Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:19, 5 May 2012

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

Misplaced Pages essays High‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Misplaced Pages 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.Misplaced Pages essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysTemplate:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysWikiProject Misplaced Pages essays 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.

Archives

2005 – 2007 2008 – 2010

How do you discuss with a missing person?

This is my first edit as a registered user, but I've done a few before and one of them is posing a problem: When I, long ago, tried to look up dexterity, I saw that there was no page for it. It did however redirect to Fine motor skill, which while not quite the same thing, is fairly related. It contained nothing of interest however, as it pretty much consisted of nothing more than information about how fine motor skill develops in children/infants, and how to deal with that. While such information would be nice in a page called Fine motor skill in child development or some such thing, or as a little section in a Fine motor skill page, which is otherwise filled with information about fine motor skills, it does not belong where I found it. I also found that I was hardly the only one to think so (As seen in the Talk page).
I checked in later, a couple of times, but still the same.
No changes whatsoever.
So while I hardly thought I could write an informative page about fine motor skill, I decided that I'd be better than nothing. I decided to Be Bold and made an edit. As I didn't know what to add, I simply removed everything that didn't belong on the page (almost all of the contents), and the best of what remained, resulting in a page that was actually about fine motor skills. It didn't contain much, but I hadn't really reduced any relevant information.

To recap: I waited a long time before interfering, I made an edit in accordance with consensus (the opinion of everyone on the talk page) and I tried to put as much thought into it as I could. I was, as far as I can see, completely justified in my edit and followed Misplaced Pages policy.

Then someone came along and reverted my edit, with seemingly no care as to how that impacted the quality of the page. Just considering it to be to extreme I guess? I responded in the talk page ...and tried to revert it back (I have since realised the foolishness in such an action, after reading the relevant Policy pages). What I am supposed to do now is, as far as I've understood it, to discuss this matter with the user in question.
Okay fine.
Just one problem:
She's apparently on holiday. (as of 12:25, 18 July 2010, according to when she stated it on her Talk page)
I've stated my reasons, and have requested her reasons. Both on Talk:Fine_motor_skill and User_talk:Lova_Falk, but there is no response. BOLD, revert, discuss. I was BOLD, I got reverted... months later and the one I'm supposed to discuss with is still absent. What am I supposed to do in such a situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Frustrating, isn't it! I know the feeling. Been there, done that as a newbie. Now that you have a registered username you can be more effective. You don't have to discuss with "that" person, but with anyone watchlisting the article. Start the discussion again (with a new heading) on the talk page and see where it goes. I can see why your large deletion was reverted. As a newbie you didn't realize that that's considered vandalism. The existing content was likely the result of lots of people's hard work. Major changes, and ANY controversial change, must be discussed and created through consensus. Make small changes. Work forward systematically and discuss each change as necessary. Never edit war. Be patient because the article isn't going away and all content is saved in the history. It's never really "gone" and can be referenced and even recovered if necessary. You will usually have more success if you build rather than delete. I wish you success in improving the article. Note that "improvement" will be as determined by the combined efforts and ideas of what others consider "improvement". You'll all have to work together and the end result may well be somewhat dissatisfying to many editors, but's sometimes a sign that the article is getting close to NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that someone else would pay attention, any at all, to the page. Trust me, no one does. Also, as to your assertion that my original edit was vandalism... Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've looked around on the policy pages about that and as far as I can see, it doesn't qualify as vandalism. It didn't go against any other policies either, as far as I can tell. It was done quite in accordance to policy (and consensus). I don't see how adding is actually any different from reducing, other than how it is perceived (due to flawed instincts) ...which affects how well it gets accepted, if not how well it should be accepted (it's annoying how what should be, so often differs from what is). "discuss each change as necessary" you say? I explained my edit and further clarified after the revert (as I've mentioned above).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

...oh and why do you try to console me by saying that the previous contents is still there in the history? Sure, you can't be expected to know that I am already well aware of that fact, but... I didn't add anything. There is nothing I would want/need to recover, from the history.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Nothing has happened, and User:Lova Falk still seems to be on holiday, even though she has made a few edits since.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone answer the question I asked here? Brangifer's attempt at an answer did not explain anything to me, and was mostly irrelevant to the issue I faced. I have now, I hope, solved the problem (through a different route, where I'll get no complaints of removing content), but I would like to know an answer to the question, for future reference.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't get an answer for a reasonable amount of time, I would say you can revert again. If you are reverted again without any discussion, I'd suggest WP:DR. If the other side fails to participate and just keeps reverting, then you can ask for administrator intervention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems overly complicated

It really seems like you guys are making BRD much more complicated than necessary. This is a wiki, so of course people are going to make edits. If someone doesn't like your edit, they can revert. And if they revert, then that means there is not consensus, telling you that you need to discuss the topic before doing anything else.

