Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 24

Revised proposal

This proposal has been more or less accepted and this is the latest draft.

Current text: "Consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."

Consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions. Editors who ignore talk page discussions and reinsert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing. Returning content to the last consensus until discussion is concluded is a more orderly way to proceed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - MrX 02:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose... I don't see acceptance of the proposal... I still see a lot of debate about it. For my part, I have repeatedly stated why I oppose the first sentence... Consensus can NOT be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions. Again, there are three possible reasons for editors to stop responding: 1) a consensus has formed in favor of the edit/proposal... 2) a consensus has formed against the edit/proposal... and 3) No consensus has formed but people are tired of arguing about it. We can not assume anything when editors stop responding. While there is such a thing as a silent consensus, once a talk page discussion has started - you no longer have silence on the issue. Silent consensus no longer applies. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC) I have realized that I was objecting to something that was not part of the proposal. So... I have shifted that part of my objection to a new proposal (see below). I still object... but because the proposed addition is better (and more completely) covered in the WP:Consensus#No consensus section. I think it causes confusion here. This section should be about how to achieve consensus through discussion... not what to do when there isn't a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
There is actually quite a lot of acceptance. Tutelary said he accepted it as long as the first sentence stayed in. SmokeyJoe accepted it with reservations about the first sentence. BettyLogan accepted the same. Scott P was on board similarly. Now MrX has accepted this draft. I, too, would prefer leaving out the first sentence, but Tutelary's objection remains. My feeling is that there may or may not be a consensus to remove the first sentence, but there is unanimity that the rest should go in. After that is accomplished, I'd like to discuss the first sentence. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I do support this one proposal. It keeps the original meaning while adding a single bit that is necessary for clarity. Tutelary (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Blueboar, there are more than three reasons why editors would stop responding to a discussion, and lack of objection/concession/silent consensus are among them. The rather limited scenarios that you pose open up the possibility of gaming the system by stonewalling. There does not seem to be a consensus (at this point) to remove the first part of the sentence, thus leaving the need to improve the clarity and grammar of the rest of it, which is what Ring Cinema's proposed wording does. In other words, let's at least solve part of the problem and continue debating the other as a separate matter.- MrX 13:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
MrX... I never meant to say that there were only three reasons why an editor would stop responding... but these are three that concern me... in two of them you you don't need to assume that some form of consensus has been achieved (that is a given)... however, in both cases you can not assume what the consensus is... and in one you can't assume any consensus. That said... I have realized that I am objecting to something that is not actually being proposed in this thread... and so I will discuss it (below) in a separate proposal. Part of the reason this discussion is so confusing is that we keep conflating different issues. It is better to keep the issues in separate discussions. Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I see. Sorry for jumping to that conclusion. - MrX 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Could we hear your argument on why it's not a valid way to go about things? Not contesting an edit which you have a problem with I don't think we can stand by that that person might oppose it. We're not mind readers. If you don't believe an edit should belong, revert it, start a discussion on the talk. Your lack of such doesn't mean 'no consensus', it means that you don't particularly care enough or are not passionate enough to contest the edit in some form, and as a result, are de facto rubber stamping it. Especially if a person has been insanely active on one particular page, then stops suddenly after a conflict, edits other pages and the page is edited to include an edit that the user disagreed with. Since the user has left the discussion, other people on the talk sought to deal with it and made the conscious decision to put in the article, and as such, achieved consensus in that way. Consensus can be assumed because you're not contesting it. You're not making any comment to it. You're not pointing any attention to it. You're staying silent to it. And while consensus can change, it shouldn't be stonewalled by editors who can only have a minor objection and all of a sudden, that consensus is lost. Tutelary (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
You are misconstruing WP:SILENCE. Consensus is not decided by the "last man standing", which is how you want the policy to read. If someone opposes an edit on the talk page or reverts you then SILENCE does not apply. They have opposed the edit. SILENCE does not require editors to keep restating their opposition to an edit over and over and indeed states that as such: " Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor does not give that editor consent to do what they like. Similarly, in the presence of a revert, there is neither silence nor consensus." The policy as it stands now grossly misinterprets the basic principle. If someone withdraws from a discussion you have the option of requesting a third opinion, filing an RFC, or if several people have been involved you can request formal closure of the discussion. Likewise, if someone just keeps reverting and does not join the discussion SILENCE does apply: edit-warring policies address this type of behavior adequately. All SILENCE really means is that if no-one responds to discussion on the talk page, and no-one reverts your edit then you can presume a consensus for your edit. That is all it means. Betty Logan (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it might be the "pre-discussion" version should be temporarily avoided (WP:BLP or the like) until there is positive agreement to put it back in (e.g. with a better source). An endless filibustering might thus stabilise an undesired version (even vandalism that went unobserved for too long until someone reverted it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
That would obviously be an exception. Vandalism is an exception to 3RR which Consensus policy doesn't need to outline. It can effectively be squashed as anyone readding it can be blocked swiftly without much contentious issues with it. Nonetheless, I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Can you outline a hypothetical where this could happen? Tutelary (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

For those who are opposing, I would ask that you take a longer view. The first sentence is in the policy right now and therefore removing it requires developing a consensus. But since there is not a consensus for that (see Tutelary and MrX above), and those who want it to remain have raised no objection to the rest of the text, I would ask that we take up that subject next. Now, let's make the change no one has opposed. I hope you will find this approach sensible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Can't really follow that. Is it just a complicated way of saying there's a solution in search of a problem? Anyway, I specifically opposed to the changes (which is indeed in the last bit of the proposal), and made that clear in what I wrote above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if it seems complicated, but it's not really. The first sentence is disputed; your objection to the latter bit is the first to arise. I would point out that current policy says that change requires a consensus for change. It doesn't really make sense that "an undesired version" might be stabilized, because that version is the last consensus version. So in what respect would the consensus version be "undesired"? The consensus version is what we want on the page. That's what this text says. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Still, a solution in search of a problem. No relation between the perceived problem ("don't like this sentence") and the offered solution ("let's add another one!").

Nope, this came up about ten days ago and many contributors here said this paragraph needed a rewrite. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "in what respect would the consensus version be "undesired"?" — As I wrote (see above), examples enough: BLP reasons; some vandalism that slipped in but remained unnoticed. Think we had something like that about Jimbo's birthday slipping in his mainspace article many, many years ago, and reverting to a "pre-discussion" state was no solution, not even "temporary" during discussions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
You are suggesting that a version that is not the consensus version would be preferable to the current consensus version. That circumstance arises in no cases ever. If there is, e.g., unnoticed vandalism there will be consensus right now to remove it, but if someone disputes that it is vandalism, I guess it really must not be vandalism. If we're going to think clearly about this, during a content dispute the current consensus should be on the page. It would be vandalism to replace the consensus version with a non-consensus version. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I think those who like the proposed addition are really talking about situations where there is no consensus (or at least situations where a consensus has not yet emerged). The policy already has a very complete section that outlines what to do in situations where there is no consensus (see: WP:Consensus#No consensus). Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus-building in talk pages - proposed change

Proposed: from the third paragraph of the section, cut the sentence - "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions." The paragraph would thus be:

  • Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors. consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.

I have stated my rational for this change in some detail in the discussions above... but to reiterate the core argument:
You can not assume a consensus simply because people have stopped talking to you. There are many reasons why editors stop responding to a talk page discussion (I have listed three in the discussions above)... and most of them are not grounds for assuming consensus. My primary concern is situations where a a group of editors may have repeatedly explained why they support or oppose a change... and walked away because they became frustrated when their explanations were ignored by another group editors (see WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT). Being the "last man standing", after driving others away does NOT mean there is consensus. Indeed, the exact opposite is usually true... driving others away is often a good indication that there is NOT a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose for reasons that I've given a few times in the past 10 days. In short, people who refuse to discuss content could effectively hold an article hostage. I've seen many cases where an editor or two will drop an unhelpful vaguewave to WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP and then simply walks away from a discussion. Contrariwise, I've seen cases where an explicit consensus is not reached on a talk page, a discussion fades, and the proposed edit is made without any contention.- MrX 19:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern about vaguewave oppositions... However, the fact that there may be a situation when it might be appropriate to assume consensus when discussion dies, that does not negate the fact that there are other situations when it is highly inappropriate to assume one. And as long as there are situations when you shouldn't assume consensus just because discussion has died out, is it really right to tell editors that they should assume consensus? I don't think so. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, so the way forward would seem to be wording that clarifies how consensus is reached (or not) in these different scenarios.- MrX 15:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
We should include the bit about returning the page to the last consensus version during a content dispute. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
That is a separate issue... and I think it wiser to keep the two issues separate. the bit about returning to last consensus is being discussed in a different proposal (above)... this proposal is just about not assuming consensus. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(re. original issue in this section) Here are a few that were dedided that way, ultimately:

So no, the change would prevent (for instance) guideline development. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It would only prevent "guideline development" in cases where the "development" is opposed. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
...hardly a rebuttal... of course the context is: updates where diverse editors have diverse opinions... --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
But if diverse editors have diverse opinions on a guideline development... then there is NO consensus that the guideline should be "developed" in the way proposed. Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
It can avoid a deadlock situation where parties run out of arguments to counter whatever has been proposed with sound arguments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

edit request

According to the current wording of the policy: "Consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions" - Ironically, since editors have stopped responding to the above talk page discussion regarding my proposal (to remove that very sentence), we should now assume it has consensus. Therefore, I request that the section be amended accordingly. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Responding - no. Not an improvement, per my rationale above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The deleted words are an absurdity, contrary to the notion of consensus. "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions" stands sufficient. MrX's notion of an abandoned vaguewave would not support any reasonable prosecution of edit-warring. The return to a nebulous "last consensus" is a separate issue. Francis' examples are somewhat extreme, involving pushing development on backwater guidelines (sorry, yes they are important, but no, few people care). It is not the lack of talk page continued opposition that is evidence of consensus, it is the lack of objection afterwards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal of "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and". While I think there is a valid point being made with this language (the most important word being "assumed"), that point is not really important enough to be mentioned in the policy and, worse, the language lends itself to being misinterpreted and used to support notions that it was never intended to support. In short, it does more harm than good and ought to go. Please note, however, that by supporting this removal I am not implying that I believe, concede, or agree that consensus-by-silence and consensus-by-acquiescence are not valid concepts which are fully supported by policy. I'm merely saying that this language isn't needed to establish or support them and, indeed, that it lends itself to a misunderstanding and misapplication of those principles. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There are several competing proposals on the table to which editors have stopped responding. Admittedly I have not responded to at least one thread that I should have (due to time constraints), but I still oppose omitting this language as per my previously explained rationale. - MrX 15:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. More at WP:PER. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • COMMENT - I accept that this edit request has failed. And I now cite it as a precedent. It is obvious that we can not assume a consensus simply because talk page discussion dies out. In other words... the fact that this edit request failed actually supports the change I want to make... I hope everyone appreciates the irony here. Blueboar (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed. There is no consensus that the policy should state "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions", and therefore the policy should not state this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for jump-starting the discussion again with a reductio ad absurdum attempt, which however failed. There's no consensus for change (so currently: no change to the policy, while no consensus to change), and discussion has resumed. What more do you want? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
what more do I want?... I want the sentence to be taken out of the policy. I want everyone to realize that the sentence in question is flawed and needs to be removed or amended. The fact that this very discussion died out - and yet we still don't have consensus, demonstrates how and why the sentence is flawed. Sure... the fact that discussion dies out is often an indication that a consensus has formed (for or against)... but not always. I want people to realize that this very discussion demonstrates that we can not assume a consensus, simply because discussion dies out.
Of course, I might not get what I want (and yet that in itself would be a further indication that the sentence if flawed). Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Some impression I get: you seem to want a lot of things, except for a consensus to emerge. For me, I don't care whether or not someone is successful in convincing me with sound arguments. So I would never say that I want others to think like I do. This rather invalidates your line of thought than that it invalidates the current content of the policy.
Note: WP:ANRFC might be considered as an end to the discussions too, in case the discussion doesn't sizzle out naturally. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
hey...You asked "what more do you want"... I answered your question. :>) Seriously, I would love it if a consensus would emerge on this... is there a middle ground between "remove it" and "keep it" that we could agree on? Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Since I arrived rather late in this discussion I browsed the above sections on the same issue in search of examples where it can be seen something went wrong with Wikipedia content because of the lack of response clause. I see a lot of theoretical discussion, no actual examples (or did I miss them?) — thus far the only examples given in the discussion appear to have been the ones I gave in support of the lack of response clause... any takers for the challenge to give actual counterexamples? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Francis... This very discussion is an example where something went wrong ... The discussion of my original proposal (above) died out ... According to the sentence in question, that should have meant we can assume consensus. But obviously that is wrong, because people (such as yourself) immediately opposed the edit request based upon that assumption.
It's an ironic "catch 22" situation... the policy says we should assume consensus, but there is no consensus to assume consensus... which means the policy is wrong and we should not assume consensus... which means the policy should not change... which means that we should assume consensus... but there is no consensus to assume consensus... etc. etc etc. round and round we go. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

discussions have resumed, so "presumption of consensus" has evaporated, there's no "catch 22" or whatever, from the moment discussions resume the lack of response clause no longer applies (evidently!). So no, this discussion itself is not an example. Any applicable examples perhaps? Or are we just discussing about solutions in search of a problem? Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...Are you suggesting that the policy should read: "Consensus can be temporarily assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, however, that assumption evaporates if discussion starts up again."  ?
I could almost live with that (it certainly comes much closer to my view than the current wording). I would prefer something more along the lines of: The fact that talk page discussion has died out is often {but not always) an indication that a consensus has formed. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:CCC exists (there's no distinction between "temporal" and "eternal" consensus... all consensus is temporal... until it changes), is part of the policy, and I see no reason to draw it in specifically only on that place, I mean, there's no reason for it while apparently it needs not to be fixed. No example can be given where it went wrong, applying the policy "as is". --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

