Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages.

This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Making bold s is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change.

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of seeking consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some ors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.

Bold ing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All ors are welcome to make positive contributions. It's how new information is added to Wikipedia. When in doubt, ! Either the will get the attention of interested ors, or you will simply improve the page. Either is a good outcome.

Revert an if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see.)

Discuss your bold with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold , make a different to this part of the page, or engage in back-and-forth reverting. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.

Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of warring.

General overview[]

It is often hard to find out who to talk with to gain consensus. By making a bold you attract the attention of people who are genuinely interested in a page, and have it on their watchlist. You can then discuss your issues with them. Compare Wikipedia:Consensus.

When to use: While ing a particular page that many ors are discussing with little to no progress being made, or when an or's concerns are not addressed on the talk page after a reasonable amount of effort.
How to proceed: Discover a Very Interested Person (VIP), and reach a compromise or consensus with that person, in one-on-one discussion.

Be bold, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information.
Wait until someone reverts your . You have now discovered your first VIP.
Discuss the changes you would like to make with this VIP, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach an agreement. Apply your agreement. When reverts have stopped, you are done.

Use cases[]

Consensus has gotten stuck. BRD to the rescue!

BRD is most useful for pages where seeking and achieving consensus in advance of the bold could be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other ors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page, though there are other suitable methods. BRD helps ors who have a good grasp of a subject to rapidly engage discussion.

Examples cases for use include where:

Two factions are engaged in an war and a bold is made as a compromise or middle ground.
Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached.
Active discussion is not producing results.
Your view differs significantly from a rough consensus on an emotionally loaded subject.
Local consensus is currently opposed to making any changes whatsoever (when pages are frozen, "policy", or high-profile)

BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia ors. It may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged.

In general, BRD fails if:

...there is consensus in the community against the specific change you'd like to make.
...there is a dispute on the page, by ors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus.
...the page is protected. (You may request unprotection.)
...the page is subject to some other access control. (Get the control lifted.)
...you lose tempo.
...a single or is reverting changes and exhibiting other forms of ownership attitudes.
...individuals who are disinterested revert bold changes.

BRD is especially successful where:

... people haven't really thought things through yet.
... people are only discussing policy or theory, and are not applying reasoning or trying to negotiate consensus.
... people are talking past each other instead of getting down to brass tacks with concrete proposals.

In short: boldly negotiate where no one has negotiated before.

What BRD is not[]

Shortcut

WP:BRD-NOT

If you don't want to talk about it...

BRD is an optional process for experienced ors. BRD only works when both bold and reverting ors follow the process.

BRD is not a get-out-of-discussion-free card for the reverter. If you tell someone to follow BRD when you revert their s, then you need to follow BRD yourself, which means joining the discussion and explaining your substantive reasons for rejecting their s.

...then don't tell other ors to follow BRD.

BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious ing.
BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all ors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.
BRD is not mandatory. Neither are ors obliged to start it nor are they obliged to stick to it just because you started it. They may try one of the alternatives given below, or even an alternative not mentioned here.
BRD is not a valid course of action when using advanced permissions. Editors with permissions such as administrator or template or can take actions which few ors are able to revert if they disagree preventing the R step of BRD.

Process[]

Making bold s may sometimes draw a response from an interested or, who may have the article on their watchlist. If no one responds, you have the silent consensus to continue ing. If your is reverted, the BRD cycle has been initiated by the reverting or.

After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging or through discussion on a talk page. While discussing the disputed content, neither ors should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached. Each pass through the cycle may find a new, interested or to work with, or new issue being disputed. If you follow the process as it is intended each time, you should eventually achieve consensus with all parties. As such, BRD is in general not an end unto itself; it moves the process past a blockage, and helps people get back to cooperative ing.

If the BRD process works ideally (sometimes it does not), people will after a time begin to refrain from outright reversion, and s will start to flow more naturally.

For each step in the cycle, here are some points to remember.

Bold[]

Shortcuts

Stay focused: Make only changes you absolutely need to. A bold doesn't have to be a huge , and keeping your focused is more likely to yield results than making an over-reaching change. If a bold might be controversial, consider adding "(revert if inappropriate)" or similar to the summary to alert others.
See what happens next: Stop ing the page long enough to see if anyone objects. Depending on the nature of your change and the traffic on the page, this may take anywhere from mere minutes to more than a week.
Expect resistance—even hostility: Be ready to start a discussion as soon as you notice that anyone has objected. If you want, you can even write your response while you are waiting to see what happens.
Be respectful: Regardless of what others say, keep your composure.

Revert[]

Shortcuts

Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the can be fixed to WP:PRESERVE some of the , and whether you would like to make that bold instead. Partial reversion, WP:PARTR, is better than complete reversion. The other disputant may respond with another bold , or with a refinement on your improvement. The "WP:Bold-refine" process is the ideal collaborative ing cycle. Improving pages through collaborative ing is ideal. However, if you find yourself making reversions or near-reversions, then stop ing and move to the next stage, "Discuss".
Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the . A revert needs to present a path forward, either by expressing a concern with the content of the itself, or pointing to a previous discussion that did.
In the summary of your revert, briefly explain why you reverted and (possibly with a link to WP:BRD) encourage the bold or to start a discussion on the article talk page if they want to learn more about why you reverted. Alternatively, start a discussion yourself on the article talk page about the issue. People feel more cooperative if you let them know that you're willing to listen to their case for the change. Otherwise, a revert can seem brusque.
If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted.
If people start making non-revert changes again, you are done: The normal ing cycle has been restored.