It's pretty much common sense, not some weird nefarious way to fish out the owners of the article. There's no reason for it to just be some technique to get people to discuss things. Just use it as a natural extension of WP:BOLD and WP:3RR.

It's closer to just saying "Don't just revert a revert." If you are reverted, that means somebody has a problem with your edit, which means you don't have consensus. The only way you are going to get consensus is to discuss.

I think it's this stuff about trying to make people talk to you that makes this come off as offensive. — trlkly 14:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You can discuss until hell freezes over. But when you finally do edit (on return from your skiing holidays in the newly opened hell resort), you may discover that some previously silent person disagrees with you and reverts you. Oops.

Alternately, during discussion, you can make an edit, and the other person goes "Oh, yeah, actually that's actually not too bad", and doesn't bother reverting.

In the end, the first, last, best, worst, only and final arbiter of consensus on a normal wiki-page is whether an edit sticks or not.

Since wikipedia is a wiki, your mission (should you choose to accept it) at all times is to make (productive, good faith) edits; as many as you can. Discussion is not your objective per-se.

I'm not saying that discussion isn't important at times! It's important to talk with people so that everyone is on the same wavelength. But wikipedia is not a discussion forum or social network. At the end of the day, we're here to edit and build an encyclopedia.

Pretty much every statement you make *anywhere* is supposed to (eventually) lead to a productive edit (even if it takes all day, or longer, to get there), and to lead back to regular editing with mutual trust in general (aka. no more reverts).

People who revert others for no reason are a hindrance to this process.

In general: To make consensus work, you have to provide a reason for everything you do). People taking actions without explaining themselves are demonstrably acting in bad faith.

You can exploit this fact to get reverters to talk with you, and thus get the process back on track.

TL;DR:

1. Discuss, Discuss, Discuss is not productive. Don't do that!
2. Bold, Bold, Bold is productive. Do that!
3. In Bold, Revert, Discuss; Discuss doesn't mean Discuss the topic, your feelings, or the unseasonably cool weather in hell this year. It means: hold a focused discussion on how to get back to being Bold! (and conclude that discussion as quickly as practical)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is deletion privileged over addition?

According to this article, deletion is privileged over addition. When an editor adds material, if any other editor deletes it, the advice of the article is that you must consider that other editor a "Most Interested Person" and at this point you should stop editing (i.e., let the deletion stand) until a consensus is reached.

Is this in fact the desired operation procedure of Misplaced Pages? That material that has been deleted once should not be reposted? --this seems to be the way at least one editor is interpreting the BRD policy (i.e., ).

The article states "This method can be particularly useful when other dispute resolution for a particular wiki is not present, or has currently failed." This is hard to interpret; in what way can one say that "dispute resolution is not present or has currently failed" when there has not yet been a start to dispute resolution; it is still at the point of a single revert by a single editor.

I would have thought that the correct editing technique would be to put the material back and add a section on the discussion page to explain why the material should be included? No? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. ;-) Then see who responds and why! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Resolve a dispute, and a wikipedian is happy for a day. Teach a wikipedian to resolve disputes, and they make everyone around them happy for the rest of their wiki-days.

Can a single revert make an editor part of an edit war and sanctionable for edit warring?

I thought that making a single revert to an article is always allowed, per WP:BRD. Was I wrong? Please see the discussion here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I was under the impression that WP:3RR still applied. <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Upgrade to Guideline

I think it's high time this essay was upgraded to the status of Guideline, as almost everyone agress with it, and it is widely referenced. Thoughts, objections? LK (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Given this text from the opening of the essay: "BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure," is it desirable to make this a guideline?

Is there any documentation showing that the BRD guideline is useful? 128.156.10.80 (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Should the reverter be the one to fix up what's wrong when the revertee does not want to act?

See Talk:GMA Network, Inc.#Misplaced Pages is not a directory, explain why please.... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the day we're here to edit. Give 'em 24 hours (they might be in an opposite time zone or so, after all!), else proceed and edit. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does BRD work?

The BRD policy, as written, does seem to be phrased as a zero-revert rule: if you make an edit and somebody reverts your work, BRD says you can't restore your edit. At a minimum, I think this would better rephrased as a statement that the BRD process is initiated with the discussion post: if the other editor reverts your work and posts to the talk page, BRD has been started; if the other editor reverts your edit without starting a discussion, and you disagree with the reversion, then you should revert the edit and start a discussion.

