Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Consensus. 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 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

There's a line I like at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_88#NOTCENSORED_and_illustrations that says "the proper goal of community consensus should be (generally) to reflect what is in reliable sources." This is specifically about article content (rather than advice pages or behavioral issues, and therefore would have to be labeled as such), but perhaps something like that would be a helpful addition to the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's great for content. However, the lead should be a precis of the body. Whether we ever get as far as reviewing the rest of the body, to update it to reflect current best practice, and further highlight/clarify what we all observe as horribly-bad practice, remains to be seen. If we ever do, per RC's section above, we should be careful to keep separate the essential characteristics of consensus from that of content policy. Uniplex (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's statement at the top of this talk page is also rather good. Someone asked recently if it is acceptable to begin a lead with a quote, to which the response was a resounding "no"; that was in relation to articles though. Uniplex (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

On first impression, I don't think it is significant and central to the policy of consensus. It is not really about consensus, but about the project goal. Perhaps add it to WP:Goal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd find such an addition helpful, just to underline that consensus can't override other content policies. --JN466 11:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Joe, it's a project goal: a goal of Wikipedia should be (generally) to reflect what is in reliable sources. Though I think WP:5P may the place for it, in the second pillar, which skirts round this sentiment. Uniplex (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Where does consensus begin and the rest of the editorial process leave off? Perhaps upon examination we enter consensus and its necessities always from a finite number of directions. Limited cases, limited reasons, narrow requirements. Where does consensus end and the rest of the process begin? Perhaps we return only with a new consensus or the failure to achieve consensus. Since this article is about consensus, we should discipline ourselves to stay on that subject only. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Consensus is a state, not a process

• This state is not achievable in reality, Wikipedia attempts a loose approximation

1. Every edit is an attempt to reach the ultimate consensus for the encyclopedia (as a thought exercise, imagine that every editor at a singular point in time felt that no constructive changes could be made to improve the encyclopedia, that would be a consensus finished product- elsewise they'd be something to 'improve')

Not really sure where the of what you were saying was going... Crazynas ^t 10:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is one way to think of it, but it's just as true to say that consensus is a process that never ends. The point of my question of framing is to see what should be left off this page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The policy says:

"Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue..."

However, it is not completely clear for me who is supposed to determine quality of arguments. Consider a situation when users A, B, C presented numerous sources in support of some modification of the article's text, whereas the users X, Y, Z fail to present any relevant sources but still insist that their sources and argument are strong enough to preserve a current text in its present form. Let also suppose that the article has limited or low popularity, so RfCs and noticeboard discussions draw minimal external input. Who is supposed to decide if consensus has been achieved?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is circular logic, although not indefensible, in that the quality of arguments is determined by consensus. But I have no idea about the history of this passage. In essence, it asks editors to weigh in based on argument quality instead of another reason. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Experienced, non-POV-pushing editors will be able to do this for themselves. Otherwise, you can ask an admin to WP:CLOSE the discussion for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Circular (and absent) logic is pretty much the norm for this page. It still seems to be written so as to express lofty and often unrealistic ideals, deliberately avoiding answering key practical questions like this one. --Kotniski (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this statement to a new section, "Determining consensus", which I think should be expanded. I don't agree that it's the main policy statement of this page (which is merely that decisions are nearly always to be made by consensus, as opposed to unanimity/voting/fiat/anything else, except in the case of the listed exceptions).--Kotniski (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Although circular logic has a bad name, there is a strong case to be made that good arguments always are. Issues surrounding consensus have that quality because the determination of what is consensus can only be determined by consensus. This circularity is not something we can escape, so we are better off accepting that consensus is a social function, not a method to locate the source of authority. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we do escape this circularity, by allowing admins to determine where consensus lies. (Or bureaucrats, in the case of decisions on appointing admins; or conceivably ArbCom, if even admins can't come to a consensus among themselves; or democratic vote, in the case of appointing members of ArbCom; or conceivably Jimbo or the Board, in case of some sort of crisis.) Or in practice, unfortunately, edit-warring. The point is that decision do get made, even in cases where there's no consensus on the consensus on the consensus... --Kotniski (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to be contrary, but I don't think as a factual matter that the admin breaks the circularity. If the admin says, "Consensus = X", that doesn't mean that consensus didn't determine what was the consensus. But, again, this is nothing to regret; it is a feature of a closed system and we are in a closed system. The solution is social, pragmatic, and delimited by the clock. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV policy says:

"The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

In my opinion, similar clause should be added to consensus policy. Concretely, I suggest to add to lede the following:

"Consensus cannot supersede the principles of three major content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR) as well as non-free content policy."

In other words, it is necessary to clarify (in the very beginning) that the users working on some particular article cannot, for example, state seriously contested assertions as facts simply based on their own unanimous decision. The same is true for other content policies and NFCC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This makes sense except for the matter of enforcement. Consensus determines the scope of consensus. Consensus determines the scope of policy. Interpretations are subject to consensus. Now, some will say there are procedures to take policy and... do what? Enforce it? Of course there is a story to tell about that and good faith editors (i.e. experienced editors) are more than nominally committed to this version of correctness. But this story is one we tell that is only usually true and that is good enough. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the question of enforement is important. Principles are not enforceable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)No, not so easy. Doing this creates circular rhetoric. The statement at NPOV is not particularly good to start with. NPOV is policy. It is a core content policy. It is one of the least negotiable policies. But this is not because it was subsequently summarised as pillar #2 in the five pillars WP:5P, but because it is supported by consensus.

Principles are more touchy-feely motherhood statement of intent that they are rules. Policies are rules. It really doesn't make sense to say that the principles cannot be superceded by other policies. Other policies are not principles.

Another problem is that consensus is always required in the interpretation of any rule. How the core policy applies to any isolated question requires interpretation, and that interpretation is decided by consensus. Similarly, the precise wording of WP:NPOV is determined by consensus. That is it "consensus" that rules, in principle, is policy, in principle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't see any contradiction here. The text of NPOV itself reflects consensus. However, NPOV principles cannot be superseded by local consensus of editors working on some particular article. I think that is obvious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Project principles can't be superceded by other things that are not principles. The same applies to the NPOV principle. The NPOV policy is an extreme example, being I think our most non-negotiable policy. Perhaps apart from some legal things. However, many things tagged policy can be set aside or bent by consensus. Probably, those things should not be tagged as policy, or should not be included in policy pages, but as long as they are, this policy page shouldn't speak as blunty as you suggest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus should always be formed with reference to any relevant policies and guidelines. Consensus and Policy should go hand in hand. Our Policies are presumed to have (and for the most part do have) wide spread consensus, after all - so Policy and consensus should rarely be in conflict. That said, we do give ourselves a way out when they do come into conflict ... We have a Policy that allows us, in rare situations, to Ignore Policy if there is a consensus to do so. Of course, we need a very good reason to ignore Policy, and the consensus to ignore policy should be wide spread... but, as contradictory as it sounds we do have a Policy that allows us to ignore Policy. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the "what is truth?" problem. Almost nobody ever says that their goal is to override NPOV. Instead, they say that their goal is to produce a truly neutral article, and it just happens that a truly neutral article requires a much more sympathetic explanation of "my" personal POV and a much less sympathetic explanation of "your" personal POV. (After all, if my POV weren't so obviously good and right, then I wouldn't hold that opinion, would I?)

I agree with SmokeyJoe that the NPOV statement is poorly phrased. It would be more accurate to say something like, "The principle of presenting a neutral point of view in articles is non-negotiable." The question is not whether the community wants a neutral point of view, because it always does. The question is only which version of an article is actually neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure the phrasing could be improved upon because there is nothing to say that removes the circularity. Consensus determines what is consensus, and that applies to everything in this domain. While we rely on the good faith of the editors and that is well placed usually, in those other times when POV creeps in it can't be legislated. Perhaps it pays to keep in mind that if we choose between clarity and persuasion, we are better off with the latter. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above, it isn't (necessarily) consensus that determines what is consensus - it may be an admin or bureaucrat who does the determining. But the topic of this thread here seems to be to what degree "global consensus" (in particular as expressed, according to the prevailing belief system, in "policies" and "guidelines") can overrule "local consensus" (the prevailing view among the editors considering a particular case). What it boils down to I guess, is the question of how much extra weight should be given, when determining local consensus, to those arguments that seem to be founded more securely in established policy and practice. This is not a question we can answer as 42% or any such, but I'm sure we can find something helpful to say about it. There are several aspects of it, though - on one hand global consensus is better because it represents (in theory) the considered views of a larger number of editors; on the other hand local consensus is better because it is represents a concrete decision based on the exact considerations that apply in a specific case.--Kotniski (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not experienced an admin overruling a local consensus. My impression is that in practice it's unlikely because who would ask in the admin if there is a local consensus? Only if there is no agreement would an admin enter the scene, and then again it seems that, for our purposes, the admin figures out which to ignore, the policy or the minority (i.e. the admin is going to choose the majority or a policy that overrides the majority). So at which point does consensus not determine consensus? Even an admin overruling a majority with a policy uses a policy that came from consensus. Perhaps I'm equivocating on 'consensus'...? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, but it seems that we have so many competing interpretations of "consensus" in such a situation that the admin could do pretty much what he liked and still find some way of arguing that what he'd done was based on consensus in some sense. So this is in line with my view of the matter - decisions (about content etc.) are made by consensus, but decisions about consensus are not made by consensus - they are made (in this case) by the admin. So we are not locked into a circular process (or at least, we shouldn't be).--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to your "at which point does consensus not determine consensus? ", consider some article where a user A points attention of others at some problematic text. For example, the statement "All dogs are black¹". A user A argues that this text looks like a statement of fact, although the source 1 has been characterised as highly controversial by the reliable sources 2, 3, and 4. However, users B, C, D, and E decided not to accept this argument. They argue that they all agree that the statement "All dogs are black¹" should stay, and since there is no consensus for its removal, user A cannot remove this statement. That is a pure example when local consensus is in direct conflict with core content policy (NPOV). I believe, it is quite necessary to explain that local consensus does not work when it contradicts to core content policies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Before we move away from this, I want to say FWIW that I agree with you that the policy needs to say that editors should follow policy. However, sometimes editors may decide that they have a special case on their hands and perhaps we can look on it as a strength of Wikipedia that there is something self-correcting in the freedom of local consensus to decide some things. Also, there is too much made here of the importance of global consensus. This particular project is not edited by many people. We are all self-appointed experts and the globalness is more implicit than real. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Policies are policies only as they are interpreted and applied. In 5 years here, I have never seen anyone contest the policy of NPOV, every discussion I have seen has been about the interpretation or the facts of a specific case, as to what the NPOV actually is. . There is no way to deal with those questions except by consensus. . WP:V is similarly a matter of whether the available material shows enough information to verify something; WP:OR about what extent something is OR, as distinct from legitimate assembledge of facts or common knowledge. There are a few basic rules that could probably not removed altogether by consensus because they're at the foundations of the encyclopedia, as the WMF would not recognize a community that refused to follow them. But I know of no rule at all whose actual working can not be modified greatly by how we choose to use it. All conflicts between policies are resolved not by figuring out what policy trumps what, though that wording is sometimes used; what is really meant, is that we decide how we want to interpret them in the particular situation and eventually arrive at interpretations we think compatible. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Important points well said. North8000 (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@ DGG. You write: "In 5 years here, I have never seen anyone contest the policy of NPOV, every discussion I have seen has been about the interpretation or the facts of a specific case..." Consider a following situation: a user requested POV tag to be placed into the editprotected article, because his legitimate concern about the article's neutrality has not been addressed. Can this request be rejected based on "no consensus" rationale?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Unlike DGG, I believe that I did once see a newbie recommend against NPOV articles. He suggested that as a general rule, there should be competing articles written from different POVs, so that readers could choose whatever they liked. I believe that the proposal might have been floated at one of the Village Pumps, and it was not at all well-received. But in specific disputes, the question is always which version is the truly neutral version, not whether it's appropriate to be neutral in the given article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We have, or had, a fork called Wikiinfo (Wikinfo?), which practiced exactly that: the Sympathetic Point of View. Most of those who wanted that structure went there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The most useful thing we could add to WP:Consensus#No consensus is a description of what happens during disputes in the main namespace. The problem is that it's complex. So here's my first go at describing it, and perhaps you'll all tell me how many things I've skipped over or gotten wrong:

• When disputes arise over article content, disputed content is normally left in the article in the absence of a consensus to remove it, assuming that all of the following are true:
  1. The content is supported by inline citations to reliable sources.
  2. The content does not involve contentious matter about living people.

I'm sure I've missed some situations. Two conditions I thought of, but am not certain about including, are:

1. The content has been present in the article for a relatively long period of time (relative to the article's normal level of activity).
2. The dispute primarily centers on whether to include the material in the article at all, rather than on the best method of describing or sourcing the information (in which case, the dispute resolution process may involve significant editing of the original text).

These, however, are mostly about temporary actions taken during disputes, not about what to do in a completely intractable situation (Arab–Israeli relations, for example), and I think the goal for that section needs to be about situations that involve apparently permanent no-consensus rules rather than temporary situations. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You've overlooked two cases which are all too common:

• The sources supporting Text T exist, but are a minority or WP:FRINGE
• The sources exist, but the editor has misunderstood them; they don't actually support the text.

Both would seem to fall under WP:BURDEN and no consensus should mean removal - although in both cases rephrasing should be tried first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's all very well trying to make rules like this, but it will be a wasted effort unless we have people to enforce them. (Because the people who failed to come to a consensus on the matter in hand will presumably also fail to agree on whether sources are fringe, whether a given length of time is relatively long, etc.) --Kotniski (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

At some point we have to trust the editors, even allowing that sometimes in good faith they won't follow policies. We may feel this is a violation (of something), but from another angle this is how Wikipedia improves itself and corrects excesses of the martinets. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if a source is named, and that source actually supports the text, then BURDEN does not support the removal of the text. BURDEN does not require the source to be non-FRINGEy, the material to be DUE, etc. It only requires that contested material be supplied with a citation to a source that actually supports the material. Thus, if the material is supported by a citation to a source that is reliable for that claim, then I believe that it can't be removed—at least, that it can't be removed with WP:V as the reason for removal.

I'm not entirely sure what the no-consensus default is for a purely NPOV dispute. The far more common outcome of NPOV disputes is a clear consensus by everyone except User:____ that User:____ is a POV pusher whose opinion can be completely ignored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the easy case, where we don't have to worry too much about what any policy says, because the matter will sort itself out. But we might try to address the more difficult cases, where A, B, C and D believe that W, X, Y and Z are POV-pushers, W, X, Y, Z believe that A, B, C and D are POV-pushers, and reasonable editors L, M, N and O have long since lost patience and gone to work somewhere else because of the constant fighting betweeen A, B, C, D, W, X, Y, and Z. --Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"...at least, that it can't be removed with WP:V as the reason for removal". This is a very important point. A lot of editors look to WP:V (and especially WP:BURDEN) as if it were the be-all-and-end-all inclusion/exclusion discussion... but it is merely the start of such discussions. Passing WP:V is a requirement for inclusion... but it does not guarantee inclusion. There are other policies and guidelines (such as WP:DUE) which can affect inclusion. Context is important - the same fact may be included in one article, and excluded from another depending on its context. A source may be deemed reliable in one context, and not reliable in another. As for POV pushers... if they get really stubborn, refuse to compromise, and prevent consensus from forming... the solution is to proceed to dispute resolution. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The word "solution" might be more justified there if we had a dispute resolution system that actually resolved disputes.--Kotniski (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think, some problems (not all, of course) could be resolved if we explain (on WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV pages) that, since none of those policies can be considered separately from other two, refusal to accept, e.g., NPOV-related arguments citing, e.g. V, is a violation of both policies. I also think that is would be correct to make such behaviour punisheable in the same way as three reverts are punisheable per 3RR. In other words, if a user A refuses to agree to remove some statement that is supported by a source A and ignores the notion of the user B that this statement is directly contested by a source B, and if he continues to do that despite exhaustive explanations, that may be a reason for ANI report. Unfortunately, many admins understand such a situation as a content dispute, however, the situation of that kind is a clear example of civil POV pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So let me give you a simple example of a purely NPOV dispute:

• Pretend there's a small business named "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station" in Smallville. Somebody adds a single sentence to the Smallville article, perhaps in a history section, that says, "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station was founded in 1926 and is the oldest continuously operating business in Smallville."
• The content of this sentence is 100% confirmed by an inline citation to a lengthy feature article about the small business in The Smallville News and Record, an independent reliable source. All editors agree that the information is indisputably accurate and verifiable.
• Alice thinks mentioning the oldest business in town is appropriate; Bob thinks it's UNDUE to mention any particular small business by name. Other opinions have been sought, but after months of arguing, the responses are still equally divided.

