Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Talk page archives

/Archive 1 December 2005 - December 2007

Status as an essay

This is a great essay, but it has never had any consensus to be policy or a policy supplement. It is a set of opinion based advice which while wonderful is not related to policy. I have removed the "policy supplement" tag, which never has any consensus, and restored the long standing "essay" tag. Please discuss if you disagree. 1 != 2 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that BRD explains empirical experience on using the (on the chart) left hand cycle of the consensus process in a somewhat creative way. It also provides some advice on how that can be applied. In short, it provides supplemental information about the consensus process, which is not necessarily provided in (or even relevant to) the description of the process itself. Does that cover your concerns? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To say it is a supplement is one thing, fine it is. But it is also an essay. The tag is misleading. The tag used to make it clear that it was an essay, but it has changed since then. What is wrong with being an essay? 1 != 2 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with not being an essay? :) I don't really like the essay concept you see. I'm just as fine with no tag at all, but we need something to stop obsessive taggers. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• 1 != 2 When you say: I have removed the "policy supplement" tag, which never has any consensus, and restored the long standing "essay" tag. Do you mean that the "policy supplement" tag never had any consensus to exist or that it never had any consensus to be on this page? If the former, certainly it has been in dispute - even at this moment - but replacing it on this page hardly seems the right way to handle that issue. If the latter, show me. It looks to me like it has been there a long time and most of the discussion is about whether this page is good or bad or just a fact of life not how it should be tagged.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant this page never had consensus to be become a "policy supplement". At the time of posting that template had a message that did not indicate it was an essay, but gave the impression it is a policy. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, {{supplement}} has changed back to an older version due to the TfD and it's really valuable to see the reference in the tag to the policy that is being discussed, particularly for relatively new editors. This isn't just an essay. It's an essay about how a particular policy and a particular guideline work in the real world when you're actually editing. I say change it back.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree it is not just an essay, it is an essay in that its content is advisory, and has never been intended to be policy. Now that the template is changed back to reflect that it is an essay, I have not objection to it. My only concern was that the template did not make that clear before. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We've had several iterations of what template to put on this page. The concept of essays is very very wrong for this page, because it describes empirical observations, as opposed to an opinion. We've already gone through this several times (see rest of talk page). It would also be dangerous to make it a guideline. This has also been discussed on this page. It would be preferable to have no tag. Would people please stop playing with tags thanks? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You opinions that essays are wrong for this and that is one thing, but the fact is that essays are just exposition. This particular editing style is not for everyone, and it is an opinion that it is good technique. Others may feel differently. Some users would not be well suited to use this the bold revert discuss cycle, they can take or leave the advice offered here. What is wrong with being an essay? Why is the essay tag "very very wrong"? Even good advice can be an essay, it is not a lesser state of being. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's see. You are of the opinion that policy is "not a big deal" right? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are a big deal, that is to say creating policy is a big deal, deciding to follow policy less of a big deal but one should still have a dam good reason if they don't. Anything that adds extra rules to the 6 foot high bundle of rules new and established users already need to know better have a dam good reason to exist. The community does not want an overabundance of rules. Making advice into a rule is a big deal and needs good solid reasoning that I have not yet seen. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 16:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it is a form of essay and that the current tag is fine. I don't understand the argument for no tag, the tag makes it easier to find by putting it in a category and it also gives a very necessary link to the policy that is discussed.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of people use "essay" to try to deprecate things they don't want to hear. It's a form of wiki-nomic :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's very relevant what people don't want to hear, only what they don't want others to hear.  ;) And I don't think it works, the essay tag doesn't do anything to dissuade me from reading essays, it does however explain that I'm not reading an official policy and I'm not on a project page, I'm somewhere else. The special essay tag here, tells me that I'm on an explanatory page that suggests a way of behaving without openly mandating it. I too, find this particular essay to be one of the most influential on me and it really helped me understand. And I don't agree that it's a nomic at all, but I'd be happy to discuss that it more detail, probably not here though, it's a whole other essay waiting to be written.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If people don't want to hear an essay, they don't have to. That is the whole point. People are not going to appreciate the advice more if you remove the tag. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, a little more succinct than I said it, but that's what I meant!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There are also people who think they can get away with deliberately ignoring, or doing the opposite of what is on an essay page. And there are people who wish to encourage that attitude. That can be slightly more dangerous. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me reword what I just said: People can deliberately ignore an essay. In fact they can never use BRD in their lives if they want. They can go directly against the advice on this page if they want. If they do so they may run afoul of existing policies and guidelines such as WP:EW, WP:DISRUPT etc. However they may ignore the advice here and stay well within policy, guidelines, and the acceptance of the community. If the community want this page to be enforced they would decide to make it policy.

They can ignore this essay because it has never has consensus to be mandatory, nor should it be because it describes just one of many ways one can edit here. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 15:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And I fail to see how tagging it as an essay somehow encourages people to ignore it. Yes, there are people who think they should ignore this and other good ideas. There are people who think they can ignore policies and guidelines as a norm. Yes, there may be people who think they should encourage others to do the same. That has nothing however, to do with this tag. To suggest otherwise would be to not WP:AGF with respect to those tagging or advocating tagging and seems to suggest the tag is bad on any article, which is a discussion for Template_talk:Supplement, not here (yes, I know the template is being discussed everywhere right now it seems - but most of those places are the wrong places).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, people are told that it's ok to edit essays whatever way they like, as opposed to according to either consensus or empirical findings, and that can make things tricky :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, sounds like a complaint with the way the template text is worded. I don't know that we want to caution people from editing though on this essay of all essays. It would be sort of hypocritical, but again that same argument would apply any essay this tag would be used on - we're not talking about the plain vanilla essay tag anymore. (Obviously though, if this essay gets edited in any substantial way, someone is going to notice - I expect at least one someone will be you :-) ).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Darn! You're being entirely too reasonable! Alright, one last try. So I don't actually agree with the template text, and the template is transcluded here. Shouldn't I just untransclude it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I have a feeling you'll bean me over the head with subst... but at least I want to be able to say I was valiant to the last ;-)

Now that is a criticism I wish I got more often! Sure you can remove the template - if consensus is that it doesn't apply to this page. :-P (Why do I feel like the template and positions of the other editors have rotated around me and I didn't move?)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't actually consider forewarning

Do not forewarn, as dynamics make it likely that you will be accused of bad faith. I never found out why this is, but every time I forewarned before applying BRD, I caught a lot of flack.