Discuss[]

Shortcuts

If your bold 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.
Adhere to Wikiquette and civility guidelines: The easiest way to intensify this cycle and make it unbreakable is to be uncivil. Try to lead by example and keep your partner in the same mindset.
Talk with one or at most two partners at once. As long as the discussion is moving forward, do not feel the need to respond to everyone, as this increases the chance of discussion losing focus and going far afield. Stay on point and pick your responses. If discussion dies off, you can always go back and get yourself reverted again to find (or refind) other interested parties.
Carefully consider whether "policy", "consensus", or "procedure" are valid reasons for the revert: These sometimes get overused on consensus-based wikis even though consensus can change. On the other hand, repeatedly rehashing old arguments without new reasoning might strike some ors as being disruptive (see also rehashing). It is OK to disagree with a past consensus, but use reasonable discretion when you want to revisit such issues. If you choose not to back off immediately, it will help if you:
- Listen very carefully: You are trying to get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your . If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time. You should not accept "It's policy, live with it."
- Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.
Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the or's user talk page, or invite the or to the talk page if they insist on using only summaries, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.

Bold (again)[]

Let the other or apply agreed-upon changes. If they don't want to, that's okay, but be sure to offer. The offer alone shows deference and respect. If that or accepts, (1) the history will show who made the change and the other or will have control over the precise wording (keeping you from applying a change different from the one agreed upon). And, (2) such a practice prevents you from falling afoul of the three-revert rule.
Assume this revision will not be the final version. You do not have to get it all done in one . If you can find consensus on some parts, make those changes, and let them settle. This will give everyone a new point to build from. Having completed one successful cycle, you may also find it easier to get traction for further changes, or you may find you have reached a reasonable compromise and can stop.

Edit warring[]

Shortcuts

Do not war. Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block. The objective is to seek consensus, not force one's own will upon other ors. If you encounter several reverts, it is best not to escalate the situation by reverting again. Instead, try to build consensus through seeking additional input. Several methods for this are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
However, don't get stuck on the discussion. Whichever side you happen to be on, try to move the discussion towards consensus by getting pro/con points identified so that a new may be attempted as quickly as possible. Feel free to try a new bold during the discussion if the new reasonably reflects some aspect of the opposing ors' concerns. This approach quickly determines whether the important issues have been resolved; if not, it brings the core sticking points into focus.
- Warning: Repeatedly doing this can easily violate the 3RR policy and get good-faith ors blocked even during a productive ing exchange. Any such s must be clear attempts to try a modified solution that reflects some aspect of the other or's remarks. If you have reached three reverts within a 24-hour period (3RR bright-line rule), do not that content in any manner that reverts any content, in whole or in part, even as little as a single word, for over 24 hours. Doing so just past the 24-hour period could be seen as gaming the system and sanctions may still be applied.

Additional considerations[]

Because of the nature of Wikipedia, a BRD cycle may begin naturally, without either or even realizing it. Once begun, its purpose requires that no reversion be counter-reverted. If this happens, something akin to stalling an aircraft happens. If you're not feeling up to it, it might be best to walk away for a while. Unlike the immediate danger of an aircraft plummeting to the ground, Wikipedia will be here a long while, so you can always come back later. Otherwise, if you have the energy and the time, use the suggestions on this page to "pull out". Then continue working as per consensus.
BRD is a way of letting you focus on one or: You cared enough about the page to try to improve it, someone else cared enough to revert your bold change, and you both cared enough to find a compromise through discussion. This is an excellent collaborative style. But there may be other ors interested in that page, so a third or might revert your compromise, or might revert your next attempt to improve it. If so, that's okay: You can repeat the BRD cycle with that third or. Just start a new discussion, and find a new compromise.

Alternatives[]

Shortcut

WP:BRB

"BOLD, revert, discuss" doesn't work well in all situations. It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a few people, all of whom are interested in making progress. There are many other options, and some may be more suitable for other situations.

Discuss first: Don't be bold with potentially controversial changes; instead, start a discussion on the talk page first. Make no s to the page until you have agreement.
Bold, discuss: You do not need to revert an before the discussion can start. If you see (or make) a bold and you want to talk about it, then you can click on the talk page and start discussing it. You might discover ways to refine it, or you might discover that you're satisfied with the as it is.
Bold, discuss, revert: You make a bold , then open a discussion. The is found to be problematic or lacking, so it is reverted. This sometimes happens when people attempt to make an that has severe flaws or problems that cannot be resolved via other methods. If this cycle happens, it might be best for you to step away from the article, and consider the discussion feedback.
Bold, discuss, bold: You make a bold , then open a discussion. After the discussion, you or others boldly improve the based on the discussion suggestions. This cycle is useful if your is helpful, but needs to be improved, and if feedback would be valuable to improving the .
You , they , you again: Also called WP:Bold-refine, if the other ors are improving your rather than improving a different part of the page. This is successful, collaborative ing. Keep at it.
Bold, revert, bold again: Don't stop ing, and don't discuss. Make a guess about why the reverter disagreed with you, and try a different to see whether that will be accepted. It's often helpful if your next effort is smaller, because that may help you figure out why the other or objected to your change.
Bold, revert, revert: If you genuinely believe the reversion was a mistake you might try speeding things up by reverting the revert, but you should explain why you think the other or made a mistake in a note or summary to reduce the risk of warring. An example of such a mistake is when someone reverts your removal of duplicate material because they didn't realize that the same sentence was on the page twice. Not an example of such a mistake: A revert with a rationale that you disagree with, or that does not make sense to you.
Let it go: Move on to another article. You might be able to improve a hundred articles in the time that it takes you to discuss this one. Why not move on?

Several dispute resolution processes may also be useful to break a deadlock.

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Contents

General overview[]

Use cases[]

What BRD is not[]

Process[]

Bold[]

Revert[]

Discuss[]

Bold (again)[]

Edit warring[]

Additional considerations[]

Alternatives[]

See also[]