There is no consensus either way: no consensus to include the information, and no consensus to exclude the information. So: what would you do? By default, when opinions from good, experienced editors are equally divided, would you include or exclude information that is verifiable but possibly not DUE? Or do you not have a default rule, with the result that the best edit-warrior wins? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, neither Alice nor Bob violate NPOV policy. Everything depends on the strengths of the sources each of them use. If WhatamIdoing's Gas Station is being frequently mentioned by most mainstream sources in a context of history of Smallville business, the Alice's viewpoint should probably prevail. However, if most reliable sources ignore WGS, then Bob is right. I think each of them has to provide sufficient amount of sources, and only after that the decision can be made.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your response is, basically, "I decide that editors will be able to decide what the sources indicate is neutral."

That is not a valid response to this scenario. Enormous amounts of discussion have already happened in this scenario, and experienced editors remain evenly divided about what the sources indicate is neutral. There may be barely enough sources to justify inclusion of this sentence, or there may be barely too few sources to justify it. Neither side has prevailed on the merits, and neither side is going to.

You must make a decision, because you can't simultaneously include and exclude the information. You cannot make a decision based on the merits, because it's right on the borderline and there's no agreement about what the sources indicate should be done. So what do you do in the absence of being able to make the Right™ decision? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In my experience what happens in practice, rightly or wrongly, in such situations is that the most numerous, skilful and determined edit-warriors get their way. If there's any kind of "rule" to decide what to go with if there's no rough agreement, it tends to be the one about leaving the status quo. It would be nice to have a more effective system for making such editorial decisions that didn't involve fighting, but I don't think we're going to create one through anything we might do on this page.--Kotniski (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing. My responce is "I think that in most cases some objective criteria exist that allow good faith editors to develop neutral wording". Therefore, I prefer to discuss situations when one side does not act in good faith and uses WP:CONSENSUS to prevent non-neutral wording from removal (or for introduction of non-neutral wording because majority of users support it).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul, it sounds like you believe that it is impossible for no consensus to exist on a question of due weight. I happen to disagree, but if you want to deny even the possibility of good-faith disagreement among experienced editors, then there's no further point in discussing it with you. Perhaps other editors will have an opinion.

Kotniski, "the best edit-warriors win" is exactly what our content policies are supposed to prevent. The bit about "status quo" isn't functional, because there's no way to decide what counts as the status quo: the edit immediately before the verifiable content was added? The edit that added it? The edit that removed it? The version in place when the discussion closed as no consensus? What if the material was added in the very first version of the article? Any of these could legitimately be called the status quo, and there is no logical reason to declare any one of them to be "more status-quo-like" than any of the others.

I don't know about you, but I've already seen enough disputes over which version was "the prior consensus version" to last me a lifetime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No. You totally misunderstand me. I see at least two situation when consensus on a question of due weight cannot be achieved. Firstly, when existing sources are insufficient for making a decision objectively. In the above example with Alice and Bob that can happen when Alice argues that sources A, B, and C especially mention the "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station" as an important factor for survival of small business in Smallville during the Great Depression, WWII, and war in Iraq, and Bob argues that the sources D, E, F do not mention "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station" among important small business enterprises in Smallville, and the source G especially criticised the sources A, B and C for bias and advertising the "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station". In this situation, both solution (to mention or not to mention) are not optimal. However, I do not see any problem in Alice's of Bob's version will prevail, because both of them are the reflection of what significant majority of sources say. A second situation is when either Alice or Bob are POV pushers. This situation is much harder to resolve, because even if Alice provided ten sources in support of mention of "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station" in the article, Bob will refuse to do that per one newspaper article, which meets formal RS criteria. Of course, the symmetrical situation is equally possible: Alice provided just one source mentioning "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station", and despite Bob's persuasive arguments (based on 10 reliable sources) will insist on inclusion of "WhatamIdoing's Gas Station" per WP:V. I think, we need to focus on the second type issues first, because I have been a witness of numerous conflicts of this type.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the logic of saying that "violates consensus" is not a valid reason to reject an edit. Isn't it transparently obvious that if XYZ is the consensus and a subsequent edit changes the text to AYZ, that the reason to revert would be that there is not a new consensus for AYZ? The implication is that "violates consensus" is not legitimate because it omits all the reasons that the consensus was originally adopted or accepted. But any decision procedure justifies itself by reference to its own procedures; that is normal, acceptable, realistic, comprehensible and unremarkable. For example, why can't John McCain exercise the offices of the US President? Do we have to recount all the votes every time we want to explain that? No, we just say he wasn't elected. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I kind of agree - it would be better at least to refer the other editor to the discussion or whatever process by which consensus is claimed to have been reached, though sometimes, if we know that the other editor knows or ought to know where that process was, it would be fine just to give "violates consensus" as a reason for rejection.--Kotniski (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account that "consensus decisions take into account all the legitimate concerns raised," the statement that the change of XYZ to XAZ violates consensus is tantamount to the statement that such a change does not take into account some concrete legitimate concern that has already been expressed (and supported) by most editors. In other words, a user who reverts some edit because it "violates consensus" is supposed to provide (upon request) an exhaustive description of the arguments that have already been put forward against the change of XYZ to XAZ.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This is really a statement about practical effects. Unlike presidential elections, there are no binding decisions on the English Wikipedia. If someone makes an apparently good-faith change to an article, reverting it with the edit summary of "violates consensus" sounds an awful lot like "we made a binding decision that you were not allowed to have any input into". (Notice, too, the escape clause: "if a matter has been extensively discussed relatively recently...")

Additionally, especially with respect to policies and guidelines, "no consensus for this change" often represents a serious misunderstanding of the policy revision process. Some people honestly, but erroneously, believe that even small or obvious changes to a policy require a formal discussion of the change. An edit summary like "no consensus for this change" doesn't give you anything to work on; it just tells you that someone hasn't figured out this whole not-bureaucracy concept. You have no idea if there are any valid objections.

I can give you a recent example: After long discussions earlier this year, a guideline was updated in a couple of significant (but not dramatic) ways. We also discussed and eventually updated one of the related warning templates. A while later, someone else reverted those changes on the sole grounds that the changes weren't discussed in advance. Not only was this "violates consensus" type of assertion factually wrong in this particular instance, but "you didn't get separate, written permission in advance to make the template's contents be accurate" is a stupid reason for making any warning template misrepresent the contents of a guideline. We need to be discouraging this kind of error at every possible opportunity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I am not restricting myself to discussions on project/policy pages. Siebert, I don't quite agree that a revert from AYZ back to XYZ after a thorough airing of an issue will necessarily occur because of a "concrete" reason; compromise and negotiation function differently from that. The twelve members of a jury may have twelve different reasons for their unanimous verdict, so there is not a specific reason for the verdict; rather, there is a process that yields a result and it is respected because that is how it is done.

I think it is useful to notice that reverts because of a policy violation are also restoring consensus, just not a local consensus.

I think, as the text stands, it is in error, so I'd like to figure out what motivated the passage. If the idea is that consensus is revisable at any time as a theoretical matter, I believe we cover that elsewhere. This text seems to me to put the onus on the editors who are paying attention to cater to the needs of latecomers. In recognition of the fact that editors need to be able to move on to new topics, isn't it common sense that, absent new sources or some form of new data, a good consensus is self-justifying in some measure? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure you understood me. My point was that if someone reverts AYZ back to XYZ per "no consensus", the edit summary ("rv; no consensus") is not self-explanatory. Such a revert is simply a second step in BRD (a first one was XYZ → AYZ); in other words, revert per "no consensus" is just an invitation to discussion of the new edit (AYZ). If this change contradicts to the arguments that had already put forward in the past, then, probably, the AYZ has no chances to stay. However, if the AYZ is a new edit, and it has been made based on fresh arguments and sources, the fate of new text depends mostly on the relative strengths of arguments (and sources) used by both sides. General references to some consensus do not work, only concrete arguments matter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but a reference to a discussion where a general consensus was reached will generally be good enough as a link to the concrete arguments. Though I'm quite often annoyed by people who link me to some past discussion by way of "explanation" of their position, only for me to find no rational explanation there. As with most things in Wikipedia, what's OK in some situations is not so OK in others, and it's almost impossible to lay down definitive rules of the "always/never" type.--Kotniski (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We probably are speaking about the same things, but let me put all dots on "i":

1. It is Ok to revert something per "no consensus";
2. It is Ok to propose a newbie to familiarise himself with past discussion;
3. However, it is NOT OK to refuse to explain your position when you have been directly asked to provide concrete explanations of why the proposed change violates consensus. Failure to present concrete arguments (or reproduce a quote from the previous discussion that anticipates and directly addresses fresh arguments) means that you have no counter-arguments. In other words, your "no consensus" becomes "I don't like it". However, "I don't like it" has no relation to consensus, because if you have no arguments, you are not supposed to participate in consensus building process.

I believe that should be clearly explained on the policy talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the underlying problem is the use of claims of "consensus" or "no consensus" edit summaries when a disagreeing minority is intent on torpedoing consensus, that is, in a situation where there is no explicit agreement to abide by consensus, only to use WP:CONSENSUS and claims of disruption or disregarding thereof to wage edit warring. Absolutely nothing to do with "bold" editing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Paul's list of statements is complete. I'd put it like this:

1. If you've had a recent discussion on some point, and the discussion generally opposed the change you're reverting and the person making the change was part of that discussion, then it's probably okay to revert something per "no consensus" or even "anti-consensus", although a slightly more specific edit summary, like "multiple editors in the discussion on talk page opposed this change" or "rv per reasons given on the talk page" is stronger.
2. If you haven't had a recent discussion, then it's not okay to revert something on the grounds of "no consensus". In this situation, you don't actually know what the current consensus is: you only know what the (irrelevant) prior consensus was (if there actually was a prior discussion on this point) or the (even more irrelevant) prior state of the page was (which lots of people might think was pretty bad, but hadn't gotten around to improving yet). In this situation, you need to give a real reason (even if your initial reason is as vague as "I don't think this is an improvement".)
3. If you've had a recent discussion, but the person making the change wasn't part of it, then it's okay to use an edit summary like "rv; please see discussion on talk page" (to encourage the newcomer to read the recent discussion). In this situation, you need to welcome any comments or reasons put forward by the newcomer. You shouldn't just stonewall with "we decided this last month, and nothing's going to change".
4. It is never okay to refuse to explain your position when you have been directly asked to provide an explanation, and your explanation had better be a lot more specific than "well, there just wasn't any proof that anyone else agreed with your change before you made it."
5. It is never okay for you personally to revert a change that you personally believe improves the page. "I approve of this change, but I'm reverting it because someone else might object" is anti-BOLD and destructive. The only people who should be reverting anything are the people who personally believe that the change does not improve the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure such a level of detalisation is needed. You may make any changes/reverts referring to some "consensus" as you see it, provided, but only provided, that you believe you will be able to properly explain your position upon request, and to provide all needed evidences. If you appeared to be unable or unwilling to do that, further opposition, and the references to some old consensus, are unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I just through in that lead suggestion to see if it would stick since it does seem important to me, but evidently not to others who may not have had same experiences. More importantly I see the definition has kept changing even over the last six months. And certainly over last 24 hours. I'm wondering if editors might practice what they preach by trying to get a consensus on the lead HERE instead of in the policy article so people who come to it a couple days in a row for advice don't get too confused? :-) CarolMooreDC 04:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually this policy specifically encourages the reaching of consensus through editing rather than resorting straight away to the talk page... But anyway, how about this as a starting proposal for the lead (given that we're actually trying to help people who come here having no idea how or why we use this term):

Decisions on Wikipedia are said to be made by consensus among editors. This does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); it is not based on majority voting either. It means, rather, that the decision-making process involves an active effort to reach a solution that addresses as far as possible all legitimate concerns raised by interested editors.

Most editorial decisions are made by single editors acting alone; their actions are assumed to be supported by consensus so long as no-one objects to them. If disagreements arise, the editors with an interest in the article or page in question attempt to reach consensus on a solution. Matters with wider significance may be brought to the attention of the whole editing community in order for a wider consensus to be reached.

This page describes what consensus is understood to mean on Wikipedia, what should and should not be done in order to achieve it, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not), and what exceptions exist from the principle that all decisions are made by consensus.

This wording may not be ideal, but it seems to me these are the essential points that the lead ought to include.--Kotniski (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be stronger without the second paragraph. This level of detail is not necessary for general remarks and might not invite further reading, which the third paragraph does well. It is a fact that each and every editorial decision is made by a single editor. In this respect, Wikipedia "consensusing" resembles jury duty. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not with you - surely if a decision is the proper result of discussion, then it's not made by a single editor? (But I still think something like the second paragraph is necessary - otherwise people may genuinely been given the impression that every decision has to be reached by a consensus of a number of editors (or even all editors), and will feel they aren't allowed to do anything bold. Alternatively, we could give up trying to say that uncontested unilateral edits are made by "consensus", and then just say that consensus is our way of resolving disagreements, not the primary way in which we make decisions.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these are good points. To clarify my meaning, even a decision made after discussion is some single editor's edit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is not complete. It is a good thing that the opening of the article places the discussion in its broader context, among other things. I haven't taken the time to try to integrate your points with what I think is missing but I can do that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So can you say what it is you actually object to? At the moment you seem to be doing exactly what this policy tells us not to do - reverting simply for the sake of reverting, without bothering to give any reasons.--Kotniski (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

When you were reverted last time you knew that was an invitation for more discussion if you felt strongly about it. That's standard. I'm sure you knew that there was some objection. You didn't discuss it so that means you didn't feel strongly about it. And please re-read the first post in this section: it is disruptive to all of Wikipedia to change this page. As I've stated before, the lead places the policy in the context of the editorial work in a lucid way. So that's the most obvious problem. Also, decisions are not "said to" to be by consensus; they are by consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, they are by consensus in a very specific way (unusual meaning of the word), not in the normal way people would understand it (and it's only a theory anyway, not always implemented in practice). I don't understand what you mean "the lead places...in a lucid way", the lead as you've restored it seems more disjointed, and places undue emphasis on issues that are not really the subject of this page, like pillars and policies - mentioning these things seems rather distracting. Anyway, let's hear what some other people think. (I also don't understand this edit - surely this (what should and should not be done in order to achieve consensus) is the main topic of this page, so if we're telling people what this page is going to be about, this is the main bit.--Kotniski (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I may have missed it, can someone point me to the consensus to add this? Thanks!Dreadstar ☥ 02:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. I share your concern. When a page begins to have a section on what it is not, it is a slippery road to uncontrolled bloat. “No consensus” means that the consensus process is not finished, and that someone has “closed” the discussion. If “no consensus closes” needs further description, the description belongs elsewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

According to what this page itself says, the "consensus to add it" rests in the fact that it was added and everyone was happy about it (and if your only objection is "lack of consensus", then that doesn't count as a valid objection). It seems to me that this is an entirely unobjectionable section, giving people (shock, horror) useful information about certain aspects of Wikipedia practice that are intimately related to the issues that are the subject of this page.--Kotniski (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly, it looks almost like it's saying something like "this RFC to remove long-existing material has no-consensus, so the material can be removed because there's no consensus to keep it either" when in actuality, there must be consensus to remove or change material that has been in an article or policy for a long time. Such a thing is being attempted right here. Dreadstar ☥ 16:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

To that end, I attempted to make this change, which seems to reflect the way this policy is supposed to work. Dreadstar ☥ 17:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, policy is supposed to represent consensus, so if it's found that it doesn't, then it needs ought be changed or removed. The depressing thing at WP:V (and the reason I don't participate there any more) is that there is a group of people who have convinced themselves that "no consensus must mean no change", and consequently make no effort to reach a compromise like they ought to, but simply create enough opposition to prevent any proposal for change from gaining consensus, and then sit back content at having got their way. (Leaving a page that is supposed to represent "widespread consensus" demonstrably representing nothing of the sort.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not limited to WP:V and the group you describe, I've been beaten over the head since I first started editing with the concept that 'there must be consensus to make a change or add something.' From my experience, it's done that way on every article, policy, guideline or even templates that I've been involved in or observed. It's widespread and appears to hold a strong consensus. Dreadstar ☥ 18:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar, the fact is that you're just wrong. The community has a very complex response to "no consensus". It's not a one-size-fits-all "prior version always wins" deal.