I would like to discuss this recent revert by Ring Cinema, with an accompanying edit summary that states: "these are not scare quotes". Per WP:SCAREQUOTES: "quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate the writer is distancing themselves from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression". Note that the hyperlink resolves to Scare quotes. Unless I am misunderstanding something, it would seem that the use here is indeed as a scare quote, and perhaps italics would be more appropriate. MOS:EMPHASIS states, "Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers, or to stress a contrast". Rationalobserver (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My thought at the time I reverted was that the text is quoting what is often actually said or thought. In other words, "winning an argument" is a commonplace. Also, one purpose of scare quotes is to indicate that the quoted word is not used in its usual way, so that its significance is not standard. That is not the case here, it seems. Still, I recognize that your point, Rationalobserver, is a good one. Indeed, the text clearly indicates that "winning an argument" is not a useful way to frame a discussion with an underlying telos of consensus, so in some way this is "distancing". It's not completely clear to me either way so I'm glad you brought it up. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Right, and my thought was that italics are a more appropriate way to emphasize, but if the intent is to distance, then maybe scare quotes are more appropriate here. I tend to think that this should be reworded to increase clarity and avoid using quote marks that aren't indicating an actual quote. What do you think of this: "... because one or both sides of the discussion become emotionally or ideologically invested in implementing their preferred version"? It avoids the issue of scare quotes, and the issue of implying that content disputes have "winners" and "losers". Rationalobserver (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I've made this edit, which I think is an improvement, as the issue is really more to do with preferred versions than it is winning an argument. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
In a way you're right, but "winning an argument" is more likely to gain a reader's attention than a dry description, even if accurate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think the quotation marks belong. There is no quote. There is no good reason to be referring specifically to a word. The quotations makes are being used to convey emphasis, and good writing should rely on visual emphasis. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
These are two separate questions getting conflated. Should there be emphasis of something? That is different from the question of which words to use. Perhaps, SmokeyJoe, you are unaware that Rationalobserver changed the text so that "winning an argument" no longer appears. That is the question I was addressing lastly, which is different from the question initially. So, to respond to your objection, there are good semantic reasons for using scare quotes or for placing a cliche in quotes for the purpose of indicating that these are not the writer's way of phrasing the issue. In fact, that, too, is good writing; it's simply another metaphor, broadly conceived, like almost all good writing. The difference here is that we write "encyclopedialistically". Some forms are too casual unless they are explicitly a quotation, which explains why "winning an argument" made its way into this policy. Personally, I think it deftly did what good writing should do and the current draft is too dry. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Too dry? For a technical manual? IMO, "winning an argument" stops short of the intended meaning because it's an empty victory unless it results in the implementation of a preferred version. While I realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, our article on the topic states: "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion." Rationalobserver (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, instead of scare quotes, italics are recommended, as the previous editor inserted. And, yes, your proposal is extremely dry. As I mentioned, for the purpose of bringing the point across so the meaning travels vividly from the page to the mind of the reader, "winning an argument" is quite a bit preferable. I think it's a good time to revert to the original. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Counting Butwhatdoiknow and me, there are now two editors who prefer this version, so please stop edit warring to "win" this dispute. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems your text makes a very good case for leaving the text as is. You seem to think this is a winning expression to communicate the content of that paragraph. I am impressed that you chose this formulation. You didn't resort to the parched "Please do not try to implement your preferred version." I daresay that is because it doesn't state the matter as effectively, which was my point above. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Wait, did I express an opinion on this particular issue? I thought all I did was oppose a "way back" undo as undoing too much. 23:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC

NAC:There is rough consensus to retain the wording "winning an argument", because that wording is intended as a caution against a battleground mentality. The wording is meant to deprecate that sort of conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The purpose of this RfC is to determine the current community consensus regarding a specific piece of wording: "winning an argument" versus "implementing a preferred version".

Support retaining "winning an argument"

  1. This familiar expression communicates to the reader the erroneous mindset that this section of the policy wants to warn against. It was chosen originally, I would say, because we are all aware that trying to find a compromise can be difficult when we start to think of editors who don't agree with us as being on the other side. This "us" versus "them" orientation can remove from our consideration the possibility of compromise or accommodation of other views. But when we stop thinking of "winning" we are open to solutions we might overlook. This is a good way to bring the matter across to readers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. I've seen my share of editors that seem to want to simply win an argument for argument's sake. Some editors seek to implement a preferred version but they may have to win an argument to do so. Wikipedia doesn't oppose implementing a preferred version through reason; we oppose making arguments. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. I agree that the phrase "winning an argument" belongs in the article. Rather than implying a "battle ground mentality", as Rationalobserver suggests, the context in which it is used warns against such a mentality. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  4. More descriptive than "implement a preferred revision" or what-have-you. I can take or leave the quotes around "winning". I'm not entirely sure how describing "winning an argument" as a proscribed goal/behavior leads us to imply a battleground mentality. That seems pretty backwards. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Support replacing "winning an argument" with "implementing a preferred version"

  1. Per the above discussion, I think "winning" is a poor choice of words. a) it implies a battle ground mentality, and b) the end result of a consensus discussion is a content change or restoration, not someone winning. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. An attempt to win may be problematic behavior, but is only a subset of a non-neutral point of view.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This is a gross failure of Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing, and the setting up of a heavy weighted process to resolve the false dichotomy is offensive to the spirit of the policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Granted, both editors may be approaching the WP:DEW level. (I've been there and done that too.) But regardless of the meaningfulness of the dispute, there is a dispute. You have told us that you think the current procedure implemented to resolve the dispute is offensive. What procedure would you recommend instead? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. Gross failure and offensive seem now to be overstatement. Using an RfC to decide between two expressions, with no substantial difference in the end, feels over the top. The RfC seems to block out third options. I have difficulty seeing a justification for an RfC here, and a little fear that a clear result may support strongly something important. However, there is no great harm I suppose. I kind if like and don't like both. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The move away from discussion was premature and was not my idea. While I support retaining the bit about "winning an argument", I also respect the point that it is not the only disease that requires treatment, so to say. So more discussion could be fruitful. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BRD

Please see proposals at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#WP:BRD as essay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus-building in talk pages - new compromise proposal

Here is an alternative proposal based on some of the previous discussions. I would like to get thoughts on this so we might move forward.

Current text

Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.

Proposed text

Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus can't always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated.

Rationale

I've attempted to address some of the concerns raised by Volunteer Marek, Chris troutman, SmokeyJoe, Ring Cinema, TransporterMan, Blueboar, Collect and others

I removed "Other considerations are secondary.", a sentence lacking substance. I removed "This obligation applies to all editors:", another obvious and otherwise empty statement. I removed "obligation" per Volunteer Marek's comments.

The passage "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions" is unnecessary in this context. It's already addressed under Reaching consensus through editing which states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached". This wording, combined with the link to Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, should be adequate.

Discussion
  • Support as proposer and open to tweaking.- MrX 15:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, solution in search of a problem: there has been much discussion above in previous sections, but nobody has been able to point to an actual problem that may have been caused by the current wording, absolutely *not a single example*. The proposed new wording is longer (WP:CREEP), for no good reason. To give only one example why the new proposed wording is no improvement: "Other considerations are secondary" is useful: I've seen so many discussions wander of in discussions about "proof" of one consensus or another, it is useful to make editors attentive that such off-content discussions are "secondary" and will be treated as such. Another example: the proposed addition "who stonewall discussions" is a WP:BEANS liability. Another: "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change" is a platitude with no added value while "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions" is positive and practical (see my examples above), etc... --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This proposal makes the minor change needed to prevent "last man standing" provision. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This wording addresses my concerns about WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT situations, while still respecting the concept of silent consensus. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This wording also addresses my concerns about WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT and "last man standing" situations, while still respecting the basic concept of silent consensus. Further improvements are probably possible, but they can wait. --Boson (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Again, what problem are we trying to solve here. There's been so much discussion but not a single person has demonstrated any need to change what's on this page, and the wording here is absolutely instruction creep. Policies, especially this important one such as consensus should be as general as possible, and this one just isn't doing it. I'm in favor of the status quo until someone actually points out what the problem is and why it needs to change, not just because it's apparently not grammatically correct. Tutelary (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Though I kind of agree with those saying this isn't really necessary, I'm fine with it, nonetheless. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What is missing is the important part that is the corollary of "no consensus = no change". During a content dispute, the page should be returned to the last consensus, not including the disputed change. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. It is actually referred to elsewhere in the policy (WP:NOCONSENSUS and BRD link at WP:EDITCONSENSUS). In the interest of WP:IMPERFECT, would you be willing to support the above proposed change and allow us to discuss including the "no consensus = no change" separately? I will automatically support it as long as it's worded clearly.- MrX 18:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, I still oppose. None of my objections has been addressed. Also, I object to MrX's selective pinging above (under "Rationale": "I've attempted to address some of the concerns raised by Volunteer Marek, Chris troutman, SmokeyJoe, Ring Cinema, TransporterMan, Blueboar, Collect"), which as a WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification (only calling those whose concerns had been addressed) invalidates this section as a step contributing to consensus-seeking. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no lack of clarity about your opposition. I would note however that your assertion "nobody has been able to point to an actual problem " is incorrect. For example, when this discussion was kicked of a few weeks ago, Volunteer Marek was quite articulate about two perceived issues with the current wording. His concerns were amplified by others; some editors introduced new concerns.
With regard to your accusation of canvassing: I didn't ping you and a few others who expressed a desire to maintain the current verbiage because my proposal doesn't address the premise of "its good the way it is". I pinged several editors whose proposals in previous sections I disagreed with. Obviously, folks who are interested in this discussion have the page watchlisted. It's not as if I tried to recruit new participants. If you recall, I was fine with the current verbiage, so the above proposal exists purely to seek a compromise. - MrX 15:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Re. "nobody has been able to point to an actual problem" — that's not what I said: "nobody has been able to point to an actual problem that may have been caused by the current wording" (emphasis added). As a general thought: I find it difficult to come to a consensus with people who misquote.
  • Re. "I didn't ping you and a few others who expressed a desire to maintain the current verbiage because my proposal doesn't address the premise of "its good the way it is"." — exactly: that's what invalidates it (the survey I mean). Looking at the contributions above by contributors not being pinged (I see four): two opposed, two supported. So indeed, totally different picture. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have made the requested changes. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 November 2014

Deyshawon 1993 (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

NOT DONE... We need to know the specifics of the edit you are requesting. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 December 2014

37.230.25.130 (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

NOT DONE... As we told the editor directly above, we need to know the specifics of the edit you are requesting. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Forum shopping or something else?

Discussion should generally occur over a dispute to at least some degree to try to reach consensus before going outside an article talk page to the noticeboards (reliable sources, original research, etc.), or other forms of dispute resolution. However, can going to a noticeboard too quickly be a form of forum shopping when this is done repeatedly on different topics over time? This is different than a single dispute being brought up at multiple noticeboards in quick succession that WP:FORUMSHOP currently mentions. For something that could be considered a slightly more worse-case scenario, say an editor opens a talk page section, gets a reply or two they don't agree with, immediately opens a thread at WP:NPOVN before even making their second reply on the article talk page, and continues this behavior in different topics on the talk page over time.

To me this seems to violate the spirit of discouraging forum shopping, yet it's not explicitly mentioned either. On one hand, going to a noticeboard can be beneficial at the right time to get uninvolved editors input. However, doing this too early basically shuts down the conversation on the article talk page, and can result in it not even being clear where the dispute really is when it hasn't been talked out at all at the article yet. I'm curious what folks think of this scenario and if something should be added to this page about it? I don't think there's really a bright line for this behavior, just like we have with currently defined forum shopping or 3RR. Maybe it's just a matter of stressing to such editors that an attempt to reach consensus should occur first on the article talk page before going to noticeboards. Do we have something in existing policy that can drive this point home to editors when the behavior becomes problematic, or is this somewhat new territory? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A distinction needs to be made between dispute resolution, per se, and other noticeboards. All content dispute resolution forums and processes — 3O, DRN, MEDCOM, and to a much lesser extent RFC — require thorough talk page discussion before seeking help there and those restrictions are vigorously enforced in the first three forums. (While that discussion should take place on the article talk page, we're — I say "we" because I regularly work in all three of those forums — pretty lenient on it taking place somewhere else, such as user talk pages or other noticeboards, so long as it takes place somewhere.) Having gone past the true DR forums, I don't think that going to other kinds of noticeboards fairly quickly ought to be prohibited as a general rule. Since those forums are neither tribunals nor dispute resolution forums, they exist for obtaining advice. Once it's clear that a conflict has arisen, which can easily happen after just one or two article talk page comments, then such advice can be useful in clearing up one or the other editor's misconceptions about how things work here. There's no need for editors to continuously reinvent the wheel when one or the other of them is pretty clearly wrong or when both editors are clueless. It's a somewhat different situation when a particular editor always jumps to the noticeboards whenever they are first challenged, but even then it kind of depends on the circumstances. If it's an experienced editor who does that whenever he's challenged by a clueless (and usually-wrong) newcomer or POV pusher, I don't see much harm in that. Ditto if it's a newcomer who's using the noticeboards to feel his or her way along while learning the ropes. It's only when it's someone who is doing it to knowingly manipulate the system that I think it could be objectionable and that can be dealt with as disruptive editing on a case by case basis. No, I think that such a rule could be more counterproductive than helpful by discouraging people from seeking advice and reducing conflict and disruption. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. The scenario I'm mainly thinking of is when we're dealing with experienced editors who repeatedly do this to the point where the noticeboard post seems intended to supplant article talk page conversation when the editor knows they tend not to get traction with other regulars on ideas. Basically, it seems the discussion is being shifted immediately to the noticeboard for a different forum rather than using the noticeboard to answer a pointed question. Definitely a case-by-case thing, so I definitely agree that a hard rule could easily be problematic as it could be double-edged towards newcomers, etc.
The main part of this page I'm looking at though is Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions. There we're basically told to go to the noticeboards after discussion has failed. If it appears there's hasn't been a good faith attempt towards discussion though, is that the best part of this page we have to direct people towards to trying to focus on discussion first? Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
To some degree, it depends on which noticeboard you are talking about, and why you are taking the issue to that noticeboard. For example, if you want to know whether some source is reliable, it is absolutely appropriate to ask for opinions at WP:RSN... that's primarily what the noticeboard is for. And it is not out of line to ask there before you challenge the source on the article talk page. The editors who answer questions there tend to be very experienced and understand the subtle nuances of reliability.
The NPOV noticeboard, on the other hand, is more of a "complaints board"... a place to call for help when you have been unsuccessfully trying to resolve a POV problem. But then the goal of that noticeboard is to bring third party opinions into existing discussions (and usually a posting to NPOVN results in more eyes at the article, as opposed to a discussion and resolution at the noticeboard). Blueboar (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No consensus defaults written in policy at WP:TITLECHAGES

Regarding this series of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=649896570&oldid=649284018

I object to this policy paraphrasing another policy at the same or similar level of detail given at the other policy. It sets up a situation where it is very unclear which refers to which, and which has precedence in case of differences of meaning. There is an interspersed history of editors interested in changing other policies making additions or changes at this policy page as a side route for making changes there. That is a very unhealthy way to develop consensus. I have changes the reference here to a direct quote, but I think this policy should probably only point directly to the section and paragraph, and avoid appearing to represent a statement of titling policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Propose small additional qualification to wp:noconsensus

The second bullet point currently begins:

  • "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."

