Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Don't revert what you support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do when there is no consensus

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

The default position is to return the article to the version that last had a firm consensus... the text before the disputed proposal was made. If the proposal was to add material, the default would be to a version without the material. If the proposal was remove material, then we would default the other way... and keep it.

In this case, it sounds like the addition goes. Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this change clarifies the meaning sufficiently. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! St Anselm (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what is addressed by saying that something would be removed that was in the article before. The section under review covers what to do when there is no consensus for change, but B2C's draft implies that some changes would be made without a supporting consensus. We don't want that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

For crying out loud, RC, do you just disagree with all changes, no matter how innocuous? My edit did not change the meaning of anything.

BEFORE:

In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of contentious matter.

AFTER:

In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus supporting the addition or alteration commonly results in no change being made to the article. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus supporting the inclusion of the material often results in the removal of the contentious matter even if it was originally part of the article.

I made the additions to clarify the apparent misunderstanding. Since in RC's revert he questions "even if it was originally part of the article". I presume it's the second sentence with which there is an issue.

It used to say:

"for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of contentious matter."

What that means is if someone removes some material from a BLP, and then there is disagreement about whether it should remain improved or restored, unless there is consensus to keep it, it is not retain. That is, there must be consensus to KEEP contentious matter about living people, or it is not retained. "no consensus" means remove even long-existing contentious material. That is policy, BLP policy. See Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content.

So, to be clear about this here as well, I clarified it on that point:

for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus supporting the inclusion of the material often results in the removal of the contentious matter even if it was originally part of the article.

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Born, I understand that your intent was to clarify... but I think your clarification made things more confusing rather than less confusing. The policy is dealing with two distinct situations:

1) in a non-BLP - when a change is proposed ... no consensus = do not enact the proposed change... the end result ("keep" or "remove") depends on what was proposed.

2) in a BLP... when a change is proposed ... no consensus = do not include the material.... the end result is the same (remove) regardless of what was proposed. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, except the part you're not quite as clear about as my wording is, is that in a BLP if the change proposed is deletion of material, and that material is contentious, and there is "no consensus" favoring continued inclusion of the material, then it is removed, even if it was in the article before the change (to remove it) was proposed. That's the part with which RC disagreed, and why he reverted. His edit summary: "even if it was originally part of the article"? that would be a change to policy. He's apparently not familiar with policy as it relates to BLPs.

But because he understood my wording correctly is evidence that it's clear. How is it not clear to you? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not agreeing with the rational of RC's revert... I was commenting on your change for myself. Remember, I already knew what the policy on BLP's was, and I had to read your version carefully (and it took several readings) for me to figure out that you were just expanding the wording of the policy, rather than making a change to the substance. That's why I said I thought your change made the policy more confusing, rather than less confusing. If I had trouble figuring out what you were saying, other editors probably will as well. Simplify... don't make it more complex. Blueboar (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Born, if you are not able to understand that you changed the meaning of the paragraph then you should give up editing the page. You added something that was not there before and that would become a matter for further dispute. No change means "no change", not "no change except for the bad parts". So, is that a change of substance? Well, yeah, pretty obviously. No one asked you personally to change anything, and given your recent history of ignoring opposition to your rejected proposals, it's not very credible for you to claim that my objections have a flaw. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RC, do you believe that the original wording meant that if there is no consensus on a proposal to remove contentious material from a BLP, that it remains unchanged? Does anyone else think that? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ring... I think Born is correct on this one... If you read his edit carefully, it did not change the substance of the guideline. BLP's are different than other articles... In a BLP, the "no consensus" default is "do not include the contested material"... period. If the material was in the article, you take it out. If it was not in the article you leave it out. That isn't something that we made up here... its what our WP:BLP policy says. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If that's what he meant, that's not what he said. My objection still stands: it was so broad that it could lead to problems. Since he didn't understand the problem, it is strange that he'd try to fix it. That's a bad practice, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That IS what I said; Blueboar and I agree that the original meaning, and the meaning after my edit, is all the same. You're the one who doesn't see it, for some reason, which I, for one, would like to know so that it could be stated even more clearly. Hence my question above, which you still haven't answered. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I register that you don't appreciate the problems your construction would have caused. Fortunately, it seems to have been corrected. I will keep an eye on that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well, I agree that I don't appreciate the problems my original construction would have caused. I can't appreciate that which I can't see. But Blueboar said my initial change made things more confusing, and I accepted that on face value, which is why I gave it another stab. But I do know that the original justification you gave for reverting that construction -- "even if it was originally part of the article"? that would be a change to policy -- would mean an objection to the original wording, and to the current wording, because the meaning of all versions is that for BLPs "no consensus" about a proposal to remove some contentious material results in the removal of that material, even if it was originally part of the article. If you still don't understand and appreciate that, and that it is part of BLP policy, then I think it really needs to be put in there explicitly again, so others don't misunderstand as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

more on "Consensus can change"

A few thoughts...

