticking points. .NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of diagram
A recent edit removed the diagram. This permalink shows how it used to appear. I support the removal because the diagram is too tricked-up and does not help. I once wondered whether to offer to make a very simple diagram just showing plain words with simple arrows between them: bold → revert → discuss → (arrow goes back to "bold"). Perhaps add small text under each so they read: bold edit, revert edit, discuss proposal on article talk page. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I recall disliking that image, and even sketching on paper alternatives. Superficially, a bit gaudy and cartoonish, but below that it illustrates BRD as an *endless* cycle. BRD should not be an endless cycle, but a bold, but short of reckless/disruptive method to shock a nonproductive situation back into either edits moving towards consensus or a better focused discussion. I think the figure detracted from the better diagram below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal of this graphic because it has to be picked apart to be understood. If anyone invents one that communicates the ideas in a way that leap off the screen at first glance, we should use it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Under alternatives Bold-Revert-Revert is an EGG
Please see the BRD Alternatives section, which includes
 * Bold, revert, revert Seriously, sometimes the reversion was a mistake (e.g., when someone reverts your removal of duplicate material because he or she didn't realize that the same sentence was on the page twice). It's good to follow up with a note for the other editor, or at least an edit summary to reduce the risk of BOLD, revert, revert, revert (BRRR), and especially avoid the going right down the slippery slope to BRRRRRRR

The problem is that the link does not point to a section talking about doing a 2nd revert in a row. Instead, it points to the section discussing 1RR, which only allows one.
 * The wikicode Bold, revert, revert ... for 2 reverts in a row....
 * actually takes you to WP:1RR... for just one (0RR is also mentioned).

Possible fixes for this WP:EGG are to simply de-link instances of Bold-Revert-Revert, or to expunge Bold-Revert-Revert as an "alternative". I might boldly try something myself, but at least for the time being I should stay clear, since it came up in a pending EW complaint where I'm an involved ed. For the same reason, other eds may wish to wait awhile before commenting. I'm just posting now so it doesn't get lost later and its on my mind now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Another contradiction is found in the section re Edit warring, where we have the following bullet point
 * "Do not edit war The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move towards consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but could incur sanctions, such as a temporary block. The objective is to seek consensus, not force one's own will upon other editors. That never works. If you encounter BRRD (bold, revert, revert...), do not escalate the situation to BRRRD."
 * So in the EW section we say don't do BRR, and in the alternatives section we say its OK to do BRR.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bump, don't archive yet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

What is "an EGG"? It seems to be an acronym. I have no idea what it is.

Please; don't use TLAs without defining them. That's UJCO. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather ironically, WP:EGG is the guideline explaining that you shouldn't make links that give little clue about the content that is to be found at their end side. It's also called WP:SUBMARINE. Diego (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Gee guys, thanks for reading the post for substance. The heading does not "define" WP:EGG because links in headings are no-no's per the WP:MOS.  But the link for WP:EGG appears in the body of the post, which raises an issue that is still unresolved.  Interested in dealing with the substance? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the post contained a perplexing term, it's logical for Skepticalgiraffe to ask for clarification before deciding to further comment; and I was merely answering that specific question.
 * Personally, I would nuke the whole sentence about BRR, BRRD, BRRRR and other motor noises for being cryptic, puzzling, based on obscure undefined acronyms, and in the end utterly unnecessary Diego (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and I also think that's the best solution so I'll try it out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diego. BRR acronyms are cynical insider jargon, not at all useful for someone seeking to learn about BRD.  Instructions are best phrased positively.  After a revert, either try a compromised edit, or ask the other editor what the problem is.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have always thought that some humor was intended in the variations and acronyms for them - part of the message is that humor, i think, is that there are lots of ways to "get there" and nobody should get hung up on the exact path. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I too think humor was intended, but consistently the humor seems to fail. Someone referring to these acronyms usually means a situation of disharmony and grief. I think that BRD, like IAR, is only well used when there is no need for explicit reference. IAR means that something needs doing regardless of lack of codification in the rules.  BRD is what someone can do to reboot focused discussion.  The actual action takes skill, and when done right it's justification is self evident.  If the actor needs to quote the acronym, they are doing it poorly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Red links
Correct me if I am wrong but Red link editing guideline is intended to be used in mainspace to indicate that the subject is notable. BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a community page. We come here, to find out things, not to be prompted to participate in the Today's articles for improvement drive. Thanks,  Poeticbent  talk 20:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What if the editor that reverts refuses to discuss the issue?
Must we tolerate plainly openly biased statements in a wikipedia article? What about attacks on the author of a source that is only tangentially related to the article? In the specific article I am thinking of, the editor keeps reverting the erasure of a paragraph which contributes nothing about the subject, only attacks an author of a book related to the subject and trying to "refute" his words, the assertion of that author, where that assertion is not in the article.

It is just not relivent, and is quite confusing to the reader. Montestruc (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For content disputes, you have to engage in the dispute resolution process. There are several, and are described in the WP:DR policy.  If the other editor refuses to engage in them, that becomes a behavior issue and they can be taken to ANI for that.  But you have to give the DR process time to unfold.  Remember there is WP:NODEADLINE here. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about the edit war at McCollum memo then why are you complaining that simply "refuses to discuss the issue" just two hours after you started the talk page discussion?  See Clean hands, or if the legalistic article is objectionable, similar concepts are also described at our essay WP:BOOMERANG. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for many months, if not years, you looking only to the past few hours is not reasonable. Montestruc (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to move thoughtfully and deliberately if there is this kind of long-running dispute. I don't know what the kinds of issues are.   One way to go at that, is for you and the parties with whom you disagree to identify the key areas of disagreement (hopefully you can agree on what you disagree about) and lay out a series of RfCs to address the fundamental issues that everybody agrees to draft together and to follow.   If it something not handle-able via RfC then mediation is an option.   I just don't know enough to give you concrete advice.   If Newsandeventsguy is correct and it is about that memo, that does fall under the american politics arbcom case and you could go to AE and ask for specific DS to be applied to the specific article.   You can also go to AE and seek sanctions against others,  if you think you have clean enough hands and the other party/parties don't. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Failure to discuss is covered in WP:DISCUSSFAIL. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Image
I returned the image because there is a consensus to use it that was discussed sometime ago. Consensus can change. Should it be included or excluded?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not anymore and I reverted its restoration.  A few days ago the thread was archived but I brought it back manually.  See above at Wikipedia_talk:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be discussed further. The above consensus is clearly to exclude this image (which I can see now) however...there is a consensus for an image of some kind that I also support.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a busy image that doesn't say much. I am fine with it being taken out. The useful diagram is the one that is still in the article. Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me try this again. To clarify, am really OK with the consensus to exclude the image that was there for whatever reason however, I would like to see the discussion of "an image" continue as it appears there is still a consensus from that discussion to have some sort of image in it's place, redesigned by one of the other editors. I believe we should consider new images to replace the one excluded as that does appear to be the consensus of the last discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * while no image is better than a bad one I think we are all interested to hear about new image ideas. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and one man's trash is another man's treasure but. Let's try to remember that bad is a relative term of opinion. What the image represents and how it is illustrated are points that can be discussed.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion is archived here. In that I proposed a very simple diagram consisting of only the words in BRD with simple arrows between. I still support the removal of the old image which was not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No to the image. It adds nothing, in fact it represents a misunderstanding.  BRD is not meant to be an endless cycle, but a kick back to productivity.  Find the next most interested editor and refocus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm for seeing what another comes up with but I will point out one thing, for those that say BRD is not an endless cycle is a misunderstanding what that concept means. Whether it is applied as part of a single issue dispute or as many in the community believe, is the accepted standard of the Wikipedia community in general, it is a repeating cycle.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that is a misunderstanding. The second B in BRDB is meant to be a compromise edit, and its revert signals failure. A secondary cycle may be required to refocus the first cycle.  A sequence of actions where all edits are Bold or Reverts is NOT the objective (a sequence implied by this image).  The objective is a return to natural editing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're way ahead of yourself and I am not going to argue for or against any of the specifics you are discussing as I am saying only that BRD is a cycle. It is not a linear process.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Given the equally valid perspectives on BRD it makes little sense to me to argue over whose way of describing BRD's role in the editing process is gospel truth. If we ascribe such meaning to a single graphic meaningful consensus will probably prove impossible. Maybe a compromise approach is to cover the various descriptions of BRD and let each section have its graphic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the cycle itself has to be illustrated, emphasized or made a point of a BRD image, just that I agree that a main image is something I support and would like to see what others come up with.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * BRD reboot image.png This is along the lines of what I have been thinking.  BRD is kick/reboot technique for restarting and refocusing a discussion that is stalled in a quagmire.  An overly long discussion has gone off on tangents, and has gone off-pathway. A Bold edit attempts to correct the situation, but it over-corrects. A Revert returns the discussion to a previous on-pathway point. A refocused discussion leads to small edits more in line with consensus and the pathway towards the perfect article.  If the first Bold edit didn't over-correct, this this was simply a WP:BOLD solution.  If, the first edit post-discussion also over-corrects, a second run through BRD is possible.  Thus, cycles are possible.  However, repeated Bold over-corrections, with ensuring reverts, is edit warring.  Ideally, BRD is not needed.  If needed, ideally only one pass is required.  To avoid this being an edit war, no one editor should repeat the role of Bold editor, or Reverter.  After a Bold edit, future edits must be much more conservative.  A future temptation to Revert should be enacted as a compromise edit.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "BRD is kick/reboot technique for restarting and refocusing a discussion that is stalled in a quagmire." Is it? Reverting does not help kickstart an article stalled in a quagmire; it just pushes it into an endless "discussion" with no changes made, which is to say, continues the quagmire.  The image above is amusing but accurate: it shows an article stuck in an endless loop in which all changes are followed by revert.
 * The problem with BRD is that "revert" is not actually a good method to initiate discussion.Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "BRD is kick/reboot technique for restarting and refocusing a discussion that is stalled in a quagmire." Is it?  Yes, it is.  It is dangerous and requires experience and skill, but it is unarguably a technique.
 * "Reverting does not help kickstart an article stalled in a quagmire". No, but note that this is a very different statement. "Reverting" is not BRD.  Reverting without a clever Bold edit preceding is not BRD.  Also, it is "discussion" that gets a kickstart, not an "article".  An article in quagmire is a very different problem to a discussion in quagmire.
 * Details are important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