So if possible, make it so your edit and the explanation for that edit appear on-wiki at roughly the same time, so that people can't squeeze in a comment or edit inbetween.

In short: aim for "atomicity"

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, personally I rarely forewarn on the talk page, but for removal of content, I nearly always use a tag of some description. Addhoc (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I often make a bold change for my first attempt at a change, and if I am challenged I attempt to seek consensus. The trick is to not keep being "bold" about the same thing over and over. In fact if I see someone else's bold new alteration get reverted I don't put it back even if I agree with it, that is because the existing status has priority over a challenged change until consensus indicates otherwise. While policy, guidelines, essays, and for that matter anything can be difficult to change I know from experience it can be done. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 06:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that foreworning on the talkpage (of an intending BOLD edit) can actually make the process more painful. And that continuing to make the same (so-called) BOLD edit in the face of opposition is likwise not a good idea, unless the cavalry is already on the way, and your hands are really, really clean. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Favorite essay

Just wanted to mention, this is one of my favorite essays and it has had a strong and positive effect on my editing patterns. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 06:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a supplemental essay, which is derived from the policies and guidelines it's based on. I admit, though, it should probably be tagged with policy or guideline. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an essay, "supplements" are essays. It should be an essay, policy is not for things that are just one way of doing things. _(1 == 2)^Until 03:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

BRD violations.

I've dealt with people regularly ignoring WP:BRD or calling it "just an essay."

I wrote an essay on the matter and also I think the essay better clarifies what BRD is not better than this essay itself.

See Wikipedia:BRD violations. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

BRD is not mandatory; it is just a very healthy way of getting things done on Wikipedia. There are no "violations" of it, just people getting nowhere due either to timidity or obstinacy.

I believe ownership is the real problem you're complaining about here, and while ownership is wrong in principle, in practice, it's nearly impossible to counteract.--Father Goose (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BRD is not a healthy way of getting things done. It describes what to do in a particular dysfunctional situation when editors are being possessive about a page. Ordinary edits are not "bold", and good-faith edits should not be reverted without discussion. An unfortunate side-effect of the existence of this page has been the encouragement of an adversarial viewpoint for editing and the encouragement of hasty reverting, both of which are poisonous to healthy editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to place a big disclaimer with letters 5 miles high to that effect.

Even so, apparently BRD is one of the few pages that is actually based on "how things really work". See the trouble we have explaining things at WP:SILENCE for instance. (At least 1 person asked me if that page is not a rewording of BRD.... errr... no).

Alternately, what this page really describes is "fishing for interested parties" and perhaps should be renamed. (And then we can name the 2 main cycles for wikiediting BRD and normal editing respectively). Would that clear up confusion?

Possibly some more reorganization too. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, "fishing" is an inappropriate word. There are some users who, during page disputes, will attempt to troll Wikipedia (or off-wiki) to gather a false consensus of users that agree with them. An alternative term: "A desperate cry for help." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh what? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Relationship between WP:SILENCE and BRD

Kim said above with respect WP:SILENCE: (At least 1 person asked me if that page is not a rewording of BRD.... errr... no); yes, but I am surprised that neither page has a link to the other. They are related. When nobody reverts, you get kicked over to the other side of the flow chart and go directly to consensus. Likewise, when someone does revert you no longer have silence. They are two sides of a coin (or maybe of a dodecahedron). --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you sketch/draw what you mean? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Inkscape is handy for this)

Sketch a dodecahedron? - only if I use AutoCAD.  :-) But I think you already have this on your chart, where it says "Make an edit" -> "Was the article edited further?" if the answer is "no" you jump over to the grayed out right side of the chart and go straight to "New consensus" - you have practiced silence = consensus by making a bold edit and getting no response, there is nothing more you can do other than go back to the beginning and make more edits, if they are warranted, which is one of the reasons the BRD edit should be a good one: it may not get reverted and you'd rather not have to change it substantially later by making a weak edit that stands unchallenged. (oh yeah, occasionally someone will talk to you about it if you raise the issue yourself on the talk page, but normally if they didn't revert they'll just say, "great idea"). At the same time if you go into an article to make an edit with the understanding up front that silence = consensus, maybe even the assumption that no one will say "boo!", but someone does revert, then there is no silence and you need to work further to determine consensus - probably by implementing BRD, since you're already to the "R", you've discovered the Most Interested Person. Both Silence and BRD compel an editor who doesn't agree with an edit (or more correctly, who doesn't agree that the edit has the support of consensus) to do something about it. BRD suggests that the editor who disagrees with the edit should (or will commonly) revert and that the proponent should then discuss with that editor; Silence, or its complement, isn't that specific, the opponent of the edit needs to speak up (civilly) or else consensus may be assumed, one possible way is to revert with the intent to discuss, you could also just discuss, or you could edit without talking I suppose. It is entirely reasonable that an editor would edit a page with no particular concern whether there would be discussion or not: if it gets reverted I'll discuss, if it doesn't it will stand per WP:SILENCE. In other words, often you don't know if there even is a Most Interested Person to talk to.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the point I was making earlier: BRD is the optimal way to edit, even if you never have to go beyond the "B". Though the page as currently focuses heavily on the R and the D as steps in dispute resolution, it's the very existence of those steps that makes boldness acceptable in all but the most contentious of situations (and even then, as the page points out, it's needed as a safety valve).

BRD encapsulates the complete how-to-edit-a-wiki methodology; the dispute resolution portion of it only comes up in a minority of cases (thank goodness).--Father Goose (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This page might be seriously misnamed, or I am doing something totally wrong, since the current description is how to basically bend the long cycle of the consensus process into ways of getting things done in a dispute resolution-ish situation. (Ie, NOT a good idea for general usage). We should probably have a separate page describing the wiki-process, which is what you folks are actually discussing? :-) It's odd that we don't have a page on one of the foundation issues, eh? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, it's focusing extremely heavily on the dispute resolution aspects of wiki editing. But the basic mechanism -- make edits boldly, accept that anyone may revert you if they disagree with your changes, and discuss your differences with the reverter -- is all you'll ever need to know about editing a wiki, whether a conflict arises or not.--Father Goose (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, it's not good to revert non-vandalism, actually. It's much better to edit or improve such changes. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In theory, maybe, but in practice, there are all sorts of non-vandalism changes that are simply wrong -- so you revert and proceed to discuss why it's wrong. You yourself do that often -- you've done it to me -- but it's the right way to do things. There are some cases where you can add a change to a change to make it right, and that's the wiki at its best. That's how things worked out with our edits on Wikipedia:A treatise on essays, and the end result was quite good (that reminds me -- name change!).

