This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RFC on wording of bullet point in Discuss section
Which option should be used to word the first bullet point in the discuss section?
- A - Original version. "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version."
- B - "Do not re-revert after somebody reverts your bold edit or revert."
- C - "Do not re-revert to your preferred revision after somebody reverts you."
- D - Another option. Please specify exactly how you would like the text to be worded. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:455:ADAB:CD27:8849 (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- D – If your bold edit is reverted, do not revert this reversion. Instead, discuss your bold edit on the talk page (see below). Multiple reversions do not follow BRD and set a path toward edit warring (see below). proposed 16:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- E - If your bold contribution was reverted, then do not re-revert to your bold version, make improvements before re-submitting. If your reversion was reverted by the bold contributor, or by a third editor, then do not re-re-revert to the status quo ante.
- Jaredscribe (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- E (revised) - If your bold contribution was reverted, then do not restore it ; make improvements first in response to the cause given in the edit summary. Editors, if your reversion was unreverted by a third editor, or by the bold contributor with improvements, do not repeat it by reverting again to the status quo ante.
- Jaredscribe (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Survey
- Option C, without prejudice towards Option D I think Option C is the best wording because it is concise and gets the point across effectively, without being drowned in clauses. Clarity is important for pages such as WP:BRD. However, if somebody has an Option D that is better, I am willing to take that option. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:455:ADAB:CD27:8849 (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option C. Per discussion below. ––FormalDude talk 08:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option C, without prejudice towards option D, per above, see comment in discussion. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option C. Per discussion below. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Add without prejudice towards option D after we've selected from B or C. Let's improve upon Option A with B or C and then look at all the other options for further improvement. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option C, without prejudice against towards option D, e.g., "Do not re-revert" or "Do not re-revert after someone reverts you". I think this bold edit was an effort to explain Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD, and has nothing to do with actual BRD. So, for those who are only familiar with the rumor and haven't read the actual text, actual BRD says:
You have found a difficult dispute (cf. the 'stuck in the mud' image). You make a bold (=undiscussed) edit that you think might solve some or all of the dispute. You now wait to see which one editor is interested enough in the change to revert your bold edit. The software only permits one person to click that undo button, and the person who clicks the button is your Very Interested Person. You then negotiate with that one Very Interested Person to see whether the two of you can reach an agreement about how to improve the page. Having achieved an agreement with the Very Interested Person, you now lie in wait to see whether any other editor might indicate that they are also Very Interested by reverting the new version, and you begin negotiations with that editor (if any).
This kind of serial negotiation is, as the page says, an optional process for highly experienced editors. And you can see why this recent change about not re-reverting to your reversion is irrelevant. Sure, nobody should edit war, including people whose contribution is identifying themselves as the Very Interested Person by reverting your bold edit. But this page is directed towards explaining a specific, unusual, focused process that a bold editor can unilaterally impose on most disputes. This page is not about repeating the normal anti-edit-warring rules. It's all about what the bold editor should do: make an edit, wait for a reversion, negotiate with the reverter. The thing about reverting back to your reversion is irrelevant, because (a) you didn't revert back to your bold edit in the first place, so there's no opportunity for the reverter to re-revert, and (b) you aren't the reverter, so you can't revert back to your [non-existent] reversion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC) - Option C per discussion below. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 23:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option A – Clarity over concision. Changing it to C is an invitation to good-faith misunderstanding, or even wikilawyering arguments from annoying boundary pushers that the new wording doesn't apply to their revert. The current wording has been there for eight years and has served well. So you want to make the page more WP:CONCISE? Great, I'm all for it! This page is 23,241 bytes— go cut 70 bytes from somewhere else on the page. Don't cut it from this, which in two sentences states the entire point of the page. In fact, leave this part alone, and cut the other 23,171 bytes; it won't change a thing about the interpretation of the page if you do. But shortening this part is a bad idea. See #Clarity over concision. Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't agree that stopping edit warring is the entire point of the page, or any point of it. You might be thinking about Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD, which isn't actually BRD at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't, either; but I predict it will be the result of choosing C. Anyway, they're your words; what's changed? See discussion. Mathglot (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Amended: I still prefer 'A'. 'E' was introduced after I !voted, and although a bit wordy, is acceptable. I oppose 'B' and 'C' as unclear. Mathglot (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't agree that stopping edit warring is the entire point of the page, or any point of it. You might be thinking about Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD, which isn't actually BRD at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- None of the proposed ones. They are all unclear to a typical reader. Maybe: "if somebody reverts your bold edit, do not revert their revert." North8000 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's just Option D. Option D is a catchall for all alternative options. Thanks though. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, but I worry that wandering off into Option D territory will result in so many options that we'll have no consensus to change the current text. Perhaps select from B or C now and then, once we've improved the text that much, we can look at further improvement. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option A as a first choice, Option C as a second. Both are pretty good, but I prefer the overt clarity of A; it heads off needless "wikilawyering" over who gets to revert last. The idea that NEITHER the first NOR the second person has any absolute right to more reverts, and it's explicit, gives A the edge for me. C is not bad, but it leaves a little too much wiggle room for me. --Jayron32 13:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: There seem to be differing interpretations over precisely what re-revert means. The term is used four times on the page (three of them in the bullet point under discussion) and is never properly defined (here or elsewhere; it does not have widespread use in the project space and mainly appears in a couple essays). The prefix re- means "again" but it is unclear if re-revert means: (a) repeated reverts by different editors, which in this context would be BRR, (b) repeated reverts by the same editor to the same previous version of the article, which in this context would be BRxR (with the x being either a revert or a different bold edit), or (c) any repeated reversions, inclusive of (a) and (b). From context, I infer that option A uses definition c and options B and C use definition a (or broadly c). But as User:WhatamIdoing points out, the bold editor might use definition b and say "This doesn't apply to me: I can't re-revert since I didn't revert" to justify BRR, which becomes problematic for options A, B and C. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Drawing from User:North8000 – Option D: If your bold edit is reverted, do not revert this reversion. Instead, discuss your bold edit on the talk page (see below). Multiple reversions do not follow BRD and set a path toward edit warring (see below).