IMHO the useful part of both wp:Bold and wp:BRD is essence to emphasize a few points which could come to play in a zillion different situations. And maybe a quick visual aid that also emphasizes those points is good. But trying to create roadmaps that are either trying to be be universal for those zillions of situations or which cover only a few of them is a problematic task. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Like Image   I like your image on the right.  I think the original image still needs to stay intact, but this could be an additional image that helps explains the ideas.  I have not read everything above--I only looked at the image.  --David Tornheim (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Original"? Do you mean File:BRD1.svg?  I don't like the bubble letters arrows image. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I meant I also like BOLD revert discuss.svg. I did have a chance to read the discussion above. I did not realize the image had been recently deleted.  I think it is unfortunate that this image that I (and I assume many) have long associated with WP:BRD was deleted without a greater community involvement.   That said, I agree it has problems, but not as many as another image I discuss below.
 * I agree that an endless cycle of bold, revert, discussion is not the way to solve a dispute over a specific issue. But our articles are constantly changing as new information comes in, better sources are found, new editors with familiarity with the subject matter join, etc.  So, in that sense there is indeed a cycle that never really stops, and I agree with .   I have generally thought that is what the image meant, that people will come to a long stable article and make a WP:BOLD edit to improve it.
 * I do not think there is such thing as a "perfect article". I believe that is more like the Western idea of progress, that things are always getting better.  But there also Eastern idea that life is a cycle or other ideas like all is in flux.   So, I like 's ideal that we strive for the best article we can create, but I also see the cyclic view too.  That is why I would like to see both images, not one or the other.
 * One thing I don't like about it, is that it doesn't distinguish bold from edit-warring, 3RR, etc., or when going to talk is mandatory and when it is not. But as an introduction, I think it works, and I believe it has been in place for some time.
 * The image File:BRD1.svg (at right) that is still in the article has problems too. BRD1.svg It may be technically correct, but I have always found it hard to follow and it should be improved.  I like flow charts, but I have never liked flow charts with binary yes/no arrows (they create more boxes than necessary).  It is not clear who it is addressed:  In places it is addressed to the editor "Do you agree with the edit?" and in other places you can't tell who is doing the work "make an edit"--is that me or someone else?  One possibility is to have X and Y, e.g. Instead of "make an edit", "X changes article".
 * The next step "Was the article edited further?" leaves out the likely possibility that the edit was challenged on the talk page.
 * Instead arrows emerging from "X changes article" could show each likely outcome of a BOLD edit:
 * "no further activity" (e.g. on talk or article) ->  new consensus
 * revert
 * discuss
 * alternative change
 * It would take some time to figure out how all the possibilities and the fewest words and boxes to make it clear, but I do think the flow chart is confusing and does not explain how things typically work. Honestly, if someone reverts you, how often do editors think they should have been reverted?  That's a main path.   --David Tornheim (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * File:BOLD revert discuss.svg I have criticed above. I consider it to have negative net value.  None of the images have been "deleted".


 * There can be a cycle repetition, and that is a failure of attempted BRD, and it always escallates to page protection or user blocks, and so it is never endless.   The notion of an endless cycle is a gross misunderstanding.


 * File:BRD1.svg used to have the significant claim that it derived directly from the image at WP:Consensus. The WP:Consensus image was subsequently simplified, with my support.  If anyone cares to examine File:BRD1.svg in detail, it is correct, but it has a history that might be needed to be understood.


 * > The next step "Was the article edited further?" leaves out the likely possibility that the edit was challenged on the talk page.


 * The point of this is that BRD is supposed to break out of talk page quagmire and return to actual editing. A challenge on the talk page represents failure.  An improving edit represents success.  WP:BRD is an essay on returning to article editing and is not an essay on discourse.  It has as a premise that pure discussion is not productive.


 * Please do compose a new diagram that illustrates better.


 * A revert should only happen once. The cycle should only be passed through once.  Twice, OK. Three times is bad.  Three or more times, blocks or page protection ensue.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The cycle means that those sticking to it use it for the next issue or dispute. A lot of what you say is opinion that some do not agree with. BRD is not a substitute for discussion. Period.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What does "sticking to it" mean? And why does the cycle mean this?  So far, all talk here assumes a single, though poorly defined, issue. Do you want to generalise to BRD and multiple sequential issues? What is your opinion? We disagree about the bubble-letters picture being worth its space, but it's been a while that you have had much to say. I never said, nor did anyone else, that BRD substitutes for discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @Mark, I agree there is are a lot of slightly different good faith opinions about BRD nuances, yours included, and that's ok. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal - RfC
Per: this