I propose that, in the final clause, this text can more directly relate to something such as a "contended bold edit" so as to read with content such as:

  • "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or contended bold edit."

The rationale behind this proposal is to guard against situations as Talk:Israel#Restoring stable version of the lead regarding borders of Israel and as demonstrated in viewpoints presented. The original and discarded text (which had not originally been the product of discussion but which had later been discussed at length in previous threads 1,2) had not even been presented as an option in the recent RfC. I think clearly in this particular case, and perhaps others similar, an RfC cannot result in a judgement between two optional contents in a case in which neither of those contents are even mentioned.

This is another case in which I think that WP:PG are prescriptive in areas that are unnecessary particularly in the extent of scope presented or are otherwise open to use that may not necessarily coincide with Wikipedia's goals. GregKaye 07:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Quality of arguments" is not verifiable

The "quality of arguments" is mentioned several times in this page. I think this is problematic as the very question of "which arguments are of better quality" is debatable! Naturally, every person thinks that his/her arguments have better quality than the other arguments. The current page actually allows an editor to say "My arguments are stronger than all other arguments, so I just close the discussion and do what I want"... this is absurd and undermines the entire goal of the consensus policy. Moreover, a decision based on "quality of arguments" is not objectively verifiable - which is against one of Wikipedia's main standards.

My suggestion: if there is no numerical consensus (no unanimous decision), then either: (1) keep the status quo, or (2) decide by majority. While majority decision is not perfect, it is at least objective and verifiable. --Erel Segal (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Erel, but those references reflect a founding principle of all Wikimedia Foundation projects, "The 'wiki process' [is] the final decision-making mechanism for all content." It's also enshrined in policy here as a principle going back to the very beginnings of the encyclopedia (please click through and read that policy). (And the references here at Consensus to quality of argument are merely a reflection of the general principle, not the creation of that principle.) Moreover, it's important to the accuracy and reliability of the encyclopedia: With straight vote-counting partisan groups can easily affect the content of the encyclopedia through campaigning, the quality of the argument requirement helps to limit that. But it's more than just that, it's a mechanism for determining the best outcome for the purpose of building an encyclopedia, not just the most popular. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: I see your point, but I still think there must be a verifiable way to define "consensus". Verifiability is also one of the founding principles of Wikipedia, as I understand them. --Erel Segal (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I have mentioned this before, but I think in the case of a content dispute that a proposal from those in the majority that is accepted by a majority of the minority group should have a lot of weight. In other words, if 4 editors want XYZ and 3 editors want WXY, and the 4 editors propose XZ, say, which two of the other editors accept as a good compromise, that is a pretty good consensus even if the last editor in the minority claims it isn't. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I would take a good unverifiable process over a verifiably bad process any day. Majority rule creates rule of the sock puppets. There isn't a magical formula to answer every question on Wikipedia that's why arguments are qualitative instead of quantitative. 10 bad arguments should mean nothing compared to 1 persuasive one. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're responding to my suggestion -- which is just a paradigm of sorts, since it's not going to be policy -- but I wonder if you feel there is anything contrary between your sentiments and mine. It seems that you are correct but could still endorse my view. I would point out, however, that there is in practice no such thing as a persuasive argument that is in the minority. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be moving away from the original issue raised by Erel Segal (and I've partitioned off the new subtopic into its own subsection below), but before it does entirely and also in response to Ring Cinema's comment at 13:01, 3 May 2015, above, I'd like to make the point that the number of editors on either side of an issue is not irrelevant, but it's the last thing that should be considered in evaluating consensus, not the first. I do a lot of dispute resolution at 3O, DRN, and MEDCOM and one thing that we do there in deciding whether or not to accept a case is to evaluate whether or not consensus has already been reached on the dispute. If so then, by definition, there is no longer a dispute subject to dispute resolution and we shouldn't allow an axe-grinder to try to interfere with it via DR. When I evaluate consensus for that purpose, I use this personal rule of thumb — and I emphasize that this is just personal — 3 to 1 if the 3 have a near-overwhelming no-one-could-reasonably-disagree argument, 4 to 1 with a somewhat weaker but still pretty strong argument, and 5 to 1 with an argument which is merely reasonable, and in each case that's if the 1 has a merely reasonable argument. If the 1 has a strong or very strong argument, higher ratios are required. Theoretically, if the 1 has a truly overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree argument then the number on the other side shouldn't make any difference, but you have to then ask whether if his argument is so great why isn't anyone else buying it, but which is not to suggest that question cannot have a reasonable answer. (Note that this analysis only applies when there is no solution mandated by policy. When policy mandates a solution, policy wins, unless a local exception is established, but that also has to be done by consensus.) (Just to avoid an internal-copyvio issue, note that much of the foregoing is copied from my edit here.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth clarifying, but I didn't mention my "majority of the minority" concept in the context of "do this first". In fact, I think it's pretty clear that I was suggesting this rule of thumb comes around after more than a little discussion. I think it is still extremely useful, if for no other reason than "strength of argument" is in the eye of the beholder. It's hard to even see how argument strength is relevant, since a reason that an editor doesn't wish to abandon in the face of a lot of disagreement must by definition be a reason that is believed subjectively to be a strong one. It is not for us to judge the reasoning of others when our own reasoning is being judged. Rather, it is for us to persuade if possible and compromise maximally. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Process

I wonder if we have a page that explains what "the wiki process" is. It's not a way of evaluating discussion points. It's a way of editing, of trying different things in the actual document, until something sticks on the page. You might use discussion (if you're trying to get more information, so that your next edit will be more likely to stick), but discussion (and therefore the evaluation of the strengths of arguments) is not directly part of the wiki process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You don't mean The Wiki Way?
I thought this page was the best page at explaining the wiki way. Possibly, it was when it was still tagged as a guideline. I see a need for the page WP:The wiki way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the EDITCONSENSUS section basically covers it. But I don't think that most editors know that's what's meant by "the wiki process". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, EDITCONSENSUS basically covers it. What has changed is the inclusion of lots of other bits. I am not very familiar with the term "the wiki process". Who does it differ from from EDITCONSENSUS? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The term "consensus"

As long as the wiki process is at it is now, it is incorrect to talk about "consensus". A consensus is when everyone agree. But currently, decisions are sometimes accepted based on the minority view. For example, in Template:Cite doi the top note says that there is a "consensus", but clicking on the "consensus" links leads to an argument when there is a 11:6 majority AGAINST the desicision.

Even if this process is justified because the minority's arguments are stronger, it still cannot be called a "consensus". It is a policy, maybe a justified policy, but certainly not a consensus.

We spend so much effort on making the definitions on our content pages accurate. I think we should stick to this accuracy in our policy pages, too. We should find a better term for a decision which is accepted against the opinion of a majority. --Erel Segal (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. Consensus and unanimity are not synonyms. When compromises are tendered and accepted, it can get a little murky to discern the yeas and nays. The way we use the term 'consensus' here seems to entail an agreement not to pursue differences of opinion further. Something about ideally incorporating divergent views based on facts and a practical turn of mind. It is paradoxical at its center. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Not only does consensus not require unanimity... it is not a matter of counting heads. So yes, there are occasional situations where a minority view is deemed to be consensus... However, these are rare, and a lot depends on the nature of the arguments. Certainly a few well reasoned comments for X that refer to other policy pages will (and should) outweigh a whole bunch of "IDON'TLIKEIT" comments against X that don't give any rational at all. Those other policy pages are presumed to reflect consensus ... and so any arguments that refer to those other policies have the weight of those other consensuses behind them.
That said... It is not uncommon for those engaged in debate to unintentionally give more weight to arguments that support their view, and ignore or minimize arguments that do not. When this occurs, editors may honestly believe that a consensus exists... when in fact one does not (yet) exist. Indeed, I have seen cases where both sides of a debate are convinced that consensus not only exists but supports their view... at the same time. I remember one RFC where the question we were asked to examine was whether a consensus existed in a prior RfC or not (is there a consensus that there is a consensus). Blueboar (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If consensus is not to bring together then I guess it is influence especially when other editors known to a particular contributor become aware of discussions and then way in ostensibly supporting a "consensus" that does little to add to the desired nature of WP yet at the same time has been achieved by counting heads or bringing into the discussion the idea that longevity of an edit of a WP article should stand because it has not been changed over a period of time. Some times some things are not changed because attention has not been brought to attention rather than inaccuracy or dispute. If longevity of text is to be commended then WP would be called a champion of new grammar and spelling.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • A consensus is not when everyone agrees, with a full stop after "agrees". A consensus is when everyone, excluding those agreed by everyone else to not be working to finding a consensus, agrees to a compromise that accounts for everybody's stated position. Also important is that "consensus" doesn't apply to defined questions. Usually, consensus finding requires modification of the question, and nuances in the wording. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not wanting to prolong a situation that has already reached a point of no return after getting no where, I get the feeling that the conscious and the subconscious have yet to met in that statement. I never said "agree", I clearly said "bring together". Anything other than that is for naught.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Consensus is indeed "to bring together", although consensus is something that defies a rigorous definition. A consensus needs to be found or created, and we know it when we see it. As is so often the case, there is some dispute somewhere that spun this section. Where is that dispute? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
To what you call attention is probably more the attempt at a definitive explanation before the fact rather than what comes of the process at the end. This may be an attempt to avoid disruptive attention when civility is absent or bad faith present. The latter two are not a summation of anything currently involved--just one of several things that can come of the process and those involved. That is why I try to avoid the use of you, me, I, he, her etc. when explaining a point as well as "this is better" etc. as the latter can be a subtle attempt to crown one point that has yet to be part of a more fully develop conclusion. Things as simple as you, me, I, he can be inflammatory in a discussion. Avoiding them is what streamlines a discussion to "consensus" rather than just prolong the process and open up more discontent than what could have happened otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srednuas Lenoroc (talk • contribs) 12:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Mixture of consensus and no consensus

I have just added this paragraph:

I strongly believe that this policy should address this kind of hybrid situation which in my experience is quite common. I made a similar proposal here years ago, but perhaps there will be a better reception now. For the record, this is not motivated by any article that I have edited this year, nor will I ever cite this paragraph if it is accepted into the policy, for the rest of my life (nor thereafter).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition so it can be talked out here. I get your point, but I am very mildly opposed to the change simply because it addresses too narrow a sub-issue of what's already adequately covered in the first bullet point of the NOCON section. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The first bullet point says: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." First of all, that bullet point can be easily understood (or misunderstood) as referring to deletion of entire articles, as indicated at the link, although it does mention "other content" at the end of the sentence.
More importantly, even if that bullet point clearly referred to deletion of something within an article, that would not cover additions or replacements. And even if it did cover additions and replacements, that first bullet point only covers situations where there is no consensus, whereas the proposed paragraph specifically says there is consensus that something ought to be changed. Other than that, however, you are 100% correct to delete the paragraph. 😍 I would like to have it restored.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
My bad. I meant the second bullet point, which does cover those things. (Memo to self: Must remember to use fingers and toes to count next time.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. I read bullet point two carefully before proposing the additional paragraph, and deliberately borrowed some of its language. Bullet point two begins this way (emphasis added): "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The proposed paragraph specifically says there is consensus that something in an article ought to be changed. So it's apples and oranges. Over the years I have encountered situations where someone will say, hey, there's consensus to change something in the article, so then s/he plunges in and starts an edit war or the like, even though there was never any consensus about how to change the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I do get your point, but see it differently (and this may well be one of those glass half-empty/half-full things). Consensus that the article needs to be changed is only half the process towards changing it and the process is not complete until the how is worked out. Until that second half is complete, there's not really any consensus to do or not do anything and there's still, in terms of the second bullet point, a lack of consensus. But as I say, I do get your point but I still feel as I did, above. Let's wait to see if anyone else who monitors this page cares to weigh in. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You say that until the how is worked out, there's not really any consensus. Putting that concept into this policy would be an adequate resolution. Would you object to that? I have seen lots of editors claim that consensus exists when there's general agreement that something in an article ought to be changed, and we apparently concur that that's wrong.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You said over at my talk page that if no one else responds here you'll edit the policy. That would be improper; you need to get consensus to edit the policy. At this point in time there is no consensus to make any change to the policy. As for your last comment, above, again, I would oppose any change to the policy, for the reasons I stated, above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You believe that until the how is worked out there's not really any consensus, but you oppose having this policy say so for reasons that you think have already been stated. I guess that's Wikipedia for you. Now that I understand your position, of course I would not edit the policy. But thanks for responding to my solicitation of replies. This policy is often selectively enforced anyway, depending upon which side administrators want to win. I don't suppose that will ever be addressed in this policy either. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk)
Here is my two cents on what we should do in cases where there is a clear consensus that something in a policy/guideline is flawed and needs to change, but no consensus (yet) on how to change it:
We should either
  • Tag the old language (as being "under discussion") so editors know it no longer enjoys full consensus, or
  • Simply remove the old language - without replacing it with any new language.
Which should be done is a matter of ... discussion and consensus. Sometimes it will be helpful to keep the old language in place (but tagged) so editors can see it in context while discussing. At other times it will be better to say nothing at all than it will be to continue to say something that is flawed. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Blueboar. Indeed, which should be done ought to be a matter of discussion and consensus. That's why I included the caveat in my original proposal above, that the content should remain as-is if "there is no consensus that any change should be made absent consensus about how to change it". For instance, if the stuff at issue is the first sentence of the lead, then probably there would not be any consensus to remove it (or change it in an unpopular way) even though everyone dislikes the current version. Of course, I am not wedded to any particular approach, and yours might work well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur (rather belatedly) with Blueboar. Another thing that often happens is that the noncommittal discussion is closed, and a more focused one opens, either immediately or some time later, depending often on the instructions of the closer, or upon what ideas were proposed and did get some traction. This seems to work okay, if not always as quickly as everyone would like. I don't see a burning need for a policy change.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Too many shortcuts

Dustin V. S. (talk · contribs) has re-reverted[1] to reinsert his recent unused creation, WP:NOCON, a shortcut pointing to Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus.