In situations where a consensus has been previously established, discussion is a more productive and constructive way to proceed than bold editing. Bold edits are much more likely to be reverted in such situations. We should add something about this to the first paragraph.
I have a problem with "meaningful explanation" in the second paragraph. "meaningful" is subjective... I might find an explanation meaningful, you might not find it meaningful at all. I suggest "fuller explanation" is a better word.
If possible, let's avoid phrasing things as "should"... it is too often confused with the word "must". When people read "should" they tend to mentally turn something that was intended as best practice advice into an inflexible "rule". Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't quite agree with you about 'should'. If we don't say 'should' then we are giving a rule, aren't we? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily... we can use phrases like "editors are encouraged to X" or "best practice is to X" to ensure that the advice we give comes across as being advice... and does not come across as being a "rule". Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Also true. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The V Case

Some people want to talk about this:

Editor W makes a change to a page without any prior vetting, offering Reason R for the change. Editor V agrees with R, but also believes that R is not accepted by other editors based on previous discussions and edits. What action should V take? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever action V thinks is best, given the specific situation. Typical actions include (but are not limited to):

V can ignore the edit completely and leave it to others to object.
V can leave the edit, but draw attention to it on the talk page and ask whether it has consensus
V can make further edits that he thinks will resolve the issues
V can revert the edit and request comments to determine consensus.

All of these are acceptable... which one is best depends on the specific situation. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think #1 above is the best choice. Let those who object speak for themselves. If they don't object then V was wrong and would have wasted everyone's time by reverting. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, if V was right, V's revert may actually save everyone's time ... the other editors may be busy editing other articles and may not be paying close attention to the page... the revert draws their attention to the page. It lets the other editors know that they should swing by and look at the edit. Rather than an "opposed" consensus emerging over a drawn out period of weeks (as one by one, the opposed editors find time to swing by and see what is happening at the page) ... a consensus emerges quickly. That's why deciding which action is best is situational, and why it can not be pre-determined by policy/guideline makers. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes some sense - but why not draw their attention by starting a new section on the talk page, with a big shouty edit summary if necessary. This seems to me to be the right use of the talk page; and would be the wrong use of the edit button on the article itself, which is designed for making (what we consider to be) improvements, not for communication. Victor Yus (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Blueboar:

(3) is good when you know what you are doing. Unfortunately quite often you know the change was wrong, but you don't have solid evidence at hand right now or don't know how to do it best or...

My acting preference, if not (3), then (2) would be the polite way to quickly draw attention to possible issue, unlike (1) hoping someone else will not miss the problem.

But unfortunately (1) may lead to the problem buries under subsequent edits.

Option (4)

is very good when you see the change as a grave new problem or against previous discussions, and you cannot use (3).

But if the issue is minor and can wait, then IMO (2) is less stressful for all. Still (4) may be OK by the very reason that the issue is small and no big deal to discuss it first. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And lets not forget that Editor V may think of an option (5) that I did not think of (and thus did not list).

We can sit here and say "well, in such and such scenario, I think doing X is best" and "I disagree, I think doing Y is best in that scenario"... but the simple fact is that the actual decision is up to Editor V. He/she knows the actual situation at the article in question... It's his/her call... not ours. Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed wording for CCC

I don't really understand [BWDIK's reasoning], but never mind. Some ~~idiot~~body will no doubt revert again, so here is my proposed wording:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of not answering scrutiny of one's position
I apologize for seeming rude but I have come to the conclusion that discussions with you are not productive. (Which, I guess, is something else about which you and I disagree.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On hold for now

Note... issues about the CCC section seem to be ongoing behind the scenes (a mini-edit war over a hidden comment)... I suggest that some of the issues may be resolved (or clarified) by broader discussions about reverting and consensus in general (see below)... let's come back to this later. Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A picky point, but you know how Wikipedia editors are: I think the hidden text was collateral damage in a mini-edit war over whether to add certain unhidden language. You and I, at least, have agreed that whatever CCC says for now is tentative pending resolution of the broader discussions. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverts with "no consensus" summary

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

Many people mention two polar cases:

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

IMO most would agree that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boldly added WP:Consensus#Don't revert without explanation [1]. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ABC Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different case

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

Exactly the problem type of revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverting is a right that comes with a responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about to really work on the no-consensus?

Proposal withdrawn by the original author (Born2cycle): the policy already covers the issue, however in different wording, and with a different meaning

Amid the pissing contest, does some one want to take a short break and to actually work on the improvement of the proposal I copied from the last survived version.

Don't revert without explanation

Shortcut

WP:DRWE

It is not helpful or informative to revert a change without explanation or only with an unsubstantiated claim of "no consensus" in the edit summary. Give clear reasons for any reversion you make:

In the edit summary, reference the policies, guidelines or discussions that clearly demonstrate a lack of consensus for the change being reverted.
If the objection cannot be clearly demonstrated with such a reference, then provide a substantive explanation, either in the edit summary or in a talk page section which is referenced in the edit summary.
If the edit being reverted was obviously vandalism, then all that is required is a note about reverting vandalism in the edit summary (like "rvv", meaning "revert vandalism). If it's not clearly vandalism, then assume good faith and provide a clear reason for objecting.