- As it's entirely up to the first (bold) editor whether or not BRD is followed, I left the second editor out of the boldfaced portion but made a general statement to include the second editor in the plaintext. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- We should also include the reverter. Maybe, for an Option D, "Do not revert after the first revert. If you do so, you are no longer following BRD." 2601:647:5800:1A1F:889E:96A8:F1A2:A8E7 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- To include the reverter at this point means that we're already talking about something other than BRD, so is it a good idea to address side cases in the first bold sentence of Discuss? I'm concerned this might muddy the waters. The probable cases in which the original reverter would revert again (in a 2-editor scenario) are BRR or BRB – BRD is already broken in the former and there are cases where BRRR would be justifiable (but getting into them would go off-topic and might encourage editors to game the system), while BRBR is treated under 'bold, revert, bold again' as acceptable in some situations. Broadly, saying that the original reverter should not revert again is contrary to the principle of BRD (although if it carries on past that, the original reverter would be the first to violate WP:3RR). While BRR is also included at the bottom as acceptable in some situations, this assumes incompetence on the part of the original reverting editor, and doesn't seem like the thing that should be done outside of clear policy violations. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- If the reverter reverts a revert of their revert of the bold edit (...cough), then the cycle would be BRRR. That would obviously be into edit-war territory, which we would want to discourage strongly. In fact, anything beyond BR in this essay breaks BRD. Maybe we should have an Option F: "After a bold edit is reverted, do not do any further reverts. Instead, go to the talk page to discuss." That way, the first revert would be a bright line beyond which further reverts would be unacceptable. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- To include the reverter at this point means that we're already talking about something other than BRD, so is it a good idea to address side cases in the first bold sentence of Discuss? I'm concerned this might muddy the waters. The probable cases in which the original reverter would revert again (in a 2-editor scenario) are BRR or BRB – BRD is already broken in the former and there are cases where BRRR would be justifiable (but getting into them would go off-topic and might encourage editors to game the system), while BRBR is treated under 'bold, revert, bold again' as acceptable in some situations. Broadly, saying that the original reverter should not revert again is contrary to the principle of BRD (although if it carries on past that, the original reverter would be the first to violate WP:3RR). While BRR is also included at the bottom as acceptable in some situations, this assumes incompetence on the part of the original reverting editor, and doesn't seem like the thing that should be done outside of clear policy violations. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Bold Option D This version was made to integrate changes below. "If your bold edit is reverted, do not undo the revert. Instead, go to the talk page to figure out why your edit was reverted. If your revert is undone, do not revert back. This can cause edit wars. Instead, ask the bold editor to go to the talk page to discuss their bold edit." 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Dish as above, but wording needs work. Oppose E it is heading in the wrong direction. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 22:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- A, or, failing that, C. Agree with Mathglot that the key thing is to discourage revert-warring, though I think that C is also not terrible at that (it removes the idea that a
bold edit
is some sort of unique special type of edit to which specific rules apply.) Oppose B, D, and E in strongest possible terms since they could encourage revert-warring - most of them imply that it is somehow more acceptable to repeatedly revert to remove a bold edit than it is to instate one, which is not a line of thought we should be encouraging. "I was reverting a bold edit, therefore it wasn't revert-warring!" is never going to be an acceptable argument and we should avoid any wording that implies it could be. And some of the versions of E get WP:CREEPy while encouraging edit-warring in other ways, ie. repeatedly trying to reinstate an edit with small tweaks rather than discussing it can still lead to revert wars. The point of BRD is to take it to talk. --Aquillion (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC) - Option C: Clear and succinct. If I were a brand new user, this is the option that would confuse me the least. And I'm not sure that any additional information is really helpful here. Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't really see how this leaves any room for wikilawyering (except insofar as wikilawyers can argue about anything). Generalrelative (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Option C: Per Generalrelative above. Clear & conscise. This conveys what want to say in a single line and not being too wordy. IMO that's best for those who are new to Wikipedia, and especially those who find it difficult to understand and grasp long English sentences, because it isn't their first language. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 07:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
- Option C does seem to be the most concise. I would like to hear the thoughts of a copyeditor if possible. ––FormalDude talk 05:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FormalDude: As someone you could call an avid copyeditor, I agree. Option A is quite verbose, not to mention the clause "do not re-revert to your version" is repeated, which is unnecessary. Option B is unnecessarily specific and awkward in my opinion. Option C is general and concise and, in my opinion, is the best wording of the point. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 07:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option C does seem to capture the intention concisely. Is there a way it could be misconstrued? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Pbsouthwood: I'd say not likely; to be honest, the most awkward part would probably just be "re-revert". Otherwise, it seems clean and straightforward to me. That's not to say that Option C's problematic, though. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 07:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have no problem with re-revert, the meaning is clear. Counter-revert could be an alternative, also pretty clear in meaning, though I can't say whether I have ever seen it used. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- On more careful consideration, I would say that the meaning of re-revert depends on immediate context, and is only clear if careful attention is given to the whole sentence, and not paying careful attention to context is a thing that happens. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have no problem with re-revert, the meaning is clear. Counter-revert could be an alternative, also pretty clear in meaning, though I can't say whether I have ever seen it used. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Pbsouthwood: I'd say not likely; to be honest, the most awkward part would probably just be "re-revert". Otherwise, it seems clean and straightforward to me. That's not to say that Option C's problematic, though. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 07:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would encourage editors to put forward Option Ds in the survey section, so that we have more and better options for the wording. These options should also be weighed and chosen in the discussion section. This is to make sure we can find our best option. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I will attempt to compose an option D here:
- Option D, version 1: "If a bold edit was reverted, do not counter-revert, discuss on the talk page. If a reversion was counter-reverted, do not re-revert, discuss on the talk page." (Here I am going for maximum clarity of meaning at the cost of a bit of repetition to reduce possible contextual influences on interpretation. This does not exclude the option of responding with non-reversion edits at any point, nor does this address consequences to another person editing against this recommendation.) Open for comment and counter-proposals. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- (I guess that makes my earlier proposal in the Survey section 'Option D, version 0'). I understand your proposal though I feel the language might still confuse some of the newish editors directed here. Once you get to the second sentence, BRD is already broken. I feel like we should be talking about what to do at this early part of the section, rather than talking about contingencies for when it fails. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Counter-revert is better terminology, and makes sure readers don't get confused by endless uses of re-revert. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: To avoid proliferation of Option Ds and an introduction of too many proposals, I will replace option D with two or three more specific options that have garnered support. This will probably happen around one week from the start of this RFC. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reply to note: IP 2601, once the voting has started, including some votes for option D, you may not replace option D anymore, because it would make closure difficult or impossible. You can add additional options (but be careful of splitting the options into so many different choices that none is likely to gain consensus) but you cannot replace existing ones. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, got it. Maybe I'll just keep the status quo, as adding too many options will make it too difficult to determine consensus, which is exactly what I want to avoid. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:45D3:5855:E556:E0A7 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reply to note: IP 2601, once the voting has started, including some votes for option D, you may not replace option D anymore, because it would make closure difficult or impossible. You can add additional options (but be careful of splitting the options into so many different choices that none is likely to gain consensus) but you cannot replace existing ones. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I will attempt to compose an option D here:
- It seems a little late to add another suggestion now, but I would favour clarity over concision (up to a point) and avoid the potentially confusing 're-revert', instead saying "if your bold edit (or reversion) is reverted, do not revert back to your version" (possibly with 'preferred' in between 'your' and 'version'). Concision is only a virtue where it doesn't sacrifice clarity, but repetition that is not necessary (as in the original version, option A) tends to be a negative for clarity, in my experience. SamBC(talk) 18:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Clarity over concision
I hear everyone praising concision, and while it's a good thing in general, it's not the only requirement in writing a guideline, and clarity of meaning should certainly be in first place. For two equal formulations, I do agree that the shorter one is generally the better one. But not when they are unequal, and A and C are not equal, because the anaphora present in the current version with its intentional repetition and parallel structure, leaves no wiggle room for misinterpretation about whether this applies only to an initial revert, or also to a revert of a revert. An expert in logic might lay out some propositional calculus about why the shorter version means the same thing as the current version; perhaps it does. But not every new editor or for that matter experienced editor who doesn't have their logic-of-grammar hat on (not to mention ESL editor) is going to read it that way; but nobody is going to misinterpret the anaphoric (longer) version; it simply leaves no room for misinterpretation. If we go with C, get ready for cases of misinterpretation of the shorter version to start popping up all over, followed by patient, careful explanations why "No, it doesn't actually mean that, what it means is..." followed by more or less the wording that used to be there, as you try to explain what the shorter version actually means; namely, it means what the two sentences say currently. Do we really want to go there? WP:CONCISE is not everything, and I feel that appealing to concision here will be at the expense of clarity, is a bad idea, and will cause problems down the road. Let's leave well enough alone. Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- If this were the Wikipedia:Editing policy or Wikipedia:Edit warring, then I'd agree with you. But it isn't. It's a page directed to a single audience: the bold editor. If this page is followed, it is impossible for that second sentence to ever apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- What constitutes a bold edit is not really a well-defined concept, so saying that it's *only* directed to "them" is hard to sustain. You may be right about the second sentence, but you are a very sharp-eyed editor with impeccable language and logic skills; I fear that if we make the change to C, you will be explaining what you just explained above, over and over and over again to other editors, whereas if we leave it alone, you'll be spared that. Also, the second sentence is one that you authored (so is the first one); have you changed your mind since then, and if so, what's different? Other than the fact that you have eight more years experience, and you understand BRD backwards and forwards? Maybe you needed the second sentence then, but you don't anymore. Have pity on those who are now, where you were then. Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Mathglot, User:WhatamIdoing was already around for seven years when she added the two sentences, so she was probably experienced enough to understand BRD forwards and backwards. However, this is relatively tangential, and your main point still stands. Just don't assume too much of other editors' history. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm very well aware; we both started around the same time, and I've always had enormous respect for her. Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Let's hope that I am now wiser than I was, in addition to being older. I think I missed the point in 2014. It makes sense in the context of the single bullet point; it doesn't make sense in the context of the larger page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- One thing that changed in between 2014 and now: I read some of the early versions of this page. They are strikingly different from Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD. The "real" BRD outlines a highly specific negotiation tactic. Everything that I (and others) added in the general line of "No edit warring! Just talk!" distracts from and hides the actual BRD. I think Wikipedia needs both "No edit warring!" and this specific negotiation tactic. I've proposed renaming this page a couple of times (with the goal of the "No edit warring!" version ending up with the BRD name, and the one-on-one negotiation tactic getting a different, unmistakable name, like WP:Optional one-on-one negotiation tactic for experienced editors, because Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so if you don't stick the key point in the title, editors will guess wrong about its meaning), but nobody's been especially enthusiastic about that idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, you've convinced me! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it's one-on-one, or at least, not if you mean that it's limited to two editors. If you have Ed-1: "Bold"; Ed-2: "Rv"; Ed-3: "Re-Rv"; then there's a missing "D" and you have a BRD violation. The guideline does talk about "two factions", but if you have a re-revert, then I think by definition you have two factions, at least up to that point. Perhaps that's why there's not much enthusiasm for your proposed title, although I can see where you're going, and wouldn't object to a rename along those lines that made the user/faction issue clearer. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mathglot, how does one have a "violation" of an explicitly optional process? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, Yah, it's not a very good choice of word as it would be if there were some compulsion as in a policy or guideline. What I meant was an abrogation, transgression, or failure to meet the suggested process, but that was the word that came to mind. I probably use it too liberally, as in, "Changing color to colour is a violation of {{Use American English}}", when it's only a template. I should probably find a better word. Breach, maybe? Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- "Departure from BRD's advice"? "Decision to use one of the many policy-sanctioned and often effective approaches that doesn't happen to be BRD"? "Not BRD, which is okay"?
- (Also, BRD isn't a guideline; multiple failed PROPOSALs are linked in the FAQ at the top of this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, Yah, it's not a very good choice of word as it would be if there were some compulsion as in a policy or guideline. What I meant was an abrogation, transgression, or failure to meet the suggested process, but that was the word that came to mind. I probably use it too liberally, as in, "Changing color to colour is a violation of {{Use American English}}", when it's only a template. I should probably find a better word. Breach, maybe? Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mathglot, how does one have a "violation" of an explicitly optional process? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- One thing that changed in between 2014 and now: I read some of the early versions of this page. They are strikingly different from Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD. The "real" BRD outlines a highly specific negotiation tactic. Everything that I (and others) added in the general line of "No edit warring! Just talk!" distracts from and hides the actual BRD. I think Wikipedia needs both "No edit warring!" and this specific negotiation tactic. I've proposed renaming this page a couple of times (with the goal of the "No edit warring!" version ending up with the BRD name, and the one-on-one negotiation tactic getting a different, unmistakable name, like WP:Optional one-on-one negotiation tactic for experienced editors, because Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so if you don't stick the key point in the title, editors will guess wrong about its meaning), but nobody's been especially enthusiastic about that idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Let's hope that I am now wiser than I was, in addition to being older. I think I missed the point in 2014. It makes sense in the context of the single bullet point; it doesn't make sense in the context of the larger page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm very well aware; we both started around the same time, and I've always had enormous respect for her. Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Mathglot, User:WhatamIdoing was already around for seven years when she added the two sentences, so she was probably experienced enough to understand BRD forwards and backwards. However, this is relatively tangential, and your main point still stands. Just don't assume too much of other editors' history. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- What constitutes a bold edit is not really a well-defined concept, so saying that it's *only* directed to "them" is hard to sustain. You may be right about the second sentence, but you are a very sharp-eyed editor with impeccable language and logic skills; I fear that if we make the change to C, you will be explaining what you just explained above, over and over and over again to other editors, whereas if we leave it alone, you'll be spared that. Also, the second sentence is one that you authored (so is the first one); have you changed your mind since then, and if so, what's different? Other than the fact that you have eight more years experience, and you understand BRD backwards and forwards? Maybe you needed the second sentence then, but you don't anymore. Have pity on those who are now, where you were then. Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- How about the Option D version by North800, "If somebody reverts your bold edit, do not revert their revert." 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but it doesn't cover the situation as to what happens if someone DOES revert my revert. Because they were not allowed to do that, then according to that, I have the right to revert them back. I shouldn't, but that wording, by not mentioning that I can't do that, allows me to. We should instead be very clear that Person A (the first editor), should not revert if someone reverts them, but if they do, then Person B (the person who first reverted) should ALSO not revert them back. The point is that, no matter what the other editor or editors do, no one is entitled to anything except the first revert of the bold edit. Everything that happens after that is non-ideal, and that even if someone takes a revert they were not supposed to, that gives no extra right of any further reverts. Wording that does not make that explicit instead makes it allowable. --Jayron32 13:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've occasionally had people re-revert some of my reversions, and I've been grateful for it once I understood the situation better. I make mistakes; we all make mistakes. So re-reverting isn't actually banned; it's just not part of BRD (which is still optional). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- The whole thing is optional to begin with; these are shoulds not musts. If the bold editor reverts your revert, then they aren't following BRD, and it's time to look to another page since it's outside the scope of this one. Only the original editor can follow BRD; BRD is irrelevant to the second editor. Or do we really want to attempt to cover every conceivable scenario in editing disputes (like if a third editor reverts the original revert, which is perfectly acceptable)? To answer your question above, when faced with BRR, circumstances dictate actions. Generally speaking, we shouldn't BRR or BRRR, but these are not policy violations and there are circumstances where they are justified. Usually I discuss, sometimes I BRRR and discuss, sometimes I BRRR, discuss and request page protection. I don't know if it's appropriate to detail any of that on this page. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Oh, sometimes I've opened a discussion with the BRR editor and waited a month following failure-to-discuss guidelines and then BRRR – only to have the other editor immediately BRRRR without discussion. Unfortunately, WP:3RR favours the bold editor, leaving us stuck with their version of the article while AGF waiting on someone who isn't going to discuss. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose all - (there, let's challenge the closer to read all comments, not just bullet-pointed ones in some subsection : ) - None of the proposed changes are better than the current text. And WP:NOTPAPER. If it takes x number of words to explain something, use the words. Don't lose clarity or meaning to merely be more brief. - jc37 23:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Do you want to do Option A? That is the status quo. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:889E:96A8:F1A2:A8E7 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
- Option E, which was the contribution made by myself, Jaredscribe, on 11 March which started this discussion. I added it to the list only just now (with some improvements), having been busy these last few days in article space doing actual encyclopedic work, instead of merely talking about it. Why was this not offered as an option, initially? Why all this discussion with no analysis? My contribution was a necessary improvement because: the 2nd person pronoun, your version is equivocal and ambiguous, unless modified. There are two partners to this tango: the bold contributor, and the responding editor. Describing what each should do and should not do, requires that we use distinct pronomial phrases to refer to each. My WP:BOLD contribution did just that, and therefore I was Bold to contribute it. Another clear alternative would be to use 3rd persons with the modal ought, instead of 2nd person imperative, and that might be better yet. However, I think you should accept Option E first, and then I or someone can propose here or boldly make this "story form" explanation a separate, future improvement. No one in this discussion bothered to read or analyze my contribution (which was initially accepted), and the discussion above is therefore moot. As a corollary, we have just proved the superiority of WP:BOLD editing over discussion, as per reductio ad absurdum. And we've done so decisively, in my opinion, even though that was not my original goal. Thank you all for participating in that. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Jaredscribe, Where does discuss in BRD come in with your version? Are you arguing for B1RB2RB3R...BnR with no requirement for anyone to discuss providing that each bold edit is slightly different (an improvement) from the previous? With no requirement to discuss, it is not BRD. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think he's arguing for Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing, which is a very, very, very good idea, but not BRD. Wikipedia:Bold-refine is a similar idea, only Jared's adding an editor who reverts to the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I'm arguing for. Thank you for making me aware of Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing; I had not seen that before. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I just added that link, to my brand new essay WP:Bold-refine. Also thanks to @WhatamIdoing for reading my contribution history, find that essay and citing it, as I made that draft essay only just a few hours before coming to talk here. The series notation provided by @Peter Southwood may also be a good way to describe our expectations here, although he has exaggerated my proposal into a straw man. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think he's arguing for Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing, which is a very, very, very good idea, but not BRD. Wikipedia:Bold-refine is a similar idea, only Jared's adding an editor who reverts to the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Jaredscribe, I think you are referring to a different process, Bold, revert, refine, or Bold, revert, bold. BRD requires people to discuss as part of the cycle. In fact, the page puts some emphasis on discussion. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- ...and if they don't discuss, then they're not following BRD, which is okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Jaredscribe, Where does discuss in BRD come in with your version? Are you arguing for B1RB2RB3R...BnR with no requirement for anyone to discuss providing that each bold edit is slightly different (an improvement) from the previous? With no requirement to discuss, it is not BRD. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Terminology: May I suggest that using the term counter-revert, to be defined as reversion of an original reversion, and re-revert to be defined as repeating the original reversion, might make some of these longer sentences with repetitive use of re-revert a bit clearer. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea! Can we check for other possible terms as well? unrevert, irrevert, antirevert, contrarevert, obrevert, derevert ...others? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- We could, but are any of those as clear or better? Not to me, but who knows, maybe a bunch of people think so. Unrevert has a certain simplicity that appeals to me, but can't say I like the others. It takes a bit of effort to work out the intended meaning, which is not ideal for this purpose. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think this page really needs any of this terminology. We can probably use normal words ("Don't revert the reversion" or "Don't try to restore your bold edit") without needing to make any longer words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also not enamored of new terminology. (Otherwise: let's just rename revert to vert, and re-revert to revert; m-kay?) To the extent that "undo" is identical to "revert", you can avoid reduplicated words that way: "don't undo their revert" is pretty clear, and avoids the whiplash you feel when parsing "revert their revert". Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I like the simplicity of "don't undo their revert". I'm pretty sure you click "undo" to revert, so that might be more obvious for newer editors. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Counter-revert is more clear, IMHO, than re-revert. Although "irrevert" and "derevert" are also good suggestions, I suggest we pick one and consider the rest synonyms. "obrevert", or merely, "obvert" could be description of a partial revert Wikipedia:PARTR, that would be a less deprecatory idiom than par-vert. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Could you give a justification of why we would use "obrevert" for a partial revert? Anyway, I think it's best to not make the terminology too obscure, as that will make the page even more confusing, which is not what we want. As Mathglot said, it's best to keep the language simple. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:C420:D40F:98A4:7F96 (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Jaredscribe And you forgot "TЯƎVƎЯ" which nobody could misunderstand, being just "revert" backwards. @2601:647:5800:1A1F:C420:D40F:98A4:7F96, Jared was just kidding, but his humor might be a bit too dry to catch on first glance. Otoh, I never kid. Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- On second though, "unrevert" or ¨derevert" I think are the more clear and concise term for what used to be called a "re-reversion" - the reversion of a reversion, and necessary to avoid equivocation where a distinction is helpful. To "irrevert" could conceivably mean to protect content in such a way as to make it irreversible - to irrevocably commit. To "counter-revert" could possibly mean to retaliate against an adverse editor in some other way, by accusing him of incivility or hounding him through reversions on some other submission or page, with or without an unrevert, analogous to a legal "counter-claim" as opposed to a mere denial in reply. (And yes, you may ignore my humorous suggestion we should probably use the full syntax "partial-revert" for this case,
