Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Very nice

Just wanted to say, this is great stuff. I've been thinking along these lines for a while but this is a nice explanation. I think people would have far fewer concerns over boldness and IAR'ing if the bold rule-ignorers always took the advice of this page: be bold, once. When someone disagrees, the time for boldness is over and the time for discussion begins. This simple idea prevents edit wars but doesn't bog us down with unneeded ceremony.

Also, I suppose people have already noticed this, but the pure wiki deletion system comes from applying the bold/revert/discuss cycle to deletions. If something should go away, boldly remove it. If someone disagrees, they'll revert, and then you discuss it. I wonder if people will start voicing opposition to bold/revert/discuss for the same reasons they oppose PWDS. Friday (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


In all honesty, I think this is bad stuff tending toward chaos. I'm not all that sure what the rational purpose of such a change would be, I certainly do not see how it would be beneficial to anyone (except maybe someone trying to force a radical idea into an article). One generally does not reach a consensus through open warfare, which is essentially what this looks like to me. I just don't see this as a workable solution.

Jim62sch 22:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a description of how folks do stuff, not a proposed change to it. Kim Bruning 00:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah! On rereading. No this is not open warfare. More like a kind of trap, but this is a friendly trap. You set your bait, and wait for someone to nibble. Instead of hurting them though, you engage them in discussion. Then, when you've reached agreement, re-set the trap and wait for the next person to come along. Keep going until no one bites. This way you use a trap to catch new friends, for a change. Swords to plowshares and all that! :-) Kim Bruning 00:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing link to "The Wrong Version". Reading that article (offensive satire) contributes nothing to a user's understanding of policy. Onsmelly 08:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Almost everything about this particular method is bound to offend someone, unfortunately. Hence the large amount of tact required. "The wrong version" is a phenomenon though, and something you will likely deal with directly if you're applying this method. Kim Bruning 00:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Why would this offend anyone? This is the way we're supposed to edit always. — Omegatron 00:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You mean you've been doing this for years and no one ever took offence? Please tell us your secret! AvB ÷ talk 09:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconded - glad this exists. I've made controversial edits with long explanations in the edit log saying "will not re-revert if reverted" - in future I'll just say [[WP:BRD]] to indicate that I plan to talk about my bold edits, not just fight over them. — ciphergoth 17:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strongly object to flurbeling!

I thought it was groznically agreed upon to always kezzida rather than flurble. (Seriously though, nice page!) Radiant_>|< 23:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution?

I don't understand what this page has to do with dispute resolution or why it would be difficult to implement. This is the way we edit every day.

  1. If you see something that you think needs changing on an article, it's best if you just be bold and change it.
  2. If someone doesn't like your edit (which won't happen that often, unless you're being disruptive or really enjoy editing controversial articles), they will revert it.
  3. At this point, don't revert again or you're revert warring.
  4. Instead, discuss the edit on the talk page.
  5. After significant discussion, update the page:
    • If there was a consensus, change according to consensus
    • If discussion dies off, change according to whatever was generally agreed upon
    • If no one will compromise and reach a true consensus, consensus degrades to majority rule. Change according to the majority.
    • If no discussion occurs at all and no one responds to your attempt at discussion, wait a significant period of time (depends on the popularity of the article), and then start over at step 1