So let me give you two specific examples that may show you the problem:

• Someone disputes an external link and proposes its removal on the talk page. The discussion results in no consensus either to keep or to remove the link. According to your oversimplified description, the lack of consensus to "make the proposed change" means that the link must stay in the article. According to the guideline, the lack of consensus means that the link must be removed—in other worse, a lack of consensus leading directly to making the proposed change, instead of refusing the proposed change.
• Again: Someone disputes an external link and removes it from the article. A second editor proposes restoring the link on the talk page. The subsequent discussion results in no consensus either to keep or to remove the link. According to your oversimplified description, the lack of consensus to "make the proposed change" means that the link must not be added—exactly the opposite result of your previous decision—and now we get to have a long fight over whether the undiscussed, bold action of removing the link is "the proposed change" that must not be done due to lack of consensus in support of the change, or the talk-page request to restore the link is "the proposed change" that must not be done due to lack of consensus in support of the change.

IMO the whole concept of the "prior consensus version" needs to be eliminated. Wikipedia is not best served by transforming a dispute over "what shall we do?" into "which of these twelve versions is the specially anointed 'status quo version'?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm telling you what I've seen in my seven years of editing here, you may disparage that as my "oversimplified" view, but I submit that you don't know what you're talking about and it will backfire just as the WP:V second RFC did. Good luck with that, I, for one will not be enforcing or abiding by the view that "no-consensus" means the losing opposition in these cases wins. Dreadstar ☥ 04:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh - you seem to be taking exactly that position, if the "losing opposition" happens to support something called the "status quo"? While there may be some wisdom in saying that no consensus means no change, it can't be allowed to be as simple as that, as it goes against the whole concept of consensus as a "process" that tries to accomodate all legitimate concerns. --Kotniski (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not saying that first part at all. And I think it's quite clear what I've said. As for the second, change requires consensus. That's all. Dreadstar ☥ 00:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

WAIDoing, I don't understand the reason for your opinion about 'prior consensus'. There isn't very easily a case of several status quo versions. Twelve would be a problem but I don't think that's a practical problem. Perhaps you are focused on the idea that a claim of no consensus can effectively prevent all views from being accommodated? Please explain. --Ring Cinema (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

About this edit, I don't really see the argument. The previous text doesn't say "when consensus cannot be reached", it says "when a unanimous decision cannot be reached", so there's no implication that consensus requires unanimity (in fact, the implication is the reverse - we can still have consensus (of the "rough" kind) when there is no unanimity). I would also question whether this is limited to "some processes" - formal closure may only be common in some processes, but the principle that a rough consensus can hold is surely one that applies to any decision-making situation?--Kotniski (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I see someone's now removed this whole section (without joining in the discussion, as goes without saying). I think we have to give up on trying to make this page better, since it seems there is too much resistance to informing the readership factually about anything. (And it seemed to be going so well...) --Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I did the revert because the additional text was too vague. In general, I agree with many of your arguments, Kotniski, so I'm sure you see the problems in that paragraph. Check the above section (Create consensus on lead here?) to rehearse the problems with changing the page too frequently or randomly. Good editors work better with stable policies. "Rough consensus" has not been on this page before, right? So that is a very big change. Where does it fit with the usual road to consensus? Someone else might sometimes do something that some others might have wish they'd done first if they'd known they could short circuit the process? That's how it reads to me. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's saying anything like that - it's just saying what we all know to be true (and therefore doesn't represent a "very big change" at all - it would only represent a change if it described some process that doesn't happen in real life), namely that sometimes we don't get unanimity or even near-unanimity, but we can still make decisions based on what we call "rough consensus". Ideally the detailed section on that subject would be moved (or copied) from the deletion guidelines to here, since it has more general application than just to deletion. But for now, it seems OK to summarize it here and link to there, as was being done.--Kotniski (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but I wouldn't call that "rough consensus" and imply that, admin ex machina, the majority rules, especially when it comes ahead of the No Consensus section. Your explanation seems to say that if unanimity is impossible, there is Rough Consensus. I'm sure we can agree that is not functionally how it goes, so you must be aiming for something else. Maybe you can take another try explaining rough consensus (a brand new label for a state of discussion and therefore potentially a powerful tool for redescription). My experience has been that no unanimity is followed by attempts at compromise (accommodating all views) and, after some time, perhaps a straw poll that participants often agree should be binding. That is different from what you describe, I think, where someone (who?) jumps in and says, "Okay, we have a rough consensus to ignore some views so let's move on." I'm pretty sure that would happen and it wouldn't be pretty. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This allegedly "brand new label" has been around since at least 2003. That makes it as old as WP:V and WP:NOR. The label might be brand-new to you, but it is not brand-new to the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. 'Rough consensus' is still something that hasn't been on the page and even with a sympathetic reading it seems to have the problems I mentioned above. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That particular phrase might not have been on the page, but the concept (that consensus decisions are not necessarily unanimous) certainly has, and the concept is certainly an important part of wiki-decision making (happens all the time at AfD and RM, for example), so if it's been absent from this page, then that's a serious failing of this page that needs to be remedied.--Kotniski (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

But of course! And I think we can see that we are looking at the same coin: I am saying, it's already there so we don't need rough consensus, you say, let's be more explicit about no consensus. Still, you put the section above No Consensus and included vague referents; maybe you can see my point on that. I certainly agree that the problem of what comes after no consensus is the hard case that's not cracked. Recall my mention in the past of the majority of the minority. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that further defining "no consensus" by pointing out that it's not the same as rough consensus amounts to a big change. My goal is to further clarify how unusual a true no-consensus situation is.

I don't see the text—"No consensus" is not the same as a rough consensus, in which one dominant view exists but is not universally or widely shared.—telling you anything about what you should do if you have a rough consensus. I see it as telling you that if you have any sort of consensus at all, then all this stuff about "no consensus" doesn't apply.

If anyone wants to explain how "No consensus ≠ ____" means "____ is an important concept that materially affects how consensus is achieved", then please feel free to explain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think WP:rough consensus might belong best simply listed under "see also". Neither "rough consensus" nor "no consensus" are part of "WP:Consensus". They should be mentioned, but only in passing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know why it is important that 'no consensus' is infrequent, for, while it may be that globally the proportion is overwhelming, those who refer to this page are more likely to seek guidance in a difficult situation where consensus is elusive. (Again, the easy case / hard case problem.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I find Joe's position a bit weird - obviously people who come here looking for information relating to the wiki-concept of "consensus" are going to be interested in what happens in cases of "no consensus" (and especially of "rough consensus", which clearly is part of consensus, even for the pedantic). These are/were two of the most helpful and informative sections on this page. Much of the rest of the page is waffle that could do with some serious trimming, but these parts provide good information.--Kotniski (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that a minority view faced with an opposing broad-based consensus can vociferously maintain "I didn't agree" ergo "no consensus", i.e., "consensus does not require unanimity but it does require that I personally agree with any such purported consensus." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, you overinterpret my "position". The only thing here I would call a "position" is that a link to WP:Rough consensus should be on the page. I am a bit dubious about writing into this policy page stuff on what "no consensus" means when defining "consensus" is still unachieved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Peters makes a useful point. There is a tension or a paradox in the notion that all viewpoints should be accommodated yet unanimity is not required. In practice, the circle is squared by allowing all to make their case before the binding straw poll. What else can anyone offer on this issue that allows the process to move forward? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we're discussing at the moment. We all know, don't we (if nowhere else than in the context of formalized processes like AfD and RM, but the same principles should apply elsewhere), that (a) sometimes the closer finds there to be a "rough consensus", based more or less on the criteria described at WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS; and (b) sometimes the closer finds there to be "no consensus", and this has certain consequences as well (and we are currently in a position to say what these consequences are in some situations, but not others). All this seems fairly clear-cut to me, and well within the topic of this page - so what problem does anyone have with sharing this knowledge (which we all have) with the less wiki-experienced who may be reading this page for information?--Kotniski (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No response - does that mean there is not now any objection to including this information?--Kotniski (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree with you adding such material, if others do, as long as is can't be misread as implying that anything less than a unanimous decision is a rough consensus. Consensus is not about numbers. Avoid the word "unanimous" if at all possible. Some people misread the intent and see "unanimous" as empowering them to block "consensus" regardless of argument. Another litte problem is that WP:Rough consensus is for administrators, with all the limitations that administrative action carries. Take care that you don't cause this page to appear to empower application of "rough consensus" in any normal editing process. "Rough consensus" is along the lines of "you few have lost this debate and we are going to move on now". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mean that, Kotniski. It probably means that your concept of the "closer" is so far from the correct method that it's hard to know where to start. Who is the closer? Who appoints the closer? What if the closer does a bad job? Why do we need a closer? No, I think the policy is pretty good and functioning well without introducing new concepts that are going to be disruptive. Again, there are two big problems with "rough consensus". Until they are addressed, I wouldn't introduce it to on the page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know where you're coming from with this. You are familiar with such processes as AfD and RM, right? You know that every day people (mostly admins) "close" discussions on the basis of rough consensus? It isn't "my concept", it certainly isn't a "new concept", it doesn't seem to cause disruption, I don't know what you think the two big problems are (?). All I'm saying is that we should simply record on this page what actually happens, so as to inform people who don't know. It seems bizarre that anyone should want to stop this happening (are we so jealous of our knowledge)? --Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And to Joe: it seems you want it both ways (or neither way). On one hand you want to ensure that people can't block decisions with minority objections; on the other hand you want to stop people from taking a decision over minority objections. That seems to me to pretty much rule out any kind of resolution in such situations. What exactly is the third option you have in mind? --Kotniski (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Minority opinions frequently *do* block decisions. Which people do I want to stop? Committed opposition, regardless of majority/minority measures, generally results in stalemate. XfD, WP:RM, WP:DR have agreed rules that allow for a decision despite committed or unresolved opposition. Much as you seem to say far above, finding consensus in difficult situations defies diagrammatics. I'd say it defies formulae. If I understood a formula for dispute resolution, I reckon I could draw a diagram. I am very interested in your attempt to connect the meanings of "consensus", "no consensus" and "rough consensus". I've given some thoughts and am sorry if you don't find them helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not saying we can give a formula or diagram or anything. But we can still state general principles. We can say that if, after discussion has gone as far as it's going to go, there is still disagreement, then some kind of decision (at least for the time being) needs to be taken, and this is done by determining a rough consensus, or if even that is impossible, by declaring "no consensus". We can give principles that should be applied when making this determination (similar to what's written at WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS); we can say who should make the determination (ideally the participants themselves, i.e. one side accepts that it's "lost" the argument, but if not, then an admin or other suitable uninvolved editor); we can say what happens if the result is found to be "no consensus". None of this is governed by set-in-stone rules, but I think we can all agree that this is broadly how things work (or are supposed to), and we can describe it helpfully and uncontroversially, trying to keep the vagueness to a necessary minimum. Does this seem reasonable? --Kotniski (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The preference is to have all viewpoints accommodated. Beyond that we are not talking about consensus. So, yes, there is an issue about the scope of this project. Personally, I have found that RfC's rush the decision. Minority views are often adopted after discussion; I have seen this happen. If we really want to encourage consensus -- the nut of which I feel is mutual accommodation -- then resort to authority (i.e. closing the discussion) should only arrive after other possibilities are tried. I don't think we are exerting enough effort to figure that out. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes decisions are rushed, yes. But there comes a time when a decision has to be taken, and as we know, it's not always possible or desirable to accommodate everyone's viewpoint. So this concept of rough (incomplete but "good enough") consensus is an essential part of the consensus-based decision-making process that is being described on this page - and when we describe it, we can mention your points about decisions not needing to be rushed.--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Related to SmokeyJoe's worries about rough consensus being abused:

I'd like to see a section on this concept, and I'd particularly like to see it link to the actual article Rough consensus rather than to the deletion-specific application. The reason I'm leaning this way is because the article about the real-world concept has a particular point, and that point is very BOLD-friendly:

If you're working from a rough consensus, you don't have to hash out all of the precise details right now. We can agree that "A" is not ideal and "B" is maybe not quite it, either, but things in the general direction of "B" are probably an improvement over what we've got—and so quit haggling about the exact wording on the talk page and start editing again, while keeping an open mind about how the page will develop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point as well - editing and discussion can happen in parallel during the consensus-forming process; editing doesn't have to be held up just because there's a discussion still going on.--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure at what point in the process this is supposed to take place. It is impractical and counterproductive to suggest that "rough consensus" (i.e. majority rule) can be imposed as a provisional edit and that there will then be meaningful discussion of the minority views that are supposed to be accommodated. That would be majority rule, plain and simple. But perhaps you mean something different. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

By definition, "rough" consensus is "rough", and it's hard to pin down exactly what we mean, or give any exact algorithms or formulae. But I think it's the sort of thing that goes on all the time - people discuss a bit, edit a bit, note each other's arguments and new proposals and change their positions accordingly, accept they're going to be outnumbered on a certain point and give way... If people are doing it in good faith, it generally works. Generally the views of the majority are going to end up having a greater input than the views of a minority, but that doesn't mean anyone will be left out of the process completely (unless they start acting disruptively).--Kotniski (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Rough consensus is not "majority rule".

Rough consensus is when basically all of us agree on the broad outlines, but we haven't sorted out the details, and decide to start taking action now, rather than after figuring out the perfect thing. (Did you actually go read the article [not the policy subsection] on rough consensus?)

