This page was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

	WikiProject Essays	EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysEssays articles
v t e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.  High  This page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale.

WikiProject Editor Retention	(Rated Project-class, High-importance)	Editor RetentionWikipedia:WikiProject Editor RetentionTemplate:WikiProject Editor RetentionEditor Retention articles
v t e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.  High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archives
2005 – 2007 2008 – 2010

Contents 1 How do you discuss with a missing person? 2 This seems overly complicated 3 Is deletion privileged over addition? 4 Can a single revert make an editor part of an edit war and sanctionable for edit warring? 5 Upgrade to Guideline 6 Should the reverter be the one to fix up what's wrong when the revertee does not want to act? 7 Does BRD work? 8 Recent changes 8.1 Undo of revert as unjustified 8.2 Reverted 9 Wikipedia Project BRD proposal 10 Copy edit 11 linking to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Examples of ownership behavior and Quickstart guide 12 BRD, copyedits can't fix a flawed heart 13 BRD is just one method? 14 New changes 15 Proposal for cases where one side does not discuss 16 nutshell 16.1 wow! lets lock in that first sentence of the nutshell! 17 Quick start guide copy edits 18 Question 19 Proposal to incorporate WP:STATUSQUO into WP:BRD 20 Proposed change of template

How do you discuss with a missing person? [edit]

This is my first edit as a registered user, but I've done a few before and one of them is posing a problem: When I, long ago, tried to look up dexterity, I saw that there was no page for it. It did however redirect to Fine motor skill, which while not quite the same thing, is fairly related. It contained nothing of interest however, as it pretty much consisted of nothing more than information about how fine motor skill develops in children/infants, and how to deal with that. While such information would be nice in a page called Fine motor skill in child development or some such thing, or as a little section in a Fine motor skill page, which is otherwise filled with information about fine motor skills, it does not belong where I found it. I also found that I was hardly the only one to think so (As seen in the Talk page).
I checked in later, a couple of times, but still the same.
No changes whatsoever.
So while I hardly thought I could write an informative page about fine motor skill, I decided that I'd be better than nothing. I decided to Be Bold and made an edit. As I didn't know what to add, I simply removed everything that didn't belong on the page (almost all of the contents), and the best of what remained, resulting in a page that was actually about fine motor skills. It didn't contain much, but I hadn't really reduced any relevant information.

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

Then someone came along and reverted my edit, with seemingly no care as to how that impacted the quality of the page. Just considering it to be to extreme I guess? I responded in the talk page ...and tried to revert it back (I have since realised the foolishness in such an action, after reading the relevant Policy pages). What I am supposed to do now is, as far as I've understood it, to discuss this matter with the user in question.
Okay fine.
Just one problem:
She's apparently on holiday. (as of 12:25, 18 July 2010, according to when she stated it on her Talk page)
I've stated my reasons, and have requested her reasons. Both on Talk:Fine_motor_skill and User_talk:Lova_Falk, but there is no response. BOLD, revert, discuss. I was BOLD, I got reverted... months later and the one I'm supposed to discuss with is still absent. What am I supposed to do in such a situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Frustrating, isn't it! I know the feeling. Been there, done that as a newbie. Now that you have a registered username you can be more effective. You don't have to discuss with "that" person, but with anyone watchlisting the article. Start the discussion again (with a new heading) on the talk page and see where it goes. I can see why your large deletion was reverted. As a newbie you didn't realize that that's considered vandalism. The existing content was likely the result of lots of people's hard work. Major changes, and ANY controversial change, must be discussed and created through consensus. Make small changes. Work forward systematically and discuss each change as necessary. Never edit war. Be patient because the article isn't going away and all content is saved in the history. It's never really "gone" and can be referenced and even recovered if necessary. You will usually have more success if you build rather than delete. I wish you success in improving the article. Note that "improvement" will be as determined by the combined efforts and ideas of what others consider "improvement". You'll all have to work together and the end result may well be somewhat dissatisfying to many editors, but's sometimes a sign that the article is getting close to NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that someone else would pay attention, any at all, to the page. Trust me, no one does. Also, as to your assertion that my original edit was vandalism... Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've looked around on the policy pages about that and as far as I can see, it doesn't qualify as vandalism. It didn't go against any other policies either, as far as I can tell. It was done quite in accordance to policy (and consensus). I don't see how adding is actually any different from reducing, other than how it is perceived (due to flawed instincts) ...which affects how well it gets accepted, if not how well it should be accepted (it's annoying how what should be, so often differs from what is). "discuss each change as necessary" you say? I explained my edit and further clarified after the revert (as I've mentioned above).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

...oh and why do you try to console me by saying that the previous contents is still there in the history? Sure, you can't be expected to know that I am already well aware of that fact, but... I didn't add anything. There is nothing I would want/need to recover, from the history.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

This seems overly complicated [edit]

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

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

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

I think it's this stuff about trying to make people talk to you that makes this come off as offensive. — trlkly 14:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You can discuss until hell freezes over. But when you finally do edit (on return from your skiing holidays in the newly opened hell resort), you may discover that some previously silent person disagrees with you and reverts you. Oops.

Alternately, during discussion, you can make an edit, and the other person goes "Oh, yeah, actually that's actually not too bad", and doesn't bother reverting.

In the end, the first, last, best, worst, only and final arbiter of consensus on a normal wiki-page is whether an edit sticks or not.

Since wikipedia is a wiki, your mission (should you choose to accept it) at all times is to make (productive, good faith) edits; as many as you can. Discussion is not your objective per-se.

I'm not saying that discussion isn't important at times! It's important to talk with people so that everyone is on the same wavelength. But wikipedia is not a discussion forum or social network. At the end of the day, we're here to edit and build an encyclopedia.