It's not really dispute resolution; it's just the normal editing cycle. It could be seen as dispute prevention, I guess. — Omegatron 17:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I sure hope it's not becoming the standard modus operandi around here. I'd prefer if people actually talked things through beforehand and so. I wrote this page to describe an emergency measure when all else fails.
I agree that it is as close to the normal way of working as possible, but it skips things like waiting a significant amount of time, and tries to keep discussion moving rapidly, and is slightly less amenable to compromise. In short, use with care. Kim Bruning 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
But it has always been the modus operandi. It's what be bold is all about. I don't get it. What things would people talk through beforehand? What other methods of editing are there, and why are they more amenable to compromise? We're looking at something differently here. — Omegatron 06:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well the thing is I've managed to get myself into all kinds of interesting trouble by following the steps as stated here. *Scratches head*. Hmmm, I guess it's troublesome because it's a situation where go in and be bold even though you know you're going to get reverted. You just want to find out by who. Kim Bruning 20:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm reading your steps in more detail
* This is about being bold when you know there's 100% chance of being reverted. And still you edit.
* You wish to unrevert the change in as short a time as possible (perhaps something like 30 minutes), even though you know you'll likely get reverted again. (though by a different person.)
* Discussing on the talk page is slow, try irc or instant messaging wherever possible.
* Significant discussion with multiple people should be avoided. Significant discussion with one person at a time should be pursued strongly.
* We are attempting to provoke discussion. If discussion dies off with no change, you have failed.
* Majority rule kills consensus dead. Bold revert discuss will not work in an established majority rule system. Fortunately, often people only *claim* their system is majority rule. Since in practice a wiki typically needs at least some amount of consensus in its daily operations, you might be able to wedge your way in. Expect heavy resistance from proponents of majority rule however!
Maybe you can imagine some of the ways you can get in trouble now? :-) Kim Bruning 20:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this page at all. It says "This method is typically used by experienced wiki-editors on policy or high profile pages, when all else has failed. Large amounts of diplomacy are required to pull it off successfully there." What does it have to do with high-profile pages or diplomacy? This is the normal way that everyone edits. What other "cycles" or editing styles are there? I can't think of any. When what else has failed? There isn't anything else. This is how you edit a wiki. You are always bold when editing, and if someone reverts you discuss on the talk page. This is normal and good, not a special case. What alternative editing styles are there? I don't get it. — Omegatron 03:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Normally it's not a cycle. You are bold and it sticks, or you are bold, get reverted, discuss, come to consensus, and the consens goes up. DONE. You're right that you could use a slightly friendlier version for normal everyday editing.
When I wrote the page I was thinking of particular cases where things were going in a tight cycle (often <30 minutes per iteration), and was used on pages with a large amount of sunk investment and people were deadlock. I got the wikinews main page changed quite rapidly, for example. People even thought they were using majority rule on wikinews at the time, I think ;-) Kim Bruning 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed section

Alternative to reverting: move to talk=== Rather than revert a user's edit, and hope not to be reverted again, a more productive option is to move their content to the article's talk page where it can be discussed. While the content is still removed from the article, the action is less harsh because the content is still viewable outside of history, is more easily referenced in discussion, and the discussion is not limited to edit summaries pushing eachother closer to breaking the 3RR.

While true and wise, this situation shouldn't occur in a bold revert discuss cycle. If it does, and holds you may well have managed to break out. Congratulations. Kim Bruning 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • That's why the section was called "Alternative to reverting". There's no real reason to create a separate page for this, since the cycle is the same except for this one step. It should be kept in the article. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 22:15
Hmm, on the other hand, you might want to keep your cycle short and sharp, and only discuss with reverters for now, rather than starting a massive discussion that might take weeks. The latter option will fail to solve your problem :-) Kim Bruning 13:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old style guideline

This page is sort of set up like an old style guideline, so I decided to finally make up a graffitibox for that, to make it look official for graffitiboxers. If people don't mind it, I might actually go on a graffiti-sticker campaign with it ;-) Kim Bruning 12:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an essay, not a guideline of any sort. Calling it an "old style guideline" muddles that distinction. FeloniousMonk 15:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about this some more, old style guideline is probably fine. In fact, it might do well as an official, regular guideline. FeloniousMonk 22:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is an "Old-style guideline" (for us newbies in the audience)? -- Isogolem 19:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Easy, it's where you figure out how to do stuff and try them out, and after a while of trying it out on the wiki, you write down what you've figured out. And of course it's a wiki! Other people will try out your guideline, and find minor niggles with it, or improvements and whatnot, and they can just edit things so you end up with the better way they figured out. In short (and over time) the page will end up reflecting consensus on how to do particular stuff.
Since people are making such a big mess of making things up and playing nomic, and making up all kinds of useless stickers and declaring stuff non negotiable and... you know, basically turning wikipedia: namespace into a pigstye; I thought I'd make a nice sticker for guidelines that are still written the old way and are actually still useful for something ;-)
Note that "the old way" means more like old for wikipedia; the method itself is actually fairly modern, what with using a wiki and all ;-) Kim Bruning 19:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descriptive or Essay

