Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Bold, revert, monologue

Should we include any guidance for the case when, after a revert, the bold editor explains their reasons in talk but the reverter does not respond? Is it reasonable to attempt the edit again after, say, a week, with an edit summary linking to the justification in the talk monologue, or does a refusal to join the discussion effectively kill the edit? Certes (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Certes, in such a situation, BRD per se is not really possible. The idea with BRD is that in a difficult situation, an experienced, diplomatic editor makes a bold compromise edit, and then chats up whichever one (1) person is sufficiently unhappy with the edit to revert it, and negotiates with that one editor until they have both agreed to something better than what was there before.

If the "Very Interested Person" doesn't respond, then BRD collapses, and the bold editor has to take a different approach. These could be any of the Wikipedia:BRD#Alternatives or just the everyday, consensus-oriented Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing rules (the ones that are so fundamental that experienced editors seem to forget they are also official policy).

In the situation you describe, many editors (including me) use an edit summary like "Per talk page" and post a "Since there were no objections during the last week..." comment on the talk page. It would, of course, be patently unreasonable to let any uncommunicative, drive-by reverter WP:OWN the article by saying that anything that gets reverted can't ever be tried again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

To prevent edit warring

The fact that BRD does help to prevent edit warring is hard to deny, so why literally remove mention of it from the lead? That may not be "the key point" (a highly undefined and personal interpretation not necessarily shared by anyone else), but that is one of its most common functions and results.

How BRD is handled is a bright red line. Violating BRD is often an act of edit warring, and that violation is often the only way to prove who started an edit war. Whoever violated BRD is the one who started the edit war, and admins can see that as convincing evidence and hand out warnings and blocks accordingly. I've seen this done many times by admins who understand this as an important function of BRD. It hurts nothing to mention this in the lead. The deletion is a bizarre ownership move as this is not a one-time exclusionary move but repeats a pattern of ownership aimed at limiting the description of BRD. Be more open to the realities of how others use it and understand it. BRD is more important than one editor's limited description would allow. Expand your mind. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say myself that BRD is primarily designed to discourage reverting, particularly straight up reverts (BRR). One doesn't need to be discouraged from edit warring, you just must not do it, BRD or no. Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, that is if you mean re-reverting without discussion. In this situation, reverting the revert of an initial bold edit would be an act of edit warring and possibly the start of an edit war. It may end there, or it might get repeated, in which case the matter has escalated to a full-blown conflict. We don't want that, and we want to stop it from even starting. Why? Because of some fundamental PAG and principles here. Here are a few:

1. No one has a right to own content or their own edit or article they have created.
2. Everyone has a right to make an initial bold edit (that isn't just driveby vandalism or purely NOTFORUM nonsense).
3. Everyone has a right to revert that bold edit if they have legitimate concerns about it.
4. We expect editors to work with other editors, no be solo editors who will not respect the input from other editors. That input happens on the talk page.
5. BRD mandates that BRR does not happen, that edit warring not happen, that collaboration with others is the way forward. It tells the one reverted to discuss on the talk page in an effort to seek a consensus version or other solution.

Does that make sense to you? Is that more-or-less close to your point? ("One doesn't need to be discouraged from edit warring, you just must not do it, BRD or no.") BRD just puts in words how to understand the situation and stay away from that bright red line between you and an edit war. Don't cross it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Another "one of its most common functions and results", especially when it's (IMO incorrectly) interpreted as "Nyah nyah nyah, I get to revert you and you don't get to revert me – I don't have to discuss anything but you can't edit until you get written proof of consensus on the talk page (which I'm going to refuse to participate in because I'm so busy reverting content creators)", is preventing change to articles, but I don't think that is worth mentioning in the very first sentence, either.

The point is to find consensus. The very first sentence should stick to the main point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hyperbole doesn't help here. That "Nyah nyah.." is obviously not a legitimate type of reversion, as described in my point 3 above: "Everyone has a right to revert that bold edit if they have legitimate concerns about it." BOLD added. Yes, there are people who abuse BRD. Let's stay focused on its proper use. No one is disputing the importance of "to find consensus". It's just not the only value of BRD. BRD dictates a process that prevents actions that avoid or block reaching the actions on the talk page where consensus can be reached. Edit warring prevents a consensus discussion from occurring. BRD's value in preventing edit warring is vital if you want "to find consensus". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that many editors think "I'd like to avoid an edit war, so I'm going to use BRD in this situation." But let's assume they do. Thinking about WP:CREEP, why do we need to say that in the first sentence? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think many stop when reminded of that BRD formulation of the red line. Consensus cannot happen if edit warring gets in the way, and BRD helps to prevent it. It gets people to not do BRR and gets them to discuss. That's what we want. This is not an either-or situation. It's both, and they are often intimately linked, so mention of both makes sense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "reminded of that BRD formulation of the red line." Would you please elaborate? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I mention it above. BRD is a clear formulation that warns to not BRR. There is a red line after BR. Go to the talk page and discuss after it. Don't edit war by re-reverting. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It is allowed to rerevert, even in a 1R situation. If an editor does that habitually, that's a problem, a behavioral problem, but it isn't edit warring, technically. Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think of BRD as creating a "red line". A red line sounds like some sort of mandatory situation (a red stop sign, a red "Do not enter" sign).

