Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2014/June

Small Question
I've seen an admin claim that WP:3RR only applies to after 3 reverts. Which means that they can do three reverts, but that's it. It's the 4th revert which they get block. Is it three or four in which you get a temporary block? Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that you get three for free but after that it's a problem. That said, I'm willing to warn someone that they're edit-warring after two, since a warning is just a warning and I'd rather head off edit-warring at the pass. DonIago (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * False.  Before 3RR is broken, there are other ways to show that an EW is underway.   Those other ways are somewhat tedious to marshall, and others reading the evidence are sometimes in too much of a hurry to be readily persuaded (because they have to read and think).   All 3RR does is to create a "bright line", beyond which no other evidence is really needed, and very little thought process is required, to conclude that yes, so-and-so was engaged in an EW. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand there are other symptoms, but as I said before, can you give it to me simply; 4 reverts or 3 reverts and you're temporarily blocked under WP:3RR? Tutelary (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Among other things it would likely have to be reported at WP:3RN, and if it was established that the reporting editor was acting in bad faith or there were other extenuating circumstances, such as fighting blatant vandalism, then the editor might not be blocked...in fact I can imagine scenarios where the reporting editor would themselves be blocked. Admins aren't and shouldn't be robots, but rather should take the time to review situations and act appropriately. DonIago (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Tutelary, Simply put,
 * Ed who makes bold edit If they repost after being reverted w/o even attempting to "discuss", they are edit warring and at least potentially sanctionable even though 3RR was not broken (and hopefully newbies get warned first)
 * Ed who reverts the bold edit If they revert a second time w/o even attempting to "discuss", they are edit warring and at least potentially sanctionable even though 3RR was not broken (and hopefully newbies get warned first)
 * Eds who fret over technically correct 3RR tallies Good chance they are wiki lawyers, more concerned with the letter than the spirit of things, though in my mind, the WP:wikignomes that write up these procedures have a good reason to pick these things apart.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tutelary, the answer to the question you're asking is "four". The answer to the question that you should be asking is "it's more complicated than that".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite... "four" is the answer to "At what point is 3RR broken?" My point, and perhaps yours too, is that blocks for editwarring can be imposed long before you get there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct. 3RR is a bright line. Meaning, once crossed, you broke the rule itself. However...edit warring can be a single edit.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

BRD cycle
I'm thinking about this:

I'm thinking that "bold-revert" is not known as the BRD cycle. I'm thinking that this is known as "the wiki process", or locally as "Reaching consensus through editing". Would anyone mind if we removed this reference to BRD here? It seems inaccurate and superfluous to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I object. It could use a copy edit, but feel the reference to BRD is appropriate.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The link only states that the "Wiki process" is: ...the final decision-making mechanism for all content" it does not specifically state that the "bold-revert" is that process. It is merely a part of the process.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "The wiki process" is something that we stopped talking about a long time ago—about the time you and I joined, actually. It's not just bold-revert; it's the entire process of trying to find consensus and resolve disputes through collaborative editing.  It is bold and timid edits, reversions and tweaks, and everything in between.  Discussion is not actually part of the wiki process; it's a (sometimes necessary) sideline.  (I miss Kim.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at how the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle page currently is before any new edits are made to it to change what it states, how is the aforementioned text not WP:BRD? Either way, I feel that the aforementioned text should mention WP:BRD in some way. Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As News and Events Guy says below, "bold-revert" is not the same as "bold-revert-discuss". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The quote, with its questionable definition of BRD, is the very first sentence in the section with the title is "What edit-warring is".  Ordinarily, I would expect the first sentence to address the section title, by answering the question "What edit warring is".  But the quote, with its questionable definition of BRD, instead talks about something else.  The section title isn't "What BRD is", but "What edit warring is".  So I agree there's a problem here, but the problem is not the accuracy of the quotes definition of BRD.  Instead, the problem is that we don't give a generalized definition of edit warring . NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, I attempted to revise the text to match the section heading.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

In the above quote, BRD is described as BOLD-REVERT without mention of discussion. Thus, the language is "not fine" as described in the edit summary by when reverting my attempted improvement. In addition, the section is supposed to tell us what edit warring is. It is appropriate to define edit warring, but defining other terms here is confusing, especially when the first sentence - typically the spot for the most important part of the paragraph - goes off on a tangent. Linking to those other concept - fine. Defining them in the section that is (supposedly) dedicated to defining something else - confusing. That's another reason the language is "not fine". I'd like to see Bbb23 self revert after considering this explanation, or else provide logical reasoning to back up the opinion that the prior language was "fine" the way it was. For convenience here is a comparison -
 * Prior
 * "What edit warring is 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:"


