Wikipedia talk:BRD misuse

Ninjas
There should be a word, polite or otherwise, for Editors whose sole activity is to revert other users' edits. It's like they watch Recent Changes and just go, "Undo, Undo, Undo!" When I look at their Contributions, it's just a list of reversions and if you go to their Talk Page, you'll see a list of angry Editors asking what the heck happened. I understand reverting vandalism but, seriously, some of this stuff is just about placement of commas. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * BRD misuse is good enough to only counter an argument but at the meantime it also helps build up an illusion that "BRD is not a disrupt" (Your proposal falls into this pattern but it is better than nothing.), so BRD misuse is not exactly what we mean. Currently, BRD supports the claim that bold revert is not bold, so the troll can revert arbitrary edit according to their likings, and they can get you to talk, pick bones from an egg..etc. It is perfectly fine, in fact, it is GOOD because of BRD. It doesn't matter if you edit is finally admitted, they get away. <--- This should cover everything, I will be highly appreciated if you can spot them precisely.
 * Lastly, if you really want to fix that, then it seems to me that deletion on BRD is necessary instead of branching ideas off from BRD. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Should be BRD disrupt
When you say "misuse", it is implied that BRD is just. However, BRD *assumes* that (B)old and (R)evert are two things, clearly doesn't. The consequence is that some editors boldly revert many edits under the name of BRD, tedious discussion is inevitable thanks to their justified ignorance(or disrupt), BRD is not a rule, not an ideal, it is disruption. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This wouldn't have anything to do with your edit warring, as documented at User talk:14.198.220.253, would it? Wikipedia is not going to change our edit war policy just because you want to be allowed to edit war, even if you do post your dissatisfaction with WP:EDITWAR in multiple places. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This wouldn't have anything to do with your edit warring, as documented at User talk:14.198.220.253, would it?
 * Yes, you are right, it doesn't. Are you trying to guess my intent and use WP:PA or engage in edit war? I hope you understand that it is Wikipedia, please WP:FOC. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Call for discussion
While I agree with some of the points of this essay the following passages seem problematic to me. The assumption here seems to be that this essay's author is writing for readers who know their interpretations of policy are correct.

We owe it to ourselves, and we owe it to the project, to consider the possibility that the individual who seems to have gone on at tedious length might be making valid points after all. I am working on an essay of my own, User:Geo Swan/opinions/Teachable moments.

The wikipedia's rules are complicated, can be ambiguous or even contradictory, and are in a constant state of flux. Further there is no wikipedia school, no training course. We all received "on the job training". So we owe it to one another to listen to one another. Sometimes people who learned English as a second language, or have dyslexia, may nevertheless be worth paying attention. Geo Swan (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)