Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 High  This page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale.
WikiProject Editor Retention
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Supplement page vs essay page[edit]

Note that this page's categorization has been changed to from "essay" to "supplement." For how this happened, see this. Just noting this here in case anyone wants to pursue having the page re-categorized as an essay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"Is BRD a policy?" section[edit]

Codename Lisa added a "Is BRD a policy?" section, stating, "The term 'BRD' may refer to two different things:

After that, SmokeyJoe came along and made a minor tweak.

I was opposed to the section because I considered it as completely unnecessary. There was no need to break that material out into its own section and significantly change its wording. And for one, this page is not an article in the sense of WP:Article. So I changed that. Secondly, Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Consensus do not use use the term BRD, except for when pointing to this essay. Thirdly, there absolutely are exemptions to edit warring, as made clear at Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions. This is why I added, "unless an addition violates a policy, is vandalism or otherwise disruptive." We should not have editors thinking that more than one revert is never acceptable and is automatically edit warring. Codename Lisa soon afterward removed the entire section as "patent nonsense," per my edits. My response was that I would address the matter here on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice that the pieces before Codename Lisa's initial edit on this matter are still currently missing. In other words: I am not the one who added the following: "'BRD' is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring. Avoiding edit warring is a policy that all editors must follow." It was already on this page. All I did was re-add it. Same goes for stating that "BRD is not a policy." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer22 Reborn
Thanks for starting this conversation. You say that "I was opposed to the section" and yet you chose to edit it instead of reverting it. I appreciate that. It is a noble act that very few do. Thanks for the willingness.
But the good intention alone is hardly enough for the result of your work to be kept. Your remedy can at best be described as scatter-brained. You say you wrote this for such-and-such reasons, but since I can neither make head nor tail out of what you wrote, your reason is no consolation. Also, in order to write something, necessity or accuracy alone are not enough; time and place are also important.
For your noble act of trying to fix to be effective, first, you must see the big picture. It has been a long time since I have dropped any and all mentions of "BRD" from my edits and summaries. I use Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing instead. It has the same purpose and material, and has the force of a policy. When you fail to get the big picture, you end up writing disorienting things like "Secondly, Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Consensus do not use use the term BRD" which can be immediately dismissed as "false" because Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing actually say:

The "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (BRD) is often used when changes might be contentious.