What is going on? Could someone please comment on what the difference of opinion is here? -- Isogolem 21:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Certainly. Kim is of the opinion (and I tend to agree) that we should have less tags in WikiSpace. However, to do that she has created an extra tag ({{descriptive}}) which to me seems counterproductive. It is apparent that novice users are confused if pages are tagging wrongly; an extra tag conflates this problem. The tag implies that there are several "kinds" of guidelines, which implies that some hold more weight than others - which is false. Then, there is no such thing as an "old-style guideline", that's just a new made-up term. And finally, the tag describes pages as "guidelines" even though they aren't, further adding to the confusion.
    • Originally all pages in the project namespace were called our guidelines, IIRC. Kim Bruning (other answers below)
  • That's why {{descriptive}} is not such a good idea. This particular page, however, could qualify as a regular guideline, and I would have no objection tagging it as such. >Radiant< 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Marking this page an essay is a really bad fit. It's not an essay expressing a personal opinion. (It's an observation of working methods across multiple wikis. )
  • Marking this page as a guideline would suggest that it's some kind of rule that must be followed. It's not, and it shouldn't be mandatory.
  • If you leave the page unmarked, our friendly graffiti-taggers (sorry, template-projecteers) will come along and stick some random tag on.
  • Solution: Create a tag that says the page describes how to do things, and stick that on. No complaints, because it's true. Also, no graffiti taggers will come along. Perfect.

Well, almost perfect. Now someone comes along and declares the tag

  • redundant with essay? (the essay tag describes itself as something else)
  • redundant with guideline? (No, that would imply a rule)
  • has no consensus? (As per Bold Revert Discuss, we may reject that statement ;-) )

So I figure the tag stays for now. Ideally I think we need to get rid of graffiti tags.

Kim Bruning 15:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You are mistaken as to the nature of guidelines. Guidelines aren't mandatory. Also, your assertion that people tend to tag random pages in Wikispace is false. >Radiant< 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Tagging is apparently at-random, as I have described many times before in multiple places. The "nature of guidelines" is also random, as per that same description. People have in fact been blocked or banned by the arbcom for failing to follow pages marked as "guideline". Even if guidelines were not random; even if guidelines were to work exactly as you state; people will still voluntarily follow them for day-to-day wiki-work. That is not the intent of this page. So the guideline tag does not fit either. Kim Bruning 16:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Radiant: I disagree that there is no such thing as an original method for creating guidelines. Would you care to please follow Harmonious editing club guidelines? Edit warring is extremely frustrating, and I would prefer to discuss, thank you. Kim Bruning 16:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, there are several ways of creating guidelines, and one of them surely is the original. But, whichever way we arrive at a guideline, the end result is a guideline, and all such are equal. We should not be giving people the ammunition to create the impression that some guidelines are more important than others. Hence, identical tags. >Radiant< 22:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I just tried {{howto}}, but that didn't give the result I expected. <scratches head> --Kim Bruning 14:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


re Response (on my talk page) to my adding the Template:essay tag - if this article "defies the categorisation scheme" then is this not included in Category:Wikipedia essays opening criteria of "articles in the main namespace but categorised for their status, not for their content (e.g. uncategorised articles, unwikified articles, stub articles, etc.)." ? David Ruben Talk 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Nice talking! :-) --Kim Bruning 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
OK I agree with your points that the essay tag also invites users to edit the page itself, which would be unwise in such a delicate topic that is already carefully and well written. So how about this modified essay tag ? I do feel some form of header notification is need as to what the page is about/for/authority-level :-) David Ruben Talk 09:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This page is an essay. This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please discuss it on the talk page.
Shortcut:
See also your talk page, but like, don't be timid. This is classic BOLD territory. ;-) I'll probably hate the change and think of something better in a while, but in the mean time, like, go for it! --Kim Bruning 11:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so I edited the essay tag to remove the elements that weren't so great (see: Template talk:Essay for details), just to see what might be left. Obviously we can't keep the tag looking like that, I guess. So now what? Well... let's build up a new tag. Any suggestions as to what to actually put in there to make a proper tag? --Kim Bruning 03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of message box occurred in this paragraph. I, in my edit summary said I was being WP:BOLD and filled out the question marks in the old box which would have read:
This page is an essay. This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please discuss it on the talk page.
Shortcut:
Better? ronbo76 13:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
But but! Those were exactly the same items I'd removed, because there were issues! ;-) --Kim Bruning 13:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess I interpreted your go for it as WP:BOLD. I now restate (and reformat the paragraph along with recommending) that the banner read:
This page is an essay. This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please discuss it on the talk page.
Shortcut:

. Ronbo76 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd suck if I didn't say be BOLD, so sure, go! ;-) I'm still sort of worried about the essay tag. Guideline would be a closer fit, but I'm not entirely happy with that either. (We did try "Descriptive Guideline", but I disagree with Radiant about how to fight the tag-blizzard, so that didn't fly. ;-) Maybe I should just drag him into a dark abandoned corner nice quite cafe in Rotterdam, and have it out with him discuss some kind of mutual plan :-)) --Kim Bruning 14:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Only problem I see here is that is definitely not policy. And, I beginning to feel my oats again, err, WP:BOLD. Ronbo76

[edit] Er, Kim,

the way you've rewritten this page it promotes doing anything to get people's attention, and calling it their fault if they revert it. I'm quite sure that's not what you mean, but it is how some people will read this, and that'd not be very constructive. >Radiant< 11:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that doing practically anything will work for the BOLD part of bold revert discuss, but I agree that taking it too far might make the rest of the process much harder. You could try being really conservative, or you could try being very reasonable, but the best thing you can do is to just make the change you actually wanted, since in the end, that's going to be the quickest way to actually make it happen. :) Kim Bruning 11:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's really the point: you do not do things to get people's attention (that would be perilously close to WP:POINT), you do things because they are a good idea. You get reverted and discussed if and when other people don't agree that it's a good idea. >Radiant< 11:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Even so, I've found that doing other things does work, even if it isn't always wisest. I'm curious if someone might come up with some imaginative and clever application! --Kim Bruning 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I did delete an associated RFC once. Does that count? O:-) Kim Bruning 17:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Only if an RFC was opened against you in response :P >Radiant< 17:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Radiant's initial worry, only more strongly. This approach seems to me simply to regularise a standard approach taken by PoV-pushers across Wikipedia: you make a large, significant, and undiscussed change at an article, and then try to wear down those who disagree. The only sensible option is to revert the change, and tell the person who made it to discuss the issues at Talk first; what is the advantage for a good-faith editor of doing things this way? all that you're likely to do is turn the other editors against you from the beginning. This "essay" allows the offender a further gambit: when editors protest that there's no consensus for the edit, the PoV-warrior says: "Well, I'm going by the book — see WP:BRD".

At best, this is an approach that would be attractive to someone who rejects Wikipedia's basic approach to article writing, and wants to impose her own views against or without consensus. Having come here because it was being appealed to in precisely such a situation by its creator and chief author, I don't think that that's a merely hypothetical judgement. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the date on this thread, you will see that this was due to a concrete problem with an addition made on Jan 16, 2007. This problem has since been fixed.
Note that the person in question need not be a POV pusher, it could also be a legitimate editor.
The sequence of actions you instinctively point out exactly mirrors one of the normal editing paths described in the Wikipedia:Consensus flowchart. To wit, this is the longest path, where reverts occur and neither side is assumed to have consensus. This is the also the path used by WP:BRD:
First the other editor makes a bold edit. Then your reaction is to revert it, and then the discussion gets taken to talk.
BRD then instructs the editor to discuss and seek consensus with you on the talk page.
So is what you are saying not the exact sequence that is described here, except in slightly different words?
--Kim Bruning 11:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the point is that you can make bold edits to just about anything without discussing them first (aka the wiki method), but if people disagree they can revert them, and if this happens you should discuss the matter on talk. The problem I noted above was that a certain version of this page implied that the reversion was wrong. >Radiant< 11:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's the standard method from Wikipedia:Consensus yes. BRD uses this method to find people who have the page on their watchlist, and to slowly build up consensus with them one-by-one. --Kim Bruning 11:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC) I think part of the problem was that the page said any kind of edit would work, and at the time didn't point out that it might be a good idea to use a nice edit. --Kim Bruning 11:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So the justification for this essay is that what it describes is exactly what is already prescribed under existing guidelines? I don't agree, but I'm puzzled as to what the point of it would be if that were the case.

Building up consensus one by one is a peculiar notion (and misuses the term "consensus" along the way); again, having seen it in action, it seems simply to mean going off in little corners for huddled whispers in secret, coming back and saying "we agree", and then doing the same with the next person (unless you think you can get away with claiming consensus after one iteration). I don't like secret conversaions, any more than I like the use of IRC and mailing lists to stand in for proper, public, open discussion.

