Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:16, 11 October 2012

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consensus page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." -- Jimmy Wales

proposing to clarify that wrongfully disrupting consensus is policy violation

Sometimes, the wrongful behavior of one or more editors may result in consensus being artificially slanted or denied by the wrongful prevention or termination of participation by one or more other editors (such as through wrongful incivility) or by wrongfully stacking or overloading consensus toward one view against another view (such as through wrongful puppetry). Wrongfulness is when a policy or guideline is violated. In order to redress this situation where it exists, it is helpful to have a label that distinguishes this case from those where the consensus is against or for a particular view but not wrongfully so, where there is no consensus because no one offers to contribute to one, or where consensus is ignored, overruled, or irrelevant (for example, article consensus may be irrelevant when posed against guideline consensus). This may be due to misbehavior or to editing, such as editing or refactoring another editor's talk post. This may result from one wrongful action or from a series of acts that taken together constitute a violation, just as each of four edits in a day may be allowed though each is reverted but the four taken as a whole may violate the 3RR limit. This is not to change the policy generally favoring consensus but rather to make an implied point explicit by labeling the particular phenomenon. I propose to add terminology and define it as follows:

A disrupted consensus is a consensus or potential consensus which has been wrongfully disrupted by one or more editors, either directly and explicitly or by behaving or editing so as to result in consensus being disrupted. Disrupting of consensus is wrongful when it is in violation of a policy or guideline. Wrongful disruption may be by a single act or omission that is wrongful or by a set of actions and omissions that is wrongful, so that it is possible that every single act may have been authorized but the set of actions and omissions taken as a whole may be wrongful. Disrupting a consensus or disrupting a potential consensus (i.e., before it may begin) therefore violates this policy. A consensus is not necessarily wrongfully disrupted only because one view is favored over another, there is no consensus, no one makes any effort to start or contribute to a consensus if no one has been even slightly discouraged from doing so, someone draws a conclusion regarding a consensus or lack thereof and acts on that conclusion, or the consensus is ignored, overruled, or irrelevant in accordance with a policy or guideline.

I'll wait a week before editing the Consensus policy to this effect, so editors may comment.

This follows up a discussion begun at this talk page.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC) (Corrected link: 14:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC))

The proposal lacks content. What is "wrongful" in this context? What is "disrupted"? Both terms appear to be defined with circular logic. Wrongful disruption is a disruption that is wrongful? A disruption is something that disrupts? A disruption is wrongful when it's wrongful? That doesn't really help us to define or ameliorate. As written, the proposal should be abandoned. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As I read it, this just says that a decision formed in the presence of bad behavior might not be the decision we would have reached in the absence of bad behavior.

I think it would be far more pointful to address bad behavior directly, via WP:DE or WP:TE or other relevant page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The condition occurs, but I couldn't find out what we call it. We need a term for the condition. So, by describing the condition, we can use that description as the definition of the term. It is sometimes said that something must or can't be done because of consensus when the consensus either doesn't exist or fits this description. To respond to the claim about the so-called consensus, we need a label. There isn't one. The alternative is to write a paragraph each time, and that discourages discussion. Disruptive and tendentious editing are names for the editing, not for the consensus or nonconsensus. By making wrongfulness part of the definition, we exclude a consensus that is legitimate from the problem. As proposed, "isrupting of consensus is wrongful when it is in violation of a policy or guideline", thus wrongfulness would be defined by policies and guidelines, which it is already wrong to violate (the exceptions are already in policies and guidelines). I think wrongfulness as including violations of ArbCom decisions, editor blocks, and so on are already covered by policies and guidelines, so I didn't list those, too. I'm interested in other proposals, of course, but the problem exists and we need to describe it and call it something. That will make it easier to address the misbehavior or bad editing. Please propose. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are using the wrong term. Disrupted is the reason it's bad, not the condition. You describe a situation where a consensus is formed by using subterfuge or some misuse of WP, and it changes the result. A true consensus, without tampering, would have yielded something else. (It has to be said that guidelines are only guidelines and editors are free to ignore them, subject to the limits of consensus.) So isn't this a false consensus, a phony consensus, a tampered consensus? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nick, my point is that we don't actually call this problem "(something bad) consensus". We call this "(something bad) behavior". Screwing up, even if the screwing up happened to adversely affect the determination of consensus, is not a problem covered by the consensus policy. It is a problem covered by the screwing-up policies and guidelines, of which we have several. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nick has a certain point, I think, although perhaps peripheral. There is some value in naming the result of bad behavior, instead of trying to say, "yeah, but if you hadn't messed with the consensus then we'd have a different consensus than this bogus consensus." So, for the purpose of clarity, sure, what is it called when bad behavior corrupts the consensus? My vote is for 'false consensus'. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So, you see, then we can say, "This was a false consensus because of bad behavior B." etc.... --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

False consensus is not perfect but livable.

I edited the proposed text and now it's shorter:

A false consensus results from violating a policy or guideline and may be either false, misleading, or nonexistent because of the violation. It is not a false consensus only because one view is favored over another or the consensus is nonexistent, disagreed with, ignored, overruled, or irrelevant in accordance with policies and guidelines.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (Clarified proposal: 01:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

This is poorly stated. Again, it defines the term with the term (circular and meaningless) and lacks precision about the nature of the problem. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for this... isn't it covered by WP:Consensus can change?... If you think a previous consensus is flawed for some reason, all you need to do is explain what you think the flaw was and request that the issue be reexamined... this will then establish a new, proper consensus (without the flaw). Blueboar (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a new procedure is required or any new text. However, it is good to have a term for this situation where the process was corrupted by deception or some other non-content reason. One aspect that concerns me is the endless complexity, since a claim of false consensus could itself be corrupt and if that led to a restoration of some status quo ante consensus, then the false restoration would have to be vacated, leaving us nowhere. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay; if we call it a defective consensus, rearrange the definitional elements, and clarify, we avoid the apparent circularity and complexity. Any system can be abused, so we rely on good will or the larger community to prevent or restrain abuse, but it's already happened that a consensus (if it was one) was established by abuse of the system and then an editor was told that the consensus was established and excluded from participation in arriving at a new consensus. Thus, the need for a label with a definition and a place for it. I'm not clear how to make the definition more precise without listing all of the possible ways that policies and guidelines can be violated and stating the concept covers it without needing frequent updates. So here's my proposed rewrite:

A defective consensus may be false, misleading, or nonexistent and is caused by violation of a policy or guideline. A consensus is not defective only because one view is favored over another or the consensus is nonexistent, disagreed with, ignored, overruled, or irrelevant in accordance with policies and guidelines.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, isn't a defective consensus one that was arrived at in a way that exploited a corrupted use of the usual consensus procedures? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Corruption would be harder to define for our purposes, being vaguer than violation. Someone could ask whether something is due to corruption or invention. Maybe novelty is good. Policies have exceptions; and if we correctly follow an exception then we are not violating the policy. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I don't see what you are trying to specify by the term. Violations are already violations; we don't need a term for that because they are specified. The only purchase you have on my attention is that you want a term for something that lacks a term. So it has to be something not previously specified. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nick... I still don't understand the need for your proposed language... I think the policy already covers what you are concerned with. If a consensus was formed based on some "error", or "defect" or "violation" (or what ever you want to call it), the remedy is very simple: 1) explain what the problem is on the talk page ... and 2) ask people to revisit the issue and establish a new consensus. Then edit the page according to that new consensus (what ever it may be). Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Violations are sometimes openly committed and accepted on the ground that the consensus supports the result.

Talk page discussion is refused on the ground that the consensus is already established and therefore cannot or should not be reopened and posting is forbidden or concealed.

This, for example, sometimes allows one or two people to get rid of everyone who disagrees with them.

That's why we need a way to address whether the consensus was established in an acceptable way. It's more difficult to get agreement on that if we can't even talk about whether an unacceptable way exists because we have no name for it.

This is even more helpful in cases where one alleged consensus is due to several kinds of violations that have to be addressed in more than one place. Having to explain the concept that any such consensus cannot be relied on and then the problem in the particular case is more burdensome on readers than simply explaining why the particular consensus at issue is not reliable.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought I answered the outstanding concerns, but, since my recent addition to the policy was reverted, I guess I didn't answer adequately. Does anyone have a suggestion in response to my last post? Nick Levinson (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the issue not simply that sometimes one or more persons claim that there was a consensus on some point, when in fact there was not? (The reverse could also be true, I suppose.) But unless you have some kind of objective test for deciding whether there is consensus on something (which, as far as I can tell, if the number of people in favour was anywhere between 51% and 99%, we don't have), then all such claims are meaningless and consideration of them is pointless. Victor Yus (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick's concern has to do with the situation where, for example, someone sock puppets their way to a consensus. So there is an apparent consensus, because the sock puppetry was not known at the time. Then the sock puppets are outed and there is a consensus that shouldn't have been. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Nick.) So, is this a new category of offense? It was mentioned that anything against policy is already covered by the policy violated, so it's redundant. Blueboar suggested simply getting a new consensus. Or is there a status quo ante that should be returned to? But then what if there is a bogus accusation of a corrupted consensus? Too complicated. But all that is written above already, I think. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a close description of the problem, but one more element is important: the claim that because there is a so-called consensus the result is good and therefore how the alleged consensus was arrived at does not matter, or discussion is refused because the consensus has already been arrived at. So, for example, some might say the sock puppetry does not matter because the result is a good one and reflects consensus. Sometimes multiple violations are involved. I mainly want to know whether we think in such a case that there was a defective consensus or no consensus. I don't think it matters which label we use, but choosing one would make communications in such cases a lot easier. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC) (Corrected my minor wording error: 15:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC))

Nick, I don't know about anyone else but I'm just not seeing any potential benefits to this. I can't think of a single dispute that your recent changes would have helped resolve. It seems far more likely to inflame disputes than to resolve them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking of another way to deal with this if we can't here, but your comment concerns me: How would it inflame? I thought the argument was essentially that it wouldn't matter and therefore naming wasn't needed, but how would naming it (thus recognizing it) make resoution of a case harder? I think it would be much more problematic to call it just a consensus because then the presumption is that it cannot be challenged or revised. Of course it can be, as the presumption would be rebuttable and thus inapplicable, but that would require an extra layer of discussion. Sweeping the problem under the rug is a bad idea. If we're going to describe the phenomenon anyway, how would naming it inflame? Nick Levinson (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoa: The presumption is that consensus cannot be challenged or revised? WP:Consensus can change. CCC is the primary reason that this page is an official policy. It is our long-standing policy not only that consensus can change, but also that it frequently does change.

I don't think that adding this sentence: A defective consensus may be false, misleading, or nonexistent and is caused by violation of a policy or guideline has any possibility of calming people down. Imagine quoting that in a dispute. Remember, everyone's already unhappy, and then you say "Well, I think your so-called consensus is defective. I think it's false. I think it's misleading. I think you've violated policies." Does that sound like a way of solving problems or smoothing ruffled feathers? Or does that sound like somebody tossing around fighting words? How do you imagine that conversation will go? How do you think the "winners", whose "win" you're threatening, will react to someone saying that their belief about the outcome of a discussion is defective, false, misleading, and the product of serious violations? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right that consensus should be amendable, but I'm encountering that it's not. You're right that the language will not smooth things out, but the fight will occur anyway and this will at least provide agreement on one point, narrowing the dispute to what's left if there's any good will at all. That's why something is needed and why I'm open to suggestions. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. You say that the advantage is "this will at least provide agreement on one point". Imagine we're on opposite sides of a difficult dispute. Do you honestly believe that I'm going to agree with you that the consensus is defective, that I'm being false and misleading, and violating all sorts of policies and guidelines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that if another editor claims that consensus has been reached on a point, and you don't agree (because of some irregularity in the way that supposed "consensus" was reached), then you should just be quiet about it and meekly accept the other person's claim, in order to avoid exacerbating the dispute? (Though frankly none of this is worth anything; if people are in disagreement, then they will take any wiggle room any policy provides in order to interpret it in a way that suits their own position; and this particular policy is so vague and incomplete as to provide anyone with enough wiggle room to drive a truck through.) Victor Yus (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disputants may never agree, but some cases go to third parties (ranging from new talk page participants to the board of directors/trustees) and often they'll decide whether something wrong was done and what to do about it, if anything. That process is usually helped by communication by the disputants, even disputants who don't agree on anything that's been said. One could meekly accept a status quo quite legitimately; sometimes, also legitimately, one could choose not to. If we are never to point out a violation of policy because doing so would offend someone, policies would never be enforced and Misplaced Pages would be a hardly-ever-visited mess hardly anyone would know exists. Lesser means than calling out a violation should be tried first, but they sometimes fail abysmally, and walking away has a price. So, developing a tool of communication would be helpful.

And there is a limit on wiggle room: what third parties (in the outside world, an example would be a jury of ordinary people) are willing to accept. Defendants in the worst criminal cases, for example, do not generally claim that Martians made them do it, because it's hard to imagine a jury buying it.

By the way, disputants often come to a working agreement, if not complete agreement, and sometimes do so even by pointing out that what one did or proposes to do violates a policy. It can be annoying. But sometimes we decide that we didn't know of it or didn't intend to violate it or had a good purpose but work out a solution that settles the problem. Pointing out that an edit or a behavior violates a policy or a guideline can be helpful. It turns out that many people are willing to follow rules, within limits but still accepting that rules are likely to be valid. So pointing out a violation is not always such a bad or impractical thing.

If you can come up with suggestions, please do. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC) (Corrected a mistyping and an indent: 20:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC))

I don't believe that meekly accepting a false assertion of consensus is desirable. I equally don't believe that if I tell Nick that the consensus is in my favor, that he's going to help resolve the dispute by telling me that I'm defective, false, misleading and/or violating all sorts of policies and guidelines by having my own opinion about the consensus from a discussion, even if my opinion is completely wrong.

It's not about whether or not I'm wrong about the consensus in our hypothetical dispute: it's about whether or not Nick's proposal, which amounts to little more than name-calling, is going to help resolve the dispute. Nick's options are not (1) resort to telling everyone that their beliefs are defective, false, misleading, etc. or (2) meekly accept a nonsensical claim that consensus favors the other side. Nick could take a middle road, like asking for a discussion to be formally WP:CLOSEd by an outside person or saying the same kinds of things but politely phrased, like "I don't believe that we have a consensus on that point. I don't agree that (the Moon is made of green cheese, or whatever is under discussion), and I don't believe that other people agree to that claim, either". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

{od}Is this a proposal to only name something or is it a proposal to identify a previously unnamed problem and offer a fix? If the former, I think it's misnamed. 'Disruptive consensus' names the effect by referring to consequences that are not always bad. The problem with a consensus that is formed by, say, sock puppetry, is that it was never a real consensus in the first place, while there is no problem with disrupting things with an honest consensus. That this nomenclature is a bit off is more obvious if we consider its contradiction. Are honest, true, genuine, real, or uncorrupted the opposite of disruptive? Not really. Point 2: if the latter and we are working up to offering a fix, I don't think there is one size to fit all the misshapen forms of bad consensus. When there are problems, we have to pick up the pieces with a new consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on the text, I believe it's a proposal to name something, without offering a solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The same could practically be said of this whole policy, though. As to solutions, you mention the possibiliy of having a discussion formally WP:CLOSEd. Why not make that part of the policy? It would then at least mean something. Victor Yus (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's about naming. Because of the clarity, solutions would be one step closer.

Almost never should anyone use a last option first. Editors are responsible for not misusing any procedure. But when middle-of-the-road solutions are no longer working (and should), for example, because one side has explicitly rejected certain policies and refuses to adhere to them and thereby forecloses discussion, something is needed. Sometimes closing a discussion might help, but in some cases it would be precisely what to avoid, because, in effect, it is already being closed and wrongfully so.

The latest critique on particular names means, as far as I can see, that we should call what has obtained a nonconsensus or the like. Is that more agreeable than calling it a flawed consensus or some such?

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The consensus currently favors naming the phenomenon by three and a half to two and a half, plus one unevaluated, counting across two topics/sections (this one and terminology where "consensus" wrongfully excludes some editors). Roughly summarizing:

• WhatamIdoing (talk) argues that naming may be counterproductive.
• Blueboar (talk) considers naming unnecessary.
• Ring Cinema (talk) has fluctuated between opposing naming if it is meant to add a procedure and accepting naming in principle if it adds clarity without adding a procedure, and in the latter case has favored false consensus.
• Nick Levinson (talk) (myself) favors naming but is flexible on how.
• Victor Yus (talk) argues that raising the dispute may be necesary for a resolution.
• Nikkimaria (talk) proposes a term and might offer a more specific term depending on circumstances.
• Wavelength (talk) proposes a term, thus accepting the principle of naming.

That suggests that naming is preferred over silence, especially as no new procedure is planned or needed, the name being useful enough in existing procedures. Is there a preference between calling the phenomenon no consensus or similar vs. defective or false consensus or similar?

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC) (Clarified: 17:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC))

I don't think that a bare majority is sufficient to carry a contested change to a major policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I plan to prepare an essay and link to it from this page. Probably, I'll favor the term false consensus over the term no consensus, but I may change my mind, especially about that. I'm open to comments on any issue. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Formation of community consensus

"Broad community consensus on a given issue can only be developed and determined through a series of discussions which consistently result in a local consensus favoring one side or another with respect to that issue."

That's the edit. I'm not sure what Born2Cycle means to accomplish with this change or how it is consistent with current consensus, so I'll leave it to him to explain the virtues. He introduces a term to the page that I think is new ("broad consensus") which is apparently an identity with 'community consensus' and so likely unnecessary. From what I can see, community consensus is formed mostly through the practices of the community participants, not from discussions. Is this new paragraph good? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I added that because of use of the term broad consensus in a discussion about WP:RM at WT:AT. For example: " is standard practice for reaching broad consensus for controversial page moves". What it meant there is what is defined on this page as local consensus ("Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time"). Sure, consensus among 10 or 20 editors is better than 2 or 3, but is that broad consensus? The previous wording in this section already contrasted local consensus with "the broader community".

I suppose we could talk about three levels of consensus - 1) consensus among 2 or 3, 2) consensus among 10 or 20 after "reaching out" for more input via RM, RfC, AfD, etc., or 3) broad community consensus. But I think contrasting between local and broad/community is sufficient. After all, a consensus among 2 or 20 in one discussion are both examples of local consensus.

I do think you make a good point about community consensus being formed mostly through practices, not discussions. But that's an argument to expand on what I added, not remove it, and I'd be happy to do that. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it to say the following: Broad community consensus on a given issue is developed and determined through a series of actions and discussions which consistently favor one side or another with respect to that issue.

Should we add an example? Like, we know we have broad community consensus for disambiguating film titles with the (film) and (year film) (when there is more than one film with the given name) disambiguators because that's how titles of films are disambiguated. Yes, that's what WP:NCF says, but true confirmation of community consensus on this issue is the widespread naming (and occasional renaming) of film article titles according to this convention. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But this creates an identity where there was none before. Broad consensus is not community consensus, that's why the terms have been used at different times. At least, I think so. What is not precisely specified is 'community consensus', but there is not always something gained by trying to define everything, since definitions beget definitions. What problem is solved with your edit? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem I'm trying to solve is one of communication. If we're vague about what these terms mean, then there will be unnecessary misunderstanding when they are used. I think we're clear here on what local consensus means and how it is distinguished from community consensus. But what exactly is broad consensus? And shouldn't it be clarified on this page? (if not here, where?) When someone says, "we need a broad consensus to favor this proposal", what is meant by that? What needs to happen to establish broad consensus for that proposal?

A simple consensus (if you will), can be achieved by as few as two people. I suppose a broad consensus implies a significant number of people which is more likely to represent the community consensus than a consensus of 2 or 3 people. But, then, how is that different from a local consensus? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that your definition of "simple consensus" is wrong.

I do not think that the community is well served by defining "broad consensus" on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you share the reasoning supporting your thoughts, please?

I don't know how a definition of simple consensus can be "wrong" (or "right" for that matter). My point was that a discussion comprised of as few as just two people can achieve a consensus. Do you not agree with that? I chose to call that a simple consensus. If you don't like that, fine, but to call usage like that "wrong" is just being argumentative.

I gave my reasons for how I felt the community would be served by defining broad consensus here. What do you think of those reasons? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You've defined simple consensus solely according to the number of participants. According to you, a vicious, years-long dispute between two people, if resolved by some hard-won compromise or even by one of the disputants quitting, is "simple". A dozen people saying "obvious spam, blacklist it now" is "not simple". This definition has no obvious relationship to the natural meaning of the word simple.

I don't believe that we should define the term, because it has more than one meaning, including:

• We need the opinions of people from another subject area.
• We need the opinions of people from another wikignoming area.
• We need the opinions of people who aren't admins.
• We need the opinions of people who aren't highly experienced editors.
• We need the opinions of people who agree with me (see WP:YDOW).
• We need the opinions of a record-setting number of people.
• I'm so obviously right, that if I lose the discussion, that's just proof that too few people were involved.
• I'm so wrapped up in this dispute that I think everyone ought to stop writing the encyclopedia to talk about this.
• I refuse to go along with this proposal unless I'm outvoted by every single editor in the entire project, including all of the alternate accounts, legitimate or otherwise.
• I love unanimity so much that if there is the smallest hint of discord, I'll refuse to do anything except fill talk pages with endless, useless discussion until you all assure me of your undying agreement.

and so forth. There is no advantage to defining a phrase that has no consistent use.

