Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Brutal Tyranny of the Majority = Consensus

That's what consensus ends up being. It would not be so bad if it were only made explicit. It is not and therein is the lie in wikipedia's process. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Only when people refuse to change their minds. Are such people really welcome here? — Omegatron 06:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In practice there are a lot of appeals to "rough consensus". This turns out to mean "a majority of people willing to revert", which, due to the 3RR, can force their version. The minority eventually give up and "agree to abide by the outcome", and at that point consensus is achieved per the definition here. It's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, of course, but sometimes, after all possible compromise has been tried, this is how it does work. —Ashley Y 07:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Rough in the sense of being "roughed up" by a mob. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus vs Policy

I am sure this has come up before, but I couldn't find it. I am looking for specificity regarding a consensus of partisans that runs contrary to policy, and how to delicately redirect the consensus to that within policies and guidelines. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions

I think we need to rephrase this exception:

• Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Wikipedia policy).

Saying these have "policy" status, creates is a circular self-contradiction since policies have a big banner that say they represent consensus, which this page then says this is an exception to consensus. Instead we should just say that these things are "mandates" which must be adhered to. This is much clearer, and a more accurate description, not subject to wikilawyering. Further, I think we need to state that these mandates must be explicit, not simply implied. For example, a comment by Jimmy Wales on a talk page should not be considered a mandate. So I propose the following replacement:

• Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) are considered mandates that must be followed, when they are officially presented as such. However, Jimmy Wales, board members, and developers may also participate in consensus discussions as regular members of the community, and their routine comments in discussion forums should not be considered as exceptions to the normal consensus process.

-- Dhaluza (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

…an Interesting thing about Defamation and or Libel,A Scolar may post a Scolars opinion though when a person is'nt a scolar and post's an opinion it is considered a Libel can this be true or false,.concerning my topic i had started wich got deleted at the dateing or a bit afterwards because it was considered nonsence well The Seperation of Human Oganism is What concerning what matter Maybe i will enter that in a retry with out my opinion by some freequent time doing stuff elswhere perhaps and see what come of it if i still proclaim my exsistance of thought as better i will then i guess know it thought the attempt will be an attepmt gathered through 'A' muscled thought,the end protected by David George Delancey Thank You.2:36 p.m.David George DeLancey (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

False compromise

I'd like to see a section something dealing with false compromise, where an extreme negotiating position is assumed in an attempt to shift the "consensus" ~ this is basically a way of gaming the system. Thoughts? RomaC (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this tactic is also known as "making an Ambit claim" - asking for an extreme approach to be taken, when one really would be satisfied with much, much less. --Newbyguesses - Talk 00:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus versus loudocracy - tyranny of the loudest

As I understand it, consensus is where through discussion, an agreement as to the best course of action is made.

Unfortunately, this allows someone to force their views through persistence and disruption. This makes "consensus" a flawed process - and in fact, it's merely enough to call "consensus" into question to force the status quo.

For article content, this is usually not so bad (although, it can and does get out of hand on some hotly contested topics). However, for matters of policy, we need to clearly know what policies apply, and just as importantly, keep those policies stable. (Note that I said stable, not written in stone.) I think that we to look hard at how we determine when a decision's actually made, and what it takes to change such a decision.

We also need to make sure that neither the majority or the minority are drowned out in a discussion. Consensus shouldn't be about who can yell the loudest, it should be about making sure all the arguments are fairly heard and weighed out by the participants before reaching a decision. Yes, all the viewpoints. Especially the ones you disagree with.

Until we can figure this out, we'll be letting the tyranny of the loudest continue. Is that really what we all want? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 12:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

On tacit consensus

I am having problems with a certain User:Raggz over at Talk:Human rights and the United States. Raggz repeatedly claims so-called "tacit consensus" on the talk page, often relating to threads that have either not been discussed adequately, or even to threads in which other editors have already voiced their objections. The editor in question appears to be "quote mining" in the policy page, glomming onto the sentence "In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." Raggz takes this to mean that the editor who gets the last word in implicitly owns consensus. Since this view seems to be catching on in a variety of circles centering around User:Raggz (see, for instance, Talk:Rationale for the Iraq War where new editors are being led astray by this misinterpretation as well), I would like to solicit suggestions for improving the wording of the sentence of the policy. In context, of course, the meaning of the sentence is clear (to me, at any rate):

generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community.

However, this seems to be misinterpreted by some editors, so I suppose the meaning needs to be laid out more clearly. Would anyone object to tying this more explicitly BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Silly rabbit (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what is needed is a sentence that says that tacit consensus continues only until someone objects, at which point a discussion may be necessary. --☑ SamuelWantman 09:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Page locked

Why is this page locked? Please do not lock pages unless there is an actual edit war, and there is seriously no evidence of that here. No one has even made more than one edit! Can someone please unlock the page as quickly as possible? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Done _→AzaToth 17:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Major changes

It seems that majr changes to a policy page require more than unilateral participation. Kim has added a section which I reverted. Please explain why we need the new section which you propose. I think this policy page is fine without the additional information. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the consensus process. I am documenting existing information about how consensus works on the page that explains how consensus works, and that information was not previously explicitly stated on the page that describes how consensus works. As the procedures I described have been in place on wikipedia over very long stretches of time, it can safely be assumed that they have consensus.

Specific to the procedure to be followed here: The section you removed contains several points. As per WP:WIARM, please explain, in detail, point for point, why you chose to remove each of those points. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I chose to object to your constant tinkering with policy pages at WP. If you have specific changes that you want to make, then I suggest that you post a comprehensive summary of your goals and they be discussed to form consensus, but as it is, you among others, seem to constantly tinker with core policy and guideline pages to the point that there is little stability. Our project needs to be dynamic to thrive, but changes to the policy pages should be deliberate and with broad consensus, not waxing and waning with your personal perceptions. As I have stated elsewhere, I think that you should spend some time as an editor and stand-down from your self-perceived position as Pope of Policy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not being coherent. Whether or not you dislike me is irrelevant. Even if it was, I have previously offered to proceed to do mediation, and you refused or avoided the question at that point in time.

