Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WP:BRR at RfD

WP:BRR is currently listed at Redirects for discussion. Interested editors may wish to participate there. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Bold, revert, revert?

WP:BRR says:

Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". A move towards consensus through discussion must occur before starting the cycle again.

However, "Bold, revert, revert" is listed as one of the legitimate § Alternatives to BRD. This seems contradictory. Since the whole process is optional, I think it makes sense to allow for good-faith second reverts in certain situations, while still making it clear that edit-warring is unacceptable. I propose changing the first bullet point under WP:BRR to read:

Do not edit war. Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions, such as a block. The objective is to seek consensus, not force one's own will upon other editors. If you encounter several reverts, it is best not to escalate the situation by reverting again. Instead, try to build consensus through seeking additional input. Several methods for this are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes (perhaps rarely) reverting is the right choice. The example I usually give is when someone removed a duplicate sentence, I didn't realize it was a duplicate, so I reverted to restore it, and she reverted me again, with an edit summary that explained that the sentence had been accidentally duplicated on the page. That's good and efficient behavior, when all the facts align. I doubt that the facts all align very often. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf:: Maybe I see a slight problem in your proposal. Where there is a disagreement between two Users it is often the case that one of them is inclined to discuss collaboratively so starts a new thread on the Talk page, but the other is not similarly inclined. The article remains in the configuration preferred by the non-communicative User while the other waits for someone to respond to the new thread. The non-communicative User sees no incentive to contribute to the Talk page because the article says exactly what he wants it to say.

A better alternative is that the User who initiates the new thread on the Talk page is then free to edit the article into the configuration he is advocating in the new thread. After that we should strongly disapprove any User reverting without contributing to the Talk page to explain his action.

My alternative provides an obvious incentive to “get in first” and initiate a new thread on the Talk page. Dolphin (t) 00:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That encourages gaming the system. The one who has an obligation to start the discussion is the one who made the BOLD edit, although nothing prevents the one who reverted from starting the discussion. The object of BRD is to preserve the status quo version until a discussion has led to an agreement to change it. This allows no gaming of the system. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Tell me what you think of this scenario in relation to BRD. You see something of long-standing on Wikipedia that you believe is inappropriate or in error. You edit the article to improve the situation. To your surprise a User named Bozo reverts your edit. Rather than engage in edit warring you go to the Talk page, start a new thread and carefully explain why you believe the offending material is inappropriate or in error. You also argue persuasively why your edit represented an improvement. You invite Bozo and other interested Users to join you in seeking a consensus. Unfortunately no-one joins your discussion. The offending material remains in place in the article; Bozo is never seen again; and you have voluntarily quarantined yourself from making your preferred change to the article. What have you achieved?

In my preferred scenario (you say gaming the system) you start a new thread on the Talk page inviting discussion; then you return to the article, restore your edit and leave an Edit Summary saying “Edit as discussed in new thread on the Talk page”. If no-one contributes anything, you have achieved your improvement because your preferred material is in place in the article. If Bozo or anyone else wants to revert your edit they are morally obliged to join the discussion on the Talk page. If they revert your edit without contributing to the Talk page they are inviting condemnation as an edit warrior. In my scenario, what have you achieved? Lots! - either you have brought about an improvement to the article, or you have moved Bozo and others to the point where they must join the discussion on the Talk page (or stay away from the article.)

What is the flaw in my thinking? Dolphin (t) 05:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Dolphin51, I'd rather not focus on any possible "flaw" as I see other factors that might resolve this.

It's been some time since I got involved with this essay, which I have contributed to over the years. I've been here since 2003 and have always defended BRD as often the only way to definitively determine who started an edit war, thus determining who should be warned or blocked. It's an important essay that is treated as a de facto guideline in some policies.

I think this thread can be resolved by looking at a factor that may or may not be mentioned in the essay. That is the time factor.(*) I think it is reasonable that, if there is no response within a "reasonable time" to the Discussion created as part of the current BRD cycle, the cycle can restart anew. IOW the old cycle has expired. That could be 24 hours or 48 hours. I tend to favor 48 hours as not everyone can respond immediately. This should require that the other editor is properly pinged.

The status quo is a silent !voter in this (and many other) situation, as we tend to favor it because existing content is assumed to be the product of good faith editing my many other editors, and their hard work should be treated respectfully. Since most bold changes are not improvements, we tend to be suspicious of them. If the bold edit is a genuine improvement, then it should be easy to convince other editors, but that may require some discussion before it is accepted. Fair enough.

The one making the bold edit has the burden of proof. If an editor wants their bold edit accepted, they are expected to invest the time in a discussion to defend its inclusion. Of course, if the bold edit is not reverted, then it is assumed to be accepted by other editors, provided they even see it. The BRD cycle was never invoked as the Reversion is what really triggers the cycle.

Articles with few page watchers are often subject to vandalism and degradation because no one notices that some bold changes are not improvements. I cringe when I discover vandalism that has existed for many hours or days, and that happens surprisingly often.

(*) Time is mentioned here:

"Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article."

Would it be a good idea that we include a defined "time factor" in the essay? A "reasonable amount of time" isn't clear enough. What do others think? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Many thanks for your comprehensive and well-considered response. It has given me a lot to think about, and I will do so over coming days. I’m sure I will agree with you.

I think it is desirable to give some guidance as to what qualifies as a reasonable amount of time. The minimum amount of time would be 24 hours. I also regard current & active Users as those who check their Watchlists at least every 24 hours, so I suggest 24 hours be inserted in the essay as the minimum reasonable time for the purpose discussed here. Dolphin (t) 23:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

If we go with "24 hours," it should be "at least 24 hours." It might be better to state or add "a couple of days" (in addition to "at least 24 hours"), however, given that editors (both active and sporadic) can be away from Wikipedia for a couple or few days. They can also be away for a week, but adding "a couple of days" is obviously more reasonable than adding "a week." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Should bold edits be discussed specifically with the reverter?

Does "Discuss" of WP:BRD mean "Discuss this with any interested party on the article's Talk page", or does it mean "Specifically engage the reverter in discussion, along with any other interested parties"? It seems to me to at least be a matter of good WP:Etiquette to discuss with the reverter, but it does appear to me that it is an essential part of the BRD process, if this language is to be taken literally:

• "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution."
• "Discover the Very Interested Persons (VIP), and reach a compromise or consensus with each, one by one. [...] Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a VIP. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this VIP."
• "After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page.

For example, would it be against the spirit of the guideline to speak of the reverter in the third person and invite other editors in?

If BRD just means "Discuss with any interested party", then maybe that should be made more clear in this guideline. Thoughts?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I've always taken it to mean "start a thread on the article talk page, and form consensus with any ed who cares enough to participate". If the reverter does not participate, I take that as a sign they have conceded or withdrawn the original objection. Others may view it differentlyNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with N⪚ Wikipedia operates on consensus, and it doesn't matter who forms that consensus, as long as it conforms to policy. Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that this guideline would require that the bold editor discuss with the reverter, but I interpret it to mean that the bold editor should attempt to discuss specifically with the reverter.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please elaborate, Kolya. Do you think that attempt requires more than simply starting a thread on the article talk page? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

For instance, I think it would be against the spirit of BRD for the bold editor to start a talk thread such as "the reverter insists on [this edit], what do others think?" Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure... we probably all agree that those sorts of battle threads don't count as "discussion" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Without the "insists" or any incivil language, is it against the spirit of the guideline to speak of the reverter in the third person and invite other editors in? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break
I regularly start threads with this basic syntax,

In [[Diff|this edit]], {{u|OtherEd}} added/deleted/changed text. The old (or new) text reads {{tq|blah blah blah}}. In my view, XYZ. Their reason, in the edit summary was {{tq|whatTheySaid}}. I disagree because reason-reason-reason, and would like the article to say (something else). What do others think?

Sometimes, but not all, I will include a specific ping to the other ed, usually when I have a specific question. But not always. This syntax provides a way for me to say out loud what I think happened. This way the other ed can jump in to clarify, withdraw, elaborate, whatever.... while also encouraging others to join in, whether they agree with me or not. Others mileage may vary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that we're expecting too much out of this "supplement" to define the overall process. IMO it merely emphasizes three things: 1. Truly be bold ONCE in a change/addition. . 2. Truly be bold in reverting ONCE if you don't agree 3. If those two steps have occurred, it's time to discuss. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• BRD makes the boundary between the acceptable and the disruptive. It is not best practice, but is efficient if used well by experienced editors.

D means that both editors must discuss and not repeat either the Bold edit or a Revert. There is onus on both. Repeated B or R in the absence of D amounts to edit warring. Some have held the notion that edit summaries can handle the D, but others disagreed because edit summary discussions are hard to follow by others at a later time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut is correct: BRD is specifically focused on negotiations with the one person who objected enough to revert you. Of course, you can't force other people to stay out of the discussion (but if others join the discussion in a significant way, you're doing normal Wikipedia:Consensus, not BRD), and you can't force the Very Interested Person to talk to you (in which case, you'll need to use one of the many alternatives), but BRD itself is about negotiating a compromise with the reverter. The failure to understand this is doubtless one of the reasons that so many less-experienced reverters demand that bold editors use BRD even when it's inappropriate to the situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

What to do when faced with WP:BRR editors?

I notice that there is an increasing proportion of editors using WP:BRR rather than WP:BRD. The procedure involves reverting, not joining the discussion or avoiding direct answers, and then issuing 3RR warnings if other editors try to modify the disputed content.

For a WP:BRD editor, what would be the best approach to deal and continue collaborative editing when meeting this kind of editor? --Signimu (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

When there's merit to your version (i.e. you have reliable sources that, in your view, support the edits you want to keep), in such cases I tend to place a {{disputed-inline}} tag in the article, right there in the part of text subject to reverts. This way, the article stays in the version they prefer, but they are forced to keep talking if they want their text to be shown in a clean slate. Once you have them talking, you can follow dispute resolution procedures to reach a consensus. Diego (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: Oh, that's a great idea! Thank you for sharing! My current technique is a lot less elegant, but I simply propose alternative solutions and discuss by edit comments (as I noticed this kind of editors do in fact discuss, but in their revert's comment XD). I think in any case, it's important not to take the reverts personally and not let things heat up in these cases --Signimu (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Slowing down is often helpful if you want to avoid 3RR warnings.

I also want to point out that WP:BRR means that you are doing some reverting: You edit, he reverts, and you revert back to your original edit. You don't have to make the second reversion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Template namespace and the administrative ability to edit a full-protected page

Wugapodes, I saw this edit you made yesterday, but I'm commenting on it now because I wanted to log off around that time for the day. Anyway, I think that the text should be clearer. I get that the text is stating that an administrator can edit a full-protected page. But aren't you trying to state that an admin shouldn't invoke BRD after full-protecting a page when involved in the dispute? I mean, if the admin has full-protected the page without being involved in the dispute and cites BRD, it's to get others to stop edit warring and to discuss. If a page is full-protected already and the admin had nothing to do with that full-protection, the opposing editor can't edit the page anyway, similar to how editors who aren't WP:Autoconfirmed can't edit a semi-protected page anyway. Also, WP:INVOLVED already covers the "don't use your admin tools during a dispute you are involved in" aspect. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm not sure it's the best wording either, but what I'm trying to get at is similar to the sentiment at WP:TPE. Template Editors should rarely be bold in editing through template protection because few people can revert the edit. Similar for admins and editing through full protection. Maybe I made it too broad, but I could see how it would apply to other tools like deletion and blocking for similar reasons regardless of involvement. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that templates (because they can affect many pages) might be uniquely inappropriate choices for bold editing (or equally bold reverting). I think this is true even for un-protected templates. Maybe we should have separate advice: Don't be reckless with templates, and don't be reckless with advanced permissions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Optional

User:Flyer22 Reborn, I don't see anything in the history page linked in this edit summary that indicates that the edit-warring person kept edit-warring because BRD is optional. I see someone else saying that the now-blocked sockpuppet account needed to familiarize himself with BRD, but BRD isn't an appropriate method for high-speed edit warring with a sock in the first place. Did you maybe link the wrong page?