Pretty much every statement you make *anywhere* is supposed to (eventually) lead to a productive edit (even if it takes all day, or longer, to get there), and to lead back to regular editing with mutual trust in general (aka. no more reverts).

People who revert others for no reason are a hindrance to this process.

In general: To make consensus work, you have to provide a reason for everything you do). People taking actions without explaining themselves are demonstrably acting in bad faith.

You can exploit this fact to get reverters to talk with you, and thus get the process back on track.

TL;DR:

1. Discuss, Discuss, Discuss is not productive. Don't do that!
2. Bold, Bold, Bold is productive. Do that!
3. In Bold, Revert, Discuss; Discuss doesn't mean Discuss the topic, your feelings, or the unseasonably cool weather in hell this year. It means: hold a focused discussion on how to get back to being Bold! (and conclude that discussion as quickly as practical)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is deletion privileged over addition? [edit]

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

Is this in fact the desired operation procedure of Wikipedia? That material that has been deleted once should not be reposted? --this seems to be the way at least one editor is interpreting the BRD policy (i.e., [1]).

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

I would have thought that the correct editing technique would be to put the material back and add a section on the discussion page to explain why the material should be included? No? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. ;-) Then see who responds and why! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Resolve a dispute, and a wikipedian is happy for a day. Teach a wikipedian to resolve disputes, and they make everyone around them happy for the rest of their wiki-days.

Can a single revert make an editor part of an edit war and sanctionable for edit warring? [edit]

I thought that making a single revert to an article is always allowed, per WP:BRD. Was I wrong? Please see the discussion here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Upgrade to Guideline [edit]

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

Given this text from the opening of the essay: "BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure," is it desirable to make this a guideline?

Is there any documentation showing that the BRD guideline is useful? 128.156.10.80 (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Should the reverter be the one to fix up what's wrong when the revertee does not want to act? [edit]

See Talk:GMA Network, Inc.#Wikipedia is not a directory, explain why please.... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the day we're here to edit. Give 'em 24 hours (they might be in an opposite time zone or so, after all!), else proceed and edit. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does BRD work? [edit]

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

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

BRD, unfortunately, will fail if the other editor involved is not interested in discussion. The BRD flow chart shows "find a reasonable compromise" as the step following "Discuss," but obviously this does not happen if the editor who reverted fails to respond to the discussion. BRD also fails if the other editor responds, but is unwilling to compromise. In short, BRD can't find a compromise if none is available. NumberC35 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing really works at Wikipedia (every noticeboard and every rule is abused). However, the encyclopedia exists. BRD is an excellent essay and part of the WP:RETAIN and WP:BURDEN family: if someone wants to make a change, they need to be prepared to explain why. It is not up to other editors to first justify why material should be removed (although they should have done that to a limited extent in their edit summary on removal of the contested material).

I said BRD is an excellent essay. However, and not relevant to this discussion, I will mention that the essay is far too mysterious for an editor referred to WP:BRD for the 99% primary usage case, namely that someone adding contested material needs to justify it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that BRD is an excellent essay. It not very useful in practice, and the essay is a compilation of completely unsubstantiated assertions. There is no evidence that it actually does work, and it is not even clear how BRP is supposed to work. The essay basically says that when somebody reverts an edit, they're right and you're wrong.

The essay might work if all the editors on Wikipedia were reasonable... but if that were the case, the essay would not be needed. If the editor doing the reverting is not reasonable, the BRP process fails.

NumberC35 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading it again, I'm wondering whether this essay has any significant content at all. The "BRD" cycle consists of three parts. The first is Bold. On examination, "bold" part states: "make an edit." Given that this is advice for editors, yes, that's what editors do, make edits. This advice is hardly needed. The second part is "Revert." That's not under your control. Somebody else reverts your edit, or doesn't; either way, it's not advice for what you should do. Third part is "Discuss." The specific instructions here are "stop editing the article and discuss it on the talk page." Is there any content to the essay other than this?

I would say we could delete the entire text of the article except for the single sentence "You should be bold in editing, yes, but if anybody reverts your additions for any reason (or for no reason), you should stop editing the article immediately and move all your future discussion to the talk page." That would shorten the article considerably, but not change the content significantly.

On the other hand, I've wasted enough time reading and commenting on this, and I've expressed my opinion enough. So maybe I'll take the article's advice, and exit. Fix it, or don't fix it, but in either case please stop telling yourself "BRD is an excellent essay." No, it's not.

NumberC35 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have energy to contemplate this in detail now, but I think you are correct. Some of the current essay could be an additional section because the idea that if there is a stalemate in some long discussion, then a bold edit might cut through and demonstrate a way to proceed is valid (sometimes!). When I said "excellent", I meant the concept—I tried to indicate that the essay is incomprehensible for the 99% usage case. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Next to WP:POINT, WP:BRD is the most mis-cited page in the wikipedia: namespace. :-P

As with WP:POINT, it is often mis-cited to mean the opposite of what it actually says.

What makes a wiki -you know- a wiki, is that people make should be making edits to a wiki-page. All your activity should be aimed at doing just that. If someone quotes BRD and says "and now you must discuss until the heat death of the universe", they just blew it in a HUGE way <phew>!