Proposal:We should add "That policy and guideline pages are generally not considered subject to WP:CYCLE. With them it is generally accepted that one should gain explicit consensus on the talk page before editing, except for spelling fixes." to the article (Maybe the Lede?)  ---Endercase (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Throwing verbage at a problem is often counter productive: more stuff = less comprehension.
 * It is not possible to help an editor who does not grasp that adding a new twist to a policy without any prior discussion will probably end in failure after wasting time. Pointing them to a few words in this guideline is, well, pointless.
 * Likewise, how about starting with an example of where the proposed wording would have helped. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * CYCLE is an advanced technique that may be tried anywhere, and it is a misunderstanding that anything is "subject" to it. Any BOLD action anywhere may be reverted and prevented from repeat by a coherent explanation on the talk page. Your own userspace draft, or a featured article linked from the main page, or policy page, the principle is the same. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:CREEP, and if you do read it, then yeah I know what you're talking about is too common to be considered "outlying". Principle still applies.   In reality, if you make an edit to a policy or a high impact guideline its almost sure to be reverted until there has been talk page discussion.  I don't see any problem with that approach.   In another scenario, you might be trying to to deal with a dispute where the other side tries to tweak a guideline and then use the tweaked version to support their view.  But we already deal with that somewhere... maybe WP:Gaming the system or in the WP:DR pages   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * (Double edit conflict) Disagree Endercase, for most editors, this would be unnecessary. Simply reading this essay as currently written, it is clear that what is being discussed is edits to articles (the word "article" already appears 20 times on the page, 6 in the lead), and it's really obvious to most of us that BRD should not be applied to policy and guideline pages. Yes, it would be really nice if editors (including experienced ones) accepted the burden to get consensus prior to their proposed changes, but per WP:CREEP, if the only editor who needs this clarification is a new editor who is currently subject to mentoring (as a condition to their not being blocked) then the clarification is almost certainly not necessary. (Note that "most of us" is not a jab at you, Endercase; I have seen "experienced" editors who are very obviously gunning for the mop do the exact same thing, and they would probably cite BRD as well.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the other comments so far this cycle does appear to apply to non-articles. You might want to do a RfC on that directly if you would like. In addition, the AN/I close was no consensus. Ergo, I am not "subject" to mentoring as a condition to anything; this is completely voluntary. I have over 500 edits and a relatively good understanding of policy, I am not a "new user" as such. Endercase (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The principle applies broadly. Policy pages are not to be assumed more important than articles. If a policy is new or discredited (big if), and discussion is in quagmire, BRD may be a good idea. There are contentious articles on which BRD may not ever be a good idea. The editor making the Bold edit must always be ready to defend their edit as good faith, plausibly a good idea, as opposed to reckless or GAMING for some BATTLE elsewhere.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with SmokeyJoe, though I like to say editors making BOLD edits need to be willing to "explain" rather than "defend". In this context these are synonymous, but I think anything we can do to help people stay cool and not get into battle mode is a good thing, so "defend" sometimes gives people the wrong idea. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Explain and justify"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's wrong, but I haven't received a single one of your pings. And no, I will not do as you suggest. I apologize for not having been clear enough on your talk page. You should not boldly edit policy pages with the intent of getting reverted and opening a discussion, as unilateral edits to policy pages by new users are almost never accepted off the bat. The same does not apply to the vast majority of articles. Anyway, I strongly urge you to limit yourself to reading these pages (policies, guidelines, essays -- the lot) and focus on writing articles for the time being. Don't worry about amending these pages to directly cover the advice other editors and I have offered you (much of which is meant for you specifically, not for the whole Encyclopedia) or to directly cover all eventualities.
 * and If you look at the OP's talk page (and the recently closed ANI discussion), this is not really ... meh. I'm increasingly inclined to just close this section, as I seem to recall directly advising them against opening discussions about amending WP: pages before they came here.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with close; also thanks for the context; a personal experience in a single dispute almost never results in successful policy/guideline changes, whereas experienced eds who have patiently observed many people having the same issues often does.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I stand in ready acceptance of the trouting to follow: this is predominantly my fault. I expressed my own preferences for explicit and detailed language in policies using this particular case as an example to this relatively inexperienced editor, not expecting them to actually follow through. I had thought that expressing my own opinions might be taken as an encouragement that they were on the right track when the OP mentioned an RfC as the proper method to go about changing the way P&G's are written. I mentioned that I did not expect such a proposal to get much support thinking that it would be enough to dissuade them, but re-reading my comments now makes it clear to me that they came across much more like an encouragement to proceed than an acknowledgement that they were describing the right way to do it. So trout away. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In the great scheme of things, a shrimping will probably suffice NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure if that's better or worse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the honesty, integrity and willingness to take some responsibility. I do think  came here in good faith because he wanted to help make an implicit rule explicit so that other new users better understand how WP:BRD works in practice.  I do think our rules like WP:BOLD, WP:IGNORE and "anyone can edit" are misleading to new users as, I explained in more detail this essay.   I thought Endercase's attempt to challenge us to clarify the rules so new users are not confused in the way he was is reasonable.   That doesn't mean we need to make any of his proposed changes--I see many good arguments above for not doing so--but I do think we should consider that there are indeed implicit rules that experienced editors know about and I agree with  that we should try to make them more explicit.  In sum, I do think Endercase came here in good faith.  --David Tornheim (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised there's enough doubt about good faith that we're even having to talk about it. It's all good.  I've made lots of proposals for trying to make the place work better, from my perspective, that went nowhere.  As dysfunctional as the place can be at times, the continued effort by editors of good will to improve it is a source of hope even if the ideas themselves gain no traction.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've actually spent far too much of my time over the last three weeks wondering why good faith seems to keep getting brought up in random conversations. The fact that Endercase opened this discussion in good faith, despite not being in dispute, is actually irrelevant, as this thread should be closed regardless. It is going nowhere. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert an edit if it is not an improvement vs Consider reverting only when necessary
Can I put it to you that the statements "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement" and "Consider reverting only when necessary" are mutually incompatible? I recommend replacing them both with "revert an edit if it made the article worse". Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not too opposed to that proposal, but linking to the Revert only when necessary essay, like we currently do, is probably helpful to some. The lead currently states, "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary." The aforementioned essay lists circumstances with regard to what is or is not necessary. Also, what is or isn't an improvement can be subjective, which is why edit wars happen so often. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That sentence was very poorly worded, it implied an imperative to revert nearly everything. I edited it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your text is "Revert an edit if it is bad and cannot be fixed." That is very unhelpful because there is no such thing as an edit that cannot be fixed. The new text is simply fuel for a wikilawyer—"you cannot revert my edit because it introduces an important point and, if there is anything wrong with it, you must fix it rather than revert per WP:BRD". Also, the new text means that anyone reverting thinks the edit is bad—that is unnecessarily confrontational. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So why don't you improve on it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC). At the very least, you have reverted to something very wordy. So wordy, few read it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not edited WP:BRD since June 2015. Another editor reverted your change. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll have to try more carefully. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Supplement page vs essay page
Note that this page's categorization has been changed to from "essay" to "supplement." For how this happened, see this. Just noting this here in case anyone wants to pursue having the page re-categorized as an essay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI discussion at V pump
Editors here may be interested in This V pump discussion. Tremendous wikignome efforts have taken place the last few months in pages relating to the various namespaces. In particular, these changes added a heading "infopages" (distinct from "essays") at Project namespace, and this was followed by tweaks to the tag used on this essay, Template:Supplement.

Per the TPG section WP:MULTI please add any comments at the pump thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"Is BRD a policy?" section
Codename Lisa added a "Is BRD a policy?" section, stating, "The term 'BRD' may refer to two different things:
 * This article, whose shortcut is 'WP:BRD'. This article is not a policy.
 * The concept of a cycle consisting of "editing boldly", "reversion", and "discussion". This concept is now part of two of Wikipedia policies: and ."

After that, SmokeyJoe came along and made a minor tweak.

