Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

"The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible."?

In the section Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building in talk pages, it says both that

  • The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible (emphasis added)

and

  • The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.

Does anyone else see these as (at least potentially) contradictory? More directly: Shouldn't the goal be to determine the best compromise? (A compromise that considers the "quality" of the positions, not the "quantity" of editors holding the position.) Perhaps, what is meant is that the editors involved should attempt to reach a compromise in a way that "angers as few as possible", e.g., everyone should be civil and not allow personal attacks? Justin W Smith (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there's a potential contradiction, although a slightly different one than you've highlighted. The goal of consensus-building is to reach a decision which reflects the encyclopedia's goals and policies while angering as few people as possible. Consensus-building isn't about making everyone happy (although we shouldn't go out of our way to piss people off either); it's about resolving conflicts in a way that adheres to this site's mission and policies. MastCell Talk 17:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Clearly the accepted intent is not about numbers, but about how well a putative compromise addresses all the pertinent issues. A result which totally neglects to address an important and valid criticism should fail even if only one editor raises that criticism. Conversely, no amount of wp:IDONTLIKEIT should stand against a result which solves all substantive issues. Only when multiple options work equally well should preference come into play.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Or perhaps we could think of consensus as not being a vote or agreement among human participants but among sources. If five sources say "X is A" but twenty say "X is B," then, assuming all sources are of equal quality, Wiki consensus should read "X is B" or "X is B, although a significant minority opinion maintains that X is really A." (Think of this in terms of whether evolution is true.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course, it is rare that all twenty-five sources will actually be of equal quality ... or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is rare for editors to agree on the relative quality of sources. Editors tend to be of the opinion that those sources which support views similar to their own are more reliable (and of higher quality) than those which support opposing views. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Horrible advice

Regarding this revert and its edit summary: if advice is horrible, we should remove it and replace it with better advice. Telling people who've been reverted to keep making similar edits is bad advice. In fact, it directly contradicts the advice given in bold, revert, discuss, an essay which encapsulates best practices much more successfully than this policy. If you make a bold edit and it's reverted, the recommended approach should be to open a discussion on the talk page. I think my edit brings this policy into line with existing best practices. MastCell Talk 18:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think this covers two very different situations. In case the bold edit itself is contentious -- usually as a matter of content -- then it is horrible advice and might even be considered edit warring to reintroduce it in milder form. For example:
Sam Stone is the former Mayor of Springfield and serial dog abuser
  1. Sam Stone is the former Mayor of Springfield and serial dog abuser <-- edit summary: rm per BLPCRIME
  2. Sam Stone is the former Mayor of Springfield who according to a recent editorial in the Springfield Daily Beast mistreated his dog <-- the public has a right to know!!!
That would be terrible advice. But consider:
Baskerville's airport is located in Springfield, a bedroom community so far out of town that most people find it unusable
  1. Baskerville's airport is located in Springfield, a bedroom community so far out of town that most people find it unusable <-- rm unsourced commentary made in unencyclopedic tone
  2. Baskerville's airport is located in Springfield, a suburban community seventy miles west of town.[cite] <-- add material in way that addresses above concern
Here it's a good approach, a compromise edit that addresses the reasons for the objection. I think it depends on just how bold the edit is, the nature of the revert, and the degree of collaboration on the page. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In both cases, the original edits were unsupported speculation and they were replaced with factual material that is true. I'm not sure I see the difference you're going for. Or are you saying that "the public has a right to know" is in the revised edit too? So we are supposed to object to the addition of a comment that might seem out of line because of the three exclams? I don't think it's difficult to invent exceptions to the rule but this one seems to be covered by other guidelines. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In either of these cases, discussing the matter on the article's talk page would be an appropriate action. The more aggressive advice to "[make a] compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns" is acceptable when the editors involved are competent and civil, but I don't think the "aggressive" approach should be established as a best practice. Justin W Smith (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In many cases, a edit that incorporates compromise will be less aggressive than defending a radical edit on the talk page. Anyway, I thought it was just pretty ironic how MastCell made an aggressive edit to policy instead of talking about it first, given the content of his edit. Why not list both possible next steps after being reverted? Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Um... I made a bold edit, I was reverted, and I came here to discuss it. In other words, I'm practicing exactly what I'm preaching. Please, do elaborate on the "irony" a bit further. MastCell Talk 18:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps my examples weren't ideal, but what I was trying to convey is that in my first case, the reverting editor objects on BLP or POV grounds to any bringing up of the politician's dog incident as a BLP violation or political smear, and simply does not want the information in the article. Consensus and content policy exclude it (let's accept that as a premise, if not then I should have a better example) and there is no real compromise position. Per BRD it's up to the proposing editor to obtain consensus, and no requirement that anyone try to meet them halfway. In the second case, the entire objection was that it was a statement of opinion and unsourced, so the bold editor compromised and reinserted a much more modest, factual, sourced statement. That would be good editing process - Wikidemon (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
So in the first case the edit is not addressing the concerns of the other editor. That's contrary to what the current wording advises. I see no conflict. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The current wording supports the notion of working towards consensus through editing. Personally, I think this should be encouraged.

The key is that the edit addresses the other editors' concerns. Of course, this assumes the other editors' concerns have been explained in the edit summary of the revert. If they haven't, then addressing them is not possible, and proceeding to the talk page is required.

That said, if the reverter(s) don't bother to explain their concerns in the edit summaries, and especially after a reasonable effort to get them to explain on the talk page has been made and they still don't, except maybe to claim a lack of consensus support for the change in question, then what? When I've been in such a situation, with nothing substantive to address, I've assumed the practically mute reverters can and should be ignored (what else can you do?). It would be helpful if this was stated explicitly. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It can cut both ways. On very rare occasion I've been reverted with a missing or bizarrely inapt rationale, and either taken the matter to the reverter's talk page or tried a polite 1RR redo summarized something like "rationale for reverting not clear, please feel free to explain". On the other hand a simple revert with "please see talk page", "this has been discussed", "please establish consensus first on talk page", "BLP vio", "fringe", or "not remotely suitable for an encyclopedia" is often appropriate, particularly with respect to extremely poor proposals, perennial proposals, or repeat attempts by the same editor after failing to gain consensus. That might be unduly snippy to newbies or in normal circumstances, but when faced with an unduly snippy revert of a bold proposal that doesn't leave much room for compromise it's still better to take to the talk page instead of escalating things by reintroducing the material. The problem is, I've seen this advice used occasionally on high conflict articles to suggest that the community is required to seek compromise rather than rejecting unacceptable material out of hand, or that it's okay to keep adding stuff that's been rejected, only reformulated to try to bypass objections, after people tell them to stop. Of course any rule on and off Wikipedia can be abused if misinterpreted or taken to extreme, and the policies here are written assuming people will follow them reasonably rather than to try to catch every possible edge case... Special circumstances and common misunderstandings are often better handled in essays like BRD. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
"please establish consensus first on talk page" is not sufficient if the change proponent engages on the talk page. The change objector must engage as well.

