Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

BRD and/Vs #Responding to RfC

• Second point in Responding to an RfC states

Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved.

• No doubt above mentioned point and good faith WP:BRD are both are important in their own place.

1) My present understanding is above point suspends BRD un til positive consensus during RfC process. (Correct me if any alterations needed in the understanding)

2) If my above understanding is correct then, BRD should get into suspension from time of: a) any user expresses intention of RfC b) Since any user starts formal Pre-RfC discussion or starts discussing RfC question C) from when formal RfC begins d) If any other option then pl. discuss?

3) I suppose, presently WP:BRD and Responding to an RfC do not find mention of each other in respective pages. Should that find a mention? If yes, then also do suggest sentence for the same if possible.

Purpose of this exercise is more clarity and lesser confusion for users novice to RfC processes and less inadvertent instances of friction among users. ( Bookku, talk) 07:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bookku, if an RFC is involved, you're not doing BRD (which is fine. BRD is never mandatory and often not the right approach). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Just for record: I know you would not have used pronoun "you're" for me personally, but disclaimer for the sake others, personally usually I follow proper WP:DR procedures with positive constructive consensus building. I raised this question since I do help in role of discussion facilitation on some talk pages intermittently. Bookku (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Also relevant to this conversation is Wikipedia:QUO. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

QUO is another page that is:

• technically optional,
• full of good advice, and
• the person citing it (especially if they claim you've "violated" it) likely hasn't read it/doesn't remember what it actually says.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes that seems good essay. In brief, the spirit of WP:QUO would mean, except for some exceptions, take only positive consensus into account once discussion begins. Bookku (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

QUO means "don't get into an edit war during a discussion." I'm not seeing it suggesting anything about what kinds of consensus to "take into account" in the discussion itself. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I am reading QUO along with Responding to an RfC (and discussing just initial stages of discussion): "..Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. ..". If a discussion is non-RfC or Pre-RfC and if everyone involved is agreeing on part of issues positively, that much consensus can be updated in the article. That's my understanding, correct me as necessary. Bookku (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not know enough about Responding to RfC to have an opinion regarding how the two should best be read together. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't mess with disputed content while dispute resolution is underway, if its a quo situation, the discussion closer will decide that as well. This won't stop people trying to insert their own preferred version into the thing regardless but that's bad practice once dispute resolution is underway. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Responding to an RfC is only applicable during the RFC itself, and it is not a prohibition against all edits. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful does not mean that you can't make edits that people will (probably) think are actually helpful.

If a pre-RFC discussion (or any other discussion) resolves the problems without needing an RFC, then that's great news. If there is a dispute, and you all come up with a solution that the currently involved editors find basically satisfactory, then someone should consider awarding {{subst:Diplomacy Barnstar|1=message ~~~~}} to the editors who helped find that compromise/solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"Tempo" use case example

Maybe I'm dense, or the coffee just hasn't kicked in yet. In the Use cases section, one of the instances where BRD generally fails is when you lose tempo. The linked article describes chess moves with specific examples of what constitutes gaining or losing tempo. There's obviously a metaphorical meaning here but it's not at all clear to me what it is and the chess article was no help. Is this just saying, "BRD doesn't work when you make a move that's not advantageous"? Or when you fail to take an alternative, more straightforward approach that would have had the same result? I assume there's a precise intended meaning but I'm at a loss. I can't be the only one. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Myceteae, I think what it means is that BRD doesn't work if you stop editing the article. The goal is BRD, and then BRD again, not BRDDDDDDDDDDDDD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Huh. I suppose I could get there from when a player takes one more move than necessary, the player is said to "lose a tempo" but I'm not certain and it's not straightforward. If that's what is meant, why not just say "when the discussion goes on too long or reaches another stalemate"? This is a somewhat subjective standard but at least the intended meaning is more clear. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think your suggestion would be an improvement to the page. Would you please make that change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I have made the change.[1] @WhatamIdoing thanks for the encouragement. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Bold, revert, ignore

A similar case to #Bold, revert, monologue – could you please add more information about best practices of what should be done when in a talk page discussion the one reverting editor just maintains the position without addressing points made (and obviously no consensus between the two users)? E.g. a user wants to add new content to an article but a new user doesn't like it, makes a few responses on the talk page, and ignores the arguments by the user adding the information. I don't think it would be good if users can block out any content they don't like by just keep opposing it on the talk page nor would it be good to ask for more editors to get involved for every little contested edit. This page seems to assume that consensus is reached on the talk page so more guidance of what should or could be done in other cases would be helpful. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective, if there are only two editors involved in the discussion so far, then try requesting a Wikipedia:Third opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

propose to add footnote on "Enforced BRD"

a. ^ With the exception of "enforced BRD" imposed on specific pages in topic areas designated as contentious by the Arbitration Committee.

Though this essay "(more info)" seems to be the only thing that actually tries to explain it? Skullers (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think instead that they ought to rename "enforced BRD" to a unique name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRP. Selfstudier (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Enforced BRD is not the same as the Consensus required provision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly no. Pretty sure we don't need both tho. Selfstudier (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The first was created to address deficiencies in the second, particular for lower-traffic pages. I don't know if anyone has ever proposed merging them, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)