I was opposed to the section because I considered it as completely unnecessary. There was no need to break that material out into its own section and significantly change its wording. And for one, this page is not an article in the sense of WP:Article. So I changed that. Secondly, Editing policy and Consensus do not use use the term BRD, except for when pointing to this essay. Thirdly, there absolutely are exemptions to edit warring, as made clear at Edit warring. This is why I added, "unless an addition violates a policy, is vandalism or otherwise disruptive." We should not have editors thinking that more than one revert is never acceptable and is automatically edit warring. Codename Lisa soon afterward removed the entire section as "patent nonsense," per my edits. My response was that I would address the matter here on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice that the pieces before Codename Lisa's initial edit on this matter are still currently missing. In other words: I am not the one who added the following: "'BRD' is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring. Avoiding edit warring is a policy that all editors must follow." It was already on this page. All I did was re-add it. Same goes for stating that "BRD is not a policy." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * Thanks for starting this conversation. You say that "I was opposed to the section" and yet you chose to edit it instead of reverting it. I appreciate that. It is a noble act that very few do. Thanks for the willingness.
 * But the good intention alone is hardly enough for the result of your work to be kept. Your remedy can at best be described as scatter-brained. You say you wrote this for such-and-such reasons, but since I can neither make head nor tail out of what you wrote, your reason is no consolation. Also, in order to write something, necessity or accuracy alone are not enough; time and place are also important.
 * For your noble act of trying to fix to be effective, first, you must see the big picture. It has been a long time since I have dropped any and all mentions of "BRD" from my edits and summaries. I use instead. It has the same purpose and material, and has the force of a policy. When you fail to get the big picture, you end up writing disorienting things like "Secondly, Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Consensus do not use use the term BRD" which can be immediately dismissed as "false" because Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing actually say: "The 'BOLD, revert, discuss cycle' (BRD) is often used when changes might be contentious."
 * Anyway, per WP:STATUSQUO. Clearly, this matter needs establishing a consensus before editing. (As a matter of fact  meant to be a softer form of this but that proved controversial too.)
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Codename Lisa, regarding this, I signed thrice because that has become my style for updating my signature, I don't like replacing a signature with an updated timestamp when only part of the post is updated; to me, this is a misleading timestamp. I have restored my three timestamps above.
 * As for your explanation about your edits, I do not appreciate your condescending and otherwise insulting tone. You objecting to my edits make not a bit of sense. Those additions were already on this page and still are thanks to you reverting to the status quo. The main difference is that I added "unless an addition violates a policy, is vandalism or otherwise disruptive." You can point to Editing policy and Consensus as much as you want to, but they do not treat BRD as policy. You cited the following sentence: "The 'BOLD, revert, discuss cycle' (BRD) is often used when changes might be contentious." Yes, I saw that. That is not policy using the term BRD in the sense of BRD being a policy. It is a policy pointing to an essay page. It is letting readers know that this essay page is often cited (that the BRD process is often followed); it is not stating that we must follow what this essay page states. There was already an attempt to elevate such a practice to a guideline and it failed because editors felt that it would be putting a WP:1RR restriction on articles. Your edit made it seem as though BRD is a matter of policy; it is not. I do not think you thought this through. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate your condescending and otherwise insulting tone. Not reading the rest of the message. Aborting discussion. I commended and thanked this person, he responds by a personal attack. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. —Codename Lisa (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Codename Lisa, I am a she. And your idea of commending and thanking leaves much to be desired, if you think that mocking and condescension equate to such. I made no WP:Personal attack on you. If anything, your comments were more of a personal attack. Discussion aborted? Good. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Being a "she" is no justification for being so rude. Even being directly insulted is no justification for insulting back. That said, I can see that CL has said: "Your remedy [~snip~] scatter-brained". In all the fairness, this is about the contribution, not the contributor. What she did say about the contributor, however, is "Thanks for [~snip~] I appreciate that. It is a noble act that very few do. Thanks for the willingness". Two "thank you", one direct appreciation and one praise. On the whole, the only thing negative this person did to you was disagreeing with you.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * FleetCommand, so you felt the need to inject yourself into this dispute and inflame it. I see why. I recently reverted you and you took significant issue with it, and you felt that this was the time to get revenge, like so many other Wikipedia editors who hold a grudge and lack restraint. Yes, I note these types at the top of my user page/talk page. Sighs. It was indeed Codename Lisa who was rude to me. I did not justify my response to her on the basis that I am female; so I do not see what you are talking about in that regard. You can talk about her "scatter-brained" comment being "about the contribution, not the contributor" as much as you want to, but it does not negate the fact that Codename Lisa was wholly condescending. Her comments were essentially along the following lines: "Oh sweety, bless your heart. You tried, but you simply do not know what you are doing." And her comment about my signature signing was more of the same; it was mocking, as if to state, "This poster can't even sign right. So how can we even trust her to write this essay right?" And let's be real here: Insulting an editor's addition with derogatory terms can be considered WP:Uncivil; it's seen all the time at WP:ANI. And do spare me any claim that describing an editor's edits as scatterbrained, in the way that Codename Lisa did, is not derogatory. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You still aren't allowed to insult back or be rude in kind. Also, if I wanted to do something revengy, I would have done it three month ago, when it was relevant.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 06:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Insult back? Hmm. By stating "You objecting to my edits make not a bit of sense." and "Discussion aborted? Good."? We clearly have a different definition of what insulting means. As for being all revenge-y when it's relevant, nah, that's not what editors like you do. You only attack when relevant sometimes. And given how often I have been subjected to your type, I should know. Anyway, I see that you are all buddy-buddy with Codename Lisa regardless. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And I see that you were reverted here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If that was gloating, it was a very weak one. Drive it home by adding "How do you like it apples, Missy?" Yes, it is rude but your reputation can't suffer.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Gloating was not the intention. And what is it that you think you know about my reputation? Feel free to spout as much nonsense as you want so that I can disprove it on every front. Then that would be me gloating, in a sense. Oh, never mind; I see below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia" argument is so ludicrous as to apply to me...that I'll leave it at that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if you hadn't responded what amounts to "thank you" with what amounts to "fuck you", yes, I'd agree with you on this. Of course, if I remember correctly, back in 2012, you were blocked for one month for sock puppetry. It wasn't exactly a reward for being a good productive Wikipedian.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh right. I should be so thankful for a condescending "thank you." You are going to have to do much better than bring up my 2012 block, especially since the checkuser/administrator who blocked me later unblocked me and has acknowledged time and time again that I did not sock. And she is not the only one. Did you overlook this statement on my user page/talk page? Did you overlook where my block log quite clearly states, "Unblocking per talk page and off-wiki discussions / two people in the one household (again) / Flyer22 is *not* related to the MikeFromCanmore group of accounts."? Or did you realize that it would not be beneficial to your dirt-throwing? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Aha! So, that's what it was about. I was wondering how comes a sock puppet is released to edit. But yes, pretending to be thankful for a condescending "thank you" is the best way. Responding to it with what amounts to "fuck you" is definitely the worst and forbidden too. Also, we know for a fact that Codename Lisa is NOT being condescending. If you don't want to take my word for it, just remember: I just took your word!  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 06:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you had actually read and comprehended, you would have known what it was about. And unlike Codename Lisa regarding condescension, I have various editors supporting the sock matter not simply being my word. Unblocking me was not simply based on my word, which you would know if you bothered to do your research before your mudslinging. But having the facts right would not have been as much fun, now would it have? You believe that Codename Lisa was not being condescending. My ability to comprehend says otherwise. But oh well; she can work on those noble efforts in the future. And you can work on your researching skills. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That was an odd breakdown of conversation. I don't know either of you very well, but see you around, and considered you both normal and reasonable.  I don't follow the reason for signing thrice.  I am slightly uncomfortable with the designation of "supplement pages", but no real objections.  This page "is not a policy"?  Does the need for this follow from people thinking it is a policy?  As a matter of ease of comprehension, my first real objection is that a document should say things in the positive first.  First, say what it is.  If necessary, cover gap with "what it is not" at the end.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SmokeyJoe. I know that signing thrice is unconventional. I don't do it often. I've recently started signing my post two or three times to indicate that the post has been changed at those exact time stamps. I never liked updating my time stamp because I've always felt that it was somewhat misleading unless I rewrote my whole post and I know that adding to my post without updating the timestamp can be misleading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh, you add a signature for every edit of your own post? In real life, edits like that call for an initial, an abbreviated signature.  Perhaps you could use "FR 03:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)"?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not for every edit of my own post. I simply sometimes add an additional signature if I have significantly changed my post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are stating that we don't need a section stating that BRD is not a policy, I agree. But I do think it's helpful to include material noting that BRD is not a policy. And, yes, this is because BRD is commonly treated as a guideline or policy. Its popularity is what led to the proposal to elevate it to a guideline. We occasionally have "What this page is not" material on our policies and guidelines. For example, WP:Trivia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And we have an important, influential policy "What Wikipedia is not". My point is that it is not for reading first.  WP:5P is better.  The opening sentence of WP:NOT is well written.  I edited the page WP:BRD.  What do you think of the result?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Thanks for becoming a third opinion. Perhaps now that you are here, the thread may become a real discussion. Looking at the whole "§What BRD is, and is not", half its materials is about What BRD is. The remainder is repetitive and redundant. For example, we have three clauses maneuvering around the subject of BRD not being a modus operandi, and not a core reason for reverting. I was thinking perhaps we can fix those. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. All those "Note:" prefixes are substandard. They signal trivia, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. But they are in a list of clauses, so it is the prefix that is redundant. Make a bold edit. You are good at this kind of stuff.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, regarding your edit, should we really be going along with calling this page a supplement page instead of an essay page? If you have not already seen it, see this section on my talk page, where WhatamIdoing, Moxy and NewsAndEventsGuy weighed in. I also started a section on the matter above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been interested in the essay --> supplement retagging, as a policy policy matter, ever since the appearance of the essay turned supplement WP:Silence. I was skeptical, then ambivalent, now leaning in favour.  I think a requirement for a page to be a supplement to a policy is that the policy directly links to the supplement for further information.  This is true for BRD, explicitly referred to from both WP:Consensus and WP:Be bold.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical that the page should stay designated as a supplement page, especially since there was no discussion to change it to such, but I'm not too concerned about the matter at the moment. I might revisit the issue in another month or few months later (if no one else takes it on). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And Editing policy too. I support the move.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 06:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Move? You mean taggery alteration?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no move, obviously. That's FleetCommand not paying attention again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, guys, the Dictionary entry for "move (noun)" says: "(1) Action, (2) instance of moving (3) a change of location or residence (4) an action toward an objective or goal; step: (5) [...]"
 * Alright, I actually came here to write something else. What was that...? Let's see...
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that we were not on the same page regarding what "move" means. And we all know how editors on Wikipedia usually use the term regarding content location.
 * As for what else you came to write about, maybe the big edit you made without discussion? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, but what was it about it that I wanted to say?
 * And, actually, "without discussion" is inaccurate. See above.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no discussion regarding such a substantial change. You simply suggested fixing what you perceived to be wrong with the essay/supplement page, then went right in and made substantial changes to the page. As for your hidden note, really, that is more of the type of thing I am talking about regarding your behavior. How should I react to the way you have been behaving? Seeing you and FleetCommand in action concerning a matter involving NeilN (who is currently taking a break from editing Wikipedia) tells me all that I need to know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That stated, I don't object to your latest aforementioned edit. It does look like you cut a lot of fat. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I know that you're a good editor; we simply butted heads in an unfortunate way this time. I'll try to be less confrontational (or rather not confrontational at all) when interacting with you in the future, even if I feel insulted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Section break, for convenience
Well... The first effort had some flaws, but most of the current work is probably a net improvement, on balance.