So imagine this scenario: Editors encounter a wordy, trivia-packed article and have a discussion in which basically everyone agrees (1) that the article could be improved, (2) it's too detailed for an encyclopedia article, and (3) some of it violates DUE. But they don't agree on exactly which sentences ought to be re-written or removed, because they haven't actually wasted the time to discuss each and every sentence in the entire article. Instead, they say, "Okay, we agreed that there's too much trivia, so everybody go pull whatever bit of trivia they believe is the most egregiously inappropriate. Squawk on the talk page if someone else pulls something you think should stay. Otherwise, keep going, one baby edit at a time, doing the easiest stuff first, until we think we've gotten the trivia problem mostly fixed."

That's rough consensus: we're not sure of the perfect solution or what the final outcome will be, but we basically agree on a general direction, and we think we can take a stab at it. We may learn things in the course of our work that cause us to change our minds, but we don't need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, in that case, we seem to have two competing definitions of rough consensus (everyone vaguely agrees vs. most people agree). If that's the case then perhaps we'd better avoid the term, though my experience of the way it's used on Wikipedia is that it means most people agree.--Kotniski (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess, WAIDoing, that you don't take as seriously as I that editors will claim rough consensus when they figure most interested editors agree with their position. Since I recently had the experience of working with editors claiming a consensus when they were in the minority, I am probably more sensitive to this difficulty. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ring, at least your dispute had multiple editors in the minority. I've seen one recently in which a single editor (with a long track record of POV pushing) is claiming consensus despite the opposition of 100% of editors who have engaged in the discussion. Claiming a consensus isn't the same as having one. (Maybe we really should write that section. Something like "Assertions of consensus: Just saying that you have a consensus isn't proof that you do. If you actually have a consensus, you'll be able to improve the page without edit warring or endless complaints. If you can't actually edit the page in peace, then you probably don't have a consensus."

Kotniski, I think there's substantial overlap in the two positions. NB that I don't say "everyone", because trolls and POV pushers happen. But "basically everyone agrees not to delete this article, although some think it should be merged and some think it should be kept separate, and one person thinks it needs a new article title" is a rough consensus, as is "most people agree not to delete this article" (to use the situation in which the term is most commonly encountered). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, the meaning of the term "rough consensus" is somewhat obscure for me. If I understand the issue correctly, consensus is needed to make some change (add some new text, delete some text, delete an article, etc), so the result is always binary ("to add or not to add", "to delete or not to delete"). In other words, if a decision was to delete some article, then it was a consensus to do so. "Rough consensus" makes no more sense for me than "slight pregnancy".
By writing that, I by no means imply that the term "consensus" has no gradations. I see at least three situations:

1. All, or overwhelming majority of users came to an agreement on some issue. It is possible, however, that one (or very few) users continue to disagree, although their objections are based on nothing (or on quite frivolous arguments). In this case we can speak about an unanimous (or almost unanimous) decision, and this is a preferable variant of consensus.
2. Users are separated onto two groups; a group A supports some decision, whereas the group B opposes to it. Both groups put forward their arguments, and all arguments from the group B have been addressed and refuted by the A group. Users from the group B stopped to provide fresh arguments and sources, so the discussion has stalled. In this situation, , despite the fact that the second group did not openly supported the viewpoint A, we can conclude that all legitimate concerns have been addressed, so we can speak about consensus. A fresh (real) example of this situation has been provided belov:
   (i) A user A requested some change to be made to some editprotected article;
   (ii) A user B objected citing the guidelines;
   (iii) A user C objected citing the same guidelines;
   (iv) A user A explained the mistakes users B and C made and provided a correct link to the relevant guidelines;
   (v) A user D supported A's rationale;
   (vi) A user E objected without providing any concrete reason.
   (vii) As a result, we have a situation when two users supported some change, and three users opposed to it. However, the legitimate concern (possible violation of guidelines) expressed by two of those three users has been properly addressed, and the concern of the user C was not possible to address, simply because no concrete concern has been expressed. In that situation, the admin made quite correct decision: since all legitimate concerns have been addressed, we have consensus to made proposed changes, and the article has been modified as requested.
3. And the last case is when different users put forward strong arguments in support of their viewpoints, and neither party is able to debunk the arguments from other side.
   Obviously, in ## 1,2 we have consensus (not "rough"), and in #3 we have no consensus. However, I do not understand why consensus #1 is stronger than consensus #2. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Your conception of consensus only works when the choices are binary. In article editing, the choices are almost never binary. It's not "make this particular change" vs "make no change"; it's "make any one of thousands of possible changes, or perhaps no change". As the old joke goes, you could easily ask four editors what would be best for the article and get five different opinions.

When you have as many proposals as editors, you don't have a regular, simple, uncomplicated consensus. You might, however, have a rough consensus: e.g., basically everyone agrees that something needs to be done to ==This section==, even though they don't agree on exactly what that "something" is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The situation with ==This section== can be described as: "do we need to change the section or not?" If consensus will be achieved that changes are needed, it is not a "rough consensus" but a simple consensus to change the section. If such consensus has been achieved, then concrete changes A, B, C, etc can be discussed. In each particular case everything can be separated onto many simple consensuses.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

But we wouldn't want to separate the whole decision-making process into explicit binary choices, since it would take for ever. If people are engaging in the process properly, the editing will more or less follow the discussion - people are effectively cooperating on producing something good, and will largely appreciate the concerns that others have and try to work them into the end product, while those who can see they haven't managed to convince the others of a certain point will tend to give way on it. So most of the time "consensus" is more a shared state of mind than something that explicitly exists or not. But there are other times when this idyll no longer pertains - either because someone is not in the right state of mind, or because there genuinely is a matter of disagreement on which there is no clear (enough) majority nor any satisfactory compromise solution. We have to make sure that this page describes both the ideal and the realities of what we do to resolve situations where the ideal fails.--Kotniski (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It would take forever to process normal work as a series of binary choices. Additionally, it's just more complicated than that. I might believe that some change would be desirable, but also that no change at all is preferable to that particular change.

The goal is not an endless series of discussions. If most people generally think that ==This section== could be improved, then start editing! The injunction is to be bold, remember? "Engage in endless discussions of every possible permutation so that you can carefully document the existence of a consensus for each change at one arbitrary point in time" isn't recommended anywhere in our policies. Identifying a rough consensus lets you get back to the real task of writing the encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The conflation of "consensus" with "written documentation of permission obtained in advance" is producing a rather silly result: I've just seen a discussion in which editors simultaneously claim that a nearly year-old change never had any consensus because:

1. there was never any prior discussion and
2. the prior discussion (they provided a link to it) didn't "count".

Given the number of times this policy already says that prior discussion is not a required component, I don't think that the problem can be solved on this page, but if anyone has any ideas about how to make editors more comfortable with the basic facts that "consensus can change", I'm willing to hear them. It would be far wiser of those editors to simply assert their belief that consensus changed, rather than trying to pretend that there never was any discussion, or that the 100% agreement documented in the archive didn't "count" as a discussion (that'd be the distortion phase, I think). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone mentioning "consensus" is a bad sign that people are genuinely seeking consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that this article is meant to be clear as crystal, but I could sure do with some help from time to time, and never know where/who to turn to. I know that this is OT, but is there some mentoring programme, or help place, for getting assistance with the details? What brought me here was a question regarding the establishment of consensus of an article that I have contributed to for years. I was away for about ten days, and another editor made a load of changes, which were ok'd by a third (inexpert) editor. However, a substantial portion of the contribution appears to me to be confusing at best, maybe even faulty. However, that editor is now saying that he got WP:CON while I was away, and he disagrees that my unhappiness with the new copy indicates a lack of WP:CON. I am hoping in this case, that we will be able to resolve our differences, but I am unsure about who is in the 'right' here. If you are willing to get the odd question about policy, then maybe drop me a line so I can stop filling up policy talk pages every time I get confused! 20040302 (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that policy will help you in fact - you might think policy pages are meant to be clear as crystal, but in fact the reverse is true - they are meant (by the people who tend to control them) to sound pompous and legalistic while remaining vague and ambiguous on any substantial issue. That particularly applies to this one. (In any case, it's unlikely to settle your argument.) Your best bet is probably not to worry about policy but to get some outside opinions (from the relevant WikiProject, say) on the particular editing matter that concerns you. (Just my opinion.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Unfortunately, to the initial point, there are few areas where editors are knowledgeable in an area but not already embroiled on some side of an ongoing argument in that area—when it comes to assisting in conflicts, it's not that easy to find someone who is well informed on a topic and who is not intellectually invested in a particular viewpoint. "Inexpert" editors too often view their being uninformed as conferring neutrality; IMHO they cause more damage to articles than the most ardent of polarized protagonists. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's why I tried to get consensus of the community in the lead, so that people aren't stuck fighting with 3 people who really are violating policy in some way yelling there's a "consensus" to do it!! I stopped paying attention and noticed it's still confusing, so just clarified. CarolMooreDC 15:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

But that is not really what Peters said, it seems. I understand him to say that neutral ignorance is mostly ignorance. You are saying that editors who claim a consensus in (apparent, undefined) violation of policy shouldn't have standing. Unfortunately, as a practical matter that is just how it works. We have no police; local consensus rules, as a rule. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, what you wrote is rather confusing to me and I'm too busy to concentrate on it. Why not just work on specific wording we all can agree to, per the below. CarolMooreDC 22:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In my proposed lead higher on this page, I originally had a second paragraph, reading: Most editorial decisions are made by single editors acting alone; their actions are assumed to be supported by consensus so long as no-one objects to them. If disagreements arise, the editors with an interest in the article or page in question attempt to reach consensus on a solution. Matters with wider significance may be brought to the attention of the whole editing community in order for a wider consensus to be reached. One editor objected to this, but if we're going to talk about scope of consensus in the lead, perhaps a whole paragraph like this so as to deal with it more fully?--Kotniski (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How about the lead incorporating both our concerns by reading:

'Consensus' refers to the primary way in which decisions are made on Wikipedia, and is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. "Consensus" on Wikipedia does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); it is not a vote either. It means, rather, that the decision-making process involves an active effort to incorporate editors' legitimate concerns. Edits that are not challenged can be considered to be "consensed upon." If disagreements arise which are not resolved though actual edits, editors may use the talk pages and, if necessary, solicit opinions from the larger community to achieve consensus.

??CarolMooreDC 16:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Edits that are not challenged can be considered to be "consensed upon."" I don't think that's proper English, and I don't see the issue with the current lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

An edit that isn't challenged doesn't require further definition. Also, soliciting opinions from elsewhere is an invitation to uninformed editing (and perhaps a violation of policy). My sense is that this is included out of an impulse to police editors that aren't punctilious about policy, and this is not the right approach. The strength of Wikipedia is good faith editing, and this section works best by pointing in that general direction. The details are for later. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the "edits not challenged" business to accommodate someone else's comment. Whatever.

Note current long section already exists so let's not forget that: Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_by_soliciting_outside_opinions

I like the current list of four things the article is about because I'm just looking for the lead to make contents of article clearer since people can get lost in the TOC or just reading all those sections. CarolMooreDC 16:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important to include "edits not challenged", because we do have people who don't grasp this basic point and consequently believe that they must prove that there never was a consensus for a given edit, rather than simply challenging it and saying that they believe it could be improved/consensus has changed. See, for example, North's RFC last month on whether "verifiability, not truth" should have been added to the lead of WP:V on the grounds that his simple search of the archives didn't show a major discussion on the phrase before it was added to the policy. "There wasn't ever consensus to add this phrase (despite it somehow sticking around in one of the most heavily watched policy pages since August 2005)" was his main line of argument. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point if you are someone who has had that happen a lot. Evidently not a lot of people have. I usually see the opposite - changing willy nilly despite whole RfCs of consensus from whole community! CarolMooreDC 18:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a kind of tension here - on one hand, wording that has stood for a long time on a well-watched page can be assumed to have consensus (in the absence of any other evidence), but that assumption of consensus shouldn't be allowed to override what we can actually see - if discussion shows that it doesn't have the consensus of the community now. If it's masquerading as a key statement of policy, as in WAID's example, then it really matters quite a lot if it doesn't have consensus support. I don't follow the religious warfare at WP:V any more, but it seems to me the problem there was a classic case of the downside of the "no consensus = no change" principle - that it makes status-quo supporters feel exempted from any need to try to reach a compromise or mutually acceptable solution.--Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Should we eliminate the second person material? I'm in favor of that change in style. Other opinions? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't much mind either way; I don't think we should be dogmatic about it (whichever works best in a given situation, but other things being equal I would probably avoid second person). I think this page has more significant problems than this.--Kotniski (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I spent a long time reviewing the policies and other pages Mr. Dixon suggested. I could copy and paste many of what I think breaks the rules on this page, but I am not. I have verbally abused no one. The discussion page should be used for the "Community" Discussions about a said topic. Yes, I read all of the post by others who wish the "Shadow" term taken out. I am not going to say anything else, but I will say plain and simple that the official word for the Confederate Governemnt of Kentucky during the Civil War was "Provisional". The term "Shadow" has a totally different meaning. When I write "Official"-I mean my references come from official military reports. Perhaps, I know that some Unionist of Kentucky may have used the term "Shadow" in an attempt to make the CS Governemt seem less important or use it as a slander remark. But the books I mention are the best resources, especially if you note the references. I am not making a comment concerning this situation again--On this page, but after I read the policies and other regulations of this site, I know their are "offical" avenues those disagreeing with editors can take. You say that I have broken this sites rules by not following their policies....Maybe, but you have too by not taking in consideration all of the comments that have been written. Enough said. I have not verbally abused anyone on this site. All my attempts have been to prove a word needs to be removed. You or whoever could atleast explain the the word in the article and include provisional. The first word you see in the first line is "Shadow".

I want to apologize to Wikipedia for this situation. It was not my intention to break a policy on this site. We are in the 150th anniversary of the CW and this site will be viewed more than before. All I have done is ask that a word be removed, becuase it is NOT the official term of the said article. At best, he could in the same paragraph explain his use of the word "Shadow", not in a reference, but out front. After all the Talk on this page, there has not even been suggested a compromise to this. I think this breaks the policy by the writer.