We build consensus through discussion. If the objector is not able nor willing to explain his objection beyond claiming there is no consensus support for it, that's not engaging in consensus building. That's avoiding consensus building, and it should be explicitly explained to be as such on this page. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Something like "please establish consensus first on talk page" shouldn't be given as an excuse for a reversion, since it's uninformative and unhelpful. We don't actually have a talk-first rule, and what are you supposed to talk about, if you don't have any hint about the reverter's objections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps editors shouldn't give unhelpful edit summaries when they revert... but the simple fact is that many editors do so. So the real question is: how should we respond when someone reverts with an unhelpful edit summary? It does not matter who initiates discussion, what matters is that a discussion takes place... So, if someone reverts with an unhelpful edit summary, just go to the talk page ask why the edit was reverted. Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
As I said it's perfectly appropriate (and I would add, commonplace and best practice) to use a summary to state that the editor needs to establish consensus on the talk page, in some of the contexts I posed. For example, a matter has been discussed repeatedly and rejected each time, and one of the proponents tries again a week later. In those cases the reason to revert is that there is a contentious edit that has no consensus. Not in other cases. This policy has to cover a lot of different situations. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Apparently I wasn't clear. The problem is not just reverting with an unhelpful summary like "establish consensus first". That can be remedied with talk page discussion.

The problem is when the reverter (and anyone who agree with the revert) does not engage in substantive discussion about the change on the talk page.

That is, no one can merely claim a lack of consensus - the reverter needs to be actually opposed to the change, and be prepared to explain and discuss the reasons for opposing if the change proponent starts a discussion about it on the talk page. This is the problem I'm trying to address:

  1. A makes a change.
  2. B reverts A's change claiming "lack of consensus"
  3. A starts a discussion on the talk page asking what the objection is to the change. Nobody offers anything substantive opposing the change, except to repeat the claim that it's not supported by consensus.
Yes, the change proponent needs to establish consensus, but if the only opposition is people claiming there is no consensus support, and the change proponent presents a substantive argument favoring the change, then the only evidence worth considering in determining consensus is that in favor of the change. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I generally agree with you. The point behind "consensus" isn't exactly "we all agree to do ____ on the page"; it's more like "we all agree that doing ____ on the page is a good way of implementing the community's policies and guidelines". Consequently, a mere assertion, even if repeated, that there is no consensus isn't actually enough. You need to be able to say something like "I don't agree to add this, because it adds unverifiable material" or "I don't agree to add this, because it seems irrelevant to this particular article" or "I don't agree to change this procedure, because it isn't practical to require that", or something like that. "I don't agree to this" isn't enough.
However, there are people that have trouble hearing what they're told. When you're dealing with a bad case of WP:IDHT, then "I don't agree to this" may be the only part of the discussion that the person understands. I'd be sorry to re-write the policy in a way that empowers people to pretend that strong objections can simply be ignored if they don't understand them or agree with them. We see enough of that anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
We're definitely on the same page. I haven't proposed anything specific because I don't know exactly how to word it. So some discussion about this, like this, is the right way to go. I agree we don't want to encourage the IDHT scenario, where someone repeatedly demands explanation when it has been provided, repeatedly. But I think there are remedies for that too, like a talk page FAQ. We should be able to clearly distinguish the legitimate from bogus scenarios. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've inserted the following statement which I believe addresses all concerns:

Merely claiming the edit has no consensus support, unless the lack of consensus has been demonstrated, is not an acceptable explanation for a revert.

--Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. My edit has been reverted without explanation [1] with this unhelpful edit summary: "the draft should be discussed first in any event and this one raises questions, too".

Ring Cinema, what is your objection to adding this? And why didn't you include your explanation in your edit summary, or explain it here on this talk page, per the guidance of this very policy page? I quote: One option is to leave a clear edit summary stating why the particular edit is not considered to be an improvement to the article, or what policies or guidelines would require the edit be undone. You did neither in your edit summary, nor on this talk page.

This is exactly the kind of revert that is not consistent with building consensus, but contrary to it. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I explained. It's better to share a draft first when a discussion is ongoing. Anyway, I see your good intentions but this seems a bit self-contradictory. I don't think you really mean "demonstrated" because I don't know how such a thing is done exactly. And I think we can be a little more direct. A claim that an edit lacks consensus isn't usually made in the absence of a prior discussion on the subject. Perhaps you will agree that this says most of what you're saying. Well, it's the start of a try anyway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
A claim that an edit lacks consensus should only be offered when there is a prior discussion on the subject; instead, summarize the reasons and open a discussion. This may be redundant of other things in the section, however. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
One caution here... sometimes a claim of no consensus is based on a prior discussion... but one that happened a while ago and may now be hidden away in the archives. In other words, the consensus (or lack their of) may have been formed before the person who (just now) made an edit first came to the article. The editor who is reverting with "no consensus" may remember that previous discussion and assume everyone else remembers it as well. He acts in good faith with his simple edit summary. Blueboar (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
In such a case the reverter should at least mention that there is demonstration of lack of consensus in the archives. Ideally, the reverter would provide a link to a section in the archives or a diff from the talk page history that shows this.