See also: Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", an essay

My change: say prominently that the essay is ..er... an essay (and as such cannot be referenced on top)Staszek Lem (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This looks good to me. It seems fundamental to efficient decision-making and collaborative atmosphere that when we do something that's likely to be controversial (and reverting a good-faith edit is known to be controversial, since the editor you're reverting is known to oppose), then we give an indication of our substantial reasons (or "legitimate concerns", as this policy puts it). The precise method by which that indication is given doesn't have to be set in stone, but on what is essentially an advice page, there's no harm in giving advice about it. Victor Yus (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose... It seems WP:CREEP... The second paragraph of the section on Reaching consensus through editing already says most of this in different language, and is all we need to say on the subject of reverts. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a good point. And actually demonstrates the problem of too much policies: no one reads them carefully. How about slightly expanding this paragraph or changing its language so that iot will wxplicitely address the issue of unhelpful edit summaries? Staszek Lem (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. We don't need yet more instruction-creep, with yet more hidden "rules" about what editors may and may not do, which many will fall foul of just because they never saw the "rule". We don't need yet more things for people to wikilawyer about. We don't need yet more restrictions on what editors can do, moving yet further from the idea that we just use common sense. Etc etc... We don't need any of the kind of changes that a few editors have been advocating, trying to lay down laws about how and when editors can revert. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the goal s not 'more "hidden rules"', but to make the existing rules better written to address the problems many people perceive. Most people don't want "more rules" (exactly for this reason most opposed the suggestion to promote the essay wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" to guideline status.) For this reason I moved the discussion here, namely, with the goal to improve the policy. Also, you are misguded about the purpose of the suggestion: the issue is not about the right to revert, but about the right of the reverted person to know what was the actual problem, so that he could address it readily. In this respect the bare summary "no consensus" is not helpful. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll sound in again. This would be a significant and unwise change to policy that hobbles efforts to maintain stability on high conflict articles, and deal with misguided or tendentious editors, by shifting the burden of explanation to those favoring the status quo. I haven't encountered any problem on Wikipedia that this change would address, but I have certainly seen a lot of abuse of WP:CCC] even under the present Regime. If there is a specific problem to address here, let's identify it and perhaps write an essay about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, many other people did encounter problems. The suggestion was not made for the sake of bureaucracy only. Also how on Earth the request to point exactly to the place where the consensus was reached would decrease your right to keep consensus? "Favoring the status quo" is not the goal of wikipedia and those "favoring status quo" have no particulat privileges with respect to those who think that improvements are possible. And there already exists an essay about it, and all this fuss started from it. Welcome jumping into a discussion without even knowing what this all about. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In my observation through years of editing hundreds of articles, including some very high traffic ones, and participating in a number of resolution procedures, I have seen a lot of trouble from people who don't respect consensus. And no serious trouble at all from poorly explained reverts, as all you have to do is ask why they reverted. How on earth? If a tendentious or clueless editor makes an edit that goes against longstanding consensus, it gets simply reverted with a statement that there is a longstanding consensus against it. Frankly, we don't know when or where consensus was reached, that would be a research project. Requiring the people minding an article to jump through extra hoops when dealing with bad proposals is a time sink. Wikipedia absolutely favors the status quo as a matter of policy. Those advocating disputed changes to an article must establish consensus for making the change. Until they have consensus the article remains as-is. That is the thesis of WP:BRD. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For an example look no further than the new section I created at the bottom of this talk page. RC reverted and disappeared. I've posted questions, and now we have to wait. Will he respond? Who knows? It's a delay tactic, that can work for hours as it has in this case, so far, or even days or weeks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to be making a WP:POINT of this. I would say this little exercise is a sterling case of your needing to establish consensus before making disputed changes to policy pages, and you should accept that you don't have consensus instead of trying to goad the editors into an argument on this page that's becoming less and less pleasant. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph Blueboar identified does already cover much of this. I gave it its own subheading, "Explain reverts", and incorporated some of this, but the gist was already there[2]. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

B2C is shopping his proposal. It was soundly rejected already and now he's trying to cram it here. Not interested, no consensus, please stop. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What? Turns out it's already in the policy, so there was no need for the proposal in the first place. It was just hidden in an unlabeled paragraph, so I missed it somehow, or forgot. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the proposal in question was to promote Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" from essay to guideline. That proposal was rejected, but for a variety of reasons, mostly variations on "not needed", not that because of disagreement with the underlying message in the survey. Anyway, I've withdrawn that proposal because its message turns out to be already basically covered in this policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Requests to explain reverts

One

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

There has been no discussion about whether this paragraph should have its own heading. No discussion about that should be required. I explained my reasons in the edit summary when I added it[3]: add section subheading "Explain reverts" to existing paragraph to make it less likely to be overlooked. Nobody has said anything to address this, much less argue against it. Yet you reverted it. Why?
The only text change was changing this:
Further discussion should then be undertaken on the article discussion page. Edit summaries that explain the objection clearly are preferred. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus on the matter.