Instead, what BRD describes is a way to find out who is doing that, so that you can give them a big telling off -or better yet- a big hug (whatever works) , so that you can get back to actually doing what we're all actually here for, which is to edit. :-)

And of course BRD and Consensus work, they've been working for a very long time. O:-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC) So it's a bit naughty: "Which @#*#* has been randomly reverting all the time!?" ... well, why not make an edit and find out? ;-) A lot of the old tricks are a bit naughty. O:-)

Is there any reason why this page shouldn't just be merged into WP:Be bold? --Kotniski (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh? I can't rightly fathom why you would think that that could be possible. It's a supplement to Wikipedia:Consensus. The procedure described here can be used to try to salvage the consensus process, in cases where it gets stuck. It does apply concepts from WP:BOLD for the first step. It then applies Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:WIARM, WP:1RR, and WP:TALK, among others, for the rest of the steps (which are all just as important). Shall we merge the lot then? :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh shoot, maybe you have a point, people have been watering things down a lot. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge the lot? Possibly a good idea. All these pages (and doubtless others) tend to cover a lot of the the same ground, and end up making things look a lot more complicated than they are. --Kotniski (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We sort of did that with WP:SR->WP:TRI->WP:5P. That didn't quite work out the way we wanted either. (for one, the originals are still out there <sigh>) <scratches head> Go ahead and create a page where you merge the lot, if you like, I'll definitely help edit. We'll have to keep the originals around for hysterichistorical reasons though, mind you. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"The procedure described here can be used to try to salvage the consensus process, in cases where it gets stuck." Does it? Is there any evidence that this procedure ever salvages the consensus process, or even "tries" to salvage the consensus process? Can anybody cite an example? How exactly would it do that, anyway--in a case where editors are not coming to consensus, how exactly does BRD change this? 128.156.10.80 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can systematically find every M.I.P. . You then build a partial consensus with 1, then 2 , then 3, then 4... M.I.P.s until you have exhaustively discussed and reached consensus with all of them.

There may be other methods that systematically and exhaustively find everyone who you need to talk to, and reaches consensus with them all, but I haven't used them. :-)

This process generally happens this way anyway, you're not going to be able to actually modify a page if there's still an M.I.P. out there reverting you anyway ;-)

Being conscious of what needs to be done to ensure that everyone is happy just happens to speed things up a LOT.

For instance, you won't spend weeks going over commas and dotting the I with one person upfront, when you are aware that your entire plan might still change due to having to reach consensus with a number of others. Also, you don't feel as frustrated when your carefully negotiated consensus does get reverted by some random 3rd party you've never met before, because you're already expecting that to happen during the process. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But this is supposed to apply in a situation where people are already discussing anyway. So you can already see who's interested (you don't need a bold edit to find that out); and in any case, I don't see how you can turn an ongoing multi-participant discussion into a series of private conversations each between you and one other person. Unless the edit you want to make is unrelated to the subject of the ongoing discussion, or reflects the clear result of the discussion (in which case it's not "bold" anyway), or is a well-crafted compromise that might just satisfy everyone, I don't think it's going to be helpful.--Kotniski (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well they'll either have been discussing for way too long, or they're all reverting newcomers (or both). Neither of these situations are conducive to the writing of an encyclopedia (after all, there's not much writing going on!). The people involved in the discussion are not necessarily M.I.Ps. You should only discuss with people interested in editing or reverting. Local color is welcome, but not relevant to the writing of the encyclopedia. :-P

If you edit once, (obviously attempting an edit as close as possible to the current consensus/compromise, why try for anything less?), there's going to be only one person who reverts you first (or no-one reverts you, in which case you're done ;-)) . You now have 1 person to talk with of whom you are certain that they are interested in your edit. You can then meet their remaining concerns first. When one next makes an edit, it will be someone else who reverts, etc... until people finally do stop reverting, and everyone makes bold edits again.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Why not meet everyone's concerns all at once? Well, that's very very very hard. If you just take it 1 step at a time, you will get there in the end. It might be counter-intuitive, but since you're working systematically, you'll probably be done sooner, as well

I'm not entirely sure this would work quite so idyllically. Once you've met everyone else's concerns (assuming that's somehow possible, which it often isn't, given that the concerns in situations like this tend to contradict), you might find you've made an edit quite different from the one you wanted to make in the first place - and one that you might not even agree with. And if you only agree to talk to people who are prepared to revert you, then it ends up being the most belligerent editors that have the greatest input in the final decision - and experience often shows that those who are keenest to revert are those are least blessed with wisdom. --Kotniski (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Idyllic. Heh. Interesting values of idyllic you have there.  :-P

• When there are contradictory concerns, then usually the obvious approach is to take The Third Option(tm). So far there has always been a third option (<knock on wood>)
• Yes the edit will be quite different from the one you intended in the first place, but that's normal on WP. You are supposed to make an edit you can live with though (don't forget to think of your own position too!).
• There is no final decision yet. There was belligerence, which is why you got called in in the first place, perhaps. Your objective was to handle the most belligerent folks so that we can get back to normal editing. (At which point the less belligerent editors get a chance too.)
• I plead the 5th on my opinions of those who are keen to revert; I still use this method occasionally. O:-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Recent changes [edit]

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

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

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

There are several aspects of the new version that now seem unclear to me, and I'm wondering if the best person to be making substantial changes here is someone who's currently in a conflict regarding it. This may not be a policy, but it is an oft-applied resource. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching, not super closely, but I've not yet felt an urge to revert. I am however starting to question the terminology. BOLD is good, but not really in every cycle. And reverts should be avoided where possible, not used in every cycle. I'm thinking change Bold to Edit, and diminish Revert.