Firstly, there are too many shortcuts littering policy and guideline pages, and inclusion of more barely intuitive, never used, jargon-encouraging, bright blue ALLCAPSONEWORDS is not good for the project, mainly because they decrease accessibility for newcomers.

Secondly, the section should not be the subject of encouraged policy short cut linking. The section is not proper policy per se, but links to other policy mentions of "no consensus". Referring to this section as the policy source for "no consensus" creates circular referencing.

His logic, that there are other cases of excessingexcessive shortcut advertising in prominent boxes on policy pages is no reason to add to the problem. Individualsly should not be entitled to add their own recently created previously unused shortcuts to policy page. Note that this in no way limited the creation of the redirect, or use of the redirect, just its pasting on the policy page.

See also the similar issue discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry/Archive_13#How_many_advertised_shortcuts_to_the_policy_page.3F. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with the second point. Neutral on the first. The third, I don't buy, since virtually the only way shortcuts become used is when people see them in the pages to which they lead and thus become aware of them. I regularly add (hopefully better-thought-out) shortcuts to various Wikipedia-namespace pages, and am rarely reverted on it. This suggests that adding shortcuts isn't problematic per se, just adding lame ones is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Glad to see you agree with the second. It is the main point. May I remove the shortcut?
On the first, some pages are worse than others, but I suggest pretending to be a newcomer reading these pages.
The third "Individuals should not be entitled to add their own", I think I meant to imply "in the absence of of justification, in the face of objection".
Disagree on "since virtually the only way shortcuts become used is when people see them in the pages to which they lead". No, few people re-read policy pages, instead what I see happening (possibly in selected circles) is people copying others who use these prominent bright blue shouty words in their arguments. The bluelinked allcaps word looks impressive, even if the fine detail at the linked section is much less so. Tying back to this example, if Dustin is seen to win arguments using WP:NOCON to persuasive effect, others are likely to try the same.
I would be surprised if you, SMcCandlish, were to be adding lame shortcuts. When you have added shortcuts to sections, how often were you crossing the WP:2SHORTCUTS line? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Decisions not subject to consensus of editors

I think Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement should be added to this short list. Actions taken at ARE are not actions of the Arbitration Committee (the 3rd exception mentioned) but enforcement actions of arbitration case rulings taken by administrators. Not only are the resulting actions not subject to the consensus of editors, they are not subject to the consensus of administrators. That is how ARE operates in practice and it should be noted among the exceptions or a discussion should occur about whether the process of coming to a decision in ARE cases should be determined by editor or admin consensus or whether it is more efficient settling disputes as it currently operates. Liz Read! Talk! 14:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

some issues regarding WP:CONLEVEL

The policy currently states:

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

I don't think this is completely inaccurate ... but there is I think flawed assumption behind it. It assumes that the level of consensus at a guideline page will always be greater than those at a wikiprojects, or at an individual article's talk page... and that is not always the case. Sometimes discussions on a "local" page may actually reflect the consensus of a very wide segment of the community... while discussion at a policy and guideline page may reflect the consensus of a vary narrow segment of the community. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes your right but.....Perhaps WP:Advice pages says it better....needs to be vented by the larger community if they are not going to follow the satus quo. -- Moxy (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the underlying assumption is flawed, just somewhat vague. This is an issue of process bearing on the extent of consensus needed to form policy or guidelines, as is made clear by the second paragraph of this section. The underlying assumption is that policy and guidelines should not be formed without the community as a whole having notice and an opportunity to weigh in. That can happen through the PROPOSAL process, through proposals on existing policy page talk pages, or through bold editing at an existing policy page, all of which the entire community is (at least in theory) watching, but should not happen at an article talk page or any other non-policy WP-namespace page because there's no reasonable expectation that the entire community will be watching those places. Though I think the second paragraph makes that clear, I like Moxy's addition to the first paragraph (which I've cleaned up and clarified slightly) because it makes it clearer and also because it provides a link to PROJPAGE. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree... but we still don't directly address the fact that a consensus reached at a WikiProject can actually actually reflect a broader (community) level of consensus than an opposing consensus reached at a Guideline (which can be a vary narrow (local) level of consensus). The status of the page where a discussion is held is not what determines the level of consensus... it's the number of people who participate in the discussion that determines the level of consensus. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've boldly expanded Moxy's addition to not only include decisions made at projects, but to also include decisions made at template documentation. That's another area in which editors frequently assert that it's a blockable or bannable violation to use the template in a way which is forbidden or unaddressed by the template documentation, but so far as I know — and I may be wrong — there is no support in policy or guidelines for that assertion. Please feel free to revert my addition if I'm wrong or if you disagree. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I am becoming concerned by the amount of instruction creep here. Again, I fully support the idea that a consensus of a small group can not override the consensus of a larger group... but I don't think the "status" of the page where the competing consensuses were formed is relevant. A well advertized talk page RFC can reflect a large "community" consensus... and thus can override the consensus of a few editors at an obscure guideline page. All we really need to say is: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. When there is debate as to what consensus is, seek a wider level of consensus.
Why not simply leave it at that? Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a question of sufficient consensus to create an encyclopedia-wide binding (subject to IAR) rule; without the notice provided by a proper following of PROPOSAL there is always the risk that however huge or firm the consensus may be at an obscure project or similar site that it only reflects the consensus of those individuals with a particular interest in the subject matter of that project or page and not that of the community as a whole, which is the only type of consensus which ought to be allowed to form binding (albeit subject to IAR) rules. If the consensus at such a place is so large and/or certain that there is the possibility that it might reflect the consensus of the entire community, then either during the process of initially determining that consensus or in a separate consensus determination afterwards it can be proposed to the entire community via compliance with PROPOSAL to determine if the full-community consensus does, in fact, exist. Until that happens, however, that can never be certain. There is the notion in POLICY that policy is and should be only the record of the practical consensus of the community recorded after that consensus has already formed de facto through everyday practice. If that idea has any validity in today's en-WP (and I have some grave doubt that it does on an everyday practical basis,[1] but if it does), then CONLIMITED only says that we cannot presume such a community consensus when the only discussion about it has taken place at some special-interest location, regardless how large or firm that consensus might be. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Footnote

  1. ^ Which is either ironic or circular, or perhaps both, since what I'm suggesting and what I both believe and observe in practice is that as a practical matter en-WP is now, on a day-in-day-out everyday basis as reflected in venues such as AN, ANI, ARBCOM, dispute resolution, and various noticeboards such as RSN and BLPN, a rule-driven and rule-controlled entity and that the notion that "there are no rules" is close to being — but is not quite — meaningless at today's WP.
"...we cannot presume such a community consensus when the only discussion about it has taken place at some special-interest location, regardless how large or firm that consensus might be"... you mean a special-interest location like the talk page of an obscure guidelines? Seriously, many of our guidelines are just as much "special-interest" as any project page... possibly even more so. Just to take one example... consider MOS/TRADEMARK. That is very much a "special interest" page. It is the realm of a few dedicated Wikipedians who really care about that one specific style issue. I know... I've become one of them. Such obscure Guidelines get worked on, changed and amended by these few dedicated editors - without the changes ever being "veted" by the larger community (much less going through any sort of formal PROPOSAL process). Indeed the larger community probably does not know that they exist. In that they are no different than a Project Page. The idea that just because a page has been promoted to "Guideline" status, that automatically means a large body of people are watching it and participating in formulating its content is simply not a valid assumption. Guidelines are often created by and watched and worked on by a very limited group of editors. Yes, our core policies are heavily watched and even a tiny change is scrutinized... but that is certainly not the case for the (literally) hundreds of obscure pages that have been marked "guideline".
As to your comment about process... I will simply note WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Community wide consensus can be determined in other ways than through a formal PROPOSAL. We have lots of ways of assessing consensus. As you yourself note... We have RFC's on LOCAL talk pages, discussions at the Village Pump, discussions at various noticeboards, etc. etc. And yes... on project pages.
All That said, I am not really talking about situations where someone creates encyclopedia-wide binding (subject to IAR) "rules"... I am talking more about situations where there is general consensus to make a very limited topic specific exception to (otherwise) perfectly good wiki-wide rules. I'm talking about situations where the editors know what the "rules" are, and have reached a consensus that the rule may be well and good elsewhere... just not for that one topic area. Such determinations are exactly the sort of discussions that most likely occur on Project Pages. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Three points:
  • First, re NOTBUREAUCRACY that's what I'm arguing, above: I think that on a practical, daily basis we've moved beyond that and evolved/devolved (depending on your point of view) into something which, insofar as the role and use of policies and guidelines are concerned — though far less so where content decisions are concerned, except as affected by our core content policies — more resembles a bureaucracy than it does a wiki. (Most people who make that argument do so as a criticism of what WP has become and how hard it is to successfully edit, but I do not. I see it as the normal progression of a complex system — and also the reason that most Utopian communities fail, but that's expanding this discussion a bit too much, I'm afraid). If I had to express that in a sentence, I'd say that on a practical, everyday basis we are now a bureaucracy with strong wiki elements, characteristics, and philosophy.
  • Second, I could make an argument about your statement about guideline pages not being broadly watched which would boil down to "that's one reason that they're guidelines and not policies," but while that's true, I would point out that outside our core policies there are certainly policy pages which are just as obscure (if not more so) than many guidelines (e.g. MC/P, and I would note in passing that even though that policy only affects MEDCOM, whenever changes are made to it, they're always put up for community comment and consensus, not just passed by MEDCOM). If I'm right about where I think that we are on bureaucracy, my argument about the entire community having notice of changes to policy and guidelines pages is really a "should and presume" argument: the entire community should be watching those pages (and the Village Pump for purposes of PROPOSAL) and we're going to presume that they are in order to legitimize our policy-making function (just as we here in the United States believe that all citizens should vote for elected officials and presume that those who are elected are the representatives of all the people, not just those who actually voted). I would further argue that system is already in place here at WP.
  • Third, I don't necessarily disagree with your final point about local consensus, but have to wonder what you believe the effect of such consensus is. Editors can come to consensus here anywhere, anytime, on anything. We could open an RFC consensus discussion here to turn the background color of this page and all talk pages in the WP namespace to  puce , but what would the effect of that consensus beyond, perhaps, just this one page?
Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC) PS: One correction: I was riffing off of your reference to NOTBUREAUCRACY and didn't think enough about the terms. We're not a bureaucracy, per se, because a bureaucracy is based upon governance by bureaucrats. I don't think that we're that because it is the community, not admins or other bureaucrats, who primarily enforces our policies and guidelines. So "bureaucracy" does not really fit (unless you want to argue that the sub-community consisting of experienced editors are, in effect, the bureaucrats; I can see that argument, but don't agree with it). Let me restate my closing sentence my "First," section above, more accurately: If I had to express that in a sentence, I'd say that on a practical, everyday basis we are now a rule-based entity with strong wiki elements, characteristics, and philosophy. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Re your third point... yes, editors can come to a consensus anywhere, anytime on anything. What makes one consensus "wiki-wide" and another "local" has nothing to do with where they reach consensus, but rather how many editors were involved in reaching the consensus. If hundreds of editors participate in an RFC, and reach a consensus to turn all talk page backgrounds puce... we can say that there is a wiki-wide consensus to turn the backgrounds puce. It does not matter where the discussion takes place (it could take place on Wiki-project page, a policy page, or even an article talk page... what makes it wiki-wide is that it gathered opinions from such a large body of editors). "Enforcing" that consensus is likely to be successful. On the other hand, if only ten editors participate in an RFC, and all agree that talk pages should be puce, we can dismiss it as being a local consensus... even if the discussion was held on a Policy talk page (what makes it "local" is that only a few editors participated). "Enforcing" this second consensus is unlikely to be successful.
As for NOTBUREAUCRACY... I'm not saying that all procedures are bad... just that there are often multiple procedures (some more "procedural" than others). Those who insist that there is only one "correct" way to do things on Wikipedia certainly act like self-appointed bureaucrats. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Trade off

I am just wondering if it is WP:CONSENSUS where the outcome of 1 page is determined by the outcome of another unrelated page. I make reference to Derry/Londonderry_name_dispute. A compromise was reached many moons ago where by The City was called Derry and The County was called County Londonderry. The name of the City Derry is officially called Londonderry. This name is disputed by some. The County is called County Londonderry, and has never been called County Derry nor is its name in dispute. I'm trying understand how WP:CONSENSUS can be used to find agreement across 2 articles, 1 article which isn't even disputed. Any assistance would be great.Dubs boy (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Defeating real consensus by just biding one's time

It seems some editors withdraw from vigorous content disputes before consensus is reached with the stated intent of returning later, after their opponents have moved on, when they think they'll have a better shot at putting their own stamp on articles. From where I sit, this is a form of anti-consensus. Can anyone point me to places in policy/guidelines/essays/arb-rules/etc where WP:BIDING ONES TIME is discussed? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's a natural consequence of the notion that no consensus is permanent (i.e. that consensus can change). When it's the "stated intent," depending on their editing history it might be further evidence for a NOTHERE case at ANI aimed at an article or topic ban. But if it's a generally-good editor, it's probably more often a case of sour grapes without any real intent behind it. Banning it would just teach people what not to say and, frankly, it's not in my opinion an illegitimate technique for dealing with drive-by, but temporarily-tendentious POV-pushers and other SPAs who are only here long enough to fight over the stuff they introduced into an article a couple of nights ago, but who have no real interest in sticking around long enough to become an experienced and quality editor. (And I must admit that I make reference to the practice in my humorous Wikiderata because of that value.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for thoughtful reply. The inspiration for my inquiry is an explicit statement of strategy intent, in a months long dispute between established eds, in a topic under an arb ruling and DS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Additions rather than deletions

WRONG PLACE
This is not the appropriate venue to discuss this. Tvx1 13:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have had a number issues with people deleting content that in their opinion is not notable or relevant. I propose adding the following:-

Consensus on Inclusion -- Trust the Reader

Some disputes when editing an article involve discussions as to whether material should be covered at all because after some discussion editors fail to agree as to whether it is relevant or notable. In these situations editors should attempt to classify the material as being in the following classes:-

  1. Essential content
  2. Non-essential but valuable
  3. Superfluous but verifiable and not harmful or POV
  4. Clearly unhelpful, irrelevant and distracting

Editors will disagree on the classification of material, but usually only by one level in the above scheme.