My major concern is that part of the changes during the last couple of weeks have removed something important about the non-policy-status issue. The important bit wasn't "This isn't a policy". Anybody with the barest familiarity with Wikipedia's backstage processes can look at the tag at the top of the page, or the categories at the bottom, and figure out that this isn't a policy.

The important bit was "This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." I don't see (in a very quick skim) anything on this page that says "Please stop telling innocent new editors that they have 'violated' this strictly optional, purely one-among-multiple-valid-options methods of resolving disputes, because they haven't, and you cannot and should not ever claim that they have to follow this particular method for anything whatsoever". The closest the page comes to this is to say "BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors", which I grant is a very broad hint about the inappropriateness of demanding that inexperienced editors use it, but frankly, too many editors were overlooking that little bit too often for us to leave it at that.

From the POV of preventing editors from using BRD as a bludgeon, there are two main points that have to be made, and made so clearly and prominently that nobody can claim to have misunderstood them. They are:


 * 1) BRD does not give you the right to revert anything, ever, not even just once.  (Other pages might, but BRD doesn't.)
 * 2) You must never demand that anybody else follow BRD, full stop.  You might – in suitable, thoughtfully chosen circumstances, with an experienced editor – gently suggest this as an option, but you must never demand or insist upon it, and you must never tell editors that this is the One True Way™ to edit Wikipedia, or indicate that you believe you have a right to insist that they use this method instead of any of the others.

I think that second point is not clear enough at the moment.