Thanks for discussing SmokeyJoe. Interesting comments. Could you elaborate? Thanks! Any changes I made that don't reflect the spirit of Wikipedia or the BRD cycle should be discussed if I errored in some way. I have been in a dispute of course, but not about BRD. I am in no way edit warring as he seems to stating as that was between him and another editor also a part of the dispute he mentions. You can see my thoughts on BRD by looking at my edit summaries and ny changes and contributions here. I don't disrespect it...I disrespect the use of it as a magic sword to defeat the "evil disrupters of "Truth""...or in other words...when it is shoved down the throats of editors as an absolute, do or be blocked cycle. It is not. I understand the cycle, its intent and meaning, its usefulness and its origins. It was meant originaly to be in reference to all wikis and is a simple essay from what I see in history. I can not locate anything that shows that BRD is a supplment to any policy. It was badly written with multiple problems and mistakes and had an odd and mean spirited tone that has been taken too far in many instances for many years. I have stayed away from the essay but I am a contributor now and watch this page like a hawk. I hope to collaborate on improving it and other possiblities. Hope you like what I have done and anything you really think is just absolutely wrong I extend the trust and good faith of and for you to make what changes or corrections you feel fit. Should I take issue or dispute anything I will not edit war and will discuss or make a bold edit without reverting your contribution before discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Changing "Bold, Revert, Discuss" to "Edit and Discuss" with mention about what reverting is and how it effects editing would be a great start!--Amadscientist (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No that would not be useful at all. The usefulness of BRD is that it basically says - if someone reverts your edit: discuss. It is supposed to mean that it is OK to be bold, but any bold edit is liable to be reverted and any reverted edit should be discussed before it is reinstated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a bit too far for most, but...doesn't mean another essay can't be written. They are kinda fun to write actually.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I kinda think the current version is the one with multiple problems though, and it concerns me that someone who's shown derision at being thrashed with BRD in a current dispute (seeing themselves as having been characterized as "evil disrupters [sic] of Truth" on the basis of BRD) is now taking it upon himself to change BRD. This smells bad to me. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Speak to the edit and not the editor. Just because you say I have shown derision "at being thrashed with BRD" or you give an interpretaion of what I "see myself as" (by the way that was absolutely not my perception of myself LOL!) does not mean any of that is even close to what is going on here. Equaz needs to be far more accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

None of the changes I made have anything to do with "personal thoughts and comments with respect to particular specialized situations". Knowing what backstory? Mine or another editors accusation? There is a village pump discussion where all of this is being discussed. What edit or change do you see as "personal thoughts and comments with respect to particular specialized situations" If there are no violations and just an accusation that there is a dispute that mentions BRD, what does that mean? I can't edit this essay and any edit I make should be scrubbed because an editor has assumed bad faith? What is a good starting point. You mean before i made an edit that does't violate of anything but in your opinion is not a good idea?--Amadscientist (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of that I never said or advocated so I'm not going to respond to things that I never said. But there may be one area where I as unclear which is my first sentence. What I meant is that that there are a whole lot of additions that sound conversational, giving thoughts and advice on particular hypothetical situations, which are overly narrow/specialized/conversational to be included in the wording of the main page. Also some good, succinct wording has been removed. My opinion is that the April 24th version is overall much better than the current version and IMHO we should revert to it as a starting point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement there, for the record (though that should probably be obvious). This was just suggested at ANI as well, FYI. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly prefer not engaging in wholesale reversions. I might prefer bits and pieves of the older versions, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Perhaps one of you would start by undoing the changes to whichever single sentence or paragraph you think was the least desirable change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well if nothing else this will be a lesson in what editors see this essay as and how much respect they really have for it. I would hope that you would not choose an up or down vote on a version before and a version after, but DISCUSS the changes and how they can be improved. Seriously. I'm not kidding or trying to prove a point...and the article is an essay hence the "giving thoughts and advice on particular hypothetical situations".--Amadscientist (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest doubt that your edits are a sincere effort to improve it. That is also clear from reading them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If there were good, succinct wording that has been removed make an edit that adapts that portion and see if it is discussed or disputed?--Amadscientist (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The challenges that the changes are a net result of 43 edits by you in a few days. Too many / too fast for anybody to review individually, and huge task for somebody to try to sort out separately. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but just using the diffs to view versions can show exactly what changes were made if that is an issue, but more importantly we can address each issue that there MAY be as they come up if there are objections, but to specific changes. Its as easy as the reverse and its respectful to the edits themselves and doesn't make this a reaction a simple good faith contributions. I am not adverse to changing this. I am not set on a version, just on things I see as needing to be addressed. If they need further refinement or changes, removal etc, why can't we collaborate. Not just me and you but all who see this and anyone who has concerns and wants to work together. It isn't really a challenge, it's just the way wikipedia works. If I am the boldest editor at Wikipedia...then we are seriously in trouble. LOL! (that was a joke...don't quote me" ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just giving my opinion and suggestion and thoughts for the discussion. Even my thought behind "I might revert" we just that it might be a better way to sort this out. I have no opinions that are so strong as to try to push through a reversion on, nor to spend a whole days' worth of my wikipedia time on to try to evaluate and possibly debate 43 edits individually. So I'll think I'll just leave my comments as vague suggestions and thank you for your sincere efforts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems ass backwards that you can make a large number of edits to a widely-used essay and then insist that others must contest your edits one-at-a-time. It should be the opposite: You propose your edits gradually so others can evaluate them and the burden of work is shared instead of placed entirely on others. ElKevbo (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not insisting on anything. I am editing and discussing. I am not asking or stating that anything needed to be "contested" but discussed or edited to adapt as needed. What seems backwards is to state what any editor is doing by making edits. All you did was edit war your version of what you want based soley on the assumption that I made "a bunch" of edits on an essay that many use "seems ass backwards". Sure and the argument can be made that an essay that so many people "use" should be allowed to be improved. I dispute your reversion in that you didn't edit, you edit warred, but I accept your reversion as I have to be able to move forward ONE WAY OR ANOTHER even if the ultimate result is back to square one. So, now that Elkevbo has reset back lets go from there.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit war? Really? Have you read the essay you've taken over? The one called "Bold, Revert, Discuss" ? You were bold and made edits, I objected and reverted, and now we should be discussing the issue. But instead you've decided to label my actions an "edit war." And you stand by while one of our colleagues begins an actual edit war by reverting a reversion.