Failing that, we are following procedure as documented. If you dislike that process, please change it via the normal wiki consensus process, like everyone else is doing.

I am still waiting for an adequate, point by point explanation of your edit, in line with wikipedia consensus and procedure. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, you are trying to make the issue personal. I don't dislike you. I think that you are smart, educated and dedicated to the project; however, I think that your efforts are misguided and cross purposes to the best interest of a rapidly growing infrastructure. This is a matter of opinion and not emotion. There is no basis for mediation, just a difference of opinion. If someone were to take the time to refute you on a point-by-point basis in each area where you meddle, it would be a full-time job. In the typical world, the onus is on people who propose changes to the status quo to form support for their changes, not for others to spend time refuting every random change. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I understand that you have a different view on how wikipedia works. Please document your ideas on how the wikipedia infrastructure works, and which procedures should be used to maintain it, I would like to read them.

Many people (including yourself?) seem to want to change the purpose of the project namespace to make it into a place to invent new rules, (or perhaps not, I'll grant, I would need to read proper documentation at some point). So I'm not sure what changes you would like, but am willing to read your proposals.

Would it be ok if I do my part in documenting knowledge that I am aware of? Originally, the project namespace was designed to document what current consensus and insights existed among wikipedians. I would like to continue using it for that purpose, at least until someone comes along with good arguments to repurpose it. Is that fair enough in return?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I think that some of the overall purpose gets lost in the detail. It seems that you perceive me as an advocate for more rules. I do not advocate any more rules. To that end, I think that we need hard and fast rules restricting the uncontrolled development of rule-sets (AKA: Creep. I would not object to a documentation of "current consensus and insights", but the assessment should not be unilateral. I would be willing to dedicate some time to work with you along with a broad based group to achieve our purposes, which may not be mutually exclusive on all levels. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, I respect your calm and polite replies. Hmm, note that I have previously rejected a previous, similar proposal (and won spectacularly). I tend to reject hard and fast rules, because they are sensitive to initial conditions, which can potentially lead to unexpected outcomes. I guess I don't believe much in the existence of instruction creep, because I am rather opposed to the concept that we have instructions.

I guess we are simply strongly disagreeing with each other. I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues, and would welcome further discussion in any forum. Please invite me when you bring them up further! :-)

In the mean time, I guess we still have the issue at hand: As per the current procedures, I have challenged an edit of yours. Would you like to defend that edit now, or what is your preference? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, he reverted you, now you have to follow the "consensus" graph :) _→AzaToth 17:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well duh, that's why I'm challenging his revert on the talk page, eh? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You MUST find a "reasonable (if temporary) compromize", and something must be written according to the chart :) _→AzaToth 17:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, exactly. That applies to both sides. Hence I'm waiting for Kevin to provide a valid explanation here, so that we can find a compromise and proceed. Apparently his actual issue is that he has some issues with the procedure itself, which I think we will have to discuss elsewhere. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC) I think there was a big ado about mandatory-ness somewhere else in the project namespace, so as a concession to that: note that the chart doesn't use the word "MUST", though I guess it is very strong advice, yes

True, but according to the chart, you cannot go from discussion to consensus without making an implementation :) _→AzaToth 17:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I believe that you were bold and have been challenged through reversion, and the onus is now on you to form consensus for the changes which you proposed. I have explained my objection above, but will restate in summary: (a) I believe that the page is sufficient without the change, thus the change is not needed, and (b) there is no broad-based support evident in support of the changes. I propose that we leave the policy page alone until there is (1) demonstration for a need to change, and (2) demonstration that the proposed changes are supported by broad based consensus. I think that our cases are clearly stated and it is time to let others join the process. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus process involves many editors making small revisions to a page until a compromise version is found. This necessarily involves editing the page to determine which parts of the edit have consensus and which do not. If there are actual objections to language being included, that is a different matter. But stability for its own sake is not part of the Wikipedia model; no change should be rejected purely for the sake of stability. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So far, everyone is quibbling over whether the boldness was appropriate and no one is discussing the change itself. I read through the change twice and found zero changes to the current policy and practice. The added section struck me as wordy and perhaps redundant in spots but an accurate description of the current standards. Kevin reverted it as a "major change". Adding a lot of text but leaving the meaning exactly the same is not "major" in my mind. While we don't want to change a page merely for the sake of change, neither do we want to become too beholden to "stability".

This appears to me to have been a good-faith attempt to clarify a concept which is clearly very difficult for many new editors. Unless someone can point out something that actually changed in the meaning of the policy - some actual change in the behaviors that we expect from editors rather than merely changes to the way we describe them - and does so fairly quickly, I'm going to put the change back in and let ordinary editing process resume so we can tighten up the wording, move some sections to more logical locations and continue to improve this page. This quibbling over process is not helpful. Rossami (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rossami, I substantially agree, but there is too much of a good thing going on all throughout the policy pages. To certain extent this specific discussion is a spill over from a recent discussion at the Policy and guideline policy page, where editors were rebuffed for making specific assertions about consensus which were suggested to be more pertinent here. If there really is a widely recognized need then sure, let's make it better. But as you said there is wordiness and is it justified by additional clarity? I think that less is more since we want clear instructions for our contributors, who can be intimidated by a wall of text when they are looking for some direction. Simple, concise and succinct! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I also found it hard to understand. I think if we're going to add anything at all, clarity is key. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit in question

Here it is, so that we can discuss it:

Begins:

"Consensus (b): the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned." - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consensus

Consensus is often defined as the (unanimous) consent of everyone. However, in the day to day process of editing wikipedia, it is very hard to obtain perfect unanimity. Also, it is very hard to determine if everyone who needs to be heard is actually heard. Therefore, on wikipedia, we partially lift the requirement for consensus to find what people call Rough Consensus.

