WikiQueer:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle



The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a proactive method for reaching consensus on any wiki with revision control. It can be useful for identifying objections to edits, breaking deadlocks, keeping discussion moving forward. Note that this process must be used with care and diplomacy; some editors will see it as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. This method can be particularly useful when other dispute resolution for a particular wiki is not present, or has currently failed.

Overview

 * 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.


 * 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.)
 * 2) Wait until someone reverts your edit.  You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
 * 3) Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of WikiQueer dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.

Apply the compromise by editing the page, after which the cycle repeats. When people start regularly making non-revert edits again, you are done.

What BRD is, and is not
BRD is most useful for pages where seeking consensus would be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other editors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page, though there are other suitable methods. When editing articles:


 * BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.


 * BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring:  instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.


 * BRD is not an excuse for reverting 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 editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus. BRD is a way for editors who have a good grasp of a subject to more rapidly engage discussion and make changes that are probably good in articles where a "discuss first" method of consensus is unlikely to lead to quick progress.

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. You can also try using it in less volatile situations, but take care when doing so. Some have even taken to simply declaring their intent by adding the shortcut " WQ:BRD " at the front of their edit summary. This seems to help keep people from taking as much offense at proposed changes. In a way, you're actively provoking another person with an edit they may (strongly) disagree on, so you're going to need to use all your tact to explain what you're aiming to achieve.

Cases for use
When other methods have failed, when cooperation has broken down, when it is not clear that a talk page request for discussion will generate any significant response, or when no editor is willing to make changes that might be perceived as controversial: These cases are when BRD is most effective. Examples of these include cases where:
 * Two factions are engaged in an edit war
 * Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached
 * Active discussion is not producing results
 * Your view differs significantly from a vocal majority on an emotionally loaded subject
 * Local consensus is currently opposed to making any changes whatsoever (when pages are frozen, "policy", or high-profile)

In general, BRD will fail if:
 * There is a (large) preexisting consensus in the general community against the specific change you'd like to make
 * The page is protected. (get the page unprotected)
 * The page is subject to some other access control. (get the control lifted)
 * You lose tempo
 * A single editor is reverting changes because they believe they have ownership of the article
 * Individuals who are disinterested revert bold changes.

BRD will be especially successful where...:
 * ... local consensus differs from global consensus, and your goal is to apply global consensus
 * ... people haven't really thought things through yet.
 * ... people are only discussing policy, and are not applying reasoning or trying to negotiate consensus (see above under "haven't thought things through")
 * In short: boldly negotiating where no-one has negotiated before.

Tactics
Using BRD should draw a response from someone who has the page on their watchlist.

After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version, you can proceed toward consensus with that one person. Each pass through the cycle finds a new person to work with, eventually forming consensus with all of the interested parties. As such, BRD is in general not an end unto itself - it moves the process past a blockage, and helps get people get back to cooperative editing. After a while, people will begin to refrain from outright reversion, and edits will start to flow more naturally.

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

Bold

 * Stay focused: Make only the changes you absolutely need to. Bold doesn't have to be big, and keeping your edit focused is more likely to yield results than making an over-reaching change.
 * Try to make the edit and its explanation simultaneous: Many people will first make an edit, and then explain it on the talk page. Somehow there will always be some fast-off-the-hip reverter who manages to revert you right in the middle, before you have time to complete your explanation. To try to prevent this, reverse the order, first edit the talk page, and then make your edit immediately afterward. This way your explanation will already be there at the moment of the expected revert. Don't hesitate between the two actions though, since for some reason people tend to be accused of bad faith if they do that. Best of all, if the page has little activity right now, you might be able to prepare edits to page and talk page summary, and save them simultaneously.
 * Expect strong resistance—even hostility: Deliberately getting people to revert or respond to you feels a bit like disruption. Trying to change things certainly does, even when it's an obvious change for the better! If you do this cycle perfectly, most people will grudgingly accept you.  Do it less than perfectly, and they will certainly be mad at you.  Do it wrong, and they will hate your guts.

Revert

 * Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible.
 * In the edit summary of your revert, include a link to WQ:BRD to inform an inexperienced editor of the method, or just ask that they offer their edit for discussion on the talk page. People feel more cooperative if you let them know that you're willing to hear them make a case for their change. Otherwise, a revert can seem brusque.
 * A revert of your edit may mean your edit broke an established consensus: Move to the next stage, "Discuss".
 * Revert-wars do not help build consensus: Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, or to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, and/or get them to make an edit themselves.
 * If people start making non-revert changes again, you are done: The normal editing cycle has been restored.

Discuss

 * 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.
 * There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. There is, consequently, no requirement  that "the consensus version" or "the long-standing version" or any other version of the page be visible during the discussions.  If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version.  If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version.
 * Do not accept "Policy", "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis.  You are disagreeing, that is okay. Do not back off immediately, BUT:
 * Listen very carefully: You are trying to get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit. 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."  On the other hand, you should completely understand the implications when someone explains to you, "The flurbeling you suggest caused very bad barbelism.  That's why we decided to always floop before we fleep instead."
 * 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 edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.

Bold (again)

 * Let them 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 they accept, the change history will clearly show they signed off on the change, and they will also have control over the precise wording (keeping you from accidentally applying a change different from the one they expected). Also, on the English WikiQueer and other projects with similar policies, this 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 edit. 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 may find you have reached a reasonable compromise and can stop.

Edit warring

 * Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors.
 *  However, don't get stuck on the discussion It isn't BRDDDDDD either. Try to move the discussion towards making a new Bold edit as quickly as possible, preferably within 24 hours or, better yet, considerably less time than that. You want to have an iterative cycle going on the page itself where people "try this" or "try that" and just try to see what sticks best.