It's no good, I find this essay wrong headed, potentially disruptive, and with no obvious advantages. In fact, I find it so worrying that I've nominated it for deletion. It shouldn't be the way that people do things, and it certainly shouldn't be the way that they're encouraged to do things. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You were explicitly invited to provide your input several times. You personally chose not to do so. Do not blame the consequences of your actions on others. --Kim Bruning 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I genuinely have no idea what you mean. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia talk:Signatures, I asked you for input on how the problem paragraph should be worded. I also told you that I agreed with you and offered to be the one to change the page to reflect what you said.
I regret that the current wording of Wikipedia:Signatures still does not appear to agree with your stance on the issue. However, I'm not sure I should carry the blame. --Kim Bruning 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, let me check my assumptions: Are you in fact unhappy with the current wording at Wikipedia:Signatures? --Kim Bruning 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This would explain why you lost me; we're surely discussing this essay, not the debate at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(In reply to 17:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
I'm a programmer, so my first thought anytime I try to do anything big, is to try to cut it up into smaller steps.
I find it's often practical to start forming an agreement by starting with two people, then adding on a third person and hammering out the remaining differences, then a fourth... etc, and adjusting for each. Typically the two people stage is the hardest part, since you have no frame of reference yet.
Do you know of different methods of working towards an agreement? I'd be interested to hear some of them. --Kim Bruning 21:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ceci n'est pas un template

First real world use of this template ever! ;-)

Possibly a better template could be found, since this template works better on pages that also include humor, but still. Hmmm!

--Kim Bruning 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am card carrying member of the Wikipedia:Department of Fun and known there as Obi Clown Kemosabe (each word in my nom de plume has its own wikilink). I can put a nice clown picture (ooh, ooh, feeling that WP:BOLD kind of tingling, wanting to make an edit feeling)!!! Ronbo76 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] templates and cats

So we tried the essay template on for size, but there's several more issues with it. (also As stated above, see Template talk:Essay for details.)

So there's no pre-existing cat for this kind of page. (There's several of them in the project namespace atm.) :-/

--Kim Bruning 13:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated for deletion (and, this is not a call for a vote - I have voted in AfDs before)

Must have missed the change, but as I went to the article page to be WP:BOLD in changing the banner to essay (along with a neat picture to give it some humor), I noticed it was nominate for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Ronbo76 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An example of WT:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - did I get it right?

Let's see, I discussed it here or above (there). Did a revert that was not really a revert. Was WP:BOLD and re-added the banner essay after it had been reverted. Added a neat picture (again being WP:BOLD) in all seriousness. Yep, I think I got it right!!! Ronbo76 01:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you got my attention, so I guess it did. Soooo, what did you actually want to discuss? (wait, I should revert too... one moment)
Note that a better edit would be one that actually makes the change you would like to see.
In other news, that picture is totally random, but maybe I can add a useful picture instead. --Kim Bruning 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that picture is not random. It is on my Wikicommons account, a modification of another open source picture used with the author's permission. And, I did make the changes I wanted to see: I added a paragraph incorporating humor; reverted that (and re-inserted the paragraph - which I insinuated in that paragraph I was going to do). Then I reverted/inserted the essay banner again. And, I added the picture for further levity.
Let's see. Hmmm. One revert. One paragraph insertion. One banner added. A clown type picture inserted. Now, (putting on my big red shoes and funny nose) time for another revert!!! Ronbo76 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Dog gone good one, Kim! I hang my lightsaber deflecting pie saving device in your honor. But, I still think Obi Clown Kemosabe added levity. Ronbo76 02:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Both versions of the essay say in big letters DO NOT revert back!, so by reverting me that last time, you "violated" both versions of the essay (not to mention Harmonious editing club or the 1 revert rule.
I do like your good humor and good natured discussion of the page. However, you should probably take care not to actually make a genuinely disruptive edit. The reason for this is that likely you're also trying to make a point? (I hope you are, anyway). When you do that, you end up getting close to a genuine WP:POINT violation. Genuine WP:POINT violations also tend to be done by people making good natured edits. :-) --Kim Bruning 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, those words weren't bolded yet, let's do that. --Kim Bruning 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
(resetting paragraph format) I do not make disruptive edits. I was following all applicable policies/essays quoted. My intention was not to make a point but I guess I did because we are discussing it. I really like this article and would like to incorporate it in my daily interractions. I don't do WP:POINT. I just do WP:BOLD in trying to contribute. But, if you want to hear a good joke, . . .
I do have to thank you for the WP:HEC page. That's a good one to add to my refs (which I just did). Ronbo76 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just noticed that in this case, someone referenced Revert only when necessary instead, which is actually a pretty good summary of the philosophy. Did you fail to notice ROWN straight away, or did you have reasoning why you applied it correctly anyway? :-) --Kim Bruning 03:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
When I am dressed up in my big red floppy shoes with the funny red nose and glasses, it's hard to read anything. I missed WP:ROWN and when I just saw it flash across my Watchlist, thought it was similar to ROTFL/ROFL (I wonder if there is a WP:ROFL policy - I feel like being WP:BOLD)? Ronbo76 03:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No idea! We do have OMGWTFBBQ. :-) --Kim Bruning 03:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Flowchart