Anyway, I have reverted to the pre-dispute state per WP:STATUSQUO. Clearly, this matter needs establishing a consensus before editing. (As a matter of fact my removal of the whole section meant to be a softer form of this but that proved controversial too.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Codename Lisa, regarding this, I signed thrice because that has become my style for updating my signature, I don't like replacing a signature with an updated timestamp when only part of the post is updated; to me, this is a misleading timestamp. I have restored my three timestamps above.
As for your explanation about your edits, I do not appreciate your condescending and otherwise insulting tone. You objecting to my edits make not a bit of sense. Those additions were already on this page and still are thanks to you reverting to the status quo. The main difference is that I added "unless an addition violates a policy, is vandalism or otherwise disruptive." You can point to Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing and Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing as much as you want to, but they do not treat BRD as policy. You cited the following sentence: "The 'BOLD, revert, discuss cycle' (BRD) is often used when changes might be contentious." Yes, I saw that. That is not policy using the term BRD in the sense of BRD being a policy. It is a policy pointing to an essay page. It is letting readers know that this essay page is often cited (that the BRD process is often followed); it is not stating that we must follow what this essay page states. There was already an attempt to elevate such a practice to a guideline and it failed because editors felt that it would be putting a WP:1RR restriction on articles. Your edit made it seem as though BRD is a matter of policy; it is not. I do not think you thought this through. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not appreciate your condescending and otherwise insulting tone. Not reading the rest of the message. Aborting discussion. I commended and thanked this person, he responds by a personal attack. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. —Codename Lisa (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Codename Lisa, I am a she. And your idea of commending and thanking leaves much to be desired, if you think that mocking and condescension equate to such. I made no WP:Personal attack on you. If anything, your comments were more of a personal attack. Discussion aborted? Good. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Being a "she" is no justification for being so rude. Even being directly insulted is no justification for insulting back. That said, I can see that CL has said: "Your remedy [~snip~] scatter-brained". In all the fairness, this is about the contribution, not the contributor. What she did say about the contributor, however, is "Thanks for [~snip~] I appreciate that. It is a noble act that very few do. Thanks for the willingness". Two "thank you", one direct appreciation and one praise. On the whole, the only thing negative this person did to you was disagreeing with you. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
FleetCommand, so you felt the need to inject yourself into this dispute and inflame it. I see why. I recently reverted you and you took significant issue with it, and you felt that this was the time to get revenge, like so many other Wikipedia editors who hold a grudge and lack restraint. Yes, I note these types at the top of my user page/talk page. Sighs. It was indeed Codename Lisa who was rude to me. I did not justify my response to her on the basis that I am female; so I do not see what you are talking about in that regard. You can talk about her "scatter-brained" comment being "about the contribution, not the contributor" as much as you want to, but it does not negate the fact that Codename Lisa was wholly condescending. Her comments were essentially along the following lines: "Oh sweety, bless your heart. You tried, but you simply do not know what you are doing." And her comment about my signature signing was more of the same; it was mocking, as if to state, "This poster can't even sign right. So how can we even trust her to write this essay right?" And let's be real here: Insulting an editor's addition with derogatory terms can be considered WP:Uncivil; it's seen all the time at WP:ANI. And do spare me any claim that describing an editor's edits as scatterbrained, in the way that Codename Lisa did, is not derogatory. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: You still aren't allowed to insult back or be rude in kind. Also, if I wanted to do something revengy, I would have done it three month ago, when it was relevant. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Insult back? Hmm. By stating "You objecting to my edits make not a bit of sense." and "Discussion aborted? Good."? We clearly have a different definition of what insulting means. As for being all revenge-y when it's relevant, nah, that's not what editors like you do. You only attack when relevant sometimes. And given how often I have been subjected to your type, I should know. Anyway, I see that you are all buddy-buddy with Codename Lisa regardless. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
And I see that you were reverted here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
If that was gloating, it was a very weak one. Drive it home by adding "How do you like it apples, Missy?" Yes, it is rude but your reputation can't suffer. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Gloating was not the intention. And what is it that you think you know about my reputation? Feel free to spout as much nonsense as you want so that I can disprove it on every front. Then that would be me gloating, in a sense. Oh, never mind; I see below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Your "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia" argument is so ludicrous as to apply to me...that I'll leave it at that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you hadn't responded what amounts to "thank you" with what amounts to "fuck you", yes, I'd agree with you on this. Of course, if I remember correctly, back in 2012, you were blocked for one month for sock puppetry. It wasn't exactly a reward for being a good productive Wikipedian. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh right. I should be so thankful for a condescending "thank you." You are going to have to do much better than bring up my 2012 block, especially since the checkuser/administrator who blocked me later unblocked me and has acknowledged time and time again that I did not sock. And she is not the only one. Did you overlook this statement on my user page/talk page? Did you overlook where my block log quite clearly states, "Unblocking per talk page and off-wiki discussions / two people in the one household (again) / Flyer22 is *not* related to the MikeFromCanmore group of accounts."? Or did you realize that it would not be beneficial to your dirt-throwing? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Aha! So, that's what it was about. I was wondering how comes a sock puppet is released to edit. But yes, pretending to be thankful for a condescending "thank you" is the best way. Responding to it with what amounts to "fuck you" is definitely the worst and forbidden too. Also, we know for a fact that Codename Lisa is NOT being condescending. If you don't want to take my word for it, just remember: I just took your word! FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
If you had actually read and comprehended, you would have known what it was about. And unlike Codename Lisa regarding condescension, I have various editors supporting the sock matter not simply being my word. Unblocking me was not simply based on my word, which you would know if you bothered to do your research before your mudslinging. But having the facts right would not have been as much fun, now would it have? You believe that Codename Lisa was not being condescending. My ability to comprehend says otherwise. But oh well; she can work on those noble efforts in the future. And you can work on your researching skills. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
That was an odd breakdown of conversation. I don't know either of you very well, but see you around, and considered you both normal and reasonable. I don't follow the reason for signing thrice. I am slightly uncomfortable with the designation of "supplement pages", but no real objections. This page "is not a policy"? Does the need for this follow from people thinking it is a policy? As a matter of ease of comprehension, my first real objection is that a document should say things in the positive first. First, say what it is. If necessary, cover gap with "what it is not" at the end. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, SmokeyJoe. I know that signing thrice is unconventional. I don't do it often. I've recently started signing my post two or three times to indicate that the post has been changed at those exact time stamps. I never liked updating my time stamp because I've always felt that it was somewhat misleading unless I rewrote my whole post and I know that adding to my post without updating the timestamp can be misleading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, you add a signature for every edit of your own post? In real life, edits like that call for an initial, an abbreviated signature. Perhaps you could use "FR 03:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Not for every edit of my own post. I simply sometimes add an additional signature if I have significantly changed my post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
If you are stating that we don't need a section stating that BRD is not a policy, I agree. But I do think it's helpful to include material noting that BRD is not a policy. And, yes, this is because BRD is commonly treated as a guideline or policy. Its popularity is what led to the proposal to elevate it to a guideline. We occasionally have "What this page is not" material on our policies and guidelines. For example, WP:Trivia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
And we have an important, influential policy "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not". My point is that it is not for reading first. WP:5P is better. The opening sentence of WP:NOT is well written. I edited the page WP:BRD. What do you think of the result? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, SmokeyJoe. Thanks for becoming a third opinion. Perhaps now that you are here, the thread may become a real discussion. Looking at the whole "§What BRD is, and is not", half its materials is about What BRD is. The remainder is repetitive and redundant. For example, we have three clauses maneuvering around the subject of BRD not being a modus operandi, and not a core reason for reverting. I was thinking perhaps we can fix those. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. All those "Note:" prefixes are substandard. They signal trivia, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. But they are in a list of clauses, so it is the prefix that is redundant. Make a bold edit. You are good at this kind of stuff. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SmokeyJoe, regarding your edit, should we really be going along with calling this page a supplement page instead of an essay page? If you have not already seen it, see this section on my talk page, where WhatamIdoing, Moxy and NewsAndEventsGuy weighed in. I also started a section on the matter above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been interested in the essay --> supplement retagging, as a policy policy matter, ever since the appearance of the essay turned supplement WP:Silence. I was skeptical, then ambivalent, now leaning in favour. I think a requirement for a page to be a supplement to a policy is that the policy directly links to the supplement for further information. This is true for BRD, explicitly referred to from both WP:Consensus and WP:Be bold. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that the page should stay designated as a supplement page, especially since there was no discussion to change it to such, but I'm not too concerned about the matter at the moment. I might revisit the issue in another month or few months later (if no one else takes it on). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: And Wikipedia:Editing policy too. I support the move. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Move? You mean taggery alteration? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
There was no move, obviously. That's FleetCommand not paying attention again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, guys, the Dictionary entry for "move (noun)" says:

(1) Action, (2) instance of moving (3) a change of location or residence (4) an action toward an objective or goal; step: (5) [...]

Alright, I actually came here to write something else. What was that...? Let's see...
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it's clear that we were not on the same page regarding what "move" means. And we all know how editors on Wikipedia usually use the term regarding content location.
As for what else you came to write about, maybe the big edit you made without discussion? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, but what was it about it that I wanted to say?
And, actually, "without discussion" is inaccurate. See above.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
There was no discussion regarding such a substantial change. You simply suggested fixing what you perceived to be wrong with the essay/supplement page, then went right in and made substantial changes to the page. As for your hidden note, really, that is more of the type of thing I am talking about regarding your behavior. How should I react to the way you have been behaving? Seeing you and FleetCommand in action concerning a matter involving NeilN (who is currently taking a break from editing Wikipedia) tells me all that I need to know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
That stated, I don't object to your latest aforementioned edit. It does look like you cut a lot of fat. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I know that you're a good editor; we simply butted heads in an unfortunate way this time. I'll try to be less confrontational (or rather not confrontational at all) when interacting with you in the future, even if I feel insulted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Section break, for convenience[edit]

Well... The first effort had some flaws, but most of the current work is probably a net improvement, on balance.

My major concern is that part of the changes during the last couple of weeks have removed something important about the non-policy-status issue. The important bit wasn't "This isn't a policy". Anybody with the barest familiarity with Wikipedia's backstage processes can look at the tag at the top of the page, or the categories at the bottom, and figure out that this isn't a policy.

The important bit was "This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." I don't see (in a very quick skim) anything on this page that says "Please stop telling innocent new editors that they have 'violated' this strictly optional, purely one-among-multiple-valid-options methods of resolving disputes, because they haven't, and you cannot and should not ever claim that they have to follow this particular method for anything whatsoever". The closest the page comes to this is to say "BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors", which I grant is a very broad hint about the inappropriateness of demanding that inexperienced editors use it, but frankly, too many editors were overlooking that little bit too often for us to leave it at that.

From the POV of preventing editors from using BRD as a bludgeon, there are two main points that have to be made, and made so clearly and prominently that nobody can claim to have misunderstood them. They are:

  1. BRD does not give you the right to revert anything, ever, not even just once. (Other pages might, but BRD doesn't.)
  2. You must never demand that anybody else follow BRD, full stop. You might – in suitable, thoughtfully chosen circumstances, with an experienced editor – gently suggest this as an option, but you must never demand or insist upon it, and you must never tell editors that this is the One True Way™ to edit Wikipedia, or indicate that you believe you have a right to insist that they use this method instead of any of the others.

I think that second point is not clear enough at the moment.

(Part of the problem is that this page was originally written solely as advice to the bold editor. Its misuse as a way of claiming "violations" if you keep editing (even if you're trying other things!) instead of pausing all editing activity so I can filibuster on the talk page has forced us to address the reverters and their increasing sense of entitlement, too.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Many people historically have misunderstood that BRD is not something you *should* do. It is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. My view is that BRD describes an advanced aggressive but acceptable practice that marks the boundary between WP:BOLD and WP:DISRUPTION. BRD is OK, but it is one misstep from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, two from Wikipedia:Edit warring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Really? You do not see of these? Strange. I hope you wouldn't mind me pointing you to where you must look
  • "I don't see (in a very quick skim) anything on this page that says 'Please stop telling innocent new editors that [~snip~]'". Look for this:

    This page is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages.
    It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay.

    It is framed, written in boldface and placed at the top.
  • "BRD does not give you the right to revert anything, ever, not even just once." You don't see this either? Here:

    BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
    BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
    BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense exists, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.

  • "You must never demand that anybody else follow BRD, full stop." You don't see this in the essay either? This time, it is not strange, because it isn't there. I can add something to this effect right now but I won't press it, or else we will get negative effects. I myself once went the Alternative section's way. I tried the "Bold, revert, bold again" approach, but MSGJ and Codename Lisa both assumed bad faith in me; CL recommended a block and MSGJ said I was baiting and blocked me. Neither of the two considered that I am simply probing for a compromise and it is the other editor who simply reverts reflexively. So, in a way, BRD is mandatory sometimes.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Let me see if I can make this clearer: There should be something in this page that says: Attention, admins: Do not ever block editors for 'not following BRD'. "You are not allowed to block people for not following BRD" is the exact meaning of the last half of the very first sentence in the lead, which says that BRD is "an optional method of reaching consensus".
If we had been sufficiently clear about this point, then any admin who proposed blocking a person for "not following BRD" would get trouted.
A few weeks ago, this page had a bullet point that said this:
BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
That's gone now. As your history shows, we probably do need something like that in this page. Possibly in bold, blinking text, even. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Let me make see if I can make this clearer: There must definitely be no such thing. Repetition lengthens the article and has no force. Admins already have enough policies that if they follow, they will never block editors for not following BRD. The prime example is WP:BLOCK that forbids enacting punitive blocks, or even blocks that prevent nothing. Also, you seem to believe if you sink the reader in a heap of different colorful formatting, your point gets through; but it has a negative effect. Windows 8 showed that.
As for the sentence that you say is gone, we have been over it already. I showed you that the more accurate version already exists in a more visible place. Plus a new sentence to the effect that BRD is not mandatory is also added. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You may be interested in the history of that template. It's changed significantly in the last six months or so, and even during the last couple of weeks.
  • I think we're doing okay with the point about reversions. You may have noticed that I did not propose any changes on that point. The fact that we're currently adequate on that point does not change the fact that this is one of the two main points.
  • I don't think we're doing okay with the point about this being optional and only to be used occasionally. If an admin blocked you for "not following BRD", then that admin screwed up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a mandatory circumstance[edit]