---

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerned. The result might be an agreement which does not satisfy anyone completely, but which all recognize as a reasonable solution. It is useful to remember that consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia. It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular 'perfect' version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view.Ollerj (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to get this closer to English, without making any substantive changes to its intent. Where I erred, please restore the intent, but please do not toss the baby out <g>. I am concerned that "legitimate" is a word which does not work in the policy, and that "proper" works better. Also I find the mixing of sock, ew etc. in the policy on "consensus" to be confusing to the average reader, and think that the separation of issues ought well be expanded. Lastly, I think the use of the second person was quite overdone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Large changes are not good here. Please take a moment to check on how this project works in the discussion above. Small changes can be hard on good editors, who will do better with stable policies. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just tell me which "massive change" you note. "Proper" instead of "legitimate"? Or reduction of use of the second person? I did my best to make no substantial "change" to any policy at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way - kindly self-revert your wholesale unexplained revert - just saying "it is too much" is woefully akin to the exemplar of "I don't like it" indeed. Try going back and noting exactly what "major change" you found. Cheers - that is how this concept is described in this page - doing the exact opposite seems a tad -- interesting. Collect (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your good intentions and personally agree that the second person is not the best tone, but I am not sure how it came about. This is something to discuss. However, because of the special function of this page, it's better to take a more incremental, consultative method. This page has not been edited carelessly because of how it fits in the Wikipedia scheme of things. While you may have done your best to make no changes, I imagine you are sensitive to how small differences in language alter meaning, That is monumentally uncontroversial. You wouldn't claim that your edits are superior because they came second? That would be absurd, no? So, while in some contexts your many changes might just be a quick dusting out of the cobwebs, this is a project that a lot of editors consult for guidance, so, honestly, having the sharpest copy is simply beside the point. As I mentioned, good editors do better with stable policies, and I respect their efforts a lot. Pulling the rug out from under them in this way is not the best. Thank you, but as other editors occasionally mention in this discussion, it is confusing to change the policy on consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked at the edits or the revert - these comments are based entirely on this discussion, which I find to be outrageous. When one reverts the good faith edits (as I presume these are) of another editor, the onus is on you, per WP:BRD, to explain specifically what your objections are, not simply utter vague and useless platitudes. How about some quotes, diffs, and specific comments or explanations? If you don't have specific objections like that, then I suggest you restore the changes. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I looked over the diffs now and they do appear to all be improvements. I suggest restoring the edits, and then tweaking from there. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not the first time a certain editor has reverted other people's efforts on this page without making any effort to explain why, but I guess certain people are just like that. Anyway, perhaps we could try some of the changes one by one? The ones I noticed, I didn't particularly like (such as saying that consensus is achieved "while following policies and guidelines", which implies that consensus is somehow subservient to these written "rules", whereas in fact consensus can be and often is reached to deviate from them, and of course to change them).--Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying consensus can override NPOV and BLP, inter alia? Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe not the principles (at least, it shouldn't, although in practice it will do unless someone with authority comes along to enforce the principles), but if there happens to be some less essential point on those pages about how specifically to deal with situations of some type (which there might not be on those pages, but there certainly are on many other policy and guideline pages), then consensus can certainly "overrule" what the policy says.--Kotniski (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We may need to find a better way to say that, but IMO the concept is good. It is not actually possible to have a true consensus to violate BLP or NPOV or COPYVIO. It's only possible to have a couple of editors at a local page that mistakenly believe that they have a LOCALCONSENSUS to screw up an article. They won't discover their error until someone else comes along, but the fact is that they never did have a real consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the policy/guideline must be presumed to reflect broad consensus (if it doesn't, then that needs to be addressed), so not following policy/guidelines is by definition not following consensus.

That said, there may be cases in which policy/guidelines do not apply, did not anticipate something, or do not accurately reflect consensus, but those are exceptions and should be expressly identified each time. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My experience is that such cases are not particularly exceptional - the wording of policies (and especially guidelines) is frequently very poor, and quite often at odds with consensus (since we have this "no consensus means no change" principle, it means that what's written on the page can easily be something that does not represent consensus now, and quite possibly represented only LOCALCONSENSUS at the time it was written), that we shouldn't be emphasizing the importance of these "documents". They have an input in the consensus-forming process, certainly, but it's quite rare (really only applies to things like BLP and copyright) for anyone in authority to come along and enforce them against local consensus - instead, the policies tend to describe the considerations that tend to start to hold sway once a more representative sample of editors is drawn into the debate.--Kotniski (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Replying below indented at this level. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, Collect's edits are too much to even evaluate, and their motivation has not been discussed, beyond one word and the a change from second person, which were minor aspects. This is not an article; for policy and guidelines, we need to apply WP:BRD in a much more careful way. OK, he was bold, and he got reverted. Now we really do need to discuss, and not use the guideline page as a sandbox. A sequence of much smaller edits, perhaps one per day, would give interested editors a chance to follow and evaluate what's being changed. Who can evaluate a diff like this? It's a lot more than what the edit summary suggested. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The problem is that the diff is too complicated for review. Undiscussed edits are welcome, but on a policy page they should be kept small. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Try reading the edits before saying "too much" is automatically revertable where the discussion here has supported the word changes (which do not change policy). Cheers - but "IDONTLIKEIT" is listed as a great reason (NOT) for reverting. Read the edits - they are not all that hard to figure out, as the other editors writing here have already done. SJ - the edits have absolutely been discussed here - so that does not strike me as a strong reason to reject edits automatically. Collect (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit on examination I find reasonable, but I find the connection to any single discussion less than obvious. I suggest that this would be easier for everyone if your edit summary linked to a specific thread where you provided some minimal commentary. We've already had editors complaining about the high frequency of unnecessary edits to this page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing the "second person" one at a time would be ludicrous, and I tried doing "small edits" on another page I noted to you - with the same result of "blanket revert" - as no substantive policy changes were made here, I suggest that there is no reason not to allow a substantial copyedit, which I started a discussion on as soon as I did it, as being a valid means of aiming for Consensus - especially since it is exactly what the policy calls for <g>. And reverts just saying (unehlpfully) "no consensus" are, curiously enough, specifically mentioned in the policy ( the actual reason for your disagreement, rather than just citing "no consensus" or "not discussed". and compare to the new version an edit summary of ""no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful) , making this a textbook case, no? Cheers - and glad you find nothing unreasonable in the edit. Collect (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There is the mistake made over and over by "some" that this series of changes is reverted simply because someone "doesn't like it." That's poor reading comprehension, so those who have said that should read again. Large changes to this page are counterproductive; incremental changes should be the norm. Maybe it is hard for some to accept the reality that Wikipedia gets its best results when experienced editors work in a stable policy environment, but that is the reality. Check this discussion page above and you will find the complaint from someone who doesn't edit here that we respect their need to have a stable statement of consensus. So, maybe that is hard for some to accept or understand. However, it is a good reason for those of us who respect the work of editors on Wikipedia who have sticky problems with consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. I'd like to see an edit that makes the mentioned 2nd-person changes without changing the paragraphs, so we can clearly see the changes in the diff. That will likely be OK, but we might may also want to tweak it a bit. Then, the next day, the mentioned wording change. Then some of the not-mentioned changed. There's no rush, since there's no indication that I've heard that the current policy is somehow causing problems. Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see you discussing -- after you make an "edit war" warning for me on my UT page - whilst another editor has a long history of reverts without discussion here <g>. Did you warn him in the past? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't believe I'm familiar with that one. Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

[replying to comment from yesterday, above] Kotniski, perhaps that was true in the early years, but as time goes on, if the policies and guidelines are not converging on accurately reflecting broad consensus more and better, then something is very wrong. If one looks only at cases that go through WP:RM he might get the impression "that such cases are not particularly exceptional", but I suggest that's like deciding whether criminal behavior is particularly exceptional from the view of a law enforcement officer. After all, only potentially controversial cases go through the RM process, so it's essentially a filter for finding the exceptions.

If, instead, you select a sample of articles by repeatedly clicking on SPECIAL:RANDOM, I suggest you'll find that deviations from policy/guidelines are indeed exceptional. And, again, if there is something in policy that is shown to be commonly violated by such a random sampling, that suggests an update to policy is required (which, BTW, is essentially the basis for restoring the familiarity clause to the recognizability criterion at WP:AT). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who reverts the work of another editor should feel obligated to provide a substantive objection to the changes in question. Saying simply that there was no discussion prior to the change, that it's "too much", or the change is "too big", is not such a substantive objection. We owe it to each other to provide a better explanation than that. On the other hand, if there simply is no substantive objection, then don't revert.

If you're too frickin' lazy to simply read and evaluate what another editor took the time to compose and write (which takes much more time and effort than to read and evaluate) enough to decide if you have a substantive objection or not, then go do something else, because your contributions are not constructive here. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's up to the editor making the proposed changes to explain them and get consensus for them. As with article, the burden is on the person making the change.   Will Beback  talk  18:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No. The default assumption is not "no consensus until proven otherwise". To the contrary, by far the most common method of developing consensus at WP is through editing - and that requires that the edits in question be read and evaluated, whether they are accompanied by an explanation on the talk page or not. If someone is not even willing or able to put in the effort to evaluate the change in question, he or she has no business participating, much less reverting. The essence of the D in BRD is that the one reverting explains his or her objection in the discussion that he or she commences. To put the burden on the one making the change is unreasonable, especially if it's a large change. Why defend the whole thing if only one or two parts of it are the perceived problem? The default is "supported by consensus unless reverted", and then the reverter must explain the objection. Otherwise it's unworkable. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's a burden on an editor to explain a large change then it's obviously even more of a burden on other editors to figure out the changes and their possible effects. If someone reverts an edit then it doesn't have consensus.   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? Then if I revert any editor on any article, they can not assert they have "consensus" on any article? Pray tell me where you can find anything remotely approaching such a novel dictum. And note that I immediately started a discussion here - meaning it is I who has been following that silly policy called WP:CONSENSUS in the first place! Meanwhile, most of the "large edit" was removal of the "second person" - do you seriously contemplate that each such edit should be separately discussed? Amazing! <g> Collect (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Come on, Will. You're switching the meaning of the term "burden" in this discussion. That's confusing. We're talking about who has the onus to do something, not how difficult it is to do something.

And if someone who has not read and evaluated a given change sufficiently to express an objection, his revert of that change says nothing about consensus. How could it?

Anyway, the person making the change usually is willing to explain it, as Collect did in this case, but those reverting without reading/evaluating typically are just as unwilling to read and evaluate the explanation as well, much less address any of it substantively.

We're just saying that if someone is going to revert the work of another editor, they need to explain why they believe those changes are against consensus. The alternative is to require editors to explain why every bit of every change is supported by consensus; that is ridiculous administrivia, and would increase the size of talk pages a hundred fold if actually implemented. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's part of the BRD cycle. If someone reverts you then you go discuss your edits. This isn't a new idea.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverting a bold edit as part of BRD, and then explaining the revert and your objections in the discussion is one thing. Reverting without even evaluating the change, much less explaining the objection, is something else again, and the latter is what we're talking about. You can't explain and discuss your revert of something that you did not read and evaluate. If you didn't read and evaluate a bold edit, then you're not engaged in BRD, and you have no business reverting it.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; thus giving the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately.

Again, you can't do any of that if you haven't read and evaluated the change. See Wikipedia:RV#Explain_reverts. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing about BRD that precludes the reverter from explaining his or her objections immediately. Also, "no consensus" does not mean "no change": There are times when no consensus means a definite change (WP:ELBURDEN, for example). No consensus means no consensus, nothing more (or less). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WAID, are you responding to something I said? Everything you say appears to agree with what I said. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My comment is entirely in reply to Will's claim that having your change reverted means you should be the person who starts the discussion. Will might like to take notice of WP:BRD-NOT's statement that "The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

At WT:Disambiguation#Proposed clarification: No consensus for primary topic means the page becomes a disambiguation page it's being effectively suggested (and not for the first time) that an admin might close a move discussion where no consensus was reached, not by simply saying "no consensus = no change", but by selecting a compromise solution and declaring that to be the result of the discussion, even though the participants in the discussion had not reached the compromse themselves. (In particular, where the conflicting positions are that A is primary topic for X and that B is primary topic for X, the admin may declare the result to be that there is no primary topic for X.) Is this a reasonable principle to apply in this case, and could it be extended to others?--Kotniski (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable solution, and WP:DAB is welcome to enshrine it as the normal result if the editors there decide that they want to do that in the future. Alternatively, if they decide that they prefer to enshrine the "best edit warrior wins" principle (aka "no consensus = no change"), then they're welcome to do that, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"No change" in this case (requested moves) tends to mean no change to the long-established status quo, so it's not really a case of rewarding edit warring (at least, not recent edit warring).--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Kotniski, this question is a red herring. The only one who suggested that an admin might do such a thing was you; but it didn't sound like what you wanted. I'd interpret that discussion differently: if people can't agree on a primary topic, they should consider agreeing to not have a primary topic, instead of continuing to bicker about it. There's no good reason to make this into an admin's problem, just because the guideline says what should happen. Instead of an admin, some uncommitted editors should be able to look at such a situation and help drive it to a conclusion; RFC if you need to. Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I read of that discussion (and the strength of feeling expressed), it seems people saw it as something more than just a proposal to add a friendly suggestion to the guideline. If I was the only one talking about admin action, I guess it's because I was the only one thinking about it in terms of practical consequences. (And as to whether it's something I'd want, I think the principle is a good one, but it would be quite a novelty and need to be carefully considered. It probably ought to happen only after at least some attempt at mediation by the closing admin - which would itself be another helpful innovation.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, asking the closing admin to act as a mediator would be quite novel. Probably better to get an actual mediator when needed. Dicklyon (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference between someone "acting as a mediator" and an "actual mediator"? (Is there a formal qualification?) If you mean going through the bureaucratic process of what's called "mediation" on Wikipedia, then what I envisage (mediation+closure) would be far superior to that - it would be much quicker (it would just happen, without any formalities); it would be focused on a result; it would lead to a result; and it wouldn't rely on everyone's consenting to the process.--Kotniski (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No difference; just that an admin is not expected to be, or to act as, a mediator. To load mediator duty on top of admin duty is a bad concept. Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't care whether you call it mediation or not, but the closing admin is already loaded with the duty to evaluate consensus based on the discussion and policy. The result of the admin's evaluation can be "no consensus" for this or that, or "consensus" for this or that. All we're saying is that IF the question at issue is whether a given name has a primary topic, and there is no "no consensus" on that question, THEN that automatically implies that there is consensus in favor of a dab page being at that name, and that closing admins should evaluate such discussions accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's one version of the proposal; the weaker and more reasonable one (and the one I was talking about) is that if there are two candidate primary topics and no consensus between them, then the admin could impose the (obvious) middle solution of saying there is no primary topic. The remark about mediation was not intended as a reference to the Wikipedia bureaucratic mega-process of mediation, but just the idea that instead of jumping in and closing the discussion without talking to anyone, the admin could suggest a way of closing it (even if it's a solution that hasn't yet gained consensus of the participants), talk to people about it and then make a more informed decision (i.e. this kind of talking should not be considered to make the admin "involved" and therefore ineligible to close the discussion - it's better in controversial cases to have a neutral but "engaged" closer than a neutral and completely "uninvolved" one).--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that if any "edit war" is occurring, it is not by those who accept the changes proposed to remove the "second person" etc. As a result, I suggest that we go back to [1]

The following diffs show an ongoing problem with this policy: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and so on indicates an extraordinary problem here. Let's start with what a number of editors have asserted is an improvement, and not try the "revert every change" mode which has ruled here for far too long. It is past time for the editors here to follow WP:CONSENSUS as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by those who accept the changes proposed to remove the "second person" etc. Counter-proposal: break your edit into reviewable pieces. How about starting with the "second person" fix, but present a diff that can be reviewed (without changed paragraph breaks) so we can see exactly what the edit does? Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Um -- those who read the proposal noted that one can not rationally remove one use of the second person at a time without appearing quite loony <g>. Start there. And also note that the adamant opposition to any changes at all is quite in line with WP:CONSENSUS I suppose. It is wondrous how folks make points which they seem oblivious to. <+g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a silly approach. By "starting with the second person fix" I meant all of those, and only those, in way that leaves a reviewable diff please. Dicklyon (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Then go ahead and implement what I already did and had reverted on the really good grounds of 'It is too hard to figure out' or the like fella. Cheers. And be sure to read and follow WP:CONSENSUS. Collect (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Stability in the article on consensus is so much more important than the trivial matters about second person or whatever other undefined matter might be before us. We don't have to change anything at all, so let's have a clear enunciation of why a change should be made and we can see if it makes sense. I look forward to seeing that here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange -- I can not find any Wikipedia policy which says Revert any changes as stability is more important than improvement. Cheers - you have made my day <g>. Collect (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you are distorting what was said. That means you don't have a good counter. When you have a reason to obviate our responsibility to the many editors who don't want to waste their time maintaining a stable policy, then you can write it here. In the meantime, my reasoning stands. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep - the other key to getting consensus after asserting that "stability" is more important thatn clarity is going to ad homs and charges that the other editor is distorting your words. As I see it the "responsibility" here is to make the dang policy clear and readable - not to simply assert that "stability" means me must keep bad writing sacrosanct. And it is clear that I disagree with your exact and precise words : 'Stability in the article on consensus is so much more important than the trivial matters about second person or whatever other undefined matter might be before us. We don't have to change anything at all' is clearly fully in conformance with WP:CONSENSUS indeed. LOL~ Collect (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, per BRD, several editors have reverted your bold edit and discussed what you can do to make progress on what you're trying to do. Why won't you make such a step instead of just carrying on your flaming and re-insertion of same objectionable edit? Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The "objectionable edit" was read and approved by a number of editors. It substantially made use of normal English, and removed the use of the "second person" in the wording. It made zero (AFAICT) actual changes to policy! Meanwhile, tell me exactly which words are the problem so I can fix them. That is, after all, what this very policy says to do. Is this policy not app,licable to this policy? Collect (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You claim you made no changes and that is in dispute. You claim you made a copyedit only and that is in dispute. It is claimed that your changes do not serve the functional role played by this page. These are matters of substance that can't be ignored. There is something higher than lucid copy but that seems to be the only value to which you appeal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