As taken from Wikipedia:Consensus. I still suck somewhat at vector editing. I hope someone comes along and tries to make a nicer version.

I'm also not sure if the greyed out right side actually shows up as greyed out, or actuall just seems white.

BRD loops around the right hand side of the consensus flowchart, (each time only making a change after having reached some kind of agreement with each person in turn), until at some point overall consensus is reached. --Kim Bruning 05:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not edit and discuss?

As you point out, "you're going to need all your tact to convince them that you are acting in good faith". That doesn't square well with the advice to just do an edit without discussion. Wouldn't it be better to explain your motives on the talk page? — Sebastian 06:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

With BRD it's less relevant, since you're really more interested in the reverter than in his revert. Even so, I see no harm in placing what basically amounts to an extended edit summary on the talk page at any time. With BRD you should just be extra careful not to get ensnarled on the talk page if you do so, however. Your objective is to get the knots out of the actual editing of the page in question, so that editors can get their work done.--Kim Bruning 13:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Kim replied to my statement that I think the flow chart is wrong in neglecting the connection from "Previous consensus" to "Take it to the talk page" as follows:

Interestingly, the flowchart at Wikipedia:Consensus is actually correct. You always first want to try wiki editing, before you go to talk. In fact, roughly 90% of the time, your edits will stand, and no further action is required. I'm inferring this from existing statistics and trends. This is less surprising than it might seem to you.
Wikipedia is a wiki, after all. :-)

I agree about the 90% rule, but those are the 90% that are not disputed. As a method of conflict resolution, we have to focus on the bottom 2% - those that cause edit wars. And I really don't think it creates good faith if you just do bold, controversial edits without explaining your motives. AGF cuts both ways - everybody should also give each other reasons to assume good faith. — Sebastian 06:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, it's ok to make a bold change and basically use the talk page for an extended edit summary (one of the first goals for such a page). That's also quite fine for Wikipedia:Consensus. Just don't be tempted to procrastinate on the talk page for a whole week, while a simple edit might only take you 10 minutes, and will work just fine as well.
In the case of WP:BRD, the method will likely work even without a talk page comment. I do agree that leaving a comment on talk upfront does tend to soften the blow a little. On the other hand, there's a slight danger that you could end up holding discussions with people who you didn't need to talk with.
I'll add a note to reflect this. (you could have been bold and done this yourself, by the way) :-) --Kim Bruning 11:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, added the note. Wording might still need tweaking. Remember, the objective is not to have a fun tea party on the talk page, the objective is to get people back to editing the wiki. :-)
I do notice some notes on simplified ruleset under safe behaviour #5, though perhaps we could extend that. Should I also add a note to Wikipedia:Consensus? Let's just go ahead and do that... --Kim Bruning 12:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I boldly added a note to Wikipedia:Consensus, though it seems out of place there. It ended up as basically just a restatement of Be bold with perhaps one or two tweaks here and there. It might be handier to just merge the tweaks into WP:BOLD instead, and perhaps link there? --Kim Bruning 12:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

This user prefers the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle.

—Ashley Y 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/l/Wikipedia_talk%7EBOLD%2C_revert%2C_discuss_cycle_20e5.html"