I notice that an earlier edit that added "citation needed" to parts of the article saying how effective BRD is... was reverted. ARE there some examples showing cases where the BRD process actually worked? (And, is there actually a policy saying that articles that are named "Misplaced Pages: xx" don't benefit from citations?)

BRD, unfortunately, will fail if the other editor involved is not interested in discussion. The BRD flow chart shows "find a reasonable compromise" as the step following "Discuss," but obviously this does not happen if the editor who reverted fails to respond to the discussion. BRD also fails if the other editor responds, but is unwilling to compromise. In short, BRD can't find a compromise if none is available. NumberC35 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing really works at Misplaced Pages (every noticeboard and every rule is abused). However, the encyclopedia exists. BRD is an excellent essay and part of the WP:RETAIN and WP:BURDEN family: if someone wants to make a change, they need to be prepared to explain why. It is not up to other editors to first justify why material should be removed (although they should have done that to a limited extent in their edit summary on removal of the contested material).

I said BRD is an excellent essay. However, and not relevant to this discussion, I will mention that the essay is far too mysterious for an editor referred to WP:BRD for the 99% primary usage case, namely that someone adding contested material needs to justify it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that BRD is an excellent essay. It not very useful in practice, and the essay is a compilation of completely unsubstantiated assertions. There is no evidence that it actually does work, and it is not even clear how BRP is supposed to work. The essay basically says that when somebody reverts an edit, they're right and you're wrong.

The essay might work if all the editors on Misplaced Pages were reasonable... but if that were the case, the essay would not be needed. If the editor doing the reverting is not reasonable, the BRP process fails.

NumberC35 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading it again, I'm wondering whether this essay has any significant content at all. The "BRD" cycle consists of three parts. The first is Bold. On examination, "bold" part states: "make an edit." Given that this is advice for editors, yes, that's what editors do, make edits. This advice is hardly needed. The second part is "Revert." That's not under your control. Somebody else reverts your edit, or doesn't; either way, it's not advice for what you should do. Third part is "Discuss." The specific instructions here are "stop editing the article and discuss it on the talk page." Is there any content to the essay other than this?

I would say we could delete the entire text of the article except for the single sentence "You should be bold in editing, yes, but if anybody reverts your additions for any reason (or for no reason), you should stop editing the article immediately and move all your future discussion to the talk page." That would shorten the article considerably, but not change the content significantly.

On the other hand, I've wasted enough time reading and commenting on this, and I've expressed my opinion enough. So maybe I'll take the article's advice, and exit. Fix it, or don't fix it, but in either case please stop telling yourself "BRD is an excellent essay." No, it's not.

NumberC35 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have energy to contemplate this in detail now, but I think you are correct. Some of the current essay could be an additional section because the idea that if there is a stalemate in some long discussion, then a bold edit might cut through and demonstrate a way to proceed is valid (sometimes!). When I said "excellent", I meant the concept—I tried to indicate that the essay is incomprehensible for the 99% usage case. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Next to WP:POINT, WP:BRD is the most mis-cited page in the wikipedia: namespace. :-P

As with WP:POINT, it is often mis-cited to mean the opposite of what it actually says.

What makes a wiki -you know- a wiki, is that people make should be making edits to a wiki-page. All your activity should be aimed at doing just that. If someone quotes BRD and says "and now you must discuss until the heat death of the universe", they just blew it in a HUGE way <phew>!

Instead, what BRD describes is a way to find out who is doing that, so that you can give them a big telling off -or better yet- a big hug (whatever works) , so that you can get back to actually doing what we're all actually here for, which is to edit. :-)

And of course BRD and Consensus work, they've been working for a very long time. O:-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC) So it's a bit naughty: "Which @#*#* has been randomly reverting all the time!?" ... well, why not make an edit and find out? ;-) A lot of the old tricks are a bit naughty. O:-)