As far as RC's proposed wording, a prior discussion on the subject is not enough to claim lack of consensus. A discussion which demonstrates lack of consensus is what needs to be there. But something like this might be more clear:

A claim that an edit lacks consensus should only be offered when the claim is supported by prior discussion and cited accordingly. Otherwise, it alone is not an acceptable explanation for a revert.
--Born2cycle (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"Please establish consensus on the talk page" or "consensus has not been demonstrated for this edit" or "this has been discussed and rejected" are all fully adequate edit summaries in some contexts. No amount of saying otherwise changes that. It's risky to establish rules in the abstract, because that often ignores important cases where those rules don't fit. Indeed, the implication that the community is required to resurrect a debate anew and reply to the substance every time an editor wants to edit against consensus is a problem, and has been a tool of some very tendentious editors. My whole point is that sometimes, repeating a soundly rejected content change but with some modification isn't the way to go. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikidemon echoes some of my own thoughts. (2) There are two senses to "lack of consensus" to sort out. One, which B2C alludes to above, means no consensus either way (absence of consensus). But the other form is a proper reason to revert: there is no consensus for edit E because there is a consensus not to do E. There is a lack of consensus for E. So, let's be clear on this distinction: an absence of consensus is not the same as a negative consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Nothing is being established in the abstract. No implication is made that debates have to be resurrected anew. Pointing out that a debate has happened, and linking to it, is not resurrecting that debate. It is providing support for one's claim that the edit (or its essence) lacks consensus (or is opposed by consensus - a stronger reason to revert anyway).

I challenge you guys to identify an actual or even potential context in which "Please establish consensus on the talk page" or "consensus has not been demonstrated for this edit" or "this has been discussed and rejected" would be a fully adequate edit summary - for which providing support for the respective claim would not be significantly more consistent with this page in general. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think those are good summaries in many cases. Many pages are edited by a handful of editors; that one editor objects is prima facie evidence that a change will lack consensus. The place to check it out is in discussion. I don't see the problem there but perhaps I misunderstand you since there are so many contexts for these cases. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Special edit rules for this page

There is lively discussion starting above regarding whether wp:BRD, currently allowed on all policy pages, should be prohibited on this page. I suggest that, as a preliminary matter, we should first discuss whether there should be a separate rule for this policy. (If the answer is "no" then the discussion should take place at WP:POLICY, not here.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ring Cinema and Butwhatdoiknow discuss whether Butwhatdoiknow is misreading.
I think you are misreading. After you were reverted, you should have discussed the quote here first. You didn't, so that's not following BRD, right? There is a difference between the rules and the practices. The practice here has been to avoid disruptions and it's a good one. No doubt we will keep that practice out of respect for the other editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to get very far with respect to resolving this issue if your method of discussion includes name calling. Will you please consider retracting the "or your sock puppet" clause from your comment? (And, in any case, which edit are you referring to? (You have reverted so many edits.)) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't make changes of substance without a discussion. It's a good practice and I recommend it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the "or your sock puppet" clause. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't do reversions without an explanation (beyond "I don't like the fact that you made an edit that I have decided is "substantive" - and which may otherwise be perfectly fine - without discussing it first"). It's a good practice and I recommend it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You reverted my first edit without giving any reason other than it was substantive. Part of that edit was clearly not substantive. So I restored the clearly non-substantive portion. You evidently had no problem with that change because you then made an edit (which you didn't discuss first) building upon my edit.
I then re-made the balance of my edit (which did NOT change the substance of the policy) as a footnote hoping that this approach would resolve whatever (unexpressed) concerns you may have had with the content of the edit. Evidently it did not, because (instead of setting a good example by taking the issue to the talk page) you reverted again. And, again, you expressed no concern whatsoever regarding the content of the edit, just the fact that it was made without prior discussion. I did not revert your reversion.
At that point, I would have taken the matter to the talk page. But Blueboar beat me to the punch.
The bottom line: I do not believe that I am "misreading." It appears to me that you are reverting people and giving as your only reason that they are being BOLD. Am I misjudging your behavior? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Move category?

Hi. Can you please move the Category:Wikipedia conduct policy to Category:Wikipedia conduct policies? Thanks in advance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Developers