In the first instance editors should remove any material they consider class 3 & 4. But if that escalates into a dispute, then they should accept class 3 content, and trust the reader to determine its relevancy. Class 4 material always needs to go. But it is generally better to err on the side of leaving in some sub-optimal material than to remove useful content.

Note that this does not refer to the creation of new pages. Tuntable (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

As Toyota found out to their dismay, quantity over quality is a poor business decision, and per -Antoine de Saint-Exupery "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. #2 and #3 are in fact actively harmful to our project and so the default should be delete unless in #1. But what does this have to do with Consensus anyway???? Instead it seems to be an attempt to mechanicize content decisions under the rubric "it it ain't actively harmful, it stays".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There has been a debate between "inclusionists" and "exclusionists" since the founding of Wikipedia. When conflicts arise, we can urge editors to attempt to find a workable balance through compromise... but where that balance lies is not something we can define through policy. Context matters. Ultimately, whether some bit of information should or should not be included in a specific article is an editorial decision that can only be made through discussion and consensus building at the local article level. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

While certainly agreement needs to be reached, the point about the above proposal is to help reach such agreement. Different people have different opinions that are sometimes hard to reconcile, but they are rarely at opposite ends of the spectrum. I do not really see the car example as relevant. It is more about trusting the reader. The exclusionists do not just exclude potentially useful content, they also excluded the editors that contributed it who cannot be bothered arguing and leave. This is a major problem for Wikipedia. Tuntable (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

See meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. Tuntable (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not talking about the creation of articles, but rather the editing of them. Tuntable (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose attempt to replace actual "consensus" from discussion with non-discussion, non-consensus, mechanistic hammer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this would make a good essay. But I'm not sure it should be added to a policy about consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and close: First, the close part, not appropriate for this page, should be at Verifiability, unless the proposing party is only talking about different qualities of material which is supported by a reliable source, in which case this is actually a new policy altogether which should be proposed at Village pump. Second, the oppose part, everything suggested here is basically covered by Verifiability, UNDUE, NOT, and TRIVIA, all of which are far better and more concrete standards than those suggested here which would lead to knock-down battles and chaos over how to evaluate them. Kudos, however, to a newcomer editor trying to improve the system. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus building in talk pages

I think there are some minor wording or grammar issues in the following sentence from the "Consensus building in talk pages" section (areas for proposed changes in bold): "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." I think the meaning of the sentence would be clearer with the addition of the words "consensus" (because editors don't have to follow talk page discussions, they have to follow talk page consensus), "and," "add" and "found to have engaged in" (because "guilty" imparts a legalistic tone) as follows:
""Editors who ignore talk page consensus and continue to add in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be found to have engaged in disruptive editing and may incur sanctions."OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 00:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Not quite... one may be guilty of disruptive editing even if the discussion has not come to a consensus. Ignoring the discussion itself can be disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

Bumping thread for 30 days. ceradon (talk • edits) 04:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Democracy

What we're seeing on Wikipedia, I think with ever-increasing frequency, is the misuse of WP:CONSENSUS as an excuse for voting - and that to ignore all other policies and guidelines. I think the article should be more explicit in condemning the invocation of local consensus, in overriding wider consensus, i.e. policy. I believe it ought to be crystal clear, in the lede, that local consensus can not be called upon if it involves ignoring project-wide policy. -- Director (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

First, there is actually an official policy that allows us to make local exceptions to policy... see: WP:Ignore all rules. That policy may get invoked more often than it should, but it is policy never the less.
Second... it is rare for a local consensus to "overturn" a Policy (and especially rare when it comes to our core policies). It is more common for there to be conflicts between local page consensus and guideline pages.
Third... There have been cases where the discussion that formed a local consensus actually involved more editors than the discussions that formed the consensus at the guideline. When that happens, the "local" consensus is actually wider than the guideline consensus. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know. And that's a stupid policy. It really is. Obviously everyone thinks they are "improving " the project, so its nothing more than a blank check that makes every word written in articles like this one useless. They cancel each other out, and leave vote-based democracy. Which of course is horribly, horribly bad. The only thing that prevents it from truly wiping out policy is its own stupidity.. i.e. few people think a provision like that could possibly exist, so they don't realize its there. Citing policy still has some weight mostly because of that abomination's obscurity.
It fundamentally makes no sense: policy is there to help you improve the project. If its hindering you - move to amend policy. And that's what that article should read.
It is not by any means rare to see local consensus cited as a reason to ignore policy. Which is what I alleged.
"Width" does not refer to the number of people involved (there's that democracy mentality again). It refers to width of application. In either case, if that great number of people citing their local consensus are in conflict with policy - they should be instructed to attempt a change in policy. Not have their heads counted as an argument for the validity of their position as opposed to policy
-- Director (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
You are entitled your opinion on WP:IAR ... but it enjoys very wide consensus (by both of our definitions). We have to take it into account. Can you give us some examples where you find that Policy (as opposed to Guidance) is being ignored? Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I would propose amending IAR to "if a policy is hindering your improvement of the project - make that known, post a thread on its talk page". Just so every word written in every policy isn't completely useless to anyone who's heard of the fact that they all cancel out. But moving on. IAR really isn't that much of a problem because, like I said, we're fortunate that the vast majority of editors don't know about it or don't take it seriously (it appearing more like a "whimsical" joke policy than any serious provision).
The problem the project faces, in my experience (of some 9, 10 years), is the increasing frequency of a scenario where the majority invokes consensus as superseding other policies. Sometimes brazenly, sometimes with a more or less transparent excuse that can be cynically employed to push through the will of the majority.
I hesitate to list examples, since those familiar to me are naturally ones I've participated in. And that may colour this honest appeal in the light of self-interest. I rather hope that the inherent problem will be obvious: majority can not rule, and it is manifestly beneficial to close loopholes that allow for the unchallenged ultimate rule of public opinion. However, if you want an example, then look no further than the straw that broke the camel's back and prompted me to write the proposal: the Denali Fiasco. In a flurry of sentiment, we've seen basic naming policy unapologetically swept aside. Now, I want to make it clear I agree in principle with the renaming of the peak in the real world - but I oppose it vehemently on Wiki as a fundamentally unsupported move that vividly displays to the whole world how much Wikipedia bends to popular sentiment and politics. The spirit and letter of the policy is clear: go with the common name. Yet the chance of that happening is nil. Again, though, I'd happily concede that issue if we can move towards fixing the wider problem, i.e. I'm not here to try and have my way over there. It is, as I said, merely the last straw. -- Director (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome to propose a change at WT:IAR. Don't expect a lot of support. Blueboar (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The lack of firm rules is a fundamental principle of the project. But more to your point, the Denali move was not, as you say, a fiasco. Yes, the move was out of process and that generated a ton of dramah that could've and should've been avoided, but the policy-based argument you're referring to was not "unapologetically swept aside" in a "flurry of sentiment". Yes, there were some weightless and sentiment-based !voters on both sides and those really don't factor into consensus building at all. The WP:COMMONNAME-based argument hardly garnered any support at all, and it was still directly debated and the move was still extensively justified by its supporters. It was only a small minority of users who were invoking that policy and there was absolutely no consensus that it applied. Consensus governs all and when dealing with a subjective interpretation of how policy should be applied, consensus is quite literally the only way to resolve such a dispute. Swarm ♠ 06:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We've lost something here

OTHERPARENT used to cover the temporal equivalent of forum shopping, the re-re-re-asking in hopes of getting the desired answer, from a different temporary consensus of editors, most often in the same venue over time. We need that back in there; its absence has led to a palpable increase in this behavior, a sense a sense that WP:CCC means "never ever give up, and just re-raise the same demand every few months until you WP:WIN. This "parent shopping" is 100% as much a form of consensus WP:GAMING as literal forum shopping.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

How about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 11:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree. But the problem is that consensus can change... and the only way to evaluate whether it has changed is to raise the issue again and ask.
Of course, a lot depends on how strong that previous consensus was. If the previous consensus was relatively weak (narrow), then I think it quite legitimate to raise the issue again, especially if the person raising it again has something new to add to the discussion. If, on the other hand the previous consensus was strong (broad), then questioning it more than once or twice becomes a form of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.
Finally, we have to remember that there is a flip side to this coin... stonewalling. There are times when those who "WON" in a previous discussion (the old consensus) cling to their victory, and refuse to HEAR comments indicating that consensus might have changed (or is in the process of changing). Stonewalling is also disruptive behavior. Blueboar (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Stonewalling requires one or a few to dominate the discussion, countering a proposal for change. A few dominating the discussion is disruption, without regard to the stonewalling part. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We who work in moderated content dispute resolution deal with the forum shopping question fairly regularly. Someone will get a Third Opinion, not like the result and file at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, again not like the result and file a request for Formal Mediation. In general such a progress will be allowed unless there was a clear[1] recent[2] consensus at one of those stages, in which case the case will probably be rejected. While that's sometimes phrased as "No dispute to moderate, consensus in place," which is correct, it's actually because one or two editors are challenging an established consensus and going about it the wrong way by forum shopping. For me, the more interesting question is whether it is disruptive at the article talk page to attempt to immediately[2] restart the discussion or file a RFC once a consensus has clearly formed. I can think of instances when I think that would not be and instances in which I think it would, with a lot turning on how the editor doing so conducts him/herself and whether or not it is clear that the prior discussion has entirely ceased. And there is a case to be made, I think, that RFC's are always proper except perhaps in the absolute clearest of consensuses. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Side notes and rabbit trails

  1. ^ Uncertain consensuses will not usually be treated in this way and the case will be accepted. Participants in that consensus then have three choices (a) continue the discussion at the DR forum, (b) request a consensus evaluation from the DR forum, or (c) refuse to participate in the DR process (which is always acceptable, participation in DR is always voluntary).
  2. ^ a b It's a somewhat different situation when a consensus has "aged" for awhile without any continued discussion or reverting. In that situation, CCC has some traction and that's especially true if the editor challenging the consensus does so in an orderly way through [[WP:BRD|]] or raising discussion on the talk page.
I would agree, calling an RfC should be acceptable, if the editor is in good standing, if a similar RfC has not recently closed, and if at least one other editor in good standing agrees to second the RfC. The tendentious filibuster usually depends one one over-excited editor, and too many RfCs have terribly poor introductions that reflect a lack of review of the RfC opening statement. There is some region of conflict between the statements "discussion helps find consensus" and "forum shopping is disruptive" and a few procedural rules could help a lot. Always, in my opinion, Category:Wikipedia requests for comment contains so many half-baked and poorly introduced requests for comment, that it is unreasonable to expect many uninvolved editors to have the energy to engage in them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Related to this question, we need to address the problem of trying to forum-shop on the same talk page concurrently. Three times in the last few months I've had someone wikilawyer about the fact that WP:FORUMSHOP's present wording seems to indicate that it only applies if you go to a different page or a different admin. But the reasoning "It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want" is not actually limited to such technicalities. I think all the regulars here understand this, but this understanding does not translate to every single editor, and even someone who does actually understand it can still try to game it. In one case I'm thinking of, someone raised a proposal to change a policypage, and not meeting success in that thread, they then injected it as a mini-coatrack into something like 5 other concurrent threads on the same page, leading to a cascade of rebuttals in each location, that eventually drowned the entire page in a dispute that was already not going anywhere in the first thread in it was opened. This really needs to stop. It's not the first time it's happened, at that same page, but is a technique that I've seen used there (and other places) numerous times by various parties since at least 2008, and rather spectacularly in 2012. It's common in talk page disputes at controversial topics (e.g. a pro-Elbonian editwarrior inserts a challenge to the reliability of Kerblachistani sources, in every thread on the talk page of the article about the Kerblachistan–Elbonia border dispute, just to sow FUD and aid their slow-editwar toward an anti-Kerblach article. If this were explicitly encompassed in FORUMSHOP, it would be a great tool to help curtail such behavior patterns.