Although this is "just an essay" in my view there are times when BRD is required. Maybe not by name, but the concept is the same. I'm specifically thinking of editing restrictions like 1RR. When combined with WP:Gaming the system, such restrictions effectively required editors to either just go away or to follow BRD. The admins may not say "Thou shalt follow BRD" but the only way to still edit and maintain one's standing is to follow it anyway. Indeed, arguments over editor behavior in such cases often ends up debating who followed/did not follow BRD. I agree the general rule is that this essay can not be enforced as though it were the word of the Almighty, and I don't mind saying something along these lines, provided the text makes room for the next most omnipotent supernatural powers known to exist might imply otherwise through 1RR or other restrictions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

1RR is not BRD, so making the first mandatory is not equivalent to making the second required. With BRD, you can keep editing the article after a revert as many times as you wish, provided each time you acknowledge some kind of compromise proposed through discussion. "Enforcing BRD" is enforcing WP:EDITCONSENSUS (including the "seek a compromise" part), as BRD doesn't impose any more or less restrictions than that. Diego (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Please look again, Diego. The text at WP:1RR says
"The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". Often there is also a requirement to discuss each of the reversions on the talk page...." (bold added)
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
BRD is not required, even for people who are under 1RR restrictions. There's nothing about 1RR that forces you to discuss your edits. "Bold, revert, move on to another article" is not the same as "Bold, revert, discuss". Also, 1RR also applies to "timid" edits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Diego, I mostly agree with your sentiment, but I'd like to take the opportunity from your comment to state clearly that BRD is not the same as EDITCONSENSUS. Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing (=EDITCONSENSUS) doesn't require any discussion at all. BRD is more closely aligned with the following section in that policy, Wikipedia:Consensus#Through discussion.
Neither of these general sections are perfect fits, because the 'unique contribution' of BRD is the advice to make a (specifically) bold edit, to wait for someone to revert you, and then discuss (specifically) with the one, single, solitary person who reverted you. So if you make a bold edit, and I revert you, then the goal of BRD is for you to find an edit that I (and only I) will agree with. Once I've agreed, then we make that agreed-upon edit, and we see if a third editor comes along to revert it. And then you (or we) try to work things out with the third editor.
This obviously can't always be done – there are some busy pages where people will scream and threaten if you try to follow BRD's advice to "Talk with one or at most two partners at once" – but that's what BRD actually is: waiting for a reversion and then talking to the person who reverted you, rather than trying to have huge conversations with everyone. This discussion, for example, is not, cannot, and should not, "follow BRD", because too many people are involved in it. Fortunately, BRD isn't the sole method of reaching consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


I see that there has been a lot of discussion since I have been gone, and editing of the page as well. I wonder if we should go ahead and start a huge discussion about this page now being designated as a supplement page. As for whether or not it is WP:1RR, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#RfC: elevation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to guideline status shows that editors, including myself, did feel that elevating this page to a guideline page would essentially be enforcing WP:1RR; I wouldn't see it as much different than WP:1RR. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Tools for discussion[edit]

In this revert, an editor has insisted that going to THIRD OPINION is a "replacements for the B part".