(Part of the problem is that this page was originally written solely as advice to the bold editor. Its misuse as a way of claiming "violations" if you keep editing (even if you're trying other things!) instead of pausing all editing activity so I can filibuster on the talk page has forced us to address the reverters and their increasing sense of entitlement, too.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Many people historically have misunderstood that BRD is not something you *should* do.  It is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.  My view is that BRD describes an advanced aggressive but acceptable practice that marks the boundary between WP:BOLD and WP:DISRUPTION.  BRD is OK, but it is one misstep from Disruptive editing, two from Edit warring.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? You do not see of these? Strange. I hope you wouldn't mind me pointing you to where you must look
 * "I don't see (in a very quick skim) anything on this page that says 'Please stop telling innocent new editors that [~snip~]'". Look for this: "This page is an explanatory supplement to the Consensus and Be bold pages. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay." It is framed, written in boldface and placed at the top.
 * "BRD does not give you the right to revert anything, ever, not even just once." You don't see this either? Here:"BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing. BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense exists, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle."
 * "You must never demand that anybody else follow BRD, full stop." You don't see this in the essay either? This time, it is not strange, because it isn't there. I can add something to this effect right now but I won't press it, or else we will get negative effects. I myself once went the Alternative section's way. I tried the "Bold, revert, bold again" approach, but and  both assumed bad faith in me; CL recommended a block and MSGJ said I was baiting and blocked me. Neither of the two considered that I am simply probing for a compromise and it is the other editor who simply reverts reflexively. So, in a way, BRD is mandatory sometimes.
 *  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 08:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can make this clearer: There should be something in this page that says:  Attention, admins:  Do not ever block editors for 'not following BRD'.  "You are not allowed to block people for not following BRD" is the exact meaning of the last half of the very first sentence in the lead, which says that BRD is "an optional method of reaching consensus".
 * If we had been sufficiently clear about this point, then any admin who proposed blocking a person for "not following BRD" would get trouted.
 * A few weeks ago, this page had a bullet point that said this:
 * BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
 * That's gone now. As your history shows, we probably do need something like that in this page.  Possibly in bold, blinking text, even.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me make see if I can make this clearer: There must definitely be no such thing. Repetition lengthens the article and has no force. Admins already have enough policies that if they follow, they will never block editors for not following BRD. The prime example is WP:BLOCK that forbids enacting punitive blocks, or even blocks that prevent nothing. Also, you seem to believe if you sink the reader in a heap of different colorful formatting, your point gets through; but it has a negative effect. Windows 8 showed that.
 * As for the sentence that you say is gone, we have been over it already. I showed you that the more accurate version already exists in a more visible place. Plus a new sentence to the effect that BRD is not mandatory is also added.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 04:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in the history of that template. It's changed significantly in the last six months or so, and even during the last couple of weeks.
 * I think we're doing okay with the point about reversions. You may have noticed that I did not propose any changes on that point.  The fact that we're currently adequate on that point does not change the fact that this is one of the two main points.
 * I don't think we're doing okay with the point about this being optional and only to be used occasionally. If an admin blocked you for "not following BRD", then that admin screwed up.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a mandatory circumstance
Although this is "just an essay" in my view there are times when BRD is required. Maybe not by name, but the concept is the same. I'm specifically thinking of editing restrictions like 1RR. When combined with WP:Gaming the system, such restrictions effectively required editors to either just go away or to follow BRD. The admins may not say "Thou shalt follow BRD" but the only way to still edit and maintain one's standing is to follow it anyway. Indeed, arguments over editor behavior in such cases often ends up debating who followed/did not follow BRD. I agree the general rule is that this essay can not be enforced as though it were the word of the Almighty, and I don't mind saying something along these lines, provided the text makes room for the next most omnipotent supernatural powers known to exist might imply otherwise through 1RR or other restrictions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1RR is not BRD, so making the first mandatory is not equivalent to making the second required. With BRD, you can keep editing the article after a revert as many times as you wish, provided each time you acknowledge some kind of compromise proposed through discussion. "Enforcing BRD" is enforcing WP:EDITCONSENSUS (including the "seek a compromise" part), as BRD doesn't impose any more or less restrictions than that. Diego (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please look again, Diego. The text at WP:1RR says
 * "The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". Often there is also a requirement to discuss each of the reversions on the talk page...." (bold added)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * BRD is not required, even for people who are under 1RR restrictions. There's nothing about 1RR that forces you to discuss your edits.  "Bold, revert, move on to another article" is not the same as "Bold, revert, discuss".  Also, 1RR also applies to "timid" edits.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Diego, I mostly agree with your sentiment, but I'd like to take the opportunity from your comment to state clearly that BRD is not the same as EDITCONSENSUS. Consensus (=EDITCONSENSUS) doesn't require any discussion at all.  BRD is more closely aligned with the following section in that policy, Consensus.
 * Neither of these general sections are perfect fits, because the 'unique contribution' of BRD is the advice to make a (specifically) bold edit, to wait for someone to revert you, and then discuss (specifically) with the one, single, solitary person who reverted you. So if you make a bold edit, and I revert you, then the goal of BRD is for you to find an edit that I (and only I) will agree with.  Once I've agreed, then we make that agreed-upon edit, and we see if a third editor comes along to revert it.  And then you (or we) try to work things out with the third editor.
 * This obviously can't always be done – there are some busy pages where people will scream and threaten if you try to follow BRD's advice to "Talk with one or at most two partners at once" – but that's what BRD actually is: waiting for a reversion and then talking to the person who reverted you, rather than trying to have huge conversations with everyone.  This discussion, for example, is not, cannot, and should not, "follow BRD", because too many people are involved in it.  Fortunately, BRD isn't the sole method of reaching consensus.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that there has been a lot of discussion since I have been gone, and editing of the page as well. I wonder if we should go ahead and start a huge discussion about this page now being designated as a supplement page. As for whether or not it is WP:1RR, Village pump (policy)/Archive 120 shows that editors, including myself, did feel that elevating this page to a guideline page would essentially be enforcing WP:1RR; I wouldn't see it as much different than WP:1RR. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Tools for discussion
In this revert, an editor has insisted that going to THIRD OPINION is a "replacements for the B part".

That's nonsense. NOBODY goes to third opinion at step one in this process. In addition, NOBODY goes to third opinion before spending at least a little time trying step three, "Discuss", and they only go to third opinion when there is trouble at that discussion step. Third opinion (and notice boards etc) are hardly an "alternative" to Step 1. They are all tools to help successfully complete Step 3. Please restore the "Tools for discussion" sub heading. We can debate what is properly classified under it, but third opinion and the noticeboards are certainly contenders. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey there, . Did you read the article before trying to edit it? The "Use cases" section exclusively discusses about cases where a discussion or consensus of some sort prior to BRD exists. In those cases, 3O and RFC are valid alternatives.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 12:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (A) Please delete the silly and ironic ad hominem. It's silly because its an ad hominem, and its ironice because you obviously didn't look at the history of contributors here
 * (B) We should be writing the simplest and clearest document we can because ideally the reader comes first, but you're arguing a hyper-wiki-technical point.
 * (C) The hypertechnical point you are arguing boils down to "sometimes Discussion - even at Third opinion etc - can happen before a bold edit starts the BRD cycle, so Third opinion etc are properly classified as "alternatives" to BRD  I think that's your position (See WP:Writing for the opponent).   The problem with this is that its redundant.   "Discuss first" is the alternative in the scenario you contemplate.   Going to 3O or a noticeboard is a tool to support any discussion, whenever it happens, but are not alternatives to BRD overall.  Including them on the same list of alternatives as "Discuss first" because eds might discuss first is redundant.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * Your answer above does not seem to belong to FleetCommand's message. Did you post in the wrong talk page by accident? If not, please be advised that your message makes not sense, aside from other problems that I do not mention.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? What part don't you understand Lisa?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty much nothing. For example, (see A) I see nothing ironic or ad hominem, (see B) I don't see any hyper-wiki-technical point, and I am not even sure what "hyper-wiki-technical" means.
 * The statement "Did you read the article before trying to edit it?" was ad hominem. And it most certainly did not assume good faith. NumberC35 (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, FleetCommand's message is very simple:
 * First, there is a question. Answering it with "Yes" or "No" helps this discussion forward.
 * Second, there is a sentence that informs you (with the aid of extra reading material) that BRD is a cycle that can start at any time, regardless what remedies have taken before it. Sometimes, two editors have a discussion in the talk page; they don't get convinced. One of them kick-starts a BRD. Sure, if you look at the whole picture, it is a D.B.R.D, but still the BRD is in there. In such cases, the alternative to BRD (which results in DBRD) is a 3O (which results in continuation of the discussion).
 * Since BRD is a cycle, there could be a chain of BRD-BRD-BRD-BRD-BRD in which any member of the chain could be replaced with one of the alternatives, although "discuss first" can only replace the first BRD of the chain and 3O only the second and subsequent cycles.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * On what matters, Fleet reverted the heading "Tools to help discussion".  As a result, tools like WP:Third opinion and WP:Noticeboards are classified as alternatives to the BRD cycle.   Fleet's reason for the revert is that these tools might be employed when editors elect to discuss first, before BRD.  This is a logical fallacy, since those editors have chosen the BRD alterantive "Discuss first".  Going to 3O or the noticeboards is a tool to help that discussion.   And so
 * Discuss first = alternative to BRD
 * Third opinion = tool to help discussion regardless of time it happens
 * Notideboards = tool to help discussion regardless of time it happens
 * To eliminate redundancy, these tools should be classified under their own heading, and doing so puts WP:Readers first by giving the actual list of alternatives a punchy impact undiluted by things that are just tools, not alternatives.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I already said that you are wrong and why. This discussion is going in circles. But you are welcome to re-read my message any time you wish. I have nothing to add at this time. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually you asserted without explanation.  Here's what I heard you say
 * Discussing first is an alternative to BRD
 * Continuing to discuss first by going to 3O is a different alternative to BRD
 * What you have failed to do is explain how discussion via 3O is sufficiently different than discussion to classify it as a BRD alternative all by itself, instead of a tool to support discussion. When considering this, please notice the 3O FAQ page section "What comes next?", which is all about discussion, either between the eds or via the WP:Dispute resolution process.  And if your argument has something to do with BRD-BRD-BRD repetitions, you've already pointed out that each BRD is a new cycle, "regardless what remedies (such as BRD) have taken [place] before it" {parenthetical added) .  So repetition of the cycles, if that's part of your reasoning, is irrelevant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When an action replaces BRD entirely, that's called an alternative. And please stop misusing "too". In Wikipedia, "tool" is a computer program that assists editor.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 15:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At the moment BRD is substituted, by discuss-first, it has been replaced with an alternative. Eds always start their discussion with direct back-and-forth, but if they hit bumps in the road they can choose an alternative form of discussion, such as Third Opinion.  That means 3O is an alternative to direct two-way discussion, not an alternative to BRD (which has already been replaced). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, I think you're wrong, and I think that the confusion is about what "BRD" is. So to give an analogy, you know how "being tired all the time" isn't the same thing as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome? Well, "BRD" isn't the same as making a bold edit, getting reverted, and discussing it.