What might be valuable is providing some actual data as refernce points. For example, when we say that consensus does not require unanimity, we mean something like IAR is reported to have received only 85% support, and that's believed to be the all-time record for a policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As a practical matter ...

Can anyone tell me what, if anything, the phrase "As a practical matter" adds to "As a practical matter, 'according to consensus' or 'violates consensus' are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal" in wp:CCC? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's normal English usage. If a proposal violates consensus, there is no stronger reason to reject it than that. However, for practical reasons it's often better to give the reason why the proposal was rejected. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So it should read "'According to consensus' or 'violates consensus' are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, as a practical matter, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that says something else. Personally, I don't think it's the least bit obscure. It seems like your draft gets things out of order and misplaces what is practical. As written, it's fine, clear, lucid, plain, direct, and brief; it would be hard to get the wrong idea about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment (i.e., recognizing that I am able to accomplish something difficult like finding "As a practical matter" ambiguous in this context). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me try again. Are you saying "As a practical matter, 'according to consensus' or 'violates consensus' are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal ..." means "'According to consensus' or 'violates consensus' are strong reasons for rejecting a proposal ..."? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying the text is clear as written. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is clear to you but it is not clear to me. Assuming (for the sake of argument) that I am not an idiot, I suggest that this means the sentence should be re-worded so that it becomes clear as written to a broader range of readers. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This probably needs to be spelt out. "Violates consensus" must be a very strong reason for rejecting an edit, assuming consensus really has been reached against making such an edit (since "consensus" is our primary decision-making method, to knowingly go against a genuine consensus decision must be as disruptive as it gets). However when explaining to someone (who might genuinely not know about the situation) that their edit goes against such consensus, it's clearly most helpful to say why it was concluded that such an edit is not desired, or at least point them to the discussion which led to that conclusion. However I don't believe that "violates consensus" is any reason for rejecting a proposal (made on a talk page), since it's understood that previous consensus can be challenged and a new one reached; a more valid response might be "too soon to discuss this again after the last time", if that seems to be the case. Victor Yus (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. As a starting point for discussion, how about changing "As a practical matter..." to "Unless the reverting editor can cite to a recent talk page discussion ..."? (Or are you saying we should split the guide with respect to edit summaries and to talk page discussions?) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see it. Cases vary widely and if you look at the context of the sentence it's pretty well covered as is. The paragraph offers some practical advice for situations where a consensus is ignored or overlooked. We have to cover every case from an innocent mistake or a new proposal to the aftermath of an edit war or a sock puppet crank. Creating specific procedures will cause problems and we don't need them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The language means this:

• In theory, you can revert anything at anytime for any reason.
• In practice, if you revert something and say "You didn't say Mother, may I? get consensus", then bad things happen, including:
  • edit wars will break out over your (as far as they can tell) unjustifiable reversion,
  • people are going to yell at you, and
  • nobody will have any idea what your (presumably excellent) reasons for reversion are.

Thus "as a practical matter", you should give solid reasons rather than saying "no consensus" when you revert something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but you went a little bit beyond the text, because this is not about reverting or rejecting a proposal anytime for any reason. Rather, I read it as concerned with a specific situation, the one where a proposal goes beyond the prevailing consensus. So, usually it's better to give the reason, and, since we are in CCC, discuss it to test if the prevailing consensus holds. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, CCC is about reverting or rejecting—or accepting, even if it had previously been rejected—anything anytime. My verbose translation here just puts CCC in the context of the rest of the page. CCC is the primary reason that you shouldn't reject or revert with a bare claim that there's no consensus, because your belief about the consensus might be wrong. After all, consensus can change, and maybe it did. CCC is about the non-proposers not being overly confident that they know exactly what the consensus is. So in theory, an editor can cling to his old assessment of consensus until he turns blue in the keyboard, but in practice, if he objects, he's better off giving a specific reason, like (to quote Ring recently) "this material doesn't seem obviously correct or useful" or "I believe this is superfluous" than saying "I know exactly what the consensus is, and your ideas aren't part of it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

So why the general aversion to explaining all these things explicitly in the policy itself? When we show on the talk page that we are able to explain things in ways that people can understand, why the addiction to using vague and unfathomable language on the page that's supposed to be describing these things? Victor Yus (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Let's work on this, using WhatamIdoing's 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC) posting as a starting point. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"As a practical matter" is not vague or unfathomable. It's simple English that doesn't require explanation. I kind of had a notion that a request for an explanation of something simple would lead to this. The explanation is long, complicated and reductive, while the text is easy, plain, brief, and accurate. I have an aversion to complicated explanations and to changing the text when it's well-written. The section on CCC has no problem that I am aware of, even though many things can be said about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that is isn't clear, to the ordinary reader, what it means. It becomes clearer to us following WAID's explanation (helped by our own knowledge of how Misplaced Pages functions), but the information should be presented in such a way that people don't need to ask what it means after reading it. Brevity ceases to be a virtue when it clouds the message. Victor Yus (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything cloudy there. As always, definitions are reductive and explanations of a well-written text are longer than the text. That will be true of a new proposal, as well. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well in the present text, for one thing, the third sentence (which says that every proposal should be discussed on its merits) seems to be in conflict with the second sentence (which says that sometimes it's disruptive to bring up again something that's recently been decided, thus suggesting that certain proposals should be thrown out without further discussion on their merits). Also it fails to make clear whether it's talking about proposals in the form of edits or in the form of talk-page suggestions. Victor Yus (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

So WhatamIdoing (01:41, 11 September 2012) says the text has one meaning and Ring Cinema (01:53, 11 September 2012) says it has another. To me that means that, as a practical matter, the text is not at all clear to a wide audience. So, as Victor Yus proposes, we should modify the text to make it clear to more folks than just Ring Cinema. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict of the type mentioned. It is disruptive to bring up something that was recently decided on its merits. No problem. Do WAID and I disagree on something? It doesn't seem like it, according to us. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like Ring and I pretty much agree.

The general problem is this: We can explain every paragraph beautifully, so that each is a model of clarity even when considered in isolation. Then someone comes along and fusses that we're being seriously redundant and the whole page is bloated. So we all agree that editors can remember a concept from one paragraph to the next, and we remove the redundant bits. Then someone comes along and fusses that if you take a paragraph out of context, that it doesn't make any sense. So we explain every paragraph beautifully. Can you guess what comes next in this series?

You may have heard of the project management triangle. The summary is, "good, cheap, fast: pick any two". This page has a similar problem. You can have every bit be clearly explained or you can have the page be concise. You can't have both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If WAID and RC agree that they agree then I must agree that I am wrong. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if they agree, that still doesn't mean that someone else reading the paragraph in question will understand it in the same way that they do. And if the general uninformativeness of this page is supposed to be being justified by its being concise, then it has to be said that it isn't that either. I could make this page as a whole both much more concise and more clear. Shall I have a go, or will I just get jumped on again for daring to touch another of Misplaced Pages's sacred texts? Victor Yus (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A few years ago I successfully did that with wp:Layout. The trick was to make small incremental changes, doing my best to not change the meaning (and, of course, providing informative edit summaries all along the way). There is always resistance to change and you will have to keep in mind to assume the good faith of those editors who will appear to you to be opposing your non-substantive changes for the sole reason that they are changes. Good luck! Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As a practical matter ... (Part 2)

Back to reason for my original posting: Is "As a practical matter..." surplusage such that it can be removed to make the sentence even more concise without changing its meaning? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say so (though it's not the main problem with that sentence). Victor Yus (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it belongs. As written, it is a marvel of accuracy and brevity. If we remove it, we say that "violates consensus" is a weak reason when, in fact, that's false. There's no more obvious reason that an edit is incorrect. Somehow, this perfect expression of pragmatism and truth found its way into the paragraph on CCC. That is not a problem. Since removing it would put a false statement in the policy, it seems best to leave things as they are. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is what it currently states:

As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal.

Here is what I recommend:

While lack of consensus is generally why proposals are rejected, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for a given editor to use in objecting or reverting; instead, the specific reasons for objecting should be explained by the editor, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal.

--Born2cycle (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not wishing to be rude or anything, but that sounds even more muddled and incomprehensible than the statement as it stands. Honestly, sometimes you have to use two or three sentences to explain a fairly complex set of facts, instead of using vague and ambiguous language to try to force them all into one. If the resulting loss of conciseness is considered a problem, than that can easily be offset by removing any two of the many redundant sentences on the rest of the page. Victor Yus (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Which complex set of facts are you alluding to? As it stands, the section says what needs to be said very deftly. No one has specified anything missing or extra so far. It should be mentioned that "violates consensus" is not a weak reason to revert. In some cases, it is exactly the reason to use, as CCC and Levels of Consensus currently make clear. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No editor should ever use "violates consensus" as the reason to revert. As CCC says, it's a weak reason to use. The reason that consensus opposes the change is the strong reason that should be used. And if the editor does not know what that is, then he probably has no business reverting. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, maybe that was too long. How about this?

While lack of consensus is ultimately why proposals are rejected, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons to use in objecting or reverting. Instead, how and why the change violates the consensus opinion should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal.

Better? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC) revised --Born2cycle (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect, CCC doesn't say that. It says that there is a better practical method. Of course "violates consensus" is the ultimate reason any edit is rejected, 100% of the time. And for this project anything that deviates from consensus should be reverted until a consensus is established here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does say that. The "practically speaking" clause does not unsay anything, and it says "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons to use.. Whether a given edit deviates from consensus is a matter of opinion too. That's why simply stating "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" is such a weak reason to give. It doesn't mean that the edit even deviates from consensus. It simply means that the reverting editor believes it does (as opposed to the editor who made the change who presumably believes the same change is consistent with consensus).

The simple act of reverting essentially implies, " violates consensus". Stating that in the edit summary is redundant. It is not a reason to revert - an explanation of how the edit violates consensus is a good reason to use to revert. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It doesn't say "violates consensus" is a weak reason, because that would be false. It is the strongest possible reason, underlying virtually every rejection made. If it were weak, it would never obtain. However, every single rejection made by consensus is made for exactly the reason that it "violates consensus." I don't think you can name a more important, more powerful reason. But it's often better for practical reasons to give an antecedent reason, so we say that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It does say "violates consensus" is a weak reason because it's true:

As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal.

"Violates consensus" is the very matter of opinion that is supposed to be evaluated.

Look, this is like saying "he's guilty of murder" as the reason to vote "guilty" in the context of a jury room while deliberating whether someone is guilty of murder. It's a weak reason. The explanation of how the evidence shows the accused is guilty is what makes a strong reason.

Similarly, in the context of Determining consensus (the name of this section), "violates consensus" is a weak reason for objecting or reverting a proposal or edit. The explanation of how the material violates consensus is what makes a strong reason. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason that some think "As a practical matter" is superfluous is because it hasn't been read into the sentence. It doesn't say those reasons are weak without qualification. No, the qualification is very clear: as a practical matter. Personally, I have little difficulty fitting that qualification to my understanding of collaborative processes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's qualified. It's qualified by something that, in practice, is always true, by definition. That's why it's considered superfluous, as a practical matter. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The qualification is "As a practical matter". So you are claiming that is always true by definition? No, also untrue. Some things are practical and other things are not. It really starts to get twisted to continue to claim it reads the same either way. It's a very common and simple English phrase used in a normal way. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why should we care about or even address things that are not practical in the context of building an encyclopedia? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed alternate version

Evidently the answer to my question is "no." I suggest the discussion above indicates that some editors find the current language ambiguous. I propose the following alternative to clear up that ambiguity:

• While an edit may be reverted because it violates current consensus, saying nothing more than "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" in an edit summary provides little guidance. Instead, reverting editors should explain the reasons for the reversion. The reverted editor may then follow up with discussion of the merits of the proposal on the article's talk page.

Or, if you prefer: "While an edit may be reverted because it violates current consensus, as a practical matter saying nothing more than "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" in an edit summary provides little guidance. Instead, reverting editors should explain the reasons for the reversion. The reverted editor may then follow up with discussion of the merits of the proposal on the article's talk page."

What do you'all think? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The first reflects actual practice more clearly and accurately than the current wording, and better than the second. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we already have it about right. What is the ambiguity that is suggested for this section? No one has said what ambiguity exists in the text, and I don't think English speakers have a problem with these relatively simple sentences that are hard to misunderstand. I appreciate Victor's attempt to clearly identify a contradiction, but there isn't such a contradiction. I think the efforts over the years to make this section succinct should be recognized for their success. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Two things:

• If people are saying that they personally don't understand a sentence, then they're probably right when they assert that the sentence isn't clear to everyone.
• I think you have different scenarios in mind. One "side" is thinking about a new and potentially highly beneficial proposal, which is rejected with a thoughtless and probably erroneous "we've always done it the other way, so there's automatically a consensus against your new idea" assertion of calcified consensus. The other is thinking about a long discussion that resolves in favor of X, and the dissenting/POV pushing/misbehaving editor, despite knowing very well that the group concluded X, immediately goes forth and does anti-X anyway. In that latter instance, it is sometimes appropriate to say that something "violates consensus". A report to ANI might be more practical, but there are times when a positive consensus actually is violated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support removing "as a practical matter". It is unnecessarily wordy, adding virtually nothing in meaning and potentially confusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Facts and logic are assessed by the editors -- there is no one to overrule them

I agree with this statement: "facts and logic are assessed by the editors -- there is no one to overrule them", however I do not understand its relevance to the edit it reverts.

This section is providing guidance on how all editors should evaluate arguments when determining consensus. In the reverted state it says: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."

The reverted material reworded that latter sentence to say:

Arguments that amount to "I just don't like it", "I like it" or "doesn't have consensus support" usually carry no weight whatsoever in determining consensus.

And added this:

Arguments of that kind do not override arguments based on facts and logic even if they are supported by many editors.

How does the undisputed fact that "facts and logic are assessed by the editors -- there is no one to overrule them" justify the revert of this material? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence you quote is redundant. After you have said that the "I just don't like it" arguments carry "no weight whatsoever in determining consensus" there is nothing else that needs to be said on the subject. I think the editor that added the redundant information (or someone) should explain his/her reasoning on why the extra language is necessary.

As to your question on another editor's summary, I take it (for whatever it's worth)to mean that the language could be used to justify a situation where one editor reverts a series of edits by other editors by claiming that there arguments are bogus because they are nothing more than "I just don't like it". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What is a fact is determined by consensus -- what is logical, too. If there is a consensus that has a fact F wrong according to editor E, what is the situation? Is E's belief about F right or wrong? Should the consensus be ignored? Who decides that the consensus is wrong about F? So it seems this proposal is mistaking the situation. There's no referee of facts or logic, so the support of many editors do, in fact, override E's belief about F being a fact because we decide things by consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not understanding. If 20 editors state the earth is flat, without giving any reason or logic supporting that, while 3 editors give well-reasoned arguments for why the earth is round, then the consensus is with the 3. That's the point of this section. It's really a restatement of not a democracy. When determining what consensus is, we don't count the votes - we evaluate the arguments. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Born2, I wish that what you say is how things actually worked in the Wikiworld. Unfortunately, without a referee, there is no one to tell the 20 editors that their comments are out of order. So there is no consensus. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

First, in any serious discussion such as any one filed at RM, AfD, as an RfC, etc., there is a referee - the uninvolved closing admin. But these are not the only ones who need to know how to determine consensus. Anyone who wants to determine consensus about a given issue to determine whether some material can be included or not in an article needs to do this as well. And all of these people need to evaluate arguments, not count votes, when making these determinations about consensus. WP is not a democracy. That's policy.

Many people may not understand this, but that's no reason to not reinforce it here. To the contrary. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

But the contradiction in your position remains. The reasoned arguments work if they are accepted. Facts and logic are decided like everything else: by consensus. No getting around it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There only appears to be a contradiction if you interpret consensus in a colloquial sense, without regard to practice on Misplaced Pages, to mean "the opinion of the majority or the preponderance of those participating". On WP that's not what it means. On WP consensus means the opinion best supported by argument and discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC) minor revision --Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the discussion. "I like it" is a perfectly fine rationale if the question at hand is purely one of subjective preference, e.g., whether to pick purple or green for the text displayed by the {{Example text}} template. Sometimes we really do just vote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems to go to the heart of what's seriously wrong with this policy - and this time it seems to be not just that the page is written in an unhelpful way, but also that Misplaced Pages's practices really don't properly address certain situations. The crux is: who decides if there is a consensus? It's great that we tell people what they ought to be doing to resolve disagreements in a collegial fashion, but the fact remains that in Misplaced Pages's reality, (A) many people don't always do that; and (B) even if they do, not every disagreement can be resolved in that way. For this policy to have any practical meaning (as a policy), then it needs to say (A) how to deal with people who don't behave according to the principles of consensus, (B) how to resolve cases where disagreement remains anyway. It would help address the second issue if we include as policy the principle of closing discussions, which I think WhatamIdoing mentioned in one of the previous threads. Victor Yus (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There are these problems. Consensus isn't made better by abandoning consensus, though. The policy has to work for issues binary and multivalent, for cranks and principled dissenters. Sometimes it might appear broken but apparently it works reasonably well as it is, striking a balance between mob rule and Socratic dialogue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion, RC, how would you read consensus in this discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No consensus for change. Roughly even opinions on both sides and, by your standards, no factual or logical basis for change offered yet. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep repeating this. I and others have several times set out explicitly what the factual and logical basis for change is. You seem to be tending towards the type of behavior that demonstrates why consensus on Misplaced Pages often doesn't work - one editor with some emotional attachment to "things as they are" can simply put fingers in ears, fail to respond substantively to arguments, but still claim that since he opposes change there is therefore no consensus to change and therefore things must stay as they are (however little consensus there may be for that). Unless we have the possibility of bringing someone neutral in to properly analyze the arguments and to determine whether the conditions for a (Misplaced Pages-style) "consensus" have been met - or possibly even take control and guide people towards such a "consensus" - then we can hardly be said to have a consensus-based decision process at all; instead we risk having decisions being made just on the basis of who is prepared to fight hardest and dirtiest. Victor Yus (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I object to that characterization. Three possible problems have been mentioned with CCC, all rebutted. 1."As a practical matter" means nothing. 2. There is a contradiction. 3. There is an ambiguity. I responded on the substance to all three. So this is the Socratic dialogue part of consensus. If you think that there is a contradiction, for example, please say what it is and don't complain that other editors do you wrong by not agreeing with you with no discussion. Let me remind you that you said there was a contradiction between bringing up recently decided issues and deciding things on the merits. That was your first assertion, so I assume your strongest case. But there's no contradiction there of any kind. It is disruptive to bring up something that was recently decided on its merits. Now, if you still think there is a contradiction, respond to my response. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The contradiction still exists in the text that you seem so anxious to leave unchanged. It doesn't exclude something that was recently decided on its merits; it implies that such a proposal should still have its merits discussed. The ambiguity still exists as well - we don't know what kind of "proposal" we are talking about. These are fairly simple wording problems that could be fairly simply solved, if you didn't keep blocking such efforts by pretending the problems don't exist even when they're explicitly pointed out to you, and claiming that the present text is clear when your intelligent colleagues keep telling you that it isn't clear to them. Victor Yus (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm anxious to leave it unchanged or you're anxious to change it? Your claim that there is a contradiction doesn't seem stronger today. Let's not overlook that different considerations apply at different times. Yes, decide things on the merits, CCC says, but not if you just decided it on the merits and nothing's changed. Exactly how could that go misread? Even if someone made the sort of mistake you imply and thought they had to decide the same question again on the merits when nothing had changed, it's not a problem. If the merits haven't changed, it's done at once, right? But it's disruptive to go through that formality, so CCC comes out against it. No contradiction.

Maybe others feel differently, but I'm more sympathetic to the ambiguity about 'proposal'. Your concern earlier, which to me has some merit, is that proposals on a talk page wouldn't normally be rejected for violating consensus since the purpose of discussion is to determine or develop it. So, that is not always necessarily true, but by and large it's true. I'm sure the word 'proposal' was chosen with some thought and I think it is intentionally broad to take in any situation decided by consensus. When you say "we don't know what kind of proposal we're talking about", it seems you are asking to nail down something that is designed to apply generally. After all, that is the nature of a policy, that it is broad enough to cover different situations. What word would work better? Maybe you have something in mind. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, everyone except you seems agreed that ButwhatdoIknow's suggestion (thread above) would be an improvement. Could you perhaps reconsider your opinion about that? Victor Yus (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As you can see above, I am perfectly willing to change my position when there is a reason. But since there's no contradiction, why would you want to change it anyway? Doesn't seem consistent with your earlier comments. It should not be surprising that there is not a contradiction because previous editors here were also smart. Also, you seriously misstate the roughly equal division of opinion. There is interest in a change from three of you, although B2Cycle's reasoning is significantly different from the rest of us. WAID seems satisfied with the current draft, as does Tom, it seems. So I think there are two of you who consistently argue for a change, I consistently question your reasoning, most of which has not stood up to scrutiny. There is agreement that possibly 'proposal' could be improved upon, although the editors who wrote that are also probably pretty smart. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So let's start with that, then. (There is of course a contradiction, as has constantly been made clear - your refusing to see it doesn't make it go away.) Since "proposal" is ambiguous, we have to say something that makes sense for both possible meanings of "proposal". I'm going to try to do that. Victor Yus (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No, no contradiction. You tried to point one out but couldn't identify something that would resemble two propositions in opposition. If you can do that, I will instantly agree there is a contradiction, but, again, we are not the first editors here and it would be really astonishing if all the other smart people didn't see a contradiction and you did. So you do have to really do more than say, e.g., an editor might think that something decided on the merits should be decided again on the merits even though it's disruptive. That's not a contradiction of any kind. Instead, it's something that CCC covers.