- although my first suggestion about "obvert" got it backward. the article could read ´do not obvert to your contribution after an editor has given cause and reverted it´ and that makes good sense, and with the wikilink we can expect readers to understand this.). Jaredscribe (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Counter-revert is more clear, IMHO, than re-revert. Although "irrevert" and "derevert" are also good suggestions, I suggest we pick one and consider the rest synonyms. "obrevert", or merely, "obvert" could be description of a partial revert Wikipedia:PARTR, that would be a less deprecatory idiom than par-vert. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I like the simplicity of "don't undo their revert". I'm pretty sure you click "undo" to revert, so that might be more obvious for newer editors. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- We could, but are any of those as clear or better? Not to me, but who knows, maybe a bunch of people think so. Unrevert has a certain simplicity that appeals to me, but can't say I like the others. It takes a bit of effort to work out the intended meaning, which is not ideal for this purpose. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- What should be done in response to an unwarranted or tendentious revert? WP:Obvert it. Restore the bold contribution and give adequate justification in the edit summary. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea! Can we check for other possible terms as well? unrevert, irrevert, antirevert, contrarevert, obrevert, derevert ...others? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Even policies are not prescriptive for the numerous possibilities, and this essay is merely highlighting three possible sequences (B, BR, BRD) within the infinite possibilities of policy-influenced processes. If we try to make it more and more prescriptive than that, we'd get mired down in the weeds. Structurally this essay is emphasizing three things:
- It's routine/ fine to be bold on the initial edit
- It's routine/fine to revert such a bold initial edit
- If the above 2 steps happen and someone wants to pursue the initial bold edit, the next step is to discuss it.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC) This essay is not defining policy. And even
- Agreed, but if one reverts, one should be prepared to explain the reason for reverting. That is part of the discuss deal. If the reverter is not willing to discuss, what do you do next? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- If the Very Interested Person™ is not willing to discuss things, then you stop using BRD, and pursue the more standard forms of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- IMO such things are outside of the scope of BRD / this essay. To the extent that it is cover-able, it is covered elsewhere. The "R" in BRD is basically a plain 'ole revert. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed that the person doing the reversion should explain the reason for reverting, else it is a wp:tendentious reversion. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- And what is the appropriate response to a tendentious revert? In disagreement with @WhatamIdoing over strategy, I suggest avoiding dispute resolution. (If we can´t figure it out on the BRD talk page, likely the adjudicators of a content dispute? This systemic failure leads to perverse moral reasoning of the sort favored by authoritarian cabals as in WP:There is no justice, which is why one cannot be assured of a correct outcome in wikipedia's bureaucratic process.) Jaredscribe (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- This might be out of this discussion's jurisdiction, as it does not directly address WP:BRD. See comment above. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B45D:61AC:E323:660D (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Jaredscribe, rather than taking the IP's doubtless excellent advice, I'll ask you to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes (the first main section), and see if that sounds relevant to you.
- (Also, "unexplained" reverts can be Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore and Wikipedia:Deny recognition behaviors, so they're not necessarily tendentious.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- This might be out of this discussion's jurisdiction, as it does not directly address WP:BRD. See comment above. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B45D:61AC:E323:660D (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- And what is the appropriate response to a tendentious revert? In disagreement with @WhatamIdoing over strategy, I suggest avoiding dispute resolution. (If we can´t figure it out on the BRD talk page, likely the adjudicators of a content dispute? This systemic failure leads to perverse moral reasoning of the sort favored by authoritarian cabals as in WP:There is no justice, which is why one cannot be assured of a correct outcome in wikipedia's bureaucratic process.) Jaredscribe (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like we are now out of copyeditor territory, and into making more substantial edits. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- 2601:647, I think I've lost the context for your comment. Making more substantial edits to what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- What I mean is that we are not just making minor tweaks to the bullet point text anymore for clarity, but are starting to propose rewrites that might change the meaning of the text significantly. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:BD46:9AC7:6ED2:9FDD (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- 2601:647, I think I've lost the context for your comment. Making more substantial edits to what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Should I remove Option B, since it seems nobody is going to support it? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Collapse good faith, but off-topic discussion of the definition of "bold."
|
---|
May I tangentially ask whether characterizing edits as "bold" (with the obvious inference that there exist non-bold edits) constitutes unnecessary and perhaps non-neutral emphasis? Sorry for the fork, but a clarification would be welcome. 74.72.146.123 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Collapsed per off-topic; please follow IP 2601's suggestion. Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC) |
- Just to make my views clear, I'll say that I oppose Option E as it describes a different process to BRD. While "bold-revert-refine" is okay as a consensus-building process, it is not BRD. Note the emphasis placed on D, or discussion. It is the key to BRD. Please keep this in mind when suggesting further proposals. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3581:FAF4:6129:CFEA (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Explaining revert of March 20.
"A revert is what the BRD-following bold editor is patiently waiting for." When I bold edit after a revert I'm hoping that I've resolved the reverting editor's issue and there will be no further revert.
"If you're lucky, the reverter will be specific and substantive about objections in the edit summary. If you're not, the reverter will revert unnecessarily, out of a desire for bureaucratic process, or even out of the belief that some other, hypothetical editor might object to your edit. Sometimes the reverting editors refuse to engage in discussion." The lede is not the place to provide an (incomplete) list of the ways a reverting editor may respond.
"If any of that happens, you might not be able to follow BRD." This paragraph is not the place to discuss how BRD may fail. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- As your objects focus on a single paragraph, I've restored the other changes. As for your objections:
- That is hopefully true for most WP:BOLD edits, but it is not true for WP:BRD. The goal of (actual) BRD is to solve a problem by provoking another editor into reverting your solution. If your bold edit solves the problem, then you do not end up with "R" or "D", and thus you do not achieve BRD.
- I re-wrote the paragraph to focus on the BRD-applying editor, not on Page Patrollers or other people who might respond. This page is supposed to give advice to the person who is trying to implement BRD, not to all editors. Therefore, the BRD page needs to provide information about what the BRD-applying bold editor should expect at the "R" stage of BRD. It does not need to duplicate admonitions to the reverter about not edit warring or being uncollaborative (e.g., "BRD does not encourage reverting"). The reverter doesn't even need to know that this page exists. This page should not be addressing the reverter at all. Also: Why does this tell the reverter to "See Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see."? I don't think that should be in this page at all, but if it's in this page, it definitely shouldn't be in the lede.
- The lede of BRD is the perfect place to explain why you might not be able to follow BRD even if you want to. The first paragraph is full of information on why your attempts at BRD might fail. My proposed change elaborates on the third sentence of the lede, "In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach." These are some of the situations in which alternatives may be required.