All we need do is insert the examine of injecting the same proposal into multiple threads on the same page as use of additional forums.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Difference between policies and guidelines

The policy page WP:Policies and guidelines makes a clear distinction between policies and guidelines. Policies "describe standards that all users should normally follow", while "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This seems to me to contradict the Level of Consensus section of this policy, as it makes no distinction at all between policies and guidelines. In my experience it has always been the case that the editors working in a part of Wikipedia can form a consensus to vary a guideline (but not a policy) within some common sense limits if the needs of that part of Wikipedia are not met by the guideline as written. But that very common type of "local consensus" seems to be explicitly forbidden here. Zerotalk 04:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The difference is between "occasional" exceptions and "systematic" exceptions. "Occasional" common sense exceptions to guidelines are allowed, but if e.g. WikiProject guidance contradicts a guideline that would be a "systematic" exception to the guideline, and reduces the WikiProject guidance to essay (unless there is a broader consensus on the common sense of the guidance improvement, and the guideline is updated accordingly). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Giving an example of the undesirability of letting forked guidance "fester" in Wikiprojects: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Amendment request: Longevity (August 2015) --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have always felt that CONLEVEL should be replaced with CONBREADTH. When it comes to determining whether to make an exception to policy/guidance, what is important is how broad the consensus is... not the page on which the consensus was formed.
A few editors can not declare an exemption to policy/guidance (no matter what page the discussion is held on)... the consensus is not broad enough. Lots of editors can declare an exemption (no matter what page the discussion is held on)... the consensus is broad enough. So... Suppose a Wikiproject seeks a "systematic" exception to some bit of guidance/policy - and holds an RFC on their talk page... if that RFC gets input from a wide swath of the community, and the consensus is to allow it - then that broad consensus should be accepted (whether that exception makes it's way into the text of a guideline/policy page or not). Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Nah, when there is a broad consensus the guideline is no longer adequate, it needs to be updated, not forked. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
There are two problems with that view:
1) Some guideline pages are WP:OWNED by a small group of (dedicated, but very opinionated) policy wonks, who refuse to allow the guideline to be updated so the project and guideline match. Indeed, they often cite CONLEVEL to justify their obstinacy... claiming that any consensus (no matter how broad) reached at Wikiproject talk page is merely a LOCAL consensus and thus can be ignored. In some ways, it's a form of the "Not invented here" mentality.
2) In some cases, making a "systematic" exception for a project really only affects a very small group of articles... too few to make it worth explicitly stating the exception on the guideline page (or to put it another way... bothering to state an exception that only affects such a small group of articles amounts to unnecessary instruction creep). Not every exception needs to be stated. I would argue that in such cases, the "systematic" overlaps with "occasional". Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Re. 1) – disagree: if the consensus is broad enough the guideline needs to be updated. If not, the WikiProject has to choose between "guideline level" for their guidance (keep it in line with the existing guideline) or "essay level" (who says essays aren't useful?). An editor shouldn't get contradictory guidance depending on whether they arrive at the actual guideline first, or at the Wikiproject.
Re. 2) – disagree: the guideline update doesn't suppose the detail is transferred to the guideline. Most of the time a judicious introduction of a qualifier like "generally" or "usually" or "in most cases" added to the guideline rule will give enough leeway for the WikiProject to consider particular cases with limited scope in their guidance. Or the Wikiproject can write its guidance in a format like "for particular case X a consensus to divert from guideline Y is usually easily found"... etc. Just don't make it confusing for the editor depending on which guidance page they find first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
(1) There are already plenty of parts of Wikipedia with different rules, such as 1RR restrictions. The surprise of newcomers is only momentary. (2) There is already a general caveat like that for all guidelines; I quoted it in my first posting here. Zerotalk 09:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Re. (1): Wikipedia:Edit warring is a policy (not a guideline) and explains both WP:3RR and WP:1RR – don't see where this comes in to this discussion as an example of anything.
Re. (2): The general caveat is for "occasional" exceptions, not for "systematic" ones (as e.g. an incompatible rule in some other guideline). Oops. Explained that already. Are we running in circles here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I may be at least one of the policy wonks that BB refers to in 1) because I do, in fact, make that very argument on occasion and for that purpose. However, I'm not sure that we really disagree. To me the question is one of notice. To change policy there should be notice to the community that policymaking is going on, generally through following the method set out in the Policy policy. It's presumed that those members of the community interested in a particular policy will watchlist that policy. If changes are proposed, they'll know about them. They won't know about them if those changes are made at some project that they're not watching. So to allow projects to have discussions which change policy means that the very editors most interested in that particular policy will not have a chance to weigh in on it, which is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean that changes to say, Verifiability, cannot be made a the My Little Pony Wikiproject, it only means that if that's going to happen the community in general and the people interested in V need to have a chance to know about the proposal. I agree that it's not really about the page where the discussion takes place: it's about the notice so as to allow broad participation and to allow all interested parties to weigh in. BB says, "Suppose a Wikiproject seeks a 'systematic' exception to some bit of guidance/policy - and holds an RFC on their talk page... if that RFC gets input from a wide swath of the community, and the consensus is to allow it - then that broad consensus should be accepted (whether that exception makes it's way into the text of a guideline/policy page or not)." Frankly, in that situation I think that it's possible that the very fact that there has been wide participation may indicate that something has happened to give the general community and perhaps even the specialized community interested in that policy adequate notice, but the question then becomes just how wide does the swath have to be before that notice can be presumed and/or the broad consensus should be accepted? The presumption should be that CONLIMITED controls unless it is absolutely indisputable that the entire community has probably been aware of the discussion and that those who wish to participate have done so. Obviously, there are going to be many discussions in such places where that question is open for debate and others where, even if it's not really open for debate, that it will be debated anyway. CONLIMITED and the Policy policy offer a way to avoid that debate: If you're not going to try to change policy at the policy's regular page then give notice at that page and at the Village Pump (and if it's an RFC by including the policy category). By doing so you avoid the secondary debate after the end of the discussion that you've been hiding behind a log and that CONLIMITED kills the decision that you've just made. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Transporterman, I think your reply illustrates the problem I raised. If there was no difference between a policy and a guideline, we wouldn't have both of them. That was part of the design of the regulatory structure from the beginning, and I'd be very surprised if more than a tiny fraction of experienced editors think otherwise. But your reply makes no distinction between policies and guidelines. I believe that is wrong. Zerotalk 05:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000:: maybe explain the particular issue that prompted you to come here: the general philosphical reflections can go on ad infinitum, but I suppose you have an issue to address, which may be easier to solve than with a choice of speculative advice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually the issue which caused me to notice this was solved even before I wrote here. But I can describe the general idea. Some guidelines describe quite low-level editing practices such as what color to use in some circumstances. However, colors are politically sensitive in some parts of the world, so use of the standard colors causes trouble in some articles. In that case I believe the area editors have the right to use different colors. In the actual case it turned out that a ruling from WMF was involved and that was that, but the question remains in principle. Zerotalk 09:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Policy > (outdoes) > Guideline > (outdoes) > Essay – if "Wikiproject guidance" is added to that scheme it becomes:
Policy > (outdoes) > Guideline > (outdoes) > Wikiproject guidance > (outdoes) > Essay – sometimes the WikiProject guidance is closer to guidelines, sometimes it is closer to essays – depends on whether it adheres to the guidance in guidelines and policies or not. Anyhow, both "policies" and "guidelines" are above WikiProject guidance as far as breadth of consensus is concerned. Perfectly clear in the current WP:CONSENSUS policy, and I don't see how it could be improved on that point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Re: Anyhow, both "policies" and "guidelines" are above WikiProject guidance as far as breadth of consensus is concerned. That is certainly the assumption upon which CONLEVEL is based... and I would say that most of the time the assumption matches reality. But not always.  :::Sometimes, the reality is that a consensus reached at a WikiProject actually reflect the consensus of a much broader segment of our community than the consensus reached on some "official" page. Some of our WikiProject talk pages are watched by hundreds of editors... while only a dozen or so have the guideline on their watch lists. Some discussions on WikiProject pages involve far more editors than ever contributed to the guideline page.
In other words... the assumption that "official" guidelines pages always enjoy a wider consensus than wikiprojects is a flawed assumption. They often do so... but not always. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Re. "the assumption upon which CONLEVEL is based" – WP:CONLEVEL assumes nothing. No policy "assumes" it is followed (why would we need policy then?) Where it isn't followed there's a range of options encompassng "live with it", "enforce it", "change it", "complain about it",... To "enforce it" this isn't really the place to be (there are other venues to do that), this talk page is mainly about "change it" and that part of "complain and live with it" that is about explaining it so that it is better understood.
Level of consensus isn't measured by "number of editors that have something on their watchlist" If that were the measure all the nonsense that occasionally is posted on Jimbo's talk page and gets duly archived would be super-policy. Some policies can be imposed, and if they don't have broad consensus at the moment of being imposed that may mean some editors need to go if they can't live with it (was e.g. thinking paid editing COI – I really couldn't care less how many COI paid editors have WT:COI on their watchlist and what "broad" consensus they could fabricate there). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Zero0000: You're right, I didn't address the difference because I was really responding more to what Blueboar said than to the general issue you raised. For me, the primary difference between a policy and a guideline is that you're likely to be blocked more often and more quickly if you tendentiously violate most policies than you are if you tendentiously violate most guidelines. Unfortunately, however, for that logic and, indeed, for the whole scheme of policies and guidelines in general, we have some guidelines which are treated as a practical matter with the same degree of importance as most policies and some policies which are treated with the same degree of lesser importance as are most guidelines. On a day-to-day basis, I generally don't see much practical difference between policies and guidelines. Moreover, having done or been involved with hundreds of dispute resolution cases here, I can't offhand think of a single one which has ever mostly turned on the difference between policies and guidelines; policy or guideline vs essay or WikiProject standard, yes, but not policy vs guideline. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I strongly concur. WP:RS obviously has more buy-in and is more central to our daily, even minute-to-minute, operations than several policies I can think of (e.g., plenty of us think that the intellectual property law approach in WP:COPYRIGHT is excessively paranoid in multiple ways and needs to be reviewed by another, fresher team of legal eyes). The primary difference between policies and guidelines is the nature of the material, not how much buy-in it has. Some essays even have essentially the same level of acceptance in practice (e.g. WP:AADD does, and WP:BRD once did, though it got quite a dressing down at Village Pump not long ago), but aren't "guideline material". Policies are rules seen (sometimes by WMF more than by the community) as essential to WP's ability to work towards is goals. Guidelines provide best practices for how to accomplish that work. Essays, even the most accepted ones, are essentially advisory on application and interpretation of policies and guidelines: How to approach or relate to doing that work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

When do we have consensus - Is it lack of a significant counter argument ?

Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining_consensus didn't seem to say. It would help to have a brief summary of what it is as well as things it is not (not a poll/democracy - although I saw one admin said 3 out of 4 is consensus). Is consensus a lack of a significant counter argument ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes generally its the weight of the arguments on both sides that determines consensus. However, you will find it rare that such a lopsided discussion as you mention would be found not to be consensus albeit 4 people is a small number. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In my experiences, it's when there's a big enough number of editors in agreement. If enough editors argue that red is blue? then the result for the article-in-question, is red is blue. Those who continue to oppose? will eventually end up blocked, topic-banned, restricted or site-banned. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Except that consensus never determines that red is blue. People who suggest that this is happening are invariably approaching a topic with a belief that it's that clear-cut while everyone else can see that it's quite a bit more complex, that the view consensus goes against is based on original research, or it's just a subjective matter on which WP cannot speak in it's own institutional voice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
It is a "consensus" that Bible stories are the majority/mainstream view of history and that the Bible is a "reliable source". No sources or logical arguments are necessary, just more votes. Keith McClary (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
No. Let's not confuse the NOR issue. We don't determine consensus on what the truth is, we only determine consensus of how reliable sources illustrate the content. There might be some subjectivity in determining which sources are considered reliable and we might quibble about interpretation of what a secondary source says, but we don't determine that red is blue; just that the consensus of sources say that red is blue. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
By NOR you mean "Not Our Religion" ? Keith McClary (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I‘m pretty sure the reference is to WP:NOR, the policy that requires our content—including both facts and conclusions drawn therefrom—to be sourced from reputable publications. Participants in a discussion may draw on their personal knowledge or original syntheses to make persuasive arguments, but these should be discounted when it comes to evaluating consensus (except insofar as they may motivate policy- and source-based support from others).—Odysseus1479 09:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Returning to the original question, as I've said previously, in doing dispute resolution my personal — and I emphasize that this is just personal — quick rule of thumb for consensus is 3 to 1 if the 3 have an overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree argument, 4 to 1 with a somewhat weaker but still pretty strong argument, and 5 to 1 with an argument which is merely reasonable, and in each case that's if the 1 has a merely reasonable argument. If the 1 has a strong or very strong argument, higher ratios are required. Theoretically, if the 1 has one of those overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree arguments then the number on the other side shouldn't make any difference, but you then have to at least consider this: If his argument is so great why isn't anyone else buying it? Note that this analysis only applies when there is no solution mandated by policy. When policy provides a solution, policy wins (because policy is per CONLIMITED the established consensus of the community), unless a local exception is established, but that also has to be done by consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

History abounds with examples of the consensus being wrong

A little humility? The consensus of the U.S. Congress and U.S. Supreme Court in 1840-60 was that slavery was beneficent at best, or at worst something they could ignore. (Any bills introduced were automatically - automatically! - tabled.) The nation paid a terrible price as a result. If you think that every consensus on Wikipedia is infallible you're deluded. I don't have a better procedure to propose. It's as good a procedure as there is. But a lot of people thought the world would end in the year 1000. Humility. deisenbe (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

We have a lot of humility. We don't think every consensus on Wikipedia is infallible... in fact, quite the opposite. We explicitly acknowledge in the policy that "Consensus can change" (see: WP:CCC). Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
We don't assert that any WP:Consensus is infallible. WP:Consensus is a method not a result. But we do generally believe that people can reason together (in content decisions from sources and wide literature reviews - and in other decisions form previously embraced principles and methods) and come to reasoned result, even agreement -- which, one supposes is rather anthropomorphically hubristic, as to the human mind. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It is about coming to a decision and moving on, it is okay if we are wrong from time to time. That is why consensus can change. I find the example you chose to be so far from anything we do here that it really adds nothing to the discussion other than heat. HighInBC 17:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a proposal in this thread, or are we just chewing the fat under this particular section heading? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

ascertaining consensus

The page says: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."