2. "Proposal." I'm not convinced that you can improve on the editors that came before you but there is a possibility. Please make your proposal here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"Roughly even opinions on both sides", RC? Name the others who agree with you that no change is necessary to WP:CCC wording, please. Diffs would be ideal.

"1."As a practical matter" means nothing." is a mischaracterization, and your claim that it has been refuted is false. The argument is that in a practical context the phrase is superfluous, not that it means nothing, and we editors should only care or address practical matters. My question of 14:02, 13 September, which goes to the heart of this argument, at the end of #As a practical matter ... (Part 2), remains unanswered by you or anyone else. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You claim that it says "Editors should only address practical matters" but it doesn't say that. To the contrary, it points out that this particular idea is a practical one. Others may not be, but this one is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I made no such claim. You're dodging. You can do better. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre edit

If we are now going to revert edits we agree with, as here, then surely there is no hope for this page. Let's at least only revert changes that we think make things worse, and be prepared to say why we think they make them worse - in accordance with the principles set out on this very page. Victor Yus (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are my bizarre thoughts:

• First, there is currently a dispute regarding the meaning of the current CCC text. Ring Central and Whatami say it means that reverting for the sole reason that an edit violates current consensus is, in theory, just fine. So I began to work on an edit that clarified that intent. Once clarified, there would be a baseline for discussion regarding whether to change the meaning.
• Once we had some clear language in place we could then focus on whether the current guide is appropriate. Then, if the community concludes to go in the direction you and I favor (which I think was the meaning the last time I looked at this page a year or two ago), we could work on the proper wording to express that meaning.

So, there is a method to my madness. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Butwhat, although there are some limited situations, usually involving behavior that's going to get someone blocked, in which "violates consensus" is a sort-of acceptable response (the theory being that you have already put forward your substantive objections elsewhere, and the person making anti-consensus edits knows what they are, so it's a shorthand reply for something like 'see the last several days of discussion'), this is not one of those situations. You personally should never revert any change that you personally agree with. Leave that task to someone who actually objects. It is the duty of people who actually object to make their objections known, and it is not anyone else's job to engage in mind reading. Misplaced Pages is not best served by having us all guess what someone else might object to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed wording for CCC

I don't really understand , but never mind. Some idiotbody will no doubt revert again, so here is my proposed wording:

• Consensus can change, and matters discussed in the past can be raised again, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not considered before. Hence if someone makes a proposal that would go against a past consensus decision, the proposal should not be rejected purely for that reason. Nonetheless, if the past decision is recent, and circumstances have not changed, then it is reasonable for other editors to decline to consider the proposal, since discussing the matter again at that stage would not be profitable use of time.
• If someone makes an edit to a page that goes against a past consensus decision, then it is reasonable for another editor to revert it, in line with that decision. When doing so, however, it is unhelpful to state the reason for the revert simply as "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" – it is more useful to explain the reason why that decision was taken, or to give a link to the discussion that led to it (or ideally both).

Do we agree with all of that, or not? Is there anything anyone specifically disagrees with? Can anyone improve it? Victor Yus (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What problem are you trying to address with this draft? So far, there's only agreement to examine use of the word 'proposal', but this draft uses it the same way. Until there's a problem in front of us, I don't see why we should entertain proposals. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer Ring's question of the problem I'm trying to address - the same problems that we've been talking about all this time. It separates out the two different situations of a proposal (and its possible rejection out of hand on grounds of existing consensus), and an edit (and its possible reversion on grounds of existing consensus). Assuming we agree with what my draft says on these two matters (and noone has yet disagreed), then we can see clearly that these are two related situations but to which different considerations apply. The problem with the present text is that it tries to conflate these two situations into one set of thoughts, and ends up not describing either of them at all clearly, or really saying anything that people are likely to understand. My text, hopefully, sets out everything in a way that everyone will at least see without doubt what it's saying. (Of course it's all very wishy-washy anyway - talking about what's "reasonable" and "unhelpful" and so on - but given that we don't have any explicit rules on this matter, I think that's inevitable at the present time.) I agree that my draft still uses "proposal" without qualification, but here the context and the fact that "edits" are dealt with in a separate paragraph ought to make it clear what is meant. (Of course a bold edit can be regarded as a kind of proposal as well, and my text is still consistent with that - there are two relevant reactions to a bold edit: reverting it (as an edit), and refusing to even discuss it (as a proposal); and the text covers both of these reactions.) Victor Yus (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, VY asks whether the proposed text can be improved. I don't see your comment as answering that question. The fact that you don't see a problem in the existing text - and refuse to accept the fact that other editors do - doesn't mean that there isn't one. And, of course, an adequate non-problematic text can often be improved. Unless you can point to a guide, or even an essay, that says a proponent of a change must convince all other editors that there is a "problem" with the status quo before suggesting a possible improvement, please stop using this rationale as a basis to oppose proposed changes. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not just me and I think my reasoning has been very careful and not the least bit difficult to respond to. I have asked about the problem with the current text many times. Three issues were mentioned at one time or another. ("As a practical matter", ambiguity, and contradiction.) None have stood up to scrutiny. So, yes, there are any number of questions that Victor might like me to answer, but if we can't identify a problem in a text that has been read and reviewed many times over a long period of time in a policy that is central to Misplaced Pages, what is the point in discussing what changes to make? Again, I agreed that perhaps 'proposal' could be improved on, but he uses 'proposal', too. I don't want to be dragged into a discussion about a proposal that apparently has no reason to be adopted. Perhaps those of you champing at the bit think it is too much bother to explain the problem you have with the current text. I take that as a sign that the text is in good shape. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I won't quibble over the wording, that is something that can be fine tuned if and when the text moves to the guide. However, I would suggest adding Revert procedure. to the beginning of the second paragraph. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean split it into a separate section under a new heading? That would make sense - the meme "consensus can change" really only relates to the first section. In fact I don't know why this is all under the superheading "Determining consensus". The overarching theme for the issues addressed under CCC seems to be something more like "Use of existing consensus as an argument". (The fact that "consensus can change" is a warning against using past consensus as an argument to dismiss a proposal out of hand; the warning against using it as an argument to revert an edit out of hand is the more practical one that those coming to the article are best served by being told where this past consensus was reached and on what arguments.) Victor Yus (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer. What I had in mind was to add the bold "sentence" to the beginning of the paragraph. That would alert the reader to a change of subject. A separate section would have the same result, but would probably be overkill. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

But do you agree that the title "consensus can change" is not really relevant to the second paragraph? Victor Yus (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is an invitation to comment on a change that doesn't solve a problem. There's no reason to change anything. Victor, you have said there's a contradiction without identifying one. Contradiction takes the form of a text that says both p and not-p. I haven't seen that pointed out. Perhaps I can be more clear about why you haven't pointed out a contradiction. Changes should be decided on the merits. The text as written points out an exception to that rule: the case where something was recently decided and nothing new needs to be considered. Then there is some advice about how to do the edit summary. The current text doesn't say that "violates consensus" is a poor reason or a forbidden reason, and I am pretty sure that's because it is a fundamental reason that's implicit in many rejections. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, I don't think anyone who reads this page is unaware that you believe the current text does not need to be changed. You do not not need to repeat yourself. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the part of the process where we ignore each other. I have answered specific proposals with specific rebuttals. I'm not just exercising my typing skills. If you are really correct that there's a problem, you should be able to say what it is. If you can't then check the facts and logic. Presumably there is enough intellectual honesty to admit that if you can't defend your position after only one rebuttal, something might be wrong with it. And there's a prima facie case that there isn't a serious problem based on history. Yes, the bar is high to change policy; would you expect something else? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. The interpretation I have to put on this is that you think it's productive only if I agree with you. The correct approach is to do as I have done and address disagreement with a careful explanation of where you differ with your interlocutor. I don't ask leading questions or ask for explanations of things I can figure out for myself. Instead, I explain clearly what I believe is missing from the assessments of others. Having an opinion is not good enough, since, as we see here, there are sometimes erroneous assessments. So, again, I have responded substantively to every suggestion that there was a problem. If you don't want to respond to those substantive objections to your position, I think it means your original opinion does not stand up to scrutiny. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

VY, I suppose it depends on where you draw the relevance circle. It certainly is not directly on point, but it is related. To keep our attention focused, I suggest that we leave the second paragraph in the CCC section for now and, later, separately tackle whether it should have its own section. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the proposal above as a specific improvement, alas. What I would prefer is a shorter exposition on the order of:

Consensus is not set in stone - after a reasonable period of time, another discussion may produce a different result. Placing the matter for discussion at the article talk page is the best way to determine if consensus has changed. Bold edits which run against recent prior consensus are likely to be seen as disruptive by other editors, and edit summaries such as "against consensus," while generally a weak reason for a revert, are likely to occur.

Clearer? Collect (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You had me up until "while generally ..." I think the message we are trying to convey regarding "against consensus" edit summaries is similar to Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due to "no consensus". Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is important to maintain the well-known phrase "Consensus can change". Also, starting with a talk page discussion isn't always the best way, and this seems to endorse these generally uninformative edit summaries, which I oppose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

For the first - I was trying to keep part of the proposed edit/current status in there - but I agree it is not very usefullll. And for the second - "if consensus has changed" is very much in the spirit of "consensus can change" and I see no reason to alter it. Third - it is generally considered that using the article talk page is the place to start, and trying to assert exceptions in what should be a brief statement seems non-utile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Using the talk page (which may or may not be associated with an article) is usually a good place to start, but it is not necessarily the best place to start, especially if you're trying to make a small change and/or the talk page is dysfunctional. Sometimes, demonstrating what you think is desirable is the best way to propose a change.

Also, CCC deals with prior-consensus issues that have no associated discussion. The simple consensus based on bold editing is also subject to change. If a page has been stable for a while because everyone's satisfied (or busy elsewhere), then that's "consensus" just as much as if the page has been stable for a while because everyone talked it over in detail a few weeks ago. You'd surely never recommend that the best way to deal with a "prior consensus" from bold editing that (for example) happened to provide only cursory information about a subject would be to start a long discussion about adding a few details, rather than boldly adding a few well-sourced details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Going to other noticeboards without trying to resolve issues on the article talk page is, in fact, noted as a significant problem on such noticeboards, so clearly directing users in general to the article talk page is, indeed, "best practice." Further your supposition that changes will result in lengthy discussion is not usual in my experience. In short - I suggest my suggestion is valid and likely to achieve consensus here <g>. Collect (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to lobby to change the current consensus that talk first and BRD are "equally valid" then you are free to do so. But until that change takes place I think WAID has a valid objection with regard to your proposed language. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I fear you misapprise my position -- BRD works if and only if there is no solid pre-existing consensus - if one exists, then BRD generally devolves into major fighting which would be averted in those cases where such a pre-existing prior consensus has been clearly stated and a proposal to change the consensus is floated on the article talk page. There is no conflict here - just whether we should encourage "bold edits" where the issue has been quite recently discussed and all that will happen is pages of heated disputes generating more heat than light. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't propose a trip to a noticeboard as an alternative to the discuss-first model. I proposed WP:BOLDly improving the page as the primary alternative to the discuss-first model.

If you (using your best judgment and taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration) have every reason to believe that your proposed change will be accepted as an improvement, then you should WP:Just do it, not just talk about it, even if what's on the page now was the result of a discussion that happened just a few weeks ago. Bold editing does (sometimes) work, even when there has previously been a "solid pre-existing consensus" or (NB these are not the same) a recent discussion about a given part of a page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no excuse for making a "bold" edit where an ongoing discussion is already taking place. The idea is that other editors are already actively discussing the issue - which is the whole concept behind the BRD paradigm. Really. Collect (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Do I understand that you want to make a statement to the effect that edits that go against established consensus are, in some way, a bad thing? I'd certainly be in favour of this - it seems to be missing from the policy at the moment, and an essential element if the policy is to have any meaning (if people are not constrained to respect the decisions made by consensus, then it's meaningless to say that decisions are made by consensus). The other essential element (for almost the same reason) is that we need to know when a consensus is established and have means of establishing it. So I certainly think we need to address these two vital topics in the policy. However I don't see that either of them fits under the heading "consensus can change" (nor, again, that "consensus can change" fits under the heading "determining consensus"). As far as I can see, the only principle that needs to be expounded under the CCC heading is that it's wrong to dismiss a proposal out of hand purely on the grounds that a consensus formed against the same proposal at some time in the (not very recent) past. Victor Yus (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If so, you quite misapprehend what I had thought was clearly written. It is disruptive to make deliberately "bold" edits where a recent prior consensus exists without discussing the proposed edit. Cases where people make multiple "bold" edits only a few days or weeks apart are a large part of the edit war problem in the first place -- in some cases the "bold" edit has been removal of 95+% of an article - and I suggest that such "bold" edits do not further the cause of consensus editing but are part of an anti-consensus style. Where a consensus is of long-standing, then a "bold" edit may well result in a change of consensus, but I have seen all too often the exact opposite. Thus my attempt to retain the current policy and guidelines, while making the wording more clear than presently the case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So I think we basically agree. What you say about it being disruptive to edit against consensus seems to me to be missing frmo the policy, or at least not clearly expressed, so it should be put in there clearly. It just doesn't logically seem to me to belong under the heading "consensus can change". (Just to clarify, I don't necessarily disagree with WhatamIdoing either - I think editing is often a more effective and focused way of reaching a good and generally acceptable solution than talk page yatter - but if there was a clear consensus not to do the very thing that you want to do, then it's clearly disruptive to go ahead and do it anyway.) Victor Yus (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

One might be tempted to say that if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent discussion of a subject should not be reason alone to not bring up the subject again. Only if that recent discussion reached a clear discussion should bringing it up again be considered disruptive. To the contrary, as long as there is no consensus, more discussion should be encouraged. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, though possibly a declared "no consensus" result is often a good reason to lay off the topic for a time. Victor Yus (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I can think of four good reasons to make a bold edit despite recent discussions:

• You didn't happen to know about the recent discussions.
• It's much faster or more effective to make the change than to explain the change. (People sometimes do this and then self-revert, so that they can place the diff on the talk page.)
• You finally understand the other editors' perspective and now believe that you've found a change that the other editors will support.
• Your bold edit isn't actually related to the previous discussion, e.g., in a nearby sentence or dealing with something unrelated to the dispute despite being in the same paragraph.

About the second point, sometimes discussion creates division. I can't remember the page in question (probably a notability guideline), but I was once told that on reading the discussion, the other editor thought I was completely wrong, but as soon as he saw the diff, he agreed with it. So apparently I explained it badly, because we agreed on what change needed to be made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll: is "as a practical matter" at WP:CCC problematic?

This is a straw poll to see whether we have anything close to a consensus on the question of whether the "as a practical matter" clause at WP:CCC is a problem that should be addressed. The complete sentence in question, is:

As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons to give when rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement regarding this clause?

The sentence above needs improvement at least because the clause "as a practical matter" is problematic (misleading, ambiguous, unnecessary, etc.).

Of course, please support your !vote with an explanation for why you agree or disagree.

Poll

Agree. I think it's problematic because it softens the statement and can be used as an excuse for rejecting proposals and edits without specifying any reason other than "violates consensus". I also think it should specify that the explained "reasons for objecting" should never simply be "violates consensus", but an explanation of how the proposal or edit conflicts with the reasons supporting the relevant consensus opinion. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither Wording such as "practical matter" makes for Wikilawyerable sentences in any policy. As a practical matter, folks who boldly revert recent consensus are quite likely to see a "against consensus" edit summary especially when the discussion is still on the talk page (I have seen this sort of behaviour as a matter of fact). We can say it is not the strongest edit summary reason, but it is certainly a "reason.") The best goal here, I suggest, is to have people use talk pages rather than destabilizing any recent consensus (say - under a month old?) Collect (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. As near as I can tell, the "as a practical matter" clause is - at best - meaningless in this sentence. (Ring Cinema keeps telling me it has meaning, but can't seem to articulate that meaning. He just keeps saying that the meaning is obvious to a native English speaker.) I think it an be safely removed without changing the meaning. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. My views are about like Collect's. This has been explained and re-explained, both by me and others. "Violates consensus" is the strongest possible reason to revert an edit, but it's not so good as a summary if an editor wants good results. So, for practical reasons, it's better to stay away from that reason. So, would the meaning be the same without it? Well, then it would say that violations of consensus are a weak reason, and that's wrong. Since the sentence's truth value would change without it, it would be a blunder to remove it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree but it's the tip of an iceberg - there are many, many problems with this section and with the policy as a whole, as have already been mentioned. Victor Yus (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Collect - I don't understand why you're not agreeing with the statement. Yes, the "as a practical matter" clause facilitates Wikilawyering. That's another reason to agree with the statement about it being problematic.

By agreeing or disagreeing with the statement, nothing is being said suggesting that "against consensus" is not a reason to revert. The existing wording says it's a weak reason, and nothing here suggests changing that. Why are you not agreeing? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my initial proposal and comment from one editor who felt the parenthetical part about the strength of the reason should be removed? In the interest of consensus, I removed the parenthetical part - it clearly is not an important part of the policy as such. We ought to well distinguish between "advice" and "policy" and try to keep the policy as simple and straightforward as practicable. Collect (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm lost. I remember your initial proposal, but have no idea what that has to do with this question and straw poll. Nothing here is about the parenthetical part of anything. I'm sure you have a good point, I'm just not sure what it is, much less how it's relevant to what is being asked here. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My initial proposal read as follows:

...and edit summaries such as "against consensus," while generally a weak reason for a revert, are likely to occur.'

Which included the position that such edit summaries are weak as "reasons."

Whatamidoing commented: this seems to endorse these generally uninformative edit summaries, which I oppose

And since I believe the material is parenthetical, I struck it out to meet his objections.

All of which is precisely and directly on point to the query here - that is should As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons to give when rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal be used as wording in this policy.

Which I regard as a matter of "neither" because it is not the "as a practical matter" which is actually the issue, but whether we should make the implicit statement that "according to consensus" is a "weak" reason per se. "As a practical matter" is self-evidently a parenthetical comment as to how things may turn out, but of no real value in defining the policy that I can see. Is this rather more clear now? Collect (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you mean it this way, but "against consensus" is not a weak reason; it's the strongest possible reason. It's weak as a summary, so should be avoided for practical reasons. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, but only in relation to edits, not proposals. For that and several other reasons that have already been pointed out, the sentence as currently written does not convey clearly what you just said. (Nor does this have anything to do with the fact that "consensus can change".) Victor Yus (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A question for those who dislike the current language... would you consider an edit summary like: "We just formed a consensus against this - see the talk page" a stronger reason (or a stronger summary) than the blunter "against consensus"? Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Better is "see the current discussion where there appears to be a consensus" as showing that the consensus is indeed recent or relatively so, and that the editor is thus invited to join in any discussion in a polite manner. Collect (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Blueboar, my answer is "yes." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure if "stronger", but more helpful, yes. Victor Yus (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Definitely better; more helpful. But I agree stronger might not be the right word, unless a weak-strong scale is implied on which strength of reason is determined by how helpful it is. Since that implication is not obvious, this identifies another problem with the current wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

OK... next question... WHY is my more expansive summary considered "stronger" (or more helpful)? It seems to me that both summaries convey essentially the same information: the edit is being reverted because it is against consensus. So what is the difference between them? Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• The word is "tact" I suppose. Just as the old templates telling folks that their username had problems was reworded a while back to be less intimidating. Frinstance, I tend to use a "rv non-utile edit" as a summary when the edit was blatant vandalism <g>. Collect (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Collect. To be redundant, I think the goal is similar to that of Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due to "no consensus". Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, I just proposed promoting that essay to be a guideline. See Proposal:Promote "Don't revert due solely to 'no consensus'" essay to a guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• It's tact, but more. While neither edit summary explains what the consensus is or how the edit conflicts with it, the longer one suggests basis for that claim, and where it can be verified. That's what makes it stronger. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you both correctly, you accept that it is OK for someome revert because an edit is against consensus (and thus that "its against consensus" is a valid reason to revert), but you dislike the tactless and blunt words "against consensus" when used in an edit summary (as an explanation of that reasoning). Or to put it another way, what you are really objecting to is language choice... the lack of politeness that comes across when someone uses the tactless and blunt edit summary "against consensus"... rather than a more expansive wording that explains the same underlying rational for the revert. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the current guidance does not discourage reversion on the basis of prior consensus. Given that guidance then your characterization is correct: we should encourage soft talk when employing a big stick. That said, I also think that the current guidance should be changed because prior consensus (particularly if it is not recent) is a poor reason to reject a well thought-out proposed change to the prior consensus. But that is for another day Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason that any variant on "see the talk page" is a better response than "rv anti-consensus edits" is because we assume that when you go off to "see the talk page", you'll find substantive arguments there, rather than a talk-page note saying "That was a procedural reversion, because you forgot to say Mother, may I? and getting written permission to edit the page." So "see the talk page" isn't, strictly speaking, any sort of reason, whether strong or weak, but it's a pointer to what we assume (with reasonable odds of being right) is a discussion of actual reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. "See the talk page" is only better if there is actually persuasive evidence on the talk page supporting the claim that the reverted material contradicted consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, this can be seen as applying the philosophy of "verifiability" to reverts. You can't just put material in an article without including a citation to a reliable source for it. There are at least two good reasons for doing this. First, it forces the editor to make sure what he's adding is actually sourced in reliable sources. Second, it allows others to easily verify that it is.