I was thinking about the general subject of "when to revert" earlier tonight. I realized the habit I've adopted is, if I don't like an edit, but it's not wrong, I don't revert it. To behave otherwise would just make me a control freak, and a pox on the wiki.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to expand on my earlier explanation. BRD finally "clicked" for me -- and with it, wiki editing in general -- when I realized that because anyone has a right to revert my edits (though they need to explain why to set the dispute resolution process in motion), that gives me the right to make any edit, no matter how seemingly bold. Every edit can be seen as a proposal-cum-change, and if the change isn't reverted, the proposal is implicitly accepted. It takes the sting out of being reverted if you think of all your edits as "How about this change?" "How about this one?" but without having to ask for approval beforehand. BRD is what allows the wiki to work like a colony of ants instead of a gridlocked committee.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that if you think something "does not have the support of consensus" (whatever that means) you should not revert on that basis. You cannot know that something has the support of consensus on a wiki, and who are you to judge anyway? A revert is an edit. You should only make edits that improve the page in your own personal opinion. Let other people make their own decision. It's actually similar to how elections work. You vote for the person or measure that you think should win, you don't vote for the measure you think someone else wants, right? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more.--Father Goose (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that "does not have consensus" is no reason to revert, "I oppose this change and it does not have consensus, whereas the existing version does" is a valid reason. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of that statement, "does not have consensus" begs the question, "how do you know?". I'm not sure that the second version is any better though; it seems to be saying "I believe that past consensus is current consensus (and I oppose this change)". Since, one cannot know current consensus until a discussion (using the term broadly) ensues and past consensus is not necessarily any indicator, all one is really saying is "I oppose this change", which itself is no argument at all. Using consensus as an argument will always lead to "this is best text because I support it". Until the discussion occurs consensus is of no relevance because it is unknowable, it is the conclusion that we have not yet reached. Past consensus is of no relevance and creates a logical circle because the point to a good faith edit (at least under BRD, but I would suggest any situation) is: "I believe that I have an idea that upon consideration by all interested parties will lead to a change in consensus" (or a consensus for a change - not sure if there is a difference, the former is a more common statement but I don't really like it). To argue past consensus is the same as to argue current consensus because it is to say "consensus is what consensus was" (I guess more correctly it is the argument that "consensus is x because consensus was x", which is simply logically false and results in no encyclopedia at all).

In the context of BRD, I believe one is not making any statement with respect to what consensus is when one reverts except that it is not known (and as pointed out can't be), one is saying "Revert, you've found me, now let's talk and see if consensus can be found". So, when nobody responds one has consensus per WP:SILENCE and because that's just the way things are, the position stands because it's effectively the only position for the time being - it may be that there are no other interested parties or it may be that there are hundreds but they all agree, either way, there is consensus. But when one makes a good faith edit and someone reverts, there is no consensus because it hasn't yet been discussed; one cannot have any idea what consensus is or will be (except that it will most likely be one of the two, or more, positions or a mid-point) one can only know one's own position and make educated guesses about what other positions might be. Using consensus as an argument is only valid when there is some way in which consensus could have been determined conclusively; E.g. "we've discussed this and after serious consideration x is the best text, at least for now (and because you are a civil and competent editor you understand that consensus now exists even if you prefer a different version personally)" - and then, that's not an argument at all, it's simply true (or at least perceived to be by the speaker). --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it's best to not even mention consensus in your revert, but to give the specific reason why you feel the change is not good. If you don't give the person you're reverting a reason that can be potentially disputed or agreed with -- neither "I disagree" nor "your change does not have consensus" are such reasons -- you're failing to engage in the D portion of BRD, and the "bold, revert" cycle is what is known as an edit war. Surely that's not what you seek?--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, say for example the talk page is full of people endorsing a particular version, and that is the version that has stood for months, then I don't think it is unreasonable to think it has greater consensus than an undiscussed change. However I do agree it is not always so clear cut. Regardless a person making a bold edit has no special protection from being reverted. By the same reasoning reverting an undiscussed change you do not agree with to a version you think has greater consensus is reasonable. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, there's the problem. If an article (or policy page) has consensus, that cannot be taken to mean any changes to the page will not have consensus. If you personally object to the change, say so, and say why. If you don't personally object to a change, you shouldn't revert it. You also can't revert a change on the basis that it hadn't been discussed in advance; per WP:BOLD, that is never a requirement for making an edit.--Father Goose (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Though I think it is fine to revert an edit that you don't personally object to, particularly if the point of the reversion is BRD. I often see edits that I don't really know how I feel about but I would like to discuss. (Obviously, if I agree with the edit, reversion would be silly). --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you don't have to hate a change to still have legitimate concerns with it. Raising objections to change in general -- that is problematic.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason I did not give a specific reason for objection in my hypothetical revert reason, was that it was hypothetical and there was no real argument to rebut. Of course in the field I would either explain exactly why I objected or referred to the talk page where I explained my reasoning. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I've actually recently unreverted someone who had basically given almost that exact edit summary though. Could you show what a real edit summary of yours might look like? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I also will revert changes where I think they did visibility and discussion, regardless of my views on the question. The [proper use of revert on a good faith edit isnt for edit warring, its to force a discussion. Personally, though, I'd rather eliminate the acceptance of BRD altogether. Its a recipe for drama. Anything substantial should be proposed on a talk page--if nobody objects after a reasonable time, then Ok, do it, and see if someone reverts. That's a reasonable use of consent for silence. DGG (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

By using a revert on a good faith edit, you stifle editing, and stifle discussion. It is a very destructive and rude way to edit. Some people have considered even 1 revert to be the start of an edit war at times.

Wikipedia is a wiki. We should edit the fine wiki. If you would like to abandon the wiki-model, that is your problem.

When well used, BRD does not lead to drama. It is used as part of a strategy for restoring consensus and wiki-process when editing a (mediawiki based) wiki. The page itself mentions that this is rather difficult, that's why you need to be careful.