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

The addition creates no change in meaning to existing text; it only adds clarification. What is your objection to this, and what are the reasons you object to it?
I also added a policy shortcut so that WP:EXPLAINREVERTS could be used to reference this particulation section. You removed that as well, something else that has not been discussed. What is your objection to it? Please explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two

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

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

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

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

Blueboar's response[4] is a textbook example of how to defend reverts and the status quo without stonewalling. Your evasive statements [5] [6] [7] [8], none of which explain your revert nor even address, much less answer, the questions asked (which Blueboar showed were reasonable questions and could be answered by someone sincere about finding consensus) are the epitome of disruptive stonewalling that flies in the face of productive discourse for the purpose of finding consensus. I request that you stop participating here if you are unwilling or unable to work towards consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Three

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is bNC inherently evil? Answer is yes and no.

It is OK or OK-ish when

There is an ongoing discussion. Of course a better edit summary would be at least "NC. See talk". A couple more keystrokes and a high probability that the reverted person would say "Sorry, my bad. Didn't see it."
A non-cosmetc change is made to a policy/guideline page. Good or bad, but there already is a long-standing tradition of "shoot first, talk later", for reasons repeatedly explained.
(add your case here)
1. The change is the latest of a series of edits by the same editor (or an obvious sockpuppet or troll) problematic for being POINTy, battleground, tendentious, incompetent, misguided, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, etc., and it would put an undue burden on the regular editors minding the page, or open an unnecessary repeat discussion on the talk page, to ask them to justify their content objection.
2. The change is a completely inappropriate perennial proposal (as in calling Barack Obama a Mulatto), but to ease discussion it would be helpful to create a FAQ on the talk page and point to that. [previous two added by Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)]

It is not OK when

the change is question is not easily related to any consensus-building discussion. There are several reasons why this edit summary was given in this case:
- A person was lazy to write longer. Hawever at a closer look it didn't save him any time, because inevitably the revertee will ask "why?" , and the reverted will have to spill their guts.
- A person genuinely correctly thought the consensus was not reached yet. Well, this is excusable, AGF, balbla
- A person has non-consensual notion of "consensus", e.g. a newbie may think that "consensus" means "everybody agrees".
- A WP:OWN case when "no consensus" means "I don't agree with any changes without me having the last word"
(add your case here)
1. The change was made reasonably and in good faith by either a well-intentioned newby who should not be bitten, or an editor in good standing, particularly if there has not been any recent discussion of the matter. [added by Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Staszek:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I presented what I thought were some fairly rational arguments for my position, and to be honest I'm not seeing any counterarguments. RC simply says "Opinion is divided" and that's supposed to mean something. Blueboar says "It is also human nature to undo someone's work when you are not sure that it has consensus", but I don't understand that at all. Why would anyone do that, if they have no objection to the work itself? And in any case, it's not being claimed that just because something is human nature, our guidelines should encourage it (for example, it's human nature to add biased and self-promoting material, but we strongly advise against it). (And as to the other point - these are all side issues - the original author A will not necessarily be upset if B comes along and improves his work.) What are the actual arguments against what I wrote above? Victor Yus (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any arguments. What you said strikes me as distinctly unworkable. For example, you seem to advocate leaving a minority editor's edit in place just in case there might later be a supporting consensus. Maybe you want to explain that. You seemed to say that bold editors don't have an obligation to explain the value of their changes, a similarly counter-intuitive notion. If you want to correct yourself, there might be some basis for further discussion. If not, my assessment is that no new consensus is imminent. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example of defensible terse "no consensus" revert?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the world would be greatly improved and not harmed if everyone spoke to their elders only with respect and to their youngers only with encouragement, adopted a single world language so we could all better communicate, lived within walking distance of where we work so as to lessen our carbon footprints, and planted more trees. There ought to be a law!

It comes down to this... You (and others) consider bNC reverts unacceptable... I (and others) consider them quite acceptable. You are baffled by my attitude, and I am baffled by yours. We are not going to change each other's minds. So... we will have to simply accept that we disagree. There is simply no consensus on whether "no consensus" is acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're starting at (a) "bNC reverts are acceptable", and I'm starting at (b) "bNC reverts are unacceptable", then we have no where to go, obviously. But that's why I started this section - to back up from those positions. Is (a) your starting position? (b) is not mine.

If (a) is not your starting position, what is, and how do you get to (a) from there?

My starting position is this: WP is fine and even great in many ways, but it has room for improvement. Are you with me on that? Because here is how I get to (b) from that presumably uncontroversial starting point.

One area that needs improvement on WP is encouraging, and not discouraging, more new editors, including to get better at not discouraging editors with a combative/confrontational environment, at least as much as is reasonably possible. Still with me?

If you're with me this far, then from there we go to the observation, which is recognized in policy, like at WP:TALKDONTREVERT, that reverts are inherently confrontational and should even be avoided when possible by preferring discussion or at least editing further rather than reverting. Are you with me (and policy) on this?

The final segment then is to see that an easy all-good/no-downside way to make reverts that are necessary less problematic is to not accept poorly explained ones, including bNC ones, thus getting us to (b).