I think it's important for this page to be understood as a strictly optional practice that is best handled by mature, experienced editors, in suitable circumstances. It's a very specific protocol, and not a general "ya gotta stop edit warring and talk about disputed edits" rule. Do we need to create such a page, and tell people that they're probably looking for "WP:Stop and talk"? (Once upon a time, WP:EW's "When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page, or seek help at appropriate venues" and a general notion of this being how things worked would have been sufficient to tell editors to stop edit warring and start talking, but maybe now we need to encapsulate the rule in a shortcut, like WP:DISCUSSORGETBLOCKED.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, hey. No need to ping me to the talk page. I prefer not to be pinged to pages I'm watching. And as we both know, I've been watching this page for years. If one wants to link my username regardless, they can use the "no ping" option for that.

Regarding reverting you on that underline, my point is that the editor in question kept edit warring even after being pointed to this page. Seeing "optional," if the editor even stopped to look at it, very likely didn't help. I've seen newbies and other less experienced editors point to "optional" (ever since it was added) for reasons to not stop edit warring and discuss. And in those cases, pointing to the page isn't helping. And it will certainly help less if "optional" is underlined or bolded. As seen in this RfC we had on BRD, I agree with BRD not being a guideline or something that should be enforced, but I also think it is best practice in a number of cases, including when an editor is changing material from its long-standing consensus version and has been reverted with commentary asking them to discuss the change first. Consensus can change obviously, but it doesn't change by one editor trying to enforce their version against the objection of multiple editors. As for "it's a very specific protocol, and not a general 'ya gotta stop edit warring and talk about disputed edits' rule", it's a supplement of Wikipedia:Consensus#Through discussion and Wikipedia:Be bold. It's not just for significantly experienced editors, even if best handled by them. Furthermore, it's usually newbies and other less experienced editors who need to be pointed to WP:BRD. Significantly experienced editors already know about it; that it may seem that they at times need to be reminded of it is different.

Pinging Kenny139, Ajd, UpdateNerd, Nidhiki05, Hog Farm, GoneIn60 and Muboshgu for their thoughts since they are the latest example I pointed to. Kenny139 is currently temporarily blocked, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what I can add to this discussion, but I agree that BRD isn't a method that works in every situation, nor is it an effective counter to sockpuppetry. With that said, BRD is excellent advice for beginners and novices. It's not their only option, but it's one of the better ones that will help them avoid actions and circumstances that can be interpreted as edit-warring behavior. Socks and vandals could care less, of course, but in the early stages of assuming good faith before they are identified as such, I don't see any harm in directing them here.

As for "optional", I don't have any preference on whether it's emphasized or not. When BRD is suggested or recommended in the proper context to an editor, "optional" shouldn't come as a surprise when they read it. Making it stand out more has pros and cons. On the one hand, it may help in situations where editors unintentionally imply that BRD is a policy or guideline. On the other, it may give the false impression that BRD is not an important aspect of Wikipedia etiquette, when in fact, it's an essential practice. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to point beginners to the simple policy that people mustn't edit war and should use the talk page. That, rather than the specific details that differentiate BRD from the everyday normal thing about not edit warring and using the talk page, are the essential point of Wikipedia's culture.

The fact that some editors recommend BRD to sockpuppets and in high-speed edit wars is what makes me think that those more experienced editors (some of whom might check their link before posting it and thus save themselves from being embarrassed) need to be reminded that BRD is optional. The underlining is for the people citing the page in dubious circumstances, not for the newbie who was told to follow the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the better explanation is that BRD is the boundary line of acceptably bold editing. Cross the line and you are edit warring. It is optional to take your editing style right to the boundary line. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so, SmokeyJoe. I can make an "acceptably bold" edit, notice that you reverted it, and just stop – no discussion, no attempt to make a similar edit, just stop. That's neither BRD nor edit warring. I can also make a bold edit, get reverted, recognize the problem, and fix it in my next attempt. That's also neither BRD nor edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't need to be an either-or approach necessarily. An effective warning (or advisory) to less experienced editors could mention both, emphasizing WP:EW while also introducing BRD. I know reading it made a difference for me when I first started out, providing additional context that was helpful. Regardless if you mention it or not, however, BRD is one of the first linked articles in WP:EW's body. Novices with good intentions are likely to land there eventually.

I don't really have much to say about the lobbed BRD link during high-speed edit wars and discussions with known sockpuppets. I'm sure in some cases, editors who are doing that need to be reminded it's optional. Will adding underlining emphasis help do that? Maybe, maybe not. The pros and cons I mentioned above should be taken into consideration, but I don't feel strongly about it either way. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

So it's "optional". I don't see where it's explained how to go about deciding whether to use it, out there in the real world. In any given situation, some editors will want to use it, others won't, and how is that disagreement to be resolved? If it's best handled by mature, experienced editors, are such editors expected to forgo BRD because some of the editors present are inexperienced or immature? Who decides who's immature, anyway? Am I mature? I think that would depend on who you ask. How much experience is enough to use BRD? Can anyone show me actual real-world examples of how this has worked?

Without confronting these questions head-on and coming up with answers to them, the current guidance appears to be unworkable ivory-tower thinking. We end up spending half our time arguing about process, and that's time not spent discussing content, never mind the resulting ill will between editors who need to be able to work together constructively. Flexibility has a cost side, and we don't seem to be very good at weighing benefit against cost in things like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have wavered between appreciating and not appreciating this BRD. Sometimes I think I understand its simplistic beauty, sometimes the beauty is based on a house of cards. Examples? User:Kim Bruning, a major proponent of the BRD theory, I think claimed WP:5P was an example. In mainspace, I thought I understood that it works best in under-edited articles, in attracting the attention of another interested editor. Once there are three or more interacting editors, I think BRD can slip into EW very easily. best handled by mature, experienced editors and So it's "optional"I think reflects that it is poorly defined, described, and is unreliable, and you'd better know when to ease up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think BRD can slip into EW very easily. Can you elaborate? Do you mean EW resulting from disagreement on whether to use BRD? If so, that proves my point.

poorly defined, described, and is unreliable Well, the BRD process itself is quite simple and can be precisely defined in a short paragraph. What's poorly defined – actually undefined – are the answers to my questions above, as well as others like them. That's the problem I'm here about. I'm frustrated with hearing about BRD's shortcomings while the shortcomings of the current state of affairs are ignored. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"BRD can slip into EW very easily". That is my impression, largely based on cases that come here to this talk page, or are mentioned on this talk page, where someone trying BRD is accused by others of Edit Warring. From memory, off the top of my head, my impression was that the first person was not actually doing BRD, but something like BRDBRBRBBBR.

If I understand your frustrations, I agree. You ask a few questions. I think the answer may be: BRD is unreliable; if anyone is uncomfortable, don't use it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

if anyone is uncomfortable, don't use it. I see. Well if that were a community consensus, it would at least help to clearly say that in the guidance. Then most of the repeated time-sinking arguments would be reduced to "I'm uncomfortable." But we would need a consensus, and I'd be in opposition in that discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Award add in rohan mehra page

I have realible source of times of india article https://m.timesofindia.com/tv/tv-awards/star-parivaar-awards/2015/111 So i can add on rohan mehra page this award thank you Sheetal parmar (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Steven Van Zandt

After reporting this case to the noticeboard conflict of interest about Steven Van Zandt, thanks to a user named Pigsonthewing who gave me advice that I should follow and decided to take the case here so that users read that resolution and what if there are behind the edition histories in the pages in the pages is that you know that I received several notices from Sundayclose saying this and that about Steven Van Zandt, which I recently updated the infobox (with all his personal and musical data), alphabetically order the occupations in the opening sentences and finally, also order the categories alphabetically because of course, it is part of the alphabet but despite the fact that I sent the message through its discussion page here, it has proceeded to undo the changes and the message that I send after he left several comments in the edition histories that he is a musical artist, the same happens with Kendall Schmidt, he also denounced my editions and the same I leave in summaries of editions that he is a musical artist which he did not understand.

And as you can see Sundayclose continues with its reversals and I am tired of correcting it several times without reaching a consensus on the pages that I have edited. Here is the evidence: 1, 2, 3, and 4. 148.0.124.221 (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You have been told with several warnings to discuss and get consensus on the article's talk page, yet you have made the change three times without discussion. Discuss at Talk:Steven Van Zandt and seek WP:CONSENSUS before changing it again. Sundayclose (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Grace Murray Hooper

Does the page need a link to Wiktionary:it's better to ask forgiveness than permission from wikiquote:Grace_Hopper? "Revert if inappropriate" to identify a Very Interested Persons (VIP) looks like a variant on Wiktionary:it's better to ask forgiveness than permission from CHIPS "Hopper’s legendary standing has much to do with her persistence and absolute belief in the limitless power of computing technology and her impatience with bureaucracy. She is remembered for her now famous quip, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."" from "Rear Adm. Grace Hopper Continues to Inspire Innovation."

References

Unbreakable?

"The easiest way to intensify this cycle and make it unbreakable is to be uncivil." I can't make head or tail of this sentence. If we are trying to talk to editors who are being uncivil, some clearer English is needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Director column in filmography tables

Davey2010 and Ab207, you are welcome to discuss whether they should be used at all. I am neutral in this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Vito Rizzuto

So first I'll get over my points, you said dual citizenship is exactly what makes him a dual citizen of both the countries. Vito Rizzuto immigrated prior to 1975'. And these are the laws prior to that. Italian citizenship could be lost: By a man or woman, being of competent legal age (21 years if before 10 March 1975 or 18 years if after 9 March 1975), who of his or her own volition naturalised in another country and resided outside of Italy. That's the loss of citizenship. Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

All opinion. Also, this would belong at Vito Rizzuto’s talk page, not here... This discussion is very much out of place here. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 07:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

First word in the article.

'The' is redundant. You could just as easily start the article with 'A'. The article should start with the BOLD article title where possible, and here it is possible to start it like that. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Also please see the standard on the Manual of Style/Lead section page that states the article title should appear in bold as early as possible in the article. I have started a talk page there about this too. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This is incorrect, and I'm afraid it shows a lack of familiarity with the basic rules of sentence construction in the English language.

For the sentence to be complete, an article (either 'the' or 'a') is necessary, preceding the singular noun phrase 'bold, revert discuss cycle'. Now, if there were lots of 'bold, revert, discuss' cycles, and if this were an article in mainspace about the general concept of them, 'a' (the indefinite article) would be the correct one to use (in the same way that our article on Banana starts with 'A banana is...'). This is not an article, it is an explanatory supplement to our editing policies and guidelines, and it is talking about the particular bold, revert, discuss cycle that we use here. We are speaking about a specific cycle, so 'the' (the definite article) is the correct choice.

If you are unable to grasp this, you probably shouldn't be talking about sentence construction on the English version of Wikipedia. You can by all means contribute in other ways, but take your cues on how best to write sentences from people with a firmer grasp of the language. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The article may not be absolutely necessary, but it is typical, expected, and appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussing on a talk page of the article in dispute

@Moxy, thanks for trying to clarify the page. However:

• You wrote "discussion on a talk page of the article(s) in dispute", but the BRD process could be used on a non-article page. The text would therefore have to say something generic like "page" rather than "article".
• It's not a good idea to have multiple similar, simultaneous, but separate discussions – it can be interpreted as Wikipedia:Forum shopping, and it usually wastes time needlessly – so we would normally recommend "article" (or "page") in the singular, not the plural.
• It's not prohibited to have a discussion on, say, someone's User talk: page. BRD's goal is an agreement between the Bold Editor and the (always single) Reverter, not a general consensus discussion. As long as Bob Bold and Rafael Reverter sort things out between themselves, then BRD's goal is fulfilled.

Also, BRD is optional. It says so in the first sentence. It doesn't make sense for a purely optional process to get too specific about unimportant details. (I know that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions. There's always going to be a few people who never read the page but believe they magically know what it says just from the initials, but we don't have to believe their mistaken guesses.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Good but the suggestion above about user talk pages is inappropriate. A page like this should tell readers what correct procedure is and complaining at an editor's talk page when your edit is reverted is wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Really? Do you believe that you shouldn't have created this section or this section or this section on editors' User talk: pages about their edits, or do you only believe that it's fine to post something other than warning templates on user talk pages, but when you talk directly to BRD's "Very Interested Person", that it should be called something other than BRD? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you being serious? Of course those three cases of me posting on user talk pages are good procedure. If someone is deleting a valid reference on the basis of an easily correctable dead link, they need to be directly told. It's not a content issue to be discussed on article talk. Other considerations apply in the other cases. Perhaps you are saying that because some exceptions exist, BRD should not tell inexperienced editors that content disagreements should be discussed on article talk where anyone interested in the article will be able to easily see them, now and in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There are so many valid exceptions that we should not specify "article(s)".