Is there any reason why this page shouldn't just be merged into WP:Be bold? --Kotniski (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh? I can't rightly fathom why you would think that that could be possible. It's a supplement to Misplaced Pages:Consensus. The procedure described here can be used to try to salvage the consensus process, in cases where it gets stuck. It does apply concepts from WP:BOLD for the first step. It then applies Misplaced Pages:Consensus, WP:WIARM, WP:1RR, and WP:TALK, among others, for the rest of the steps (which are all just as important). Shall we merge the lot then? :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh shoot, maybe you have a point, people have been watering things down a lot. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge the lot? Possibly a good idea. All these pages (and doubtless others) tend to cover a lot of the the same ground, and end up making things look a lot more complicated than they are. --Kotniski (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We sort of did that with WP:SR->WP:TRI->WP:5P. That didn't quite work out the way we wanted either. (for one, the originals are still out there <sigh>) <scratches head> Go ahead and create a page where you merge the lot, if you like, I'll definitely help edit. We'll have to keep the originals around for hysterichistorical reasons though, mind you. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"The procedure described here can be used to try to salvage the consensus process, in cases where it gets stuck." Does it? Is there any evidence that this procedure ever salvages the consensus process, or even "tries" to salvage the consensus process? Can anybody cite an example? How exactly would it do that, anyway--in a case where editors are not coming to consensus, how exactly does BRD change this? 128.156.10.80 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can systematically find every M.I.P. . You then build a partial consensus with 1, then 2 , then 3, then 4... M.I.P.s until you have exhaustively discussed and reached consensus with all of them.

There may be other methods that systematically and exhaustively find everyone who you need to talk to, and reaches consensus with them all, but I haven't used them. :-)

This process generally happens this way anyway, you're not going to be able to actually modify a page if there's still an M.I.P. out there reverting you anyway ;-)

Being conscious of what needs to be done to ensure that everyone is happy just happens to speed things up a LOT.

For instance, you won't spend weeks going over commas and dotting the I with one person upfront, when you are aware that your entire plan might still change due to having to reach consensus with a number of others. Also, you don't feel as frustrated when your carefully negotiated consensus does get reverted by some random 3rd party you've never met before, because you're already expecting that to happen during the process. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But this is supposed to apply in a situation where people are already discussing anyway. So you can already see who's interested (you don't need a bold edit to find that out); and in any case, I don't see how you can turn an ongoing multi-participant discussion into a series of private conversations each between you and one other person. Unless the edit you want to make is unrelated to the subject of the ongoing discussion, or reflects the clear result of the discussion (in which case it's not "bold" anyway), or is a well-crafted compromise that might just satisfy everyone, I don't think it's going to be helpful.--Kotniski (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well they'll either have been discussing for way too long, or they're all reverting newcomers (or both). Neither of these situations are conducive to the writing of an encyclopedia (after all, there's not much writing going on!). The people involved in the discussion are not necessarily M.I.Ps. You should only discuss with people interested in editing or reverting. Local color is welcome, but not relevant to the writing of the encyclopedia. :-P

If you edit once, (obviously attempting an edit as close as possible to the current consensus/compromise, why try for anything less?), there's going to be only one person who reverts you first (or no-one reverts you, in which case you're done ;-)) . You now have 1 person to talk with of whom you are certain that they are interested in your edit. You can then meet their remaining concerns first. When one next makes an edit, it will be someone else who reverts, etc... until people finally do stop reverting, and everyone makes bold edits again.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Why not meet everyone's concerns all at once? Well, that's very very very hard. If you just take it 1 step at a time, you will get there in the end. It might be counter-intuitive, but since you're working systematically, you'll probably be done sooner, as well

I'm not entirely sure this would work quite so idyllically. Once you've met everyone else's concerns (assuming that's somehow possible, which it often isn't, given that the concerns in situations like this tend to contradict), you might find you've made an edit quite different from the one you wanted to make in the first place - and one that you might not even agree with. And if you only agree to talk to people who are prepared to revert you, then it ends up being the most belligerent editors that have the greatest input in the final decision - and experience often shows that those who are keenest to revert are those are least blessed with wisdom. --Kotniski (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Idyllic. Heh. Interesting values of idyllic you have there.  :-P

• When there are contradictory concerns, then usually the obvious approach is to take The Third Option(tm). So far there has always been a third option (<knock on wood>)
• Yes the edit will be quite different from the one you intended in the first place, but that's normal on WP. You are supposed to make an edit you can live with though (don't forget to think of your own position too!).
• There is no final decision yet. There was belligerence, which is why you got called in in the first place, perhaps. Your objective was to handle the most belligerent folks so that we can get back to normal editing. (At which point the less belligerent editors get a chance too.)
• I plead the 5th on my opinions of those who are keen to revert; I still use this method occasionally. O:-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that BRD works VERY well if you take it as what it is....a non-specific statement which names and urges and legitimizes that sequence/process/concept. But if you take it to be more than that (e.g. try to read a detailed rule into it) you have a mess. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

We call these kinds of things "Patterns" (more specifically: Community Patterns in this case). At which point we come around a (very large) full circle, because of course the world's first wiki was created to assist in the documentation of patterns, by one Ward Cunningham. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC) (If we ever reboot wikipedia, my first move would be to abolish all rules, and make everything patterns; as it's a much more powerful and useful concept, especially when dealing with wikis :-P)

Recent changes

• Diff of changes, which includes a whole lot of edits spanning the past 3 days.
• Version before changes

I looked at this page this morning to find it noticeably different than what I remembered. It seems someone I'm in a dispute with has made some substantial changes. I'm wondering how much consensus there is for it.