I'm out of here. It's clear that you don't really want to discuss anything now that you've successfully rammed your version of the essay through. If you were interested in discussion, you'd have taken things slower and actually discussed things with others instead when objections were raised. ElKevbo (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A revert is a dramatic but easy thing. That's a disconnect. I think a substantive reason should be required for any revert. "Due to no established consensus" is rhetoric without substance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Process matters but apparently it doesn't matter to you or Amadscientist.

Don't bother responding; I'm removing this essay from my watchlist as those editing it clearly don't even believe in it. ElKevbo (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There's clearly no consensus for these changes. Not sure what the justification for that revert is (back to the changed version). A big alteration to a "big" page generally = big proof of consensus. The pre-change version has it, this doesn't. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that ElKevbo feels that way, but I have reviewed the recent changes and I find them all to be improvements. Thankfully, the sections were preserved, making the smaller and combined diffs easy to review. There has been a lot of criticism of this essay on other fora recently, including by Amadscientist, and it was undeniably in a state of neglect. The images of the diagram at WP:Consensus is out-of-date by how many years? Also, the changes, although many edits, were not big changes. They helped clarify the existing intent, and now to my reading help reveal certain flaws. The biggest is that BRD is not a cycle but the first steps in stirring up activity, and is a very poor model for continued editing. I think a lot more change is to come. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

My opinion and suggestion would be to revert to the April 24 version and then deal with proposed changes from there. Saying that somebody has to untangle a blast of 43 edits and deal with individual ones in order to contest the changes is a barrier for entry into the discussion and not correct. North8000 (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to a single change that you disagree with, that you are able to say why you disagree? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested example: OK Looking at the net effect of the 43 edit blitz, the first one that I spotted was DELETION of this succinct core wording:

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

And REPLACING it with this rambling wording which says the exact opposite of the title and concept of this essay and the accepted BRD concept:

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

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I see what you mean, although I have reservations about the text you like. I have a problem with the "any edit will do" part. Let me think about it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to rule out any changes, or even to rule out trying changes on a "bold" basis (in BRD). But even BRD implies a practical ability for others to see and think about them, which is not practically possible for most in a rapid sequence of 43 edits. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Undo of revert as unjustified [edit]

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

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

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

was copy edited to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

North800 failed to make a good argument for his belief that the prose is either rambling or inaccurate. His comparioson was not accurate and could be seens dishonest, but i would say it is simply his inability to see the situation fairly from the outtage he is feeling. I will not doubt his good faith but feel at this time I myself have justified my reasoning to revert the edit made by another editor based on Nort800's comments.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to deal with multple editors so I took out "one by one' but that can easily go back in with some explanation--Amadscientist (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you just said, and the comments about what I wrote seem to bear no relationship to what I actually said. All of that aside, what should happen now is clear. You made changes to a prominent, highly quoted and linked essay and they are disputed. We're at "D" of BRD; you need consensus for any changes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Reverted [edit]

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

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

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

Maunus is right. This whole mess reveals what can happen when too many changes are made in a short period of time, no matter how well-intentioned (and I don't think anyone doubts the good intentions here). It's simply impossible to deal with, so a mass revert is made and one starts over again, but using discussion to guide anymore restoration or changes.

Even if Maunus were entirely right, rather than half right (bold changes are permitted on guidelines; edit warring is not), this page is not a guideline. It's an essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Undo as edit warring"??? You've GOT to be kidding me. You don't "undo" edit warring. You "undo" to continue the edit war. We selectively apply policy to ourselves it seems. Contested bold edits do not stand. I may be contributing to the edit war now, but so be it. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

There's no consensus for your changes, and that's where the burden of proof lies. There doesn't need to be "consensus for the revert". BRD has been in its April 24th form more or less for a long time and there is consensus for it. The revert is to the consensus version. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

(2) You are exhibiting pretty strong ownership attitudes and you need to cool off. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia Project BRD proposal [edit]

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

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

Copy edit [edit]

I am doing a good copy edit to the article. Please help out if you'd like.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I added wikilinks and copyedited the lede and the "note" by adding the term "civil". Perhaps we could use a wikilink to Wikipedia:Civility on that?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to my edit summary, "this" to "it" was a bad change since the object of the sentence was care and diplomacy, so "this" would refer to "care and diplomacy" being possibly seen as a challenge; while "it" correctly refers back to BRD. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the intent of the statementis that care and diplomacy ARE a challenge to some editors and is NOT refering back to BRD. This is a Lede reference to what is in the essay, but we should clarify both.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed my mind about the reason you shouldn't be editing this page. It's because you're terrible at it. I'm sorry it came to saying that, but you're bad at writing (especially the instructional kind) and your grasp of the English language might even be askew. I'm not sure if that's uncivil but it was either that or keep on dealing with trying to tweak your copyedits so it doesn't look like total reverts with "it really just read better the other way" in the summary. I don't know what else to do here. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Amadscientist, please stop editing the Project page for a few days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

OK SmokeyJoe. You have been reasonable and I can respect your request. I won't make any guarantees of days but I can stop the editing for now. At least 24 hrs as a direct commit ment to you.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You could start with no further personal attacks and address the edits and not the editor. Yes, that was incivil. As for the remark about my ability to write "instructional kind", I leave my contributions to those areas to stand. Collaboration means to help each other. That is not your objective. Attempts at humiliation and persoanl will no longer be put up with. Collaborate and work together and keep your personal opinions about other editor abilites to your self.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

You have been playing fast an loose with the facts and opinion there North800. Please tell us the flaws you see and I will state the flaws in your argument.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "arguments have had repeated large flaws regarding the process" people have already told you about all of those specifically. North8000 (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

linking to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Examples of ownership behavior and Quickstart guide [edit]

I could use a bit of help here, linking through to the ownership policy, as BRD is sometimes used that way, often by relative newbies, but I can't quite get the best way to grasp it's effect on new editors, ideas ?

• BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas. No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

BRD, copyedits can't fix a flawed heart [edit]

(Inserted text) before and after SmokeyJoe's edit, SmokeyJoe please feel free to edit or delete my text here as you see fit. Penyulap ☏ 04:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have read two versions again (either side of my revert). Again, I consider Amadscientist’s rewrite to be a fairly neutral rewrite. I thank him for his interest and effort. I have for years thought that this page needs a rewrite. Personally, although I find the basis compelling, I find the details unconvincing, the logic unpersuasive.
On the quality of writing, although I am not a great writer, I believe I can appreciate good writing/speaking. Neither version has it. I think the reason that neither version has it is because there is a flaw at the heart.
I Amadscientist wishes to argue for acceptance of his rewrite, I think he would do best to produce an alternative version on a subpage, and propose acceptance section-by-section, and with section restructures discussed separately.
Personally, I’m feeling that I should start a new essay, because I think some central flaws are too great. These are:

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

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

My ideas are incorporated in the figure.

This is a work in progress. I see that BRD is still in there. One can begin with an edit or with discuss. The most dramatic edit allowed is the level 5 BOLD edit, but do feel free to edit more gently. Any edit may be reverted, but I feel that any reverter of a good faith edit must give an substantive explanation, even if brief. The explanation should go in the edit summary. If you are reverted, you must discuss. Begin by discussing the reverters reason as given. Discussion often goed wayward. Agreement in discussion may be tested somewhat by strawpoll, but ultimately agreement, or consensus, is only tested by whether the edit sticks. Discussions and polls have their own problems not covered here. It is a cycle, but I do not recommend that a bold edit should be repeated without clear support from the discussion. It is preferable to look for an alternative solution. I suggest that BOLD edits and Reverts should be treated similarly. Repeated BOLD editing, like repeated Reverting is disruptive and leads to blocking. An easy solution, if you are right, is to ask for someone else to repeat the BOLD edit, or to do the Revert.

File:Edit and discuss.png --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is absolutely breathtaking work SmokeyJoe, it is the best clarity that can be added to the essay. It's quite a secret desire of mine that all policy and (editing) process be explained in such visual charts. It helps so many editors to better understand the process, and many groups of editors too. To those that are artists, somewhat of a minority, and understandably so, wikipedia is so hostile at the moment, but this type of chart creates clarity for artists, and a much larger group, the programmer-oriented editors, and there is no shortage of those, as well as countless more who don't even realise their own visual orientation, they just look and then understand without realising they used the chart to gain the understanding. The translation is such important work, and there is so little of it, this is such a breath of fresh air in such a suffocating environment because it is such a better rewrite of the old confusing one the page has. It should go in immediately as it is such an improvement at this stage, even unfinished. Penyulap ☏ 20:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

BRD is just one method? [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page in a nutshell: If you make a bold edit, and it is reverted, then you have no other option (to facilitate your idea's implementation) than to discuss. Failure to do so may be considered edit warring.

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

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

I agree on all counts. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I believe the requirement is too much myself. But why not a more neutral tone:

This page in a nutshell: If you make a bold edit, and it is reverted, then the prefered option (to facilitate your idea's implementation) is to discuss. Another revert is considered edit warring.

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

I think if you're reverted, it means someone is against what you're trying to do fundamentally, because otherwise they would've tweaked your edit as opposed to reverted it -- or at least, that should be the original editor's operating assumption. They should discuss to then determine whether a modified edit would be more agreeable, rather than try again with no discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

BRD was referred to several times by admins and other editors alike in their rationale for why you shouldn't be continuing to edit this page. They explicitly said you were bold and you were reverted, so you shouldn't be editing but discussing now. That's how BRD is referred to in practice and that should be clarified here. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What I'd like to see you post here on the talk page is a short list of the things you disagree with about this essay with accompanying reasons. That would be a really goo way to get a discussion started about the actual topic instead of about who can edit the article when. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, lets wait and see where the current changes are leading before I return to actually editing the page or listing anything in particular. I do have some response to the above nut shell and can post my concerns and an alternative to consider that sort of thing for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: If you make a bold edit, and it is reverted, then discuss your idea's implementation before editing again.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I like that. Simple and to the point.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been naughty and gone in another direction to avoid ambiguous dynamics and tried to quash that ambiguity by turning up the volume on the spirit of the process. Penyulap ☏ 05:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your version is long, can it fit in the shell of a large nut? I do like it. Who do you think is the seamonster. I'm not so sure about the peril. It puts you in peril of abuse, but I think that mentioning BRD gives you 1 free pass for editwarring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The seamonster is a conceptual embodiment of the idea to steer newbie editors to the simple uses, there is a section it summarises here:

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

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

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

SmokeyJoe, I link yesterday to WP:OWN to stop the edit-warring, but what kind of invocation still works, can you illustrate a little for me please. Penyulap ☏ 07:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What? Was it your linking that stopped the edit warring? Or does it stop future edit warring? Are there invocations that work? I try to follow the theory that politeness promotes politeness, and even if politeness doesn't work, it makes for a more pleasant environment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Ah. The "I'm following BRD" invocation, yes. Invoking the name "BRD" intimidates anti-editwar admins from blocking/protecting. It works for a limited duration. "Politeness" was a guess at another invocation that protects from sanction. The impolite reverters are more likely to get blocked quicker. This to me is all just musing on the subject of how cycling through BRD very strongly resembles a multi-party edit war, and leads to a drive-by page protection ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29&action=history for example). This tendency of page protection on just a few reverts has hindered my studies of BRD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

New changes [edit]