I think the feeling we need from BRD is more like "You tried to solve the sticky problem, and you got reverted? Congratulations on being one of today's lucky people! Let me show you a cool way to make progress here..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The text you want to add says "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to . . . prevent edit warring." I have two concerns regarding the proposed change.

1. The text does not achieve your goal of providing a warning to avoid re-reverting.

2. The first sentence of the BRD page is not the place to remind editors to not edit war. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an essay and structurally merely gives these tips, in the context of a particular sequence (of many possible sequences) or portions of that sequence:

1. Be bold (once). This is a norm, nothing to be afraid of.
2. If #1 has occurred, feel free to revert it as the next step. This is a norm, nothing to be afraid of.
3. If #1->#2 has occurred, there should be discussion rather than making the edit again. This is the end of the particular sequence that this essay refers to.

IMO this isn't the place to go beyond that; we have policies that do that.North8000 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

BRD and/Vs #Responding to RfC

• Second point in Responding to an RfC states

Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved.

• No doubt above mentioned point and good faith WP:BRD are both are important in their own place.

1) My present understanding is above point suspends BRD un til positive consensus during RfC process. (Correct me if any alterations needed in the understanding)

2) If my above understanding is correct then, BRD should get into suspension from time of: a) any user expresses intention of RfC b) Since any user starts formal Pre-RfC discussion or starts discussing RfC question C) from when formal RfC begins d) If any other option then pl. discuss?

3) I suppose, presently WP:BRD and Responding to an RfC do not find mention of each other in respective pages. Should that find a mention? If yes, then also do suggest sentence for the same if possible.

Purpose of this exercise is more clarity and lesser confusion for users novice to RfC processes and less inadvertent instances of friction among users. ( Bookku, talk) 07:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bookku, if an RFC is involved, you're not doing BRD (which is fine. BRD is never mandatory and often not the right approach). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Just for record: I know you would not have used pronoun "you're" for me personally, but disclaimer for the sake others, personally usually I follow proper WP:DR procedures with positive constructive consensus building. I raised this question since I do help in role of discussion facilitation on some talk pages intermittently. Bookku (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Also relevant to this conversation is Wikipedia:QUO. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

QUO is another page that is:

• technically optional,
• full of good advice, and
• the person citing it (especially if they claim you've "violated" it) likely hasn't read it/doesn't remember what it actually says.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes that seems good essay. In brief, the spirit of WP:QUO would mean, except for some exceptions, take only positive consensus into account once discussion begins. Bookku (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

QUO means "don't get into an edit war during a discussion." I'm not seeing it suggesting anything about what kinds of consensus to "take into account" in the discussion itself. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I am reading QUO along with Responding to an RfC (and discussing just initial stages of discussion): "..Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. ..". If a discussion is non-RfC or Pre-RfC and if everyone involved is agreeing on part of issues positively, that much consensus can be updated in the article. That's my understanding, correct me as necessary. Bookku (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not know enough about Responding to RfC to have an opinion regarding how the two should best be read together. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't mess with disputed content while dispute resolution is underway, if its a quo situation, the discussion closer will decide that as well. This won't stop people trying to insert their own preferred version into the thing regardless but that's bad practice once dispute resolution is underway. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Responding to an RfC is only applicable during the RFC itself, and it is not a prohibition against all edits. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful does not mean that you can't make edits that people will (probably) think are actually helpful.

If a pre-RFC discussion (or any other discussion) resolves the problems without needing an RFC, then that's great news. If there is a dispute, and you all come up with a solution that the currently involved editors find basically satisfactory, then someone should consider awarding {{subst:Diplomacy Barnstar|1=message ~~~~}} to the editors who helped find that compromise/solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"Tempo" use case example

Maybe I'm dense, or the coffee just hasn't kicked in yet. In the Use cases section, one of the instances where BRD generally fails is when you lose tempo. The linked article describes chess moves with specific examples of what constitutes gaining or losing tempo. There's obviously a metaphorical meaning here but it's not at all clear to me what it is and the chess article was no help. Is this just saying, "BRD doesn't work when you make a move that's not advantageous"? Or when you fail to take an alternative, more straightforward approach that would have had the same result? I assume there's a precise intended meaning but I'm at a loss. I can't be the only one. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Myceteae, I think what it means is that BRD doesn't work if you stop editing the article. The goal is BRD, and then BRD again, not BRDDDDDDDDDDDDD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Huh. I suppose I could get there from when a player takes one more move than necessary, the player is said to "lose a tempo" but I'm not certain and it's not straightforward. If that's what is meant, why not just say "when the discussion goes on too long or reaches another stalemate"? This is a somewhat subjective standard but at least the intended meaning is more clear. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think your suggestion would be an improvement to the page. Would you please make that change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I have made the change.[1] @WhatamIdoing thanks for the encouragement. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)