 * New (which was reverted)
 * "What edit warring is In general, an edit war occurs when editors engage in multiple back-and-forth reverts instead of meaningful discussion on the article talk page. Although editors are encouraged to be bold, when disagreements arise they are also expected to use the talk page to discuss their disagreement and try to find a consensus about how to best improve the article.  That said, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring:"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think your proposed wording is a step in the right direction, but I think you could remove some of the equivocation and passive voice to make it clearer. Something like:
 * "What edit warring is An edit war occurs when editors engage in multiple back-and-forth reverts instead of meaningful discussion on the article talk page. Editors are encouraged to be bold, but when disagreements arise, they are also expected to use the talk page to discuss their disagreement and seek consensus on how best to improve the article."


 * "That said, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring" is not necessary, since the basis for edit warring is multiple back and forth reverts. We also need to be careful not to subsume WP:BRD into the edit warring policy, as if it were itself a policy.- MrX 15:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. "the basis for edit warring is multiple back and forth reverts" is inaccurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, Mark Miller. Specifically, if you only make one edit (ever) to a page, you cannot be "edit warring" at that page.  Two edits could involve edit warring ("two" is "multiple"), but a single edit cannot be.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're deliberately tag-teaming with someone in an ongoing edit war, even if you only revert once you're still edit-warring. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your tweaks are great, but we still need to do something about the concept represented the by the text you made green in your comment. When we look at multiple back and forth reverts to determine if an EW exists, we ignore some types of edits.  Our explanation of what edit warring is needs to identify these exceptions.   But I agree with the tweaks you made to the rest of the proposed text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see now that that sentence introduces the bullet list of exceptions. I propose this slight rewording:


 * "What edit warring is Edit warring occurs when editors engage in multiple back-and-forth reverts instead of meaningful discussion on the article talk page. Editors are encouraged to be bold, but when disagreements arise, they are expected to stop reverting, and use the talk page to discuss their disagreement and seek consensus on how best to improve the article. However, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring:"


 * - MrX 17:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You have added "Expected to stop reverting" .  Personally, I would leave that out but I can live with including it provided we then also say something about mid-discussion edits that are somehow modified so they are not straight reversions.   Eds should be able to post a revised edit that addresses objections but is somehow different than the original reverted edit.  After all, sometimes opposing eds engage in recreational efforts at BRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD in finitum.   If we don't say "stop reverting" then we don't have to address this problem in this section.  And I think the main point to emphasize is to start meaningful discussion.   If there is meaningful discussion, we don't really have to worry about who's reverting when so much.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the "instead of meaningful discussion" bit. I've seen editors post things on the talkpage while at the same time going back to the article. That's still edit warring, and the idea that a talkpage discussion existing means "we don't really have to worry about who's reverting when so much" is I feel very misguided. Discussion is meant to be a process of engagement that hopefully facilitates a consensus, not something that's simply you explaining why you made the edits you did and bullishing repeating that while making edits.
 * I also disagree that we shouldn't explicitly mention the BRD cycle. It's already abused enough in conjunction with 3RR, we should be very explicitly noting that those who want to make changes should also be willing to discuss those changes upon disagreement. CMD (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the existing text suffers from the problems I articulated above (1 June 11:47 UTC), please suggest a revision that does a better job of fixing all of these issues.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see you raised is that the section opens not with a definition of edit-warring but a definition of BRD. If you want this, instead of removing specific reference to BRD, why not just suggest adding a new opening sentence, like a simple "An edit war occurs when editors engage in multiple back-and-forth reverts"? It may perhaps be worth clarifying with ", over one or multiple pages" to take into account editors who make the same change on a range of articles. If you want to clarify the D part of BRD, I suggest the sentence "If an editor disagrees with the reasoning behind the revert, they should open a talk page discussion with the aim of obtaining WP:Consensus" before the "This is known..." sentence. CMD (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The bullet points are redundant and not needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What bullet points? CMD (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The ones in that section now that repeat the same things mentioned in 3RR exemptions.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't support the removal of the BRD mention.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not? Why include a link to an essay that (1) is usually irrelevant, (2) defines itself as a non-mandatory/optional approach, and (3) directly says that not everyone can, or even should, attempt to follow it?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the "instead of meaningful discussion" bit, because it contradicts WP:EDITCONSENSUS by seeming to require discussion. Not all disagreements require discussion.  Sometimes they just require looking at the change the other person made, or even guessing what his probable objection is, and iterating again.  It would be unfortunate if this policy had the effect of discouraging people from using the wiki process.
 * Also, I additionally disagree with the "instead of meaningful discussion" bit, because it sounds like you can keep edit warring so long as you're simultaneously engaged in a "meaningful discussion". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What is an "edit war"
I suggest the following proposed text:

--Mark Miller (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I oppose this version, and strongly oppose anything that suggests that an edit war can be a single edit. In my opinion, we need more clarity and focus, and less ambiguity. We already have other policies to address bold but not reckless editing, vandalism and disruptive editing.- MrX 21:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * An edit war can be a single edit, so whether you want that explanation or not it is indeed how things are and I believe that should be stated. We have a lot of policies to address all kinds of things. There is almost always crossover in an edit war with behavior issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I don't understand your meaning. "An edit war can be a single edit" doesn't make sense to me. It also contradicts the very first sentence of the policy. Can you give an example of what you consider a 'single edit' edit war?- MrX 21:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And perhaps the word "repeatedly" is incorrect. I understand that it doesn't make sense to you Mr. X. You made that clear, but as I said, it is true and admin have and still stick by that. You should be directing your question to an administrator. Perhaps can shed some light on it.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting this from, Mark. The current policy doesn't say that an edit war may be as little as a single revert. Some of your other proposed language is equally mystifying, and, forgive me, misguided. The only time I know that one is blocked for a single revert is when there was a previous block for edit warring, and when the user's block expires, they immediately resume the earlier battle, but that has a context that goes well beyond a "single revert".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a very helpful answer. If admins are not following policy, then they need to be held to account. We shouldn't adjust policies to, what I assume are, exceptional cases of admin discretion. Am I missing something?- MrX 21:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I second that request for an example of someone "edit warring" by making a single edit (NB, not "a single edit today", or "a single edit since the previous block expired", but a single edit). I've never seen that charge stick even for a single revert, much less for a single non-reversion edit.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It may well be misguided but I am not making this up. I have seen it said and had it said to me by administrators that a single edit can be considered an edit war. An example would be when an editor comes into an existing edit war knowing full well and even participating in a discussion that a version has not gotten consensus and decides to make the edit anyway. A single move edit of Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton would probably be a single edit, edit war, but that is not an exhaustive list or all possibilities.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't really go by what some admin says; any given admin could be wrong. (After all, we had an admin a few months ago say that every singkle edit after the one that creates the page is "a revert", and the community clearly does not agree with that definition.)  The actual policy has said that edit wars require repeated reversions for years.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bump - Continued in the polling subsection NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit wars and single edits by third persons
Consider this example about single edits by third persons.
 * EXAMPLE - BOB, SUE, and third-person JERRY
 * Bob boldly adds text. Sue reverts to the original.  They go back-and-forth up to 5RR with no discussion.  Jerry then comes along and in a single edit with still no discussion, Jerry endorses Bob's new text by reverting Sue.  This is Jerry's first edit, but from Sue's perspective the 6th time she's been reverted.
 * (A) Bob and Sue are obviously edit warring
 * (B) Is Jerry - who made a single edit - also engaged in an edit war?
 * (C) Should we assume Jerry's involvement in the edit war is just as egregious as that of Bob and Sue?
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * REPLIES TO QUESTIONS B and C
 * B=Yes, C=No; An edit war existed before Jerry came along, and though he only made one edit he stepped into the fray, so yes, he is engaged in an edit war.  However, we should not assume Jerry is cognizant of the back-and-forth between Bob and Sue, especially on hot articles about contentious current events. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * commentThis has been discussed in the past, and (as far as I know), there is no consensus that Jerry is edit warring, or at least not in a sanctionable way. Unless there is a clear pattern of tag teaming (across multiple articles, involving the same editor(s)), Jerry was simply making his own bold edit.- MrX 21:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There has never been any agreement that Jerry is edit warring. It's possible that tag-teaming (an essay normally invoked by people who are edit warring against consensus) could be an issue, but I've never seen anyone get blocked even over that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The policies are meant to protect the article stability. Jerry is contributing to that mess.  An edit war is a dispute on an article which causes multiple reverts in a short period.  The locus of edit warring is not the people, it is the article.  Therefore, when additional people participate, they are indeed edit warring because the article is in the middle of an edit war.  Jerry's first and perhaps only edit to the article does not justify his actions and interpretation of the policy like that would essentially endorse edit warring given enough participants.  The only way to address edit warring effectively and absolutely is to treat it on the mindset of 'this article has been reverted to this content X times' instead of 'this user has reverted content X times.'  That's how I treat it.