The reason that 3O is an alternative to BRD is that BRD is supposed to involve discussion specifically and exclusively with the editor who reverted you. Once you ask for outside help with dispute resolution, you're not doing "BRD". BRD is a much narrower concept than just starting a discussion if you get reverted.

Someday, I should probably go back a few years in the archives to find one of Kim's better versions. Some of the older, shorter versions are much clearer about what the actual point of BRD is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever the ancient essay said, you've described an overly narrow vision and one which overlooks the obvious... when the discussion expands to include third parties (whether at the venue talk page, or a DR process) we presume continued participation of the original disputants (unless someone lets it go). When the DISCUSS support process concludes, the original disputants return to the article to implement the result (or DISCUSS more).   That relationship between BOLD and REVERTING editor never ends at any of these DISCUSS support processes.   They support the DISCUSS phase of BRD, not replace it.


 * In support of this view, note that 3O, mediation, etc require a showing that DISCUSS has already been started before those discussion-support processes can be initiated. If you are right and 3O etc remains an "alternative" to BRD, that creates the untenable scenario where eds just try 3O as a BRD alternate, and then find out that the 3O rules require they go back and DISCUSS after all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not "some ancient version". It's what this page says.  This is what this page has always said (with greater or lesser attempts at clarity and concision over the years).  The nutshell, for example, clearly specifies that the bold editor should "begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change".  It does not say "begin a discussion".  The ===Discussion=== section says (in bold text) "Talk with one or at most two partners at once" – not "whoever shows up" or "as many people as respond to the DR process".  Your task, as the bold editor, is to "get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit" – not to get some comments from any other editors, or to find out whether there's consensus for your edit, even though I reverted you.  There's a reason for that specificity.  BRD is actually a narrowly conceived approach to editing:  You bold, I revert, and you try to work it out with me, not with anyone and everyone.  (If you want the anyone-and-everyone approach, then you're looking for WP:Consensus.)
 * Also, I think you're factually wrong when you say that "relationship between BOLD and REVERTING editor never ends" when other people join. You might still be the bold editor, and I might still be the reverter, but when there are 20 people in the discussion, my "full and considered views" for "caring enough" to revert you are going to be pretty unimportant with there are 20 other views on the page, and you aren't trying to work things out with me personally by that point.
 * To reply specifically to your 3O issue: Yes, 3O requires discussion first.  But 3O doesn't require any bold edits, it doesn't require any reversions, and it doesn't require that the discussion happen with the person who reverted you.  3O does not require BRD, and it is not part of BRD.  3O requires (a) a dispute (b) on a talk page (c) with exactly two people involved in it.  You could begin as BRD and switch to 3O if it fails, but you are actually switching to an alternative method of resolving the dispute in that case.  You are not continuing to use BRD if you switch to 3O.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Bold attempt to compromise by providing the information without trying to resolve the taxonomy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I can live with that. Thank you for trying something new here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * you're welcome, thanks to all who expressed opinions here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "NOBODY goes to third opinion at step one in this process". In my opinion, having tried to give opinions requested at WP:3O, is that people wait too long for a third opinion request.  People seem to think that WP:3O required the dispute to be thoroughly entrenched, litigated, and at least hundreds of kilobytes of text before asking.  I think we need a WP:3O-lite section, where two people in dispute can ask before their heads are already sore.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just curious, SmokeyJoe, but in your experience at 3O do the eds already have a reasonably clear understanding of each other's opinions? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In my experience, 3O requests resemble two editors in the wilderness, having dug themselves into a hole so deep it resembles a dry well. Each knows exactly the position of the other, each has heels dug in, and the question posed for 3O is better phrased than most RfC questions.  However, the question is not a good RfC question, because, as the two editors well-know, the question is trifling.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So much for my assumption a sizable percentage turn out to be simple misunderstandings, where the difficulty set in before each had comprehended what the other was saying. I'm not so keen on emphasizing 3O-lite over the other DR methods but maybe we could do a DR-lite section, urging people to invoke DR when they (A) both know the others reasons and (B) start going in circles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I disagree with NewsAndEventsGuy's experience, except with the word "simple". "Simple misunderstandings" are not what I see.  Misunderstandings preceding entrenched positions preceding comprehension of what the other was saying, yep.  I think 3O is underused for simple requests for a third opinion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Smokey, lets back up.  I've never ever been to 3O (I think) but I do/did have a preconception about the types of things that arrive there.  Since you are experienced, I was hoping to share my preconception for a reality check.   Sure, the eds can articulate what each other wants to do in the article.   But do they comprehend the stated reasons why the other party wants to do it that way?  If they calmed down, would they be able to write a neutral statement in the spirit of WP:OTHERSOPINION ?  Or did they just skip the part about understanding the others rationale?    Or maybe they didn't skip it, but due to ambiguous communication the correct meanings weren't mutually expressed and perceived? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi User:NewsAndEventsGuy. A while back, I looked at getting involved in WP:DR.  I discovered that Wikimedia mediation demands quite a commitment from volunteer mediators, due to the complexity and depth of disputes.  More commitment than I could sign up for.  So I had a go at WP:3O.  I found that WP:3O differs from generic WP:DR in being a focus specific dispute relating to content, but not different in being usually a disagreement of surprising complexity and depth.  (Another big difference is that WP:3O requests do not involve the animosity associated with disputes at other forums.)  I found it difficult to offer an opinion that was sufficiently considered that neither participant might be insulted.
 * "But do they comprehend the stated reasons why the other party wants to do it that way?" I thought sometimes yes.  This is a very important step, a highly recommended process, when one finds themselves in a dispute.  Make sure you can state the case of your opponent.  As I alluded previously, differences could well have become entrenched before understanding why the other party wants to do it that way.  I see this sort of problem in WP:RM disputes a lot, and even personally find this problem, becoming entrenched before listing to all other parties, very easy to slip in to.
 * "Or did they just skip the part about understanding the others rationale?". Off the top of my head, I don't think so.  I think that people who take the time to list at WP:3O take the time to read and follow the instructions.  My impression is that people requesting 3O take it very seriously.
 * "... ambiguous communication the correct meanings weren't mutually expressed and perceived?" Very likely this happens.  Determining whether each has understood the communications of the other, at multiple levels, I found to be very hard work.  It is almost getting into psychoanalysing one party's psychoanalysis of the other, both ways.  On wiki, I found this too hard.  I have real life experience in dispute resolution, and grievance counselling.  I find that wiki disputes and grievances are actually way harder to mediate than real life disputes and grievances.  Real life mediation involves face-to-face quiet-room confidential meetings, and this is a huge advantage to trying to mediate on a public wiki, or even by email correspondence.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This relates to the main thing I find appealing about BRD. When discussion becomes stuck, the bold edit serves to refocus discussion, to get away from extraneous non-productive (whether or not valid) talk.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing, and for doing it in the first place. I've done a little real life volunter work with VORP mediation.  It does seem easier when everyone is in the room.  Just one idea in case it helps;  you write its hard to determine if each has understood the other.  With WP:OTHERSOPINION you can take yourself out of that job, just by asking each disputant to verify/refine what the other wrote.   If they both agree the other did a good job explaining the others reasons then you know they do but more importantly so do they! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverting should be based on expressed disagreement (revised)
This is the new proposed text, with above concerns addressed:


 * Before reverting in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit. A revert needs to present a path forward, either by expressing a concern with the content of the edit itself, or pointing to a previous discussion that did.