I like the idea of a "quick start" guide, but the line "If you have been cautious, and already asked about something on the articles talkpage and it's had no response for a few days, just go ahead and edit the article itself." Makes this DBRD. Bold means to do so without discussion. This may be a problem for some editors and can be a contentious edit, but the quick start now implies that discussion goes before the bold edit. At the very least, to keep it from actually becoming Discuss, be bold, wait for a revert and then discuss, perhaps it could read: "To be cautious an editor may wish to ask about something on the articles talkpage before an edit. If it garners no no response after a reasonable amount of time, just go ahead and edit the article. If you wish to be bold and make a change without discussion first you are free to do so, but be aware this can be a seen as disruptive."--Amadscientist (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think "can be seen as disruptive" is too strong - I think perhaps just note that such bold undiscussed edits are more likely to be reverted than if they are discussed before hand. I.e. if you are bold a revert shouldn't be taken as a surprise or an attack - but simply as an invitation to discuss. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How about: "Note: An editor may discuss changes on the talk page before an edit is made. This is recommended. You may be bold first and make a change without discussion but be aware a revert is an invitation to discuss these changes before further bold editing".--Amadscientist (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, I did have trouble with the 'If you have been cautious, and already asked about something' part at the time, and couldn't quite articulate the spirit there, but I have revisited it now.

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

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

I was trying to make it a fast read, and kept the train going at a good high speed rate, rather than slowing down so readers to go into the fine detail, I was laying the track through all the most scenic spots though, but I certainly missed that blue lake. I relaid the tracks to skim by that one which is important. I kept the train travelling at the same speed for a quick guide otherwise. But maybe it is too quick a guide and should slow down into more detail ? or maybe we should start cleaning up the rest of the essay with all the fine detail as well, I don't know, what do you think ? Penyulap ☏ 11:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we bring the nut shell that is currently on the project page to the talk page along with the other examples being discussed and not have any nutshell until a consensus on that specific portion is established? We should continue the discussion and let that finish out.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First I couldn't see the real need, because anyone could do it if they thought it a problem, but a few seem to like it. Then I thought, well why not remove it for now, and I opened the window for editing.... then I reconsidered yet again, figuring why not just ask anyone to do a better job of it.

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

If you feel you can improve an article, but you would like confirmation and cannot find it, go ahead and make the improvement to kick-start discussion.

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

On talkpages where everyone agrees improvement is necessary, but nobody can agree on the best way and discussions just go in circles, experienced / wise / confident / cocky editors occasionally use BRD to help things get started, in a manner fraught with danger, peril and seamonsters.

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

The difficulty in compressing the entire advanced process, including it's application, method, and cautions seemed a bit of a tough task when I did it, so the humour for the time being points out that the sentence is an unfinished work rather than a guide of the same quality as the newbie guide, which by comparison I think is right on target. People read the second sentence and won't "take it as Gospel" they will look further knowing the process can be used for "talkpages where everyone agrees improvement is necessary, but nobody can agree on the best way and discussions just go in circles" but as to how that is done, and further, how it can be compressed into the last half of that sentence is well, I guess when I read you or anyone explain it to me or put it in, then I'll know. :) Penyulap ☏ 06:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to bring your version here to discuss. You our correct, we can make are own edits and collaborate in that manner. I have no problem with it.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the changed version is doing this:

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

Combining the sentences, it doesn't describe BRD so much as it describes a new process where no editing can be done without prior discussion, and it seems to move normal editing into a place where it's called being bold. I'd ask if there is anyone else who feels that yesterdays nutshell reflects BRD better, that they repeat that edit, or improve it, either way is good for now I think. Penyulap ☏ 08:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps softing up "Should" to "are encouraged" to keep the suggestion of discussion first from being a part of the cycle and/or a requirement. We should remove the mention of "edit warring" to not sound judgemental and stick to the nutshell information of process only. Last part I disagree with and is within every understanding I have of BRD and is actually how the cycle was originally written. We should discuss this here is we want to keep that out.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Local consensus rules articles, and you are welcome to add your input and contributions but we have been asked to discuss this and there is no requirement for a wider consensus to make changes to any article. However, editors can dispute any material and local consensus can change. If you think a wider audience is required to make changes you can make an RFC.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you realize that a local consensus of two is not really a very good way to change basic policies fundamentally.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If this were policy, I would say that there are far more than two editors contributing to consensus and that editing is not proceeding first... but discussion. This is just an essay. One that, as many people, or as few people contributing may edit. I would welcome a lot more though. It really would be nice, but is not a requirement.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Then take it like this: I disagree fundamentally and basically with the changes you are proposing to the essay. I think most other people would to if they were aware of them. I think that the proposed changes take one of the most useful principles that we have for avoiding editwars and protracted polarized disputes and renders it useless.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My proposal:

• This essay states that while it is OK to be bold and introduce an edit to an article without prior discussion, if the essay is challenged and reverted then the preferable next step is always to initiate a discussion on the talk page, in which the involved editors can come to a consensus about how to improve the article. The point of this is that a reversion of a bold edit should not be followed by another revert but by discussion, so as to prevent editwarring and promote consensus.

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

What changes am I proposing sir? Remember, my edits were all reverted. I have made no proposals since but have added to discussion on issues being raised to collaborate on this article. Seriously. This isn't about me...it's the article. Do you think we should remove the nutshell until consensus agrees on what it should say? Penylup would prefer it stay and editors be allowed to copy edit it. I think we have not yet established a consensus agreement to put in place on the project page as nearly every editor has had a different version they have suggested and no one seems to have consensus other than the one you just reverted to. Should that stay or should we just move it to the talk page as the last nutshell used and go from there?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That wasmeant to be a plural "you" - a "y'all" if you will. I realize the suggestion was Penyulap's but you seemed supportive of it so I attributed it to both of you. If there is no consensus for the "in a nutshell" then I don't mind removing it untill there is.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The change you've made to the essay I feel, at best, seems to say the same thing in twice as many words, as well as the critique already given above. Apart from the slip? above is your action meant to be opposite to your words for a reason ? Penyulap ☏ 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Which freudian slip? How do you find my action to be opposite to my words? (you were bold, I reverted, now we're discussing no?)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

The freudian slip is here,

• This essay states that while it is OK to be bold and introduce an edit to an article without prior discussion, if the essay is challenged and reverted then the preferable next step is always to initiate a discussion on the talk page, in which the involved editors can come to a consensus about how to improve the article. The point of this is that a reversion of a bold edit should not be followed by another revert but by discussion, so as to prevent editwarring and promote consensus.