Here, similarly, we're saying you can't just revert because you say it's against consensus, you need to make that claim verifiable. And it's for two similar reasons. First, so the reverter is forced to make sure there really is support for his view of what consensus is, and, second, so others can verify this. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposing change via edits - SOP

I agree with Butwhatdoiknow (talk · contribs) here... I think it's important to not discourage what is arguably the lifeblood of Misplaced Pages - bold editing, including bold editing as a way to change consensus.

That reminds me of what has been bugging me the most about this. You know, a (perceived) lack of consensus IS a weak reason to revert, precisely because consensus is rarely ever that definitively known, especially with regard to any specific edit, and because consensus can and does change. Now, if the change is very specific and a revert of that specific change has been recently and clearly supported by consensus, then, yes, maybe a lack of consensus is a good reason to revert in such a case, but even then it's better to provide an explanation, or a reference to one. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Edited. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As a passing note, I'm happy to be back to the "unhelpful" language, which was discussed extensively earlier this year. (The regulars may remember the editor who thought that unhelpful was pronounced not permitted.) We used to say that they were "uninformative", which I think is a reasonable first approximation and could also be usefully restored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that my bold edit was reverted... thus discouraging me from further bold editing. :>)

OK, in seriousness, no problem with you folks reverting me... this is how it should work. Now we discuss... I saw most of my edit as simply an attempt to clarify what the policy already said. There was, however, one new concept that I was trying to introduce with my edit: It is often more productive to raise the question of whether consensus has changed than to argue that it has changed (other editors will usually respond more positively to a question than a demand... and so will be more receptive the idea that consensus might have changed if you start of by asking a question rather than if you start off by demanding an end result.) I think this is worth including.

b) While it is absolutely OK to be bold... it is also absolutely OK to revert bold edits Blueboar (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, at least I didn't say "violates consensus" in the edit summary. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand what situation you're trying to address with your text. On what basis might one believe that consensus has changed? Presumably as a result of an actual discussion or editing sequence that you can point to as evidence, in the same way that someone might point to evidence of the prior consensus (as we've been discussing). If you really can point to such evidence, then I see no reason to be mealy-mouthed about it. But if you can't, then you can only say something like "maybe it's time to discuss this again". Seems to me that if you're aware of a consensus specifically against something, however long ago it was, then you shouldn't be doing that something (unless some material circumstance has changed), but you should first raise the matter for new discussion, in the hope that consensus will change. (Though I must admit I've broken that rule sometimes, if the consensus was like two people agreeing with each other and their reasoning was obviously deficient.) Victor Yus (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think your "I've broken that rules sometimes" parenthetical is a good example of why we shouldn't discourage bold editing even when there is a prior consensus, particularly if the consensus is long in the tooth. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, as a general rule I think we must discourage it, if it specifically goes against what was decided by consensus - otherwise how can we claim that consensus is our decision-making method? Though I say discourage, not forbid, since there are always going to be edge cases. Victor Yus (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps what we are all trying to say is that sometimes a bold edit (going against a long-ago consensus decision) may be a valid first step in testing to see if that consensus can now be changed. Victor Yus (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like that... "A bold edit can be a valid first step in testing whether consensus has changed"... however, we need to balance it with something like "A revert of that bold edit should be taken as an indication that another editor thinks consensus has not changed (or, at least, wishes to discuss the issue in more depth.) Do not push a bold edit if reverted, instead discuss it on the talk page." Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Something like that, yes, though I find it confusing to speculate about whether some kind of abstract invisible "consensus" has changed. I don't think it's meaningful to talk about consensus until it's actually reached. It would make more sense to say that the reverting editor simply opposes the bold edit (not that they have some view about whether consensus has changed). Victor Yus (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all very reasonable. But do we really need to say it? I worry about wp:BLOAT. Can't we just assume that most editors will figure that out for themselves? If not, perhaps we could solve the problem by referencing an essay on point. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say that this whole page is already very bloated in several areas, and could be cut down significantly. This topic, however, seems pretty central to our understanding of consensus and its practical consequences, so I think it's worth spelling it out in a paragraph or three. Victor Yus (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, I suspect that you're mentally editing policy pages when you make that suggestion. Think through your suggestion about the meaning of bold edits being reverted on, say, an article about some celebrity. The reversion of a bold edit could mean "You don't understand BLP" or "How dare you say something {positive, negative, irrelevant} about this celebrity" or "A gossip blog is not an acceptable source" or any number of other things. I suspect that most reversions of good-faith bold edits aren't directly about consensus. I don't think you intended to mandate BRD for normal article editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with BRD for normal editing? I make a bold edit... if no one reverts it, fine... if someone does revert it, I have the choice to either accept the revert or to discuss it further on the talk page. What I should not do is take being reverted personally, and what I should not do is edit war to push my bold edit. If I am unclear as to why my edit was reverted, it is up to me to find out why it was reverted... If I am clear on why it was reverted, but I disagree with the stated reason, then I should go to the talk page and discuss my side of the issue. Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not taking a revert personally is certainly good advice, but, given human nature, and the effort that goes into many edits that are reverted, it's idealistic bordering on unrealistic, especially when the revert is accompanied with a curt edit summary which is easily seen as being dismissive of the effort put in to make that edit. The number of good and potentially good editors we've lost because of such reverts is probably countless. Accordingly, such reverts are largely considered unacceptable by the community (see WP:REVEXP and Misplaced Pages:Revert_only_when_necessary), and this policy should reflect that. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC) add links, revise --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

BRD is good for many things. It is not good for efficiency, libel, spam, or other serious problems. If you boldly remove unfair and poorly sourced criticism from a BLP, and I revert your "whitewashing", then a long discussion, while the BLP-violating material sits in the article, is really not the community's first choice. We don't require its use because it is not always appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Victor, I don't think you're quite grasping what we mean by consensus. Honestly, at this point, I'm not sure that you're going to. Consensus is a mushy, human-interaction thing. A discrete discussion that people say has come to some conclusion is not the be-all and end-all of consensus. The #1 indicator of consensus is that something sticks on the page. Consensus is, for better or worse, invisible, intangible, and abstract. It is also sloppy, dirty, complex, nuanced, and fundamentally social. Figuring out whether we have consensus for something is much closer to determining where a large group of people really wants to go to lunch, when most of them don't want to make a suggestion.

So I'll give you a current example: over a year ago, I added text to WP:POLICIES that says you can actually use words like should and must in policies and guidelines. I linked to RFC 2119 in that edit. That change stuck—for over a year, on a policy page that is on more than 1,200 editors' watchlists, with no complaints and with no attempts to remove it.

Do we have consensus for that change? Yes. If you go look at the archives for that policy's talk page, will you find any discussion from the entire month during which I added that sentence? No.

So someone now wants to change it. This person with the new objection needs to demonstrate a consensus to remove the link, which I think is unlikely to happen even though there is no discussion in the archives, because the mere fact that the change stuck for that long, on that highly-trafficked page, is an indication of a consensus by all of the editors who watch the page and previously noticed the addition (minus the one who is objecting) to include it.

There are multiple, equally valid methods for demonstrating a consensus to remove the link. One option is for him to boldly remove it, and see if the removal sticks as well or better than the bold addition stuck. Another option (the one he's pursuing) is to open a discussion about it (he's not getting much support). Either of these methods could demonstrate consensus.

So in this instance, there was no discussion, but the change stuck: that's consensus.

If he boldly removed it, and there was no discussion, but his removal stuck: that's consensus, too.

If he starts a discussion, and the discussion says to remove it, and the removal stuck: that's consensus.

If he starts a discussion, and the discussion says to leave it, and leaving it sticks: that's consensus, too.

All of these are equally valid paths to determining consensus. The past change (last year) overcame the prior consensus (which was to remain silent on that point). Any current change has to overcome current consensus, which is to include this point. Any future change (e.g., next year) has to overcome the consensus that we'll be sorting out this month. Every version of the policy that lasts for more than a trivial amount of time is a "specific" consensus. It's not only the versions whose contents were discussed in advance that have consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that up to a point, but if we go too far down the road of defining consensus in terms of "what sticks", then we risk losing the concept entirely, and ending up in a situation where the sentence "...refers to the primary way decisions are made on Misplaced Pages" can be taken away from this policy and moved to the WP:Edit warring one. Of course editing and counter-editing is most times a good and efficient method of reaching a generally acceptable solution, but sometimes it breaks down and things have to be worked out through discussion, and in that case I think the result of that discussion must, as a fundamental principle, take precedence over the result of any edit tussle. Victor Yus (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice for those who have been reverted

I note that we several essays discussing when it is appropriate to revert (and when it is appropriate not to do so) what sorts of edit summaries we should include when we revert... etc. etc. etc. All focused on the person doing the reverting. Are their any essays that address the issue from the other side of the coin... are there any essays that give advice on how to respond to a revert. Is there anything that focuses on the person who has been reverted? Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages:Brd#Quick-start_guide what you have in mind? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I was really wondering if there was something more detailed than that. For example: The essay Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary (now linked to in a footnote in the guideline) tells a reverter that Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face—"I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back" (and this is a valid and useful thing for a reverter to remember). What I was wondering is if there something that tells the reverted things like: Don't panic... all your hard work did not just disappear forever. It is still in the page history and can be retrieved if needed. Being reverted is not necessarily permanent or Don't take being reverted personally... it can be part of the normal give and take of editing. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It has to be carefully written so as not to appear to sanction reverts which are not well explained. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Born, a poorly explained revert is better than no explanation at all. We need to accept that we have no control over how well or how poorly other people explain their actions. Heck, we can not even insist that they do so. What this means is that, like it or not, we actually do "sanction" poorly explained reverts. Blueboar (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying we sanction vandalism because we have no control over vandals. We do not have to accept poorly explained reverts, and we generally don't. I suggest we are being far more accepting of it than is necessary, and much more can be done to discourage this behavior, which is arguably more damaging to WP than vandalism. How many good editors have we lost due to the hostility with which their efforts were met in curt reverts? Untold numbers. How many article improvements did not occur due to the loss of those disgusted and frustrated editors? Myriads. How many articles have not been written at all because the editors that would have written them are no longer with us? Countless.

Yes, those of us who remain have relatively thick skins, but that should not be a requirement to contribute. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Except we have an actual sanction (punishment) for vandals... vandals are blocked from further editing. No one has ever been blocked for leaving poor edit summaries. (We may sometimes wish they were, but that isn't actual practice).

As for all those "good editors" we have supposedly lost... first, I think you are seriously overstating the case... I am sure some people have left in a huff because they were reverted (how DARE you revert my perfect work!!), but I doubt anyone has ever left because the revert was explained poorly. Do you have any evidence to support the contention? Second, if someone is so sensitive as to quit the project over being reverted curtly, I would not consider them "good editors". There is probably a very good reason people were being so curt with them. Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Blue, please re-read Born's comments substituting "punish" for sanction; Born, please re-read Blue's comments substituting "allow" for "sanction." If you do that then you might find that you both agree that poorly explained edits should be discouraged (and editors who are at the receiving end of a poorly explained edit should be encouraged). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Good clarification (sanction has two meanings, so we should avoid that word)... I am definitely not talking about encouraging poor edit summaries... but they do happen and there is really no action we can (or should) take when they happen.

To get us back to my original point - we already have several essays and guidelines that give advice to those who wish to revert... but I have not seen anything that gives advice to those who have been reverted. Who knows... perhaps an essay giving them some advice would help prevent all those "good editors" Born talks about from leaving the project in a snit. I will be happy to start one if people think this is a good idea... but before I do, I wanted to know if there was already something out there (something I have missed). Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point. What would be the main points for material like that? To my mind, there are two main cases: when the revert is on new material and when it is on previously discussed material. For new material, the reverted should simply go to discussion and explain their edit, if possible responding to the reverter's edit summary. For the second case, which is broader, we have to be careful what we say. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, WP:Status quo stonewalling has a section on how to defend the status quo without stonewalling that might be helpful here: Misplaced Pages:Status_quo_stonewalling#How_to_defend_the_status_quo_without_stonewalling. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, that is mostly focused on the editor considering a revert, and not the editor who has been reverted. I am considering drafting an essay entitled WP:Your contribution has been reverted... now what? (working title, of course) Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

...still a red link (hint, hint.) IOW, make it so. KillerChihuahua 16:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, there is an index for editors. The link for your question is: WP:EIW#Revert. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Violates? Goes against? Differs from?

In my view there's a difference between an edit that "violates" (or "goes against") prior consensus and an edit that "differs from" prior consensus. Of course either kind can be reverted, but I think the situation supposed to be addressed by CCC is the stronger kind, where there has effectively been agreement not to make the edit in question. An edit that simply takes the previous consensus text and tries to further improve it in a way that was not envisaged during previous considerations ought only to be reverted on its own merits, and not with any reference to past consensus. (I don't agree with the reasoning in this edit summary - it does make sense to talk about violating an agreement, even if done for the purpose of testing to see if that agreement still holds.) Victor Yus (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably you're wrong and there's not really evidence for your view in the text. CCC has to cover situations that sometimes include editors who, for example, look for tricks to avoid following consensus. It's not difficult to imagine that one tactic would be to offer a new proposal that simply changes the wording of a recent proposal. The distinction of the kind you mention above is one that has to be made by the editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when I say "not to make the edit in question" I don't mean that the exact form of words needs to have been rejected, just the thrust. Victor Yus (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but the concept of "testing if an agreement will hold" seems to echo the crank's justification. If there are no new facts and no new arguments, what is being tested? A consensus is by definition a wide agreement, and if you are referring to the relatively rare binary decisions, these tend to be less substantive anyway. I can see it if a new editor arrives who was not privy to the earlier decision and has a stake in it. Otherwise, what is the utility? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider the following situation: Two years ago, an article had ten principle editors working on it, and they reached a consensus to word something in a particular way. In the intervening years, most of these editors have moved on to other articles, and may have left the project all together. Now, two years later, a new group of editors are working on improving the article. One of them edits the sentence or section that was the subject of the previous consensus in a way that is contrary to the previous consensus. I do not think there is any "violation" of the previous consensus, since the editor who made the edit was not party to reaching the previous consensus agreement. Yet the edit is still contrary to that previous consensus. The question that needs to be asked is: what is: Does the previous consensus still hold... what the current consensus about that edit? Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely but that's not what I was talking about; I think you make the point well that many different cases are covered by CCC. Yes, I think the passage of time, etc., matters. As I mentioned above, a new editor who was not in on the previous consensus can't be criticized -- usually. However, does this really reference Victor's edit? He is implying that it is incorrect to revert over a difference from a previous consensus. That is a very big policy change when the only consequence is a discussion of the change in question. Set that against the disruption possible by editors who don't respect the previous consensus or who want to use some form of trickery to smuggle in changes for which there is not support. The existing consensus is presumptively better until a new consensus forms. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to get a few principles straight - I don't really feel as if I understand the concerns of others in this debate, nor that others understand mine. The latest change now talks about edits that don't have consensus (which is like 99.9% of all edits), which seems to me to be a greater change than any that I was trying to make. I don't disagree with what's written now, though it seems to be getting even further away from anything that might belong under the heading "Consensus can change". Victor Yus (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The current draft simply a clarifies that the status quo is the default. Your edit, Victor, reversed that, and, despite some misunderstanding on the point, a substantive change in policy should be discussed before implementation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my edit reversed that, or where it has ever been stated clearly in policy that the status quo is the default. If that is the case, it would be good to spell it out even more clearly than has been done now, and probably in a separate section from "consensus can change", since it is an important and separate principle (if it really is a principle). Victor Yus (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But it is right in the policy. If there is no consensus, there's no change. Substantive changes are typically discussed before implementation. Those are two manifestations of it. You wouldn't think that if an editor completely rewrote this project and posted it that it would become the new default, do you? The status quo is the default. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know quite what you mean. Substantive changes are being made all the time, several per second, and very few of them are ever discussed beforehand or afterwards. Victor Yus (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware that substantive changes to policy are typically discussed in advance. That's the policy and the practice. The status quo is the default, whether you are aware of it or not, for the several reasons already mentioned. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about edits to articles, right, not changes to policy? Victor Yus (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"Status quo wins" is not our policy, not even for changes to articles. If Ring will please review the examples given at WP:CON#No consensus, I believe he will discover that status quo is rejected in approximately as many cases as its preferred.

Also, substantive changes "are typically discussed in advance", but that is not actually required, and it is particularly uncommon when the editor making the change doesn't believe his edit is that big a change from what's already written or discussed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No consensus means no change but with specified exceptions, and prior discussion of substantive changes is clearly the preferred method for the reasons stated on that page. A reverted edit lacks consensus at that moment so the reverted editor, if he wants to pursue it, should just go to discussion and justify it for the purpose of gaining consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The prior version equally "lacks consensus" the moment someone makes a change to it. That is the meaning of every change, no matter how minor. If you correct the spelling on a page, you are effectively saying "I do not consent to the version of this page that contains misspelled words". The same is true for major changes. If you dramatically expand a page, you are saying "I do not consent to this page being so brief". No consensus means no consensus either way. It does not mean "consensus for status quo". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's backward. The practice of Misplaced Pages is that no consensus means no change (with some specified exceptions). A new proposal is a proposal that may or may not enjoy consensus. Since no consensus means no change, it takes a consensus to make a change. So a change happens only with a new consensus. The alternative would really be chaotic, if the default was the new proposal and any nonsense proposal replaces the current draft until it can be discussed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikidemon's latest version: ("While an edit made without consensus may be reverted, terse edit summaries such as "requires consensus" (and similar phrases) are not always helpful"." takes the sentence away from what the CCC section is specifically talking about. The section is specifically talking about situations where a previously established consensus exists, not the broader situation where edits are made without any consensus. I suggest: "While an edit that is contrary to a previous consensus may be reverted, terse edit summaries such as "against consensus" (and similar phrases) are not always helpful." Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was getting at. Though the situation raised by Wikidemon's text should be addressed in the policy as well (in fact it probably already is, though the whole thing is so unclear and overblown that it's hard to find anything concrete in it). Victor Yus (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the same thing. The state of consensus can evolve from there being consensus against, or there being no consensus, to having a consensus for. In either case, it is permissible to revert a new edit as not having consensus, whereupon the proposer needs to demonstrate that there is in fact a new consensus. Further, terse edit summaries that cite only lack of consensus may be unhelpful in some cases, but they are sufficient in others. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest terse edit summaries that cite only lack of consensus are never sufficient, because they are unverifiable, if nothing else. Even if the editor being reverted is thought to know that his or her edit is against consensus, it's rude and often wrong to assume others who see the revert will know. Also, there may be dispute about whether consensus or a lack of consensus has been demonstrated - a reference to the discussion that supposedly supports the revert makes the claim of lack of consensus verifiable.

And support for claiming lack of consensus is the bare minimum that should be provided. Much better is a substantive explanation for why consensus opposes the edit. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

An overterse edit comment such as "lacks consensus" implies "I am not in agreement with this". At the least this says there is not unanimous consensus. Of course the editor should be prepared to state why they are not in agreement, but that doesn't mean they can't take a reasonable time to spell their reasoning out on the talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case the edit summary should at least say "see Talk", and they should provide the explanation there, not wait until they are asked.

This is for the benefit of anyone trying to read and understand consensus on that point a few weeks later. A terse "lacks consensus" edit summary without further explanation on the talk page is practically worthless; no better than a JDLI argument. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's just plain wrong - look at the talk archives here. Or do your own review - here are the last 5,000 edits to Barack Obama, full of procedural reverts where the substantive reason for opposing the edit is besides the point. Edit summaries citing lack of consensus are just fine in some of these difficult circumstances, and in some cases best practice. I'm not prepared to argue that again for the umpteenth time so take that as a premise. We shouldn't do anything here to encourage people to go tipping over apple carts. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't examine every single one, but, off-hand, I don't see anything there that qualifies as a terse edit summary akin to "no consensus", and nothing else. If you have one specific example that you feel is justified, perhaps I'll understand what you're trying to say better. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikidemon makes a pretty good point, and it seems that we are spending a lot of time discussing this. There's nothing wrong with citing a lack of consensus if that's a fact. The reverted editor should go to discussion and explain why they want to make the change. That is pretty normal give and take. The fact that an editor reverts is prima facie evidence that the change lacks consensus. If they don't want to, then leave it reverted since there's no consensus for the change at that point. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The underlying assumption should always be that a gf editor intends to spell out reasons for reverting. That is what wp:BRD is about, after all. If the reverted/undone editor is experienced, there's not much added value in saying "see talk" to them. For a newbie, though, I'd agree that they might need it. That said, a real newbie still might not know how to see talk, or even how to see the history which contains the edit comment. I ran into an example of this just today. Usually however, we can presume editors know their way around if we recognize their usernames. In cases such as the Obama article, though, the presumption of good faith is pretty tough to sustain in an election year. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems that keeps coming up in the above comments is a misunderstanding of what "consensus" is. Consensus is, generally speaking, our agreement, which may be silent. So Victor is wrong when he says that 99.9% of edits don't have consensus. About 90% of edits do have consensus. What 99% of edits don't have is written evidence of consensus. We require consensus; we do not require documented evidence of consensus (except in a few circumstances).