That's nonsense. NOBODY goes to third opinion at step one in this process. In addition, NOBODY goes to third opinion before spending at least a little time trying step three, "Discuss", and they only go to third opinion when there is trouble at that discussion step. Third opinion (and notice boards etc) are hardly an "alternative" to Step 1. They are all tools to help successfully complete Step 3. Please restore the "Tools for discussion" sub heading. We can debate what is properly classified under it, but third opinion and the noticeboards are certainly contenders. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, NewsAndEventsGuy. Did you read the article before trying to edit it? The "Use cases" section exclusively discusses about cases where a discussion or consensus of some sort prior to BRD exists. In those cases, 3O and RFC are valid alternatives. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
(A) Please delete the silly and ironic ad hominem. It's silly because its an ad hominem, and its ironice because you obviously didn't look at the history of contributors here
(B) We should be writing the simplest and clearest document we can because ideally the reader comes first, but you're arguing a hyper-wiki-technical point.
(C) The hypertechnical point you are arguing boils down to "sometimes Discussion - even at Third opinion etc - can happen before a bold edit starts the BRD cycle, so Third opinion etc are properly classified as "alternatives" to BRD I think that's your position (See WP:Writing for the opponent). The problem with this is that its redundant. "Discuss first" is the alternative in the scenario you contemplate. Going to 3O or a noticeboard is a tool to support any discussion, whenever it happens, but are not alternatives to BRD overall. Including them on the same list of alternatives as "Discuss first" because eds might discuss first is redundant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, NewsAndEventsGuy
Your answer above does not seem to belong to FleetCommand's message. Did you post in the wrong talk page by accident? If not, please be advised that your message makes not sense, aside from other problems that I do not mention.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Huh? What part don't you understand Lisa? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much nothing. For example, (see A) I see nothing ironic or ad hominem, (see B) I don't see any hyper-wiki-technical point, and I am not even sure what "hyper-wiki-technical" means.
  • The statement "Did you read the article before trying to edit it?" was ad hominem. And it most certainly did not assume good faith. NumberC35 (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
To me, FleetCommand's message is very simple:
  • First, there is a question. Answering it with "Yes" or "No" helps this discussion forward.
  • Second, there is a sentence that informs you (with the aid of extra reading material) that BRD is a cycle that can start at any time, regardless what remedies have taken before it. Sometimes, two editors have a discussion in the talk page; they don't get convinced. One of them kick-starts a BRD. Sure, if you look at the whole picture, it is a D.B.R.D, but still the BRD is in there. In such cases, the alternative to BRD (which results in DBRD) is a 3O (which results in continuation of the discussion).
Since BRD is a cycle, there could be a chain of BRD-BRD-BRD-BRD-BRD in which any member of the chain could be replaced with one of the alternatives, although "discuss first" can only replace the first BRD of the chain and 3O only the second and subsequent cycles.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
On what matters, Fleet reverted the heading "Tools to help discussion". As a result, tools like WP:Third opinion and WP:Noticeboards are classified as alternatives to the BRD cycle. Fleet's reason for the revert is that these tools might be employed when editors elect to discuss first, before BRD. This is a logical fallacy, since those editors have chosen the BRD alterantive "Discuss first". Going to 3O or the noticeboards is a tool to help that discussion. And so
  • Discuss first = alternative to BRD
  • Third opinion = tool to help discussion regardless of time it happens
  • Notideboards = tool to help discussion regardless of time it happens
To eliminate redundancy, these tools should be classified under their own heading, and doing so puts WP:Readers first by giving the actual list of alternatives a punchy impact undiluted by things that are just tools, not alternatives.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I already said that you are wrong and why. This discussion is going in circles. But you are welcome to re-read my message any time you wish. I have nothing to add at this time. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually you asserted without explanation. Here's what I heard you say
  • Discussing first is an alternative to BRD
  • Continuing to discuss first by going to 3O is a different alternative to BRD
What you have failed to do is explain how discussion via 3O is sufficiently different than discussion to classify it as a BRD alternative all by itself, instead of a tool to support discussion. When considering this, please notice the 3O FAQ page section "What comes next?", which is all about discussion, either between the eds or via the WP:Dispute resolution process. And if your argument has something to do with BRD-BRD-BRD repetitions, you've already pointed out that each BRD is a new cycle, "regardless what remedies (such as BRD) have taken [place] before it" {parenthetical added). So repetition of the cycles, if that's part of your reasoning, is irrelevant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
When an action replaces BRD entirely, that's called an alternative. And please stop misusing "too". In Wikipedia, "tool" is a computer program that assists editor. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
At the moment BRD is substituted, by discuss-first, it has been replaced with an alternative. Eds always start their discussion with direct back-and-forth, but if they hit bumps in the road they can choose an alternative form of discussion, such as Third Opinion. That means 3O is an alternative to direct two-way discussion, not an alternative to BRD (which has already been replaced). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── NewsAndEventsGuy, I think you're wrong, and I think that the confusion is about what "BRD" is. So to give an analogy, you know how "being tired all the time" isn't the same thing as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome? Well, "BRD" isn't the same as making a bold edit, getting reverted, and discussing it.

