Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the discussion

---

Contents 1 Very nice 2 Strongly object to flurbeling! 3 Dispute resolution? 4 removed section 5 Old style guideline 6 Descriptive or Essay

[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. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 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)