I'd like to be able to agree with LeadSongDog that "no consensus" means "I personally object", but as we've seen on this page, reversions due to "no consensus" often mean "I wrongly believe that changes to policy pages must be made only if you've been granted written permission in advance." I have actually seen edits reverted with an edit summary that says (1) the reverter strongly agrees with the change and (2) the reverter believes that even good changes require advance discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but just to clarify what I meant, 99.9% of edits don't have consensus at the time when they are made. The silence that implies acceptance of the edits necessarily comes afterwards. Victor Yus (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So a reverted edit lacks consensus and you're aware of that. The guideline is clear (see the following post) and complaints about it are misplaced. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edits don't always lack consensus. We've all seen edit wars by POV pushers, which very frequently involve reverting away from a version that actually does have consensus fro the broader community, and is lacking only consent from a lone POV pusher. I'll bet we've all seen reversions by vandals, too, and surely reverting to a version that contains the word "poop" isn't an instance of a reverted edit proving that there is no consensus to keep vandalism out of our articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The heading of this page refers us to this: "Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy." This is under the heading "Substantive changes". So, I am not mistaken in saying that a policy change (which is covered by CCC, I believe) that is not preceded by a proposal or a discussion of some kind can be reverted if there's not a consensus for it. Not only are those the plain words of the policy, they are the past practice and really the only rational practice. The alternative is that an edit to a policy page is the default ahead of the existing policy even if there is not consensus for the change. I would be baffled by support for that simply on common sense grounds. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with it? No, really: What does "typically" have to do with "must" or "should"? As a matter of fact, substantive changes are typically discussed in advance. You could go through a policy's recent history, and count the number of substantive changes, and count the number of discussions that happened in advance, and you would discover that this is a very typical choice made by editors. Whether it is "really the only rational practice" is just one editor's opinion, and not one that I happen to share. Sometimes a substantive improvement is so obviously an improvement that prior discussion is just pointless bureaucracy.

But while it is often done, there is absolutely no requirement that you discuss substantive changes in advance, and therefore you are wrong when you assert that it's okay to revert a change merely because there's no discussion about consensus.

If there's no actual consensus—if you make a change, and everyone hates it—then it can be reverted whether it is substantive or not, and whether it was discussed or not. Discussion is not consensus. Discussion is only a method of finding out what the consensus is. If you already know what the consensus is, then you don't need to have the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, one can change the policy without advance discussion. It is physically possible for someone with the editing permission. However, it seems that a good editor would only do that in a case that is not typical. But why are you hanging your hat on the literal words instead of honoring the clear spirit of the guidelines? With regret, I have to observe that you seem to manifest here the case of an editor who doesn't want to follow the rules and so looks for narrow readings to exempt themselves. Is there some reason to prefer a disorderly process? Are you so atypical that you shouldn't do what is typical? What do you see we will gain by that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There is probably some confusion here between "changing the policy" and "editing a policy". Obviously to change a policy (an actual accepted practice) you need to get people's acceptance, by definition. But to edit a policy page (either to make it easier to understand, or more accurate or complete as a description of the accepted practice) you don't (or shouldn't) need anyone's prior approval any more than you would if you were editing a Misplaced Pages article for analogous reasons. Victor Yus (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No confusion here, since editing the policy changes the policy for the readers. That's exactly the reason why unless the case is atypical, discussion should precede changes. I would also observe that discussion almost always changes proposals, so the chance that a change is likely to be accepted is almost nil. However, I know of one good reason to edit on the page first: it makes clear to all precisely where the proposal fits. For that reason, self-reversion should be considered for edits that require discussion. In other words, make the edit, then immediately revert and start the discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is some confusion there. The "real policy" is what the community actually does. The written page that says {{policy}} at the top is only an attempt to describe the real policy. Think British constitution, not a statutory law system. If the written description of the policy or guideline does not match the real policy, then you need to change the written description. If your new description is accurate, then there is a consensus for your improvements, even if you haven't provided evidence of that consensus in advance.

I'm not looking for special exemptions for myself. I'm happy to hang my hat on the literal words at WP:POLICY, however, because I wrote nearly the entire page, including the sections you're quoting about what's typical. Having written nearly every word that you're quoting, as well as most of the words that you're ignoring, I believe that I understand what that section of the policy is actually trying to achieve.

The only important reason to discuss something in advance is to find out whether or not there is a consensus for your proposed change. If you (accurately) know that there is, then there is no need for prior discussion. (If you're not certain, or if you have a track record of being wrong, you should definitely hit the talk page.) I've provided previously a series of diffs showing undiscussed changes I've made to policies. Even Ring has agreed that there was a consensus for those changes, despite me not having put a single word on the talk page about them. Discussion is a means to an end, not a necessary step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that practices are important (see my proposal for Levels of Consensus, that mentions it explicitly). But your approach has a critical logical flaw: there is no way to know in advance if your proposal will have a consensus. In actual fact, there is none in advance, and thinking otherwise is merely pretentious. If it is true that you included this view in POLICY even though it's not WP practice, you've just made a mistake. Please correct that rather blatant, illogical, incoherent error immediately. As I rightly pointed out, very few policy edits are adopted as is, so only the arrogant and clueless editors who think they are not typical would follow the practice you outline. The real reason to discuss things in advance is to avoid the needless confusion of frequent changes to a policy page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I can (sometimes) know when my changes are supported by consensus, even before I make or discuss the change. For example, I can tell you right now, with no fear of contradiction, that there is a consensus to remove spam from articles. I can tell you that there is always a consensus to remove vandalism. There is a consensus for removing quackery from medical articles, and for expanding stubs, and for adding sources to unsourced articles, and so forth.

And lest you think that there are separate rules for policies vs articles, I remind you that I already gave you a stack of diffs, and you agreed that my edits to that policy (1) did have consensus and (2) were not discussed. There is already a consensus for making policies and guidelines match each other. There is already a consensus for correcting examples that are misleading or wrong. If you know the area well enough, you already know some things for which there will be consensus. For example, as the #1 all-time contributor to WP:EL and WP:ELN, I pretty much know which changes everyone will agree with automatically, and which things need to be discussed, and even which things I'd support but I don't bother proposing because I expect them to be rejected.

Editors don't leave their experience and domain knowledge at the door when they are working on policies and guidelines. If you've answered dozens of questions at a noticeboard on a given subject, then I actually expect you to know what parts of the relevant policies and guidelines are confusing people or are failing to describe actual practice. If your change results in a clearer explanation or a better concordance with reality, then I'm going to support that change, even if you didn't bother jumping through a hoop labeled "discussion". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The examples you choose are beside the point in the context of a discussion about changes to policy. I'm glad to see that. If you are relying on non sequiturs and claims that pretentious editing is good, I'm sure that I'm correct. So, should discussion precede changes on policy pages? Yes, and you offer nothing to weaken that longstanding practice. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ring, do I understand correctly that your rationale for saying we should require pre-discussion of changes to policy pages is to avoid "frequent changes to a policy page"? If so, is that the only rationale or are there others? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Is that your last question? --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. Unless you don't answer it. Then I will conclude that I am wasting my time trying to get at the heart of your concern. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have something to offer, don't keep it a secret. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What I have to offer is dialog. But, as I have discovered in dealing with you in the past - and am confirming again now - that is not something you and I can achieve. If you had answered my question then I would have better understood where you are coming from and could have made an informed decision regarding whether - and, if so, how - we disagreed (creating a starting point from which to resolve our differences). Alas, that is not to be. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. In the very recent past, you went out of your way to be extremely disrespectful. Now you blame me for my disinterest toward your claims of sympathy. Give me a break. There is nothing in your habit of posing leading questions that I find useful. If you want to apologize for your past behavior and explain why I should overlook it, take a chance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about with regard to you and I having a relationship like two ships passing in the night. I am fallible and not afraid to apologize when, in retrospect, I have done something inappropriate. So, can you tell me what are you talking about with regard to my past behavior being disrespectful? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The confusion I mentioned above seems still to be operational. Of course if someone wants to change a policy page in a way that goes against currently accepted practice (for example, to change CCC to say that consensus decisions once reached can never be changed), then it would be wrong to do that until the change of practice had actually been accepted. But if someone wants to change it just in order to describe the currently accepted practice better, then there's no particular reason why that change necessarily needs discussion, any more than an edit to an article (in order to describe the subject of that article better) necessarily needs discussion. There are two different types of consensus involved here – consensus about how Misplaced Pages ought to operate, and consensus about how a particular page or pages should best attempt to describe that operation. And there's no more reason for a policy page to remain "stable" (in terms of presentation) than there is for a Misplaced Pages article to remain stable - if someone can improve it, then we want them to do so. Victor Yus (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So then reverting an edit because it is inconsistent with the existing consensus on the policy is fine, and the reverted editor should go to discussion and offer a justification. (A small quibble: you misuse the term 'practice' above, which is not the same as the words of a policy.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think my whole point is that practice is not the same as the words of the policy. Ideally the latter should clearly explain the former, and we want people to make changes that helps this to come about. I agree that reverting an edit because it is inconsistent with the existing consensus is fine, provided we know clearly what the existing consensus is. Otherwise reverting it without giving substantive reasons is more likely to hamper the process of establishing a consensus. Victor Yus (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The idealization of which you speak is a well known impossibility. Rules and definitions beget more rules and definitions in an infinite regress. There is no mystery to the epistemology of the current consensus; unless there's something unusual, current consensus is reflected in the current text. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, the current text will reflect the current consensus.

But it doesn't always. Our policies and guidelines contain errors. For example, until a couple of days ago, WP:RS was demanding that videos (e.g., of television news programs) be published and archived by a WP:Third party, rather than by the original broadcaster (e.g., the BBC). That was wrong: a self-published, self-archived video gets handled under the same rules as a self-published, self-archived blog post, and a BBC-published, BBC-archived news report gets handled the same as a New York Times-published, New York Times-archived news report. We finally fixed this error, which had persisted in the guideline for about four years. And, no, we shouldn't have to have a long discussion in advance to fix plain old errors like that. We should just fix the errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what WhatamIdoing says above; I would like to further go into the issue of whether "current consensus is reflected in the current text". I'd distinguish the type of case mentioned here some time ago - where someone added some text to a page, it remained there a long time, then someone else wanted to remove it - from the case where some text has stood for a long time, but then someone comes along with a way to correct or improve it. In the first case it seems reasonable to claim that current consensus is for the existing text and against the removal (because everyone watching the page has silently accepted the addition). But in the second case it seems unreasonable to claim a pre-existing consensus against the change, because the proposed correction or improvement has not been considered before, so it is meaningless to say that there is any existing consensus on tha matter. Victor Yus (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The two cases are the same. You just want to add the suspect premise that there is an improvement. But that premise is only true if there is a consensus that it's an improvement. No, the current text reflects the current consensus until a new consensus is established that it should be changed. The mind reading and pretentious suppositions are not policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

How can there be current consensus that something is not an improvement, if that something has never been suggested or considered before? Victor Yus (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't revert what you support

I think it might be useful to have a paragraph on not reverting changes that you personally support. This could be a new section, or it might be possible to put it under ==Reaching consensus through editing==. My basic idea is to codify the common-sense rule that if you personally support the change, then you personally should not remove it. This is important to consensus, because the primary method we have for determining consensus is one person making a change, and then seeing whether it sticks. If nobody reverts it (over a period of time that ensures lots of people can see it, which might take a day on some heavily trafficked pages and a year on some obscure articles), then we have a consensus in favor of the change. If you revert it, even though you support the change, then you're screwing up our primary method of consensus determination (and usually for no good reason, either "I believe red tape is good for Misplaced Pages" or "Some hypothetical other person might object".)

What do you think? How should we include this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a very good suggestion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

+1. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I like it. If we go with a separate section may I suggest the title be "Don't be an idiot like Butwhatdoiknow"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It comes up sometimes from the right impulse. For example, common knowledge is occasionally tagged for no source out of an excessive zeal for, I guess, accuracy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there might be a good reason to ignore this rule, just like any other rule. I could imagine someone reverting a change by way of de-fusing a volatile situation. But as a general rule, under non-IAR circumstances, I think it's right. We should be careful to avoid phrasing it as a "you must never" kind of rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with this, but would explicitly make an exception for reverts of edits that clearly contradict a recently established consensus (unless there are new arguments etc.). We ought to be encouraging a culture in which current consensus (once we know for sure what it is) is upheld; and that can be usefully done by any member of the community, regardless of their personal views. Victor Yus (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This strikes me as an attempt to mandate a specific type of "behavior". As such, it does not really belong in this policy. I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think we should actually say it... and especially not here. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

?? This policy is in the category "Misplaced Pages conduct (i.e. behavior) policies", and is largely about appropriate and inappropriate behaviors already, so I would have thought it an excellent place to mandate (or at least, recommend) a particular type of behavior. Victor Yus (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Why shouldn't we say it at all?
• If you didn't say it here, where would you say it? At WP:NOTBURO, maybe? It's already in some of the pages on reverting, like the last paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Reverting#When_to_revert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, this policy is about what consensus is (on WP) and how to develop it. Key to that is that reverts should always reflect opposition to the reverted material by the person making the revert, that that person is willing to explain. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

In those cases where no consensus means no change, the onus for justification falls on the changing editor, although for practical reasons it is better for the reverting editor to give a reason. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Even in those cases where the revert is justified by a supposed lack of consensus supporting the change, if the reverter personally supports the change, they should not be reverting it. That's the point here, as I understand it, and I totally agree with that. Consensus is already difficult enough to ascertain; that process can only be worsened by actions that are in conflict with one's own opinion. The key point here is that consensus (or lack thereof) is determined by the actions (and non-actions) as well as stated opinions of editors; a revert is itself evidence of opposition, by the reverter, to the change with respect to the issue of whether the change has consensus support or not. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC) clarification --Born2cycle (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

OK... let me rephrase... Policies and guideline pages should only state "rules" that can be enforced... so, how do we enforce this? Are you suggesting that we start blocking editors who revert things they actually support? Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. I disagree that policies and guidelines should be strictly limited to rules that can be enforced. They should also give good advice, even if it's not enforceable. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

How do we enforce wp:Ignore all rules? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This "rule" is every bit as "enforceable" as the "rule" to be bold. Shall we remove that fundamental "rule" since it's "unenforceable" and therefore should not be included in a policy or guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see why it might seem preferable to restrict pages marked "policy" (but not necessarily "giudeline") to specific declarations that we are prepared as a community to uphold and enforce with a certain amount of vigor - that's what the word "policy" implies to me - but it's clear that this isn't in fact Misplaced Pages's practice: policy pages are fairly random collections of ideals, half-rules, advice and facts vaguely related to some topic concerning Misplaced Pages, and that certainly applies to this page as much as any. Given this, I don't see any reason to object to the inclusion of a recommendation on the grounds that it won't generally be enforced by concrete measures - the same applies to almost everything written here. Victor Yus (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes and besides, it is enforceable in at least one type of situation where this matters: someone reverts for "no consensus" and, when asked to explain, argues he doesn't have to explain his reasons because his reasons don't matter, as only consensus matters. That's not a purely hypothetical situation, trust me. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

How is that "enforceable"? Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If someone refuses to explain his reasons for a revert, he can be sanctioned for being disruptive. By clearly describing such behavior as being disruptive here, that makes it easier to enforce. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure... if someone outright refuses to explain. However, leaving a terse edit summary saying "no consensus" (or the more helpful: "please establish consensus for this") is usually considered an acceptable explanation, and thus not disruptive editing. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, would not consider either of those an acceptable explanation. Victor Yus (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got to go with Victor on this one. The whole point of the second paragraph at CCC is to discourage such edit summaries. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the point of the second paragraph is to discourage terse edit summaries... I think the point is to encourage more detailed ones. And I definitely think it goes too far to call a terse edit summary disruptive. Sure, a more detailed edit summary is usually more helpful than a terse one, but being terse isn't disruptive... a terse edit summary like "no consensus" is a acceptable bare minimum explanation of why the edit was reverted (it says that someone does not think there is consensus for the edit). Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

O.k., let's not go as far as disruptive. How about "off putting,""more likely to lead to edit wars," "may be taken as disrespectful," "effectively useless to the revered editor," or ... um ... "unhelpful." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) To return to what I think was the original point, it is being suggested that "I don't think there is consensus for the edit" is not an acceptable explanation for a revert - unless you really have evidence as to what consensus is at the present time (which is the exception I've already suggested). If there is no known current consensus on the matter (as in the case of nearly all edits, which have never been discussed before), then the process is best served if people don't attempt to speculate as to what the yet-to-be-formed consensus might be, but get down to making such changes as they think improve the article - and certainly don't undo changes that they personally agree with. Victor Yus (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The "helpfulness" of an edit summary can also depend on who you are addressing. For example... Suppose an editor has gained a reputation for adding problematic non-consensus material. Experience has shown that he is unreceptive to more detailed edit summaries. In such a situation, the edit summary accompanying a revert is more focused on telling everyone else why you reverted, rather than explaining it to the person you reverted. A terse "no consensus" is perfectly appropriate for that. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Better to say why the material is problematic (a brief "OR" or "POV" is not great, but better than the meaningless "no consensus"). Victor Yus (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There is not a consensus for this view. As is well known, many editors all across Misplaced Pages revert edits because there's no consensus for the change, and they are prima facie correct, since at the time of the revert the opinions of two editors have been heard. As a practical matter, it is better to say something else, but the reverted editor should accept at the least that if nothing else happens, there's no consensus for the change. What is certain is that the reverted editor has no basis to reinstate their change. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That scenario is an example why the second paragraph of CCC does not forbid "against consensus" - wp:Ignore all rules when they don't make sense. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

And, let me add, this is an important reason to support WAID's suggestion at the top of this discussion. Reverters should not pretend they know if there will be a new consensus in the future any more than bold editors. Sticking to the facts, a bold editor is free to believe -- until contradicted by future events -- that there is a consensus for change. But a revert is a contradiction of that belief. Reverters don't know for sure more than their own beliefs and shouldn't engage in mind reading of other editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is supposed to take account of the "legitimate concerns" of all editors, not their whims or prejudices or whatever else might motivate them to make reverts sometimes. If no legitimate concern has been expressed, then I don't believe the mere fact that something has been reverted need have any bearing on our assessment of whether there is or is not consensus (though I agree it probably isn't a great idea to simply redo the edit without trying to find out what the other editor's objection was). Victor Yus (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't square with the facts. Assuming good faith in the reverting editor, there are reasons. And if only two editors have offered an opinion and they differ, I think we have to accept that there is no consensus. As a practical matter, it is better to say something more than "no consensus" but it is literally accurate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if accurate, it still isn't a reason. You might as well just revert and give no reason, if the only basis for your claiming a lack of consensus is the fact that you oppose. (And if it turns out that your reasons are not valid - which they might not be, even if you're acting in good faith - then that doesn't exclude the possibility of consensus.) Victor Yus (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a shorthand for the reason, and it's a reason that is accurate. The validity of the editors' reasons will be decided by those editors, so if the reverting editor believes his reason is legitimate, then at that time his reason is good. That's how it works here and there's not another method. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is a reason to support WAID's proposal. Editors don't need to engage in mind-reading. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I still think we are making broad "rules" about things that are better left unsaid. The appropriateness of a revert or a given edit summary is situational... we should not make broad statements saying "do this... not that" when there are lots of situations when doing "that" would be perfectly OK (and even best). I can think of many situations when I might revert even things I personally support.. Situations where I am sure that other editors are likely to object. I see nothing wrong with my reverting on that basis and starting a talk page discussion to discuss it. Now, it is always possible that my assumption was wrong... it might be that, contrary to my expectation, everyone loved the edit... but if so, that fact will become apparent as soon as we start a discussion (and, in which case, we will all quickly agree to return the edit, as it was before I reverted.) Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So why not wait and see if anyone does object, and let them do the revert if they feel it necessary? If it turns out there isn't anyone, you've just wasted everyone's time, and quite likely got people's back up in the process. There's enough work to do, and enough potential for irritation, on Misplaced Pages without having people making it even more time- and nerve-consuming than it needs to be. Victor Yus (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar makes a good point in that we don't have to try to outguess the editors. The strength of Misplaced Pages is from the editors dealing with the situations with the articles and trying to work it out. If an editor wants to smooth things out, we're not really in a position to know better. And if an editor wants to ignore our advice, they'll do it anyway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but that's no reason not to give advice. Perhaps we should change this page from a policy to a guideline, since most of what it says is advice of this fairly general and ignorable nature - or split off the two or three sentences that might truly qualify as "policy" and put them on a separate page. (But Misplaced Pages's internal space is so disorganized already that it probably doesn't really matter.) Victor Yus (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, too, that we are free to give advice and sometimes it's a good idea, but the problem is that policy is often used as a club to short circuit discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for Level of Consensus reorganization and amendment in bold

Misplaced Pages has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. Since they reflect established consensus, their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that a generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

Community consensus is indicated in the common practices that good editors use consistently to carry out editorial tasks and sometimes by their verbal agreement on new methods to implement them. Issues are taken up in discussion for the purpose of creating guidelines to that end; others are conventional and emerge through emulation of useful methods. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Above is a proposal for the Level of Consensus section. Paragraph order is reversed, some small edits, and a third paragraph added. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

For comparison, here is the current text:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

Misplaced Pages has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.