The reason that 3O is an alternative to BRD is that BRD is supposed to involve discussion specifically and exclusively with the editor who reverted you. Once you ask for outside help with dispute resolution, you're not doing "BRD". BRD is a much narrower concept than just starting a discussion if you get reverted.

Someday, I should probably go back a few years in the archives to find one of Kim's better versions. Some of the older, shorter versions are much clearer about what the actual point of BRD is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the ancient essay said, you've described an overly narrow vision and one which overlooks the obvious... when the discussion expands to include third parties (whether at the venue talk page, or a DR process) we presume continued participation of the original disputants (unless someone lets it go). When the DISCUSS support process concludes, the original disputants return to the article to implement the result (or DISCUSS more). That relationship between BOLD and REVERTING editor never ends at any of these DISCUSS support processes. They support the DISCUSS phase of BRD, not replace it.
In support of this view, note that 3O, mediation, etc require a showing that DISCUSS has already been started before those discussion-support processes can be initiated. If you are right and 3O etc remains an "alternative" to BRD, that creates the untenable scenario where eds just try 3O as a BRD alternate, and then find out that the 3O rules require they go back and DISCUSS after all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not "some ancient version". It's what this page says. This is what this page has always said (with greater or lesser attempts at clarity and concision over the years). The nutshell, for example, clearly specifies that the bold editor should "begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change". It does not say "begin a discussion". The ===Discussion=== section says (in bold text) "Talk with one or at most two partners at once" – not "whoever shows up" or "as many people as respond to the DR process". Your task, as the bold editor, is to "get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit" – not to get some comments from any other editors, or to find out whether there's consensus for your edit, even though I reverted you. There's a reason for that specificity. BRD is actually a narrowly conceived approach to editing: You bold, I revert, and you try to work it out with me, not with anyone and everyone. (If you want the anyone-and-everyone approach, then you're looking for WP:Consensus#Through discussion.)
Also, I think you're factually wrong when you say that "relationship between BOLD and REVERTING editor never ends" when other people join. You might still be the bold editor, and I might still be the reverter, but when there are 20 people in the discussion, my "full and considered views" for "caring enough" to revert you are going to be pretty unimportant with there are 20 other views on the page, and you aren't trying to work things out with me personally by that point.
To reply specifically to your 3O issue: Yes, 3O requires discussion first. But 3O doesn't require any bold edits, it doesn't require any reversions, and it doesn't require that the discussion happen with the person who reverted you. 3O does not require BRD, and it is not part of BRD. 3O requires (a) a dispute (b) on a talk page (c) with exactly two people involved in it. You could begin as BRD and switch to 3O if it fails, but you are actually switching to an alternative method of resolving the dispute in that case. You are not continuing to use BRD if you switch to 3O. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Bold attempt to compromise by providing the information without trying to resolve the taxonomy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I can live with that. Thank you for trying something new here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
you're welcome, thanks to all who expressed opinions here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "NOBODY goes to third opinion at step one in this process". In my opinion, having tried to give opinions requested at WP:3O, is that people wait too long for a third opinion request. People seem to think that WP:3O required the dispute to be thoroughly entrenched, litigated, and at least hundreds of kilobytes of text before asking. I think we need a WP:3O-lite section, where two people in dispute can ask before their heads are already sore. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Just curious, SmokeyJoe, but in your experience at 3O do the eds already have a reasonably clear understanding of each other's opinions? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
In my experience, 3O requests resemble two editors in the wilderness, having dug themselves into a hole so deep it resembles a dry well. Each knows exactly the position of the other, each has heels dug in, and the question posed for 3O is better phrased than most RfC questions. However, the question is not a good RfC question, because, as the two editors well-know, the question is trifling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
So much for my assumption a sizable percentage turn out to be simple misunderstandings, where the difficulty set in before each had comprehended what the other was saying. I'm not so keen on emphasizing 3O-lite over the other DR methods but maybe we could do a DR-lite section, urging people to invoke DR when they (A) both know the others reasons and (B) start going in circles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


