edit

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Everyone loves this page! Why isn't it a policy or guideline? Editors have strongly rejected every proposal to endorse this page as a policy or guideline so far, including in 2012, in 2014, and in 2015. Does that mean editors can revert as much as they want, without discussion? Repeatedly reverting without discussion is generally a violation of two long-standing policies: Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Editing policy. So this page just summarizes the policies. If you believe that, then you should actually read the entire Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, rather than guessing what it says based on the title. This essay, for example, says that BRD is an optional method for use by experienced editors, and it encourages them to negotiate with only the person who reverted the initial bold edit. The policies do not support this, because (as BRD itself says), this is not always appropriate. Someone told me that I have to follow BRD. They didn't mean it. They probably haven't ever read the page (Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions). Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD is that after one or two reversions, if you want to make progress towards resolving a dispute, everyone should talk instead of edit warring.

This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Essays   This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysEssays articles  High  This page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.   WikiProject Editor Retention   This page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Editor RetentionWikipedia:WikiProject Editor RetentionTemplate:WikiProject Editor RetentionEditor Retention articles

What is BRD?[edit]

There some editing on the question of what BRD is simply pointing a common sequence that is consistent with / implements policies and objectives. And it does a handy job of simplifying it and giving it a catchy and useful name. Actually 3 possible sequences:

• Bold: Don't be afraid / no big deal to be bold once
• Bold, Revert: No big deal to revert a bold edit
• BRD; if it goes on after that, discussion should be next

IMO anything much beyond that is additions of essay-like characterizations, opinions and recommendations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page began as, and still is, an essay-like recommendation to try an unusual negotiation tactic under uncommon circumstances. I do wish this page had a name that wouldn't lead editors to think they knew what the page says, just because they know what the title is. See also WP:Neutral and WP:Notable, two other pages whose titles result in editors guessing wrong about their contents.

(It is not entirely true that discussion should follow a revert; there are many ways to collaborate. We might need a catchy shortcut like WP:TIMETOTALK or WP:TALKNOW, or perhaps more aggressively, at WP:TALKORBLOCK, that points to a page that is actually about the simple question about how to respond when someone reverts your edit [bold or otherwise].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that just maybe many editors simply skip the irrelevant "negotiation" part because they understand the main gist, which is ONLY the three steps, and not the bold poking of other editors as a negotiation tactic? That part is irrelevant to the use of BRD. The fact that we still haven't gotten rid of that part is sad, and we shouldn't focus on it as it's a distraction from the actual practice of BRD. Who cares about the motives for the bold edit? Forget that part. I really doubt that many editors use BRD with THAT odd motive, because the three steps work perfectly fine for any and all other motives for making a bold edit.

BRD seeks to prevent edit warring by encouraging discussion and collaboration. I thought you understood that main point, but since you keep bringing up the "negotiation tactic" sideshow, I'm not sure anymore. That sideshow is just a historical artifact of this page's birth. We don't need it anymore. -- Valjean (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then what you want is a policy that encourages discussion and collaboration. Rather than edit war, presumably. Going back to basics, why isn't BRD a policy? It seems somewhere between edit war and editing and not either. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, yes, because it is already treated as if it was a de facto guideline or policy, it would be nice if it actually were an official guideline or policy. Right now it's officially an essay, but one that is widely recognized practice, so much so that one can get blocked for violating it because the first failure to respect the revert is seen as the start of edit warring. It's evidence of who started the edit war that would stand up in court.

You recognize its value below in your WP:1RR comment. There are guidelines that "encourage discussion and collaboration", but BRD is where that advice is tied to the actual editing and content creation process as a required response to a revert. Collaboration is not optional here. That's what makes BRD so effective as a way to prevent edit warring. It draws a red line after the revert that says "Stop and detour to the talk page. Do not revert the revert." -- Valjean (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel any compulsion not to do so, just a decision to be made. I might do nothing at all. I might revert the revert, it depends on the exact circumstances. I do go to the talk pages in those circumstances but not necessarily because I particularly want to talk to the reverter.Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Not everyone wants to enter into a dialogue at all, and not everyone wants to do it every time they are reverted, but if the change is important enough, one is forced to do it in some form or other. Sometimes a meeting of the minds can happen on the other editor's talk page. That works when no other editors are involved. Then the change can just happen by mutual agreement. If the edit isn't that important, even I will walk away without any discussion, leaving the status quo version in place. That is much more likely to happen if the reverter left a good explanation in their edit summary and I agree with them. -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The advice actually written on this page is not treated as a de facto guideline.

Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD is a completely different thing, and what people usually mean already is in the formal policies (specifically WP:EW and WP:EPTALK).

Also, the reason this isn't a policy is because experienced editors rejected it. The 2015 RFC on labeling BRD as a guideline lost overwhelmingly (approximately four oppose votes for each support vote). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, whatever it's intentions were, this and and its prominence is about what its title is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, you're right. The title really tells the necessary part of the story. The other "negotiation tactic" is distracting fluff, a historical artifact, as anyone has a right to make a first bold edit for many reasons, 99.999% of which have nothing to do with any deliberate "negotiating tactic" as the motivation for the bold edit. Without knowing anything more about BRD than what I've summarized in this three step flowchart, most editors will apply BRD in a way that leads to discussion and collaboration that prevents edit warring. Sure, there may be weird and odd situations (where people don't understand those three steps and make missteps) that are discussed in this page, so people can always read further here if they want, but it's usually unnecessary. This page suffers from massive instruction creep. -- Valjean (talk)

See also Map-territory fallacy. The title is not the contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was "this and and its prominence is about what its title is". Expanding on that a bit, I meant that it has it's place and prominence in Wikipedia because of that.North8000 (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR (arbpia, say), you can't do another revert (you can but you will likely get sanctioned) so isn't BRD effectively trying to produce the same effect? Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, I agree. BTW, what's "arbpia"? -- Valjean (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one of the 1RR zones, WP:PIA.Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! That's a subject area I rarely enter here. IRL, I've visited Lebanon, but not Israel. I'd love to do more travel in the Middle East. -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So here's a knotty question.[edit]

OK. Suppose you have an article, and it has been stable for while. Then it's nominated for deletion, and the result is "merge". So, you bring all (or part) of the material over to the new article. Now, is it new material (it IS new to that article) and thus revertable with the burden on adding the material, or is it old material (it HAS existed verbatim, albeit in a different article), and thus the burden is on not adding the material?

If someone says "rolling back this newly added material per BRD" and the merging editor can't gain consensus to include it, the old article has been effectively deleted rather than merged, n'est-ce pas? Which was not the intent of the AfD close.

Complicating this, merged material must usually be massaged in a few ways, a few words at least, to make it fit logically into the new article. So it's seldom verbatim. Not only that, but sometimes maybe half of the material from the old article is brought over. If it's a matter of removing a few sentences here and there, and writing some bridge prose to make it fit together, is this not new material now?

We need to put our top legal minds on this! Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think BRD can cover cases like this. One could try to determine the mood at the AfD discussion: did it envisage that material really would be moved to the new page, or did it merely assert that there should only be one article at the new title? If the former, reverting its addition could be argued as correct. If the latter (which is normally all that AfD can ascertain), moving material might not be WP:DUE and so should be removed. Normal WP:DR would be required such as discussion followed by an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. Say there's no real discernible mood and a bare "Merge" close. A "Merge" close allows (but does not require) a full merge I would think. Wikipedia:Merging talks about voluntary merging, but this is a merge required by the close at an AfD and so little of that applies.

So yes people can argue about WP:DUE and so on and work it out, but BRD is specifically about what happens if they can't work it out. But BRD doesn't cover this situation I guess, and so we're bereft of guidance if there's no consensus.

I mean this probably has hardly come up in our ~20 years, so it's not pressing. It's kind of more a "hmmmm" thing, and yeah I suppose WP:DR or third opinion would be ultimate venue. That's not ideal tho. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) is a good example of what can go wrong. The 2014 AFD closed with a decision to merge to Celibacy, and the regular editors at Celibacy refused to have the content (see both archives of Talk:Celibacy). As it happens, the regular editors were correct; the two subjects are really not as closely related as their names suggest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed changes in #Discuss section[edit]

I object to a bold change by an IP being re-inserted by a senior editor after removal without discussion (oh, irony!). The first part of the #Discuss section has remained substantially unchanged from December 2014 until 2 March 2022:

Shortcuts

• WP:BRDD
• WP:BRDDISCUSS

• 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. Instead, take it to the talk page (see below). If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD.

the only exception being the addition of the "Instead" sentence (highlighted in gray font above for identification purposes) in May 2021.

Other than some minor changes on 11 March by Jaredscribe to fiddle with bullets, and an attempted small addition to the first bullet that didn't fly, this text has remained stable for years (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2 March 2022).

