Cena Cypriani

It is often hard to find out who to talk with to gain consensus. By making a bold edit you attract the attention of people who are genuinely interested in a page, and have it on their watchlist. You can then discuss your issues with them. Compare Wikipedia:Consensus.

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a proactive method for reaching consensus on any wiki with revision control. It can be useful for identifying objections to edits, breaking deadlocks, keeping discussion moving forward. Note that this process must be used with care and diplomacy; some editors will see it as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. This method can be particularly useful when other dispute resolution for a particular wiki is not present, or has currently failed.

Overview

• 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.

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.)
2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.

Apply the compromise by editing the page, after which the cycle repeats. When people start regularly making non-revert edits again, you are done.

What BRD is, and is not

BRD is most useful for pages where seeking consensus would be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other editors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page, though there are other suitable methods.

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. Some have even taken to simply declaring their intent by adding the shortcut "[[WP:BRD]]" at the front of their edit summary. This seems to help keep people from taking as much offense at proposed changes. In a way, you're actively provoking another person with an edit they may (strongly) disagree on, so you're going to need to use all your tact to explain what you're aiming to achieve.

When editing articles:

BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus. It is a way for editors who have a good grasp of a subject to more rapidly engage discussion and make changes that are probably good, in articles where a "discuss first" method of consensus is unlikely to lead to quick progress.

BRD is not a substitute for prior research which would support the initial edit or a reversion of it. Researching first, then citing sources, may reduce the likelihood of a reversion or, if one takes place, help keep the resulting discussion constructive.

BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. Try an edit summary of "Let's talk about this; I'll start the discussion with a list of my objections" rather than "Undo. I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

Cases for use

Consensus has gotten stuck. BRD to the rescue!

When other methods have failed, when cooperation has broken down, when it is not clear that a talk page request for discussion will generate any significant response, or when no editor is willing to make changes which might be perceived as controversial: these cases are when BRD is most effective. Examples of these include cases where:

• Two factions are engaged in an edit war
• Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached
• Active discussion is not producing results
• Your view differs significantly from a vocal majority on a loaded subject
• Local consensus is currently opposed to making any changes whatsoever (when pages are frozen, "policy", or high profile)

BRD will generally fail if:

• There is a (large) preexisting consensus in the general community against the specific change you'd like to make
• The page is protected. (get the page unprotected)
• The page is subject to some other access control. (get the control lifted)
• You lose tempo
• Individuals who are disinterested revert bold changes.

BRD will be especially successful where...:

• ... local consensus differs from global consensus, and your goal is to apply global consensus
• ... people haven't really thought things through yet.
• ... people are only discussing policy, and are not applying reasoning or trying to negotiate consensus (see above under "haven't thought things through")
• In short: boldly negotiating where no-one has negotiated before.

Tactics

Using BRD should draw a response from someone who has the page on their watchlist.

After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version, you can proceed toward consensus with that one person. Each pass through the cycle finds a new person to work with, eventually forming consensus with all of the interested parties. As such, BRD is generally not an end unto itself - it moves the process past a blockage, and helps get people get back to cooperative editing.

After a while, people will begin to refrain from outright reversion, and edits will start to flow more naturally.

Details

For each step in the cycle here are some points to remember.

Bold

• Stay focused: Only make the changes you absolutely need to. Bold doesn't have to be big, and keeping your edit focused is more likely to yield results than making an over-reaching change.
• Try to make the edit and its explanation simultaneous: Many people will first make an edit, and then explain it on the talk page. Somehow there will always be some fast-off-the-hip reverter who manages to revert you right in the middle, before you have time to complete your explanation. To try to prevent this, reverse the order, first edit the talk page, and then make your edit immediately afterwards. This way your explanation will already be there at the moment of the expected revert. Don't hesitate between the two actions though, since for some reason people tend to be accused of bad faith if they do that. Best of all, if the page has little activity right now, you might be able to prepare edits to page and talk page summary, and save them simultaneously.
• Expect strong resistance—even hostility: Deliberately getting people to revert or respond to you feels a bit like disruption. Trying to change things certainly does, even when it's an obvious change for the better! If you do this cycle perfectly, most people will grudgingly accept you. Do it less than perfectly, and they will certainly be mad at you. Do it wrong, and they will hate your guts.

Revert

• First try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: if you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible.
• A revert of your edit may mean your edit broke an established consensus: move to the next stage, "Discuss"
• Revert -wars do not help build consensus: Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, or to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, and/or get them to make an edit themselves.
• If people start making non-revert changes again, you are done: The normal editing cycle has been restored.

Discuss

• Adhere to Wikiquette and civility guidelines: The easiest way to intensify this cycle and make it unbreakable is to be uncivil. Try to lead by example and keep your partner in the same mind set.
• Talk with one or at most two partners at once. As long as the discussion is moving forward, do not feel the need to respond to everyone, as this increases the chance of discussion losing focus and going far afield. Stay on point and pick your responses. If discussion dies off, you can always go back and get yourself reverted again to find (or refind) other interested parties.
• There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version.
• Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay. Do not back off immediately, BUT:
  • Listen very carefully: You are trying to get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit. If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time. You should not accept, "It's policy, live with it." On the other hand, you should completely understand the implications when someone explains to you, "The flurbeling you suggest caused very bad barbelism, that's why we decided to always floop before we fleep instead."
  • Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.
• Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion:" there is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.

Bold (again)

• Let them apply agreed-upon changes. If they don't want to, that's okay, but be sure to offer. The offer alone shows deference and respect. If they accept, the change history will clearly show they signed off on the change, and they will also have control over the precise wording (keeping you from accidentally applying a change different than the one they expected). Also, on the English Wikipedia and other projects with similar policies, this prevents you from falling afoul of the three-revert rule.
• Assume this revision will not be the final version. You do not have to get it all done in one edit. If you can find consensus on some parts, make those changes, and let them settle. This will give everyone a new point to build from. Having completed one successful cycle, you may also find it easier to get traction for further changes, or may find you have reached a reasonable compromise and can stop.

Edit warring

• Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "B". It stops after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors.

Notes

• If an issue is already under discussion or was recently discussed, people may take offense if you boldly ignore the discussion, especially if you make a change away from a version arrived at through consensus, to an earlier or suggested non-consensual version. Ignoring earlier consensus is generally not a wise approach!
• Note that due to the nature of Wikipedia:Consensus a Bold, revert, discuss cycle can sometimes start by accident. Perhaps somewhat akin to stalling an aircraft. If you're not feeling up to it, it might be best to walk away for a while. Unlike the immediate danger of an aircraft plummeting to the ground, wikipedia will be here a long while, so don't panic; you can always come back later. Else, if you have the energy and the time, use the suggestions on this page to "pull out". Then continue working as per consensus.
• If you attempt to apply Bold-Revert-Discuss two or more times in quick succession, you are in danger of violating the principle of seeking consensus, and you might just end up in a revert-war with the first responder. Take it one at a time.
• On the English wikipedia, you may find that the page gets protected a couple of times during early stages of BRD. Try to get it unprotected as rapidly as possible. Loss of tempo can be a fatal problem.

See also

• WP:PRESERVE
• Wikipedia:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy
• Wikipedia:BRD misuse
• Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary
• Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"
• Wikipedia:Method for consensus building

• Minority influence
• 12 Angry Men: A movie in which one of the characters (the architect) applies a variant on BRD in a "real life" jury. The architect finds the position of each of the other jury members in turn, enters discussion with that jury member, and thus over time manages to convince the jury to acquit the accused.