Still with me, or did I lose you? Where? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You lost me at "(a) is my starting point"... (a) isn't my starting point...its my ending point. I started at... "NC is usually OK, but perhaps there are times when it might be a problem", and as we have been debating this, the more I thought about it the more I have come to see NC as always an OK edit summary. I can agree that Wikipedia has room for improvement, but I don't think this is an area that needs improving, nor do I see your suggestions as being an improvement.

I can agree that we want to encourage (and not discourage) new editors... But not at the expense of driving away experienced editors (which I think your "ban" of NC would do). I think you are being overly protective of new editors, and taking that protection to an unnecessary extreme. You seem to want to cocoon new editors in a warm fuzzy protective bubble of cotton! As if they were fragile flowers that will wilt at the slightest confrontation. I take a different view... I think we should prepare new editors for the harsh reality of editing Wikipedia. They should be warned that editing on Wikipedia involves dealing with other people... people who may be rude, abrupt, opinionated, etc. and who may completely disagree with something you write. New editors should be told to expect to be reverted from time to time... And they should be told: "get over it... it isn't about you". They should be warned that editing means leaving your ego behind, and accepting that you won't always get your way. They should be told that Wikipedia is often a combative/confrontational environment (Indeed, it is often impossible to come to a consensus without confrontation). Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What you say is no doubt true - but that's no reason at all to refrain from telling these experienced (but possibly rude, abrupt, etc.) editors how to behave in order not to produce these problems. Victor Yus (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that gets us back to our basic disagreement... you see, I don't think a terse "no consensus" is all that rude. It may or may not be helpful... but it isn't necessarily rude. Certainly most editors who use it are not intending to be rude. They are simply leaving a commonly used, standard shorthand to request more discussion. The terse "no consensus" is no less "rude" than the equally terse "citation needed" or "POV". Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's the difference. I think any revert should be avoided if at all possible, and, if not possible to avoid, then it should be clearly explained. An NC revert does not do that.

But let's back up again. You said something new and interesting here. You said you think a ban of NC reverts would drive away experienced editors. Really? Not being able to revert others without even taking an extra few seconds to explain more than NC (as I did in my responses to your examples above) is going to cause editors to quit? If true, that's just sad. Thankfully, I know of no reason to believe it is true. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, per your "rules", I could have used a bNC edit summary with this revert, but I didn't. I gave some explanation so that those who may want to defend this insertion have something to work with in starting a discussion on the talk page (in addition to BWDIK's concerns per questioning its correctness and WP:BLOAT). It wasn't difficult, and making myself do that doesn't make me want to leave WP. ;-)

Seriously, explanatory edit summaries recognize and respect that consensus on WP is determined by quality of argument, not by counting how many favor or oppose something. An NC revert revert is ultimately nothing more than vote - it has nothing to do with consensus, despite its claim. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No, an NC revert is a request for comments, which has everything to do with consensus. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Tension between "by editing" and "by discussion"

I am detecting a sub-current in our recent debates... a tension between those of us who prefer to reach consensus "through editing" and those of us who prefer to reach consensus "through discussion".

We all talk a lot about the BRD cycle... but I suspect that we each understand that cycle differently. For the editor who favors the "through editing" method, it really means: BOLD... REVISE... discuss. The process actually works like this:

Bold edit, Revise, Revise that revision, Revise, Revise, short discuss, Revise, Revise, more short discuss, Revise... etc. until eventual Consensus emerges.

The method stresses revisions (reverts are counted as revisions). I put the "d" of "discuss" in lower case, because discussions are short and serve primarily to ask and answer questions that will allow editors to get back to the process of Revision.

For the editor who favors the "through discussion" method, BRD means: bold, Revert, DISCUSS. It works like this:

Bold, Revert, Discuss, Discuss, Discuss... until eventual consensus emerges.

This method stresses discussion, and so sees bold revisions as disruptive to the process. (There is an extreme variant of this method, which calls for skipping over the bold and revert parts of the process entirely... this is the "Discuss first" method that is strongly preferred by editors at a few articles (especially those with very controversial topics) or pages where we intentionally stress stability (such as our core policy/guideline pages). It is probably better described as the "P,R,D" cycle (Propose, Reject, Discuss).

Both of these methods (or all three, if you count "discuss first" as a separate method) can achieve consensus... if everyone is in sync and wants to use the same method. However, they both break down when editors want to use different methods. Those who favor revision think that long (seemingly endless) discussions disruptive to the process of reaching consensus... and those who favor discussion think that editing the page while discussion is ongoing is disruptive to the process of reaching consensus.