- I look forward to your thoughts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Let's start with 1. In contrast to wp:FOLLOWBRD, here is what I understand is going on at wp:BRD: (1) a bold edit is reverted, (b) a discussion ensues, (c) the discussion bogs down, and (d) one of the editors in the discussion makes a bold edit in the hopes of resolving the dispute or, failing that, moving the discussion forward. Is my understanding correct? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion you reference in (b) and (c) is optional and does not have to be kicked off by a bold edit being reverted in (1).
- But your (d) is mostly correct: someone decides to address a problem by making a bold edit, in the expectation of being reverted, so that the bold editor can begin negotiations with the reverter. The precipitating scenario could be what you describe, but WP:BRD#Use cases names other several scenarios. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Where in wp:BRD does it say bold edits are - or even should be - made with an expectation of attracting a revert? (Here are two quotes from the page that suggest otherwise: "Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the page." "Making bold edits may sometimes draw a response from an interested editor, who may have the article on their watchlist. If no one responds, you have the silent consensus to continue editing.") - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is literally impossible to follow the BRD process if the "R" and "D" steps do not happen. If you do not have all three ("B", "R", and "D"), then you may have done some excellent work, but it is not "BRD". See, e.g., "If no one responds, you have the silent consensus to continue editing" – which could equally well be phrased as "If no one responds, you aren't going to do BRD, because you're doing SILENCE instead". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Right. If there is no R there is no BRD. But is that the same as saying you should B with the expectation that another editor will R? Isn't it, rather, that you should B with the intention that it won't draw an R but, if it does, you should proceed to D if you want to use BRD to resolve the dispute? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is literally impossible to follow the BRD process if the "R" and "D" steps do not happen. If you do not have all three ("B", "R", and "D"), then you may have done some excellent work, but it is not "BRD". See, e.g., "If no one responds, you have the silent consensus to continue editing" – which could equally well be phrased as "If no one responds, you aren't going to do BRD, because you're doing SILENCE instead". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Where in wp:BRD does it say bold edits are - or even should be - made with an expectation of attracting a revert? (Here are two quotes from the page that suggest otherwise: "Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the page." "Making bold edits may sometimes draw a response from an interested editor, who may have the article on their watchlist. If no one responds, you have the silent consensus to continue editing.") - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Structurally, this essay merely emphasizes three things:
- It's routine/ fine / usually encouraged to be bold on an initial edit
- It's routine/fine to revert such a bold initial edit
- If the above 2 steps happen and someone wants to pursue the initial bold edit, the next step is to discuss it.
So the above adds up to three different sequences: "B", "BR" and "BRD". If it stops at "B", it still falls under guidance given by this essay. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think WhatamIdoing, the primary author of WP:FOLLOWBRD, would disagree with this statement. See also WP:BRB. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
BRD's purpose is to prevent edit warring:
- B and R are normal and acceptable practices.
- Reactions other than D are likely edit warring and uncollaborative behavior. We do not like attempts to force a preferred version.
See WP:Short BRD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are alternatives to D that are not edit warring or uncollaborative. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Valjean that BRD's purpose is to prevent edit warring
, and we should be putting in language that promotes discussion. I also disagree with what the OP said about "When I bold edit after a revert I'm hoping that I've resolved the reverting editor's issue and there will be no further reverts." because that follows a BRB process that does not belong here in the BRD guidance. Huggums537 (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Striking this because I forgot the alternatives are listed on this page, so it does belong. My objections were just my personal opinion. Huggums537 (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Huggums537, cycling back to the text reverted on March 20, is it correct to say "A revert is what the BRD-following bold editor is patiently waiting for"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't really agree with that either, and I was just giving my general opinion about what I think the BRD is about rather than supporting any particular edits, but I take major issue with a specific part that ties the hand of an editor from being able to take things to higher dispute resolution process;
or even start larger dispute resolution processes.
I don't know how that got overlooked or left in, but we should omit that part. All the rest of that paragraph seems fine though. Huggums537 (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)- Once you move on to other dispute-resolution processes, you have stopped doing BRD.
- Isn't that obvious? Actual-as-written BRD is not just "make an edit, and if you get reverted, then use the talk page instead of edit warring". Actual-as-written BRD is a one-on-one negotiation tactic that is meant to get agreement between the bold editor and the reverter through discussion between the two people. If you do something different from that (e.g., figure out the problem from the reverter's edit summary and fix it, aka "bold, revert, bold again" or any of the "Several dispute resolution processes may also be useful to break a deadlock"), then you are using an "alternative" to BRD, where "alternative" means "Other; different from", as in "a thing you do that is different from BRD". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine, and I understand your point, but the big problem I see is that the guidance both before and after your changes says you "must" not do these things. It works ok with the other stuff, but with the dispute resolution thing, it makes it appear like what is being said is that dispute resolution is banned, not that it isn't part of the BRD process. That is extremely problematic, especially if it can be interpreted by wiki lawyers to mean as such. Huggums537 (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Another reason I see this as problematic is because it leaves the door wide open for a good editor who might want to resolve an issue through dispute resolution to an unwarranted attack for not following some kind of unspecified "due process" for dispute resolution if this is instated into the guidance. In other words, it kind of suggests a "due process" for dispute resolution without going through the vetting of getting a community consensus to establish an actual due process. I see that as even more majorly problematic than the possible misinterpretation since the only "due process" we have for dispute resolution is a prerequisite that there has been some talk page discussion, which is supported by the discussion part of BRD. We shouldn't be telling editors they must not go to dispute resolution at the point of discussion in a way that they can confuse it with meaning that they can't, or meaning that that they are somehow in the wrong for doing so. Huggums537 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think I see your concern, and I agree with you. These are all good things to do (in suitable circumstances, usual disclaimers apply); they just don't happen to be "actual" BRD. In fact, most of the time, I'd recommend these approaches instead of actual BRD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. BRD isn't a magic bullet, so you might have to rely on other resolutions. Huggums537 (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think I see your concern, and I agree with you. These are all good things to do (in suitable circumstances, usual disclaimers apply); they just don't happen to be "actual" BRD. In fact, most of the time, I'd recommend these approaches instead of actual BRD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't really agree with that either, and I was just giving my general opinion about what I think the BRD is about rather than supporting any particular edits, but I take major issue with a specific part that ties the hand of an editor from being able to take things to higher dispute resolution process;
I also agree with North that this process could be achieved at any one of the three combinational stages of the process, and in fact, it is strongly implied by the third part of the process (the discussion part) that there may possibly be more stages beyond that before the final process (consensus) is "achieved" since *discussion* sometimes includes the group changing their mind, and edits before arriving on a final decision, but at least they're discussing, and not edit warring. (Hopefully). Huggums537 (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Above I wrote "Reactions other than D are likely edit warring and uncollaborative behavior." I should say that they are "usually" a form of edit warring (often the start of an edit war), but any reaction that is not edit warring and is collaborative is a good thing, it just isn't BRD if it's not Discussion, so take that angle somewhere else, because there are many other options, too many to discuss here.