• If a decision cannot be made entirely unanimously, sometimes a small minority may simply need to agree to disagree. This is not a common occurrence, but it does occur.
• The criterion for consensus is reversed: Instead of everyone must agree, the criterion is nobody must disagree. If none disagree with an action, then that action will be taken. This is the root of our advice to be BOLD in editing. If anyone disagrees, they will revert the actions of the bold editor.
• Consensus is only established between people who are actually present at a certain page at the time.
• To counteract the time bias of the above three rules, it is taken as a given that Consensus Can Change at any time. If an editor disagrees with something that happened at any time in the past, they can bring it up in discussion or be bold and try to change it directly. Note that if it is known that consensus is likely to be against something, it might not be a good idea to try to go against it all at once, even though doing so is permitted, if an editor is sure of themselves.
• The current consensus on an issue typically consists on the web of agreements and understandings between individual editors. Because everyone is a volunteer, they may or may not take the time to document the current state of consensus on any particular issue, as they see fit. So take into account the fact that a consensus on an issue can exist, without there being any documentation on the issue. Conversely, existing documentation might be superseded by actual consensus, and be in an incorrect state. We do encourage people to maintain documentation on the current consensus, and the documentation is typically fairly well maintained, but do be aware that a wiki can never be 100% reliable, and do check everything you read for yourself, as is true of all other namespaces.

Ends

The first problem is "consensus is often defined as the (unanimous} consent of everyone ...", but it is never so defined. Consensus does not equal unanimity. So the premise of the entire section is flawed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just define consensus as the apparant agreement that there is a lack of disagreement. _→AzaToth 19:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that as being on the right track, but consensus is not specifically a lack of disagreement as we have consensus where the goals of the extremes are generally not achieved. We also seem to want to avoid the use of quantities such as "majority" "plurality" etc. in the definition of consensus. Though not laudable, the de facto definition of consensus at WP is relative strength of numbers or perseverance to the point of either wearing down the opposition or compromise. We don’t’ “vote” but we do evaluate the numbers. There are many flaws and much frustration, but after about two years here, I do think that we produce a good product through consensus despite of the flaws. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what the original version was trying to say is that "consensus is often mis-defined as unanimous..." (and had the section stayed on the page long enough, I would have made that correction). Equating consensus and unanimity is a remarkably common mistake among Wikipedia editors. Opening the section by explicitly calling out the error is not necessarily a bad way to start. Rossami (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In the real world (not WP), I have been on consensus-based committees in which the standard for "consensus" was "nobody objects". That doesn't mean unanimous agreement, but it does mean unanimous consent. This is similar to some of the models described at Consensus decision-making. Wikipedia consensus, of course, is a different beast altogether. It isn't that consensus is misdefined as unanimous consent, but that Wikipedia decision making is misdefined as consensus. But the language is too entrenched to change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I should have said ""consensus is often mis-defined as unanimous support...". Your clarification is, of course, correct. Consensus can also be described as "everyone has the chance to voice their objections and, if you won't actively support the outcome, you won't actively oppose it". The only thing part of your comment that I disagree with is that I believe that Wikipedia consensus is basically the same beast. The limitation is that Wikipedia does not seek "perfect consensus" because that would hold us hostage to trolls and others who are not willing to be reasonable. Small consensus-based committees can attempt it but the Wikipedia population is just too large. Wikipedia sets a somewhat lower bar of "rough consensus", - a lack of objection among those editors who are behaving reasonably. The other qualifier is that we aspire to rough consensus as our decision-making model of choice. We don't always achieve it. Rossami (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Most dictionaries define consensus as unanimous consent. Verifiable fact. Period. Write that down as you will, but do write it down.

Wikipedia uses a different definition. We must explain the difference, or people will be seriously confused. Let's put the text back up and edit it now, as per consensus procedure. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

First, we really shouldn't be using dictionaries. But if you're going to, can you give an example of a good quality dictionary that defines consensus as unanimity? I have never seen it so defined, and indeed that would mean the phrase "strong consensus" would be meaningless, because unanimity could neither be strong nor weak.

Please don't restore the text to the page. It really is problematic. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

oed.com: consensus: 2. a. Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons.

m-w.com: consensus: 1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey>

— Carl (CBM · talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are problems with the text, then edit it, or discuss point-for point here. CBM just voided your first objection. What are your further objections? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the section starts with a quote from merriam webster, which is actually linked, nota bene! here is the link again: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consensus --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is this is evidence that using online dictionaries isn't a good idea, because the word consensus does not mean the same as the word unanimity. There's a consensus if there's unanimity, but there isn't necessarily unanimity when there's a consensus. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First, we really shouldn't be using dictionaries.