I'm unclear what you hope to accomplish with this proposal, so I'm not sure what to look for. I think the current order of the paragraphs is better, with the general statement first, then the specific statement about policy. I'm okay with your changes to what is currently the first paragraph. I don't see how the new 3rd paragraph helps anything. If nothing else, it seems to vague to be useful. Do you have an example in mind where it might help clarify something? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is normally cited in article contexts ("I don't care what you and your best wikifriend decided. BLP definitely does apply to this article"), so I don't think the reversal is helpful. As for the addition, the purpose isn't clear to me, unless it's to undercut what WP:POLICY says about bold edits being acceptable. Issues taken up in discussion for the purpose of creating guidelines to that end is a sentence fragment. Correcting that might help make it clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This came from a previous discussion about revising this section. My draft puts the general statement first and the exception second, so on that score perhaps B2Cycle and I sort of agree. The current draft begins with a specific case and proceeds to the general. I've corrected that. The addition, which has been discussed before in a different form, takes note of the fact that community practices constitute community consensus along with the rules and definitions. The way that policy is followed is part of the policy, especially at the community level. WAID, I don't see the bit about undermining anything. There's nothing there about bold edits, which after all are part of WP practice and if anything supported by this text. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We agree the general should be stated before the specific, but we're disagreeing, apparently, on what is general and what is specific. To me, the general is the part about local consensus not overriding broad consensus - that's general because it applies to everything - article space and policy space. The specific is the part about policy pages having a higher standard; that's specific because it applies only to policy pages. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I put first the general case about Misplaced Pages and second I put the case that applies to subsets of Misplaced Pages, which is narrower. From broad to narrow, as it should be. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You did the exact opposite of from broad to narrow; you went narrow to broad. You put first the specific case about a subset of WP (policies and guidelines), which is narrow, and second put a general principle (local consensus cannot override community consensus) that applies to articles as well as policies and guidelines, which is broader. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I prefer the current language. I find it easier to understand. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The current language is all included. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Is an edit summary the best place to explain your actions?

We have been discussing edit summaries a lot recently... what kinds of edit summaries are helpful, disruptive, confusing etc. However, I think we need to take a step back from all that and explore some more basic questions... What exactly is the purpose of an edit summary? Is an edit summary really the place to explain an edit or revert? Personally, I don't think so. For one thing, there usually isn't space in an edit summary to properly explain one's actions (especially in a potentially heated exchange). I think the proper role of an edit summary is to be a notation... by design they are simple, terse and somewhat blunt. An edit summary is a good place to hint at an explanation ("no consensus"), or explicitly point to one ("see talk"), but it is not the proper place to actually explain an edit or revert. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether in the edit summary (if it can be done in that space) or on the talk page (if it can't), edits should be explained. If the explanation is provided on the talk page then a terse "see talk" would be an adequate edit summary. Anyway, that's my opinion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is essentially my point... we have been spending a lot of time discussing the acceptability and helpfulness of terse edit summaries (especially for reverts) ... but if there is an explanation on the talk page, the edit summary does not really matter. In fact, if you leave an explanation on the talk page, you don't have to leave any edit summary. A blunt "against consensus" or "no consensus" is fine... as long as you expand on that blunt note and explain further on the talk page. So... rather than spending guideline space telling editors that they should write nice, friendly edit summaries (advice which they will ignore)... I think we should tell them that they should to go to the talk page and explain (which is what most editors already do). Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but still don't know why you think that "no consensus" or "against consensus" is in any way a useful edit summary. Unless you mean in the special cases we've mentioned, where the matter really has been discussed and the consensus position (or lack of it) established. Otherwise such an edit summary is either false, or equivalent to no reason at all.Victor Yus (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

An edit summary's "usefulness" depends on who is reading it, and what information the summary is intended to convey ... as an explanation of why material was reverted, directed at the editor who added the material, a terse edit summary like "no consensus" probably will not be all that "useful"... However, as a short notation directed at other editors who are watching the page it is quite useful... it informs them, in just two words, that "an editor has a problem with the reverted material and would like to hold a consensus discussion about it".

Let's take this to extremes... suppose someone reverts with the tersest of all edit summaries: "No". As an editor watching the article, I would find that "useful" in the sense that it alerts me to the fact that someone has an issue with some bit of material. I don't yet know what that issue is, but I know an issue exists. I would hope that the reverting editor would expand on that terse "no" on the talk page, and explain his/her issue in more detail, but at least I know that there is an issue to discuss. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't you know that from the very fact that he reverted? Why is "No" or "No consensus" any better than an empty or autogenerated edit summary? (Or do you agree that it isn't?) Victor Yus (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The prototypical audience one should have in mind when composing an edit summary is an uninvolved editor who is not familiar with discussions on the talk page.

The problem with terse (or blank) edit summaries is that there is no quick and easy way such a person can distinguish a legitimate but terse "no consensus" edit summary and revert from the actions of a vandal, or someone with dubious justification for reverting.

On the other hand, if the reverter claims in the edit summary that his justification is on the talk page (ideally by referencing a particular section heading), the basis for the revert is easy to verify. If that section does not exist, or contains no such basis, the revert is suspect, without having to review the entire talk page and archives to see if there is any basis.

This is why I suggest that it's justifiable to treat edits and reverts with no good explanation in the edit summary (and no specific reference in the edit summary to a good explanation on the talk page), as vandalism themselves.

If one doesn't have the respect for the editing community to provide a verifiable explanation for edits or reverts, then why should those actions be respected by the editing community?

Simply saying "no consensus" in an edit summary is a difficult-to-verify slap in the face to any uninvolved editor who comes along, not to mention to those who are involved. It should not be tolerated by the community. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC) update --Born2cycle (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverts with "no consensus" summary

There is a RFC underway to make WP:DRNC into a guideline. While it seems the majority opposes this, still many agree that something to this end must be added into existing guidelines, and this one (WP:CON) seems to be the best place to add a short section.

Many people mention two polar cases:

• WP:OWN-type reverts with first-best curt edit summary, and
• articles where indeed some kind of consensus has been painstakingly built.

IMO most would agree that

1. rv with summary "no consensus" must have a merit, i.e., the edit in question does indeed touch an area which was subject a consensus-building discussion. (An obvious and often repeated exception is policies and guidelines, which are not supposed to change every 10 minutes)
2. this summary must point to the consensus in question, i.e, to the discussion where the consensus was formed, so that the revertee could adjust their edit accordingly. (If the reverter has a difficulty to point a finger in right direction, then his opinion abou consensus is questionable).
3. (added after seeing the remarks below). If the changed part of text was not subject to a consensus-building discussion, then many people would see the edit summary "No Consensus" as just a smart wikilawyer's way to say "I don't like it". You do have a right to disagree with the change and you have a right to request "a consensus between you and me", but starting consensus-building with a disrespectful move is bad, bad idea.

So, can someone draft a guideline phrase or two to this end? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better not to do that because whoever drafts it will become committed to it. Not only is there no consensus for this proposition, it's inaccurate as a literal matter. Consider that there is the changer, the reverter, and maybe the original editor. Unless there is a more complicated story, there's no reason to prefer the change over the original. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. If the edit summary of the change provides a good reason for the change, and the edit summary of the revert says nothing but "no consensus" (without a reference to substantiate that), there is a very good reason to prefer the change over the revert - the one stated in the edit summary of the change - and no reason to prefer the original to the change. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't missed the point. The reverting editor doesn't accept the reason and that's evidence of no consensus for the reasons I mentioned. (I should add that this is the first I've heard that 'no consensus' is an acceptable reason to 'NC-naysayers' if the changer's summary was inadequate.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes you did. You seem to confuse "I dont like it" with consensus-building. If your colleague took pains to present a rationale, then to basically say "to hell with yours. I know better" in no matter how polite way is not the way to seek consensus. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)RC, one editor's objection alone is not evidence of "no consensus" (using "consensus" in the WP sense, not in the ideal unanimous support sense). That's why the summary must point to the consensus in question.

One lone editor objecting to a change and reverting based on a claim of "no consensus" that he is not even willing to substantiate is not part of WP consensus building. That's just status quo stonewalling. That is the point you seem to be missing. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC) clarified --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Boldly added WP:Consensus#Don't revert without explanation . --Born2cycle (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Your draft was perhaps over-bold, so I've softened it a bit. I'm not at all certain that #3 about vandalism is correct. Obvious vandalism is one of the times that we do endorse default edit summaries. Think about a WP:RBI situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. That's what I was trying to say about obvious vandalism... "rv" is good enough! Obviously it needs fixing if that's not what I've conveyed, but that is what I mean by "a note about reverting vandalism". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the shoe is on the other foot. The lone editor is the one making the change. The reverting editor is supported by the original editor. I'm sorry, but when an editor reverts with "no consensus" it's true and saying anything else will be a lie. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of lone editor, so far as I can tell, you are the only one defending "no consensus" terse edit summaries. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you don't address the substance, I assume that means I am correct. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You're incorrect as I've explained below. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC) highlight added --Born2cycle (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I would note that your proposal at Misplaced Pages talk:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" has been overwhelmingly shot down. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That was noted and addressed at the top of this section by Staszek Lem, another point you're ignoring. I'm not going to repeat the explanation just so you could continue to act as if it was never made. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell RC is the only one who objects to the addition for reasons I, for one, cannot comprehend. I request that someone else restore it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, no comment on the substance. So you must agree that you are wrong. I accept that it's a bad idea to make policy based on a fantasy about editors who haven't given an opinion. Unless you can answer that substantive objection, your proposal is flawed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What part of You're incorrect as I've explained below. do you not understand? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to this proposal has come from me, Blueboar, and Wikidemon, while support for it seems to come from B2C, WAID, BWDIK, and Victor. That's not a consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The ABC Case

If editor A's text is changed by editor B who is reverted by editor C, how many editors support editor B? (Answer: one. Only editor B supports editor B.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't know that there is only one editor that supports B's change. It may be 10. It could be 100. It may be 1000s. The fact that B changed A's text and C objects, does not mean B is the only one who supports B's change. It's even quite likely that A agrees with it too. The whole point is that you have to dig deeper. C has to explain why he objects, and simply not knowing whether there is consensus support for the change is not sufficient reason to revert, much less a good enough explanation. That's what you keep missing. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's making it even simpler: so far you are alone who opposes the suggestion upion which several people are working constructively and withourt edit war. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

So now you are talking about some fantasy editors who haven't said anything? Sorry, that's not how it works. And of course your argument also works against B: maybe there are 1000s who support C. But all that is to be determined in the future. At the time of the revert, only one editor supports Editor B (himself). B is the lone wolf. Sorry. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about fantasy editors. I'm talking about editors who have spoken through edits in article, WP and talk space. They may have not have spoken explicitly about that particular change, but an editor making a change in good faith believes, presumably for good reason, that consensus support for that change does exist. In this case Staszek explained why he believed the RFC discussion, though it turned down the particular proposal to promote that essay into a guideline, established consensus for the type of change he proposed here. I and others have agreed. You, on the other hand, have reverted, but have not said anything to support your apparent contention that consensus does not support that, except claiming that the rejection of the RFC promotion proposal was evidence of lack of consensus support for this, the point already addressed and explained by Staszek, and ignored by you. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC) clarifications --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. We were talking about different cases and there's some misunderstanding from that. I agree that if there are extenuations because of previous discussions, edits, actions, etc., that it could be true that the views of other editors are known. (It is not true, however, that an editor making a change is entitled to think he has more support than just himself simply because of good faith. That's not what good faith means.) For a bold edit, the views of other editors are frequently not known. And in the very simple example I mention above, if nothing else is known, the edit summary "no consensus" is completely accurate. So, since it's sometimes okay to say "no consensus" (because it's accurate), it would be wrong to make a rule against it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And precisely because what's happening now we do have to have a guideline to this respect. And we are not making rule against "no consensus". We are making a policy. If you think that, as you say, 'it's sometimes okay to say "no consensus" , please state clearly when you think this "sometimes" happens, and we will discuss it, and if there is a consensus that your suggestion is good, it will be happily included into the guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not making it policy. I don't think you can even get a majority for this proposal. I have given you the paradigmatic case above in the first paragraph of this section. The notion that there are many editors who support all changes and no editors who support any reverts is a figment of your imagination. The correct procedure for an editor who is reverted is to go to the discussion page and explain why their edit is a good one. The incorrect procedure is to claim there is a consensus before any discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)RC, "no consensus" is only accurate when it is known that consensus does not exist for the change in question (and in that case it should be no problem to refer to the basis for that knowledge).

"No consensus" is not accurate when it is not known whether consensus exists for the change. Not knowing if there is consensus support is not equivalent to "no consensus". If it is known that consensus opposes, or that the issue is sufficiently split, then one can declare "no consensus", and that is sufficient reason to revert, but a reference to the knowledge should be provided as well.

But we must distinguish that situation from when it is not known whether consensus exists, and that's what determining consensus is all about. In that situation (when consensus opinion is not known) a bold edit should never be reverted simply for the "no consensus" reason - because that's exactly what we're trying to determine with the edit. If you must revert, then also contribute by explaining why you oppose, and, again, stating a lack evidence for consensus support is not a good reason to revert, nor is it sufficient explanation, in and of itself. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC) clarifications/fixes --Born2cycle (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, for most good-faith bold edits, the views of other editors can trivially be guessed. If you're expanding content, adding sources, clarifying confusing text, correcting errors, removing spam, etc., then we are probably safe assuming that there is a very strong consensus for your edits. Here is my most recent mainspace edit: I removed contentious matter about living people that had no sources. This is (as far as I know) completely undiscussed, but I'd bet that consensus for my change is strong.

"Unknown consensus" is not the same as "no consensus". In your simple example, you don't have "no consensus". You have "no knowledge of the consensus"—at least, no knowledge until you see what the change is, because if Editor B's change is like my last one, then we have a very strong consensus for the change. Our content policies are the best proof of community consensus you could want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't guess what other editors think, we find out in the discussion. And at the time of a revert, there is not a consensus. That is empirical, and pretending there might be other editors who support the change is not something to assume. Instead, it is something to determine from discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%, but you've indented as if you're addressing me. Are you addressing me, or RC? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The joys of silent edit conflicts. It's a reply to Ring about six comments ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

RC, no one is suggesting that such a revert is inappropriate, or disagrees that finding who supports/opposes the change and why is something to determine from discussion after reverting. I think it's safe to say everyone is unanimously on board with that much of what you're saying.

The problem is the non-participation of the reverter in the discussion. Consider the most recent revert by Noetica on this page. The revert was fine, but his edit summary and "explanation" on this talk page say nothing about why he objects to this particular edit. All he has said is very vague and general, something that could apply to practically any change to a policy page. That's not helping build consensus. We don't know where he stands or why, except that he would apparently oppose any addition on the grounds that it's "proliferating micromanagement". He's not engaged, not really, except he's reverting. That kind of reverting without honest engagement (a.k.a. WP:Stonewalling) is the problem we're trying to address here. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The terse edit summary "no consensus" does not necessarily mean: "There is no consensus for this edit"... it can mean: "I don't think there is a consensus for this", or even "I would like to see whether there is consensus for this". In such cases, the terse "no consensus" is a valid statement of an editor's opinion, and is not intended to be a statement of fact. We determine whether it is fact by having other editors share their thoughts on the matter (which can be done either through discussion, or additional bold editing, or a mix of the two... depending on the situation). Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to see if there is a consensus, the first thing to do is NOT to revert, but to leave the edit in place. In the simplest scenario, no-one will object to it, you will have discovered that there is indeed a consensus, and you won't have wasted people's time. Your reverting does not in any way help determine whether there's a consensus (indeed it hinders, since it makes it look as if you have some objection), so if that's your only reason for reverting, you shouldn't be reverting at all. Victor Yus (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

How ridiculous. The minority view should stay up for no reason? Again, let's keep it very, very simple so there is no mistake in your mind: at the time of the revert, the changing editor is alone with one or two editors opposed. That is not a consensus for change, so if it happens, the reverted editor should just accept reality: his proposal has no consensus. At that time, either drop it or go to discussion and develop a consensus. It's just that simple. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Different case

No; at least in the situation I have in mind, there is no opposition expressed at all - someone is merely reverting for the sake of it (in the misguided belief that by doing so he is somehow helping to establish whether there is a consensus for the change, or for irrational reasons that he is unable or unwilling to identify). In this situation the correct procedure really is simple - no-one legitimately opposes the edit, so it is left as it is, and people get on with doing something useful. Victor Yus (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the problem type of revert

This is exactly the problem type of revert that needs to be rejected by the community. The edit summary, though longer than "no consensus", is no more helpful: "no consensus has been established for provisions in the section in question; they are the subject of current discussion, and do not belong in a core policy page without consensus being clearly found first ". The reverter, Noetica, provides no indication whatsoever of whether he himself agrees with the change (which alleviates him from having to explain why he opposes, if he opposes), or on what basis he thinks consensus does not support it.

This is a classic example of Misplaced Pages:Status_quo_stonewalling#Reverting with "discuss first" without discussing, a tactic in which Noetica engages quite often, like he did fairly recently when he reverted a move so obviously supported by consensus (as reflected in policy, guidelines and editor behavior), that the resulting RM discussion that he forced to occur was unanimously in favor of reversing Noetica's revert (see Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School#Nine_months_later).

It is a handful of editors like Noetica who often disrupt with this status quo stonewalling tactic that I have specifically in mind when I think about why this is so necessary to put in policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. The count at the time of your edit was 4/3 or 4/4 and you had not answered substantive objections adequately if at all. The discussion was ongoing and opinion was divided. Not only that, Noetica explained himself. If you have a problem with that, I don't know what to say. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. The reverts most hated are policing reverts when some smart wikilawyer runs around and polices discussions without actually contributing to them. The opinion are always divided. Cosensus is not always unanimous decision or poll. Giving you a slack and allowing your revert, according to tradition now it you job to explain what was wrong with every item you deleted (and which were result of oprevious cooperation of several editors), starting with the core two:

• (NC1) In the edit summary, reference the policies, guidelines or discussions that clearly demonstrate a lack of consensus for the change being reverted.
• (NC2) If the objection cannot be clearly demonstrated with such a reference, then provide a substantive explanation, either in the edit summary or in a talk page section which is referenced in the edit summary.

Staszek Lem (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please address my request. Failure to do so is against all[REDACTED] rules of engagenent and will result in reverting of the edit in question. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ring Cinema is right. I explained exactly why I was reverting: the matter was under discussion, and consensus had not been reached. That is not equivalent to an edit summary saying "no consensus".
For the rest, Born2cycle has problems with my opposition to his dominating discussions in an effort to succeed in various pushes. ArbCom has singled him out for a warning about such domination. But he continues. Note that I myself am not dominating here at all. I am barely present! Yet as he has often before, Born2cycle cites his own long-winded essay about "stonewalling", when things don't go his way.
Count me now as one who opposes the provisions proposed for addition to this important policy page. I have seen too much abuse and bullying from this sort of proliferating micromanagement.
♥
Noetica 00:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

...Says a person who jumped into this page with a micromanagement stick. And the suggested policy is exacly against meritless discussionless micromanagement. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Other alternatives to reverting could have been attempted, like tagging the section as being under discussion. I agree that Noetica's edit summary gives no substantive response to the text. It's just red tape, a reversion on procedural or bureaucratic grounds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no privilege for putting something in that has no consensus. Opinion is evenly divided. I would suggest you apologize and continue the discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You're making a straw man argument, RC. No one is arguing for a privilege "for putting something in that has no consensus".

We're talking about putting something in for which consensus support is believed to exist (by the editor making the change), and not known to not exist by the reverter who opposes the change. There is no argument about the case where the reverter knows there is no consensus - except that most of us seem to believe it would be good for the community to expect the reverter to provide a reference to the basis for his knowledge (be it policy, guideline or discussion), instead of curtly summarizing his revert with "no consensus" (or something equally unhelpful to that effect, such as Noetica's most recent edit summary to this policy page).

And we're not even saying that reverts in these "consensus not known" cases should be allowed - it's only the edit summary and associated talk page explanation that we're talking about, in the context of what is best for building consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What you are talking about is a difference of opinion between two editors... one believes there is a consensus for an edit... the other believes there is not a consensus for the edit. If the matter has never been discussed before, we can not know who's opinion is accurate until other editors chime in and share their opinions on the edit. Both the reverting editor and the reverted editor should stop trying to convince each other that "I'm right and you're wrong"... and should instead back off and wait until others have commented. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's in order for the two editors to try to persuade each other (while remaining open to persuasion themselves), but their arguments should be about the merits of the edit, not the question of "whether it has consensus". Generally speaking, consensus should be something that is sought in these discussions, not something that is ever spoken of (at least, until someone thinks the stage of broad consensus has already been reached and that it's time to act on it). Victor Yus (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverting is a right that comes with a responsibility

Let me put it this way. Reverting is a right that all editors have that comes with a responsibility to the editor that is being reverted, and to all those who are or will be involved. That responsibility is to explain why the edit is being reverted, and claiming "no consensus" in the midst of determining and building consensus (and any bold edit starts exactly that process) is not an adequate explanation, by far.

If a reverting editor does not explain his objection satisfactorily to a bold edit, he is simply not meeting his responsibility to the reverted editor, and to the editing community at large. Such an irresponsible reverter is also not differentiating himself from someone who is reverting disruptively to protect the status quo for dubious reasons or some other similar motivation. It's a behavior that we should strongly discourage here. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The word "satisfactory" is subjective. I might find "no consensus" more than satisfactory in a given situation... you might find the same explanation, in the same situation completely unsatisfactory.