So how do we get past this problem? How can consensus be achieved if editors can not even agree on the method by which they will seek consensus? Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about consensus regarding the WP:Consensus page, the policy pages are supposed to be more or less stable. I noticed the edit notice on the WP:Consensus page that informs users that "You are editing a page that documents an English Wikipedia policy. While you may be bold in making minor changes to this page, consider discussing any substantive changes first on the page's talk page." In other words, the page already advises users that the second option (P, R, D) should be followed, so I am not sure we have anything here to discuss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I was not limiting this to reaching consensus here on the WP:Consensus page... I am talking about the tension that arises between editors when trying to reach a consensus on any page. My personal observation is that the Bold, REVISE, Discuss cycle works well for newer, growing articles (and, perhaps, for new policy/guideline pages as well)... the Bold, Revert, DISCUSS cycle works best for more established articles... and the PROPOSE, Revert, Discuss cycle works best on established policies and guidelines. However, this is not necessarily a "rule" (you are allowed to make bold edits, even to core policy... and you can discuss, discuss, discuss even in a new article).

My question has more to do with how we resolve the fact that a sudden bold edit can be seen as disruptive to those in the middle of a discussion... while long drawn out discussions can be seen as disruptive to those who wish to get on with it and boldly edit. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I think, the choice between Bold, REVISE, Discuss and Bold, Revert, DISCUSS should be made by the users themselves. The former is a default option (because newer, growing articles represent majority of articles in Wikipedia). With reagrd to more established articles, look at the WWII article. You will see an edit notice there, which is similar to what we have here. It says As this is a high-profile and high-traffic article, please discuss any significant changes to its text and images at Talk:World War II and only incorporate them if they are supported by other editors. Thank you. In other words, majority of users made a choice in favour of the PROPOSE, Revert, Discuss cycle, and this consensus lasts for several years.

In connection to that, I got the following idea. What if we associate the type of the cycle with the type of the article? I mean, bRd is a standard for start class article, brD for more medium importance/good articles, and Prd for Featured/High importance articles? Accordingly, some standard edit notice can be added to each type article. For example, if some article becomes a FA, an edit notice should be added to it that the Prd is strongly advised.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

OK... we have the beginnings of something that we might add to the guideline (Note: I am not proposing that we do add something... at least not without a lot more discussion... the following is conceptual):

Forming consensus through editing works best for newer articles that are growing. As an article ages, and begins to stabilize, this becomes less practical and emphasis shifts to forming consensus through discussion.

I could also see saying something like:

The choice of which method to pursue at any given article (and in any given consensus discussion) is up to the editors involved. Note, however, that it can be disruptive to change methodology in midstream. If editors are constructively working towards consensus through editing, it can be disruptive to suddenly insist on full discussions simply because you prefer that method. Conversely, if editors are already engaged in full discussion, don't suddenly insert a bold edit that might disrupt that discussion.

(again... this is not yet a proposal... I am groping towards a conceptual idea here and seeking feedback). Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Re "the choice of which method..." etc, the choice is made by editors' consensus. Therefore, no collective change of methodology can be disruptive (unless majority of participants are disruptive). Regarding the behaviour of some individual, other users are perfectly able to resolve this issue either by themselves or via AN/I

In any event, I think that it would be a good idea to to describe the three collective editorial styles (bRd, brD, and prD) and add them to guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the choice of method is a matter of consensus at the article level... The problem is that occasionally there is "no consensus" about that choice. This can lead to arguments when one group of editors involved in a dispute wish to use the "BOLD, REVISE, REVISE, discuss, REVISE" method (consensus through editing)... another group wishes to use the "BOLD, Revert, DISCUSS, DISCUSS" method (consensus through discussion)... and a third group wishes to use the PROPOSE, DISCUSS (the "discuss first" method). I think we could give some advice on that... but I am still groping for what that advice should be. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Current text re explaining edits at "Reaching consensus through editing" correct?

I've lost track. Is any editor now asserting that the current text of the second paragraph at Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing is wrong (as far as it goes)? (Whether additional text should be added or whether some of the current text should be deleted even though it is correct is a question for another day.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think what we currently say is wrong... however I think there may be a better way to say it... and a better way to connect it to the "Consensus through discussion" section. I have raised some initial thoughts in the previous talk page thread that relate to this. I am still thinking about the ideas and issues I raised there... but it is possible that they could result in my proposing a complete rewrite of the section.

With that caviat... I do have a few thoughts on how to improve the current language... specifically, the second paragraph (suggested wording changes in "strike and bold"):

~~All edits should be explained~~ Best practice is for Editors to explain their edits (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the article talk page. ~~Substantive, informative edit summaries~~ Try to indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under WP:Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as WP:BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism. Frequently a minor change in wording can end arguments.

Re: my first suggested change... I would like to avoid the word "should...", this makes our advice sound like "a rule".

Re my second suggested change... The previous sentence said that one option is to explain on the talk page... which means that you don't necessarily have to write a "Substantive, informative edit summary" (or, indeed, any edit summary). Leave it up to the editor who makes the change to determine how best to explain his edit. If someone else needs clarification, they can ask. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Blueboar for the response. But, to clarify: I do not mean to suggest that the current language is perfect, only that it is accurate (as far as it goes). The goal is not to close the door to improvement, just to make sure that we're starting from a consensus point. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. Other than the tweaks I suggest, I think the current text describes the "Consensus through editing" process accurately. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

When consensus is deemed to be achieved?