We certainly should. Tying our definitions to an external source keeps us honest and prevents us from abusing words and creating our own idiosyncratic definitions for them, which can then be interpreted differently by every little group who wants the definition to fit their particular ideology. This is why it's so important that our definition of "consensus" in the intro links away from policy pages into the main namespace article about "consensus decision-making", since this is what we (ideally) use to make decisions, and it won't be so easy for people with an agenda to pervert the meaning of the terminology. — Omegatron 06:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fair enough, User:Omegatron. From the dictionary, we have learned that consensus is not equal to "unanimity". More positive descriptions are harded to come by, or agree upon, but the dictionary can certainly help. --Newbyguesses - Talk 06:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I think that we should take a good look at the whole page and see what we can eliminate and what we need to add and improve. Right now it is already too long. At this point the page is mediocre, but I don't think that just adding another section is the soulution. I propose that we leave the operational page alone and begin a prototype in a sandbox. It probably makes sense to get a small group of of divergent people to hammer out a draft in sandbox, then advertise for broader contributions for fine tuning. This can work, but requires some dedication and cooperation. Anyone want to play in my sandbox? --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How about we actually wikiedit the page and improve it, as opposed to people reverting without cause and wasting our time for an entire day? You are proposing a "solution" to a situation that you yourself have created. My preferred solution is that you follow established procedure. Thank you. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, you are adding more to a page which is already too long and confusing. While not ideal as it is, your constant fussing just makes it worse, and those of us who care about the policy pages have to evaluate your nibbling everyday. If you presented a comprehensive plan for reworking the page, I would try to support your efforts and work with you, but you seem to want to just fuss and fuss with policy pages day after day with no stated objective or discernable plan. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That "fussing" as you call it is called the "wiki process" elsewhere, and apparently you can write an encyclopedia with it. Don't revert again. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the page is pretty good as it is.

There seems to have been some growth in “Some pragmatic concessions”. I agree with being upfront about wikipedia-consensus being different to real-world meanings. These differences are unfortunate, but they’re not going away, and pretending they don’t exist causes real problems. Note also that reputable printed dictionaries emphasise first and traditional uses of words at the expense of current usage. What’s missing is that weighing consensus has more to do with strengths of arguments than with the numbers of supporters, and that consensus is not about a threshold of numbers of supporters, but about a position that has been refined to maximise its support. If the page doesn’t have consensus support, then the page gets changed until it does. It’s not the debaters who change to find consensus. Education of the debaters through debate is a separate matter.

“Consensus can change” (WP:CCC) definitely belongs on this page. I’d think that anything much beyond minimal coverage of this simple fact belongs in essays.

Perhaps “Exceptions” (WP:CONEXCEPT) could go, because it doesn’t serve any purpose. There can always be exceptions, even if the policy page doesn’t say so. The exceptions listed are documented elsewhere, and their validity doesn’t dependent on being authorised by this page.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the page was better before the edit - it seems to me to be very instruction creep-y, and I feel detracts from, rather than facilitating, understanding of the policy. If I understand the edit, it proposes three hypothetical situations (all agree, some disagree, and some disagree but agree to disagree) and applies the rule to those hypos. It then opines on the general application of consensus depending on the persons present and the time-frame, and advises about what to do in the absence of evidence of pre-existing consensus.

If that's right, yikes. If that's wrong, double-yikes (because I'm a pretty smart guy, and should be able to understand something like this.)

Sorry, Kim - but if I wanted to know what WP:Consensus meant, and encountered that paragraph, my reaction would be "ok...so...it means consensus, I think." That's classic instruction creep - when someone seeking information gets so much detail that they don't read any of it. The article before this was much clearer - and acknowledged the sad reality that trying to explain everything often results in explaining nothing. --TheOtherBob 02:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's the first step in a longer process. I'm a very old fashioned wiki-editor, so I always do things the same way every time. :-)

I noticed that consensus might not be covering all the concessions. So as a first step, I made a braindump. I exhaustively listed all the contingencies I could remember, and how pragmatic concessions are made to consensus in those situations. The next step is to refactor that content into the rest of the page, and write it in clearer terms. It's a process that might take some time, and it doesn't need to be perfect in one go. Some of the points might already be covered, others might not. I'd already noticed that some parts of the page were redundant, so entire areas might be refactored out entirely. We can start with this as soon as page protection is lifted. Does that make sense? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors objecting to change

Crap, we now have not 1, but 2 editors who are disrupting the consensus process, nota bene on Wikipedia:Consensus itself. <scratches head>. This is a pretty uncommon occurence. I'm kind of stuck now. Help? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add that both editors do believe they are acting in good faith, so I hope no one shouts at them. :-/ --01:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What help do you need?--Blue Tie (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I don't understand your objection. You keep changing a page without any support (unless God is speaking to you and guiding your hand) and you are being reverted. How is consensus being disrupted? I think what is being disrupted is your quest to unilaterally dictate changes to policy (here and elsewhere). --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I need help explaining how consensus works, ironically ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Upfront support is not a requirement in any policy. Unilateralism is not something mentioned in any policy, nor am I actually acting unilaterally. I happen to be following the normal consensus process to the letter, as documented on this page. I am following the process because it has proved to be fast and efficient, and has been used to update over 600 pages in the project namespace, and over 2 million pages in the main namespace. Your reverts (while well intentioned :-) ) turn out to be disruptive because they block the normal consensus process as documented on this page. Block reverting is typically considered disruptive in general. If you disagree with something in a large block, edit, do not revert. :-(

If you disagree with the process that I am following, why do you not propose alterations to that process somewhere? You could start a new document in userspace or even in the project namespace for instance, and explain what process you would like people to follow instead.

In the mean time, I'll use the process as is documented here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim maybe the graphic below will make it clear:

thumb|left|400px|Wikipedia consensus process flowchart (untranscluding the image)