All we can ask for is a good faith attempt at an explanation. If some other editor feels that a good faith attempt falls short, it is up to that other editor to engage in discussion and ASK for a more extensive one. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone else has claimed that in some situations "no consensus" might be satisfactory. I'm still waiting to see an actual example of that. And please remember with reverts we're always talking about an inherent conflict and, thus, a responsibility to try to build consensus. So in that context, satisfactory must help us move towards consensus. A revert alerts us to the likely possibility of a lack of consensus, but unless we know the reasons for the revert, no one has any way to really judge that. An edit summary of "no consensus" does nothing to help us in that respect. How can that ever be satisfactory? Again, I'd really like to see an actual example. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC) edit --Born2cycle (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If someone else gives an explanation that you see as inadequate, there is a disagreement between you and that person. To insist that you are RIGHT, and that person is "irresponsible" is not constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. Claiming "no consensus" (or something equally unhelpful) is not an explanation of anything, and doing that alone is the act "insisting that you are right" to revert, without even having the decency to explain why the reasons the revert is believed to be justified. I mean, the only way to be certain any given reverts is contrary to consensus is to know it clearly contradicts consensus as established in policy, guidelines or some discussion somewhere ... if that's the case then why not reference it? If that's not the case, how can one be so sure there is no consensus? He can't, of course, and so a reason to object is really required, for the process of building consensus. Refusal to discuss/explain is not conducive to consensus building. If you're going to revert, you're signing up to explain/discuss. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Claiming no consensus is an explanation. They have explained the reason that they have reverted you is that they believe there is no consensus. That you don't like that explanation is your issue and up to you to talk to that editor to ask for more information if you need it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Merely claiming to believe there is "no consensus" is not an explanation. What is the basis for that belief? If there is one, why not share it? After all, claiming "no consensus" is a definitive statement about the opinions of others. How is that known? Again, why not share that? How are others to know that the reason that is not being shared is because there is nothing to share? How do others distinguish a legitimate "no consensus" from a stonewalling tactic to retain the status quo for no reason other than JDLI?

The arrogance of expecting others to simply take one's word for it is contrary to the most fundamental tenets of WP culture, and has no place on WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)edit --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The basis of the belief etc is what the discussion is for after the revert. If you wish to pursue it further you start the discussion. This is how the BRD cycle works. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Discuss what? All that can be asked is "why did you revert?" "Why do you believe there is no consensus?" Why not address those obvious questions in the edit summary itself - that's the responsible thing to do. And what's to prevent the reverter from refusing to engage, or simply declaring, "it's your burden to show there is a consensus"? And yet he's (often) the only one objecting (manifested as a revert), and won't explain why except the claim of "no consensus". It creates a quagmire - the quagmire WP:EXPLAINREVERTS is meant to avoid. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem situation is this: A makes a change, and B opposes the change, but for no reason other than JDLI. So B reverts without explaining, except saying "no consensus". Now what? B refuses to explain or substantively discuss his reasons (because there are none), but insists that A prove there is consensus support. It's all very disruptive, something that could be easily avoided if we recognized the responsibility a reverter has to explain his reasons, and that "no consensus" is not a sufficient reason. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Every bold edit made does have the onus to explain why its a useful edit, whether it has been reverted or not if it is questioned. So entering "no consensus" as the comment doesn't make it harder for the person adding the bold edit because they are required to explain why it is useful anyway when questioned. If they are the only one objecting and the refuse to discuss it after the initial revert then it can safely be assumed that it isn't controversial. That is what the discussion after the revert is for. If they don't have an explanation and they don't defend their position then you can safely go ahead and readd it. Edit summaries are too short to have detailed explanations. You aren't supposed to fully discuss through edit summaries. Talk pages are preferred. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

re: "they are required to explain why it is useful anyway when questioned" - No one objects questioning, as long as questioning is justified. The whole disussion is that many think that edit summary "No Cons" does not differ much from revert without any edit summary. As for "too short", there is a long well-known way: everybody will very welcome the edit summary "No consensus, see talk page", with, of course, something said in talk page however stupid it may be. If it is smart, you agree, if it is stupid, you will object and restore yor edit. But man, really, how can I argue with edit summary "No consensus"? I look into talk page, see nobody discussed this issuse before, so what next? Revert back with edit summary "Nobody but you opposes this, hence there is consensus". Is this what you want? I doubt. As somebody have already pointed out, the discussion must be about the merits of the change and not about whether someone gives a fuck reading it and discussing it, maybe tomorrow, may be never. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The obligation is on the editor making the change to justify their change. While bold edits are welcome, there is no presumption they belong, so if you're reverted, go straight to the discussion page and try to build a consensus for your change. DON'T: pretend you have support based on your best mind-reading. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, it is up to the person wishing to make the change to proove their case on the talk page after they have been reverted. The onus on those wishing change, not on those wishing to revert. -DJSasso (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody objects to this. Heck, there is a whole widely cited and respected essay to this end: WP:BRD. The root of the current discussion is that the edit summary "No consensus" is often abused: there was no previous discussion and "No consensus" is a sledgehammerish way to say "I don't like it". If you disagree with an edit, say so and we shall talk, but do not pretend that the whole[REDACTED] is behind your back. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What happens, if a lone objecting editor, reverts & calls the consenus (which is against him/her) nothing more then a vote? GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Every revert is made by exactly one editor. There is no group revert. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the lone editor is the one who has been reverted. His proposal in the form of an edit (PIFE) is contrary to the reverting editor and the original editor. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically, a discussion was had (months ago) & the consensus was to keep an edit. However, the lone editor who wishes to delete the edit-in-question, continues to do so. He/she, continues to call the consensus 'merely' a vote which should be ignored. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there indeed was a consensus and stated as such, and the person didn't present any new arguments, then it is time for WP:DISPUTE. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the one making the change has the onus to demonstrate consensus support is generally a good one, but it can be easily abused. Abuse of it is what we are trying to address. Abuse of this idea is easy because anyone with nothing more than a JDLI objection to the change can claim "no consensus". If there happen to be 2 or 3 people with that view, they can delay what should be a simple change which does have consensus support (because the only objection is JDLI) to a process that takes months to resolve, and countless hours of dozens of editors. Believe me, I've seen it. If you can't understand and appreciate the problem we're trying to solve, then you can't appreciate the proposed solution.

The proposed solution is to recognize "no consensus" or similarly terse "explanations" for reverts as being inadequate. The full explanation does not have to be in the edit summary, of course, but at least it should be referenced as "see Talk". The onus is still on the supporter(s) of the change to show consensus support, but they can't even begin to do that if those objecting won't explain why they object.

So, the onus to show consensus is on the one making the change, but those objecting have an onus too: to explain the reasons and arguments for objecting to the change, to demonstrate that they have something more than a JDLI reason to oppose it. Merely saying "no consensus" in the edit summary is not sufficient. This responsibility is necessary as part of the process of determining consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

One lone editor, shouldn't be able to hold up a change though, when all other editors support that change. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

But he can, by reverting and forcing A to coax other editors to participate to "prove" the consensus support, a process that can take days, weeks and even months if there or 2 or 3 who object, when those reverting/objecting never had a substantive (non-JDLI) argument supporting their view.

The expression of mere disagreement (as in a revert) is all too easily seen as evidence of lack of consensus support, even though consensus is supposed to be determined not by numbers, but by strength of arguments. This can all be remedied by requiring reverters to explain their objection, including recognizing that "no consensus" alone is not a sufficient explanation.

Any revert is recognized by this policy (and the consensus that supports iy) as being inherently problematic and so should be avoided if possible. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. All we're saying is that if the revert is really necessary, then it should be properly explained, and not just to the person who got reverted, and so there is no reason to wait for someone to start a discussion and ask. The reverter should have the responsibility to explain even if nobody asks. If it's already explained; great. Just point to the explanation. If it isn't, that's all the more reason to provide it. Is that asking for too much? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I just don't think that consensus should mean 'everybody' in a discussion needs to agree. I wondering about these issue, as I'm currently involved in an article discussion, where the lone-objector has a different view on consensus, compared to the other editors. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read the section on consensus determination, it really has nothing to do with numbers. It's all about strength of arguments and how well they are based on policy and guidelines which are presumed to be based on community wide consensus. But people often conflate mere disagreement (which might be entirely JDLI) with lack of consensus or "no consensus". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

B2C's views on consensus are not widely accepted. Disagreement is prima facie evidence of no consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is your views on consensus that are not widely accepted, RC. They are certainly not supported by policy. I quote: "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy." (see WP:CONSENSUS#Determining consensus). If you disagree with policy, you might want to propose changing it. But I would be astonished if there is ever anything close to consensus support for your uniquely-held notion that mere disagreement constitutes a lack of consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You continue to overlook that the only judge of the quality of the arguments is the editors in question. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong about that too. It's widely recognized that the best judge of consensus in general, and of argument quality in particular, is someone uninvolved in the discussion, for reasons that are obvious to most. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

How about to really work on the no-consensus?

Requests to explain reverts

One

Ring Cinema please explain this revert. Your edit summary says, "this is under discussion and so far has been mostly opposed".

1. There has been no discussion about whether this paragraph should have its own heading. No discussion about that should be required. I explained my reasons in the edit summary when I added it: add section subheading "Explain reverts" to existing paragraph to make it less likely to be overlooked. Nobody has said anything to address this, much less argue against it. Yet you reverted it. Why?
2. The only text change was changing this:

   Further discussion should then be undertaken on the article discussion page. Edit summaries that explain the objection clearly are preferred. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus on the matter.

   to this (addition of highlighted sentence):

   Further discussion should then be undertaken on the article discussion page. Simply claiming "no consensus" or something to that effect is not sufficient. Edit summaries that explain the objection clearly are preferred. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus on the matter.

   The addition creates no change in meaning to existing text; it only adds clarification. What is your objection to this, and what are the reasons you object to it?

3. I also added a policy shortcut so that WP:EXPLAINREVERTS could be used to reference this particulation section. You removed that as well, something else that has not been discussed. What is your objection to it? Please explain.

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As is your unfortunate habit, you want to jump the gun on your inferior proposal. You pointed out yourself that this paragraph pertains to the discussion underway, then you modified the text in a way that pretends your NC proposal has not been soundly rejected in more than one venue. You have no consensus for your view on this. Don't make changes that insult the consensus. When you have a consensus, then consider changing the page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, please give some thought to whether using such language as "unfortunate habit" and "inferior proposal" is in keeping with the Misplaced Pages policy on civility. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In this case, it seems that what B2C wants to say already is in the policy. So by your own standards, you ought to accept it as policy until there is consensus to remove it (and have no objection to clarifying the presentation of it). Victor Yus (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Victor, people can accept that a concept is policy, and yet disagree over the presentation of that concept on the policy page. Indeed, I would say that most reverts on policy pages concern changes to the presentation. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

But, Victor, he's mistaken, so his view lacks consensus. If there is value to this change, it can be explained here what the value is, and, if there is a consensus for the change from the editors, the change can be made. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, I asked three separate questions. Your answer might arguably address #2. You completely ignored #1 and #3. More delay. More status quo stonewalling. This is exactly the problem that this very section is meant to address. Also WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Not to mention the D in BRD (you're avoiding doing the D with respect to #1 and #3). This is highly disruptive behavior and not at all conducive to consensus building. If you're not genuinely committed to finding consensus on a given issue, I suggest you stay out of it. You certainly should not be reverting material you're not willing or able to discuss. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Edited --Born2cycle (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can't explain the value of your proposal, you should drop it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The value of the proposal was explained, in the edit summary, and repeated on the talk page. It is you who could not explain your revert. Blueboar, however, did an excellent job defending it. This is the type of explanation that should accompany every revert, preferably without asking for it, but certainly after it has been requested, repeatedly. Now we have something to actually discuss. Thank you, Blueboar. Thank you! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Born, I will let RC speak for himself (herself?)... but I will say that if he (she?) had not reverted, I would have. Here's why:

1. Creating a new section header: The paragraph is (to my mind) directly linked to the paragraph before it... and I feel it needs to be read in that context. By hiving it off into its own section that context is broken.
2. The addition of the new sentence "Simply claiming "no consensus" or something to that effect is not sufficient.": This sentence is pretty much what we have been discussing for the last week or so. While I do understand that some people strongly agree with it, it is clear that there are also people who strongly disagree (and feel that saying "no consensus" is in fact sufficient). Thus, at this point, there is no consensus for the addition.
3. Creating a new shortcut: I would have reverted this as well... I see no need for it... except to use it in Wikilawyering debates. If there is a need, I would prefer something that pointed to the entire sub-section WP:Consensus#Reaching consensus through editing (perhaps WP:RCTE), However, I don't think we should create a shortcut that points explicitly to just one paragraph of the section. Doing so encourages editors to take the paragraph out of context.

Then there is the personal issue... we have been debating the issue of whether (and when) terse "no consensus" edits are appropriate for the last few weeks. You are fully aware that there is disagreement on the issue. You have been consistently arguing in favor of one side of that disagreement (which is fine) but you also know that others have been consistently disagreeing with you (which is also fine). You should have figured out by now that any edit involving the issue of whether terse "no consensus" edit summaries are appropriate or not will be contested. Given this context, it is inappropriate for you to make a bold edit that could be seen as "imposing" your view on the debate. Someone else might be able to move the discussion forward by making a bold edit and seeing if it floats... but when you do it, it comes across as being POV pushing (or at least a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Note... It isn't just you... I would say the same about myself and most of the other editors who have been highly active in the debate. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Your reply to #2 and final paragraph (which is more about #2) are totally fair. Thank you.

I note that for #1 and #3 you had to bring up points previously undiscussed here. Also good and fair responses, and very important, because the corresponding material was reverted, reinserted by another editor, and then reverted again, all without discussion/explanation (until now, thanks to you). That is exactly the type of behavior (not the reverts, but the lack of discussion/explanation; not by you, but by those who reverted and did not discuss/explain), that cannot be tolerated, for it is contrary to everything in this policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing says an explanation must come from the person who did the revert. You asked for an explanation... you now have a very extensive explanation... I hope you will accept it, and will stop wikilawyering this to death. Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Two

Elsewhere, I asked Ring Cinema to explain his reversion of this edit (adding a heading and a shortcut). He has not provided a substantive response. So I am renewing my request here. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If you think the change has value, tell us what the value is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

See #1 and #3 in the section above this one. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear that you are trying to make changes to the policy in line with your rejected proposals. It's worse than no consensus; your proposal has been soundly rejected. I would suggest you work on something else, because this is going nowhere. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar's response is a textbook example of how to defend reverts and the status quo without stonewalling. Your evasive statements , none of which explain your revert nor even address, much less answer, the questions asked (which Blueboar showed were reasonable questions and could be answered by someone sincere about finding consensus) are the epitome of disruptive stonewalling that flies in the face of productive discourse for the purpose of finding consensus. I request that you stop participating here if you are unwilling or unable to work towards consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal has been rejected. It's unpopular. You have apparently previously tried to cram your proposals on others. I'm not interested in that. You are free to defend your proposal and try to build a consensus. You're not free to change the page without a supporting consensus. I trust that in the future you will not violate Misplaced Pages policy in that way again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

RC, providing a heading (a) separates the "explain reverts" paragraph from the substantively different "revert procedure" paragraph and (b) makes a link directly to the "explain reverts" paragraph. If the heading sticks then, perhaps, we can reduce the size of the "explain reverts" paragraph in CCC by linking to the "explain reverts" paragraph in the "revert procedure" section. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Three

DJsasso - please explain this revert. Your edit summary says: "adding the header adds undue weight. This whole section is being discussed right now and this shouldn't change while its ongoing."

Adding the header itself has not been discussed on this talk page. There has been no discussion about that paragraph, in fact (albeit there was discussion about adding similar material which was proposed because this paragraph had been overlooked). If you think there has been discussion about that paragraph, please identify where that is.

Anyway, please explain how adding a header adds undue weight to the paragraph, and why that is undesirable or harmful in this particular case. Also please address the argument made in the edit summary when the header was first added - that it brings attention to this paragraph which helps because it has been obviously overlooked. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC) added request to identify where discussion is--Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole section is being discussed. When that is happening changes shouldn't be made. That is pretty standard operating procedure. I can certainly see at this point why people don't want to deal with you. It is you who are making this a stonewalling situation and making it unbearable for anyone to want to discuss anything with you. And I would have to agree with Wikidemon that calling out editors by name is just disgusting. Bullying people when you aren't getting your way isn't going to help your cause. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Born2cycle, let me remind you that it is a long-established consensus that reasonably visible changes in policies do require discussion whenever anybody objects to change. This is one of very few cases where "No consensus" summary is OK. Although a more accurate one would be "I am disinclined to acquiesce to your changes", meaning "No" :-). And quite often minor changes in policy result in painful ddeliberations. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine. So where is this alleged discussion? I, for one, would like to participate. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sections 14 through 20. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any references to "this section", Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing, by explicit name or implication, in any of those sections. Do you? Where? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Now you are just being pedantic. It was blatantly clear what I was referring to. Or "implying" (to use the wording from the guideline) in my comment. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Born2cycle, it is already noticed that some people have objections to the issue, broadly taken. It order to reach consensus, I would suggest to step back and nail down the very root of the disagreement. Simply throwing in new versions is hardly helpful. For example, your version ("Simply claiming "no consensus" <...>not sufficient") does not cover the point I've just mentioned above.

By the way, Ring Cinema has a position close to yours regarding edit summaries. A while ago he wrote in this talk page. "Violates consensus" is the strongest possible reason to revert an edit, but it's not so good as a summary if an editor wants good results. So, for practical reasons, it's better to stay away from that reason. So there does exist a high chance for consensus on the issue here. Unless he changes his mind since then, the way I see it he simply opposes rush changes in policies, which was always very understandable. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not objected to the revert of that wording (#2 in my questions to RC), though I did ask for him to explain it. What DJSasso reverted was not under discussion. I'm sure it was clear to him. It was not clear to me, and still is not. That's why we have discussion - to explain what is clear to one but unclear to another.

What is clear to me is that the section to which a subheading header was added was not under discussion at all when the heading was added, yet that is his justification for reverting that very helpful edit. No where have the merits of that addition been discussed, except in repeating the explanation for adding it in the first place (making it easier to find and less likely to be overlooked), and DJSasso's still-unexplained edit summary claim of "undue weight". --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

See Blueboars explanation above. That is exactly my reasoning to a T. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a sound response - one that I would expect from those actually reverting. Is that too much to ask? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The answer to that is... Yes, sometimes it can be too much to ask. Especially when a debate starts to become repetitious. Blueboar (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it can be too much to ask when debate starts to become repetitious, but in this case we had not discussed the heading/policy shortcut issue at all, or even the content of that paragraph. So, in this case (and similar ones), is it too much to ask for those reverting undiscussed material to explain their reasoning in a manner similar to what you did? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was repetitious. This page was filled with reasons to not make the change you made at the moment. To have to reply to you over and over and over again when it is obvious is you wasting users time. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're apparently upset and not making much sense. Sorry about that, but there was nothing repetitious about Blueboar's response to #1 and #3. They were necessarily new points not made in our discussions previously, and material related to #1 and #3 is exactly what you reverted, not the admittedly controversial and previously material discussed in #2 (adding that was a mistake on my part). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No you are playing the IDIDNTHEARTHAT game. The entire subject is currently controversial. All changes while this discussion is going on would be a controversial change. So yes, having to explain to you over and over why the change shouldn't be made is getting very repetitive. -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm lost. I don't know what you mean by "the entire subject", or how that might encompass adding a header and/or policy short cut to an existing paragraph in this policy that was not under discussion, but at this point, it really doesn't matter, because Blueboar's explanation made up for your lack of responsibility to explain your revert. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The irresponsible parties were those who pretended there was a consensus for their rejected proposals. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is bare "No Consensus" (bNC) summary evil?

OK Please forget your past grievances and attempts and let us start tracing the disagreement from the very beginning.

Is bNC inherently evil? Answer is yes and no.

It is OK or OK-ish when

1. There is an ongoing discussion. Of course a better edit summary would be at least "NC. See talk". A couple more keystrokes and a high probability that the reverted person would say "Sorry, my bad. Didn't see it."
2. A non-cosmetc change is made to a policy/guideline page. Good or bad, but there already is a long-standing tradition of "shoot first, talk later", for reasons repeatedly explained.
3. (add your case here)
   1. The change is the latest of a series of edits by the same editor (or an obvious sockpuppet or troll) problematic for being POINTy, battleground, tendentious, incompetent, misguided, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, etc., and it would put an undue burden on the regular editors minding the page, or open an unnecessary repeat discussion on the talk page, to ask them to justify their content objection.
   2. The change is a completely inappropriate perennial proposal (as in calling Barack Obama a Mulatto), but to ease discussion it would be helpful to create a FAQ on the talk page and point to that.

It is not OK when

1. the change is question is not easily related to any consensus-building discussion. There are several reasons why this edit summary was given in this case:
   • A person was lazy to write longer. Hawever at a closer look it didn't save him any time, because inevitably the revertee will ask "why?" , and the reverted will have to spill their guts.
   • A person genuinely correctly thought the consensus was not reached yet. Well, this is excusable, AGF, balbla
   • A person has non-consensual notion of "consensus", e.g. a newbie may think that "consensus" means "everybody agrees".
   • A WP:OWN case when "no consensus" means "I don't agree with any changes without me having the last word"
2. (add your case here)
   1. The change was made reasonably and in good faith by either a well-intentioned newby who should not be bitten, or an editor in good standing, particularly if there has not been any recent discussion of the matter.