Also, inexperienced editors probably shouldn't be using BRD anyway. BRD itself says BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors. It may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. If you are so inexperienced that you need to be told where the best place is to have a conversation with BRD's "Very Interested Person", then you probably shouldn't be trying to use BRD in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The situation is that a new editor would be told to observe WP:BRD. Later, in some other incident, they try to use the same WP:BRD argument. The BRD page should explain what a new editor needs to know, namely that content disagreements are discussed on article talk pages (with certain exceptions that cannot be codified). Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

A new editor should never be told to observe BRD. (1) BRD says that it's optional, and (2) BRD says that it is for experienced editors. Why would someone be ordering a new editor to follow an optional process that is intended for experienced editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

A new editor should be told to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party. A new editor could even be told to follow Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. A new editor should not be told to follow BRD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Countering people who cite this page

I've often had people in the past who cite this page whenever they revert my constructive edits to pages. These people will then refuse to discuss the edit and will simply continue to revert additions to the page continuing to use WP:BRD as a shield to defend against edits they disagree with (and refuse to discuss). This seems to happen regularly. Is there a page that can be cited as a defense against citations of WP:BRD? Ergzay (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Status quo stonewalling? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

BRD is not a policy at least in part because of this, reverting is OK but you still need a valid reason for a revert (Idontlikeit or BRD is not enough reason).Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

We could put a box in the page, for the "So you told someone to follow BRD..." problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ergzay, take a look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Revert now. Do you think that might help? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing So if someone is found to not actually be following the BRD when they revert, is that justification to revert their revert? Ergzay (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ergzay, that's a good question. While it can get dicey, that is often the proper thing to do when there is really strong disagreement. It's BRD, not BRR, so that last R can be treated (but not described as) like vandalism. The D is thus enforced as the proper next step. Returning the article to its status quo (normally consensus) version is good while the discussion is ongoing, otherwise confusion reigns because a controversial and non-consensus (possibly wrong and misleading) version is literally visible to readers. Our work is supposed to be "behind the scenes". BRD seeks to encourage discussions leading to a consensus decision that may or may not lead to a different version. An editor has no right to introduce non-consensus changes and expect them to remain until a decision is reached to remove them. -- Valjean (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ergzay, when the reverter refuses to follow BRD, then I think you should explore some of the options listed at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Alternatives or other forms of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

I have found the WP:STATUSQUO argument to be unhelpful as often as I've found it to be helpful. Also, BRD doesn't directly lead to "consensus". It leads to something more precisely described as "an agreement between the bold editor and the reverting editor". This is often, but not always, aligned with what we would normally call "consensus". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, unless there is clear evidence of "BRD abuse", reverting is not okay. It's edit warring, no matter how right you may be. Even though it's not policy, it is a widely respected norm for proper behavior, and as such, its violation is often successfully cited by admins and other editors as conclusive proof of edit warring. In fact, it is sometimes the only known way to absolutely prove who started an edit war, usually done when the offender (who may be right) makes a second revert instead of immediately starting a discussion. Don't underestimate the value of good norms, even if they aren't policies. This one is, in practice, an unofficial de facto policy, and, in this case, that's usually a good thing. 90% of the time it prevents edit wars. -- Valjean (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverting is okay – if you have a reasonable reason, and you don't do it repeatedly. One revert isn't edit warring, even if you're wrong.

"BRD" does not set a general standard of "You edit, I revert, now we all talk". BRD is a very specific, narrow thing: You boldly edit. I revert. You now carefully, intentionally, and specifically seek out my reasons for reverting you, and you talk to me about ways to change your proposed edit so that I will agree to make the edit for you, or at least to specifically say that I support you making the (modified) edit now. BRD involves two (2) editors: you and me. BRD involves direct negotiations (which not every good editor is capable of doing, and which not every edit is worth spending that much effort on).

At the end of successful BRD, the result may well be a third person reverting the edit that the two of us just agreed to. If you're following BRD, you would then keep my views in your mind while you carefully, intentionally, and specifically open a new round of negotiations with that third editor.

I regularly wonder how many people tell someone "you have to follow BRD" without ever reading the page that they're recommending. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

When you put it that way, then we agree. The point is that communication/negotiation (IOW discussion) occurs, rather than the typical attempt to exert brute force. -- Valjean (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise yes, figure out how to deal with clear abuse of BRD while keeping in mind that being right never justifies edit warring, often caused by violating BRD. -- Valjean (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think people citing WP:BRD are, like people who cite WP:IAR, missing the point, and I tell them that citing it is neither required nor sufficient, and you’ll be giving a better explanation if you do not cite it. Instead, use your oxygen to give the real reason.

IAR means that there is a compelling reason to do something, and it is best to give that compelling reason.

BRD. The BOLD edit should be per WP:BOLD. The Revert should be done giving the reason for the revert, the substantive reason why the edit makes something worse. “Per BRD”, like WP:DRNC, is not sufficient, and is not helpful. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

+1 Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is best. Merely citing BRD can be lazy, and I have sometimes been guilty of that. Unfortunately, edit summaries with long explanations, aren't always good, so citing BRD and saying "we should discuss this" is easiest. The talk page is for longer explanations, and edit summaries should not be used while edit warring. They are not a substitute for talk page discussion. -- Valjean (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace. It appears that BRD is being named in warning templates as "how this is done" (i.e., how editors use talk pages instead of edit warring). IMO what's needed there is something that tells people how to have a discussion, not something that tells them about an optional negotiation tactic for experienced editors. Help:Introduction to talk pages/1 might work.

As for how to fix this, changes take a long time get noticed, but we could consider highlighting a few key words, e.g., "optional" and "not mandated". We could also add a brightly colored box at the top that points out that this is optional, and whoever told you that you had to follow BRD probably just meant that this would be a good time to have a discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll copy my comment from there, with added bolding:

We can do both. Keep the mention of BRD as a pointer to more information. Since violating BRD is often edit warring (a brute force attempt to change content over objections), it's important to not downplay BRD as "optional", which will nearly always be interpreted as meaningless. No, it's not meaningless as it's often the only way to prove who started an edit war and it is a shortcut way to cut to the chase. Edit summaries do not substitute for discussion. We can't always write all of this in the edit summary:

"Editor XXX, no editor has a right to impose their version when other editors have raised objections. View that REVERSION of your BOLD change as an objection. Now start a DISCUSSION of the issues and reach a consensus before changing the status quo version. Please follow BRD."

It's still good to not just say "follow BRD". We should accompany it with a few words voicing the core of the disagreement, but the edit summary isn't for long discussions. It should just provide a clue about what to expect at the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

We need to "downplay" BRD as optional, because BRD actually is optional. What's not optional is that when there's a dispute, people must not edit war.

"BRD" does not actually mean "If you get reverted, then you need to start a discussion and reach consensus". That is not BRD. That is one of the normal, non-BRD methods of dispute resolution.

Here's one of the first versions of BRD. This was written by Kim Bruning. It's much shorter, so I expect you'll be able to read it all in less than two minutes. It's also a bit clearer on how this differs from normal, non-BRD methods of dispute resolution.

----

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a method that can be used to change any page on any consensus based wiki, and attain consensus on the changes as they are being made. It is an extention of the harmonious editing club process.}}

The cycle is occaisionally used to break deadlocks on policy or high profile pages. Large amounts of diplomacy are required to pull it off successfully there. It generally helps to discuss your problems with the page before entering the cycle.

Note that this cycle generally just gets editing going, and gets people to cooperate on it. There is no guarantee that the outcome will be as you expect. Be prepared to be flexible!

The basic concept is to find the people who actually disagree with you by causing them to revert.

Cycle

The cycle has the following steps:

• 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.

Only talk with one or at most 2 reverters at once! You can always go back and get yourself reverted again to find other interested parties.

Discussions with reverter

In the discussion with the reverter, here are some points to remember:

• Stay civil at all times.
• It is very hard to gain brownie points using this method, expect to only be accepted neutrally if you act perfectly, and expect people to get mad at you if you do it wrong.
• There's no such thing as a consensus version. You were not part of that consensus, as evidenced by your own major edit. (You can assume that the other party is in a similar cycle to you, whether they know it or not)
• You don't have to accept "policy" , "consensus", "procedure" as excuses. These sometimes get worn in on consensus based wikis, but you're disagreeing with them. Don't back off immediately, BUT!:
• Do listen very carefully to the other persons position, which might include their interpretation of a policy as part of the reasons. Don't accept "it's policy, live with it.", but DO listen VERY CAREFULLY when folks say "well, flurbeling was a bad idea, that's why we decided to always floop before we fleep instead."
• Accomodate the wishes of the other person. Don't run over them roughshod. It won't work, and it'll only cost you brownie points for no good reason.
• Try to get the other person to undo their revert or apply their suggested changes if possible. This is preferable to doing it yourself, since it avoids accidentally angering the other party.

----

I've highlighted a few phrases. This is what I think about whenever someone says that BRD is practically policy. I think they don't know what BRD actually is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow! What a blast from the past. The page was started by Kim less than a month before I first registered a username, even though I'd been around as an IP since 2003. BRD was, as described above, much more complicated and intentionally provocative then. It has undergone much progress and is now just a more smoothly working way to deal with any form of BOLD edit that is challenged, whether it's an addition, deletion or other change. It enforces collaboration. I'm glad we don't think of it in the terms described by Kim back then. Ugh! -- Valjean (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the way many editors currently think of BRD does not match what is currently written on the page. For example: The page currently says that it is an optional process for experienced editors, who should "Talk with one or at most two partners at once". But we have editors who tell newbies to follow BRD when large groups of editors are already engaged in the dispute. One of these things is not like the other, right?

I suspect that many of these well-meaning editors should be pointing the newbies to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, which says "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page", or Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing, which says, "Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)." Both of these are policies, and neither of them contain advice that doesn't apply in such a large number of situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, those are excellent insights, and I have incorporated insights by you, Selfstudier, and Ergzay in my new essay, which is a supplementary, shortened, version of this page. See section below. -- Valjean (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Very insightful, and thanks for sharing. I see bits and pieces of the original (and sometimes chunks) have remained in the current version. It helps put things in perspective.

However, on that note, the dilemma we find ourselves in today is that editors new and old often cite it for very different reasons. Yes, the process describes a very specific one-on-one or one-on-two tactic, but its core values of being bold, reverting when necessary, and resorting to discussion (instead of re-reverting) are all concepts that resonate with many. Essentially, these are the same three concepts repeated at What edit warring is and Talking and editing. The difference is that BRD covers a different kind of "being bold", one that is used to break a stalemate or take a stab at compromise in the midst of an unproductive discussion. Its way of describing when to repeat the cycle may also grate harshly against processes in normal dispute resolution. While I appreciate the differences, I think the vast majority of those who adopt it probably don't care. They're less concerned about why the editor is being bold than they are about what comes next.

So why not just cite policies instead of BRD then, since BRD gets into the weeds of a specific tactic meant for experienced editors? The answer could be more simple than you think: presentation. I see BOLD, REVERT, and DISCUSS emphasized in a way that no other page replicates, and adequately defines each term. This is rather eye-catching. And like I mentioned before, it covers a number of principles – maintain civility, listen carefully, avoid re-reverting, seek compromise, and letting go – that are invaluable to editor interactions on Wikipedia. I do appreciate BRD's backstory, but I also understand the reason why the misciting occurs. Just my 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The core value of Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing is being bold and resorting to discussion instead of re-reverting. The core value of BRD is negotiating intensively with one (or perhaps two at the most) individual, in the hope of breaking deadlocks by building support for a change one individual at a time. This not what editors – most of whom have not read even the first sentence – have guessed it means from the title. Maybe the page should have been called WP:One-on-one negotiation strategy for diplomatic experts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Statements like that one should be obvious but end up getting lost in the noise of the presentation. I know I missed it early on when I was starting out, barely looking past the title! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions. This has been true for as long as I've been editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I appreciate your views. I have always seen the motivations of poking with BOLD edits as a complete distraction and ignored that aspect as an early artifact that should have been weeded out a long time ago. The focus should not be on the motivations of the one making the bold edit. Leave that out completely as all editors have a right to make bold edits for many reasons, and we should start with the assumption that the editor thinks (maybe mistakenly) they are trying to improve the article. Just eliminate all that stuff. It's distracting.