It is based on experience of what works in the field. The only way to "Eliminate BRD' would be to completely alter the editing model on wikipedia, ban consensus, and ban the wiki editing process (foundation issue #3). Good luck. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

private and/or real time communications

It is much faster to reach agreement using private and/or real time communications.

The optimal method to reach consensus between any two people is in real life, at the bar, over a pint of beer (I learnt that from User:sannse :-) ). Any method that gets you closer to that ideal will let you reach consensus faster.

• Real time communications allow you to instantly reply to people's concerns. This way they don't stick around and eat at people.
• real time communications lets you go through the OODA loop so much faster, reducing decision time, and improving tactical and strategic behaviour of the community. (The latter is especially important in high profile cases, but added efficiency is always a plus, and practice is always good.)
• 1-on-1 communications removes the temptation to try to reach agreement with too many people at once.
• skype (voip) allows the transmission of voice. This adds an extra layer of communication (tone of voice), reducing misunderstandings. Also, the "extra channel" tends to be good at auto-reducing assumptions of bad faith for some reason, which is a huge bonus.

In short, using more channels for communication (especially real time and private communications) next to the wiki is realistically superior using the wiki alone, at least when using BRD in a dispute resolution context. We are describing this fact here, even if we don't happen to like that fact.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it also helps you detect if you're dealing with a sockpuppet. If you go to meet them and they're fuzzy and made of textiles, hmmm...

I've had several conversations with Abd on the phone and it's been helpful.

One thing that is useful about communicating online, though, is that you have more time to put your thoughts together. I don't always think on my feet particularly well, but I'm a pretty good writer, so that gives me an advantage. Also, on the wiki, everything is permanently recorded, and often cross-referenced, etc. so years from now, it's apparent to others what the context of a decision was. Admittedly, it's more fun to meet in person. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My rule-of-thumb (covered by policy someplace) is that every action on the wiki must be documented by something on the wiki. At the very least this keeps you out of trouble.

In a very small number of unique cases, I was unable to make certain edits, because I had secret information that was not available on the wiki (and which I wasn't supposed to talk about). My choice at that time was indeed to not make the edit, rather than make the edit and not have a valid rationale (as required by WP:WIARM). --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what got User:Durova. I think she was treated unfairly, but the problem wasn't the private mailing list, it was taking action based on private evidence, developed by her, that she couldn't reveal. Since then, I've seen checkuser action that may have been based on something like Durova's evidence, i.e., out of the blue, a checkuser blocks somebody directly based on private communication. Durova's error was to discover something (she thought) that she couldn't reveal (without damaging anti-sock efforts), and then, without any clear emergency, to act on it alone. The private mailing list was a huge flap about what everyone has the right to do, unconditionally, at least in reasonably free societies: talk to each other privately. Even if we wanted to make a rule against it, we could not enforce that rule.--Abd (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That all seems pretty right, user:Abd, so I will pose this counter-argument: What if all the editors for say WP:IAR decided to shun the IARdiscussion page, and carry on a myriad private conversations, on talk-pages, and telephone etc. There would be good ideas missed simply because the wrong post went to the wrong person. [Straw-man argument, slightly]. Some things can be done in private, that is a right as you say, but many things benefit from centralized discussion, with private comms. as a small, I think, part. (And note the other problems it raises, to be treated with care). --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there would not be good ideas missed. No outside conversation can do anything of substance here except through the actions of individual editors, who are responsible for their actions, individually, and who cannot defend those actions based on "we agreed privately." Private agreement may develop some preliminary consensus among those participating in it, but this is not a Wikipedia consensus. Note that WP:PRX would have set up a network of users through voluntary assignments of proxies (which have no power here, it's just a name implying some level of trust or rapport). So if there are a "myriad" of conversations, they are between people who can effectively communicate with each other, so what idea is it, exactly, that is lost? If I tell my friend about my idea, and my friend pooh-poohs it, do I give it up? Maybe, if I come to agree with my friend. Otherwise I'll bounce it off someone else, maybe I'll bring it to the Talk page here, where it actually might do some good. However, important point: if I can't convince my friend that my idea is worth considering, how likely is it that I an convince others? I'd say we need much more private communication, so that what comes here is a bit more coherent, but it must all, still, be explained here or it is indefensible.

Yes, there is potential abuse. However, this abuse is already happening. It's extraordinarily difficult to detect, and attempts to sanction it have been problematic. What we really need to make clear, and insist upon, is "Votes don't count." If votes don't count, then sock puppetry is irrelevant, as is vote canvassing, and meat puppetry is only a problem where an army of editors conspires to violate policy simply by outnumbering everyone else. Which would tend to get people pissed off, arousing counter-organization. Unless everyone is asleep. ZZZZ ZZZZZZZ (snort) ZZZZZ --Abd (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the recent REVERT-

Well, reading this section has only increased my concerns vis-a-vis private channel comms.

I believe that the greatest advantage of OPEN, CENTRALIZED discussion is that another user who "overhears"' the conversation may be just the person with the solution, but would not get to know of a problem being discussed on IRC, or Skite, or Backchat.

And, just look at the mess en.Adminchat, or whatever it is called got into, an Arbcom case.

KB, I have posted to your talk-page, it is possibly best, if you can enlighten me, to do so there, or, here. Thanks --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of of (for instance) IRC channels are open, centralized and quite thoroughly public. I'm none-too-pleased with irc channels that layer on additional rules making them less-than-public, as I think that that subverts the IRC model. This is especially the case for #wikipedia-en-admins. It needs a lot more watching than other channels (and I have a level 30 access to do my part to ensure that it is well-watched).

E-mail is supported by the wiki-software itself. It often helps to discretely send people mail when they've made a howler, and there's no need to embarrass them.

Mailing lists are very old, and are used by everyone to stay in touch.

skype and phone are useful to hear another person's voice. There's nothing so reassuring as to hear another person's calm voice on the other end of the line, especially if you thought they were actually being mean and sarcastic on-wiki (they almost never are).

But that said, there is simply no way to stop two humans from meeting each other. If we were to meet in the pub, or bump into each other on the street, would that be a disaster?

And sometimes a short chat is exactly what the doctor ordered. Basically the best way to solve something varies from situation to situation. But the more tools you have, the more likely that one of them will work. :-)

Especially during dispute resolution, talking on the phone or on skype is the best thing you could possibly do.