The editor making these changes, User:Amadscientist, has been engaged in a heated dispute with myself and another editor at Talk:Occupy Wall Street for about 3 weeks now, in which multiple reverts have been an issue. He's used the phrase "BRD isn't policy" (or some variation thereof) pretty prolifically in response to it. You can see some of his thoughts on BRD and edit warring here: Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 28#Goals section removals; and a resulting proposal he made here: Misplaced Pages:VPP#WP:BRD issues (which got no responses).

There are several aspects of the new version that now seem unclear to me, and I'm wondering if the best person to be making substantial changes here is someone who's currently in a conflict regarding it. This may not be a policy, but it is an oft-applied resource. Equazcion 11:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching, not super closely, but I've not yet felt an urge to revert. I am however starting to question the terminology. BOLD is good, but not really in every cycle. And reverts should be avoided where possible, not used in every cycle. I'm thinking change Bold to Edit, and diminish Revert.

Thanks for discussing SmokeyJoe. Interesting comments. Could you elaborate? Thanks! Any changes I made that don't reflect the spirit of Misplaced Pages or the BRD cycle should be discussed if I errored in some way. I have been in a dispute of course, but not about BRD. I am in no way edit warring as he seems to stating as that was between him and another editor also a part of the dispute he mentions. You can see my thoughts on BRD by looking at my edit summaries and ny changes and contributions here. I don't disrespect it...I disrespect the use of it as a magic sword to defeat the "evil disrupters of "Truth""...or in other words...when it is shoved down the throats of editors as an absolute, do or be blocked cycle. It is not. I understand the cycle, its intent and meaning, its usefulness and its origins. It was meant originaly to be in reference to all wikis and is a simple essay from what I see in history. I can not locate anything that shows that BRD is a supplment to any policy. It was badly written with multiple problems and mistakes and had an odd and mean spirited tone that has been taken too far in many instances for many years. I have stayed away from the essay but I am a contributor now and watch this page like a hawk. I hope to collaborate on improving it and other possiblities. Hope you like what I have done and anything you really think is just absolutely wrong I extend the trust and good faith of and for you to make what changes or corrections you feel fit. Should I take issue or dispute anything I will not edit war and will discuss or make a bold edit without reverting your contribution before discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Changing "Bold, Revert, Discuss" to "Edit and Discuss" with mention about what reverting is and how it effects editing would be a great start!--Amadscientist (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No that would not be useful at all. The usefulness of BRD is that it basically says - if someone reverts your edit: discuss. It is supposed to mean that it is OK to be bold, but any bold edit is liable to be reverted and any reverted edit should be discussed before it is reinstated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a bit too far for most, but...doesn't mean another essay can't be written. They are kinda fun to write actually.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I kinda think the current version is the one with multiple problems though, and it concerns me that someone who's shown derision at being thrashed with BRD in a current dispute (seeing themselves as having been characterized as "evil disrupters of Truth" on the basis of BRD) is now taking it upon himself to change BRD. This smells bad to me. Equazcion 14:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Speak to the edit and not the editor. Just because you say I have shown derision "at being thrashed with BRD" or you give an interpretaion of what I "see myself as" (by the way that was absolutely not my perception of myself LOL!) does not mean any of that is even close to what is going on here. Equaz needs to be far more accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

To me the changes look like a lot of personal thoughts and comments with respect to particular specialized situations. Knowing the back story raises the concern that they are oriented towards a particular dispute. I don't think that any of the additions/changes are "violation" of anything but IMHO they are overall not a good idea. I might "R" in BRD (back to the version before this series of changes) or suggest that someone else do that just to get this to a good starting point for a more thorough discussion of potential changes. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