You were reverted so now you should discuss. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin: Kim does have "some" support - Rossami posted above that he or she didn't see any changes to current practicein what Kim added. Could you explain (again, if I am being dense) exactly how you feel Kim's edits are inaccurate, fail to reflect current practice, etc.? Objecting to them only because they are changes to the wording would ignore the fact that this is a wiki. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to just before the Edit War in December, to a version that appears to me to be the last relatively stable version -- From Dec 13. There has been a great deal of creep in this policy without wide community discussion. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Isn't most of that called the consensus process? See chart right next to this text. <sigh> --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is how I see it: Edit wars are not a sign of consensus. Second, I reverted to a version of the page that you endorsed. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kevin, discussion requires two participants. You've reverted the page (again) but still have not said what you think is wrong with the content (other than the general observation that it's too long - which I agree with but which is more easily fixable if it's left on the page so we can fix the page as a whole). What content do you disagree with? Rossami (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rossami, I disagree that I can't object to addition of material which adds bulk to a page without adding valuable content. But let's not split hairs. The more important issue is whether here is a need for Kim's new section. I'm certainly willing to let the discussion over who is right or wrong die, and come back afresh tommorow to discuss a sensible planned solution, but if Kim continues to nibble at the policy pages I will oppose him. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, consensus is the result of many editors making unilateral edits until a version is found that nobody sees a need to edit for a while. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I do not think Eh was insulting. Second, I do not agree that consensus is the result of unilateral changes. Third, I do not particularly like the version I reverted to because I do not agree with the WP:Bold comment in there that was added by Kim in this policy. I think that is an invitation to edit war. So, my first topic of discussion is: SHOULD THE WP:BOLD EDIT STAND OR SHOULD POLICIES NEED WIDER COMMUNITY DISCUSSION?--Blue Tie (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Policies need wide community input, whereby everyone contributes boldly. When all participants are expert editors, all versed in the consensus process, you can get amazing results (such as WP:SR -> WP:5P (see Wikipedia_talk:Simplified_ruleset#Historic_information for timeline)). When you have editors who are not well versed in consensus, you can get boondoggles like WP:ATT (which seems to have settled down now that someone used my style of summary tag. Cool :-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm just getting very frustrated and all, because we're trying dealing with a lot of circularity. People are blocking editing to this page contrary to how I understand the contents of this page. (the page actually describes how you edit a page ;-) ) . I know that everyone involved is acting in good faith, and I assure you that I am too. I think I'll go get some rest, and maybe try to explain more solidly what my issue is with edits by Kevin Murray and Blue Tie, when I get up tomorrow. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim I genuinely look forward to working with you and the others on this tomorrow. My goal would be a 30% reduction in the page length and a 50% increase in the clarity of message. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My goal would be to not make many quick changes to a long-standing policy. But I cannot be around here much. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's hilarious. The consensus process can be extremely fast and at the same time very thorough. You'd oppose to a process, just because it is fast? ;-)

If that's really your opinion, wouldn't it be better from your POV to mark this page {{historical}}, as you are opposed to the process we are using, and that process is listed here? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure you would gain consensus to do that though.

Refocus

Is 23:08, 16 January 2008 (Kim Bruning) the edit that provoked the discussion above this one? If so, could someone please explain whats fundamentally (i.e. the prose aside) wrong with whats expressed in that text? -- Fullstop (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is now protected

please stop 1. using edit summaries as a substitute for discussion and 2. edit warring. Viridae^Talk 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Argh, and the whole day we've been trying to convince people to not block the page editing process with reverts. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Block the page editing process with reverts? sounds like you are trying to force your opinion through (not an accusation) Viridae^Talk 04:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, basically no-one has been able to get an edit through all day. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Being bold outside of mainspace articles

The following is quote from WP:Be bold: "Although it is generally fine to be bold in updating articles, it is easier to cause problems in other namespaces by editing without due care. The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces." Part of the discussion above regarding recent changes and reversions is that advocating a more conservative approach to editing Policy pages may be contrary to the concept of being Bold; however, the admonition of tempering boldness in this case already exists at WP:Be bold. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agreed on that text with Mindspillage, a long time ago. That's why when editing policy pages, you need to be sure you are describing an existing consensus. --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that no matter what you are writing about, you must be more cautious in editing policy. Any time that you or anyone else is "describing an existing consensus", you are only expressing your opinion based on your assessment of that consensus. Not everyone may agree with your assessment, and that is where you made need to seek agreement from your peers in the evaluation of what you perceive to be an existing consensus. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. That's exactly what we're doing. Do you understand the rules guidance we are applying to do so? Do you understand how and why they work? --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, what rules are you referring to? --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The rules guidance we use to find agreement with our peers, to check that our perception of existing consensus is correct.:-) --Kim Bruning (talk)

KIm, you are talking in circles. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

err no? You asked me what rules guidance I was referring to. I'm referring to those rules that guidance! What other rules guidance would we need here? Oh err, right...

I'm referring to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BOLD, WP:WIARM, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, m:Foundation Issues #3, etc. I think you understand them individually, but I'm scratching my head about whether you've tried to fit them together? --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC) incidentally, doing it this way is totally backwards, but there you have it ;-)

Kim, exactly what do you mean when you say "err"? Are you being cute and in some way implying something? I scratch my head when it itches, otherwise, what are you talking about? Are you indicating confusion, or do you need a new shampoo? As to your list of rules and implication that I can’t understand them, please consider the incivility of your comment. If you want to talk seriously to resolve issues, I'm here, but if you want to play the clown and speak in riddles so be it. --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be more formal. I've picked together a set of rules guidance pages that apply in this case, as that particular set shows some interesting synergies. I'm just checking to see if you are aware that such synergies exist, basically. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I have degrees from several well respected universities, coupled with a lifetime of hard won experience in the business world and in volunteer service organizations. WP is not that different from the real world; humans react and interact much the same here as elsehwere. You have a bit of a smug attitude; perhaps you think that your longevity at WP allows you to be condesending. I respect that you've been here for a while, but pissing on your opponents only makes them wet and smelly, it doesn't promote your cause.

Yes I understand the synergies. Is there something specific that you want to discuss with me? Or do you want to continue to test my intellectual credentials and patience? --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies yet again, perhaps I should have been more specific, as it appears to be our understanding of the synergies in this case that seems to differ. Could you briefly elucidate in what way you believe that the guidance mentioned would lead to the edit that I want to make would finally end on the page, in your interpretation? (or is that too much to ask in one go?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Kim, I'll take some time to work on some specifics in your proposed section. I'll put it in a sanbox and edit to demonstrate my concerns. In return, maybe you could help me by identifying some areas of the existing text which could be trimmed or eliminated, so that the inclusion of your section will not increase the net length of the page. Please keep in mind that It's getting late here in California and I might have to bag it soon. Thanks for working with me. --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies again. While it would be an interesting exercise to do so, I think that ultimately the bullet points in the last project page edit would probably end up forming a core for a new, shorter consensus page, with perhaps some slight alterations yet. In short, none of your careful edits would survive integration with the actual page, once we start using the mainstream consensus process again (as that would not be entirely under my control). So ultimately I don't think that would be a good use of your time.