HUH? I said I made changes -- how you can read that to assert that I said I made no changes is beyond me. I sought to make no substantive changes to the policy of CONSENSUS, I did seek to alter the wording using "second person" phrasing into something more akin to an actual policy statement. My edit summary made clear that it was not only a minor copy edit:

copy edit - change "legitimate" with its connotations to "proper" etc. , rm second person usage, "civility" blocks are currently under ArbCom discussion, and should not be here

- note that all of the changes are properly mentioned in the edit summary per WP:CONSENSUS. Is this quite sufficiently clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is 100% disruptive. There is nothing constructive here whatsoever. These platitudes are meaningless; they make no forward progress at all. Give specific comments/criticisms/suggestions that can be addressed or don't say anything at all. At any rate, comments like this should be ignored because they say nothing of substance. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Those who suggest others' concerns should be ignored are, I suppose, those who by rights should be ignored. Funny how that works. It is obvious that experienced editors function better with stable policies, and we know that when the consensus page is changed frequently, other editors don't appreciate it. Now, it's true, we can just tell everyone else to take a flying leap. That seems to be B2C's approach to those he doesn't agree with. Maybe it is really hard to understand that a good editor would bring substantive changes here for discussion first, but a good editor would do that, especially after taking criticism on it. It's just ordinary common sense. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I hereby declare I read the change and approve that it be incorporated wholesale, retaining the right for editors to continue making "tweaks" and other changes afterwards, of course. I further suggest that any vague objections that do not point to specific issues in the change be ignored, because there is nothing else that can be done with them. So, if you do object, please be specific about what it is that you find objectionable. And if you can't be bothered to read and evaluate the change, then please keep your uninformed and irrelevant opinions (regarding this change) to yourself. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support And reject the idea that any page's grammar and wording is "set in stone" for "stability". Per WP:CONSENSUS Collect (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Again Collect repeats the error of asserting his changes were only of grammar and wording. I thought initially that it might be too obvious to state that changing a text changes its meaning. But I guess that is not too obvious, so let me state it here: changes in wording are changes in meaning. That is the nature of language. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence to have to discuss it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the nature of language is that sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. It would help if, instead of complaining about the fact that changes are being made (which may be either a good or a bad thing, depending on the changes), you would point to some specific changes that you believe have a substantial and detrimental effect on the meaning, and explain why you think that.--Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have re-instated Collect's word change and second-person fixes in this diff, but without all the other changes and complications. The paragraphs line up, so you can see what sentences changed. Please review. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Like. Well done. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm wondering why Collect wouldn't just do that if he wanted these changes. I'm not convinced yet that it's a great edit. Still a lot of change of review. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering one editor repeatedly over a long period had reverted all changes, I did not want to keep butting my head into a brick wall, Dick. The policy is still far too verbose IMHO. Collect (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And I just reverted another second-person advice paragraph added today by Brews ohare. I think a policy page shouldn't be too loaded up with advice; and if we do add advice, the fact that we're in the middle of getting rid of second person should be noticed and respected. Anyone like the advice paragraph? Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

On one hand I like it, but in fact there's no limit to the number of equally good advice paragraphs we could add to this page. Perhaps we could split the page into two - a fairly compact policy on consensus as a way of making decisions on Wikipedia, and a guideline (which might be merged with various other guidelines and essays that cover the same ground) with advice on how to behave during the consensus-forming process. Or maybe that's not necessary - perhaps we could just reduce the verbiage on this page and give links to other pages that already contain the relevant advice. (For example, there's no need to talk in detail about being bold and BRD when we already have pages that do just that.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Surface changes are fine, but significant changes appear to have been introduced without prior discussion and consensus on the talk page. I suggest that we go back to whatever the relatively stable version was and proceed from there on the talk page. There's just a slight hint that one or two parties are changing the policy to suit themselves. I may be wrong. Tony (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to participate (and calling for a revert is participating) please read and evaluate the changes yourself before suggesting a revert on such dubious grounds. I've been doing that and have had no trouble whatsoever. Do you think something was missed? These really are mostly copyedit changes, and we should not have to start trying to reach consensus through discussion (which we are to resort to only "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone") unless the far for more preferable and productive reaching consensus through editing fails.

Reverting merely for lack of discussion or not establishing consensus first itself blatantly contradicts consensus as explained all over WP, including on this policy page at Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing,

If an edit is not an improvement, then it well should be reverted. Any such revert should have a clear edit summary stating why the particular edit is not considered to be an improvement to the article, or what policies or guidelines would require the edit be undone. Further discussion should then be undertaken on the article discussion page.

,

and at Wikipedia:RV#Explain_reverts:

It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. Try to disclose the link for the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the hours and half-day or so after reverting.

A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.

If you establish lack of consensus, and after you try to reach consensus through editing, and that fails, then bring it to the talk page. Doing so any sooner is just disruptive. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we "go back to whatever the relatively stable version was and proceed from there"? I have two reasons why this is a bad idea:

1. The one version that we know, for certain, no longer enjoys wholesale consensus is the "relatively stable version" that used to be on this page. If it enjoyed consensus, we wouldn't have so many people complaining about it here or trying to fix it on the policy page.
2. Reverting all of this work means tossing out all of the work done so far and starting over. If we've made some improvements, we should keep them. The wiki process is supposed to keep the good and toss only the bad. "I can't be bothered to figure out these changes, so we should just start over from scratch" is not how collaborative editing works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C appears to be exerting "ownership" over this page. I notice his most recent edit-summary contains "I object". It's an odd thing to say in an edit to policy on consensus. I agree with Noetica's recent revert. Tony (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying "I object"??? "I object" is how one establishes that there is no consensus for the change in question, in this case a change that Noetica introduced. Anyone can do that, as long as the substantive reason for the objection is also provided, which I did in both edit summaries and in the section above this one. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So you agree that Collect was in error when he said there was a "clear consensus" for his "copyedit"? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Did he actually claim it had consensus? After Ring Cinema, Dicklyon, SmokeyJoe, and Will Beback objected to is as too big and complicated to understand? That would be fun to see. He seems to be going to other way, saying that we have not established a lack of consensus, which is perhaps even more amusing in its twistedness. Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He said there was a clear consensus for his "copyedit". --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see now where he said "At this point, I count only you and Dick as being "many editors" here, whilst, I, Kotniski, Carol, B2C, SmokeyJoe, Brews, WAID, Jayjg, et al are now of no account?" How he counts Kotniski, Carol, Brews, Smokeyjoe, WAID, or Jayjg as supporting his edit is unclear to me; did I miss or misinterpret some support from some of them? Then he told me "two editors saying 'nay' do not negate a clear consensus, Dick." which I agree is typically true, though it's inapplicable here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I fear you missed [14] from SJ and the simple fact that the others either explicityly agreed with the consensus I stated, or edited without altering my edit. Cheers - but we have now moved well past the cavils and I thought it quite unfair to SJ to have you assert he opposes my edit. Collect (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The relatively stable version was the one on which I made this edit on Jan. 4; the edit was to apply a portion of Collect's big edit, basically the part described in his edit summary, but keeping the paragraphs lined up, so we could review that part before doing more. B2C gave me the thumb for it. Before anyone had a chance to react, Brews ohare, my other old nemesis, came out of left field to add another second-person advice paragraph. Since it was undiscussed and opposite to what we were working on (getting rid of second-person), I reverted it; he hasn't come back. But then Collect started off in a new direction. Still nobody has discussed this first part of his edits; it's OK by me if we want to accept it and move on from there. The next stable version (for 29 minutes) is the one that Collect changed 4 paragraphs of in this diff. We should go back to that if we're not sure we like what Collect did, and analyze his diff, and tune that up. I found two things I didn't like in the first two paragraphs (which is as far as I got), and said so in my edit summary; B2C agreed on the first one, and didn't understand the second, but put it all back anyway, saying my objection was not "substantive". So I reverted it again, and then Collect put it back. By then I had 3 reverts on Jan 4 (one of Brews, two of the Collect/B2C thing) so had to back off. Then Collect did 3 more in a row, including this one. I think it's safe to say that his edits do not have consensus, since they've been widely objected to and never motivated by any discussion. Now there are 20 more edits today, so it will be difficult indeed to see what had been changed, with what implications. I personally find this kind of rapid-fire modification of policy page scary and inappropriate (since Collect started this on Dec. 30, 48 policy page edits and about 135 talk edits). Anyone else? Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, and it is a policy page: although I believe it should be a style guide, the fact that it's currently policy is reason enough to talk things through here rather than boldly changing it in controversial ways. Tony (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Much of what's on the page is not really policy, it's just waffle, often departing from the topic. If anyone's interested, I'm vaguely working on a version of this page that could reasonably be described as policy - see User:Kotniski/CON (the first few sections, down to where it says PREVIOUS DRAFT). I'm not entirely happy with it yet, but I think it's the direction we should be going in - get the policy down to the essentials, and leave the advice on various loosely-connected matters to the appropriate guidelines.--Kotniski (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Since it's telling editors how they should behave, rather than what the final product should look like, it would be a behavioral guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of a major rewrite, Kotniski, even though I find your instincts sound on how the policy should be manifested. My reason is that so many editors rely on this page when they are trying to figure out how to proceed and it is important that we avoid undermining their good faith reliance on it. There is nothing here so egregiously misguided that it can't be addressed on the margin. True, some material seems out of bounds to me, but apparently at one time there were editors who decided it should go in. Perhaps they had a good reason for that. Although personally I think the scope of this page could for good reason be restricted to simply the issue of consensus and its discontents, we go beyond that, and maybe it is striking the right balance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never been happy with this bit. WP's canvassing policy most adequately deals with the matter of stacking, among other issues. This too many participants clause seems to go further, really cutting across the import of the canvassing policy, by asserting that discussions should be kept small (how small? how large? who knows?). Does it mean that the diversity of opinions should be restricted by having small, short discussions in out-of-the-way corners of the project and launching into grand changes on that basis? It certainly could be taken that way, as an implied licence for a small group of editors—or even a single editor—to "own" a page.

My view is that the too many cooks bit is gratuitous and in conflict with the canvassing policy, which concerns more properly the way in which editors are attracted into a debate, not their participation itself. This is a critical distinction. The clause should be removed, in my view, with a link to the canvassing policy quite sufficient. Tony (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree -- hence the removal of "10" as a "magic number". The current ArbCom case on Civility, however, seems to set rather an upper bound, with around a hundred different editors furnishing comments <g> Note also the recent published study showing that very few articles ever get more than 30 total editors at all (I think it was mentioned in the Signpost as well). Collect (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, too. Why not just remove this section? Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; it can hardly be said to be part of our policy concerning consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Kotniski, a valiant attempt to improve it, but as you said in your edit summary, probably needs to go. Tony (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's valuable advice. I've personally left discussions because it eventually occurred to me that my contribution to the volume (no matter how brilliant you all believe my every word is ;-) was impeding resolution. I'd leave the general concept (without any magic numbers, since the ideal size for a team depends on the team's goals) in this page, at least until a better method of educating editors about this reality-based phenomenon appears. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think editors would be better educated (in general) if we did a lot of wholesale tidying-up of a whole lot of policies and guidelines and other pages we kind of encourage people to read about the ways of Wikipedia. The way it is at the moment, the meaning of much of it is unclear, its division between pages (and the way those pages are labelled) is pretty random, and so the chances of anyone who might benefit from this piece of advice actually stumbling on it here (before they simply work it out for themselves, as you report that you did) are minuscule. The problem we always seem to encounter, though, is resistance from people who think of these pages like lawyers think about laws - not as information being presented to an audience, but commandments that might be "used" or "misused". We ought at least to aim to split off the actual genuine policy (of which there really isn't very much) from the vaguer norms and the good advice.--Kotniski (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of tidying up. But it can't be "wholesale", as many people have an interest in watching to make sure that the policy doesn't get written in a way that will become a problem down the road. It would be better to do incremental cleanups (including removals of whole paragraphs of advice when editors are OK with that). Dicklyon (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The policy page should be shorter. People complain that editors just don't take any notice when they're bloated, as this one certainly is. Tony (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and even people at Board level have identified the complexity and incomprehensibility of "policy" as one of the things that put people off contributing to Wikipedia. To Dick: when I say "wholesale", I do mean incremental (not that we just wake up one day and find everything's changed), but without timidity as to the eventual number (and sometimes size) of the increments. We ought to at least have some kind of intelligent plan, or some overall scheme to aim at - suppose we really wanted to convey information to people about how Wikipedia functions, how would we organize that information in such a way as to ensure people can find what they need without wasting time, and how can we write it in such a way that people who don't know it already can readily understand it and aren't put off by it?--Kotniski (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a very admirable goal. I don't think the consensus page has much of a role to play in putting people off contributing. Most new editors just edit, and until there is a need, they ignore policy. And that's a very fine feature of the site. I would prefer that we inflate our importance in a different way. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) Consensus is central, as consensus is even required on what is even considered to be a reliable source in the first place. There is too much of a focus on consensus relating to content (representation of sources) and not enough focus on sources in the first place (misappropriating "consensus" to censor or to inappropriately include sources, any one editor disagreeing "voiding" consensus as a means to own content or "allowed" sources, etc.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That is:

1. even prior to "Achieving consensus" we should consider an "Applying consensus" section
2. the diagram need to be explicit, separately, on sources (input) and content (output)

There is more about the 101 ways of dispute resolution (FAR FAR TO MANY)—for example, in my experience I find the "Village pump" to be little more than flypaper for editors fluttering about for a soapbox to opine from—than there is about how consensus really works. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good one! [15]. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed all your other edits and am either supportive or neutral on all of them but one, this one, replacing:

Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful.

with:

Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy.

I've reverted that accordingly, with edit summary: "no, it's not helpful to revert simply as 'not discussed' even on policy pages. Have a substantive objection or don't revert". Many people seem to think it's perfectly okay to revert other people's work without even reading and evaluating what they did, but that's the epitome of non-productive and disruptive activity. It's one thing if it's obviously vandalism, of course. But if you look at a change and don't see anything objectionable, a revert is just rude, at best.