For the record, I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I disagree with NewsAndEventsGuy's experience, except with the word "simple". "Simple misunderstandings" are not what I see. Misunderstandings preceding entrenched positions preceding comprehension of what the other was saying, yep. I think 3O is underused for simple requests for a third opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Smokey, lets back up. I've never ever been to 3O (I think) but I do/did have a preconception about the types of things that arrive there. Since you are experienced, I was hoping to share my preconception for a reality check. Sure, the eds can articulate what each other wants to do in the article. But do they comprehend the stated reasons why the other party wants to do it that way? If they calmed down, would they be able to write a neutral statement in the spirit of WP:OTHERSOPINION ? Or did they just skip the part about understanding the others rationale? Or maybe they didn't skip it, but due to ambiguous communication the correct meanings weren't mutually expressed and perceived? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:NewsAndEventsGuy. A while back, I looked at getting involved in WP:DR. I discovered that Wikimedia mediation demands quite a commitment from volunteer mediators, due to the complexity and depth of disputes. More commitment than I could sign up for. So I had a go at WP:3O. I found that WP:3O differs from generic WP:DR in being a focus specific dispute relating to content, but not different in being usually a disagreement of surprising complexity and depth. (Another big difference is that WP:3O requests do not involve the animosity associated with disputes at other forums.) I found it difficult to offer an opinion that was sufficiently considered that neither participant might be insulted.
"But do they comprehend the stated reasons why the other party wants to do it that way?" I thought sometimes yes. This is a very important step, a highly recommended process, when one finds themselves in a dispute. Make sure you can state the case of your opponent. As I alluded previously, differences could well have become entrenched before understanding why the other party wants to do it that way. I see this sort of problem in WP:RM disputes a lot, and even personally find this problem, becoming entrenched before listing to all other parties, very easy to slip in to.
"Or did they just skip the part about understanding the others rationale?". Off the top of my head, I don't think so. I think that people who take the time to list at WP:3O take the time to read and follow the instructions. My impression is that people requesting 3O take it very seriously.
"... ambiguous communication the correct meanings weren't mutually expressed and perceived?" Very likely this happens. Determining whether each has understood the communications of the other, at multiple levels, I found to be very hard work. It is almost getting into psychoanalysing one party's psychoanalysis of the other, both ways. On wiki, I found this too hard. I have real life experience in dispute resolution, and grievance counselling. I find that wiki disputes and grievances are actually way harder to mediate than real life disputes and grievances. Real life mediation involves face-to-face quiet-room confidential meetings, and this is a huge advantage to trying to mediate on a public wiki, or even by email correspondence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This relates to the main thing I find appealing about BRD. When discussion becomes stuck, the bold edit serves to refocus discussion, to get away from extraneous non-productive (whether or not valid) talk. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing, and for doing it in the first place. I've done a little real life volunter work with VORP mediation. It does seem easier when everyone is in the room. Just one idea in case it helps; you write its hard to determine if each has understood the other. With WP:OTHERSOPINION you can take yourself out of that job, just by asking each disputant to verify/refine what the other wrote. If they both agree the other did a good job explaining the others reasons then you know they do but more importantly so do they! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI discussion at V pump[edit]

Editors here may be interested in This V pump discussion. Tremendous wikignome efforts have taken place the last few months in pages relating to the various namespaces. In particular, these changes added a heading "infopages" (distinct from "essays") at Project namespace, and this was followed by tweaks to the tag used on this essay, Template:Supplement.

Per the TPG section WP:MULTI please add any comments at the pump thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)