WAID proposed a paragraph about the developers of WP software. I don't think this is germane to the content of pages. If the developers made it impossible to edit according to WP norms, the developers would be in error. Developer error does not trump the results of consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Developer actions do affect "the content of pages", such as the Special pages and some of the formatting, arrangements, and contents that surround the body of articles and other pages.
The editor community does not own the developer community. When we are faced with a "consensus" about software features by a bunch of editors that is opposed by a consensus of the developers, the editors lose. To give an example, consider the proposed auto-confirmed trial, which was vetoed by the head of the dev community; it was actually impossible to move forward with it without their agreement, and so it died. And have you noticed the green "updated since" notes in page histories? That appeared last month because the devs turned it on, and it remains on because they have refused to turn it off, despite an alleged "consensus" at VPT that all changes are bad and that every interface change ought to be supplied with an endlessly growing, complex list of user-configurable options.
Bugzilla responses have a category of "won't fix" for a reason: the devs are under no obligation to do what the editors tell them to do. I think it perfectly reasonable to tell editors, in a section that is focused on the fact that editors don't always get what they want, that this fact of life applies to software features. We certainly have enough editors who need to be reminded of that fact to warrant mentioning it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Smiles. If wishing only made it so : )
Kidding aside, I agree with WAID's assessment of things. that said, perhaps it could be a bit clearer on the page? You (WAID) explained it somewhat more clearly above : ) - jc37 23:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that's interesting, but you are talking about things that are technically difficult if not impossible, I think. At least for the most part. So, should this disobedience to the will of the community consensus receive our implicit endorsement? I question the utility of that. It is something to think about, how to handle this special requirement that balances the possible with the ideal. Developers are subject to community consensus even if they want to pretend they're not or violate their obligation to it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The community of developers is not "subject to the consensus of the community of editors at the English Wikipedia. They are a completely independent community. We can no more dictate our wishes to the folks at MediaWiki than we can dictate our wishes to the folks at Commons. If they decide to change something because it works for all the other MediaWiki users in the world—there are thousands of MediaWiki installations—except the (tiny minority of vocal) editors at the English Wikipedia, then there is actually nothing that we can do to stop them. This isn't about "endorsing", implicitly or otherwise, anything. This is about warning people about the facts of the situation, so that they will be aware of consensual reality instead of living in a fantasy world in which volunteers at this project believe that they get to boss around the volunteers at another separate, independent, and co-equal project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, I see what you mean. Wikipedia drives on the software roads the developers lay down. It's sort of a fact of life, but not completely immune to alteration. So, yeah, we could say, e.g., that the voters of Omaha have no direct authority to change the interstate highways in Nebraska (don't live in a fantasy world, Omaha!). But is that really germane to the exercise of democracy there? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to debate what the community might do if the developers went rogue and made the software do something bad. Fundamentally, there is no "democracy" here (see WP:DEM), and consensus among editors is only informative as far as devs are concerned. Of course devs want to please editors, and would carefully assess community views, but they are ultimately responsible to the WMF. Also, they have a much greater responsibility than editors, and they might decide that something the community wants is not achievable for a variety of reasons—it would be a total waste of time to require that devs justified themselves to the satisfaction of enthusiastic editors when 99.9% of the community have no idea what it takes to make MediaWiki function across an amazingly complicated infrastructure. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You didn't get my meaning, I think, although I don't disagree with you much if at all. To be clear, I am saying that the developers build the highways and WP editors drive on them. That's not relevant to a discussion of WP consensus, except on the margins. Any "you're not the boss of me" aspect seems to me out of place. The work of the developers is sort of a fact of life for editors, while this project is about WP decision-making. Perhaps others have a different opinion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the reason we need to mention this is that some of our editors believe that they are entitled to boss around MediaWiki community. This is a statement that a consensus at en.wp is not binding on the community at mediawiki.org. For that matter, we should be saying the same thing about Commons and the non-English Wikipedias. People like us have already learned these things over the years, but the point of this page is to tell these kinds of things to the folks who haven't happened to pick up these tidbits yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I realize that we're busy with the discussion below, but have we all finally understood, and agreed to tell others, that a consensus by the community of editors on the English Wikipedia is not binding on the communities at the non-English Wikipedias, the non-Wikipedia WMF projects, including the dev community?
It sounds to me like we've all figured out that this is both true and appropriate to point out to those who don't already know all the unwritten rules, but I'd like to be sure, so that we won't end up with edit warring over it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I think it's a relatively minor matter that is only marginally germane to this project. Here we are concerned with how the WP community uses consensus. If that community decided anything about any domain that is not subject to its preferences, it's just a nullity. [Insert ridiculous example.] Also, I don't think much of the "you're not the boss of me" aspect. I would prefer coming at the issue from a different direction. As you say, it's obvious that en.wp doesn't decide things for other language WP's. There are different institutions that work in their specific domains. Maybe it would be better to point it out that way. Would that work? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm open to any sort of wording that helps editors here discover that they do not get to order around the Mediawiki community by saying that we have a "consensus" that they will do our bidding. If it has the happy side effect of also giving us something that we can point at to educate the endless supply of proposals at the village pumps that want en.wp to tell Commons or a non-English Wikipedia to do something, then so much the better.
I'd be happy to see any wording that you would like to propose. For reference, here's what I started with: * Mediawiki developers, including both paid WMF staff and volunteers, are responsible for the development of the software that the Wikipedia editors use to write the encyclopedia. The independent developer community makes whatever changes it deems necessary or appropriate to the software, such as adding, removing, or changing software features. As you can see, it doesn't apply to Commons or other projects. I don't know whether you'd prefer to handle them together (might be unwieldy) or separately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The many language WP's are each their own domain, as is the Mediawiki community that includes developers and the Commons. That is the essence of what I think we should say. Do you think it might be effective and useful? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it will be useful. Since WP:Nobody reads the directions, I think it will have only minor efficacy in the short-term. But eventually, I think it will be somewhat effective.
How would you like to word it? I think that naming the three major groups (non-English Wikipedias, Commons, and the devs) is a good idea. I don't think we need to name every single project, because people rarely complain here about what Wiktionary (for example) is doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Some matters that may seem subject to English language Wikipedia (en.wi) community consensus are, in fact, in a separate domain. In particular, the WikiMedia Foundation, which includes software developers for the wide-ranging Wiki projects and the jointly-held resources of the Commons is not a creature of en.wi, and neither are the many non-English Wikipedias. This does not constitute an exhaustive list as much as a reminder that the decisions taken under this project apply only to the workings of the self-governing community of English Wikipedia.
I'd like to say something like that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
If nobody objects in the next few days, then why don't we add that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It is just a draft. I am not sure it's exactly right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but we could start there, and then people could boldly improve it if they had any ideas. It would give us a perfectly decent starting point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. And exactly where should it go? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Fwiw, I agree with jc37's comment, that WAID's initial edit, and commentary here, should be merged, and added to the policy page. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this as a merged text:
  • Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Wikipedia (en.wp) are, in fact, in a separate domain. In particular, the Mediawiki developer community, including both paid WikiMedia Foundation staff and other volunteers, and the activities of Wikimedia Commons are not creatures of en.wp, nor are the many non-English Wikipedias. These independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as adding, removing, or changing software features, accepting or rejecting images, even if their actions are not endorsed by editors here. This does not constitute an exhaustive list as much as a reminder that the decisions taken under this project apply only to the workings of the self-governing community of English Wikipedia.
Is this a good enough place to start? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
A fine start, and suitable for addition + live-tweaking (probably in the #Exceptions subsection, as your initial edit was). The only wording I'd quibble with is "creatures", simply because it'll confuse some people; but I can't think of an alternative atm ("at the behest"? still not perfect..). -- Quiddity (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
"Part of" would probably work, if you wanted it to be bland. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate you adopting my approach almost word for word. This was a productive discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change - Jimbo quote