I strongly object to the introduction of this text to the policy, which is itself a change in policy without consensus support. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Dreamguy (talk · contribs) reverted my restoration of the original wording [16] with edit summary: "My substantive response is that you do not have consensus to make a change to page defining consensus - which is kind of the point of the text)".
• That makes no sense, as Noetica is the one who introduced the change (to which I, at least, object), so I reverted again[17] with edit summary: "I object to this addition to the policy, which is clearly contrary to policy. If the change changes policy, then id it as you rvt. See talk.)".
• This was then reverted again by Noetica[18] with edit summary: "Undid (good faith?) revision by Born2cycle; please note: that qualification is simply taken from the linked essay; it is quite an important clarification, and it has a proper place here; not undiscussed!)"
• Not undiscussed? Where has it been discussed? And if it has, there certainly has been no consensus for it, as it contradicts what the section itself is about. Why should there be an exception for policy pages on this point? Reverts like that on any page are simply disruptive. If you want to discuss the change, then you should have something to discuss, namely, a substantive objection to the change. So bring that up, and you can revert. But to revert without even having a substantive objection in mind? Again, that's just disruptive. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C, it's just a qualification that is thought necessary in the very source that has just been linked (Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"). It has stood unopposed since 11 November 2009. See this edit. All I did was correct the citation of that source, so that a crucial exception is not stripped away.

It is not to be censured as "undiscussed"; it has been there all this time!

Noetica^Tea? 00:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Noetica, surely you understand that this is policy and that that is an essay, and when there is a distinction what the policy says trumps what the essay says. Sounds like we need to have a discussion to determine which is supported by consensus, but, in the mean time, the original wording of the policy page, on this disputed point, should be retained. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy trumps guidelines and essays, sure. Like rock trumping scissors. But there is no question of trumping here. The appeal to that pretty stable essay was made by Collect with this recent unilateral and hotly contested edit. Note the frankly deceptive edit summary: "(copy edit - change "legitimate" with its connotations to "proper" etc. , rm second person usage, "civility" blocks are currently under ArbCom discussion, and should not be here,)". Why should we take that as discussed, or consensual, or now to be defended? It even contravenes one of the less controversial pushes that it makes, calling for informative edit summaries! (Well, I have always supported that; in hard discussion over at WT:MOS.)

I say that unruly, portmanteau, tangle of an edit should be undone, except where there are merely innocuous changes of wording. In particular, it is ridiculous to appeal to its innovations to protect it from reversion!

But this theme is addressed in concerns expressed independently by Tony, below. Perhaps we should move to a single treatment of this nest of issues there.

Noetica^Tea? 01:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that we've agreed that policies, which have been adopted by the whole community, are more likely to reflect the community's desires than an essay, which was not. Given that, let me tell you what the actual, official, community-approved policy on making changes to policies says about this issue:

Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance.... Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it, and open a discussion to identify the community's current views, if one hasn't already been started.

So the actual policy is that reverting a change to a policy on the grounds that the change was "undiscussed" is a bad idea. This page should not be recommending restrictions that the most applicable policy has directly and explicitly rejected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well What, that is interesting for a number of reasons. Some points in response:

1. Your citation of policy skips over about 300 words, and with a single ellipsis ("...") leaps from one named subsection to another. The way you have done this, the word "consequently" appears to link what comes before and after it. But it does not. Excerpts from the intervening text that you have omitted:

   However, because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they are faithfully reflecting the community's view and to be sure that they are not accidentally introducing new sources of error or confusion.

   Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time.

   Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate.

2. As it happens, you are the author of half the text following that ellipsis: with this edit (entire edit summary: "Start a discussion"), without indication of which section or provision is affected. There was no discussion of the change.
3. As it happens, you are the author of the whole text preceding that ellipsis: with this edit of 9 September 2011 (entire edit summary: "Merging redundant sections"), without indication of which sections or provisions are substantively affected. There was no discussion of the change.
4. In citing your own undiscussed insertions into policy ("which have been adopted by the whole community, [and are] more likely to reflect the community's desires than an essay"), you appear to contrast it with the present page. But as things stand, this page is as much policy as the page you refer us to. This page addresses the matter of consensus – central to the working of the Project.
5. You write: "So the actual policy is that reverting a change to a policy on the grounds that the change was 'undiscussed' is a bad idea." But it is not a question of a change merely being "undiscussed"; it is a question of changes for which there is no evidence of consensus, in a policy or guideline of Wikipedia. Such changes can be challenged; they have been challenged; they will be challenged. Then it can all be sorted out in discussion, as the policy that you cite requires, and "publicized to the community in general" to make sure that the community accepts it. It is certainly improper to insist that such undiscussed changes stand until proven non-consensual.

In sum, we need to take far more care to consult, to present our mooted changes on talkpages fairly, to give informative edit summaries (certainly not misleading ones), and to avoid the kind of incestuous tail-chasing that has a small band of enthusiasts writing what purports to be consensual policy, and then resisting reversion on spurious legalistic grounds – sometimes reinforced with threats, as we have seen recently. But as I say, this is a broader discussion; it needs community scrutiny in a section of its own. Below, or elsewhere.

Noetica^Tea? 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, it would be more informative to say that I have been the most active editor at that policy during the last couple of years, the primary author of the last half of the entire policy page (the life cycle section began in one of my sandboxes and was eventually pasted to Wikipedia:Policy/Procedure before joining the policy, but it is not the only section I have drafted), and a major contributor to a good deal of the first half, not just most of these specific sentences. Anybody who can find the history page can discover this, and anybody who can read the talk page's archives will discover that these sections were discussed (repeatedly, in the case of the life cycle section) and the results clearly approved. So if anything, your statements above amount to "If any editor in the entire English Wikipedia knows what this section is actually supposed to communicate, it's WhatamIdoing."

"Undiscussed" and "no evidence of consensus" are synonymous. You get to revert the changes if (and only if) you want to challenge them, and you must challenge the changes on some basis other than the lack of prior written agreement to make the change.

This shouldn't be hard: either it's a change you personally believe improves the page (in which case, it would be unbelievably silly for you to remove it), or it's not a change that you personally support, in which cause you are (in my experience) a thoughtful and rational enough person to explain exactly how or why you think the new version is worse than the old version, without resorting to bureaucratic whingeing about "he didn't jump through the hoop marked 'discussion' before editing the page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As a point that may help you understand the section: When I write a policy, the grammar is intentional. These examples should illustrate the differences:

• "Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy" is a declarative sentence that communicates nothing more than plain fact. It is not a recommendation for anyone to follow the typical pattern.
• "Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page" is a statement of permission: you are allowed to do this.
• "You should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it" is a direction on how you are (or are not) to behave under the relevant circumstances.

Unlike some less careful writers, if I'd actually meant "You must discuss substantive changes before making them", then I would have actually said that, in direct and unambiguous words that left no doubt in your mind about the necessity of prior discussion. The fact that it doesn't say this is because prior discussion is not actually required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply, What. I would certainly prefer that the discussion proceed elsewhere; but if you insist, I will continue it here with you for now. On some points of yours:

[I]t would be more informative to say that I have been the most active editor at that policy during the last couple of years, the primary author of the last half of the entire policy page [...] and a major contributor to a good deal of the first half, not just most of these specific sentences.

If that is so, well done! I am more focused, though, on the particular parts that you cite above.

[...] your statements above amount to [...]

But no. You go on to say what you think, not what my statements amount to. This does not mean that I disagree: just that we are making different statements.

"Undiscussed" and "no evidence of consensus" are synonymous.

I disagree. But I prefer, once again, not to pursue that here. It is an issue connected with the provenance and fate of several recent edits at this policy page. See sections below, instead. If I have time, I might well have something to say there. I hope you will too.

You get to revert the changes if (and only if) you want to challenge them, and you must challenge the changes on some basis other than the lack of prior written agreement to make the change.

So you keep insisting. I find the wording "prior written agreement" strange and strained; but beyond that, though I have looked I do not find where consensus was developed for that idea, either here (where the surreptitious edit was and is hotly contested), nor for this text that you inserted in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines just three months ago: "It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance. However, because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they are faithfully reflecting the community's view and to be sure that they are not accidentally introducing new sources of error or confusion." Please point to the discussion of what I have underlined, whether preceding the edit or accepting it afterwards. I point out again that in your edit summary ("Merging redundant sections") you did not signal to the community a small but substantive change. I must have missed the discussion, and how the change was recorded for easy retrieval in the history of the page. Please show me where all that is. Not that I strongly disagree! But I don't like to see any such policy text used (as it has been) to justify Collect's jumble of an edit covertly introducing controversial provisions on this policy page. To me that seems altogether perverse; and others agree.

Unlike some less careful writers, [...]

I am a careful writer too, and I certainly appreciate your conscientious attention to detail. What I am concerned about is the apparent lack of good signalling, so that the change could be verified as consensual.

For examples of my rather different approach, see these discussions:

Quotation marks guideline: adding a special case
[A completed case in which we discussed fully before even a minor change.]

"Proper nouns", "proper names", and other concerns: amending the lead
[A current case of considerable interest; please join in! I signalled very clearly what the intention was, and explicitly called for reversion if the change was suspected to be against consensus.]

Noetica^Tea? 05:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't need "the change [to] be verified as consensual" before the change is made. This is not a bureaucracy. If you dislike a given edit, then you should challenge the substance of that edit. But you should not be wasting your time and energy challenging the process that Collect chose to use. The process Collect chose to use is explicitly permitted. You will find that process described in approving terms at Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing as well as at POLICY.

I understand that you don't like the process Collect chose, and I understand that you are more accustomed to the anti-bold LOCALCONSENSUS at the main MOS page, but that is pretty much irrelevant. If you've got a problem with the substance of a change to this page, then please let us know, in as much detail as possible, what's wrong with it. I firmly believe that writing policy is much harder than the average editor realizes, and consequently that bold changes have a much higher risk for significant, unintentional problems than previously discussed ones. However, if your only problem is "Collect didn't say Mother, may I? before editing", then I have no sympathy for you: skipping the Mother, May I? step is permitted, even on policy pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not so much a matter of the change being verified as consensual before it is made, as your selective quote of my text suggests. What I wrote is this (underlining now added):

"I am a careful writer too, and I certainly appreciate your conscientious attention to detail. What I am concerned about is the apparent lack of good signalling, so that the change could be verified as consensual."

It is a question of what turns up on people's watchlists, and in the history of the page when it is reviewed for changes of interest. It is irresponsible to leave an edit summary suggesting a mere "copyedit", where substance is actually changed. The controversial edit by Collect, which a few editors have objected to, was controversial not just in its content. It was also more sweeping than the edit summary suggested. That was inadequate as an indicator of the content, as some have noted. This is the feature I object to most. All too often changes are smuggled through without clear signalling, by design or by negligence. Now look at these excerpts from Wikipedia:Editing policy (with which you have been concerned):

• When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely and encourage discussion rather than edit warring.
• One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions.
• In general, more caution should be exercised in editing policies and guidelines than in editing articles. Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first.

There is more; but I highlight a few policy provisions that are relevant to the present disagreement. Central to all of this is what I mention above: proper signalling. If you insist that this is not a proper concern for an editor to have, and that a lapse by itself is no warrant for reverting, I insist, and cite policy in support, that the original lack of warrant is more egregious and more likely to damage policy and guidelines. We could argue back and forth about that; but let's not. Let's just give adequate edit summaries, and mark changes on the talkpage (before, or at least after) when they might be thought substantive – as policy requires. Then none of the concerns Born2cycle raises above can arise. Nor can your own concerns.

♥ Noetica^Tea? 23:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think that edit summary was excellent signalling. It signals "I did not intend to make any substantive changes here, so if you see substantive changes, it was probably a mistake". If you've got objections to the substance of the changes, you should still be complaining about the actual substantive problems, but the signal seems perfectly fine to me.

Even tiny changes to some policy statements can have unexpectedly large effects, and most editors frankly do not have the skills or experience to get complex details right on the first try. If I were concerned about the precise language in this policy (and because of its subject matter, I'm generally not, although I am very much concerned about the details in other advice pages), then I'd be checking every change, no matter what the edit summary said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am removing this major change. It is tendentious editing; it tended to reinforce Noetica's position in a current dispute, even now before ArbCom. No; "no consenus" remains a weak reason on policy pages; what is stronger there is "I disagree, because..." JCScaliger (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that, ironically, this edit defeats itself. Its inclusion on this policy page does not have the wide consensus it demands. If it were sound policy, its addition would be forbidden. JCScaliger (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, JCScaliger. It might be seen as tendentious and disingenuous to make that edit while simultaneously you raise the issue in a partisan manner in current ArbCom deliberations (see your edit there), without also noting at that ArbCom page that you have provocatively edited like this here.

I have added this inline message on the page, next to a discussion template: <!-- As noted on the talkpage, this section has been raised in current action at ArbCom. It should not be subject to substantive edits until discussion there is concluded. -->

I will shortly be raising the matter at WP:ANI, with a request to have this policy page protected.

Noetica^Tea? 04:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Then they'll be protecting the wrong version.

Noetica, even if there really is no consensus for a change, whether on a policy page or not, merely reverting it with the two words "no consensus" is not helpful. The correct course of action is to revert anti-consensus changes with a useful explanation, not to revert the changes with a vague or uninformative explanation. We need the person making the change to understand how and why the change is a problem, not merely that someone didn't like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

W, no one has edited with those two words. Please do not insinuate that anyone has. I will not discuss the matter here any more. I will discuss it at WP:ANI, if you would like to take it there. Please consider also raising the matter in the relevant ArbCom case, or by application to an ArbCom clerk or one of the three drafting arbitrators for the case. There is no question of "right" or "wrong" versions right now (as you should know, about page protections); there is a question of stability in policy, and due process while matters are being dealt with at ArbCom.

I will answer no more comments on this procedural matter at this talkpage.

Noetica^Tea? 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You've misunderstood my substantive remarks: You want this policy to assert that "possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy", it's actually helpful to revert changes with a non-explanation like "not discussed" or "no consensus". That's what the sentence you put into this policy actually says: It's unhelpful to use a lousy, uninformative edit summary like "no consensus"—unless it's on a policy page, and then the person you're reverting with that worthless edit summary will magically be helped if you use that edit summary.

It is my firm belief that editors do not become mind readers even if they are editing "pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy", and that "no consensus" is therefore still an uninformative and unhelpful edit summary on policy pages, just like it's uninformative and unhelpful on any other page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And just in case it wasn't clear: the sentence uses the word h-e-l-p-f-u-l, not the word p-e-r-m-i-t-t-e-d. If you've got a newbie who changes a policy to say that sexual images are never permitted because children read Wikipedia, the "no consensus" is not an explanation that will help the newbie understand anything. An explanation like "Wikipedia is not censored or written just for children" is far more helpful in explaining the problem with the edit. This statement is about what's helpful. "No consensus" is not normally a helpful edit summary, even on policy pages. You are permitted to use unhelpful edit summaries, but we are not going to pretend that unhelpful edit summaries are magically become helpful when deployed on policy pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well put. JCScaliger (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As at 2 December 2009, the project page stood at 13,895 bytes. As at 2 February 2012, the project page stands at 23,565 bytes. The combined diff of the change to project page since 2 December 2009 shows that, despite the addition of almost 10,000 bytes, the substantial thrust of the policy page has remained almost rock-solid. This is a tribute to the good faith efforts of many editors, and a vindication of the method of consensus to maintain, with slow improvements only, such policy pages.

The current page seems to suffer to some degree with word-bloat; on the other hand, the setting out of the topics covered is more comprehensive.

There is no need at all for the recent minor edit-warring; clearly our policy pages are more robust than that. The short protection to the page should allow editors to step back and take a longer perspective. NewbyG ( talk) 00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note the peak was over 26K, and my emendations reduced the size, albeit not as greatly as would likely be beneficial. Most of the added verbiage was due to including material from other pages, however. Collect (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We're once again back to Noetica claiming that "no consensus" is a helpful edit summary, which is just nonsense.