Was that your proposal as to how to get changes onto the project page? Or what was your intent? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I'm sorry. I've spent some time on this as agreed, but I just can't salvage enough from what you wrote to make a meaningful section with which I can agree, and which adds clarity to the concept.

When I try to distill it down to the basics it just falls apart. You have two underlying themes with which I fundamentally disagree: (1) the concept of consensus in perpetual flux based on who is involved in the discussion at the immediate time, and (2) over emphasizing the idea that the absence of vocal opposition indicates consensus. The former encourages instability; of course over a reasonable time period you have to go with the feedback from the participants, but as you state it you offer a dangerous instruction. The latter is only remotely valid if significant efforts are made to attract participation.

In your discussion of unanimity, you are describing an ideal world. People are only concerned about evaluating consensus when they can't agree, and generally when the split isn't easily evaluated. I have rarely seen anyone use the word "consensus" at WP unless there is a raging argument in progress. I also think that you are breaking your own cardinal rule by being prescriptive; you are describing how you think it should work, but not at all the way it really works. Maybe I get into a lot of contentious situations trying to save articles from AfD and volunteering in third opinion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to find agreement on what people should be doing. So we can skip that discussion entirely.

The pragmatic concessions section starts with the verifiable fact that dictionaries state that consensus is unanimity. Immediately afterwards it stresses that this definition is in fact impractical in the real world, and then explains which pragmatic concessions have historically been made to that ideal on wikipedia, in order to make the system work. It also briefly summarizes the reasons why we have made those concessions. Therefore, the section title is appropriate.

Can you point out anything further, which is not in accordance with how day to day business is conducted on wikipedia?

Kim, the proposed section is prescriptive and idealistic. It is not practical to debate with you in perpetuity on every word; I've tried to give what you asked and tried to see your POV -- I just can't do any more. You have offered a poorly written and poorly conceived section. You have gotten little support and much opposition. Give it up and move on, please! --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As a question related to the experience you put forward, what is your success-rate on AFD and 3O? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that I have a good success rate in both projects. I think that you would do well at 3O, because your kind and thoughtful nature will help people to succeed. I think that you will benefit from seeing the processes, or maybe you'll prove me wrong and WP will be a better place for it. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've read through Kim's version and it pretty much reflects how consensus works on Wikipedia as far as I can see. Consensus is always in a state of flux, since new people join Wikipedia every day. The community grows, and the community of today os not bound by the community of yesterday. I've always likened it in my head to the fact that in my country Parliament is sovereign. This means that Parliament can reverse any decision made by any previous Parliament. I don't know if that observation helps anybody else much, but it keeps it straight in my mind that the community is sovereign, even when it disagrees with itself. As to silence implying support of the consensus, that is generally the way of it. If I make an edit which nobody reverts for a year, and then someone reverts claiming there is no consensus, how else do I show there was consensus but to point to the fact that the edit was uncontested for a year. In this instance the person reverting me needs a far better reason that "no consensus". So I guess I support Kim's changes. Hiding T 10:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Resp.Kevin. "(1) the concept of consensus in perpetual flux based on who is involved in the discussion at the immediate time". This is exactly my understanding of Wikipedia. We have no process by why we could fix a permanent version of a page, and the ability of all editors to edit all pages is both a foundation principle itself and an integral part of the wiki process, a second foundation principle. At best, a stable version of a page is in a temporary equilibrium in which no editors currently feel like editing it.

"(2) over emphasizing the idea that the absence of vocal opposition indicates consensus." It is true that, in the real world, consensus decision making often requires all parties to give positive acknowledgment that they consent to the decision. But a project the size of wikipedia can't expect all editors to follow all pages at all times. This leads to three corollaries: first, if nobody is currently objecting, that is all that you can hope for; second, you should advertise changes to all parties who are likely to be interested; third, if someone later notices that something was changed and they have objections to it, they can change it again. If we wanted to have pages that would sit unedited for long periods of time, we would need a process for creating such pages, and we don't have one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting back on track:

1. The objections to Kim's edit stem (I think) from the writing, i.e. the prose itself, not the message of the text; I don't think anyone really has any problem with the idea that 'consensus' == 'no dissent'.
2. That Kim inserted a non-trivial passage without discussion would have been ok if there were no subsequent opposition, but that is irrelevant since that is not the case here. But, it would have been better all around if the revert had been accompanied by a talk-page explanation of the reasons for the revert. Reverts are rude (particularly for a non-trivial edit), and a talk-page explanation does much to soften the offensiveness. A little humanity please!
3. The prose of the current page is altogether sub-optimal, and this affair is also an opportunity to do something about it: If each editor who cares would write one version (in a sandbox), if possible succinctly written, then we'd have something from which to put together a more legible version. How about that?

-- Fullstop (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I was originally going to respond to Kim's response to my comment way above, but to avoid this getting fragmentary I thought I'd bring it down here. I don't think it's just the prose of the edit that is the problem (and, hey, it's a first draft so the prose need not be brilliant or anything). Rather, it's the risk of instruction creep from over-specific explanation.