None of the changes I made have anything to do with "personal thoughts and comments with respect to particular specialized situations". Knowing what backstory? Mine or another editors accusation? There is a village pump discussion where all of this is being discussed. What edit or change do you see as "personal thoughts and comments with respect to particular specialized situations" If there are no violations and just an accusation that there is a dispute that mentions BRD, what does that mean? I can't edit this essay and any edit I make should be scrubbed because an editor has assumed bad faith? What is a good starting point. You mean before i made an edit that does't violate of anything but in your opinion is not a good idea?--Amadscientist (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of that I never said or advocated so I'm not going to respond to things that I never said. But there may be one area where I as unclear which is my first sentence. What I meant is that that there are a whole lot of additions that sound conversational, giving thoughts and advice on particular hypothetical situations, which are overly narrow/specialized/conversational to be included in the wording of the main page. Also some good, succinct wording has been removed. My opinion is that the April 24th version is overall much better than the current version and IMHO we should revert to it as a starting point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement there, for the record (though that should probably be obvious). This was just suggested at ANI as well, FYI. Equazcion 16:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly prefer not engaging in wholesale reversions. I might prefer bits and pieves of the older versions, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Perhaps one of you would start by undoing the changes to whichever single sentence or paragraph you think was the least desirable change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well if nothing else this will be a lesson in what editors see this essay as and how much respect they really have for it. I would hope that you would not choose an up or down vote on a version before and a version after, but DISCUSS the changes and how they can be improved. Seriously. I'm not kidding or trying to prove a point...and the article is an essay hence the "giving thoughts and advice on particular hypothetical situations".--Amadscientist (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest doubt that your edits are a sincere effort to improve it. That is also clear from reading them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If there were good, succinct wording that has been removed make an edit that adapts that portion and see if it is discussed or disputed?--Amadscientist (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The challenges that the changes are a net result of 43 edits by you in a few days. Too many / too fast for anybody to review individually, and huge task for somebody to try to sort out separately. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but just using the diffs to view versions can show exactly what changes were made if that is an issue, but more importantly we can address each issue that there MAY be as they come up if there are objections, but to specific changes. Its as easy as the reverse and its respectful to the edits themselves and doesn't make this a reaction a simple good faith contributions. I am not adverse to changing this. I am not set on a version, just on things I see as needing to be addressed. If they need further refinement or changes, removal etc, why can't we collaborate. Not just me and you but all who see this and anyone who has concerns and wants to work together. It isn't really a challenge, it's just the way wikipedia works. If I am the boldest editor at Misplaced Pages...then we are seriously in trouble. LOL! (that was a joke...don't quote me" ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just giving my opinion and suggestion and thoughts for the discussion. Even my thought behind "I might revert" we just that it might be a better way to sort this out. I have no opinions that are so strong as to try to push through a reversion on, nor to spend a whole days' worth of my wikipedia time on to try to evaluate and possibly debate 43 edits individually. So I'll think I'll just leave my comments as vague suggestions and thank you for your sincere efforts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems ass backwards that you can make a large number of edits to a widely-used essay and then insist that others must contest your edits one-at-a-time. It should be the opposite: You propose your edits gradually so others can evaluate them and the burden of work is shared instead of placed entirely on others. ElKevbo (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not insisting on anything. I am editing and discussing. I am not asking or stating that anything needed to be "contested" but discussed or edited to adapt as needed. What seems backwards is to state what any editor is doing by making edits. All you did was edit war your version of what you want based soley on the assumption that I made "a bunch" of edits on an essay that many use "seems ass backwards". Sure and the argument can be made that an essay that so many people "use" should be allowed to be improved. I dispute your reversion in that you didn't edit, you edit warred, but I accept your reversion as I have to be able to move forward ONE WAY OR ANOTHER even if the ultimate result is back to square one. So, now that Elkevbo has reset back lets go from there.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit war? Really? Have you read the essay you've taken over? The one called "Bold, Revert, Discuss" ? You were bold and made edits, I objected and reverted, and now we should be discussing the issue. But instead you've decided to label my actions an "edit war." And you stand by while one of our colleagues begins an actual edit war by reverting a reversion.

I'm out of here. It's clear that you don't really want to discuss anything now that you've successfully rammed your version of the essay through. If you were interested in discussion, you'd have taken things slower and actually discussed things with others instead when objections were raised. ElKevbo (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A revert is a dramatic but easy thing. That's a disconnect. I think a substantive reason should be required for any revert. "Due to no established consensus" is rhetoric without substance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Process matters but apparently it doesn't matter to you or Amadscientist.