— Maunus 10 May

I would suggest that we use the contemporary approach to air crash investigations, where looking for someone to blame is incorrect, and is replaced with open discussion to examine the cause, whatever that may be. I don't like being upset, and I'm sure you don't like me blaming you, so why don't we analyse what has happened here and use and incorporate it into the essay instead ? Penyulap ☏ 06:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, that is a funny slip. I'm not sure it qualifies as freudian without somekind of sexual element but funny nonetheless. I meant to rite "edit" of course. I'm not looking to blam anyone - I just don't understand what it is you find to be problematic with the current state of the essay. And I can't imagine the kind of problem that your proposed version of the "in a nutshell" would be a solution to. I believe very strongly that the essay is meant to be normative - i.e. "you should follow BRD" not "some editors occasionally follow BRD". And that it should be clear that the purpose of BRD is to encourage discussion instead of editwarring. And I don't think the humourous elements of your version (seamonsters etc.) have anything to be doing in this essay. For me BRD is a cornerstone in the disute resolution process, and honestly I haven't seen any problems occurring as a result of people following it (at leas not problems that wouldn't have been just as likely to occurs anyway). So my basic standpoint is that it is not broken and doesn't need fixing. You'd have to convince me that something is broken before I ould endorse a radical change - and still it wouldn't be in the direction that you (pl.) seem to be taking.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't direction. It is guidence. Not being broke in any perception makes no since when we are talking about Wikipedia. We are editors...we edit. Hopefully in collaboration with others...but we do edit and you have gevin no real reason not to edit...but to edit with your concerns in mind......even when you are not editing yourself. It's remembering the discussion and the concerns others raise that are legitimate. Not broken is not a legitimate reason to ask editor not to edit a Wikipedia essay or article. But i do actully get your point. And I missed the non-fruadian slip...but then, sometime a cigar is just a cigar. ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not asking you not to edit - I am asking you not to change the meaning of the essay to something other than hat it was originally intended as. Editing is supposed to be improveing the content - I do not consider the edits that have been proposed so far to be improvements.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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

analysis I would hope, and I think I had asked you if you could find faults with the phrase "If you feel you can improve an article, but you would like confirmation and cannot find it, go ahead and make the improvement to kick-start discussion." Penyulap ☏ 06:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I do think it's a bit confusing and a little wordy. I prefer what is there right now only becuase it allows the issue of discussion first as encouragement. Confirmation doesn't seem accurate any way. It isn't confirmation but concern of other editors. It almost sounds like asking for permission to say "confirmation".--Amadscientist (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for cases where one side does not discuss [edit]

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

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

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

I don't think a requirement to discuss is enforceable, and I'm not sure that a set time period is appropriate. I've dealt with editors who only visit Wikipedia once a week, and others that are here six times a day.

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

nutshell [edit]

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

problem is this applies to very well developed articles, if at all. It suggests discussion first rather than improvement, which is not correct, and this is especially the case with new undeveloped articles. can't think off the top of my head an alternate though. Penyulap ☏ 02:31, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it isn't being seen in any way other than that in my opinion. While I understand the reasoning (since I wrote that nutshell) I winder if that couldn't be soften to something more like:

This page in a nutshell: Discussion is always encouraged however, a bold edit can be made to kickstart talk. If a revert is made, do not revert again but begin a discussion and collaborate on consensus. Implement the consensus, if applicable.

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

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

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

I really like the nut shell right now with adaptions by Equazcion and Maunus:

This page in a nutshell: Discussion is always encouraged, but a bold edit may be key to kickstarting talk. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion to establish consensus.

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

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

My version would be:

This page in a nutshell: Making bold edits is encouraged on wikipedia. However, if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion on the article's talkpage to establish consensus.

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: Bold edits are encouraged, as they will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus.

Equazcion ^(talk) 21:48, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

or:

This page in a nutshell: Making Bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. However, if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus.

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I would leave out the "however". We already said it might stimulate discussion, then we go on to describe how that happens (revert -> discuss). "However" implies a caveat, but the revert is actually part of the process. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:00, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. We could in clude "therefore" or "for this reason" in stead then.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I like those, slightly leaning towards "for this reason". Equazcion ^(talk) 22:03, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I implemented it with "therefore", it seems to flow better. They both mean the same thing anyway. Hopefully everyone's concerns are addressed now. I'm pretty happy with this nutshell. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:10, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I like this a lot!--Amadscientist (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

wow! lets lock in that first sentence of the nutshell! [edit]

"Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion."

• support that, whoever wrote it, well done ! Penyulap ☏ 02:41, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Quick start guide copy edits [edit]

I am loving the quick start guide after recent edits. Excellent work in my opinion from Equazcion.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

BAH HUMBUG. POO ON YOU ! Penyulap ☏ 21:39, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

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

Question [edit]

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

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

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

Be bold.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

One thing to keep in mind is that BRD is an optional approach. So "User X" should not just keep reverting if User X wants to follow the BRD model, but User X could decide that he doesn't like BRD and therefore choose another editing model. For example, there's a fairly popular model that could be called "Let's see if they really block people like me for edit warring" that some editors seem quite happy with in the short term.

I think your best bet is to see if you can find a compromise that everyone agrees is better than the old version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to incorporate WP:STATUSQUO into WP:BRD [edit]

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

Proposed change of template [edit]

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

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

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

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