We should boil it down to "Reversion of any BOLD edit is an objection that should be viewed as a stop sign and detour pointing to the discussion page where the involved editors can work out their differences. All editing of that content in the article should be frozen in the status quo version during that time. Edit warring is always wrong and should be nipped in the bud. Resort to discussion." -- Valjean (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That's what WP:EPTALK says. That's not what BRD says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Even ArbCom relies on BRD, so it shouldn't be downplayed. It is a de facto policy. See the top of this talk page: Talk:Donald Trump. The DS sanction is a 24-hr BRD restriction. -- Valjean (talk)

ArbCom authorized discretionary sanctions at that page, and a single admin used his discretion to impose User:Awilley/Enforced BRD FAQ (i.e., not actual BRD) on about 50 pages in December 2018. That's not evidence that "ArbCom relies on BRD". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll accept that explanation. That doesn't detract from the fact that violation of BRD can lead to blocks for edit warring because the first violation can start an edit war. It is often the only known method to absolutely prove who started an edit war. AWilley and many other admins treat BRD as a valuable thing and don't downplay it. By downplaying it you devalue its essence, which has nothing to do with negotiation and has everything to do with preventing edit wars by encouraging discussion and collaboration. That last part is what you're dissing with your attacks on BRD. The baby is getting thrown out with the bathwater. I think we should get rid of the "negotiation bathwater" and keep the three step BRD baby. -- Valjean (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring can always lead to blocks, just like edit warring led to blocks before the (real) BRD was ever written down and would continue to lead to blocks even if BRD were deleted (or if editors actually read it). You could just as logically say that vandals are being blocked for "violating" Jimbo Wales' user page, since his user page says "please, do not vandalize, because it won't make the world any better".

The actual core point of the (real) BRD is one-on-one negotiation to resolve sticky problems. Step 1: Make a bold edit – not any old edit, but generally a bold edit in a difficult situation. Step 2: Wait patiently for one editor to express their interest and concern by reverting your edit. Note that this step implies that you are expecting your bold edit to be reverted. See also Cunningham's Law. Step 3: Discuss the situation with (only) the "Very Interested Person" (i.e., the person who reverted your edit) until the two of you (not everyone) agree on a solution.

The very "valuable thing" you're looking for is over at WP:EPTALK. That's the actual policy that encourages discussion and collaboration. Maybe it needs a catchy shortcut. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

New and shorter version of BRD

I have created an essay as an abbreviated form of this page, and have incorporated many thoughts from the discussion immediately above this one.

• Wikipedia:Short BRD

Take a look. -- Valjean (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said on the other page, it's not short. It's long on philosophy and background explanations, and short on practical directions. Also, some sentences are duplicated. I'm going to have a go at removing the unnecessary content so you have an idea of what I mean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, I found it really weird that you kept using language about BRD "forcing" people. It might "promote" or "encourage" collaboration, but there's no "force" anywhere in here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I have created a new essay in userspace and have also given you credit for some of the ideas and incorporated them, so your comments have not been in vain. It goes from short, to longer, to in-depth: User:Valjean/Crux of BRD -- Valjean (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I don't mind if you revert my bold changes to the first page. Editing the page directly was just an easy way to show you how easily it could be reduced to the practical information. I've moved my changes to a different page title, so if you want the page title back, it should be easy to grab. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Please choose another shortcut for your essay. -- Valjean (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

What is BRD?

There some editing on the question of what BRD is simply pointing a common sequence that is consistent with / implements policies and objectives. And it does a handy job of simplifying it and giving it a catchy and useful name. Actually 3 possible sequences:

• Bold: Don't be afraid / no big deal to be bold once
• Bold, Revert: No big deal to revert a bold edit
• BRD; if it goes on after that, discussion should be next

IMO anything much beyond that is additions of essay-like characterizations, opinions and recommendations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This page began as, and still is, an essay-like recommendation to try an unusual negotiation tactic under uncommon circumstances. I do wish this page had a name that wouldn't lead editors to think they knew what the page says, just because they know what the title is. See also WP:Neutral and WP:Notable, two other pages whose titles result in editors guessing wrong about their contents.

(It is not entirely true that discussion should follow a revert; there are many ways to collaborate. We might need a catchy shortcut like WP:TIMETOTALK or WP:TALKNOW, or perhaps more aggressively, at WP:TALKORBLOCK, that points to a page that is actually about the simple question about how to respond when someone reverts your edit [bold or otherwise].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you considered that just maybe many editors simply skip the irrelevant "negotiation" part because they understand the main gist, which is ONLY the three steps, and not the bold poking of other editors as a negotiation tactic? That part is irrelevant to the use of BRD. The fact that we still haven't gotten rid of that part is sad, and we shouldn't focus on it as it's a distraction from the actual practice of BRD. Who cares about the motives for the bold edit? Forget that part. I really doubt that many editors use BRD with THAT odd motive, because the three steps work perfectly fine for any and all other motives for making a bold edit.

BRD seeks to prevent edit warring by encouraging discussion and collaboration. I thought you understood that main point, but since you keep bringing up the "negotiation tactic" sideshow, I'm not sure anymore. That sideshow is just a historical artifact of this page's birth. We don't need it anymore. -- Valjean (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Then what you want is a policy that encourages discussion and collaboration. Rather than edit war, presumably. Going back to basics, why isn't BRD a policy? It seems somewhere between edit war and editing and not either. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, yes, because it is already treated as if it was a de facto guideline or policy, it would be nice if it actually were an official guideline or policy. Right now it's officially an essay, but one that is widely recognized practice, so much so that one can get blocked for violating it because the first failure to respect the revert is seen as the start of edit warring. It's evidence of who started the edit war that would stand up in court.

You recognize its value below in your WP:1RR comment. There are guidelines that "encourage discussion and collaboration", but BRD is where that advice is tied to the actual editing and content creation process as a required response to a revert. Collaboration is not optional here. That's what makes BRD so effective as a way to prevent edit warring. It draws a red line after the revert that says "Stop and detour to the talk page. Do not revert the revert." -- Valjean (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel any compulsion not to do so, just a decision to be made. I might do nothing at all. I might revert the revert, it depends on the exact circumstances. I do go to the talk pages in those circumstances but not necessarily because I particularly want to talk to the reverter.Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Very true. Not everyone wants to enter into a dialogue at all, and not everyone wants to do it every time they are reverted, but if the change is important enough, one is forced to do it in some form or other. Sometimes a meeting of the minds can happen on the other editor's talk page. That works when no other editors are involved. Then the change can just happen by mutual agreement. If the edit isn't that important, even I will walk away without any discussion, leaving the status quo version in place. That is much more likely to happen if the reverter left a good explanation in their edit summary and I agree with them. -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The advice actually written on this page is not treated as a de facto guideline.

Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD is a completely different thing, and what people usually mean already is in the formal policies (specifically WP:EW and WP:EPTALK).

Also, the reason this isn't a policy is because experienced editors rejected it. The 2015 RFC on labeling BRD as a guideline lost overwhelmingly (approximately four oppose votes for each support vote). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, whatever it's intentions were, this and and its prominence is about what its title is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

North8000, you're right. The title really tells the necessary part of the story. The other "negotiation tactic" is distracting fluff, a historical artifact, as anyone has a right to make a first bold edit for many reasons, 99.999% of which have nothing to do with any deliberate "negotiating tactic" as the motivation for the bold edit. Without knowing anything more about BRD than what I've summarized in this three step flowchart, most editors will apply BRD in a way that leads to discussion and collaboration that prevents edit warring. Sure, there may be weird and odd situations (where people don't understand those three steps and make missteps) that are discussed in this page, so people can always read further here if they want, but it's usually unnecessary. This page suffers from massive instruction creep. -- Valjean (talk)

See also Map-territory fallacy. The title is not the contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

My statement was "this and and its prominence is about what its title is". Expanding on that a bit, I meant that it has it's place and prominence in Wikipedia because of that.North8000 (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:1RR (arbpia, say), you can't do another revert (you can but you will likely get sanctioned) so isn't BRD effectively trying to produce the same effect? Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I agree. BTW, what's "arbpia"? -- Valjean (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It's just one of the 1RR zones, WP:PIA.Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah! That's a subject area I rarely enter here. IRL, I've visited Lebanon, but not Israel. I'd love to do more travel in the Middle East. -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

So here's a knotty question.

OK. Suppose you have an article, and it has been stable for while. Then it's nominated for deletion, and the result is "merge". So, you bring all (or part) of the material over to the new article. Now, is it new material (it IS new to that article) and thus revertable with the burden on adding the material, or is it old material (it HAS existed verbatim, albeit in a different article), and thus the burden is on not adding the material?

If someone says "rolling back this newly added material per BRD" and the merging editor can't gain consensus to include it, the old article has been effectively deleted rather than merged, n'est-ce pas? Which was not the intent of the AfD close.

Complicating this, merged material must usually be massaged in a few ways, a few words at least, to make it fit logically into the new article. So it's seldom verbatim. Not only that, but sometimes maybe half of the material from the old article is brought over. If it's a matter of removing a few sentences here and there, and writing some bridge prose to make it fit together, is this not new material now?

We need to put our top legal minds on this! Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think BRD can cover cases like this. One could try to determine the mood at the AfD discussion: did it envisage that material really would be moved to the new page, or did it merely assert that there should only be one article at the new title? If the former, reverting its addition could be argued as correct. If the latter (which is normally all that AfD can ascertain), moving material might not be WP:DUE and so should be removed. Normal WP:DR would be required such as discussion followed by an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Say there's no real discernible mood and a bare "Merge" close. A "Merge" close allows (but does not require) a full merge I would think. Wikipedia:Merging talks about voluntary merging, but this is a merge required by the close at an AfD and so little of that applies.

So yes people can argue about WP:DUE and so on and work it out, but BRD is specifically about what happens if they can't work it out. But BRD doesn't cover this situation I guess, and so we're bereft of guidance if there's no consensus.

I mean this probably has hardly come up in our ~20 years, so it's not pressing. It's kind of more a "hmmmm" thing, and yeah I suppose WP:DR or third opinion would be ultimate venue. That's not ideal tho. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) is a good example of what can go wrong. The 2014 AFD closed with a decision to merge to Celibacy, and the regular editors at Celibacy refused to have the content (see both archives of Talk:Celibacy). As it happens, the regular editors were correct; the two subjects are really not as closely related as their names suggest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes in #Discuss section

I object to a bold change by an IP being re-inserted by a senior editor after removal without discussion (oh, irony!). The first part of the #Discuss section has remained substantially unchanged from December 2014 until 2 March 2022:

• If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. Instead, take it to the talk page (see below). If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD.

the only exception being the addition of the "Instead" sentence (highlighted in gray font above for identification purposes) in May 2021.

Other than some minor changes on 11 March by Jaredscribe to fiddle with bullets, and an attempted small addition to the first bullet that didn't fly, this text has remained stable for years (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2 March 2022).

This changed on 23:40, 18 March 2022 when IP 2601:647:5800:1a1f:a020:46e3:8f5e:7b7 (talk · contribs) made this edit, substantially altering the wording first sentence of bullet 1, and dropping the second sentence entirely. I reverted to the stable version at 06:31, 19 March, but User:Butwhatdoiknow re-reverted back (at 16:09, 19 March) to the IP version. I disagree with the IP's change to this long-stable text in the #Discuss section but approve of the attempt per WP:BOLD; however I strenuously object to the reversion of my compliant undo without any discussion here on the Talk page.

The stable version should be reinstated, while the IP bold change is discussed. Mathglot (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll be happy to have a discussion about the propriety of my revert. But let's first focus on the proposed change. Do you have any substantive objection to the content or quality of the "substantial alteration of the wording"? Or is your sole objection that it was made without prior discussion?

If the former, provide the reason and I'll be happy revert myself.

If the latter, please note that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Bold says (italics in original; bold added):

Although most editors find prior discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it either in your edit summary or on the talk page.