BRD is not the only way to avoid edit warring. It is just the simplest expression of the shortest process to avoid it, and 95% of the time it applies. It is often cited by admins as a reason for blocking an editor for edit warring, and, AFAIK, a violation usually provides conclusive proof of who started the edit war, IOW which editor to sanction. Edit wars can get complicated, so go back and see who violated BRD, then nail them. Just like a series of collisions in an intersection can get complicated, go back and see which driver first broke the law. It was their actions that precipitated the whole mess.
Sometimes one hears the objection "But BRD is not policy". That's true, but edit warring is forbidden by policy, and when a violation of BRD is edit warring, then citing it is perfectly fine. It's shorthand for "You were edit warring when you didn't respond by discussing, so I'm blocking you. Stop trying to force your preferred version on us. We really don't like that type of uncollaborative behavior. Don't do it again. Next time an editor reverts your edit, follow BRD." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- BRD's purpose is not to prevent edit warring. BRD's purpose is to solve disputes. The fact that it additionally does not involve edit warring by the Bold editor (BRD has no effect on the behavior of any other editor) does not mean that its purpose is to prevent edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- As written, it also encourages the first "B" as a way to help build & evolve content, and also says that the first "R" is fine / no big deal on a bold edit. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. That is rather generic, and not as helpful as more BRD-specific content would be.
- Valjean, this page is not the simplest expression of the shortest process to avoid edit warring. The two-thousand-word-long essay at Wikipedia:Short BRD comes closer, but the shortest process is the first sentence of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- As written, it also encourages the first "B" as a way to help build & evolve content, and also says that the first "R" is fine / no big deal on a bold edit. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment - concerning this edit, which I take to be the main topic of this section: I think it is mistaken to understand BRD primarily as a strategy undertaken by the Bold editor whose action initiates the cycle. BRD is correctly invoked by the reverting editor, especially when they simultaneously open the discussion on Talk. Any revision of the essay that entrenches the assumption that it is the Bold editor who chooses BRD strikes me as misleading and unhelpful. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Having reviewed the essay again, the only support I can find for seeing BRD
primarily as a strategy undertaken by the Bold editor
is the "How to proceed" subection of the General overview. The Process section, by contrast, regards the BRD cycle asinitiated by the reverting editor
, which I find to be the more consistently helpful interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)- @Newimpartial, reading the current version doesn't really help much in this case. Read this old version (selected at semi-random) to see how much it differs from the current version. The original idea (which is good) has drifted quite a distance to something that is also good, but which is different. The current version, partly because of my own well-intended but IMO mistaken efforts in the past, has turned into something much closer to a long-winded version of the WP:EPTALK policy. There's IMO nothing inherently wrong with that, but Wikipedia is best served by having both, not by obliterating the original idea and replacing it with a general admonition to "use your words instead of edit warring, kids". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying (and thanks for the Paleolithic version link), but I don't really agree. For one thing, that old version lacks the "BRD is a dance between one bold and one reverting editor" preconception that lurks in the shadows of the current essay version and that troubles the "how to proceed" section in particular. More essentially, I think there is a view - not the original view, perhaps, but now probably the dominant view - that sees BRD neither as "use your words" nor as a strategy undertaken by the Bold editor, but precisely as described in the "Process" section - as a cycle initiated by the reverting editor when they open the discussion. This may not be precisely the original idea (which was more about sniffing out the gatekeepers, IMO), but it would be baby-bathwater for anyone to read the Process section account as
a long-winded version of the WP:EPTALK policy
- in essence, that is what I think of as "misleading and unhelpful": interpreting that construal of BRD as just EPTALK warmed over. Newimpartial (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)- I think I agree with what @Newimpartial is saying, and I find even more evidence that their interpretation makes more sense to me since we find in the image caption of the WP:BRD-NOT section that it directly addresses all editors;
BRD only works when both bold and reverting editors follow the process.
as well as specifically addressing the reverting editor;...If you tell someone to follow BRD when you revert their edits, then you need to follow BRD yourself...
so I think any ideas that edits on this page are for bold editors only, and reverters don't even need to know about it are probably a little too ambitious for this page, but not surprising considering the dated version of the old page. Huggums537 (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)- It's not true that BRD is a cycle initiated by the reverting editor when they open the discussion; if it were, there would be no reverting editors demanding that the bold editor be the person who starts the discussion. As it is, there are lots of them, even years after we added all of those sentences encouraging reverters to "Start a discussion yourself" or "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." (a statement that I no longer believe is true for "actual BRD", but is still true about following the EPTALK and AVOIDEDITWAR policies) instead of demanding that others do things the reverters feel they are too important to do themselves.
- This is (I hope you all agree?) good advice for Wikipedia to have somewhere, but it is tacked on to BRD in an effort to bandage problems with how the original BRD was being misinterpreted, and is not the core of the one-on-one negotiation process with the person whom Newimpartial (IMO accurately) calls a gatekeeper, but whom BRD diplomatically calls an Interested Person. I agree that it's good advice that ought to be somewhere. I just don't agree that this general advice should be mixed up with the actual BRD advice. The optional "one-on-one dance" needs to be on a different page from the more general (and less optional) advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think I agree with what @Newimpartial is saying, and I find even more evidence that their interpretation makes more sense to me since we find in the image caption of the WP:BRD-NOT section that it directly addresses all editors;
- I hear what you're saying (and thanks for the Paleolithic version link), but I don't really agree. For one thing, that old version lacks the "BRD is a dance between one bold and one reverting editor" preconception that lurks in the shadows of the current essay version and that troubles the "how to proceed" section in particular. More essentially, I think there is a view - not the original view, perhaps, but now probably the dominant view - that sees BRD neither as "use your words" nor as a strategy undertaken by the Bold editor, but precisely as described in the "Process" section - as a cycle initiated by the reverting editor when they open the discussion. This may not be precisely the original idea (which was more about sniffing out the gatekeepers, IMO), but it would be baby-bathwater for anyone to read the Process section account as
- @Newimpartial, reading the current version doesn't really help much in this case. Read this old version (selected at semi-random) to see how much it differs from the current version. The original idea (which is good) has drifted quite a distance to something that is also good, but which is different. The current version, partly because of my own well-intended but IMO mistaken efforts in the past, has turned into something much closer to a long-winded version of the WP:EPTALK policy. There's IMO nothing inherently wrong with that, but Wikipedia is best served by having both, not by obliterating the original idea and replacing it with a general admonition to "use your words instead of edit warring, kids". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Thinking about a page move
The gap between what BRD actually is (was) and what editors guess it means from the title is so large that I would like to talk about moving the "actual BRD" content to another page. The end result is that we can't make this page clearer about what "actual BRD" is, and how it differs (by being more specific than) from general good behavior, because we have two competing needs: a need for a page on general good behavior ("Please use your words instead of edit warring") and a need to explain "actual BRD" as a very specific approach to solving difficult disputes.