We seem to be having an edit war over whether or not to include a quote from Jimbo. Rather than edit war, please discuss the reasons for and against including the quote. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's an edit war. For this project, I think it works better to discuss the substance before changing the policy. Changing the page frequently is bad for the editors and there have been complaints about it on more than one occasion. So it's a good idea to discuss things first. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Given your personal preference against BRD, you are certainly free to not B. However, BRD remains a legitimate editing option and, I respectfully suggest, when others B you should only R if you have a substantive concern (not giving as your sole reason that the first editor B'ed). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The problems caused to English WP by changing this page frequently are sometimes serious. Many disputes center on consensus. Making changes here that are not well-considered is not the best way to respect the many editors who do the real work but aren't particularly interested in this self-appointed group of experts. Making sure something is right for the page before it goes on only seems right to me because that is the way to show our humble respect for them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a well made argument to change the current Wikipedia practice allowing BRD as an "equally valid" method of making substantive changes to policies. However, the fact remains that the current practice IS the current practice. You are free to make an RfC to change that practice. But I don't think you can unilaterally adopt it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
As to the substance, the project's aim is not to puff the co-founder, show familiarity with or publicize his nickname, or buttress something fundamental with the imprimatur of his words. So I question the value of the proposal. To me it's obvious that the informal tone flags a spurious motive, especially when Wales' words offer no content. It's an appeal to authority, and that's almost always fallacious. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You have raised many concerns. With your indulgence I'd like to deal with each one separately, starting with "flags a spurious motive." Can you tell me more about what your thinking is in this regard? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Why would a serious page use a nickname for someone quoted? It's not for the reason that an important thought is in the offing. So there's something else already in the mix, just based on that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Why not? Don't most serious political writers talk about "Bill" Clinton, even though that's just a nickname? Jimbo is an extremely common nickname for men whose names are derived from James. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
And, of course, there is the fact that that is what he calls himself. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Another one of your concerns is that an appeal to authority is "almost always" fallacious. Perhaps that is so. But is it the case in this particular instance? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK... I have seen an opinion as to why we should not have the quote... and arguments as to why people disagree with that opinion... The one thing that I have not (yet) seen is an explanation of why we should add the quote. How will adding the quote improve or clarify the policy? Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a need for the quote, and I can see reasons not to include it. But my main concern here is this idea that it is ok to change policy boldly - I disagree strongly with this. Policies are fundamental, and changes to the pillars of Wikipedia should not be done boldly but after discussion. Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
There are fifty-odd policy pages. Not all of them are truly "fundamental" and very few of them are "the pillars of Wikipedia" in any sense.
If you think that policy pages would benefit from a level of bureaucratic hoop-jumping, then I encourage you to go over to WP:POLICY and propose a major change to that long-standing policy about how to edit policies. You can use my bold edits to policies, like these: [2][3][4][5] as test cases if you'd like. I'll expect a good explanation of how the community would have benefited from each and every one of those small changes discussed in advance before I agree that boldly editing a policy page is never okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. While naturally editors are free to make changes, it's legitimate to question the wisdom of disrupting the work of unknown editors in all of Wikipedia because a solitary editor is too impatient to enter a discussion before making a change that might have a poor chance of being accepted. Is it really an imposition? It seems that solitary editor makes a prima facie case they are not completely aware of the what they're doing, and that is a reason to doubt the sagacity of their proposal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Tell me exactly how those small changes contribute to "disrupting the work of unknown editors in all of Wikipedia". Here, I boldly change a sample username from XXX to something that doesn't have unfortunate connotations of vice. Will you question the wisdom of the change? Do you think I'm not completely aware of what I was doing? Do you have any reason to doubt the sagacity of picking a neutral username for the example? Did that change disrupt anybody's work, even a little bit? Would a discussion have helped us make a better decision about whether or not to retain the previous example?
Or do you agree that bold edits might actually be perfectly justifiable on occasion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to point out that some recent edits that weren't discussed in advance did not run afoul of the bold reverter. As you have pointed out, very few edits here aim to change the meaning of the policy and those changes don't seem to gain acceptance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad that we can agree that bold edits are perfectly justifiable, at least in some circumstances. I hope that "The Bold Reverter" will continue making an effort to provide a pointful edit summary for those bold edits that are unhelpful, rather than an uninformative "not discussed in advance". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Speaking to Blueboar's issue (whether this article should have the quote), I think the question is now moot in light of the reversion back to October of 2011. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Another incompetent admin who has more authority than they can handle. Unbelievable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


Re Rollback: I'd suggest that a 3rd August 2012 diff, might be preferable, as a place to revert to. Unless there are particular reason(s) to undo ~300 edits? (almost a year's worth of clarifications and corrections). Or are there archived talkpage threads that show older disputes, that warrant such a drastic rollback?

(Diff for reference. 04:36, 6 October 2011 - 09:32, 3 August 2012, versus the 3 days of back-and-forth over the Jimbo quote.)

On topic: I'd personally lean towards not including the link, per WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem and WP:Appeals to Jimbo and WP:What Would Jimbo Do? - He may be right, and have correctly phrased something, but simply invoking his name causes too many kneejerk reactions. 'tis generally better to point to a relevant essay, than a remark by Jimbo. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note... Just to put all options on the table... if Jimbo has come up with a particularly good phrasing that we want to incorporate into this policy, we can always incorporate his phrasing without making it an attributed quote. It's what we would do if any other editor came up with a good way to phrase something. I doubt he would mind (and we can always ask him if we need to make sure he is OK with it). Blueboar (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

a quote from Jimbo

  • Ring Cinema's reversion summary "it's better to discuss changes to this page first" was a very poor summary. When reverting, please say at least one thing of substance about the edit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
For the record, Ring Cinema (the original reverter) must have agreed with my "clearly non-substantive" comment because he didn't revert that change (in fact, he BOLDly built upon it). I say no more. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm a little skeptical of using Jimbo quotes to bolster policy. But in this case, he's not even talking about this policy. That's enough for me to say it's a bad idea to add it. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Protected

  • Excerpted from my comments here.

I've protected the page due to the slow motion edit-warring over the last 9 months.

I understand that you've all been attempting to hash about somewhat about the policy, but constantly doing this back-n-forth especially with the seemingly bullying of each other through edit summaries (of bold or reversion edits) is just inappropriate.

At this point, I think you're all past the Be bold stage, and should go back to the Discuss phase. Maybe collaboratively working up a draft, before going "live" with it.

But the constant back-n-forth isn't good for anyone, Wikipedia in particular, especially on a core policy such as WP:CON.

As I said in the edit summary, you all should know better. You all could be showing by example how to positively and collaboratively and collegiately discuss, so to bring a policy page better in line with what has been long standing policy, and common practice.

You're all arguing these things, but seemingly not practicing them.

Anyway, per WP:PROTECT: "...administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists."

As there has been editwarring going back months by the same handful of individuals, I tried to pick a spot before it all began.

If another uninvolved admin thinks it is appropriate to undo the reversion, or thinks they see a better place to revert to, they're welcome to do so.