I agree with Director (above) that editors often think that "consensus" means majority opinion. The line I quoted says that it's the quality of arguments that determines consensus, which is as it should be. But who determines the quality of the arguments? If it's the editors themselves, the majority will rule that their arguments are best, so they have consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

How do you expect politics and various groups to influence the project if it isn't made to function de facto by majority vote? We've a host of policies - and a policy that overrides them all in practice in favor of democratic decision-making. The only counterargument is in essence an affirmation of that same status quo: "we have no rules on Wikipedia [therefore decision making is deferred to the majority on the ground]". -- Director (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that it is basically "majority rules"? That's what it feels like out there "in the field," so that's why I'm trying to make sense of the idea that it's the arguments that count, not the numbers. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jonathan Tweet: That's discussed at Wikipedia:Closing discussions., NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, NewsAndEventsGuy. In theory, an admin can review a conversation, discard the irrelevant arguments, and judge consensus by the good arguments. That sounds great, but I've never seen that happen in all my years here. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy and Liz: I was hoping that being clear on an often disputed point would avert a lot of debate by adding this statement (in bold) to the existing text.
It is important to understand that any consensus must first have a viable and reasonable basis to it. In simple terms, there can be no legitimate consensus for putting a picture of Santa Claus in an article for Napoleon, even if there is a 10 to 1 consensus for this. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
Too many times editors seem to think that if no policy is violated they can have their way if there is a consensus. Don't see the harm in being clear on this point in simple terms, esp for the new and perhaps not so wise editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The first obvious problem with your text has to do with the way you try to illustrate a case of a dumb consensus that does not violate policy. You used an example image of Santa Clause in an article about Napolean. However, there actually is a policy which covers this.... see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the example was (perhaps too) simple, but I believe the point (which could involve things other than images) was still valid and felt it would do more good than any perceived harm by being clear about this in the section in question. If you could and would find a better example that would be nice, and you would at least have my support. In any event thanx for your interest and civility. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't plan to look for examples. As I said before, the problem is that the people I think we're talking about aren't reading this section at all much less for comprehension. If they did the latter, no additional text would be required because the existing text is quite clear, in my view. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not support an addition along the lines of the Santa Claus example above. While the sentiment is good and correct in a way, such a situation would be noticed by at least one editor who would mention WP:UNDUE or whatever, and policy-free votes from ten Santa Claus supporters would be ignored—that is standard procedure. The problem with the proposed text is that wikilawyers would interpret it to mean that they can ignore arguments they do not like because (in their opinion) there is "no viable and reasonable basis" for them. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

What I proposed was for WP:CON to make it crystal clear that policy represents a wider, project-wide consensus, and that it therefore can not be superseded by "local" consensus on an article talkpage. In other words, that WP:CONSENSUS can not be invoked to override other policy. That is a recipe for a project which is edited on the basis of popularity (and that's basically how things are now). -- Director (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like that. "Editors must not use consensus to justify violating policy because policy itself represents project-wide consensus." Something like that. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
But IAR clearly implies that local consensus can overrule policy and I know of nothing else, with a couple of exceptions, that says otherwise. It implies it like this: It says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." If that ignoring of the rule can simply be swept away by someone asserting the rule then IAR is meaningless. What it has to mean, then, is this: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. But if you're challenged on it then you must achieve a consensus to ignore the rule in that instance." Such a consensus is a local consensus. That's the only way IAR can be interpreted to make any sense unless you interpret it to be a behavioral rule to allow easy editing without knowing the rules instead of a content rule, that is, that the rule really means, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. If it violates a rule then you're probably going to get reverted sooner or later, but you won't be blocked or banned." But it doesn't make any sense to see it that way because IAR is clearly about the situation where the editor knows that the rule exists: You can't ignore something unless you know it exists. It clearly doesn't offer immunity against being blocked or banned simply for editing against the rules, we all know that editors who make the same edit against policy time and again, long after they know it is in violation of a rule, are subject (quite properly in my opinion) to being blocked or banned for disruptive editing. There is only one clear exception to an IAR local exception overruling policy and that's local exceptions which overrule legal policies (such as copyright) or office actions. There may be a second one that core policies cannot be made subject to an IAR local exception and that's set out here, but I think that one is very doubtful on its face, seems to contradict itself, and may be only limited to deletion discussions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The non-negotiable policies are not subject to being ignored, ever. "IAR" refers to processes and the like - not to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there somewhere that is established? Other than here? Or, saying it differently, what is your source for saying, first, that certain policies are non-negotiable and, second, that the fact that they're non-negotiable means that they're not subject to being ignored. I'm not doubting you, I just don't know where that's said. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Update: Never mind, I'm still looking and am beginning to find the sources. Thanks for showing me something I've never spotted before. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Director, I still don't see how more text is going prevent a problem. Suppose your proposal is adopted. Then what? You have described a hypothetical page where all the eds agree to do something super dumb in contravention of the usual rules, and they claim consensus let's them do this. What happens after we make the change you want? Same thing - your desired text doesn't apply itself, after all. So then how do we undo the super dumb thing this group agreed to do? Someone like yourself has to (A) notice and (B) care enough to speak up. That's exactly how it works right now. Among the possible outcomes are (1) the group is stubborn and the person who cares quickly abandons the cause, (2) the group is stubborn and the person who cares gets increasingly frustrated until they lash out and get themselves blocked, and (3) despite the group's stubborness the person who cares makes skillful use of WP:DR, WP:RFC etc. There are other outcomes too, of course. I think you agree this text would not change the rules, but just seeks to clarify the rules. Well, if it isn't changing the rules, then the person who notices and cares still has to make skillful use of WP:DR, WP:RFC etc. So I don't really see what this does other than this - provide the knight in shining armor yet another bit of text to use in the battle with the stiffnecks. Sorry, but I don't think such eds are likely to agree any more readily when you cite the proposed text instead of the text you think it clarifies. The BRD process done right certainly can take a lot of time and drive one up a bloody wall. But that's the beast, and the proposal doesn't seem to change anything, from where I sit. That said, someone could maybe try to make the case by showing specific examples where this might have prevented problems. Anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

what consensus may not be used for

In this good faith edit, text was added that reads

* Consensus may not be used to exempt matters from the Verification, Neutral point of view, and No original research policies or from policies with legal considerations such as Copyright and Biographies of living persons.Ed

Editor TransporterMan provided a hidden comment, saying that the source for this text consisted of

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency#Avoid bias and
  2. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus

I have not made up my mind what I think about this text, but I nonetheless reverted because this is an important Wikipedia policy and I'd like to see the proposal be thoroughly discussed before going live. The two sources are an inadequate substitute for the discussion. The ANI source is by definition a limited context and the Deletion guideline is just that... a guideline. This might be a great addition, but I think it should be discussed first.

My first comment is... what problem does this seek to solve? In the first part of this thread (above the sub-subheading) no one provided examples to show there is a problem to be prevented with this text. Generally, I'm opposed to WP:CREEP and the gist of the proposal seems adequately incorporated into policy already. A demonstration with examples might change my mind, however. Anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Supplemental proposal re Ignore all rules If we make the non negotiable nature of core policies explicit here, (i.e., at the consensus policy) the same reasoning suggests we should also make it explicit at WP:Ignore all rules. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
One problem with adding wording to say that consensus does not override V/NPOV/NOR is that it gives wikilawyers room to continue to argue. They will say that the "consensus" that others claim (or that was asserted in an RfC close) is invalid because it conflicts with V/NPOV/NOR for the following reasons [here they will repeat all their previous arguments]. There has to be some way to stop arguing and consensus is it. If an editor doesn't like it, they can exhaust WP:DR but essentially they have to accept that consensus is against them at the moment regardless of their opinion that it conflicts with V/NPOV/NOR. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Moreover, many uncountable times these things are judgement calls in shades of gray, and there just is no better system than deferring to the most agreed upon position (or where we have a default rule in cases of no consensus to go with that). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Without example situations, as previously requested, I also Agree per WP:CREEP.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's the reason I used the word "exempt". Consensus cannot say that the policy does not apply at all (except when there is no question that it doesn't, consensus or no consensus), but consensus can definitely determine how policy is to be interpreted and applied in those cases in which application is certain, but how it applies (e.g. whether or not a particular source is not is not reliable) is uncertain. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, part of the consensus involves coming to an agreement on whether one is really looking at a V or NOR or NPOV or BLP or , etc.. . . or some proper policy(ies)/guideline(s) combination problem, not to mention which section gives the answer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, I've also not made up my mind about what I think about the text and, indeed, my posting it was a trial balloon to see if anyone agrees with it. Director takes a categorical position about it, above, and I was surprised when I found that he was right (which isn't meant as a negative comment on Director, but instead on the fact that it existed and I hadn't run into it before now). I've formulated in my mind a massive RFC to evaluate and explore the validity and ramifications of that idea (along with the ongoing validity of IAR in general and, Alanscottwalker, if I were to do it it would be at IAR, not here), but I kind of agree with your question about what problem is it intended to solve. In doing years of work at Third Opinion, DRN, and MEDCOM and handling hundreds of disputes I cannot recall one single instance in a case that I've worked on of a party asserting an IAR local exception to any policy, much less a consensus-supported IAR local exception to a core policy. Maybe such cases have come through dispute resolution and I've just missed them, but my experience suggests to me that such assertions either don't exist or are very rare, indeed. At the same time, I'm kind of uncomfortable that such an important exception to IAR exists, even if it's only rarely or never used (at least outside AfD discussions, where it seems to be mentioned fairly often, see this search for some examples), but which is so hard to find or document. I agree that it probably ought to be at IAR, but IAR is famously resistant to changes whereas the point equally concerns what consensus can and cannot do and could be here well enough. Having said that, I think I'm done on this unless there is substantial sentiment that we ought to move forward on it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. To clarify my view.... at present I am not persuaded that either the Consensus or IAR policy need tweaking over this, especially if your extensive DR experience can not produce an example. Right now, this seems like a proposal to go swimming in a can or worms in hopes of solving a problem that only arises maybe once a decade. That's the very definition of WP:CREEP, seems to me. However, in the event I change my mind or consensus goes against me here at the Consensus policy, then I was just saying that the same logic/reasoning might also support making a similar tweak to the IAR policy. At present, however, the problem only seems to exist in the realm of abstract possibility, so why go there? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we agreed, in principle, that talkpage consensus can not be invoked (by way of WP:CON) to supersede project policy? That is to say, that "we voted against the application of policy in this issue" is not something that should be seen on Wiki (as it most certainly is). If we are, that should be made clear in the text. If we're not, then we should at least make it even clearer that the application of policy depends upon talkpage consensus. One or the other. -- Director (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Implicit in your question is whether we have agreed in principle to tweak Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines#Policy so that "normally" becomes "must, in all situations". I would be opposed to that, for the reason that (A) I don't know (via abundant examples) what problem we are trying to fix and (B) I have trust that whatever shortcomings in the current methodology, I am more afraid of shortcomings that would arise from creating a black and white culture, call it Wikipedia Fundamentalism. Ick. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Getting off into that question — the degree to which policies are binding rules — is truly a can of worms. Just as I've not seen an IAR local exception in doing DR, what I have seen fairly consistently (and fully support) is that content policies, especially core policies but also including guidelines and other policies, are rules for all practical day-to-day purposes. (Conduct policies, with which I don't routinely become involved, may be less so.) I can make a wall-o-text argument about that, but in short I would argue policies and guidelines are rules to be followed except when IAR local consensuses create an instance in which they are not to be followed, but not otherwise. So from my point of view policies are rules which must be followed except when an IAR local exception is made (which in my experience never happens, which makes the question of whether it cannot happen in the case of core policies kind of moot). I wish I had time to sort through the AfD closings citing core policies as being non-negotiable, but I rather suspect that the concept is valid and useful there for those instances when there is a huge pile-on of "keeps" for an article which doesn't meet one of the core policies. Being able to cite to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus saves the closer from having to make what would otherwise appear to be a value judgment that the argument for the "keeps" is weaker than the argument supporting the core policy in question. (And, indeed, saying that they're non-negotiable says, in effect, that the purposes behind those policies are so strong that no argument can overcome them.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC) PS: @Director: Can you provide us with links to a couple of examples where IAR local consensuses have been asserted to overcome core policies outside of AfD? If one or more of those were ones in which it created a big fight or were asserted (allegedly) successfully that would be great, but any would be great just to give us some context. — TM 19:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
If this Can you provide us with links to a couple of examples where IAR local consensuses have been asserted to overcome core policies outside of AfD? is directed at me, the answer is "no", and I don't plan to look for any because right now I am a tweak opposer. I just don't see a problem that needs fixing. But if a tweak does get approved despite my present opposition, then we should make sure related passages such as IAR are all tweaked in a sensible coordination. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In terms of basic logic, this policy either does or does not supersede other policies. That is the question - I'm not necessarily raising the issue of the degree to which policies in general are binding. The question merely concerns this policy - and currently the answer is vague. I.e. there is no answer at all.