So yes, on the one hand, I agree, a wiki is a wonderful tool. But on the other hand, no matter how wonderful wikis are, if we were to only be able to communicate through wikis, the world would be a poor, sad place indeed. Fortunately, there are many other tools, and of course, when we use them, we should use them smartly and responsibly.

Does that make sense so far?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is, we might run into a fellow Wikipedian at any public place, and not realize it. It could be the person we've been edit warring with or, to use an opposite example, someone we think is really cool based on their edits, and we just sit there on the train or whatever and don't even realize the connection. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. :-) I met an en.wikipedian sitting next to me on the plane to Berlin once. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks KB, as I say, I am waiting to be convinced, but have not been yet. (May be I lack certain knowledge, and experience.) A) I agree, you could meet a Wikipedian anywhere!. However, you and I are unlikely to meet F2F, as you're in The Netherlands, I believe, and I in the great southern land, (Australia). Actually, I do not think I will attend Wiki-meetup in Brisbane next year, I like a little mystery, and also tend to reclusiveness, as many do. Yes, I use email, though I dont check often, and tired of blinkin' SPAM (Nigerians? writing to me?). Documentation, useful "butters-in", authentification, meat-puppeting, I still have issues. But the main one, I guess, is time. Time to learn, and time to DO, and enough time to learn by Doing. Thanks, not being anti- but just wishing to understand more better. ;) <smiley>--Newbyguesses - Talk 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I've lived in Melbourne and have family in Perth and in Brisbane. :-) Also. I might be in Hong Kong in a little while, and am considering a hop to Brisbane while I'm at least halfway there. Where in Australia are you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you got that right. Might see ya, in person, some day, that would be fine. Or, get on the old dog-and-bone, to discuss,not "scheme" the Great Wiki-pedia!<!__ might look up that family's of yours, too. -->--Newbyguesses - Talk 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we'll meet in an Amsterdam coffee house sometime... Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, some actually even sell coffee (my preferred poison ;-)). --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't indulge in the greenery anyway. When I interviewed with the CIA, they said that even consuming cannabis in the Netherlands could be an issue in getting a security clearance, as the concern is not only the legality of it but what it says about someone's judgment that they would willingly ingest a psychoactive drug. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll drink to that.--Father Goose (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

sure, it's faster to discuss matters between a limited group of people. What it does, though, is exclude the rest of the community. Of course people will talk to one another--a good place, not mentioned, is the local meet-ups, which have the advantage of usually have a fairly broad selection of people present. At least the NYC one sometimes keeps minutes & a recording, & summarizes substantive discussions on-wiki. Kim has some good points: multiple channels. For one, there's a limit to what people can follow, at least for some of us--though there seem to be some people with an infinite channel capacity, & it gives them an advantage. There's 3 things i try to do off wiki by email: counseling someone who is submitting disruptive edits in the hope of getting an acceptable one, warning people about things for which I do not want to embarrass them, and reaching commercial spammers when I can find their real email. DGG (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. You talk with a small group of people at a time (preferably 1 at a time, but Real Life happens). Then, you talk with another person, and another person, until you have discussed what you're trying to do with everyone in the community who has demonstrated an interest. BRD allows you to actually find as many of those people as is humanly possible (even those who only have the page on their watchlist).

Example situation (using easy numbers)

You can discuss and discuss with 100 people at once, for months, and nothing will happen because

• The 100 people do not have any actual interest, they just want to participate and feel important

• Talking to 100 people causes huge discussions, where no-one can keep track of what is going on

• When you finally move to implement your decision, you will discover that there are now 105 people participating in the discussion, and the 5 new people immediately cause you so much trouble that you must abandon your plan, or at best you'll have to delay it for months.

Why? Hidden among those 105 people, were just 10 who actually had a solid interest, and who were willing to fight for it if need be. You convinced or wore out 5 of those somehow, and you failed to find the other 5, who consequently teamed up and sunk your plan. I'm sure you've seen situations like this before! (it gets to be more fun if a couple of the "support" people suddenly see an opening and switch sides, too ;-) )

By applying BRD, you find the 10 interested people, 1 or 2 at a time. They will be antagonistic towards your position. You will need to negotiate, and you will have to give and take and make concessions. Then you need to talk with the next 1 or 2, which hopefully will be easier, because you'll already be drifting in their direction, etc.. until you've talked with all 10. At that point, no one will oppose your plan, and you can execute it.

typical ranges irl can be 10-200 "chatters" and 2-10 "interested parties" --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Yes, KB, but it wasnt BRD which got things moving a bit at WP:IAR, it was the Rfc! perhaps? --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was using a BRD variant to achieve something else O:-) (related to what's now at Wikipedia:Lectures). The RFC may have interesting consequences, but different ones. [1] O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Urk, but Until 1==2 just chased away 6SJ7! :-( :-( Why did you tempt me to look again? :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, Until(1==2) has asked 6SJ7 to not take it personally. However, I shall not ask yourself to return there against your better judgement. I looked at the DIFF, its always a fifty-fifty split kinda situation, isnt it, even when only one person is addressing the issue, I think, or maybe not. --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just came back to delete my last comment (because I shouldn't be too negative, as that might sabotage Ryan's best intentions as much as anything else... oops! ^^;;) . I think we should see how things go, and folks should try their best to get along. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it was BRD that got things moving at IAR. Chardish's agitation, for better or worse, got everyone else agitated, and the stagnation was broken. That's not to say that things might not return to stagnancy, but at least for now, the hornets are in the air instead of in the nest.--Father Goose (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was BRD that worked, but it seems to have taken ten months to do so? --Newbyguesses - Talk 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh, it's a tool. Maybe it was the wrong tool for IAR? :-) I've been trying to figure out other methods too. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to the page.

Improvements to the page. Normal editing will continue, but this page is looking rather good, particularly the diagram.

Any suggestions for improving the page? --Newbyguesses - Talk 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask people to use BRD to edit this page? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of BOLD, revert, discuss. As usual, the page stayed the same. I think it was the 'effing edit summary which convinced me. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so much as usual. Rather, you made the change, and discussed it with others, and learned things. The page doesn't have to change when you BRD. Sometimes there's information you weren't aware of yet. If you're still not convinced about things, feel free to keep talking, or reword.