Don't bother responding; I'm removing this essay from my watchlist as those editing it clearly don't even believe in it. ElKevbo (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There's clearly no consensus for these changes. Not sure what the justification for that revert is (back to the changed version). A big alteration to a "big" page generally = big proof of consensus. The pre-change version has it, this doesn't. Equazcion 07:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that ElKevbo feels that way, but I have reviewed the recent changes and I find them all to be improvements. Thankfully, the sections were preserved, making the smaller and combined diffs easy to review. There has been a lot of criticism of this essay on other fora recently, including by Amadscientist, and it was undeniably in a state of neglect. The images of the diagram at WP:Consensus is out-of-date by how many years? Also, the changes, although many edits, were not big changes. They helped clarify the existing intent, and now to my reading help reveal certain flaws. The biggest is that BRD is not a cycle but the first steps in stirring up activity, and is a very poor model for continued editing. I think a lot more change is to come. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

My opinion and suggestion would be to revert to the April 24 version and then deal with proposed changes from there. Saying that somebody has to untangle a blast of 43 edits and deal with individual ones in order to contest the changes is a barrier for entry into the discussion and not correct. North8000 (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to a single change that you disagree with, that you are able to say why you disagree? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested example: OK Looking at the net effect of the 43 edit blitz, the first one that I spotted was DELETION of this succinct core wording:

"BE BOLD and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. Any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort. Your change might involve adding, removing, rearranging, re-writing information."

And REPLACING it with this rambling wording which says the exact opposite of the title and concept of this essay and the accepted BRD concept:

"Sometimes editing a particular page can become complicated. Many different editor discussions are still resulting in little movement within the article, and little to no progress is being made. Discover the Most Interested Persons, and reach a compromise/consensus that each party can live with. The assumption is that Most Interested Persons will be quickest to respond.."

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I see what you mean, although I have reservations about the text you like. I have a problem with the "any edit will do" part. Let me think about it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to rule out any changes, or even to rule out trying changes on a "bold" basis (in BRD). But even BRD implies a practical ability for others to see and think about them, which is not practically possible for most in a rapid sequence of 43 edits. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Undo of revert as unjustified

No. That was intirely innaccurate at BEST and somewhat manipulative at worst. North800 just used a comparison of two different pieces of information.

The first line North showed was the FIRST STEP IN THE CYCLE and the other line was prose from the introduction to it. I will show the original and altered prose with content in both that was altered in bold. The actual line he shows (original):

"1.BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. Any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort. Your change might involve adding, removing, rearranging, re-writing information."

was copy edited to:

1. Be bold, and make a change you currently believe to be the optimal edit. It is wisest to proceed based on your best effort. Your change might involve adding, removing, rearranging or re-writing information. Do not be reckless.

The line of prose he "claims" I changed to "rambling wording" was this:

"Sometimes editing a particular page can become complicated. Many different editor discussions are still resulting in little movement within the article, and little to no progress is being made. Discover the Most Interested Persons, and reach a compromise/consensus that each party can live with. The assumption is that Most Interested Persons will be quickest to respond.."

Which is, in fact the introduction copy edited from this:

• Problem: Editing a particular page has become tricky, too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made.
• How to proceed: Discover the Most Interested Persons, and reach a compromise/consensus with each, one by one.

The assumption is that Most Interested Persons will have a page watchlisted or will quickly discover if a particular page is changed. (end of prose from essay)

North800 failed to make a good argument for his belief that the prose is either rambling or inaccurate. His comparioson was not accurate and could be seens dishonest, but i would say it is simply his inability to see the situation fairly from the outtage he is feeling. I will not doubt his good faith but feel at this time I myself have justified my reasoning to revert the edit made by another editor based on Nort800's comments.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to deal with multple editors so I took out "one by one' but that can easily go back in with some explanation--Amadscientist (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you just said, and the comments about what I wrote seem to bear no relationship to what I actually said. All of that aside, what should happen now is clear. You made changes to a prominent, highly quoted and linked essay and they are disputed. We're at "D" of BRD; you need consensus for any changes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I understood what you said and you are incorret. I do not need consensus to make changes. That IS NOT a policy. Bold edit actualy means that I can make an edit without consensus. Consesus cannot be fabricated and it is not a straight up vote. Consensus is a collaboration and all you did was throw up an argument (anyone will do) and then allow others to agree with or disagree with a version. You have made no argument, proven nothing and are fabricating a consensus that does not exist. Consensus is not us bersus them. It is not mob rule or an occupation. There are editors that are for the changes and editors against BUT edit warring without anything more then excuses that have no basis in reality is edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverted

I've reverted to the pre-changed version. Per North8000, the language that was once concise and meaningful had become odd and rambling. I waited for someone else to revert before getting involved, but now that someone has (and was himself reverted), I've gone ahead and done it. I really feel all these various "copyedits" lowered the quality of this page. It required a cleanup that would've basically been a total revert anyway. Equazcion 14:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I will not edit war, but I have proven above that North800 was innacurate and incorrect. I feel I can undo based on that. See above.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your reversion. You do not boldly change a guideline and then editwar to keep a contested change in. That approach simply doesn't work.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Maunus is right. This whole mess reveals what can happen when too many changes are made in a short period of time, no matter how well-intentioned (and I don't think anyone doubts the good intentions here). It's simply impossible to deal with, so a mass revert is made and one starts over again, but using discussion to guide anymore restoration or changes.