See also Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Reverting_with_"discuss_first"_without_discussing. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am the IP editor in question who made the bold edit. It was made in order to combine the two sentences into one and make the wording less confusing. @Mathglot: If you have a specific objection to the edit, please explain. Reverting an edit just because it substantially changes existing text is not a good reason to revert. Of course, your revert, User:Butwhatdoiknow's re-revert, and this discussion have caused us to go through the full BRD cycle (on the BRD talk page). The question is now what consensus will be reached. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3174:FFBE:B243:42B5 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I've added a "Welcome" message to your 2601:...42B5 address, but as your address appears to be highly dynamic, you might not see it there unless you go looking for it. It includes information about how to register for a free account, which has numerous advantages, not least of which is that we know where to leave you a message or ping you with {{tb}} to a discussion. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia. (Note: It's fairly O/T for me to address these comments to you here per WP:TALK, but since I doubt you'll find them otherwise, hopefully that will be overlooked in the interest of welcoming you, and in the interest of better communication with you generally.)

The text was clearer before, and the distribution via an and combining "edit" and "revert" is simply less clear. I wish I could remember what the rhetorical device is called when you have two sentences with highly parallel structure that could easily be merged, but aren't; e.g., "It rained hard. It rained all day." but I can't. This type of structure has its pros and its cons, but I think the advantages strongly outweigh the disadvantages in this case, and the original was much clearer than the modified version, and the parallel structure really calls out the fact there are two assertions here, both equally important, that seem to lose some clarity, some force, some punch, in your version. But let's see what others have to say. Mathglot (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. My edit probably made the text less clear. However, I think the previous text is still a bit wordy, and could be combined into a sentence. Maybe, "Do not re-revert after your preferred version is reverted,"? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B47F:771D:3F6E:5A29 (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Epistrophe? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B47F:771D:3F6E:5A29 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the flip side; but it led me to anaphora (rhetoric), and I think maybe that's the one I was looking for. Thanks! Still prefer the anaphoric version, but your proposal deserves a better response than that, but it's late here. Plus, hoping for other editors to chime in as well. Mathglot (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess the old version had some force to it, but I think there might be a simpler way to say the point while still keeping some force. I agree that other editors would be helpful here. @Juliancolton, HJ Mitchell, and Diannaa: Pinging experienced copy-editors to help. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B47F:771D:3F6E:5A29 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Other editors now chiming in. See the RFC below. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with Mathglot. Many editors are deleting large amounts of text for the sake of "simplicity", but a certain amount of meaning gets lost for this cause. Huggums537 (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

RFC on wording of bullet point in Discuss section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: No consensus to change the first bullet point in the Discuss section of this essay. This RFC essentially comes down to editors' preferences on which version of the wording is the clearest and most concise way to advise editors on what to do when their bold edit has been reverted. While there was substantial support for option C, there was also substantial opposition to changing the wording from the long-term status quo wording that has existed for many years, and legitimate concerns from several editors that the significantly shorter version in option C could increase the risk for misinterpretation. Several other alternate versions were proposed, but there was no significant gathering of support around any of them throughout the discussion.

Additionally, my personal opinion is that RFCs generally benefit from a brief explanation for why a change is being proposed in the first place. Since this text has existed unchallenged for 7-8 years, any editor faced with this RFC would likely wonder why any change is being proposed at all. Neither in the RFC or the discussion that preceded it was this discussed. For instance, is there evidence that new editors don't understand the current wording of this sentence? Do editors frequently ask questions about the meaning of the sentence? When editors are blocked for edit warring, do they often complain that they misbehaved because the text at BRD was unclear? Or did this RFC simply stem from one editor's opinion that this sentence could be improved?

After all, if we all don't understand and agree upon the problem we're trying to solve (or even whether or not there is a problem that needs to be solved), how can we expect to agree on a solution? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Which option should be used to word the first bullet point in the discuss section?

• A - Original version. "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version."
• B - "Do not re-revert after somebody reverts your bold edit or revert."
• C - "Do not re-revert to your preferred revision after somebody reverts you."
• D - Another option. Please specify exactly how you would like the text to be worded. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:455:ADAB:CD27:8849 (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• D – If your bold edit is reverted, do not revert this reversion. Instead, discuss your bold edit on the talk page (see below). Multiple reversions do not follow BRD and set a path toward edit warring (see below). proposed 16:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• E - If your bold contribution was reverted, then do not re-revert to your bold version, make improvements before re-submitting. If your reversion was reverted by the bold contributor, or by a third editor, then do not re-re-revert to the status quo ante.

Jaredscribe (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• E (revised) - If your bold contribution was reverted, then do not restore it ; make improvements first in response to the cause given in the edit summary. Editors, if your reversion was unreverted by a third editor, or by the bold contributor with improvements, do not repeat it by reverting again to the status quo ante.

Jaredscribe (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Option C, without prejudice towards Option D I think Option C is the best wording because it is concise and gets the point across effectively, without being drowned in clauses. Clarity is important for pages such as WP:BRD. However, if somebody has an Option D that is better, I am willing to take that option. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:455:ADAB:CD27:8849 (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option C. Per discussion below. ––FormalDude talk 08:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option C, without prejudice towards option D, per above, see comment in discussion. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option C. Per discussion below. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Add without prejudice towards option D after we've selected from B or C. Let's improve upon Option A with B or C and then look at all the other options for further improvement. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option C, without prejudice against towards option D, e.g., "Do not re-revert" or "Do not re-revert after someone reverts you". I think this bold edit was an effort to explain Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD, and has nothing to do with actual BRD. So, for those who are only familiar with the rumor and haven't read the actual text, actual BRD says:
  You have found a difficult dispute (cf. the 'stuck in the mud' image). You make a bold (=undiscussed) edit that you think might solve some or all of the dispute. You now wait to see which one editor is interested enough in the change to revert your bold edit. The software only permits one person to click that undo button, and the person who clicks the button is your Very Interested Person. You then negotiate with that one Very Interested Person to see whether the two of you can reach an agreement about how to improve the page. Having achieved an agreement with the Very Interested Person, you now lie in wait to see whether any other editor might indicate that they are also Very Interested by reverting the new version, and you begin negotiations with that editor (if any).
  This kind of serial negotiation is, as the page says, an optional process for highly experienced editors. And you can see why this recent change about not re-reverting to your reversion is irrelevant. Sure, nobody should edit war, including people whose contribution is identifying themselves as the Very Interested Person by reverting your bold edit. But this page is directed towards explaining a specific, unusual, focused process that a bold editor can unilaterally impose on most disputes. This page is not about repeating the normal anti-edit-warring rules. It's all about what the bold editor should do: make an edit, wait for a reversion, negotiate with the reverter. The thing about reverting back to your reversion is irrelevant, because (a) you didn't revert back to your bold edit in the first place, so there's no opportunity for the reverter to re-revert, and (b) you aren't the reverter, so you can't revert back to your [non-existent] reversion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option C per discussion below. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 23:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option A – Clarity over concision. Changing it to C is an invitation to good-faith misunderstanding, or even wikilawyering arguments from annoying boundary pushers that the new wording doesn't apply to their revert. The current wording has been there for eight years and has served well. So you want to make the page more WP:CONCISE? Great, I'm all for it! This page is 23,241 bytes— go cut 70 bytes from somewhere else on the page. Don't cut it from this, which in two sentences states the entire point of the page. In fact, leave this part alone, and cut the other 23,171 bytes; it won't change a thing about the interpretation of the page if you do. But shortening this part is a bad idea. See #Clarity over concision. Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't agree that stopping edit warring is the entire point of the page, or any point of it. You might be thinking about Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD, which isn't actually BRD at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't, either; but I predict it will be the result of choosing C. Anyway, they're your words; what's changed? See discussion. Mathglot (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Amended: I still prefer 'A'. 'E' was introduced after I !voted, and although a bit wordy, is acceptable. I oppose 'B' and 'C' as unclear. Mathglot (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• None of the proposed ones. They are all unclear to a typical reader. Maybe: "if somebody reverts your bold edit, do not revert their revert." North8000 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's just Option D. Option D is a catchall for all alternative options. Thanks though. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Looks good to me, but I worry that wandering off into Option D territory will result in so many options that we'll have no consensus to change the current text. Perhaps select from B or C now and then, once we've improved the text that much, we can look at further improvement. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option A as a first choice, Option C as a second. Both are pretty good, but I prefer the overt clarity of A; it heads off needless "wikilawyering" over who gets to revert last. The idea that NEITHER the first NOR the second person has any absolute right to more reverts, and it's explicit, gives A the edge for me. C is not bad, but it leaves a little too much wiggle room for me. --Jayron32 13:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: There seem to be differing interpretations over precisely what re-revert means. The term is used four times on the page (three of them in the bullet point under discussion) and is never properly defined (here or elsewhere; it does not have widespread use in the project space and mainly appears in a couple essays). The prefix re- means "again" but it is unclear if re-revert means: (a) repeated reverts by different editors, which in this context would be BRR, (b) repeated reverts by the same editor to the same previous version of the article, which in this context would be BRxR (with the x being either a revert or a different bold edit), or (c) any repeated reversions, inclusive of (a) and (b). From context, I infer that option A uses definition c and options B and C use definition a (or broadly c). But as User:WhatamIdoing points out, the bold editor might use definition b and say "This doesn't apply to me: I can't re-revert since I didn't revert" to justify BRR, which becomes problematic for options A, B and C. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Drawing from User:North8000 – Option D: If your bold edit is reverted, do not revert this reversion. Instead, discuss your bold edit on the talk page (see below). Multiple reversions do not follow BRD and set a path toward edit warring (see below).
  • As it's entirely up to the first (bold) editor whether or not BRD is followed, I left the second editor out of the boldfaced portion but made a general statement to include the second editor in the plaintext. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  We should also include the reverter. Maybe, for an Option D, "Do not revert after the first revert. If you do so, you are no longer following BRD." 2601:647:5800:1A1F:889E:96A8:F1A2:A8E7 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  To include the reverter at this point means that we're already talking about something other than BRD, so is it a good idea to address side cases in the first bold sentence of Discuss? I'm concerned this might muddy the waters. The probable cases in which the original reverter would revert again (in a 2-editor scenario) are BRR or BRB – BRD is already broken in the former and there are cases where BRRR would be justifiable (but getting into them would go off-topic and might encourage editors to game the system), while BRBR is treated under 'bold, revert, bold again' as acceptable in some situations. Broadly, saying that the original reverter should not revert again is contrary to the principle of BRD (although if it carries on past that, the original reverter would be the first to violate WP:3RR). While BRR is also included at the bottom as acceptable in some situations, this assumes incompetence on the part of the original reverting editor, and doesn't seem like the thing that should be done outside of clear policy violations. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  If the reverter reverts a revert of their revert of the bold edit (...cough), then the cycle would be BRRR. That would obviously be into edit-war territory, which we would want to discourage strongly. In fact, anything beyond BR in this essay breaks BRD. Maybe we should have an Option F: "After a bold edit is reverted, do not do any further reverts. Instead, go to the talk page to discuss." That way, the first revert would be a bright line beyond which further reverts would be unacceptable. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Bold Option D This version was made to integrate changes below. "If your bold edit is reverted, do not undo the revert. Instead, go to the talk page to figure out why your edit was reverted. If your revert is undone, do not revert back. This can cause edit wars. Instead, ask the bold editor to go to the talk page to discuss their bold edit." 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Dish as above, but wording needs work. Oppose E it is heading in the wrong direction. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 22:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• A, or, failing that, C. Agree with Mathglot that the key thing is to discourage revert-warring, though I think that C is also not terrible at that (it removes the idea that a bold edit is some sort of unique special type of edit to which specific rules apply.) Oppose B, D, and E in strongest possible terms since they could encourage revert-warring - most of them imply that it is somehow more acceptable to repeatedly revert to remove a bold edit than it is to instate one, which is not a line of thought we should be encouraging. "I was reverting a bold edit, therefore it wasn't revert-warring!" is never going to be an acceptable argument and we should avoid any wording that implies it could be. And some of the versions of E get WP:CREEPy while encouraging edit-warring in other ways, ie. repeatedly trying to reinstate an edit with small tweaks rather than discussing it can still lead to revert wars. The point of BRD is to take it to talk. --Aquillion (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option C: Clear and succinct. If I were a brand new user, this is the option that would confuse me the least. And I'm not sure that any additional information is really helpful here. Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't really see how this leaves any room for wikilawyering (except insofar as wikilawyers can argue about anything). Generalrelative (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option C: Per Generalrelative above. Clear & conscise. This conveys what want to say in a single line and not being too wordy. IMO that's best for those who are new to Wikipedia, and especially those who find it difficult to understand and grasp long English sentences, because it isn't their first language. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 07:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Option C does seem to be the most concise. I would like to hear the thoughts of a copyeditor if possible. ––FormalDude talk 05:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @FormalDude: As someone you could call an avid copyeditor, I agree. Option A is quite verbose, not to mention the clause "do not re-revert to your version" is repeated, which is unnecessary. Option B is unnecessarily specific and awkward in my opinion. Option C is general and concise and, in my opinion, is the best wording of the point. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 07:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option C does seem to capture the intention concisely. Is there a way it could be misconstrued? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Pbsouthwood: I'd say not likely; to be honest, the most awkward part would probably just be "re-revert". Otherwise, it seems clean and straightforward to me. That's not to say that Option C's problematic, though. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 07:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with re-revert, the meaning is clear. Counter-revert could be an alternative, also pretty clear in meaning, though I can't say whether I have ever seen it used. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
      • On more careful consideration, I would say that the meaning of re-revert depends on immediate context, and is only clear if careful attention is given to the whole sentence, and not paying careful attention to context is a thing that happens. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• I would encourage editors to put forward Option Ds in the survey section, so that we have more and better options for the wording. These options should also be weighed and chosen in the discussion section. This is to make sure we can find our best option. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  OK, I will attempt to compose an option D here:

  • Option D, version 1: "If a bold edit was reverted, do not counter-revert, discuss on the talk page. If a reversion was counter-reverted, do not re-revert, discuss on the talk page." (Here I am going for maximum clarity of meaning at the cost of a bit of repetition to reduce possible contextual influences on interpretation. This does not exclude the option of responding with non-reversion edits at any point, nor does this address consequences to another person editing against this recommendation.) Open for comment and counter-proposals. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  (I guess that makes my earlier proposal in the Survey section 'Option D, version 0'). I understand your proposal though I feel the language might still confuse some of the newish editors directed here. Once you get to the second sentence, BRD is already broken. I feel like we should be talking about what to do at this early part of the section, rather than talking about contingencies for when it fails. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Counter-revert is better terminology, and makes sure readers don't get confused by endless uses of re-revert. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Note: To avoid proliferation of Option Ds and an introduction of too many proposals, I will replace option D with two or three more specific options that have garnered support. This will probably happen around one week from the start of this RFC. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Reply to note: IP 2601, once the voting has started, including some votes for option D, you may not replace option D anymore, because it would make closure difficult or impossible. You can add additional options (but be careful of splitting the options into so many different choices that none is likely to gain consensus) but you cannot replace existing ones. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, got it. Maybe I'll just keep the status quo, as adding too many options will make it too difficult to determine consensus, which is exactly what I want to avoid. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:45D3:5855:E556:E0A7 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• It seems a little late to add another suggestion now, but I would favour clarity over concision (up to a point) and avoid the potentially confusing 're-revert', instead saying "if your bold edit (or reversion) is reverted, do not revert back to your version" (possibly with 'preferred' in between 'your' and 'version'). Concision is only a virtue where it doesn't sacrifice clarity, but repetition that is not necessary (as in the original version, option A) tends to be a negative for clarity, in my experience. SamBC(talk) 18:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarity over concision

I hear everyone praising concision, and while it's a good thing in general, it's not the only requirement in writing a guideline, and clarity of meaning should certainly be in first place. For two equal formulations, I do agree that the shorter one is generally the better one. But not when they are unequal, and A and C are not equal, because the anaphora present in the current version with its intentional repetition and parallel structure, leaves no wiggle room for misinterpretation about whether this applies only to an initial revert, or also to a revert of a revert. An expert in logic might lay out some propositional calculus about why the shorter version means the same thing as the current version; perhaps it does. But not every new editor or for that matter experienced editor who doesn't have their logic-of-grammar hat on (not to mention ESL editor) is going to read it that way; but nobody is going to misinterpret the anaphoric (longer) version; it simply leaves no room for misinterpretation. If we go with C, get ready for cases of misinterpretation of the shorter version to start popping up all over, followed by patient, careful explanations why "No, it doesn't actually mean that, what it means is..." followed by more or less the wording that used to be there, as you try to explain what the shorter version actually means; namely, it means what the two sentences say currently. Do we really want to go there? WP:CONCISE is not everything, and I feel that appealing to concision here will be at the expense of clarity, is a bad idea, and will cause problems down the road. Let's leave well enough alone. Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If this were the Wikipedia:Editing policy or Wikipedia:Edit warring, then I'd agree with you. But it isn't. It's a page directed to a single audience: the bold editor. If this page is followed, it is impossible for that second sentence to ever apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

What constitutes a bold edit is not really a well-defined concept, so saying that it's *only* directed to "them" is hard to sustain. You may be right about the second sentence, but you are a very sharp-eyed editor with impeccable language and logic skills; I fear that if we make the change to C, you will be explaining what you just explained above, over and over and over again to other editors, whereas if we leave it alone, you'll be spared that. Also, the second sentence is one that you authored (so is the first one); have you changed your mind since then, and if so, what's different? Other than the fact that you have eight more years experience, and you understand BRD backwards and forwards? Maybe you needed the second sentence then, but you don't anymore. Have pity on those who are now, where you were then. Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, User:WhatamIdoing was already around for seven years when she added the two sentences, so she was probably experienced enough to understand BRD forwards and backwards. However, this is relatively tangential, and your main point still stands. Just don't assume too much of other editors' history. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm very well aware; we both started around the same time, and I've always had enormous respect for her. Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's hope that I am now wiser than I was, in addition to being older. I think I missed the point in 2014. It makes sense in the context of the single bullet point; it doesn't make sense in the context of the larger page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

One thing that changed in between 2014 and now: I read some of the early versions of this page. They are strikingly different from Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD. The "real" BRD outlines a highly specific negotiation tactic. Everything that I (and others) added in the general line of "No edit warring! Just talk!" distracts from and hides the actual BRD. I think Wikipedia needs both "No edit warring!" and this specific negotiation tactic. I've proposed renaming this page a couple of times (with the goal of the "No edit warring!" version ending up with the BRD name, and the one-on-one negotiation tactic getting a different, unmistakable name, like WP:Optional one-on-one negotiation tactic for experienced editors, because Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so if you don't stick the key point in the title, editors will guess wrong about its meaning), but nobody's been especially enthusiastic about that idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, you've convinced me! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's one-on-one, or at least, not if you mean that it's limited to two editors. If you have Ed-1: "Bold"; Ed-2: "Rv"; Ed-3: "Re-Rv"; then there's a missing "D" and you have a BRD violation. The guideline does talk about "two factions", but if you have a re-revert, then I think by definition you have two factions, at least up to that point. Perhaps that's why there's not much enthusiasm for your proposed title, although I can see where you're going, and wouldn't object to a rename along those lines that made the user/faction issue clearer. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot, how does one have a "violation" of an explicitly optional process? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Yah, it's not a very good choice of word as it would be if there were some compulsion as in a policy or guideline. What I meant was an abrogation, transgression, or failure to meet the suggested process, but that was the word that came to mind. I probably use it too liberally, as in, "Changing color to colour is a violation of {{Use American English}}", when it's only a template. I should probably find a better word. Breach, maybe? Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"Departure from BRD's advice"? "Decision to use one of the many policy-sanctioned and often effective approaches that doesn't happen to be BRD"? "Not BRD, which is okay"?

(Also, BRD isn't a guideline; multiple failed PROPOSALs are linked in the FAQ at the top of this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

How about the Option D version by North800, "If somebody reverts your bold edit, do not revert their revert." 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't cover the situation as to what happens if someone DOES revert my revert. Because they were not allowed to do that, then according to that, I have the right to revert them back. I shouldn't, but that wording, by not mentioning that I can't do that, allows me to. We should instead be very clear that Person A (the first editor), should not revert if someone reverts them, but if they do, then Person B (the person who first reverted) should ALSO not revert them back. The point is that, no matter what the other editor or editors do, no one is entitled to anything except the first revert of the bold edit. Everything that happens after that is non-ideal, and that even if someone takes a revert they were not supposed to, that gives no extra right of any further reverts. Wording that does not make that explicit instead makes it allowable. --Jayron32 13:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've occasionally had people re-revert some of my reversions, and I've been grateful for it once I understood the situation better. I make mistakes; we all make mistakes. So re-reverting isn't actually banned; it's just not part of BRD (which is still optional). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The whole thing is optional to begin with; these are shoulds not musts. If the bold editor reverts your revert, then they aren't following BRD, and it's time to look to another page since it's outside the scope of this one. Only the original editor can follow BRD; BRD is irrelevant to the second editor. Or do we really want to attempt to cover every conceivable scenario in editing disputes (like if a third editor reverts the original revert, which is perfectly acceptable)? To answer your question above, when faced with BRR, circumstances dictate actions. Generally speaking, we shouldn't BRR or BRRR, but these are not policy violations and there are circumstances where they are justified. Usually I discuss, sometimes I BRRR and discuss, sometimes I BRRR, discuss and request page protection. I don't know if it's appropriate to detail any of that on this page. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Oh, sometimes I've opened a discussion with the BRR editor and waited a month following failure-to-discuss guidelines and then BRRR – only to have the other editor immediately BRRRR without discussion. Unfortunately, WP:3RR favours the bold editor, leaving us stuck with their version of the article while AGF waiting on someone who isn't going to discuss. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose all - (there, let's challenge the closer to read all comments, not just bullet-pointed ones in some subsection : ) - None of the proposed changes are better than the current text. And WP:NOTPAPER. If it takes x number of words to explain something, use the words. Don't lose clarity or meaning to merely be more brief. - jc37 23:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Do you want to do Option A? That is the status quo. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:889E:96A8:F1A2:A8E7 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Option E, which was the contribution made by myself, Jaredscribe, on 11 March which started this discussion. I added it to the list only just now (with some improvements), having been busy these last few days in article space doing actual encyclopedic work, instead of merely talking about it. Why was this not offered as an option, initially? Why all this discussion with no analysis? My contribution was a necessary improvement because: the 2nd person pronoun, your version is equivocal and ambiguous, unless modified. There are two partners to this tango: the bold contributor, and the responding editor. Describing what each should do and should not do, requires that we use distinct pronomial phrases to refer to each. My WP:BOLD contribution did just that, and therefore I was Bold to contribute it. Another clear alternative would be to use 3rd persons with the modal ought, instead of 2nd person imperative, and that might be better yet. However, I think you should accept Option E first, and then I or someone can propose here or boldly make this "story form" explanation a separate, future improvement. No one in this discussion bothered to read or analyze my contribution (which was initially accepted), and the discussion above is therefore moot. As a corollary, we have just proved the superiority of WP:BOLD editing over discussion, as per reductio ad absurdum. And we've done so decisively, in my opinion, even though that was not my original goal. Thank you all for participating in that. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Jaredscribe, Where does discuss in BRD come in with your version? Are you arguing for B₁RB₂RB₃R...B_nR with no requirement for anyone to discuss providing that each bold edit is slightly different (an improvement) from the previous? With no requirement to discuss, it is not BRD. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think he's arguing for Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing, which is a very, very, very good idea, but not BRD. Wikipedia:Bold-refine is a similar idea, only Jared's adding an editor who reverts to the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that is what I'm arguing for. Thank you for making me aware of Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing; I had not seen that before. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I just added that link, to my brand new essay WP:Bold-refine. Also thanks to @WhatamIdoing for reading my contribution history, find that essay and citing it, as I made that draft essay only just a few hours before coming to talk here. The series notation provided by @Peter Southwood may also be a good way to describe our expectations here, although he has exaggerated my proposal into a straw man. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Jaredscribe, I think you are referring to a different process, Bold, revert, refine, or Bold, revert, bold. BRD requires people to discuss as part of the cycle. In fact, the page puts some emphasis on discussion. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  ...and if they don't discuss, then they're not following BRD, which is okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Terminology: May I suggest that using the term counter-revert, to be defined as reversion of an original reversion, and re-revert to be defined as repeating the original reversion, might make some of these longer sentences with repetitive use of re-revert a bit clearer. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Good idea! Can we check for other possible terms as well? unrevert, irrevert, antirevert, contrarevert, obrevert, derevert ...others? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  We could, but are any of those as clear or better? Not to me, but who knows, maybe a bunch of people think so. Unrevert has a certain simplicity that appeals to me, but can't say I like the others. It takes a bit of effort to work out the intended meaning, which is not ideal for this purpose. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think this page really needs any of this terminology. We can probably use normal words ("Don't revert the reversion" or "Don't try to restore your bold edit") without needing to make any longer words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also not enamored of new terminology. (Otherwise: let's just rename revert to vert, and re-revert to revert; m-kay?) To the extent that "undo" is identical to "revert", you can avoid reduplicated words that way: "don't undo their revert" is pretty clear, and avoids the whiplash you feel when parsing "revert their revert". Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I like the simplicity of "don't undo their revert". I'm pretty sure you click "undo" to revert, so that might be more obvious for newer editors. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Counter-revert is more clear, IMHO, than re-revert. Although "irrevert" and "derevert" are also good suggestions, I suggest we pick one and consider the rest synonyms. "obrevert", or merely, "obvert" could be description of a partial revert Wikipedia:PARTR, that would be a less deprecatory idiom than par-vert. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Could you give a justification of why we would use "obrevert" for a partial revert? Anyway, I think it's best to not make the terminology too obscure, as that will make the page even more confusing, which is not what we want. As Mathglot said, it's best to keep the language simple. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:C420:D40F:98A4:7F96 (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Jaredscribe And you forgot "TЯƎVƎЯ" which nobody could misunderstand, being just "revert" backwards. @2601:647:5800:1A1F:C420:D40F:98A4:7F96, Jared was just kidding, but his humor might be a bit too dry to catch on first glance. Otoh, I never kid. Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  On second though, "unrevert" or ¨derevert" I think are the more clear and concise term for what used to be called a "re-reversion" - the reversion of a reversion, and necessary to avoid equivocation where a distinction is helpful. To "irrevert" could conceivably mean to protect content in such a way as to make it irreversible - to irrevocably commit. To "counter-revert" could possibly mean to retaliate against an adverse editor in some other way, by accusing him of incivility or hounding him through reversions on some other submission or page, with or without an unrevert, analogous to a legal "counter-claim" as opposed to a mere denial in reply. (And yes, you may ignore my humorous suggestion we should probably use the full syntax "partial-revert" for this case,