Please keep in mind that bNC is one of a huge number of really unhelpfuledit summaries, such as "Unclear", "Prev. text was better", etc. So a serious question is Why this case requires a separate attention in the policies?(WP:UNDUE issue). Please notice that bNC must be a real issue indeed, an evidence the aforementioned essay. If it were a minor nuisance, then it has no right to be linked from many policies/guidelines: instruction creep is evil. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Since it is literally accurate, it is up to the editors. This proposal was badly rejected in two venues over the weekend. This is a good time to leave the subject. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is literally accurate? (I mean what is "it"?) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is no "the proposal" which was rejected. There were three different proposals, rejected for quite different reasons. Precisely exactly for this reason I started this subsection: to figure out whether there is a need in a "the proposal" at all. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that because the answer is not black and white, it deserves clarification in guidelines. On the other hand I am aware that exactly for the same reason some people would object instruction creep and prefer to handle the issue case-by-case using existing policies. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Literally accurate means just that, since, if Editor A's text is changed by Editor B, who is reverted by Editor C, it is fine for C to say "no consensus". There's nothing there false or misleading, it is a statement of a fact. Apparently it needs to be said that, when a supporting consensus is lacking, there's nothing wrong with removing that material from a page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the question of "is NC OK as an edit summary?" is... it depends on the specific situation. Sometimes "no consensus" is problematic, sometimes it is not problematic. And editors often disagree as to when it is problematic and when it is not problematic - witness the last few threads right here on this page. This is why our essay: Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due to "no consensus" remains an essay. While some agree with what it says, others do not. There is literally no consensus as to whether leaving an edit summary of "no consensus" is OK or not OK... much less when it is OK and when it is not OK. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, colleague, of course there is no single answer "No" for all cases for any tough question. This is exactly why we write complicated polcies. Therefore a group of questions that come naturally:

1. Are there cases when bNC is really bad edit summary,
2. Whether they happen often enough to warrant considering a a rule against them
3. And whether any rule may help prevent them from happening.

If the answer is "yes/maybe" for all three, then we may start discussing a new rule. If the answer is clear "no" then case closed right now. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• A bNC summary is rude. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To Staszek:

1. Yes... however there are also cases where it is a really good edit summary, and I doubt we will get a consensus as to which is which.
2. No
3. No

To SmokeyJoe: rudeness is in the mind of the beholder... I rarely find a bNC rude at all. Terse, perhaps... but not necessarily rude. I take the terse "No consensus" as meaning:

a) "I don't think there is consensus for this edit, and I would like to find out what other people think before we implement it."

b) "I disagree with this edit, and I suspect others will as well".

c) "I think this is a situation where it would be more productive to use the "discuss first" method of consensus building ... so no more bold edits, please."

or d) "Stop pushing this... you know full well that we are in the middle of discussing it on the talk page, and you know there is no consensus for it there... your bold edit was disruptive".

OK... that last one may be a bit rude... but sometimes rudeness is justified. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ring gave this example above: "if Editor A's text is changed by Editor B, who is reverted by Editor C, it is fine for C to say "no consensus"."

I'm thinking of a particular dispute. The players include an editor who has a serious, real-world problem with the mainstream scientific consensus on a point. The editor occasionally adds serious BLP violations to a couple of articles, but usually just re-words them to make the mainstream opinion sound like it is a minority, even FRINGEy, view. There have been extensive discussions, and even fellow POV-holders agree that this editor's actions are really over the line.

If this POV pusher reverts to a prior that agrees with the editor's POV, and claims "no consensus" for the intervening changes—when the POV pusher plays the role of editor C in Ring's mini-drama—is that edit summary "literally true"? It sounds like it's a "liar, liar, pants on fire" situation to me. But Ring says above that this POV pusher's claim of no consensus would be "literally true". Or perhaps Ring didn't think about bold-faced liars and POV pushers when he made that sweeping assertion.

On the other hand, I believe that when you're dealing with someone who is invincibly ignorant of Misplaced Pages' policies or too immature to care—when this POV pusher is playing the part of Editor B—then it might be fair to give such an edit summary, because (1) everybody else, even those who hate the typical versions, agrees that these changes are unacceptable, and (2) everybody knows that the POV pusher knows that it's been discussed on the talk page ad nauseum and that the POV pusher simply doesn't care what the consensus is. It would be more informative to say "Rm BLP-violating, POV-pushing garbage per endless talk-page discussions", but I think in that instance it would be acceptable to revert with an uninformative edit summary, or even no edit summary at all.

IMO the problematic cases with the uninformative edit summary are these:

• You can't see anything wrong with it yourself, and you have no idea whether other people would support this or not, so you assume non-consensus on the off chance that someone will have a real objection. IMO in that instance, you should remain silent.
• You see a problem with the change, you're pretty sure that the recent editor doesn't see the problem, but you revert due to "no consensus" rather than due to "the actual problem". IMO in that instance, you should revert with a helpful edit summary, like "Rm <name of bad idea here>" or "See my explanation on the talk page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, as I've mentioned before, there can be extenuating circumstances. But I don't caveat everything. Of course, any edit summary under the sun may be incorrect, incomplete, dishonest, etc. and you only give one obvious example of that. Those problems apply to all edit summaries, not just NC. The point I was making is that, in a very common case on Misplaced Pages, it is perfectly correct, accurate, true, honest and complete to say "no consensus" if the editor chooses to. The implication for this discussion is that it would be bad policy to ban editors from being accurate in their edit summaries. And, of course, it is wrong to imply as you do that the reverting editor has more of a burden for justification. At least Editor C has given some reason. Editor B has given none. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that Editor B never gives any reasons? Look at what you've recently reverted here. Doesn't "add policy shortcut" sound like a reason for an edit to you? What about "to make it less likely to be overlooked"? Those sound like reasons to me. In other cases, the reason can be inferred easily by looking at the edit, e.g., if someone is adding sources, expanding an article, correcting spelling, etc. Even the egregious POV pusher I mentioned above usually gives reasons (lousy reasons, true, that ultimately amount to things like "Making this mainstream position sound stupid because I hate it and obviously my personal, subjective experience is better than the opinion of the world's experts on this subject", but reasons nonetheless). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

At the time that C reverts, B has given no reason. You can't change that. At that time, they should give their reasons. You have suggested that B has no need to give a reason but their edit should remain, and that C owes B a reason before they should be allowed to revert. But you're not going to muddy the waters. The case is clear: at the time that C reverts B's change of A, B is the lone editor to support B, so B has the burden to explain themselves. Now, as a practical matter, C might want to offer more than NC, but there's no obligation on any scale. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So let's assume B edits and, thinking the improvement is self-evident, leaves no summary. If C agrees with B should C revert because B hasn't given a reason? If the answer to that is "no" then C should only revert because C thinks the edit is a bad idea. What is so wrong with encouraging C to cut to the chase and explain why B's idea is revert-worthy? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, B could have given a reason in their edit summary; I overlooked that, but it doesn't affect my argument that sometimes NC is correct. And I now realize that you are addressing not the question of NC edit summaries but the question of reverting against one's own opinion. (I believe we need a separate section for this, since it's going to get confused.) However, to address the substance of your comment, I don't find much to disagree with at the level of personal advice, yet note that BlueBoar made some good arguments recently that editors should be free to do what they think is best. And the same day I witnessed a revert in service of the well-known prevailing consensus as an editor knew it. In other words, out of respect for the process and the other editors. So, insofar as editors exercise their judgement to suit the occasion, I don't see a strong argument to make mandates. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

B makes an edit. C does not think the edit has consensus. It does not really matter whether C likes B's edit or not... the issue for C is whether it has consensus or not. C reverts and says "no consensus" (which is what C believes). I see nothing wrong with that. The question is what happens next...

The answer to that question is... everyone goes to the talk page and works towards determining consensus. It may be that everyone actually loves B's edit (in which case his text is soon restored)... it may be that everyone hates B's edit (in which case B needs to majorly rethink his edit). In most cases, however, it will not be quite so clear cut... D and E will say they like B's edit, F and G will say they absolutely hate it, H and J will say they could agree to it, if it were tweaked (and then get into a huge side debate over how to tweak it)... All of which comes down to one thing: C was correct and there is "no consensus" (and we go back to A's original text as a default). Blueboar (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've already said far too many times than should be necessary, if C wants to see if the edit has consensus, then he should just leave it and see if anyone objects. If no-one does, then it has consensus and there is no problem. Reverting does not help to determine whether there is consensus, but just poisons the atmosphere and potentially wastes time. (Unless C actually does have a substantial objection, in which case he should say what it is.) Victor Yus (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually reverting does help determine consensus. If one person objects then that can (though not always) mean that there is likely more people that object to it. As such reverting helps to show that there is a likelihood that there is no consensus or at the very least that there isn't unanimous agreement on it. Both of which are useful to know. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the reverter really does object to it (and has a legitimate reason for doing so) - and in that case, he ought to be indicating what that reason is. Victor Yus (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

He has indicated what the reason is... he has stated that he does not think the edit has consensus. The real issue here is that you don't think that this is a legitimate reason to revert. I respect that opinion, but strongly disagree with it. I think "no consensus" is a legitimate reason to revert. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

We must have different situations in mind. Perhaps you're thinking of a change that has already been discussed and rejected, in which case as I've already said, I agree it's no bad thing to revert by way of upholding an explicit consensus that you can actually point to. But if you just see a change that someone's made, and come along and revert that change on the grounds of "no consensus", without having any other reason for reverting it, then that's just stupid and destructive. I guess something like 99.9% of changes are made with "no consensus"; if they were to be reverted on that ground, all work on improving Misplaced Pages would grind to a halt. Victor Yus (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Why ought he? What do you mean "really does object"? (If someone reverts, they object.) These are the questions we are discussing and you're not repeating something from policy, so apparently you're just expressing your opinion without giving a reason. Your comments continue to reflect a misplaced locus of authority. The editors on the scene generally judge these things, not me or you. (This reminds me of another very good reason to offer a minimal edit summary: discussion via edit summary is avoided so B will discuss instead of re-editing. Another one: B's edit may be a trial balloon to see if a change meets no objection.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar seems to be talking about a situation where someone doesn't object, but thinks others may - and then takes the irrational and disruptive action of reverting the edit anyway (apparently not realizing that if others want to object, they will do so). But if you really do object, then again I think it's much better if you state your objection than hide it - for reasons that I think are too obvious to need stating. If you want to avoid discussion via edit summary, then explain your objection on the talk page instead. Victor Yus (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Stupid and destructive, Victor? As you can see from this discussion, there are many, many reasonable views on this. In the ABC case, the simplest case, Editor B's edit is not supported by a consensus. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and offer the opinion that unsupported material does not belong on the page. Yes, believe it or not, I honestly believe that when changes are not supported by a consensus, they should not remain. For some reason, you think it's stupid to remove unsupported material. Please explain that view, which is very different from the past practices of Misplaced Pages. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

We're clearly not understanding each other, since what I'm trying to describe is the practice of Misplaced Pages. People make changes; if no-one has any good reason to object, then those changes remain. Changes don't need to be (and usually are not) supported by consensus beforehand. If you object to a change, then you may revert it, but in that case you do your fellow volunteer the courtesy of explaining why you've done so. Victor Yus (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Victor... now we get to the hear of the debate... My feeling is that reverting when you think others may object is neither irrational nor disruptive. I respect that you (and others) do not agree with me... can you respect that I (and others) do not agree with you? Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no lack of respect, but I hope to convince you you're wrong :) So let me explain:

• It's irrational because you don't need to do it. If others object, they will do so. If anything, your revert makes it less likely that others will make their objections known (e.g. they might assume that you'll be making the case for the opposition, and go away and work on something else).
• It's disruptive because it wastes time and poisons the atmosphere. People don't like seeing their work undone - that's just human nature - so we should try to avoid doing it unless there's some important reason to. (It may be that even if there are other objectors, they may be mature or constructive enough not to hit the undo button as a knee-jerk response.) And if it turns out that there are no other objectors, you've wasted the other editor's time by making him try to find out what your (in fact non-existent) objection was - or if he hasn't bothered to do that, then you've harmed Misplaced Pages permanently by removing a potential improvement.

Does this make sense, or does it not address what you're thinking of? Victor Yus (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If an editor doesn't want to poison the atmosphere, they assume the good faith of the reverting editor, register that their proposal lacks support, and go to discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we might advise the other editor to do (though it's obviously much easier to go to discussion when you know what objection you're supposed to be addressing). (Also: if we consider it consistent with good faith to revert on the grounds of others' possible objections, then even the assumption of the other editor's good faith does not tell the editor that his proposal lacks support.) But we're concerned with advice for the potential reverter here. Victor Yus (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

We already advise people to go to discussion. That's what both the current "Reaching consensus through editing" and "Reaching consensus through discussion" sections say to do.

Re: "People don't like seeing their work undone - that's just human nature - so we should try to avoid doing it unless there's some important reason to"... by this logic, B should have avoided making his bold edit in the first place... since that edit "undid" some of A's original work. Poor A... he worked so hard on his text, and B came blundering in and changed it. Thankfully, C came to his aid and reverted!

Seriously, of course no one likes to see their work undone... that is human nature. It is also human nature to undo someone's work when you are not sure that it has consensus. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort and sometimes your work will be undone (and sometimes you will be the one undoing someone else's work). Yes, some people are so full of themselves that they will take offense at being reverted ("how dare you revert my work!")... now that is a disruptive attitude. The sooner those with that attitude get over it, and realize that being reverted is a normal thing on Misplaced Pages, the better. A revert only "poisons the atmosphere" if the revertee lets it. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Colleagues, seriously, you are not listening to each other, not trying to find a trade-off, just pushing two opposite points, and in a hasty, sloppy way, too. You phrase your statements carelessly, so that while they contain a grain of truth, you opponents may easily defeat you piecewise. This is why the bickering drags endlessly, and in a repetitive way. Why don't you disengage and think a bit. Blueboar, for example, in your statemenet: "being reverted is a normal thing on Misplaced Pages" does not necessary mean this is is always a good thing to accept. On the contrary, just because this is a very easy button to hit, we have policies, such as 3RR and others to combat this "normal" thing. In the current discussion, some think that revert with bNC edit summary is one of these "normal" things which are not very helful for collaboration and exactly opposite: reverting without discussion of the merits of the edit is felt to be hampering if not outright disruptive. If you are simply trying to prove "no they are not" then it is not thoughtful: I can readily find a number of examples when bNC was misused/abused. For this reason I posted three simple items (do you remember which?) and expected simple answers. And here you start operating with wild arguments about "human nature". Let me remind you that the civilization is developing by working against "human nature". We have to operate in terms whether the issue in question can be resolved for the benefit of wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There will be no new consensus on this issue either way for the foreseeable future. Opinion is divided. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Colleague, let me remind you that if "either way" in not acceptable, then consensus building means searching for a third way. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is misused bare "No Consensus" (bNC) summary a symptom of a deeper problem?

I suggest you to think about the issue from a slightly different angle.

Clearly, any wikiediting act may be abused; by accident or misunderstading, stupidity, ill will, etc. If a mishap is occasional and opponents are reasonably mature "assume good faith", then it is a non-issue. It becomes an issue when the mishaps cluster together, be it a particular article, or a particular editor or a "clique". In the case of "clustering" of a problem, isn't it true that only dispute resolution may help? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also I cannot help but notice several times even during my short wikilife that during some disputes some parties suddenly become very active in[REDACTED] namespace trying to bend policies in their favor so as to win the dispute. Therefore with a tongue in cheek I may propose a ban for editing a policy if you are currently engaged in a dispute which involves arguments based on this policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiments, although many disputes are solved without outside help. What is the slightly different angle? No one is advocating misuse of NC summaries. To the contrary, the arguments both simple and complex give many good reasons for it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The different angle: misuse of bNC is not a disease but rather a minor sympthom of some kind of deep entrenching. Therefore there is no need to pay special attention to bNC, since banning it or some other rule will not help resolving actual edit conflicts. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what that deep entrenching might be, other than something very general like arrogance or lack of respect, which are difficult if not impossible to address directly. All we can do is address the symptoms of that, and a very common one is bNC reverts.

I think what's happened is that due to the noble goal of putting the burden on those who favor a change, we've made it too easy to oppose and prevent a change from going in (by reverting) for no good reason, thus facilitating Status Quo Stonewalling. The only way I can think of addressing is by holding reverters responsibile for explaining their reverts of good faith edits, to make them demonstrate that they're not merely stonewalling for nothing better than JDLI reasons, and not accepting bNC edit summaries as adequate explanations. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Example of defensible terse "no consensus" revert?

For those of you who defend the right of editors to revert with an edit summary as terse as "no consensus" (or something similarly unhelpful), and oppose adding anything to this policy to clearly discourage such behavior, please provide an example (preferably actual but I'll take realistic hypothetical at this point) of a situation in which such a terse edit summary revert of a good faith edit (not clearly vandalism) is defensible, because I really can't think or imagine of one myself.

Also, I ask this question in advance about any such example situation: recognizing that reverts are inherently confrontational and should be used only when necessary and with appropriate caution, please explain how in this situation (and in similar ones) WP would be harmed by requiring via this policy that the reverter be more explanatory in his or her edit summary (including adding merely "See talk section-name" where explanation is clearly apparent in section-name on the talk page), or at least explain how WP would not be improved by imposing such a requirement. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Colleague, when you say "can't think or imagine" you are shooting yourself into a leg: this remark shoiws that you don't follow this discussion carefully: policy pages are routinely reverted with bNC. And no amount of protest will change this tradition. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say I can't imagine a bNC revert. I said I can't imagine a defensible bNC revert (defensible in that WP would not be better off with more explanation associated with that revert). If they're so routine, why won't anyone cite an example that they are willing to defend? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK... I will give a few examples of "defensible" bNC reverts (or at lest examples of what I believe are defensible bNC reverts):

a) Editor A has worked with a group of editors on a particular article for a long time, and he knows the kind of edits that his colleagues tend to object to. Editor B joins the collaboration and makes an edit. Editor A does not have any strong objection to this edit, but feels that the edit is of the type that usually raise objections"... so he reverts with "no consensus" as his edit summary... His intention is to call attention to the edit... not to object to it. He wishes to alert his colleagues (who may be off paying more attention to other articles at the moment) that they should look at the edit. Now... it may be that his colleagues are perfectly happy with the edit (in which case they say "Nah... no problem", and the material is returned)... or it may be that they do have an issue with it (in which case, they explain what the problem is). But either way, they are pleased that they were alerted to the edit, and were able to check it out and give an opinion.

b) Editor B makes a change... something about the edit bothers Editor A, but he can not put his finger on exactly what it is (or can not properly articulate what the problem is). So he reverts with terse "no consensus" as an indication that he would like others to look at the edit and discuss it on the talk page. Editor A is hoping that someone else may be able to articulate what the problem is, where he can not.

c) SOP on a specific article is "Discuss first" (ie those who work on the article consistently operate in this mode)... Editor B does not know this, and makes a bold edit. Editor A reverts with "no consensus" as a legitimate (but clumsy) way to tell Editor B "Um... we operate on the "discuss first" mode here at this article... so please discuss first).

d) Editor A is in the middle of a complicated debate at one article... Editor B makes an objectionable edit at another article that Editor A watches... Editor A does not have time right now to fully explain his objection to Editor B's edit... so he reverts with a terse "no consensus" to let B know there is an objection, and that further discussion will be needed... and then goes back to the first page to continue with the first debate. (in this case... the intent is that a fuller explanation will be made... just not right now). Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to offer more examples -- this discussion is littered with many examples and reasons. If there is merit to B2C's proposal that has not already been mentioned, let's hear it. Until then, we are discussing a dead letter. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The examples are littered on this page but you can't come up with one? And the examples Blueboar does present have not been given before. This is just more stonewalling, this time of the ignoring good faith questions variety. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Scenarious (a) and (b) leave an impression of an arrogant smartass who always knows better even if he does not know what. After seeing such behavior 2-3 times, I would not touch articles "owned" by A with a 15-foot long pole. But I am sure there will be quite a few other willing to dive into drama, which A probably loves, because he is an admin and loves twist arms of newcomers. (c) Is there a[REDACTED] policy which provides for the "Discuss first" SOP? Is there a way to tag the article with DF-SOP, so that the newcomer knows that it is indeed the case and no a whim of some smartass? (d) Laziness is not a justification of sloppiness. NC-TTYL summary really not so much harder to type, but shows some respect. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Blueboar, perfect, and thank you. Thank you once again for engaging in thoughtful discourse. Taking them one at a time...

a) Would be clearly improved in every way and not worsened in any way with an explanation on the talk page in a section named, say, "Revert of B2C's edit", that explains this type of change is routinely not supported by consensus, and ideally references a few examples. Maybe a recent revert of a similar edit and a pointer to an associated discussion showing consensus support for the revert. The edit summary of the revert says, "See 'Revert of B2C's edit' on talk page".

b) Someone who can't even identify what bothers him about a change has no business reverting it. I mean, this is arrogance and disrespect taken to a whole new level. At most he should start a section saying that he's bothered by it but not sure why... asking what others think.

c) Clumsy indeed. Even "SOP on this talk page is to always Discuss First" would take practically no more effort and would be immensely more helpful and respectful.

d) Something like, "Sorry to revert and run, but trust me I have a very good reason and will explain within X hours" is, again, no more effort and immensely more helpful and respectful.

I appreciate your efforts to come up with these examples, but I just don't see how WP is anything but greatly improved by making bNC revert edit summaries like these explicitly unacceptable in policy. Am I missing something? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps even better for (d) - leave a note on the talk page without reverting, explaining you have a good reason to revert but are not reverting now because you don't have the time right now to explain it properly. Also say that if nobody else reverts and explains within X hours, then you'll come back and do it then. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What to do when there is no consensus

The section Misplaced Pages:Consensus#No consensus seems to be ambiguous - in any case, there is a disagreement over its interpretation at Talk:MassResistance. It says In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. Does that mean the (proposed) addition stays (since it has been added and there is no consensus to remove it), or does it mean it goes (since there is no consensus to include it)? StAnselm (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)