There should be a word, polite or otherwise, for Editors whose sole activity is to revert other users' edits. It's like they watch Recent Changes and just go, "Undo, Undo, Undo!" When I look at their Contributions, it's just a list of reversions and if you go to their Talk Page, you'll see a list of angry Editors asking what the heck happened. I understand reverting vandalism but, seriously, some of this stuff is just about placement of commas. LizRead!Talk! 00:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
BRD misuse is good enough to only counter an argument but at the meantime it also helps build up an illusion that "BRD is not a disrupt" (Your proposal falls into this pattern but it is better than nothing.), so BRD misuse is not exactly what we mean. Currently, BRD supports the claim that bold revert is not bold, so the troll can revert arbitrary edit according to their likings, and they can get you to talk, pick bones from an egg..etc. It is perfectly fine, in fact, it is GOOD because of BRD. It doesn't matter if you edit is finally admitted, they get away. <--- This should cover everything, I will be highly appreciated if you can spot them precisely.
Lastly, if you really want to fix that, then it seems to me that deletion on BRD is necessary instead of branching ideas off from BRD. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
When you say "misuse", it is implied that BRD is just. However, BRD *assumes* that (B)old and (R)evert are two things, clearly doesn't. The consequence is that some editors boldly revert many edits under the name of BRD, tedious discussion is inevitable thanks to their justified ignorance(or disrupt), BRD is not a rule, not an ideal, it is disruption. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, it doesn't. Are you trying to guess my intent and use WP:PA or engage in edit war? I hope you understand that it is Wikipedia, please WP:FOC. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)