  although my first suggestion about "obvert" got it backward. the article could read ´do not obvert to your contribution after an editor has given cause and reverted it´ and that makes good sense, and with the wikilink we can expect readers to understand this.). Jaredscribe (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  What should be done in response to an unwarranted or tendentious revert? WP:Obvert it. Restore the bold contribution and give adequate justification in the edit summary. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  An interesting idea, but one that might be too far-fielded from the current discussion. If you want to discuss it, maybe go to WP:VPI or the new essay's talk page. This RFC is already sprawling into tenuously connected issues. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B45D:61AC:E323:660D (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Even policies are not prescriptive for the numerous possibilities, and this essay is merely highlighting three possible sequences (B, BR, BRD) within the infinite possibilities of policy-influenced processes. If we try to make it more and more prescriptive than that, we'd get mired down in the weeds. Structurally this essay is emphasizing three things:

1. It's routine/ fine to be bold on the initial edit
2. It's routine/fine to revert such a bold initial edit
3. If the above 2 steps happen and someone wants to pursue the initial bold edit, the next step is to discuss it.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC) This essay is not defining policy. And even

Agreed, but if one reverts, one should be prepared to explain the reason for reverting. That is part of the discuss deal. If the reverter is not willing to discuss, what do you do next? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If the Very Interested Person™ is not willing to discuss things, then you stop using BRD, and pursue the more standard forms of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

IMO such things are outside of the scope of BRD / this essay. To the extent that it is cover-able, it is covered elsewhere. The "R" in BRD is basically a plain 'ole revert. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that the person doing the reversion should explain the reason for reverting, else it is a wp:tendentious reversion. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

And what is the appropriate response to a tendentious revert? In disagreement with @WhatamIdoing over strategy, I suggest avoiding dispute resolution. (If we can´t figure it out on the BRD talk page, likely the adjudicators of a content dispute? This systemic failure leads to perverse moral reasoning of the sort favored by authoritarian cabals as in WP:There is no justice, which is why one cannot be assured of a correct outcome in wikipedia's bureaucratic process.) Jaredscribe (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This might be out of this discussion's jurisdiction, as it does not directly address WP:BRD. See comment above. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B45D:61AC:E323:660D (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jaredscribe, rather than taking the IP's doubtless excellent advice, I'll ask you to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes (the first main section), and see if that sounds relevant to you.

(Also, "unexplained" reverts can be Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore and Wikipedia:Deny recognition behaviors, so they're not necessarily tendentious.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Looks like we are now out of copyeditor territory, and into making more substantial edits. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  2601:647, I think I've lost the context for your comment. Making more substantial edits to what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  What I mean is that we are not just making minor tweaks to the bullet point text anymore for clarity, but are starting to propose rewrites that might change the meaning of the text significantly. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:BD46:9AC7:6ED2:9FDD (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Should I remove Option B, since it seems nobody is going to support it? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  No, leave it. Removing it when people have already voted would be confusing, and one might wonder why we have an A and a C and no B. Mathglot (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Collapse good faith, but off-topic discussion of the definition of "bold."

May I tangentially ask whether characterizing edits as "bold" (with the obvious inference that there exist non-bold edits) constitutes unnecessary and perhaps non-neutral emphasis? Sorry for the fork, but a clarification would be welcome. 74.72.146.123 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC) A bold edit is just an edit that is a more major change to the article than a non-bold edit. I don't think the usage here constitutes unnecessary emphasis. By the way, your point seems a bit irrelevant. You might want to ask at the village pump, instead of in this RFC. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4D7F:1C76:645D:1238 (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC) I've always considered a bold edit to be one made without prior discussion (eliminating the subjective element of whether it is "major" or not). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Who decides what is a bold edit though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC) The community (at WP:BOLD). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Collapsed per off-topic; please follow IP 2601's suggestion. Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Just to make my views clear, I'll say that I oppose Option E as it describes a different process to BRD. While "bold-revert-refine" is okay as a consensus-building process, it is not BRD. Note the emphasis placed on D, or discussion. It is the key to BRD. Please keep this in mind when suggesting further proposals. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3581:FAF4:6129:CFEA (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explaining revert of March 20.

"A revert is what the BRD-following bold editor is patiently waiting for." When I bold edit after a revert I'm hoping that I've resolved the reverting editor's issue and there will be no further revert.
"If you're lucky, the reverter will be specific and substantive about objections in the edit summary. If you're not, the reverter will revert unnecessarily, out of a desire for bureaucratic process, or even out of the belief that some other, hypothetical editor might object to your edit. Sometimes the reverting editors refuse to engage in discussion." The lede is not the place to provide an (incomplete) list of the ways a reverting editor may respond.
"If any of that happens, you might not be able to follow BRD." This paragraph is not the place to discuss how BRD may fail. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

As your objects focus on a single paragraph, I've restored the other changes. As for your objections:

1. That is hopefully true for most WP:BOLD edits, but it is not true for WP:BRD. The goal of (actual) BRD is to solve a problem by provoking another editor into reverting your solution. If your bold edit solves the problem, then you do not end up with "R" or "D", and thus you do not achieve BRD.
2. I re-wrote the paragraph to focus on the BRD-applying editor, not on Page Patrollers or other people who might respond. This page is supposed to give advice to the person who is trying to implement BRD, not to all editors. Therefore, the BRD page needs to provide information about what the BRD-applying bold editor should expect at the "R" stage of BRD. It does not need to duplicate admonitions to the reverter about not edit warring or being uncollaborative (e.g., "BRD does not encourage reverting"). The reverter doesn't even need to know that this page exists. This page should not be addressing the reverter at all. Also: Why does this tell the reverter to "See Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see."? I don't think that should be in this page at all, but if it's in this page, it definitely shouldn't be in the lede.
3. The lede of BRD is the perfect place to explain why you might not be able to follow BRD even if you want to. The first paragraph is full of information on why your attempts at BRD might fail. My proposed change elaborates on the third sentence of the lede, "In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach." These are some of the situations in which alternatives may be required.

I look forward to your thoughts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's start with 1. In contrast to wp:FOLLOWBRD, here is what I understand is going on at wp:BRD: (1) a bold edit is reverted, (b) a discussion ensues, (c) the discussion bogs down, and (d) one of the editors in the discussion makes a bold edit in the hopes of resolving the dispute or, failing that, moving the discussion forward. Is my understanding correct? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion you reference in (b) and (c) is optional and does not have to be kicked off by a bold edit being reverted in (1).

But your (d) is mostly correct: someone decides to address a problem by making a bold edit, in the expectation of being reverted, so that the bold editor can begin negotiations with the reverter. The precipitating scenario could be what you describe, but WP:BRD#Use cases names other several scenarios. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Where in wp:BRD does it say bold edits are - or even should be - made with an expectation of attracting a revert? (Here are two quotes from the page that suggest otherwise: "Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the page." "Making bold edits may sometimes draw a response from an interested editor, who may have the article on their watchlist. If no one responds, you have the silent consensus to continue editing.") - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It is literally impossible to follow the BRD process if the "R" and "D" steps do not happen. If you do not have all three ("B", "R", and "D"), then you may have done some excellent work, but it is not "BRD". See, e.g., "If no one responds, you have the silent consensus to continue editing" – which could equally well be phrased as "If no one responds, you aren't going to do BRD, because you're doing SILENCE instead". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Right. If there is no R there is no BRD. But is that the same as saying you should B with the expectation that another editor will R? Isn't it, rather, that you should B with the intention that it won't draw an R but, if it does, you should proceed to D if you want to use BRD to resolve the dispute? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Structurally, this essay merely emphasizes three things:

1. It's routine/ fine / usually encouraged to be bold on an initial edit
2. It's routine/fine to revert such a bold initial edit
3. If the above 2 steps happen and someone wants to pursue the initial bold edit, the next step is to discuss it.

So the above adds up to three different sequences: "B", "BR" and "BRD". If it stops at "B", it still falls under guidance given by this essay. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I think WhatamIdoing, the primary author of WP:FOLLOWBRD, would disagree with this statement. See also WP:BRB. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

They would, but that's the complicated version of BRD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

BRD's purpose is to prevent edit warring:

1. B and R are normal and acceptable practices.
2. Reactions other than D are likely edit warring and uncollaborative behavior. We do not like attempts to force a preferred version.

See WP:Short BRD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

There are alternatives to D that are not edit warring or uncollaborative. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are exceptions and not BRD. We're talking about BRD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean that BRD's purpose is to prevent edit warring, and we should be putting in language that promotes discussion. I also disagree with what the OP said about "When I bold edit after a revert I'm hoping that I've resolved the reverting editor's issue and there will be no further reverts." because that follows a BRB process that does not belong here in the BRD guidance. Huggums537 (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Striking this because I forgot the alternatives are listed on this page, so it does belong. My objections were just my personal opinion. Huggums537 (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Huggums537, cycling back to the text reverted on March 20, is it correct to say "A revert is what the BRD-following bold editor is patiently waiting for"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't really agree with that either, and I was just giving my general opinion about what I think the BRD is about rather than supporting any particular edits, but I take major issue with a specific part that ties the hand of an editor from being able to take things to higher dispute resolution process; or even start larger dispute resolution processes. I don't know how that got overlooked or left in, but we should omit that part. All the rest of that paragraph seems fine though. Huggums537 (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Once you move on to other dispute-resolution processes, you have stopped doing BRD.