--v/r - TP 23:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The policies are also meant to protect RecentChanges patrollers from charges of "edit warring" when they had no idea that an edit war was being conducted by two other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty lame excuse. Speed is never a good reason for overlook article history and patrollers have been told this repeatedly.  Editors are responsible for their edits whether they are doing patrolling, Twinkle, Huggle, or editing manually.  Care is needed, not exceptions to the edit warring policy.  Furthermore, admin discretion is better used for exceptions than giant holes in policy.--v/r - TP 00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NPP, which you mention in your edit summary, has nothing to do with Special:RecentChanges. I've never seen any policy that says, "If you see a change that you think hurts the article, then the first thing you need to do is carefully check the article's history, because if you unwittingly stumble into someone else's edit war, then you're engaging in edit warring, too.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, when I think of patrollers I generally envision NPP. But my comments are for all patrolled.  The part of policy you are forgetting is right here in the terms of use: "Responsibility – You take responsibility for your edits...."--v/r - TP 04:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, "you take responsibility for your edits"—not for the existence of anyone else's edits. Punishing people because they didn't first check the page history to see whether anyone else had made a similar edit recently is forcing editors to take responsibility for other people's edits, not just for their own.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought the purpose of the edit warring policy was to encourage collaboration, prevent disruption, and make it easier to reach consensus. Perhaps that's what you mean by "protect the article stability"? It's quite possible that Jerry simply looked at the last diff and decided himself to make a bold edit. Unless there is a clear pattern of tag teaming (across other several articles, with the same editors), Jerry should not be sanctioned for his one edit.- MrX 00:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, not what it is designed to do at all. Edit warring is disruptive by affecting the stability of articles and creating inconsistency between what our readers see.  We use page protection and blocks to prevent that disruption.  If Jerry is participating in the edit waring, then Jerry has contributed to that disruption.  Furthermore, that Jerry has not initiated discussion himself is an indication that his presence has not been constructive.  Every editor is responsible for their edits and edits should be made with care.  We should not be exempting careless edits from the edit waring policy.  Careless edits should only be exempted by administrator and/or community discretion on a case by case basis.--v/r - TP 00:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hardly. As it says in the policy "Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus." Assuming the policy is reflective of consensus, then one would reasonable assume that the policy is designed to prevent animosity between editors, thereby making it easier to reach a consensus. Article stability is antithetical to a wiki encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Every time an edit improves an article, readers are potentially exposed to inconsistencies between versions. Jerry should be willing to discuss his edit once he becomes aware that an edit war is afoot, but he should not be penalized for his single edit. Show me consensus to the contrary and I will gladly change my view.- MrX 01:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Edits don't make an article unstable. Warring does.  Jerry's edits were impulsive so he could get a gold star and someday file an RfA to be an admin and Jerry should slow down and realize how his editing is disruptive.  Disruptive editors get blocked.  Pure and simple.--v/r - TP 02:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Editing can definitely make a page unstable. An article that receives a hundred edits in a day, even if every single one of those changes was 100% consensual, is not "stable" by any stretch of the imagination.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and adding those edits is also constructive. Are you arguing edit warring is constructive?--v/r - TP 04:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious about the hard line taken here. So here we see TParis reverting another user.  Someone added a tag, someone removed a tag, someone restored the tag, and TParis reverted it again.  That's four versions with no change except the placement of the tag, which would normally be considered an edit war.  TParis engages in zero discussion.  Is TParis "contribut[ing] to that disruption"?  Is the fact that TParis "has not initiated discussion himself is an indication that his presence has not been constructive"?  I don't think so, but that's the story that TParis gives us here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're an admin, if two reverts is edit warring then block me. For the record, that user was being disruptive and I blocked them.  It was later found out they were a sock.  That's a terrible example if you're trying to pin me on my own stake.  I know there are better examples of my poor editing out there.--v/r - TP 03:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither MrX nor I are admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-adding material that was boldly added and reverted is contributing to an edit war. If Jerry was removing material that was boldly added without WP:CONSENSUS, he is being helpful. Especially if he also initiates or joins a Talk page discussion. As is the case with this very article. The bold changes were reverted, they should not have been re-added until a Talk page consensus is reached. On policy pages, a RFC is perhaps a good idea. But re-adding material that was reverted is edit warring. Removing the material that was added without consensus, in many cases, is not. Dave Dial (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OTHER DISCUSSION