We're also straying a bit towards anti-BOLD language, which has two problems:

• The recent edits are all in the context of policy edits that have been perceived as gaming the system, whereas 99% of our consensus-through-editing work happens on article pages, and
• BOLD editing of policy pages is explicitly permitted, and "no consensus" reversions directly discouraged, by WP:POLICY. It would be unfortunate if people trying to game the ARBCOM case screwed up this page so much that it ended up contradict the main page on how to change policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

An edit summary of no consensus rather begs the question, without any guidance to the editor who gets reverted. It does not help to say "he misses the point" unless you explain how he misses the point. A summary of “see talk page" is marginally better, but is inaccurate if there is no current section on the talk page discussing the particular section, or paragraph, or sentence. If the discussion is in the archives, or FAQ, say so. NewbyG ( talk) 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar has just edited the Beyond consensus section of this policy, thus drawing our attention to it:

Before:

• Some declarations from Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, must be respected by editors. See also Wikimedia Foundation Policies.

After:

• Some declarations from Jimbo Wales, and all declarations from the Wikimedia Foundation Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, must be respected by editors. See also Wikimedia Foundation Policies. [my underlining]

Now, I'm sorry to rattle the crockery, but this wording—both before and after the recent change—needs major examination; some of it is simply untenable. Naturally, we are all bound by Foundation policies, but the text here seem to go way beyond this without reason or basis in logic, practicality, law, or convention. Such an important part of en.WP policy should be worded carefully. Let's look at a few of the holes:

1. Jimmy has no special rights on en.WP beyond his role as a point of appeal WRT ArbCom decisions (see WP:AC); that much the community affirmed in the referendum last year revamping the ArbCom policy. His "ceremonial" appointment of new arbitrators is not based on the ArbCom policy, which is now expressed in the passive ("will be appointed"), and continues only at the pleasure of community consensus. Despite talk of Jimmy's putative reserve powers, they are neither properly defined nor rooted in any credible source. They can be sourced only in consensus by the en.WP community, or by fiat of the WMF board, only insofar as the board might act within WMF policies. Last time I looked, I saw neither such consensus nor such fiat, but that Jimmy is simply a member of the WMF board.
2. The text here, worryingly, says "some declarations from Jimbo Wales". Clearly the meaning is not all declarations—just some. Some is a meaningless subset unless this class of declarations that can override community consensus is defined.
3. Until Blueboar's edit a a few hours ago, the some applied not only to declarations by Wales, but to the WMF board and WMF-employed developers. Now, all declarations of the board and the developers can override consensus, but only some declarations by Jimmy. Neither some nor all for any of these three entities works logically, practically, or in terms of the legalities.
4. Since Blueboar's edit, "all" is pitted against a subset, particularly: this is not logical. All is all, not some things in particular. Until the recent edit, particularly was pitted against some, although whether some referred to the same subset of declarations as those listed under particularly was unclear.
5. Whereas the text says "See also Wikimedia Foundation Policies", it doesn't explicitly relate these policies to the power of the board or the developers to override community consensus. This needs to be explicit. No one would agree that the board or the developers can instruct us to perform illegal acts, indulge in plagiarism, breach privacy, licencing, CoI, or non-discrimination policy, for example. It's probably most unlikely that the board would do this, but I can imagine cases where a developer might slip up; in any case, the ability of board and developers to override en.WP consensus needs to be explicitly constrained to Foundation policy, rather than having the link to the policy sit there unconnected as a "see also". Otherwise, why is the policy mentioned at all?
6. I'm struggling to know why the developers (and it should be piped explicitly to WMF-employed developers) are given the same ambit as the board; the same classes of particular declarations are ascribed to both board and developers ("copyright, legal issues, or server load"), and it's odd to think of developers having legal or even copyright expertise—that belongs to the board and its legal delegates, not to developers. Do we believe a developer's dictum that something is not legal, or breaches or does not breach copyright? And taking this policy at face value, a WMF developer can override consensus on our civility policy. Why? Is it not possible to constrain the developers' power to override community consensus to technical matters ("server load", sure)?
7. Just a language quibble: declarations by, not declarations from.

It's time to get this policy right; whether before or after Blueboar's edit, it's a joke that does have slight potential to blow up in our faces one day.

Tony (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the problem? Are you saying that editors should not respect what the Developers say about server load? Or are you saying the paragraph should be three times longer to make it clear that only certain statements from the developers are respected? It is unlikely that much benefit would arise from a bureaucratic specification of exactly which statements must be respected. While it irritates some to see a suggestion that Jimbo is somehow different (What have the Romans has Jimbo ever done for us?), the fact is that we have no idea of whether he would or could make a statement that "must be respected by editors". Nevertheless, it's pretty reasonable to assume that he might summon sufficient resources to impose a view. It is clear that the WMF could impose their views although they seem to focus on fluff. A policy might say that Jimbo/WMF/Developers are not respected (or whatever), but those would be hollow words with no effect. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have endeavoured to make the section both more succinct and more accurate. Collect (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, much improved, but it needed to cross-refer to both the Foundation board's and ArbCom's own scope and constraints. I've endeavoured to write these in succinctly, using piped links. Tony (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find Jimbo et al. stay away from the most contentious problems as long as there is no imminent legal threat to the WMF. Legal requirements must be observed—is there really any need to muddle "consensus" with "respect" for anything? If something causes a server load (or other technology infrastructure) issue, that should simply be dealt with on its own.

   IMHO, Jimbo's "consensus = people working together" refers to collaboration, not consensus. There is a difference. Editor "A" and editor "B" are under no obligation or need to form a consensus in order to work together. We need less touchy-feely and more nitty-gritty in addressing guidelines and policy. The more ultimately vapid (goodness, respect, et al.) statements we add to either, the more Wikipedia becomes a caricature of itself divorced from its own realities. (Apoloiges, WSOB, wrong side of bed, syndrome this morning). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to make the section less wishy-washy. IMHO, respect is irrelevant. Policy is the way things work, it is not a etiquette manual. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Etiquette matters, because practices are at least as important as rules; every way of doing things can't be written down. There is a form to the work of editors but it is one they provide according to their own designs, so the bedrock here is not a policy or rule but the behavior of the crowd. In that light, community consensus seems to me overvalued, since, with respect to the editors on this page, we are a self-selected group just as much as any other page editors. If we collectively overstep our ambit or, more likely, present advice that can be interpreted badly or well, only local consensus corrects us. Wikipedia's strength is in just this collective self-correction. Policy is genuinely of limited utility and that is a good thing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not implying etiquette does not matter, only that it is not within the ambit, as you say, of policy. I do completely agree that manners matter. Too often I have seen "just let them be, they are just blowing off steam...", "leave well enough alone" (for the rightly offended party to go calm themselves) be the words of wisdom to live by from admins and ArbCom. Individuals attacking others off-Wiki are allowed to prostrate themselves before ArbCom and ask for forgiveness. Policy should be crisp, clear, and succinct. Proper etiquette should be enforced vigorously. The current instantiation of "tolerate free speech" = "tolerate insults" is a cancer to be summarily excised, IMHO. (Not to mention we have far too many sophomoric essays which have taken on cult status, such as Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. We are either a (truly) fraternal organization or a frat house. We can't be both. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. That said, I shall have to write an essay on the belligerent usage of policy to control content, which I have decided to name "acronymonious" behavior. (!) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am unaware of the cultic eminations, I guess. I think what I'm trying to say is that the policy that says that it has to be followed doesn't know its own limits. A policy here is advice on the right form, and etiquette is the same. For what it's worth... --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well... I think that Blueboar's change was fine, and I think that the current version has some problems. But I also think that it would make more sense to take this up after the next Board meeting, because the rules are changing. Those who haven't been following the development of the revised Terms of Use should look at meta:Terms of use#11._Resolutions_and_Project_Policies, which addresses this issue.

Basically, if the Board declares that the English Wikipedia (or "editors", or "the community", or "projects", or anything else that sounds like you) is going to do something, then we-the-editors have a choice between complying or quitting.

NB that the only reason that "all" Board policies aren't mandatory is because some of the resolutions are explicitly phrased as suggestions, and some of them are completely irrelevant (like the policy on employee travel expenses). But when (to name a current example that has a couple of editors in a panic over community autonomy) they declare that editors should take the principle of least astonishment into account, we don't have a choice: compliance is mandatory.

The only change I would have made to Blueboar's version is to add the word relevant, as in "all relevant declarations from the Board". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Is "relevant" relevant? There is no purpose to specifically calling out that WMF policy which applies to WP is relevant to WP. It is by its very existence and definition. Where this policy (or any other) is concerned, wordsmithing => less is more. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, and yes, if there's policy at some point which we find to be a personal anathema, we can leave WP. There is no conflict, no conundrum, no Gordian knot here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.

When you wonder whether the rules given are being violated, consider:

• Changing the content of an article (normal editing)
• Changing the page into a redirect, preserving the page history
• Nominating the page for deletion if it meets grounds for such action under the Deletion policy page. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted you have to regularly follow discussions there.
• Changing the rules on the this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via the Talk page. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is not official policy, but can be referred to as a record of what has and has not been considered encyclopedic in the past.

For one thing, editors of some experience need to be reminded of how to behave courteously on a talk page. We are here to write articles, of course. NewbyG ( talk) 22:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is really poorly stated. What happens is that as more editors participate, as more reliable sources are added, as those sources are more accurately represented, as content includes dissenting views in the same proportions as found in (real) scholarship, "consensus" will achieve stability. If there is an earth-shattering event which turns everything we know about a particular topic upside down, "consensus" will include that and achieve a new point of stability. "Consensus can change" is merely an invitation to attempt to destabilize consensus. For our purposes here, of policy, "consensus" is a PROCESS not a result. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely know what you mean. What "consensus can change" is normally taken to mean, in my experience, is that just because a consensus decision has been made in the past, it doesn't mean that we won't reach a different consensus decision now. The reason might be something that happened in the outside world, but more likely it's just that the editors who are considering the matter now have different views/priorities/approaches/experiences/intelligence than those who considered it then.--Kotniski (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My point (I hope) is that the statement that "consensus can change" implies it can always take a right or left turn or go completely in reverse. That can happen, perhaps, when arguing over politics, but not when creating well-researched, well-written, objective encyclopedic articles—unless there has been some sea-change in scholarship on whatever the topic is. We should focus on the process by which consensus zeros in on a result; any "change" is en route to an end point, it's not that the end point itself has changed or the article radically altered. That's why I think the current policy is somewhat deficient in its realistic characterization (e.g, diagram) of consensus. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you're looking at this from a different altitude, as it were.

When we say that "consensus can change", we're not saying that the overall information presented in an article like WWII is likely to change significantly. That would indeed require a sea change in the scholarship.

Instead, we're looking at much smaller bits and pieces: we may have decided in 2009 that this one book shouldn't be cited in the article, and in 2012, we may decide that it's acceptable. We may have decided once that the best title for an article was ____, and now we decide that it's some other title. We may have decided once that a single article about Condoms was best, but now we decide to split it into Condom and History of condoms. We may have once decided that minority POVs should be limited to a small section in an article, but now we decide to expand our description of those views. We may have once decided to keep an article at AFD, but now we decide to merge it away.

Sometimes these changes are made because different people are involved. Sometimes they are made because we are aware of new sources.

And sometimes they are made simply because our overall approach has been refined. For example, an external link that qualified for inclusion under the 2005 version of that guideline might well fail under the 2012 version of that guideline. Several years ago, we said that it was acceptable to place ref tags before punctuation, and now (last I checked) we recommend that ref tags always be placed after terminal punctuation. Half a dozen years ago, a page was declared a guideline merely by a single editor slapping a template on it. Now, we have a recommended, multi-step process that we normally expect people to follow. When Wikipedia got started, creating a BLP without any sources at all was acceptable; now we regularly delete them. Back in the day, official guidance recommended against including any citations at all in list articles; now we generally encourage them. All of those are examples of the community's consensus changing on some point, and none of those changes have any relationship to the scholarship on the topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a more concrete example. For several years there were rumors that Micheal Jackson had a involvement with the Music for Sonic the Hedgehog 3. Originally, the consensus was not to include anything about it since the only coverage came from unreliable sources. Eventually, more reliable sources surfaced a new consensus was formed to include the Micheal Jackson info. This change did not mean that there was a major change in scholarship but simply a case of better sourcing being found after the initial consensus against inclusion.--70.24.206.51 (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well in that case I suppose the reliable sources are the metaphorical equivalent of "scholarship". But another thing could have happened: in the past editors had reached a consensus that certain sources were unreliable, while in the present editors reached a new consensus that exactly the same sources were in fact reliable after all (or vice versa). This is more what I understand the "consensus can change" principle to be referring to - it's not wrong to reconsider an issue on which consensus has been reached in the past.--Kotniski (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Another way that consensus can change: Say an article had three contributors working on it a year ago, and all three agreed that some bit of information was really too trivial to mention in the article. No problem, that was the consensus at that time. Let's say these editors move on to other things, and six months later the article had other editors working on it. This different set of editors decides that the bit of information isn't too trivial and should be mentioned. No problem... consensus can change, and a new consensus was formed. Now, lets say that today yet another group of editors are working on the article, and they decide that the bit of information is in fact too trivial... Again, no problem... we have a new consensus. So... out it goes... unless at some point in the future the consensus changes yet again. Blueboar (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the WP:CCC "concensus can change" bit that was later merged here is the main reason that this page is tagged {{policy}}. Not that by "concensus", we can only realitically mean "apparent consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• What we need to note is that while "consensus can change" it is not prudent to seek to alter a consensus less than a week after one has been arrived at. Yet I have seen that done a number of times - including one day after an AfD was closed as "keep" one of the "losing side" posted that the article should be deleted anyways on the article talk page <g>. And has repeatedly started such sections since. All that does is create a "battleground" which is directly contrary to the principles laid out here. Perhaps we should, instead of mucking about with the CCC language, simply append
  • Continuously fighting for a specific position which was not adopted in the current consensus, and where there is no apparent likelihood of any change being made, is wrong. Collect (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Well it does already say On the other hand, if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again. Though I've no objection to changing or adding to the wording.--Kotniski (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think that any amount of additional verbiage will solve any problems here. No matter what we write on this page, people who don't know WP:How to lose will still not know how to lose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

      Very good points - although, it might be helpful to add something that will remind editors of the flip side to "Consensus can change"... which is "Consensus usually remains the same". Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@Blueboar, precisely. I would completely change the sense of the section about "Consensus can change", e.g.,

Consensus should coalesce

Consensus is a process whereby an objective viewpoint is ultimately articulated once sufficient input and discussion have been provided as basis. It is generally counterproductive to repeat prior arguments again in the absence of significant changes in circumstances; to needlessly repeat recent discussions ("shouting louder") tends to be seen as disruptive. Invoking "consensus" to bolster one's personal position or to censor content, contending "according to consensus" or "violates consensus", is not a substitute for discussing the merits of new input to the consensus process.

PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure it's necessary to state the obvious, that any sea-change in circumstances can change consensus. The current section title might as well be titled "Consensus can change, or, you're invited to attempt to change consensus any time you don't like it." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't care for the title and suspect that efforts to remove "CCC" will be opposed by the community. The first sentence is inapplicable to anything except articles. The rest of it seems okay to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Consensus can change section was stand-alone policy from 2 September 2005. Any attempt to remove it supports its continuation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha... I like that! Nice paradox. Blueboar (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is another good link explaining that consensus should coalesce. NewbyG ( talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)