But I suggest that the page stay protected until the constant players in this long term edit warring come up with a plan that has actual consensus at this point, in particular as this is the page that concerns consensus. - jc37 03:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I object to the claim that I've engaged in any edit warring, slow motion or otherwise. I'm following the policies and procedures and engaging in discussion. The problem is the rogue admin. JC37 has had secret grievances for ten months; now he springs them on us in the crudest, most disrespectful fashion, counseling collegiality and discussion. The word for that is hypocrisy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
At this stage, I'm considering such comments to be bad faith trolling. If they continue, you may face further sanction, such as being blocked.
I would rather not see that, and hope that you would instead to choose to productively join in collegiate discussion with the others here. - jc37 16:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
@Ring Cinema: Based on your edits to the page (undid undid undid) and your disrespectful comments above (directly above, and in other threads above, and in archive13, which is all I've read through so far), I have got to say, that your behaviour is skirting the edge of what's tolerable. Your block log and (a few sections of) usertalkpage are further indications of the same.
I strongly recommend you immediately and permanently cease all personal attacks and derogatory comments. They are neither helpful, nor welcome. Ever.
Furthermore, it is Not necessary to revert someone, in order to object to part of an edit - it is vastly preferable to raise a concern on the talkpage, and suggest a change to an existing edit - i.e. BRD is not the ideal method of interacting, and you're using it as the default way too much, which is why things turn hostile so frequently. -- Quiddity (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I would refer you to a couple things. First, the top of this page states: "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that any change to policy reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page." In the most recent example, my objection was apparently well-founded, given the discussion, and if there was any disrespect it was not from me, so I suppose you will say something about that soon. Secondly, you may not be aware that editors who don't contribute here sometimes complain that it is disruptive to change the page frequently. I agree with them where substantive changes are concerned and I am sure that view is accepted, so it is better to discuss changes first. And that's what it says here. Also, you probably could clarify your advice regarding changes to edits. If there's supposed to be some kind of request for a change with discussion, that applies to all of us, including the editor who wants to make the change. If changes without discussion are okay, that would apply to everyone. Unless you're suggesting there is some default preference for a new draft, but that is counter to the quotation above, which counsels that we try to reflect consensus. That is what I've done. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

2011?

Seems absurd to undo what had been reached here on a flimsy claim that only the oldest consensus is remotely valid.

I would suggest an update to the reasonably stable version of 25 July 2012 as being more reasonable. Collect (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure if the edit warring before the 25th is connected to the current incident. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In fact, it is not <g>. Moreover, the version in July was much more readable than the one from a year ago. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
12 June makes more sense: the slow moving edit war between WhatamIdoing and Ring Cinema started after that. Regardless, the interwikis which jc accidentally removed should be restored. —WFC— 14:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I welcome a determination by consensus. As I said, I picked that spot arbitrarily. I think it would be great if you all started discussion on these things. I'm leaving it protected for now, but I'm hoping that productive discussion here will mean that the protection can be lifted. In the meantime, I or any admin can of course add any edit-protected requests which have consensus. - jc37 16:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit war?
You might actually look at the diffs. And the archives. That text was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_13#No_consensus_resulting_in_change in March, and Ring agreed to it. I forgot about it for a while, so I didn't get around to restoring the text that Ring had agreed to until June. At that point, presumably having forgotten that he agreed to it, he removed it again because a single, well-defined bit of wikijargon was not defined on this page. So I addressed his concern, and that was the end of it.
Now I'll agree that Ring could have shown up on the talk page in June and explained that he wanted WP:Contentious linked in that sentence, or if he'd known about that advice page, he could have linked it himself, rather than reverting. That might have been preferable overall. But even taking the approach he did, that's not actually an edit war: that's what collaborative editing looks like when the only tool one party seems to have is the undo button. Nobody was flipping between two versions without discussion or accommodations. There was discussion, there were changes made as a result, and there was agreement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This is consistent with my thoughts. WAID and I have gone back and forth on some things, but we have discussed them. We responded to each other's concerns and paid attention to what the other was saying. Seems like we worked them out in the end. Where's the edit war? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} request

While I agree with both this page's protection, and reverting to an edit before the recent edit-warring started, the protecting admin has openly admitted to "arbitrarily picking" a version from last year. While I understand the principle of going so far back as to not favour either "side", this level of reversion makes it very difficult to compare the edit history, as several sections have been displaced. Also, several interwikis were accidentally removed.

Please revert the edit above, so that this difficulty in comparing edits does not become permanent – as an example, this diff is much easier to examine than the one above. Then, please revert to a more recent arbitrarily selected version, using the dates mentioned above as a guide. What is clear from the above discussion is that the recent instability on the page can only be traced back a month or two.

If for some reason the bulk of this request is declined, please nonetheless restore the interwikis: the missing ones can be seen at the bottom of the first diff. Thanks in advance, —WFC— 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I see the protecting admin is active in the above discussion. Let's let him deal with it, or if absolutely necessary take it to WP:ANI for attention by all admins (but be prepared for WP:BOOMERANG if you do that). If you need to look at diffs, look at diffs between two appropriate versions rather than against the current version. Anomie⚔ 16:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Anomie is fast! : )
I was going to leave the request open until others had commented, and so hopefully a consensus could be formed. I think that can still be done (discussion doesn't require the template, after all : ) - jc37 16:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm unaware of any edit that wasn't by consensus. Since there isn't any reason for the revert, it should be restored. Any other action disrespects the editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

From the header above: "The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that any change to policy reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page." This seems to have been overlooked by JC37. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the edit chosen IS a little arbitrary to the point of being confusing. I thought the edit war was about the Jimbo quote, but it looks like big portions of the policy are being rewritten? Someone wanna save me the time and effort, and get to the bottom of this? Shooterwalker (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
A few of the changes during the last year have the goal of expanding the range of information provided on this page, e.g., the newly created, heavily discussed, and fully supported "No consensus" section that seems to have disappeared. Most of the other changes are just an effort to better explain what this page has always said. Despite the frequently expressed worries, the exact wording of a policy page isn't as important as the meaning, and there have not been any serious efforts to change its meaning. The changes are just different people trying to say the same things in a better (in their opinion) way.
Last I checked, the page protection policy directly prohibited admins from reverting before protecting a page, even on policies. Is that no longer the case? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
All the changes were made by consensus. Why that consensus is ignored based on one person's opinion, well, it makes no sense. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
(de-dent) User:WhatamIdoing - I explained that above. And note (to everyone commenting), this is an edit protected request you are commenting in, the requester is (presumably) requesting the June 12 point, though of course you are welcome to suggest a different spot. I see some complaining, but so far nothing constructive that could be acted on. If you dislike where it was reverted to, then either support the edit protected request, or make a counter proposal. But idle complaint isn't moving anything forward. and note: there is no deadline. Wikipedia would survive just fine if this page didn't exist at all. Policy is not reliant upon text on a page. So taking a moment to discuss isn't going to hurt anything. - jc37 01:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you said that you reverted to a randomly picked time, which does not agree with the "clear point" required by the policy. I believe that you made a mistake, and it looks like everyone else on this page believes that, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I oppose the big reversion and long protection. But I also think that this policy is massively bloated and beyond scope. I think we should consider splitting into WP:Consensus (policy) and WP:Consensus (editing guideline). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I support reverting to whatever was on top at the time it was protected as the first choice, since there was no "clear point" at which this alleged edit warring began, especially since most of it wasn't edit warring, but was the method of consensus-based editing outlined on this page, i.e., you make a change, and I build on it if I can, and remove it if I think it's hopeless. Also, we're talking about reverting through a whole series of unrelated efforts to improve the policy, affecting multiple sections, and it's bad to lose good work merely because one editor wanted to discuss one sentence in advance of it appearing in the policy. But I'll support a reversion to anything that doesn't lose nine months of work, break the transclusions elsewhere, eliminate section headings referred to in talk page discussions, and otherwise cause problems for the whole community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