In what other ways can we consider a single edit to be "edit war" ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * An edit war is any situation where you are aware that another editor or editors disagrees with something you are doing, and instead of stopping to discuss and come to a consensus, you just do it anyways. -- Jayron  32  04:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeated addition and removal of content at a talk page
Is the repeated addition and removal of content at an article talk page considered edit warring? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What content are we talking about? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Poll - Does "this" accurately describe the bold-revert-discuss cycle?
The current text reads
 * "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."

POLL QUESTION - Is the 2nd sentence starting with word "this" accurate?

In answering, please forget everything you already know about BRD and read the bolded quote with "beginner's mind". The pronoun "this" - to a newbie - must refer to the prior sentence, which only talks about a revert after a bold edit. There is no mention of "discussion". So is the second bolded sentence accurate as currently phrased, which to repeat reads This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle.?

OPTIONS NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC) POLL ANSWERS and DISCUSSION
 * A. The sentence is false and I think it should be revised to read _________(fill in the blank)_________
 * B. The sentence is false and since it attempts to define BRD in a section devoted to defining edit wars it should just be deleted.
 * C. The sentence is accurate even though the bolded text omits "discussion" and its accurate because _________(fill in the blank)_________
 * D. Other
 * B  The sentence is obviously inaccurate since a reverted bold edit w/o discussion is NOT what BRD means.  But rather than fix it, we should delete it because this section is titled "what is an edit war?".  So in this section we should define edit war .  We can link to WP:BRD, but we should define BRD in some other section.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * B - It should simply be deleted. BRD should be (accurately) explained in the section 'How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars'.- MrX 01:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * B — "Bold–revert" (BR) is not the same as "Bold–revert–discuss" (BRD), nor is it the same as "Bold–revert–revert–revert" (WP:BRRR). I'd like a link to that essay in this policy (although I'm flexible, if other people don't), but it doesn't fit very well in this section.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * D — BRD is the accepted practice among editors, and has been referenced here since 2007, mostly as part of this section. Is anyone seriously suggesting that we ask editors to simply be bold, then revert, but discussion isn't part of that expectation? If so we should have a wider discussion of whether BRD or BR is the behavior we're expecting out of editors. If it's just that the phrasing is off, then removing BRD entirely from the page just because it is under a heading about a slightly different topic is Cutting off the nose to spite the face. Either way, a single-day discussion among a few editors isn't a convincing demonstration that the community wants to change a 7-year-old provision of a core policy. If it's just paragraph flow or semantic accuracy, we can say "This is part of what is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle" at the expense of extra wordiness for the sake of precision. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did try fixing the text first, but apparently it is necessary to first establish the text is not "fine" first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * E - Add "and then the involved editors should discuss the matter" or something similar. Problem solved.  -- Jayron  32  23:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please give it a whirl. My effort was shot down (see diff under Wikidemon's comment). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * D Add that disagreement over the revert should lead to discussion, then concern over the pronoun "this" is resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * D. This is a biased poll, which given the pollster's history on this policy is not surprising. Leave as is.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided a response to what I find objectionable in the language. Kindly provide a response that addresses the reasoning underlying my objection to the existing language.  So far you just dismissed my reasoning with the sweeping but undefended claim that the original was "fine".  That's an ILIKEIT answer, not one based on reasoning, and shouldn't count when the closer determines consensus.  If you wish to elaborate, I'd be interested in your thoughts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is in no way a neutrally worded poll; a poll should follow a structure similar to an RFC, and be neutral and brief, per Wikipedia:RFC Statement should be neutral and brief. This poll is neither neutral nor brief, littered with opinions, POV and hand-leading - with a pre-set list of options that are themselves not neutral.  Needs to be neutrally worded.  Dreadstar  ☥   04:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be, but per my own comments and BRD, what is the objective here? Are we !voting to improve the wording of the page or are we !voting to change policy? If the former, we're all on the same page I think and it's completely silly if we can't work out a wording improvement. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (A) Goal is not to change policy but to improve the wording
 * (B) Poll would be unnecessary if eds would WP:FOC by addressing the claimed grammar/logic defects instead of responding based on personal preference or assailing other editors' conduct. Certainly such complaints would ring louder if those making them were also able to show the existing language does not incorrectly define BRD.
 * (C) Worth repeating that goal is to better explain existing policy rather than change it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * D. The final sentence is fine. The real problem is the omission of the "discuss" element of BRD prior to that sentence. I suggest replacing the period after "another editor may revert it." Change to "another editor may revert it, after which a discussion should commence on the talk page." That would fix the perceived problem with "This" in the final sentence. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that discussion "should" begin after a revert; many times, if something's reverted, no discussion is necessary or even helpful. "Give up" is often the right response to a reversion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is also the option to float a new significantly different bold edit. That isn't edit warring. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * supplemental; Various "D" voting parties have made some suggestions for text addition to fix the problem, and that general approach is fine with me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * C or D The sense is clear enough; the reasonable construction is: "This [begins the process] known as bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle"  -- when you read the link. Now, if the question is,  can that be said better, sure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * C or D - I think the point of the section is to note that neither an initial bold edit, nor an initial revert constitutes edit warring... both are a normal part of editing. Edit warring starts after an initial revert takes place... it usually starts with an  un-revert (and continues with a re-revert).  Blueboar (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AEdit_warring&diff=612828166&oldid=612696801] NE Ent 03:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment  I notice that no body has tried to defend the existing text with logic or reasoning.  So it seems there's wide support for the notion that the existing text should be improved.  What's the next step?  Conversation has sort of stopped. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggested wording changes
REQUEST If others think its a good idea too, I suggest an uninvolved ed/admin place this subsection under Template:Discussion top and delete this opening sentence.