To avoid that, it seems like the question you have to ask when considering adding something to a policy is "does the current policy, as written, leave out something necessary to its operation?" I'm not sure I understand the answer to that question yet. I don't think "consensus == no dissent" sums up what Kim thought was missing here (nor am I sure that we have any, umm, consensus for that statement, given the above). But I could be wrong - if so, we can discuss that. --TheOtherBob 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The question you need to ask IMHO is "does the current page accurately reflect consensus on the issue". Remember that wikipedia does not have rules, and so the issue of how things should or would be is not important. Think of the project namespace as a kind of encyclopedia of best practices. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok - here's my answer (at least hypothetically): Yes, it does. Given that, how would you respond? --TheOtherBob 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically it would need no further edits. In reality, do you think that the current page was carved into stone tablets by an omnipotent being, handed down off the mountain, and perfectly represents wikipedia best practices at this point in time? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Was it delivered by, say, perfect beings from outer space? I'm going to say...yes. Or no. Or maybe - it doesn't matter. If the page is perfect, it's perfect. Is it perfect? Oh, I doubt it, but lets say that I don't see any problems right now. If you agree that it's perfect...well, then this is a strange conversation. But I think you don't - that you see a problem with it. So...what is that problem? Or, to put it as above, "does the current policy, as written, leave out something necessary to its operation?" If so, what? --TheOtherBob 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fullstop, while your proposed procedure is certainly very well meant, might I propose a tried and tested procedure for editing wiki-pages? You can actually find it in the flowchart, on the page itself. So far, this procedure has been used for roughly 600 pages in this namespace, and 2 million pages in the main namespace, and has made wikipedia very popular. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

@Kim Bruning: my proposed procedure elicits material for the "think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with theirs" step.

@TheOtherBob: yes, "over-specific explanation" is a problem, but is (IMO) provoked by the existing/general instruction creep at WP:Consensus (and other policies and guidelines). Kim's edit may be symptomatic of the greater problem, but it is not the sore thumb that its being made out to be.

In any case, I think that both the (perceived) problems with Kim's edit and the general problems with WP:Consensus in general might be resolvable if editors were to submit their "idea" (to use the flowchart term) of what the result should look like. Its easy enough to criticize, but what good is it to do so when there is no alternative?

-- Fullstop (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

An alternative approach

Kim B has expressed a concern above that consensus at WP is not consistent with dictionary or other definitions of the word. Perhaps modifying the first sentence from "Wikipedia works by building consensus." to "Wikipedia works by building consensus; however, at Wikipedia our definition and processes regarding consensus differ from dictionary definitions and many peoples' perception of the consensus process" I think that the details are expanded in the text of the policy, but explaining it succinctly in the lead could be valuable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, Kevin, consensus doesn't mean the same as unanimity; if you look here, you'll see that confirmed — e.g. "An informal method for identifying approval of a proposal placed before a group. Consensus is not the same as unanimity" — though we really shouldn't be checking dictionaries. So this whole argument is a bit of a straw man. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, consensus isn't the same as unanimity. In the real world, consensus decision making very often requires unanimous consent to the decision. I think the best description of Wikipedia decision making that I have seen was given above: We aspire to use rough consensus to make decisions, but we don't always achieve that goal. I find it somewhat ironic that you simultaneously say not to look at dictionary definitions, ignore the definitions in the OED and Merriam-Webster that I provided that include unanimity in their definition of consensus, and provide a different dictionary link, from which you have selectively chosen a definition that says consensus differs from unanimity. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)But, the thing is... here on Wikipedia, consensus does mean unanimity. Or, rather, so close to it as to make no difference: realistically, there's not going to be only one person opposing any given change. In practice, any sufficiently vocal minority of any size (say, a dozen or so people) can shut down any change, since even what would elsewhere be termed a supermajority is called "no consensus, default to status quo". The reason we have WP:BRD is to prevent us from becoming paralyzed in the small things, by raising the bar to opposition; you have to care enough to revert. Reverting for the sake of reverting, without actually caring beyond wanting discussion to have happened first in principle, defeats that safety mechanism —Random832 14:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would rather not use the phrase unanimity to reflect the near-unanimity we require for various purposes. But I accept that point that even a very large supermajority is not sufficient for many purposes. On the other hand, examining how deletion discussions are closed, especially contentious ones, illustrates how our decision making process bends in tough circumstances. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

SV, I absolutely do not see any correlation between unanimity and consensus at WP. If there is anything close to harmony, the word consensus is not used; consensus is a euphamism for "majority" or "persuasive" which is dragged-out when the outcome is contested. Otherwise, things are just done and there is no label given to the process (95% of the time). Personally, I don't see a big problem with the current text, but I proposed the above modification to the lead in order to be sensitive to those who have a concern. In a perfect world, I'd like to shorten the page by 30%, but I can see this would be a monumental battle. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither characterization of Wikipedia consensus is correct. If you are unfamiliar with the concept, why are you making alterations to this page? Wouldn't it be wiser to seek out an experienced wikipedian and learn how it works, and then edit a bit and gain experience with that knowledge, and then come back? This page will wait for you, no problem! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC) And you want 30% reduction in page size? Well, that shouldn't be too hard, though you've made things a lot harder than they were 2 days ago. It might still work, but things will be easier again in a week or two.