On 25 June 2012 there were no intractable disputes, and I subnit that there is, indeed, consensus to restore that version and work from there rather than have the ancient version which no one particularly wants. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Done As far as I can tell, all commenters have agreed to the edit of June 12 or more recent. I've compared the 6-12 edit with the edits which led to the protection, and there are only a few differences. At this point obviously please feel free to discuss those changes. (and yes, please feel free to link to discussions where you feel consensus existed for any individual edits). I realise that no one here (including me) is happy with the page being protected. But continued ad hominem comments are a waste of everyone's time. - jc37 22:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for moving the frozen diff forward, jc37 :) 2 additional requests: please re-implement these non-opposed edits that remove the (inactive) medcab mentions [6] [7], and this de-gobbledygooking edit for "socks" [8]. Ta :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    No edit is trivial under the current situation. That said, I don't believe that removing the section concerning the inactive medcab will be controversial to anyone. However, if even a single person opposes the removal at this point, I'll restore it and await a consensus before further action. - jc37 22:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    I think that basically all of the work done this summer needs to be restored: the removal of the "socking" jargon, the addition of verifiable numbers about how frequently standard consensus methods fail (which is in ~1% of articles, not "often"); the necessity of following the community's standards, even if that angers more people than a breach of core content policies would; the restoration of the traditional "CCC" language; and the accurate portrayal of the BLP policy requirements when there is no consensus about how to handle a given bit of material. Here's the diff. There is nothing contested in it. The last edit before your decision to protect the page was already a reversion to the least-contested version (I hadn't looked at the history earlier, when I suggested that whatever had been on top should have been left on top).
    As for "the current situation", there wouldn't be a situation if you hadn't chosen to lock the page for a month. It may surprise you to hear this, but the people involved in the discussion about the one sentence have a long history of discussing differences and resolving them. There are whole archives here to prove it. The rather unimportant question about whether the Jimbo quotation should be included as a footnote would have been resolved one way or the other, except for your decision to increase the drama by locking the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    These are my sentiments as well. There are sometimes binary disagreements. Oh, well. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'd agree with that. There is nothing except the reference to jimbo that was currently contested. The page-history only looks contentious because of the "Undid" scattered throughout (as discussed in threads above) which are due to differences in editing philosophy (Which could be oversimplified as immediatist vs eventualist). -- Quiddity (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I came here from the village pump, after having seen this page's designation change from policy to guideline and back again. I felt compelled to see what was going on, and here I find there's been a continuous edit war for the past several months between a number of active contributors to this page, with very little effort made by the participants to discuss things beforehand. I completely agree with Jc37's protection of this article to prevent any further edit warring, as well as his subsequent reversion to the most recent page prior to the current situation taking place (ie. from June 2012). If things don't improve from here on out, we may even need to consider whether a page ban would be appropriate. To anyone who was involved in this debacle, I strongly recommend giving this page a good read, and reflect on how best to proceed from there. Either way, this constant back and forth reverting will not be allowed to continue, if nowhere else on Wikipedia, then certainly not here. Kurtis (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    No, there hasn't been "a continuous edit war". Edit warring involves "a series of back-and-forth reverts", which (despite the edit summaries) hasn't actually been happening. Most of these are just partial reversions that directly address the stated complaints of the person who disliked it. A typical exchange looks like this:
    • Somebody makes a significant, bold change.
    • Somebody (Ring, usually, but it could be anyone) reverts it because of a perceived problem.
    • Somebody starts a talk page discussion about the dispute, if it's not clear from the edit summaries.
    • Per the results of the discussion, somebody tweaks the original to address the concerns or restores the parts that weren't disputed.
    That is not an edit war, according to the actual policy on edit warring, even if you see the words "undid revision" in two of those three edit summaries. That is normal, consensus-driven, collaborative editing, and it's happening exactly like this policy recommends for normal, everyday changes to pages.
    Or, as Kim B used to say, we're using a wiki like it's a wiki. That's what we're supposed to be doing here.
    If it would be helpful to drive-by admins, we could all agree to blank the "undid revision" automatic edit summaries, rather than adding our comments on below. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate WAID saying most of the things I would say. I don't see the contributors here refusing to explain themselves, which would be a serious problem if it was chronic. It would be nice if there weren't disagreements but it's easy to expect that when you're not editing here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Real problem

Never mind the edit war; as this page itself currently admits: "Debates rarely conclude on the basis of merit; typically they are ended by outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group." (sourced to outside research). That's rather a big problem, isn't it? Shouldn't we be trying to do something about it? Victor Yus (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your question is "yes." Which raises the next question: What can we do about it? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
For starters, I think the page could do a better job of expressing an ideal. Not attaining the ideal is another part of it, and is perhaps over-covered. Personally, I wouldn't bother mentioning "debates" (it's a discussion) and would at least point out that decisions should be made on the merits. Also: "typically"? It seems like that was written on someone's bad day. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Certainly this page, like most other policies and guidelines (as I'm becoming tired of pointing out), could do a much better job of expressing clearly whatever it is it's supposed to express. But will ideals on their own help much? There remains the dirty business of how to put them into practice. If decisions are to be made "on the merits", then presumably someone has to ultimately judge where the merits lie (in the cases where discussion between the people directly interested fails to produce agreement, which I assume are the cases the research was concerned with). Victor Yus (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, there is no one to judge the merits but the participants so it is somewhat circular and I wouldn't make too much of it. However, people are more likely to judge the merits if it's said that the merits matter. Ideals help because it helps to point in the right direction when you want to end up there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but I think most people would take it as obvious that the merits matter. The question is how to handle a case where some people think solution A has more merit, others think solution B has more merit, and a reasonable amount of discussion has failed to bring them into agreement. To be honest I can't think of any possible alternative to those listed ("outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group"), but the policy should at least try to say which of those options are preferred (personally I think outside intervention is probably the least bad, if done sensibly). Victor Yus (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean that we shouldn't go beyond the ideals. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
"Typically": It was written on someone's bad day. The source says that nearly 99% of articles don't have this problem. That problem was corrected weeks ago, but our drive-by admin reverted it because he decided that the undisputed correction was part of his imaginary edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, but more than 1% (if that's actually a counted figure) of Wikipedia articles is still a hell of a lot, particularly given that they probably include many highly visible and sensitive pages. Victor Yus (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 2 September 2012