On the other hand, don't give up so quick! Remember that this apge is mostly descriptive, rather than prescriptive. If you're aware of troublesome situations where discussing offwiki got people into trouble (like with Durova), you could try researching that and document what you learn here (though possibly Durova wasn't using BRD, and you may want to document elsewhere, like at WP:WIARM, perhaps). :-)

And if what you say is true, then there's nothing I can do to stop you. ;-)

So what say you?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement, but I will allow myself a little negativity - CONSENSUS doesn't grow on trees, CIVILITY is in the eyes of the beholder, IAR isn't the secret key to Wikipedia, and BRD is not a magic wand. BRD is a technique, which works some of the time. It is not as reliable as, say, making a cup of tea, or picking one's nose, but it has it's uses. There are NO magic wands. --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not negativity, that's budding wisdom, I figure. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert-troll toll problem

Increasingly, I see reverts not for any problem in the improvements I contributed, but with a given reason my Edit Summary explaining them was insufficient to placate the reverter.

Our mission with Wikipedia is a world-beating encyclopedia -- not a world-beating set of Edit Summaries or discussion pages. Commonly using reverts to extort long edit summaries or even discussion-page essays as a condition of not being reverted interferes with the development of our encyclopedia.

Part of the burgeoning problem may that Wikipedia's BRD instructions inadvertently encourage reverting changes as a way to get discussions started -- but does not directly refer to or reflect the cautions against routine use of reverts given in the "how to revert" explanations. Readers of only the BRD instructions who do not read the separate reverting cautions can come away with the idea that blind reverts are helpful, approved, or condoned.

The lazy blunt-weapon reverts I'm seeing (giving no comment on what I wrote, just instructions to write an essay) are being used instead of rewrites and are quite unlike the sparing and tactful use of reverts called for in WP's "how to revert" instructions and caveats.

Before re-reading the BRD discussion, I thought the revert-Trolls were demanding a fuller Edit Summary explaining my additions or changes (which are in any event generally self-explanatory). It was unclear where to start with such an essay if I cared to contribute it, because the reverter gave no clue of how he/she found my contribution lacking in comparison with the original article.

Now after reviewing the BRD instructions, I suspect that the rising mob of self-appointed revert vigilantes believe that they have found in the BRD article a license to use blind reverts to require volunteer editors to supply a long essay on the discussion page, and followed by a long discussion with the reverter, if the volunteer editor's edit is to survive.

The proliferation of these "Revert Trolls" diminishes my enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia. An effective mechanism for identifying them and educating them about the reverting guidelines is needed.

As soon as possible, they should be fed less, by making sure that each reference to reverts explicitly refer to the reverting guidelines.

Our BRD article should be clarified to indicate that the BRD method is intended to be used in rare and contentious situations. It should emphasize that on the rare occasions where a revert, rather than a rewrite, is required for non-vandalistic changes, the BRD method does not license lazy blank reverts. Instead, the reasons the reverted-to original text is preferred by the reverter should be stated plainly, both as a courtesy to the revertee and as a way of jump-starting any subsequent dialogue -- i.e., giving the reasons why the reverter deems the original article text superior.

And our BRD article should be emphatic that reverts are only for problems with the text of the article itself not otherwise fixable within the revert guidelines; that reverts are not an encouraged, condoned, or helpful way to address any perceived insufficiencies in any Edit summary or discussion page entry. The BRD article should make clear even to readers who fail to find the "Reverting" article that the BRD discussions have created no license to require routine creation of a long talk page entry followed by extended discussion as a troll-toll before a WP main page entry improvement will be allowed to stand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.203.129 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 March 2008

I have seen people misreading this page as well. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus here's a centralized discussion on the topic of people reverting too early.

Wikipedia talk:Consensus is currently discussing methods used by some people to edit wikipedia, which seems to follow the revert-pattern, and may be strongly related.

Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules is an example of a page that (ironically) is controlled by revert-type people.

Wikipedia:Lectures is an attempt to instill clue in more people.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim B said: Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules is an example of a page that (ironically) is controlled by revert-type people. That statement, in my opinion, is either hyperbole, wrong-headed, or just a bit un-civil, I am not sure which.

This page needs a re-write, it makes claims that are unsubstantiated, as well as having purely stylistic deficiences. BRD, with the emphasis on R, is not a good idea, it is a Bad Idea. You CAN have a discussion that isn't started by "Hey! Why did YOU revert MY edit?" That starts discussions off on the wrong foot, usually.

Part of the burgeoning problem may be that Wikipedia's BRD instructions inadvertently encourage reverting changes as a recommended way to get discussions started --

Stylistically, (to give just one example) "Take it to the talk page" is poor word-use - it promotes an adversarial attitude - it could be parodied as "OK Pardner, grab your six-gun and let's shoot it out!". There is a combative edge to much of this writing which rubs me the wrong way, and I think it is unnecessary to emphasise inter-personal conflict in the way that this approach BRD does. Seeing as I have an obvious bias at this point in time, I will not be "pro-active" in editting here against consensus; rather, I would be happy for anyone to provide a better rationale for BRD than has presently been supplied - I will eat my words gladly if that is the case. Thanks --Newbyguesses (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, articles often reach a larely static state that represents consensus or compromise between otherwise entrenched editors. When a new editor full of enthusiasm happens along and makes massive changes, the old order is upset with the entrenched editors thinking "these edits go too far" as they hit the undo button. Regardless of if the changes were good (perhaps the new editor was updating the article to reflect a newly published source) or bad (maybe the new editor was not familiar with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT), WP:BRD provides a useful framework for both old and new editors to come together and build consensus. That consensus might be new (such as when new sources are integrated into an article) or old (like when an enthusiastic but brand new editor realizes that the edits they wanted to make do not meet WP:NPOV), but BRD is the path they take together to achieve that consensus. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This particular page describes how to resolve conflicts in entrenched situations. The stress on inter-personal conflict is because it is an inter-personal conflict resolution tool . ;-)

The page also probably has a good description of (one branch of) the normal consensus process, that isn't described elsewhere.

Probably we should split out the dispute resolution parts from the normal consensus process parts.

What is true is that this "trick" works. Feel free to edit however you want, but make sure that what you write is factually true.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Take it to the talk page" isn't a shoot-out; edit-warring is a shoot-out. Now, some editors just stomp, argue, and threaten on talk pages, but more often (thank god!) they state their point of view, and you state yours, and maybe one party convinces the other, or an intermediate point is agreed upon. That's the wiki at its second best (the best is where two or more editors hash out their differences in an iterative series of edits; you end up with a true synthesis of ideas).