One approach that might have the "least breakage" is to turn Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (with the WP:BRD shortcut) into a disambiguation page. That page could have content along these lines:
- The bold, revert, discuss cycle ("BRD") was an approach to editing in difficult areas. You may be looking for:
- WP:AVOIDEDITWAR – the section of the Wikipedia:Edit warring that says to use discussion instead of edit warring
- WP:EPTALK – the section of the Wikipedia:Editing policy that explains how to use discussion to improve articles
- Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD – an essay explaining that "BRD" is often used as a short name for the requirements in the above policies
- Wikipedia:Short BRD – a practical page on how to implement the two policies
- WP:One-on-one negotiation approach – the original, optional BRD process, which may be useful to experienced editors who need to resolving stuck disputes
I think this would solve several problems (including the perennial question about why BRD isn't a policy), and it would certainly solve the problem of not being able to have the "actual BRD" described anywhere because editors keep trying to remove that information in favor of a summary of AVOIDEDITWAR and EPTALK. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I like the concept but have concerns regarding the wording. Rather than sidetrack the proposal by raising those concerns now, I'll hold off and suggest changes if and when it is put into place. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, I do want to suggest one text change now. Make the moved article "Bold, revert, discuss negotiation" (or something similar) instead of "WP:One-on-one negotiation approach." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I thought it might be better to avoid the "BRD" language entirely, but if you like that title better, then it's okay with me. Or maybe "WP:Original bold, revert, discuss process", to suggest that this is not what editors are thinking about these days (i.e., the original, not the current notion)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a tough one. "WP:Seeking consensus using the bold, revert, discuss process"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think people will think that's the modern version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect that few people know there are original and modern versions. And even if that is the case now, it won't matter in the future when neither will be modern. What, other than history makes the two versions different?
- What terms (labels) would you use to distinguish them without reference to which one came first? Perhaps "Bold, revert, discuss editing" vs. "Bold, revert, discuss negotiation"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the two subjects here are "Following the everyday policies about what to do when reverted" (modern) vs "This hyper-specific thing that hardly anyone ever does, but which might be useful in certain circumstances, especially if you knew that it wasn't just following the everyday policies" (original).
- Do you think that all of them need to include BRD words in the titles? I thought that giving up that language for the original version might make it easier to differentiate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm hoping for a label that is more descriptive than "this hyper-specific thing." It need not include the BRD words. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I support that goal. mw:Naming things is difficult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- My thought is that you, as the "original BRD" expert, hold the key to achieving that goal. If you can - and are willing to - provide a sentence or two that describes the process/cycle/method (as opposed to saying how often and when it is used) then I can try to fashion a proposed title out of that sentence. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- The expert would be Kim Bruning, who hasn't been seen on wiki for almost a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's a fun fact, but it doesn't get us any closer to good new name for the article you're porposing we move. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- The expert would be Kim Bruning, who hasn't been seen on wiki for almost a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- My thought is that you, as the "original BRD" expert, hold the key to achieving that goal. If you can - and are willing to - provide a sentence or two that describes the process/cycle/method (as opposed to saying how often and when it is used) then I can try to fashion a proposed title out of that sentence. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I support that goal. mw:Naming things is difficult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm hoping for a label that is more descriptive than "this hyper-specific thing." It need not include the BRD words. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think people will think that's the modern version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a tough one. "WP:Seeking consensus using the bold, revert, discuss process"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I thought it might be better to avoid the "BRD" language entirely, but if you like that title better, then it's okay with me. Or maybe "WP:Original bold, revert, discuss process", to suggest that this is not what editors are thinking about these days (i.e., the original, not the current notion)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, I do want to suggest one text change now. Make the moved article "Bold, revert, discuss negotiation" (or something similar) instead of "WP:One-on-one negotiation approach." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- BRD makes a few good points, and enshrines / highlights 3 simple sequences ("B", "BR" & "BRD") of the trillions of possible situations. Probably the most important concept that it is the main Wikipedia coverage of is "Be Bold" (once). Whatever happens, we should be careful not to lose or obscure these qualities. North8000 (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are circumstances when "'Be Bold' (twice)" is okay. See, for example, "Bold, discuss, bold" at wp:BRB. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. I did not mean to imply otherwise in my description which was ambiguous due to its brevity. I guess that more precisely wp:brd emphasizes that the first revert of a bold move is considered to be no big deal /common, and that this is not intended to say or imply anything about potential additional reverts. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Actual BRD" conceptualized the first revert as a substantially positive and desirable thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. I did not mean to imply otherwise in my description which was ambiguous due to its brevity. I guess that more precisely wp:brd emphasizes that the first revert of a bold move is considered to be no big deal /common, and that this is not intended to say or imply anything about potential additional reverts. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I personally am in favor of alternatives that exclude the reverting process for a couple of reasons, one being that there are actually more of them that don't require reverting, and the other is that I believe reverting is an inherently aggressive action for the most part. Unfortunately, most of our vandalism/warning templates, and other things of that nature are worded in such a way that they seem innocent enough, but they actually support a hostile, restrictive, and aggressive environment. I think a huge number of them need to be reworked because of it. It may seem hypocritical that I sometimes use them myself, but it is all we have to work with right now in the Twinkle and Redwarn tools, and the time it takes to craft your own makes the job too tedious. They are really only good for being politically correct assholes to vandals, and it seems that is all they had in mind when they designed them. Huggums537 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Question: How does this proposal plan to resolve the "feedback loop" errors that will occur when the two links to BRD in the last paragraph of WP:EPTALK, as well as the three links to BRD in the lede and hatnote of Wikipedia:What_editors_mean_when_they_say_you_have_to_follow_BRD will now just recycle back to the new disambig page? Huggums537 (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:Short_BRD link in the proposed disambig page also has three links to BRD as well... Huggums537 (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that any of these are difficult. EPTALK doesn't really need the link at all, but it could be repointed to Valjean's WP:Short BRD, which (despite me teasing him about it not being so short after all) could be turned into the repository for all of the general/non-original advice currently on this page. There's also nothing inherently wrong with sending people back to the disambiguation, as that could help them find the page that they actually need. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is a highly cited and highly useful page and this is a solution in search of a problem. I don't see any reason to mess with it. Crossroads -talk- 22:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Question
I decided to add an addition to a page that barely gets any editor traffic (and by that, I mean the last revision was back in November 2021). How long does it take for a bold edit to become the new consensus if it does not get reverted? 172.112.210.32 (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is no rule. Also, it doesn't matter. Wikipedia:Consensus can change, so even if we were to say something silly, like "Your edit will achieve status as The Official Consensus Version™ unless it is reverted before 3:41 a.m. on the first Tuesday in June", someone could show up the next day and change the article. Consensus is about what editors agree to right now. The second they stop agreeing to something, there is no consensus any longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)