Please replace {{pp-semi-indef}} from line two with {{pp-dispute|expiry=26 September 2012|small=yes}}, to remove the page from the view of Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates, and to sync protection templates. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 12:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:22, 2 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: "[The RM process] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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, "[It is my opinion that this] 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)
Discussion regarding whether the current text is ambiguous.
Their success in totally clouding the issue, perhaps. I've already pointed out where (among other things) the ambiguity and contradiction lie: ambiguity in that we don't know what kind of "proposal" we're talking about (in this talkpage discussion most people think it means "edit" and rejecting the proposal means reverting the edit, but a reader coming to this page likely won't understand it that way), and contradiction in that one sentence implies that some proposals do not merit discussion while the next sentence implies that they always do. There's more, but that ought to be fairly clear for starters, and demonstrates clearly that the present version is not anywhere near perfect. BWDIK's proposed version seems to me to be a clear improvement. Victor Yus (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
First of all, to be clear, I propose to change only the third sentence of CCC. The ambiguity of that sentence is that it can be read as meaning either (a) "violates consensus" is a weak reason for reverting or (b) "violates consensus" is a weak reason to give in an edit summary for reverting. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has identified a contradiction yet. Secondly, I think we would be hard pressed to improve on 'proposal', since consensus applies to all manner of decisions here whether in the form of an edit or something offered for consideration in discussion. Although, Victor, you say that a new reader will not understand that reverting is a rejection of a proposed edit, I am not sure I agree. Anything can be misread, I guess, with effort, but, given the context of the paragraph, if a reader searching for guidance on the policy of consensus is considering reverting an edit on an issue where there is a previous consensus and they come upon CCC (which is the very topic), I don't see how they could plausibly end up doing something wrong. They might revert or might not, because CCC. If they revert, they wouldn't very likely say "violates consensus" either. So it seems good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Ring, I don't hear you say that the text I am proposing is wrong, only that it is less succinct than the current text. While you can (and do) repeat that you don't see the ambiguity, the fact that Victor and I do see it suggests that the text can be improved to provide clarity to a broader group of readers (even if that change will not benefit those with your view of the matter). Do you oppose making the text clearer to a broader group of readers? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1. It's wrong but I don't see the point in criticizing it at this point. 2. What is the ambiguity again? If it says what is to be said, that's not ambiguity. And another text that tries to say the same thing may also go ungotten. Victor offered a contradiction that was not a contradiction, no ambiguity. You haven't identified a problem at all, although you asked for and received an explanation for the function of a phrase that is a commonplace in English. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
in response to 2., you have asked me to repeat myself. So I will: "The ambiguity of [the third CCC] sentence is that it can be read as meaning either (a) "violates consensus" is a weak reason for reverting or (b) "violates consensus" is a weak reason to give in an edit summary for reverting." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
No ambiguity there. Anything can be misread, I guess, with effort, but, given the context of the paragraph, if a reader searching for guidance on the policy of consensus is considering reverting an edit on an issue where there is a previous consensus and they come upon CCC (which is the very topic), I don't see how they could plausibly end up doing something wrong. They might revert or might not, because CCC. If they revert, they wouldn't very likely say "violates consensus" either. So it seems good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I am reminded of a scene from Orange County (film). A teacher asks the students to name their favorite character from Friends. The protagonist says "Ross." The teacher says "No, you're wrong." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
So you're trying to say that when you say something is ambiguous, that is the same judgment as, say, naming your favorite color. In other words, it is not something you can be mistaken about. I don't think that is accurate. The test of a text's ambiguity is, in simple terms, if it has a double meaning. You listed them above as (a) and (b): (a) "violates consensus" is a weak reason for reverting or (b) "violates consensus" is a weak reason to give in an edit summary for reverting." I think we discussed (a) a little bit and I think I was persuasive in asserting that CCC doesn't say that. Since it doesn't say that, there's not a double meaning and it fails the test for ambiguity. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to say that when I say I see two meanings you can not disprove that statement by saying that you only see one meaning. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
RC, I ask you to assume that I am (a) proceeding in good faith and (b) not an idiot. If you do that then I hope you will say "I don't really see any ambiguity, but if Butwhat says he does then maybe there is an ambiguity that I just don't see. Since we both want CCC to be the best that it can be, perhaps I should stop insisting upon not changing a single letter in the current text and, instead, work with CCC to restate the guide in a way that is accurate and removes the ambiguity that Butwhat says he sees. After all, that is what consensus is all about - working together." If you do that then I hope you will return to the subject of your point "1." above and help me re-word my proposal so it isn't wrong. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, at first you thought "As a practical matter" did nothing. Now the meaning is cashed out, that inaccuracy is obviated, and it isn't a predicate of our discussion. We don't have to change CCC because you made a proposal either. Too, there doesn't seem to be a problem to correct. Practicality, contradiction, ambiguity: none have stood up to scrutiny. Your comments above to Victor seemed to counsel some kind of gamesmanship or something, as if there's a reason to be sneaky and scout around for places to make small changes that other editors don't notice are substantive. I have a hard time squaring that with your advice to me. I'll say again, I don't see where CCC as written would lead anyone astray who reads it with comprehension. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
So you are not willing to assume my good faith? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I always assume good faith and you're no exception, but that doesn't oblige me to accept your reasoning or your proposal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I have trouble squaring the first part of that sentence with the facts. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:10, 14 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)

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. Wikipedia is not best served by having us all guess what someone else might object to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 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. [9]

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 (Wikipedia-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)

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)

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)
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 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, "[d]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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia: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)

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 Wikipedia - 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia" 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)

Proposal for Level of Consensus reorganization and amendment in bold

Wikipedia 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.

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia and second I put the case that applies to subsets of Wikipedia, 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)

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 Wikipedia 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,[10] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_14&oldid=1090630269"