This page does need a rewrite to suitly emphazai better emphasize the non-dispute-resolution aspects of BRD. I've been meaning to for a while... maybe if you put it up for MfD it'll spur me; the specter of deletion always gets me off my ass. ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Essay or supplement

This started as an essay and I see no consensus to make it a "supplement to policy", which in my mind gives the impression it is part of policy. I don't think we should be back door promoting essays into supplements of policy. Looking at #Status as an essay, this has already been discussed and gained no consensus. Please get consensus before changing this again. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh? "While this essay is not a policy or guideline". Supplement == Essay. :-) Consensus is this is an essay. We are done here. --Kim Bruning (talk)

That "supplement" tag says "essay" one day and not the next. It does not seem like a reliable tag to mark something as an essay with. For example when I removed it, there was no mention that it was an essay giving the clear indication it was part of policy. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, actually it's been stable since at least January... but would you be willing to change supplements to not be essays? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what a "supplement" even is in the context of Wikipedia, it sounds like something someone made up one day, and unless clearly marked otherwise gives the impression that it is part of the guideline or policy. I think if we need to mark something as a supplement then that should be a tag separate to the essay tag. but I really don't think we need to mark things as "supplements", we have a see also section to show related guidelines and policies. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so essay supplements foo is the best we can do. I can live with that. *sigh* --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Supplement" is useful for essays which give advice elaborating upon existing policy or guidelines in a non-controversial way. They're more than pontification or opinion, like some essays; they are actionable, but in a way less compulsory than policies or guidelines (IAR notwithstanding). To label them merely "essays" would obscure that they document actual and important wiki practice; to label them "guidelines" would push them into the world of wikilawyering, which is wrong because the advice they give is Good but entirely non-prescriptive.--Father Goose (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure if that is so, then consensus will be to make them more than essays. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly -- "supplements". We have these artificial categories, "essay", "guideline", "policy", which approximate each page type's social role, but there are ones that fall in between roles in such a way as to work best described as yet another category. Radiant was long an advocate of getting rid of {{supplement}}, but I think he was working according to an aesthetic of simplicity that didn't correspond to the social realities of the wiki.--Father Goose (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Before we add another class of "rules" it will take considerable discussion Things are confusing enough already. Essays callign themselvef supplements--anyone can go ahead and do that. I have a few ideas of my own here for some other "essays" I'd liketo upgrade although I know they'd never get the consensus for doing so. Perhaps we do need a MfD on the supplement tag. DGG (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a worthwhile essay, user:DGG, and you propose adding it as a link on WP:V, for instance, then you have to speak up at WT:V for that idea. If the idea is compelling, and gains consensus, the link to "Essay- Foobars are fine" goes in. And, if anyone can be bothered to, they update from template essay to template Supplement at "Essay Foobars still fine". Or not: the linked-to item remains in CAT:ESSAY, so it remains an essay, and not a policy or guideline. However, there HAS been consensus gained at WT:V to add it as a link at WP:V. Congratulations, your essay is now a "supplemental" essay! --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There was, and it was kept. But I don't think the problems with the tag were properly explained, or understood. Perhaps the next MfD will have some diffs to demonstrate these issues. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If "supplement" is to be deleted, we need some kind of category that applies to pages that give critically-important documentation about how the wiki works, on a social level, but are not policy, in the sense of being enforceable. I'm not sure why {{supplement}} is not respected in this role.--Father Goose (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Supplements are essays. Supplements are essays. Supplements are essays that have been added as links to a policy page where there has been agreement at the policy discussion page to add that particular link. That is my understanding, which goes back to about August 2007.

See Template talk:Supplemental essay , that should be pretty clear. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

More like Supplements are not essays, oh wait supplements are essays, oops, now they are not essays, oh now are essays again. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This DIFF from February 2008?? (now they are not essays, -- ???) It says page, not essay, sure, and it adds it to CAT:ESSAY making it an essay in any case and it has since January 2008. In any case, that doesn't matter to me one way or the other. If there are any improvements however, that ought to be made to that situation is a question for the template talk page, or another Mfd, I would think. --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a debate for the template talk page, I think. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the question here is do we want a template on this page that does not seem to have settled into a stable state yet. That is a discussion for this talk page. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently we need a translator. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(trans:-) That is a question for the template talk page. --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, in my opinion, if this page is a supplement to WP:CON or not is a matter for discussion there. (trans:-) --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, who knows. Well, at least we're arguing in good faith, that's a start :-P

Oh wait... do you mean you think the template is unstable. Is that really a problem though? What's the worst that can happen? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I could well want to argue in favour NOTAG, NOTAG for all pages in wikipediaspace; upon reflection, I can live with the current setup. Mfd? Why not. I dont think I got anything new to say there though, myself. --Newbyguesses (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

{{essay}} has gone through more changes in the past year than {{supplement}}. I'm not sure a few edits to {{supplement}} really warrants calling it "unstable".--Father Goose (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When there is doubt, discuss first on the talk-page.

When there is doubt, discuss first on the (policy) talk-page. (per {{Policy}}. discuss edit revert all done. NewbyG 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, in other words: Only apply BRD if you are confidently certain of yourself. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that wasn't BRD, That was D-E-R-D, and it worked fine, though there was no change at the end of the DERD cycle. --NewbyG (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The DERD cycle worked fine, and as a bonus following completion of the DERD cycle, this was added here and this was added here. --NewbyG (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'm putting in some images to give people some coathangers/mnemonics. alternate for stuck truck:

I like this one too, because people are actively solving the problem. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of something for when the process fails, where impenetrable barriers exist.

Although, perhaps there's still hope:

Just some ideas I'm playing with. Anyone else?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes those are impressive images. Got any good ones that might work for Something from the Greek myths or Ducks or Gratitude --NewbyG (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

BRD, does it work?