Isn't that obvious? Actual-as-written BRD is not just "make an edit, and if you get reverted, then use the talk page instead of edit warring". Actual-as-written BRD is a one-on-one negotiation tactic that is meant to get agreement between the bold editor and the reverter through discussion between the two people. If you do something different from that (e.g., figure out the problem from the reverter's edit summary and fix it, aka "bold, revert, bold again" or any of the "Several dispute resolution processes may also be useful to break a deadlock"), then you are using an "alternative" to BRD, where "alternative" means "Other; different from", as in "a thing you do that is different from BRD". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, and I understand your point, but the big problem I see is that the guidance both before and after your changes says you "must" not do these things. It works ok with the other stuff, but with the dispute resolution thing, it makes it appear like what is being said is that dispute resolution is banned, not that it isn't part of the BRD process. That is extremely problematic, especially if it can be interpreted by wiki lawyers to mean as such. Huggums537 (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Another reason I see this as problematic is because it leaves the door wide open for a good editor who might want to resolve an issue through dispute resolution to an unwarranted attack for not following some kind of unspecified "due process" for dispute resolution if this is instated into the guidance. In other words, it kind of suggests a "due process" for dispute resolution without going through the vetting of getting a community consensus to establish an actual due process. I see that as even more majorly problematic than the possible misinterpretation since the only "due process" we have for dispute resolution is a prerequisite that there has been some talk page discussion, which is supported by the discussion part of BRD. We shouldn't be telling editors they must not go to dispute resolution at the point of discussion in a way that they can confuse it with meaning that they can't, or meaning that that they are somehow in the wrong for doing so. Huggums537 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I see your concern, and I agree with you. These are all good things to do (in suitable circumstances, usual disclaimers apply); they just don't happen to be "actual" BRD. In fact, most of the time, I'd recommend these approaches instead of actual BRD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure. BRD isn't a magic bullet, so you might have to rely on other resolutions. Huggums537 (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with North that this process could be achieved at any one of the three combinational stages of the process, and in fact, it is strongly implied by the third part of the process (the discussion part) that there may possibly be more stages beyond that before the final process (consensus) is "achieved" since *discussion* sometimes includes the group changing their mind, and edits before arriving on a final decision, but at least they're discussing, and not edit warring. (Hopefully). Huggums537 (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Above I wrote "Reactions other than D are likely edit warring and uncollaborative behavior." I should say that they are "usually" a form of edit warring (often the start of an edit war), but any reaction that is not edit warring and is collaborative is a good thing, it just isn't BRD if it's not Discussion, so take that angle somewhere else, because there are many other options, too many to discuss here.

BRD is not the only way to avoid edit warring. It is just the simplest expression of the shortest process to avoid it, and 95% of the time it applies. It is often cited by admins as a reason for blocking an editor for edit warring, and, AFAIK, a violation usually provides conclusive proof of who started the edit war, IOW which editor to sanction. Edit wars can get complicated, so go back and see who violated BRD, then nail them. Just like a series of collisions in an intersection can get complicated, go back and see which driver first broke the law. It was their actions that precipitated the whole mess.

Sometimes one hears the objection "But BRD is not policy". That's true, but edit warring is forbidden by policy, and when a violation of BRD is edit warring, then citing it is perfectly fine. It's shorthand for "You were edit warring when you didn't respond by discussing, so I'm blocking you. Stop trying to force your preferred version on us. We really don't like that type of uncollaborative behavior. Don't do it again. Next time an editor reverts your edit, follow BRD." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

BRD's purpose is not to prevent edit warring. BRD's purpose is to solve disputes. The fact that it additionally does not involve edit warring by the Bold editor (BRD has no effect on the behavior of any other editor) does not mean that its purpose is to prevent edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

As written, it also encourages the first "B" as a way to help build & evolve content, and also says that the first "R" is fine / no big deal on a bold edit. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. That is rather generic, and not as helpful as more BRD-specific content would be.

Valjean, this page is not the simplest expression of the shortest process to avoid edit warring. The two-thousand-word-long essay at Wikipedia:Short BRD comes closer, but the shortest process is the first sentence of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment - concerning this edit, which I take to be the main topic of this section: I think it is mistaken to understand BRD primarily as a strategy undertaken by the Bold editor whose action initiates the cycle. BRD is correctly invoked by the reverting editor, especially when they simultaneously open the discussion on Talk. Any revision of the essay that entrenches the assumption that it is the Bold editor who chooses BRD strikes me as misleading and unhelpful. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Having reviewed the essay again, the only support I can find for seeing BRD primarily as a strategy undertaken by the Bold editor is the "How to proceed" subection of the General overview. The Process section, by contrast, regards the BRD cycle as initiated by the reverting editor, which I find to be the more consistently helpful interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, reading the current version doesn't really help much in this case. Read this old version (selected at semi-random) to see how much it differs from the current version. The original idea (which is good) has drifted quite a distance to something that is also good, but which is different. The current version, partly because of my own well-intended but IMO mistaken efforts in the past, has turned into something much closer to a long-winded version of the WP:EPTALK policy. There's IMO nothing inherently wrong with that, but Wikipedia is best served by having both, not by obliterating the original idea and replacing it with a general admonition to "use your words instead of edit warring, kids". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying (and thanks for the Paleolithic version link), but I don't really agree. For one thing, that old version lacks the "BRD is a dance between one bold and one reverting editor" preconception that lurks in the shadows of the current essay version and that troubles the "how to proceed" section in particular. More essentially, I think there is a view - not the original view, perhaps, but now probably the dominant view - that sees BRD neither as "use your words" nor as a strategy undertaken by the Bold editor, but precisely as described in the "Process" section - as a cycle initiated by the reverting editor when they open the discussion. This may not be precisely the original idea (which was more about sniffing out the gatekeepers, IMO), but it would be baby-bathwater for anyone to read the Process section account as a long-winded version of the WP:EPTALK policy - in essence, that is what I think of as "misleading and unhelpful": interpreting that construal of BRD as just EPTALK warmed over. Newimpartial (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree with what @Newimpartial is saying, and I find even more evidence that their interpretation makes more sense to me since we find in the image caption of the WP:BRD-NOT section that it directly addresses all editors; BRD only works when both bold and reverting editors follow the process. as well as specifically addressing the reverting editor; ...If you tell someone to follow BRD when you revert their edits, then you need to follow BRD yourself... so I think any ideas that edits on this page are for bold editors only, and reverters don't even need to know about it are probably a little too ambitious for this page, but not surprising considering the dated version of the old page. Huggums537 (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not true that BRD is a cycle initiated by the reverting editor when they open the discussion; if it were, there would be no reverting editors demanding that the bold editor be the person who starts the discussion. As it is, there are lots of them, even years after we added all of those sentences encouraging reverters to "Start a discussion yourself" or "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." (a statement that I no longer believe is true for "actual BRD", but is still true about following the EPTALK and AVOIDEDITWAR policies) instead of demanding that others do things the reverters feel they are too important to do themselves.

This is (I hope you all agree?) good advice for Wikipedia to have somewhere, but it is tacked on to BRD in an effort to bandage problems with how the original BRD was being misinterpreted, and is not the core of the one-on-one negotiation process with the person whom Newimpartial (IMO accurately) calls a gatekeeper, but whom BRD diplomatically calls an Interested Person. I agree that it's good advice that ought to be somewhere. I just don't agree that this general advice should be mixed up with the actual BRD advice. The optional "one-on-one dance" needs to be on a different page from the more general (and less optional) advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about a page move

The gap between what BRD actually is (was) and what editors guess it means from the title is so large that I would like to talk about moving the "actual BRD" content to another page. The end result is that we can't make this page clearer about what "actual BRD" is, and how it differs (by being more specific than) from general good behavior, because we have two competing needs: a need for a page on general good behavior ("Please use your words instead of edit warring") and a need to explain "actual BRD" as a very specific approach to solving difficult disputes.

One approach that might have the "least breakage" is to turn Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (with the WP:BRD shortcut) into a disambiguation page. That page could have content along these lines:

The bold, revert, discuss cycle ("BRD") was an approach to editing in difficult areas. You may be looking for:

• WP:AVOIDEDITWAR – the section of the Wikipedia:Edit warring that says to use discussion instead of edit warring
• WP:EPTALK – the section of the Wikipedia:Editing policy that explains how to use discussion to improve articles
• Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD – an essay explaining that "BRD" is often used as a short name for the requirements in the above policies
• Wikipedia:Short BRD – a practical page on how to implement the two policies
• WP:One-on-one negotiation approach – the original, optional BRD process, which may be useful to experienced editors who need to resolving stuck disputes

I think this would solve several problems (including the perennial question about why BRD isn't a policy), and it would certainly solve the problem of not being able to have the "actual BRD" described anywhere because editors keep trying to remove that information in favor of a summary of AVOIDEDITWAR and EPTALK. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Good idea. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• I like the concept but have concerns regarding the wording. Rather than sidetrack the proposal by raising those concerns now, I'll hold off and suggest changes if and when it is put into place. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I do want to suggest one text change now. Make the moved article "Bold, revert, discuss negotiation" (or something similar) instead of "WP:One-on-one negotiation approach." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought it might be better to avoid the "BRD" language entirely, but if you like that title better, then it's okay with me. Or maybe "WP:Original bold, revert, discuss process", to suggest that this is not what editors are thinking about these days (i.e., the original, not the current notion)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tough one. "WP:Seeking consensus using the bold, revert, discuss process"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I think people will think that's the modern version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that few people know there are original and modern versions. And even if that is the case now, it won't matter in the future when neither will be modern. What, other than history makes the two versions different?

What terms (labels) would you use to distinguish them without reference to which one came first? Perhaps "Bold, revert, discuss editing" vs. "Bold, revert, discuss negotiation"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the two subjects here are "Following the everyday policies about what to do when reverted" (modern) vs "This hyper-specific thing that hardly anyone ever does, but which might be useful in certain circumstances, especially if you knew that it wasn't just following the everyday policies" (original).

Do you think that all of them need to include BRD words in the titles? I thought that giving up that language for the original version might make it easier to differentiate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm hoping for a label that is more descriptive than "this hyper-specific thing." It need not include the BRD words. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I support that goal. mw:Naming things is difficult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

My thought is that you, as the "original BRD" expert, hold the key to achieving that goal. If you can - and are willing to - provide a sentence or two that describes the process/cycle/method (as opposed to saying how often and when it is used) then I can try to fashion a proposed title out of that sentence. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The expert would be Kim Bruning, who hasn't been seen on wiki for almost a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a fun fact, but it doesn't get us any closer to good new name for the article you're porposing we move. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• BRD makes a few good points, and enshrines / highlights 3 simple sequences ("B", "BR" & "BRD") of the trillions of possible situations. Probably the most important concept that it is the main Wikipedia coverage of is "Be Bold" (once). Whatever happens, we should be careful not to lose or obscure these qualities. North8000 (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  There are circumstances when "'Be Bold' (twice)" is okay. See, for example, "Bold, discuss, bold" at wp:BRB. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I did not mean to imply otherwise in my description which was ambiguous due to its brevity. I guess that more precisely wp:brd emphasizes that the first revert of a bold move is considered to be no big deal /common, and that this is not intended to say or imply anything about potential additional reverts. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"Actual BRD" conceptualized the first revert as a substantially positive and desirable thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• I personally am in favor of alternatives that exclude the reverting process for a couple of reasons, one being that there are actually more of them that don't require reverting, and the other is that I believe reverting is an inherently aggressive action for the most part. Unfortunately, most of our vandalism/warning templates, and other things of that nature are worded in such a way that they seem innocent enough, but they actually support a hostile, restrictive, and aggressive environment. I think a huge number of them need to be reworked because of it. It may seem hypocritical that I sometimes use them myself, but it is all we have to work with right now in the Twinkle and Redwarn tools, and the time it takes to craft your own makes the job too tedious. They are really only good for being politically correct assholes to vandals, and it seems that is all they had in mind when they designed them. Huggums537 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Question: How does this proposal plan to resolve the "feedback loop" errors that will occur when the two links to BRD in the last paragraph of WP:EPTALK, as well as the three links to BRD in the lede and hatnote of Wikipedia:What_editors_mean_when_they_say_you_have_to_follow_BRD will now just recycle back to the new disambig page? Huggums537 (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia:Short_BRD link in the proposed disambig page also has three links to BRD as well... Huggums537 (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that any of these are difficult. EPTALK doesn't really need the link at all, but it could be repointed to Valjean's WP:Short BRD, which (despite me teasing him about it not being so short after all) could be turned into the repository for all of the general/non-original advice currently on this page. There's also nothing inherently wrong with sending people back to the disambiguation, as that could help them find the page that they actually need. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is a highly cited and highly useful page and this is a solution in search of a problem. I don't see any reason to mess with it. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)