— swpb T go beyond 18:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Since you already participated in this discussion, I'm looking for comments before I go bold on WP:BOLD. — swpb T go beyond 14:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay by me. Seems like a sensible addition 🙂. AdA&D  16:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I still like the basic idea, and its expression as, "Before reverting, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit." Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * swpb, since you went ahead and made the edit to the page and it was tweaked by another editor, you might want to close the RfC above by noting that the matter was resolved below. The RfC template expired, but the discussion might still end up listed at the WP:Requests for closure. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not seeing where there's an RfC to close? I'll happily do it if you point me to it, or you have my permission to do whatever closing is needed. — swpb T go beyond 20:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC is the section above, which had opposition and which hasn't been formally closed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Formal closure is not a requirement of the consensus process, unless someone insists, which I gather you are now, but you had not done at the time of the above comments. — swpb T go beyond 21:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy, or the normal kind?
Regarding this revert, could you identify the Wikipedia policy that discusses offering to let the other user make the edit? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Guess it was a misunderstanding. Which sort of demonstrates the reason for the edit. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverter should actually disagree with the edit themselves
We see this happening way too much, and I'd like to add a bullet under "Revert" to address it:


 * Before reverting, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit. Forcing a discussion before it's apparent that there is any disagreement contradicts WP:BOLD and wastes editors' time.

— swpb T go beyond 14:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree I agree, although "and wastes editor's time" is verbiage.  I might remove the entire last sentence.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: At least as-is, it's not even clear why someone would revert because someone else disagrees. We also have consensus matters, so can revert to reflect consensus even if it's not necessarily what we would personally prefer.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . Reverting a bold edit based on consensus (which you might not agree with) is perfectly valid.


 * Neutral on the condition that or similar is added to the sentence.   AdA&D  22:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The reverter should believe the reverted edit was not an improvement, and should say why, at least in the edit summary. An edit that contradicts a consensus demonstrated on an old talk page is not an improvement. What actual edit is user:swpb advocating?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with everything you said. This is not about a particular edit, but a longstanding pattern across the project. — swpb T go beyond 14:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then how about inserting this green bit: "Before reverting in the absence of an explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement..." Of course it's ok to revert if the matter was discussed previously. What's not ok, that I see quite a lot of, is reverters who rely on possible future opposition to justify reverting, instead of expressing their own reasons. A revert needs to present a path forward, either by expressing a concern with the content of the edit itself, or pointing to a previous discussion that did. In fact, I like that last sentence a lot for the guideline (maybe instead of the one that Unscintillating is not a fan of). — swpb T go beyond 13:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Diss
i have not found any advice for what to do when my Bold edit is Reverted by someone who ignores my request for Discussion. :-(

Help?

Thank you.

--71.121.143.87 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See Dispute resolution. Inter qwark talk  contribs 00:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Will give it a look! Thanks! --71.121.143.116 (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See also, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and if that is what's happening, then see WP:Blocking policy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverting should be based on expressed disagreement: Part four
The RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and_manga-related_articles shows that the last compromise here, to limit the "Reverting should be based on expressed disagreement" concept to article space, is being misunderstood for Wikipedia space. I request that the compromise be reconsidered.

The current text reads,

I propose removing "to an article", so that what we have is:

The argument previously was that "lack of consensus and potential for others to disagree is a reason to revert". An absence of evidence of consensus is not evidence of lack of consensus. This approach shorts an edit-content-based discussion to ground, rather than advancing that discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I would certainly support that change, I would just note that the current limitation of the text to mainspace was a key part of the compromise with one editor that allowed the text in at all (in part 3, above). If you feel like there's enough support to expand the scope anyway, either now or after some more editors weigh in, I think you'd be justified, but I am biased. — swpb T go beyond 14:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per previous discussion, I would object to the proposed removal, and would rather remove the entire bullet. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize this was actively being discussed—in four parts, no less! A while ago I made a flowchart about this very topic. Bright☀ 19:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The entire sentence is obfuscated and requires study and wikipedia experience to (hopefully) interpret the intended meaning. Better, in my view, to write

If you want it to matter, write so a fourth grader understand the sentence in a single read. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "based on reliable sources and logic" should be "based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines". Bright☀ 15:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Arguments based on policy that do not start with reliable sources are a common form of WP:Wikilawyering. So we could expand to say  based on reliable sources, and how they can best be used while following Wikipedia policies and guidelines .   I realize that's somewhat redundant but if I had a nickel for every argument I've read based on editors' RS-free opinions!  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As seen at Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/Archive 3 and Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/Archive 3, it was recently added. I don't see that there was consensus for it. More so indifference to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I with this in spirit, but do we realize what the old and new text are doing structurally? Making a universal rule for doing a revert! Some versions even are saying you need either need a consensus or an argument from sources to do any revert. For example, undoing vandalism is a revert, enforcing wp:ver or wp:blp or removing a copyvio is a revert, simply keeping a better choice of words or remove an induced error or typo is a revert. I know that this isn't a policy, but why write something that isn't followed? North8000</b> (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No doubt my suggestion could be improved with additional examples as you describe. I was attempting to provide a different sentence structure that would be easy to comprehend, compared to the structure of the current sentence which seems awkward and obfuscated, IMO  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, this "explanatory supplement" is already more clearly explained and more succinctly put in actual policy. WP:BRD should simply be a redirect to WP:CAUTIOUS or WP:DDE. I would wager that reverts "because BRD" are more disruptive to Wikipedia than the essay's supposed explanatorification benefits, just as WP:CIR is very likely more often than not used to handwave an objection rather than deal with the substance of an edit. "I WP:BRDed your edit because WP:CIR. Besides, it was better before, and my edit is the status quo." Bright☀ 15:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That makes it sound as if you need to establish support form sources to do a revert. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

shorter please
can we make the introduction shorter please and the whole text less complex? i tried to reorder, but this made it even more complicated. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your lead was longer, as seen here compared to this. I think the current lead is concise enough without losing context. I see no need to shorten it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Last time BRD was encountered in the wild?
Is BRD real? Or is it always B,R,DO IT AGAIN BECAUSE I'M SO IMPORTANT!!! ?

How do we actually try and have this happen, as it's meant to? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you had a conflict somewhere. What is the underlying dispute ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Futuro / Talk:Futuro  Someone throwing around their "Discuss with me personally before reverting" and "I'm a Wikipedian In Residence" weight.  I am so tired of this rubbish. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I do hear your frustrated scream of anguish, but really this isn't the venue to let loose. I'll reply on the dispute at article talk NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * BRD is real. It is the boundary line between aggressive constructive editing and disruptive edit warring for which someone will get a short block.  The user with a box username (immediately a sign of trouble) reverted your revert of his removal of material.  This calls for a talk page discussion, and I advise WP:3O as the next step if no one else gets involved.  WP:BRD says that if the discussion becomes protracted, anyone may make one bold "compromise" edit.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already attempted to give an infomral 3O at the original venue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is BRD real though? I just can't think when I last saw it.  It's always B-R-AGAIN.  No matter what the experience of the editors involved.  And if the bold editor is a Very Important Editor, then you're stuffed.
 * Are we just fooling ourselves pretending that BRD is a thing? Or do we need to take some action to make it one? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Formatting to make the lists easier to read
In this edit, I changed the formatting to make a list easier to read. User:SlimVirgin has reverted it with an edit summary that says "there is an objection to the recent changes, so please take it to talk". Sarah, would you like to explain your objection(s) to the formatting change? Or, if you don't actually object to that, perhaps you would restore that change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I objected to, as you know. I'm quite willing to discuss if you let me know which edits you want to restore. SarahSV (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That was indeed my belief, but since you did a wholesale reversion with a single vague explanation, I thought that perhaps we'd take it stepwise, one at a time, instead of making assumptions. If you actually don't object to that, then I'd be happy to see you restore it, per this page's advice to "Let the other editor apply agreed-upon changes."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)