The advantages of clarity over vague gibberish ("normally" etc), on a subject as fundamental as this, should imo be obvious. With or without bogging down this (rather simple) issue in the particulars of some random discussion or other. -- Director (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Elsewhere I've heard many others say the advantages of flexibility are equally obvious. We could certainly weigh pros/cons in the abstract, but I don't think we're likely to attract widespread input without a demonstration, with examples, of whatever problem that is supposedly at issue. Lacking that, I'm opposed to tweaks based on abstract reasoning, out of fear of the unknown. If we can't demonstrate the existence of a problem, then any good faith tweak we make based on abstract theory could easily make matters worse by creating new and unexpected tangible issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Flexibility? On whether or not this is the one fundamental policy of the project, overriding all others?
This topic of discussion is entirely abstract. I see no need for specific examples, since virtually every major debate on this project follows the will of the majority, and I am reluctant to bring forth anything since it seems to me that all it will do is provide opportunity for sidetracking the discussion. However, as can be read above, the straw that broke the camel's back for me personally was Talk:Denali, where others and myself pointing to basic naming policy were in the end told bluntly that consensus overrides WP:NAME. To be sure, there are usually policies/guidelines called upon by both sides, and wikilawyering is naturally unavoidable - but at the very least we should be clear on the basic point that no: policy is wider consensus than talkpage agreement. But if that's rejected, let us at least be clear on the opposite.
As things are, the project functions as a democracy.
P.s. As a disclaimer I'll say that this is not a personal matter, nor anything that revolves over that one issue. I'm from continental Europe, and in the end don't really care about Mount McKinley, nor the politics surrounding that name. My involvement on the talkpage was motivated exclusively by shock that policy was so blatantly ignored - and that when it should really have helped the project: from the perspective of English-speakers outside North America (which I thought to bring to the issue), the renaming was so recent "Denali" couldn't possibly ring a bell compared to the famous "Mount McKinley" everyone learns about. Not even close. And not for some time.
But again: I don't want this to become about some specific squabble when, like I said, the question is in fact entirely abstract: is this the paramount policy of the project? -- Director (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no known set of rules about anything of significance that does not have a logical inconsistency, so it is no surprise that people can raise what-ifs regarding a hypothetical situation where CONSENSUS says that X is true while some other policy says X is false. Per not bureaucracy we don't worry about that. When the situation arises we can argue about it in the normal manner. However, it is possible to answer the specific question about which policy has primacy: the answer is none of them because there is no written constitution or associated bylaws. However, as a practical matter, it is obvious that if an RfC declares that X is true, that is the outcome that will apply until someone finds information that convinces enough people that X is actually false. Johnuniq (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Would that logic did it all for us than we could just have a computer algorithm make the edit, and we would not have the mess of discussion. But here, multiple human minds have to apply logic and consensus is coming to a meeting of minds. For example, in NAMES policy if the minds meet at the salient value being most recent in a name-change situation than that is just the value the minds have met at, over another value. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Director, thanks for that example. Now I understand a bit better. I wasn't involved in the Denali matter, but if you were "told bluntly that consensus overrides WP:NAME" I would agree that was a proper statement, but only if it was a true and valid consensus. But that's not because of this Consensus policy but because of IAR. To the extent this policy (or WP:BURO) is relevant to that issue, I see them only as reflections and implementations of IAR. If it had been a core or legal policy, however, (now that you've educated me about that) I might not have agreed that consensus overruled it (though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fight over whether core policies are really non-negotiable). What I don't understand is why you question this — I don't mean anything negative about you in that question, but only that it's such a fundamental part of the encyclopedia that I truly don't understand why you think that it might not be the case — and what exactly it is that you're trying to do in this discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
How can consensus on one article, whether its "true" or not (which is also hopelessly vague and in practice amounts to voting), override a project-wide agreement in the form of policy?
As regards IAR, its fundamentally absurd: the only point of policy is to help editors improve the project - if its hindering such effort, it must be amended. Not ignored. In practical terms, the only reason why the thing doesn't effectively invalidate all other policies and guidelines, is that editors don't really take it seriously, don't know about it, or don't generally recognize it as a valid argument. Which is only logical: since if IAR is accepted as a valid position, there are no valid positions. Even WP:V could be ignored. One's basic sense rebels against the concept, even on a subconscious level.
But again, while I certainly do find IAR ridiculous, I don't necessarily see any contradiction between it and what's proposed in this thread. Sure - go with consensus over any "rules, man", but respect wider consensus. -- Director (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Forum Shopping Question

I have a question about forum shopping, I may be stating the question in a non-neutral way, but this is not an RFC, and if another editor wants to leave the following question standing and answer a neutral version, that is fine with me.

The rule against forum shopping states that raising the same issue at multiple noticeboards or on multiple talk pages may be considered forum shopping. My question is: Is asking another editor for help on their talk page, when a proceeding is in progress at a noticeboard, an example of what this rule is meant to discourage? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is my opinion. Asking another editor for help is not forum shopping, in particular, not if the asking editor is new and the asked editor is experienced. On the other hand, asking multiple editors for help may be (but is not always) canvassing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I can’t see this as falling under forum-shopping, because user-space is not a venue where community-recognized decisions are made (aside from block appeals &c.). I also agree that it might be canvassing, as part of a larger pattern or where the asked editor was evidently chosen for holding favourable opinions, and depending in part on the phrasing of the request (e.g. “What do you think of …?” vs “Please weigh in at ….”). Otherwise I would consider it unexceptionable, and the use of a public talk-page, rather than e-mail or some other ‘back channel’, should count against an accusation of being underhanded or manipulative, albeit weakly.—Odysseus1479 19:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to discourage reverting and edit warring

I was having a discussion on another talk page, and we came to the conclusion that the current wording in WP:EDITCONSENSUS is a little too encouraging of reverting which can lead to edit warring. The wording in question is: "An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted", which suggests that one should feel entitled to revert if one dislikes an edit and can't think of a way to change it to something one likes. We suggest that the wording be changed to: "If you see an edit which is not an improvement, try to improve it by rewording. Only if you cannot do so should you consider reverting the edit." This we feel doesn't encourage reverts and edit wars. Any objections to the change? LK (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

While I don't much like the existing wording, I like the proposed version even less. It can be read (due to "only") to conflict with WP:BURDEN and there's already too much of that out there, see this current discussion at Verifiability talk as an example. The real problem here is that the paragraph focuses on rewording and suggests that many problems may be fixed by mere rewording when, in fact, most problems raised in articles are due to issues which cannot be cured by mere rewording unless, for example, adding a source to unsourced material is considered rewording. I'd be fine with the first proposed sentence if the second sentence read, "If you cannot do so you may consider reverting the edit." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I have an alternate proposal: How about deleting those two sentences altogether? They're really just obiter dicta in this paragraph which is about how to achieve consensus, not about when and where and how you can revert stuff. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to deleting them. They don't address the main topic of this page. LK (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly, those sentences replaced language which said - without the problems caused by the current language - this, "In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time without any needless procedures – editors do not need to seek permission before making changes. Even if there is a difference of opinion, often a simple rewording will satisfy all editors' concerns. Clear communication in edit summaries can make this process easier." (Emphasis added.) There was a discussion about the change here. Frankly, looking back at it I think that it was a poor choice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I am agreeable to reinstating the original wording. In fact, reading the discussion that you link to above, it seems consensus was never really reached to change it in the first place. LK (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I've made a change to achieve both the goals of the original wording and to avoid the problems which you've raised. If you're okay with it, let's see if it sticks. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks good to me. LK (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Enforcing consensus

I have a query about consensus I raised at WP:VPM#Enforcing a consensus. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2016

203.205.35.43 (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Gubbaare

Off topic. This page is for discussing improvements to this policy, only. Your sources will be evaluated through the AfD process. Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for self-promotion. See Facebook for that. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

'Gubbaare' is an independent Pakistani short film made for film festivals and online releases. A citing has been added on the article linking to the youtube link of the film. Please look into the matter soon. I need a Wikipedia page because I am a budding film-maker and need platforms like these. Please, look into it soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldwideshortfilms (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC OP self-implementing pretty cut-and-dry RFC consensus

If I made a proposal on an amendment to an WP:MOS page and opened an WP:RFC off the bat in order to generate a consensus faster, and my proposal has received near-unanimous support, is it cool if I just implement the proposal on the MOS page and wait for someone to close the RFC as having already been resolved?

Not posting the link here for the same reason I'm posting logged out. If you have nothing better to do, you can check this IP's edit history to find out pretty easily which username is mine and then check that account's recent edits to find the RFC in question, but I don't recommend it. I imagine there's also a list of open RFCs somewhere and only a small minority of them are on MOS talk pages.

180.221.235.82 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There's too many unanswered factors to be able to answer that question in the abstract. For example, how long has the RFC run? The default period is 30 days. Near-unanimous isn't unanimous, how near was it? And there are several others. Generally, it's better to get an uninvolved third party to evaluate all those questions and close the RFC and you can make a request for that at AN. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Having made no attempt to investigate the specifics, I agree it’s probably much better to wait for an uninvolved closing. As the proposer you won’t be seen as sufficiently neutral to evaluate the consensus, even if it seems obvious to you; I never cease to be amazed at how often something that’s perfectly straightforward from my POV turns out to be contentious. Even if the closing is just a formality, it will go a long way to making sure the changes ‘stick’. Moreover, since MOS is under discretionary sanctions there’s a heightened risk that any suspicion of “disruption” or circumventing process might provoke a disproportionate response. And WP:NODEADLINE.—Odysseus1479 20:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Or go ahead and implement your proposal. It's a good way to bring out the opposers, if they exist. Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I oppose implementation before close. In theory, three editors with strong arguments should outweigh twelve with weak arguments, and we should observe that theory, despite the fact that closes almost never go against the numerical majority. Anyway, WP:NORUSH. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
(Just noticed I'm 3.5 months late to this party. Oops.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed RfC on whether CONACHIEVE applies to decisions about choosing pictures

I'm going to be proposing an RfC on clarifying the WP:CONACHIEVE section. Here are two three ways of phrasing the question.

A. "RfC on whether WP:CON policy applies to changing pictures in articles"
B. "RfC: Should WP:CONACHIEVE policy be construed as applying to decisions about choosing pictures?"
C. "RfC: Should decisions about choosing pictures be based on personal preferences or on policies, common sense, and analogous pictures in reputable sources?"

Any ideas for making the question clearer or shorter? --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC) 16:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What's the background to this? In my experience everything here is subject to consensus decision (with a few exceptions mostly listed in CONEXCEPT) and consensus is always supposed to be determined on the basis of the quality of the arguments. Indeed, the very first words of this policy are, "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia" and if you'll do a page search on the word "quality" you'll find several references to quality of arguments. What causes you to think that changing images is different? I wonder if you might not need content dispute resolution more than a policy RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC) PS: Or you might need consensus evaluation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: For background, see a relevant comment (4 September 2016) by a page administrator: "I'm aware of policy, thanks. [...] If everyone wishes to continue to argue they have the best aesthetic sense, that's fine as there are no sources that tell us which is the best picture and no policy that dictates who has the best taste." --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
What he says there doesn't contradict anything I said above or, indeed, your proposal C, above. Sometimes there are good articulable policy based reasons to support or reject something and sometimes it does just come down to esthetics when no such reasons exist. The purpose of a consensus evaluation is to sort all of that out. With no disrespect to the good NeilN, administrators — there's no such thing as "page administrators" — only have the right as administrators to deal with conduct issues and they do not have the right to make binding pronouncements about content matters. Though I agree with what he said there, his opinion like my opinion is just that: opinion. Informed, experienced, neutral opinion perhaps, but opinion nonetheless. There's no need for an RFC about the issues you list above, DR (one form of which might be an RFC about which picture to use) or consensus evaluation, maybe, but not an RFC about these well-settled policy issues. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: I'm going by this example at the RfC project page--
checkY Good questions:
  • Should the picture in the lead be changed?
--which also says, "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits... Counting 'votes' is not an appropriate method."
To me, it sounds like the RfC question would best be worded:
D. "RfC: Should decisions about changing a picture in a lead be based primarily on (1) the personal aesthetic sense of a plurality of editors or (2) similar pictures of the subject published in reliable sources?"
--Dervorguilla (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd be careful with (2). Applying it generally may be fine, but for this particular subject I've noticed that many reliable sources, with their need and zeal to get the newest pictures, often publish photos that would be rejected by the majority of participants in that discussion. --NeilN talk to me 20:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Point taken, NeilN. Yes, they do indeed. Perhaps the emphasis should be on "...or published by the subject's own organization". --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with everything TransporterMan said above. I explicitly said a poll was only a suggestion. I also think in that particular discussion, Dervorguilla is, in some cases, conflating objective observations with subjective opinion. I can make objective observations of fact (e.g.., "muted field", "taken by same photographer", "tie and background match", "teeth appear whiter") but saying these facts make a certain photo better than others (which may have other redeeming features) is subjective opinion. You only have to look at other editors' responses to Dervorguilla's originally favored picture (photo D, I believe) to see that. In addition, deciding to hold a poll to determine if one or two photos are favored is in itself a form of consensus. --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: "Deciding to hold a poll ... is in itself a form of consensus." As is deciding to hold a poll that determines consensus by a simple counted majority. More at the WP:POLL essay. "A 'vote' that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale ... may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote-count."
Notwithstanding, if 25 editors respond to an RfC, and 9 vote to reach consensus by a simple vote-count, those 9 have decided for themselves that the consensus is to not reach consensus by a simple vote-count. The default process unanimously prevails. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand the policy, but its practical working out can be highly problematic. For example, here, relating to the disappearance of Australian prime minister Harold Holt, a majority vote was overturned in favour of text that was proved to be a hoax. A perverse outcome, but one justified by policy. With regard to Trump, an RfC could overwhelmingly choose one picture, but the closer could decide that one argument was more compelling than others. The "consensus" could therefore be a 1% opinion. I commented that the endless Trump discussions are like polishing a turd. I didn't mean that as an attack on Trump, but a comment on the fact that this has been going on for years and years. People are clearly not happy with the photos generally available. I think people should accept that he is not that photogenic and move on. He has been involved in beauty contests, but not as a contestant.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_19&oldid=1090630286"