The BRD cycle needs to be followed here. The restoration after the first revert was the beginning of an edit war. That's one of the brilliant things about this guideline - it's the only surefire way to determine when an edit war has started and who started it. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The first revert was an edit war. It changed content for no other reason than to change content. The second revert by SmokeyJoe reverted an unjustified undo of content. BRD is not a sacred cow. It's an essay and editors have the right to edit. You are edit warring by just changing it and furthering the edit war out of confusion of the cycle itself with NO regard or respect to the content, just the outrage of an edit on an open source encyclopedia that everyone can edit. You just don't want the change for various reasons and none of them seem to be about the content just that it was actually boldly edited.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"Undo as edit warring"??? You've GOT to be kidding me. You don't "undo" edit warring. You "undo" to continue the edit war. We selectively apply policy to ourselves it seems. Contested bold edits do not stand. I may be contributing to the edit war now, but so be it. Equazcion 20:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No, not kidding. A single edit can be edit warring, but the intent of the edit as well as if it just goes over 3 reverts in a 24 hr period is just as important. There is no consensus that the page should be reverted to the "old version". There are many people discussing this and that is great, but no argument has been made to establish the changes themselves are in anyway wrong. The one attempt did not use the correct lines of prose to compare as one being a re-write of the other. Probably just got confused with the 43 edits. That is a number of edits. In the time i made those "43edit" I was never reverted. In fact I was helped by one editor that corrected my spelling. I thanked them. The suggestion that people did not have time to object is simply not the case here. And now that there are objections there are no clear objections to anything specific just basicly "Oh no, you d'nt", and a revert. So, in the spirit of collaboration I offer the following. In order to discourage further "edit warring" I propose to work backwards myself on some of the last edits I made and discuss them here with others that may be interested.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus for your changes, and that's where the burden of proof lies. There doesn't need to be "consensus for the revert". BRD has been in its April 24th form more or less for a long time and there is consensus for it. The revert is to the consensus version. Equazcion 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "there is no consensus for my changes" is not an argument unless you're 3 years old and you are not. As I said there was actually a contribution to my edits. That at least shows I was collaborating with another on changes he made to my edits with respect and thanks. You are just being stubburn. We could just let editors "Single edit war" themselves into sanctions I guess. I have made the good faith effort to adress all concerns. There is no consensus for the removal of all content. Equazcion "just no" is edit warring. So, now what? Do you own the article? Are all my contributions to be edited out now as the editor who made the changes Equaz didn't want cause he just said no?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly hy you shouldn't beediting this guideline. When you boldy edit a policy and that edit is contested then the previous version stays untill there is consensus for change. That is the entire point of BRD. You were bold - you ere reverted - now we discuss and arrive at a consensus for how to change to a compromise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Project BRD proposal

If ever there was a project that was a good idea this would be it. We could even attempt to set up a Notice Board, create a basic guideline, a peer review page and encourage collaboration by multiple editors to engage in a meaningful way to improve BRD and other essays on editing behavior, conduct, methods or cycles etc. Basicly BRD incompasses the very basics of editing policy and guidelines as do other methods. The scope could be as wide or narrow as consensus agrees on. Lets improve them, list them and have a place that they can all be collaborated on and spot light in project feature sections on the project page.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Like! BRD is intimately connected with the whole issue of edit warring and should be connected to that page. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit

I am doing a good copy edit to the article. Please help out if you'd like.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I added wikilinks and copyedited the lede and the "note" by adding the term "civil". Perhaps we could use a wikilink to Misplaced Pages:Civility on that?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to my edit summary, "this" to "it" was a bad change since the object of the sentence was care and diplomacy, so "this" would refer to "care and diplomacy" being possibly seen as a challenge; while "it" correctly refers back to BRD. Equazcion 20:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the intent of the statementis that care and diplomacy ARE a challenge to some editors and is NOT refering back to BRD. This is a Lede reference to what is in the essay, but we should clarify both.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed my mind about the reason you shouldn't be editing this page. It's because you're terrible at it. I'm sorry it came to saying that, but you're bad at writing (especially the instructional kind) and your grasp of the English language might even be askew. I'm not sure if that's uncivil but it was either that or keep on dealing with trying to tweak your copyedits so it doesn't look like total reverts with "it really just read better the other way" in the summary. I don't know what else to do here. Equazcion 21:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• High-impact WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays articles
• NA-Class Misplaced Pages essays
• WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays pages