The policy currently says:

"Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."

However, it is not clear from the policy at which point consensus is deemed to be achieved. Consider the following cases:

During some RfC, 10 users voiced their opinia, 8 of them supported and 2 of them objected to some proposals. During subsequent discussion, the opponents of the proposal put forward some auguments that have been addressed by the proponents of the proposal. No counter-arguments have been put forward, and the discussion ceased, although the opponents of the proposal did not agreed with this proposal explicitly.
The same as in #1, but the amount of the participants was 5 (pro) to 5 (contra).
The same as in #1, but two opponents of the proposal continued to object without providing fresh sources and arguments.
The same as in #1, but two opponents of the proposal continued to object and provided fresh arguments that were supported by reliable sources.
The same as in #4, but only one user continues to object, and his objections were based on fresh arguments and reliable sources.

I believe I listed the whole spectrum of possible scenariae. In connection to that, my questions are: #1 in which of the above cases can we speak about consensus; #2 how can we deal with situation when someone just maintains that there is no consensus?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It is very difficult to quantify exactly when consensus has been established. A lot depends on what has been said in the actual discussion. As a pure hypothetical, I would say that #1, #3 and #5 show a consensus for the proposed change... #2 and #4 show "no consensus" (at least not yet). However, in a specific debate, my assessment might be different. I would have to read the actual discussion and see the quality and depth of comments on each side. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, I am thinking about some universal criteria that would allow us to decide when we can talk about consensus. The absence of such criteria allows some users to block any change simply by maintaining that there is no consensus. That means that any questionable statements may stay in Wikipedia indefinitely if sufficiently large amount of users will continue to object without providing any proof. In other words, one or several good sources may weigh less then unsubstantiated opinia of several Wikipedians, when they are acting in concert...--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There is one situation that I think everyone would recognize as a consensus. Assuming, after discussion and a straw poll, that there are two positions, majority and minority, then: if those holding the minority position unanimously agree on a compromise that is acceptable to a majority of those holding the majority position, that should be good enough to signal a consensus for that proposal and it should be adopted. This form satisfies the requirement that all legitimate concerns have been incorporated into the consensus edit but it requires the minority to come up with a proposal that will be acceptable to the majority. It is some kind of guard against cranks who don't want to agree to anything: they have to make a proposal. And the converse, too, will work, except that it may be more difficult to get unanimity for the larger group. The unanswered question, obviously, is what to do if the minority proposal is not accepted by a majority of the majority. That is something to discuss. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverting new addition to CCC

I'm reverting this new addition to CCC:

When a previously established consensus needs to be revisited, it is generally more constructive to start with a discussion on the talk page. While bold edits are welcome, they are also more likely to be reverted in such situations. Be prepared to return to the talk page for further discussions.

I agree with Butwhatdoiknow's concerns about it being correct and that it's WP:BLOAT. In addition, we should not be encouraging reverts over editing and discussion, especially without emphasizing the need for explanation and discussion when reverting is necessary, as it is in this case. I can't figure out how to add in that emphasis about the importance of revert explanation in an elegant way. If someone else can, I would not object to this material being inserted accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Question: if discussion is better than reverting, why did you revert instead of discussing? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

To expand on the correctness concern, I think there are enough cases where revisiting a previously established consensus with a bold edit is constructive for it to be not correct to say that it is "generally more constructive" to start with a discussion in such cases. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the text was intended as an encouragement to revert... but as an encouragement to discuss. The intent was an acknowledgment that a revert is highly likely in situations where someone make a change to a prior consensus without prior discussion... and thus it's more productive to discuss first. The likelihood of a revert is the reason for going to a "discussion first" mode. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that was not the intent of the text. My concern is that it can and might be interpreted to encourage reverts, and especially reverts without appropriate explanation. That's why I tried to edit it, but in the few minutes I gave it I couldn't come up with anything satisfactory. Something that encouraged discussion after revert while clearly not encouraging such reverts at the same time. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In these cases, reverts are already highly likely... our acknowledging this fact is not going to change their likelihood. The point here is to give some advice to those who want to make a change (the potential revertee), not those who might object (the potential reverter). That advice being: You reduce the likelihood of being reverted if you discuss a bit before you edit. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"In these cases, reverts are already highly likely... our acknowledging this fact is not going to change their likelihood. " I disagree with this in the strongest terms possible. I mean, I agree the reverts in these cases are highly likely, I disagree that acknowledging that fact is not going to change their likelihood. I, for one, would like us to word things to lower that likelihood, and this wording takes us in the opposite direction.

I understand your point and purpose. And as I've said every time we talk about this, my concern is presentation of the acknowledgment and advice in a way that does not encourage reverting in general - something that all too many editors do all too often, in my view anyway. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OK... then could you expand further, and explain how and why you think the text actually encourages reverts? Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I know the intended audience is the one being reverted. But we have to consider the effect of reading this from the perspective of the potential reverter too.