This changed on 23:40, 18 March 2022 when IP 2601:647:5800:1a1f:a020:46e3:8f5e:7b7 (talk · contribs) made this edit, substantially altering the wording first sentence of bullet 1, and dropping the second sentence entirely. I reverted to the stable version at 06:31, 19 March, but User:Butwhatdoiknow re-reverted back (at 16:09, 19 March) to the IP version. I disagree with the IP's change to this long-stable text in the #Discuss section but approve of the attempt per WP:BOLD; however I strenuously object to the reversion of my compliant undo without any discussion here on the Talk page.

The stable version should be reinstated, while the IP bold change is discussed. Mathglot (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to have a discussion about the propriety of my revert. But let's first focus on the proposed change. Do you have any substantive objection to the content or quality of the "substantial alteration of the wording"? Or is your sole objection that it was made without prior discussion?

If the former, provide the reason and I'll be happy revert myself.

If the latter, please note that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Bold says (italics in original; bold added):

Although most editors find prior discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it either in your edit summary or on the talk page.

See also Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Reverting_with_"discuss_first"_without_discussing. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the IP editor in question who made the bold edit. It was made in order to combine the two sentences into one and make the wording less confusing. @Mathglot: If you have a specific objection to the edit, please explain. Reverting an edit just because it substantially changes existing text is not a good reason to revert. Of course, your revert, User:Butwhatdoiknow's re-revert, and this discussion have caused us to go through the full BRD cycle (on the BRD talk page). The question is now what consensus will be reached. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3174:FFBE:B243:42B5 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've added a "Welcome" message to your 2601:...42B5 address, but as your address appears to be highly dynamic, you might not see it there unless you go looking for it. It includes information about how to register for a free account, which has numerous advantages, not least of which is that we know where to leave you a message or ping you with {{tb}} to a discussion. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia. (Note: It's fairly O/T for me to address these comments to you here per WP:TALK, but since I doubt you'll find them otherwise, hopefully that will be overlooked in the interest of welcoming you, and in the interest of better communication with you generally.)

The text was clearer before, and the distribution via an and combining "edit" and "revert" is simply less clear. I wish I could remember what the rhetorical device is called when you have two sentences with highly parallel structure that could easily be merged, but aren't; e.g., "It rained hard. It rained all day." but I can't. This type of structure has its pros and its cons, but I think the advantages strongly outweigh the disadvantages in this case, and the original was much clearer than the modified version, and the parallel structure really calls out the fact there are two assertions here, both equally important, that seem to lose some clarity, some force, some punch, in your version. But let's see what others have to say. Mathglot (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. My edit probably made the text less clear. However, I think the previous text is still a bit wordy, and could be combined into a sentence. Maybe, "Do not re-revert after your preferred version is reverted,"? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B47F:771D:3F6E:5A29 (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Epistrophe? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B47F:771D:3F6E:5A29 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the flip side; but it led me to anaphora (rhetoric), and I think maybe that's the one I was looking for. Thanks! Still prefer the anaphoric version, but your proposal deserves a better response than that, but it's late here. Plus, hoping for other editors to chime in as well. Mathglot (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I guess the old version had some force to it, but I think there might be a simpler way to say the point while still keeping some force. I agree that other editors would be helpful here. @Juliancolton, HJ Mitchell, and Diannaa: Pinging experienced copy-editors to help. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B47F:771D:3F6E:5A29 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors now chiming in. See the RFC below. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Mathglot. Many editors are deleting large amounts of text for the sake of "simplicity", but a certain amount of meaning gets lost for this cause. Huggums537 (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on wording of bullet point in Discuss section[edit]

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Survey[edit]

• 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)[reply]
• Option C. Per discussion below. ––FormalDude talk 08:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C, without prejudice towards option D, per above, see comment in discussion. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Option C per discussion below. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 23:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  (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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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]

  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)[reply]

  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]

Clarity over concision[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, you've convinced me! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Mathglot, how does one have a "violation" of an explicitly optional process? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  Jaredscribe, Where does discuss in BRD come in with your version? Are you arguing for B₁RB₂RB₃R...B_nR 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  ...and if they don't discuss, then they're not following BRD, which is okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  An interesting idea, but one that might be too far-fielded from the current discussion. If you want to discuss it, maybe go to WP:VPI or the new essay's talk page. This RFC is already sprawling into tenuously connected issues. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B45D:61AC:E323:660D (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. It's routine/ fine to be bold on the initial edit
2. It's routine/fine to revert such a bold initial edit
3. 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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  No, leave it. Removing it when people have already voted would be confusing, and one might wonder why we have an A and a C and no B. Mathglot (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]