''This section compares the various suggestions that have been made. Please discuss these ideas in other sections as appropriate'' 1. Original
 * 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:

2. Add phrase about "discussion" Suggested by multiple eds, this specific example by Amatulic
 * 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, after which a discussion should commence on the talk page . 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:

3. Insert "part of" suggested by NE Ent
 * 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 part of the process 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:

4. Section overhaul By NewsAndEventsGuy
 * In general, an edit war occurs when editors engage in multiple back-and-forth reverts instead of meaningful discussion on the article talk page. Although editors are encouraged to be bold, when disagreements arise they are also expected to use the talk page to discuss their disagreement and try to find a  consensus about how to best improve the article. That said, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring:

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC) 5. Shorter version of 4 RF
 * An edit war is when multiple reverts and re-reverts take place. Editors are encouraged to be bold, when disagreements arise they are encouraged to use talk pages to achieve a  consensus.  Not every revert is edit warring:

Discussion of numbered list of suggested wording

 * First choice 4, second choice 2. Like the overhaul, but if we're to mention BRD, we need to include the D.  -- Jayron  32  03:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD is slightly subtle on the "D" part - and rightly so. It is a judgement call whether a talk page discussion needs to be started by the reverter, or whether an edit summary is sufficient.  The critical thing is that consensus should be reached (and demonstrated) before a re-revert takes place. Even the "exceptions" are covered by this - there is demonstrable consensus that vandalism should be reverted, for example.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC).


 * I think that's a separate issue, and part of the R: should the reverting editor open a discussion, add a meaningful edit summary, both, neither, or something else (e.g. a discussion on a user talk page). Because it's within each editor's discretion how to communicate with others, and the tone of depends a lot on the exact context, it's wise not to have a hard rule. The D part comes after the reversion, and it's important to keep a prominent link to that on this page. The editor proposing the change and others who agree, if they want to pursue it, have the option to start a discussion, or continue one if it's already started. They don't have to, they could just drop it and leave the status quo. Or they could try another approach such as asking the help desk or a notice board, or making what they think is a good compromise edit, so long as it's not wiki-lawyering. What they're not supposed to do (usually — there are exceptions) is to repeat the reverted edit because that's the start of an edit war. The D is an important alternative to edit warring, and everyone should know that's the preferred choice. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)