The statement that starting with a discussion rather than boldly editing is "usually more constructive", followed by the statement that such edits are likely to be reverted, can convey that reverting bold edits in such situations is usually the "right" thing to do, rather than evaluating the edit with a revisit of the previous consensus in mind, which is what we should be encouraging. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me try again... I don't understand how the text could convey what you think it does ... so to understand your concern, you will have to explain how it conveys it.

Could it be that your problem actually isn't that the text in some way encourages people to revert... but that it does not actively discourage reverts (which you would prefer)? Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Put yourself in the head of someone who is on the fence of what to do when he encounters a situation where someone made an edit that seems to go against previously established consensus. After reading this text, which is he more likely to be encouraged to do? 1) revert with little or no explanation? Or 2) evaluate the change with a revisit to the consensus opinion in mind, and then edit, start a discussion, or revert with a good explanation? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The text in question wouldn't encourage me (or discourage me) to do one or the other. The text says nothing about what I should do. It isn't directed at me... but at the person who wants to change the previous consensus. Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That said... The reality is that I would not be sitting on the fence... if someone boldly edited in a way that was contrary to a previous consensus, I would revert (what kind of edit summary I would leave depends on the specifics of the edit I am reverting). However, if the other guy followed the advice in the text (ie discussed his concern before editing) I would definitely be less likely to revert (and more likely to give a fuller explanation if I did feel the need to revert) Blueboar (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

As the ABC case above has made clear, a bold edit has the burden of developing a consensus if someone reverts, since at that moment it has no consensus. This addition also addresses the problem that the current text is misleading. It seems to give the impression that reverters have more of an obligation to explain themselves than other editors. In light of "no consensus = no change", a reverted editor's edit will not be the final edit unless a consensus develops around it. So we should find a better balance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Defining consensus

I noticed that this policy does not seem to define what consensus actually is in the lead. Has there been discussion about this? Instead, we have a rather vague description "about" it, but not what it is ... "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals" ... Perhaps we would be able to think of something more precise to say. I would suggest something along the lines of "Consensus is the achievement of broad consent for a decision by Wikipedia contributors", but this is just preliminary. The article Consensus decision-making may also be helpful. NTox · talk 23:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea. Victor Yus (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably not a workable idea. Definitions are reductive and only lead to a call for more definitions. Consent? What is it and what does that have to do with it? How broad is broad? If you don't know what consensus is, there are not any number of definitions that will tell you. Wikipedia practice of consensus is specific to Wikipedia, that's why we have the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

With all (quite due) respect, I think you are looking at the issue too rigidly. Certainly, definitions are reductive, and with them we cannot secure exactly demarcated meanings, but that is not a reason to exclude them. We're stealing editors of something important if we don't try to give them some gist of what we mean by consensus from the get-go. In policies, clarifications of the definition come in the form of the policy itself. How broad is broad? Sections like Level of consensus and others can elucidate. And if we don't like "consent", we might replace that with "agreement". That term is described many times on this page. As you know, our goal is not to write statutory law; we're merely trying to signify principles and let reason take care of the rest. The goal is to identify something that touches on the spirit of a concept as a way of helping people edit. Simple things are useful, especially for newcomers. NTox · talk 04:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think you are persuasive. First, definitions are not only reductive; for important things they are incomplete and require more definitions. (How do we recognize "agreement"?) 'Consensus' is either used here in the common way or it is not. If it is, a definition is redundant; if it is not, a definition is inaccurate. It is better to accept that 'consensus' is a bedrock concept that is known by its practice. We explain the practice here because that is what the editors need to know. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we will have trouble coming to a consensus on this one. Therefore, I will move on unless there are others who care to continue the discussion. But still I would suggest that you are speaking a bit more for yourself than other people. Off wiki, I often carry around a dictionary in my pocket, even when I go on walks around town, for when I encounter unfamiliar words. Definitions are are a core part of my learning process. They are always one of the most important things I look for in any Wikipedia article. If definitions were as non-useful as you suggest, I would question why they are required in the leads of relevant mainspace articles. In fact I can remember being a tad frustrated the first time I read this policy somewhere around 2008, because I wanted to understand consensus and I didn't get I sense I wanted because there was no definition. In other words, I think folks think about things differently, and we should account for experiences that are different from our own. Have a good one. NTox · talk 06:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

From the top of this page: "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." --Jimmy Wales Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A possible problem with that statement as applied to Wikipedia is how we understand "interested". Ideally, the parties here are not "interested" in the sense of having some personal interest (benefit) in getting a particular outcome. Also I'm not sure consensus is the partnership; it's one of the aspects of working within such a partnership. Victor Yus (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfect is the enemy of good. Can you propose language that improves on the quote? If so then please propose it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we want a sentence that begins "consensus is...", then I think NTox's proposal at the start of this thread is more on the right lines. Victor Yus (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart's famous line about obscenity:

I shall not today attempt further to define consensus; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But... I know it when I see it. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
"Has there been discussion about this?" Yes, many. See the archives. See also the archives for WP:NOT. Defining it has proven both impossible and, in practice, unhelpful. This page is most useful when it gives people a road map for getting there, rather than describing the glorious destination itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)