Bold, Revert, Discuss, --NewbyG (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

This is a good essay and process. I tend to find that the people that follow this instead of just being revert happy get much more done. However, the name seems to imply the opposite of the advice. I realize after reading the essay that the revert in the title is watching for any revert, but upon first encountering the title of the essay I was expecting something revert happy. In other words encouraging being bold about reverting which we certainly don't need. Maybe I'm the only one, but the title was striking to me and not in a good way. Unfortunately I don't have any good suggestions. - Taxman ^Talk 17:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the title gives the wrong impression. It should be called Bold Wait Discuss (BWD).--Lester 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, if there is consensus to the bold change, the later discussion will show that and it will go back in after the reversion. Don't forget that by being bold it is likely that there is no consensus, which will be established during the discussion phase. Of course rather than being bold, the discuss bit can occur first, then consensus established, then changes made. The problem(s) start when there is no discussion but b-r-r+ rather than the d bit. The key is the second r, which shouldn't happen before discussion (but seems to) and then it leads to lots of problems. Shot info (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The revert is a vital part of the process, so it shouldn't be glossed over. I have an unlimited right to be bold precisely because everyone else has the right to disagree and revert. (Then we are both compelled to discuss our respective positions and see if there's a compromise position to be found.)

The comma between bold and revert ought to be enough to show that this essay is not about "bold reverting" (though the right to one revert is automatically granted) -- and ultimately you have to read the essay to understand what the full cycle is about.

It's not the prettiest title for an essay, but it is accurate, and it is a solid mnemonic for the process: Bold. Revert. Discuss. Repeat.--Father Goose (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Father Goose. The revert is an essential part of the process, especially in the respect that if used properly in this context it can enable you to determine exactly what it is someone disagrees with you on, incrementally. In good faith or sometimes otherwise, consensus-building done entirely through the talk page can get bogged down if people misunderstand what it is you're trying to do or if the objections they raise are tangential or unrelated to the change you made.

I have sometimes felt unable to get my interlocutors to discuss the actual change I made to a page; from my admittedly usually frustrated point of view in that case they appear to be engaging in some sort of paranoia or axe grinding of little relevance. I only just came across this essay now, but the way I've dealt with it was similar: I would break down my edit into small components or individual sentences and make the edit one bit at a time.

This forces your interlocutor to identify exactly what they disagree with and revert that specifically. I'll even say in the talk page, "Okay, this conversation has wandered away from discussion of the original change so I want to determine what specifically you're objecting to. So I'm going to make incremental change X and please feel free to revert it if you do not agree with it." Making that effort and taking that kind of sober and methodical approach seems to be able to sometimes better focus people on what they're doing when discussion alone has failed. And when I've done this I've usually been able to achieve some level of compromise, even with one person I was having a general dispute with across multiple articles and project namespace pages - and it was even a change to a guideline page that we managed to come to an agreement on! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof

It's not clear to me who has the burden of proof on a revert. The assumption seems to be that a discussion will happen, but who starts this discussion? In my experience, discussions don't happen because reverters tend to employ a "revert-first, ask questions later approach" that is very off-putting to good faith edits, and invisibly raises the bar to unreachable and unexplained subjective levels. There needs to be a means to counteract this.

Clearly, there are two major cases to consider: good faith and bad faith edits. I think it would be beneficial if the "reverter" makes it clear whether or not he believes the original edit was good faith or not.

1. If it was a good faith edit, the reverter should have the "burden of proof", and should be expected to point out at least one actionable alternative. Recognition of good faith opens the door to further discussion. Putting the burden on the reverter puts the burden on those that have the most interest in maintaining status quo to justify it. It also gives the original editor something to respond to, while preventing hand-waving justifications, shrouded in subjectivity. Objective and actionable ideas are the key to moving forward. What if there is no actionable alternative? Doesn't seem likely. If someone is making a good faith effort to change something, there's something that isn't meeting their needs. They expect some kind of action. A way needs to be found to communicate their requirements without driving them away by the revert. Maybe they just couldn't find what they were looking for. That may be an actionable problem. Maybe more information is required, maybe less. There's no one way to do this, but actionable ideas can be productively discussed.
2. If the edit was deemed in bad faith, the original revert should explain why, such as vandalism. This also gives the original editor something to respond to, without hand-waving.

As a brief corrollary, note that BRD has the default effect of converting action into talk. This is sometimes good, but not when it results in paralysis and alienates useful contributors. 70.252.96.143 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually agree here. We revert edits all the time, giving only a short edit summary. It is in my opinion enough to say something like "unjustified change" or whatever. the burden of showing a change is necessary is on the person who makes the change. Ideally, I do think it wise to put something on the talk page immediately, if I know there will be an argument about it, to start off the discussion, instead of just being bold and hoping to put off discussion until later--it tends to work better. If I revert, it is similarly often helpful to discuss at the time. But if the first person didn't start discussing, and the reverter thinks the matter might not be pursued, then the time to discuss, just as the rule says, is after the revert. It's a 3-step process, designed to weed out the matters that don't really require discussion.

Re-reverting without discussion is often a start to edit warring. Anyone who does that is probably in the wrong. Even if its not a good faith revert, one should least say so when re-reverting. If i make a change, and someone reverts me in good faith, I must now decide if i want to press the matter. If I don't, perhaps because i don't consider it terribly important, I stop there. Otherwise, it is now up to me to start the discussion. DGG (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

To the IP editor who repeatedly added {{weasel}} to the page: if you can write comments like "Does this just happen by magic?" you either do not understand what weasel words are, or you approve of their use. In either case you should not be applying {{weasel}} anywhere. You might also need to refer to "Avoid trite expressions".

Regarding trite expressions, you will note that the discussion you point to refers to articles, not text that is invisible to the reader. Yes, it's trite, but valid. If you think it's too trite, replace it with something that isn't or remove it; I'll even do that for you. The point still stands.

If you think there needs to be an improvement to the article, make it or propose it here. Don't misapply templates like that to make a point. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You will see in the very discussion above, Burden of proof that I have already done so. As there has been no follow-on discussion, I'm being bold.

70.250.189.189 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Discuss

The third stage of the BRD cycle needs to be more explicit about who is doing what, and how. Just the word "Discuss" doesn't explain how this happens at all. Is it on the Talk page, a Project page, with God, or whom? Likewise, how this happens needs to be *stated*. The word "Discuss" does not explain who bears the burden of initiating the conversation following the revert. Is it the original editor, or the reverter? The implied answer seems to be that the *original editor* bears the burden of starting the conversation, but this is *not stated*. Simplifying to just the word "discuss" makes it very hard to distinguish who the subject of the sentence is. This is because the subject is "You", which is still ambiguous. 70.251.251.175 (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)