Kim, that's demeaning. I've been at WP for two years with over 9,000 edits and am very active in many policy sections and volunteer to help at AfD, 3rd opinion, cleanup etc. You don't have a monopoly of vision on how Consensus works, and there just might be a possibility that you don't truly understand the process and that what you've accumulated here over the years is idealistic horse-crap. Neither you nor any assembly of 4, 5, or 10 year participants own the policy pages. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* I'm sorry you feel demeaned. Still, your definition of the term does not appear to be a useful tool for editing wikipedia. By your definition, why would you use consensus at all? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on now, Kim, that's a very back-handed apology. You probably didn't mean to be demeaning, but you were - no reason for that. Anyways, I'm not sure if you've made a substantive objection to Kevin's definition - you say it's not "useful" and ask why people would use it at all. But I'd ask you to go a step further - why isn't it useful? Why would it make the idea of consensus unworkable? I think that's what he needs to know to respond to you with anything substantive. His description sounds facially reasonable - so if you think there's something fundamentally wrong with it, I think you have to identify what that issue is. --TheOtherBob 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so Kevin Murray said: 'consensus is a euphamism for "majority" or "persuasive"' (sic). In general, euphemisms are not very useful tools to get any real work done. If you want to actually make consensus work for you, you have to treat the consensus of your peers with respect, at the very least. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright Kim, let's look at the whole sentence then: "If there is anything close to harmony, the word consensus is not used; consensus is a euphamism for "majority" or "persuasive" which is dragged-out when the outcome is contested." I am talking about how consensus is more typically used, not how I think it should be used. Your trying to bait people with red herrings. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit to not understanding that response, Kim. Whether consensus can be accurately described as a "euphemism" seems...well, it seems irrelevant. The statement regarding treating the consensus of peers with respect seems a tautology - I agree with it (as with virtually every tautology), but I don't think Kevin disagrees, so I'm not really sure where that gets us. --TheOtherBob 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's possible. I guess that means I may have misread Kevins response. Kevin: could you restate your view on what consensus is in other words? Perhaps I owe you (yet another :-/) apology. That, and possibly we're miscommunicating at some fundamental level. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim I have stated and restated my position above and at other pages; you are quite clear on my point so stop playing the cordial fool for each new audience. You are pushing a POV of ambiguity all over the policy pages from Five pillars to here to Policies and guidelines. I think that slim Virgin called your play very well here [1] where she describes your actions including "blackmail people into endlessly debating stupid points", God bless her clarity. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus means that everybody agrees, but I guess dictionary definitions are old speak. Andries (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are thinking of unanimity. Consensus is a general agreement based more on the strength of feelings than number of people holding an opinion one way or another. MilesAgain (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{editprotected}} Please can someone change {{protected}} to {{pp-dispute}} please?? Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 10:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done_→AzaToth 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to unprotect

Alright, I'm not entirely sure why the page was protected in the first place. But can we please unprotect it and get back to editing as soon as possible? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to unprotect, because the consensus right now seems to be leave it alone until we develop a direction. By requesting an unprotect you are de facto stating an intention to edit, and you have no consensus to make any changes. Being bold now in the middle of this controversy only adds fuel to the fire. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to worry. I promise not to edit the project page until at least Monday (UTC). You might want to choose to match that promise, that's up to you. I want to keep the page open for editing by others, and don't want our conflict to get in their way. We can continue to discuss here, if you wish. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim you are not discussing, you are playing games, and I can't see any reason why we need any changes at all from anyone. It looks very likely that this page is going to get a full rewrite and I'll be involved whenever it happens. I'd like to see protection stay in place until we've advertised at the Pump ant gotten far more discussion on the topic. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring your accusations for the moment, and just focussing on how wikipedia works:

That is not the normal process. You have no special status, and cannot hold the page locked just because that is your preference. If you want to discuss issues with other editors, you will have to apply WP:BRD, like any other editor. Ultimately, unless you can provide a valid reason for an admin to retain page protection, the page will most likely be unprotected. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What's this about special status? You asked for it to be unlocked, and I disputed your request. What are you talking about? --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The default state of pages is to keep them unlocked. It is very unlikely that many participants besides yourself want to keep the page locked (well, Maybe Blue Tie, but he can't provide reasoned arguments based on policy either.). I do not believe you have consensus for that. You know, I get the sneaking suspicion that you're trying to filibuster here? You're not really, are you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny that you mention filibuster, since I was thinking that you are. No Kim, I think that we just come at things from very differnt ways and between us we generate a lot of heat and very little light. I'm embarrased, because you are a well loved and respected memeber of the community, but we can't seem to get on. I see this as a personal failure, but we will of course both live through it and WP will be strong and thriving when we return on Monday. If someone wants to unlock the page, I'll not object. I'm taking the weekend off from this debate and I think that the fine minds present may have a great solution in the works. Cheers!

Tell you what, I'll stay off the talk page 'till monday too. This is getting far too disruptive. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Silence and consensus

Wikipedia talk:Silence and consensus is being proposed as an adjunct to this page, and the form (tag) of the page is also up in the air (policy, supplement, or essay). Interested parties should visit this page and join the discussion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hooray for even more instruction creep! — Omegatron 06:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Establishing consensus

Without going into specifics, so staying on the theoretical stage, I'd like to have some comments on the following:

• 1. There is a dispute over inclusion of material in an article - revert warring
• 2. A discussion runs on the talk page
• 3. The material is removed another time
• 4. The supporter(s) does not restore it
• 5. The supporter(s) stop commenting on the talk page
• 6. The content stays removed for a number of months without being returned

In such a circumstance, is consensus generated for the material to stay out? In the past I have been told that as consensus does not need express approval, merely an indication that people can live with a situation even if they would prefer something else, silence can lead to it. John Smith's (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe it is appropriate to call it "consensus" when there is no discussion or when there was a discussion and one person has left their opinions on the talk page but moved on and then their comments are ignored. I think in this case rather than call it consensus we should call it something else. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But we do call that consensus. If nobody bothers to edit the page, that is the best test of whether the current state has consensus. On the other hand, anyone can break that consensus at any time by editing the page - there is no stare decisis on wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that referring to content as having been included "by consensus" should be reserved for an active agreement, rather than a passive one. I'm sure we've all found some pretty ripe vandalism that has gone unnoticed for months or even years...and I wouldn't say that was there by consensus...;) It's hard to distinguish between an edit that is left in place due to silent agreement and one left in place because it wasn't noticed. We do need to differentiate between content that was added by an actual act of consensus, versus a bold edit, if only for purposes of handling content disputes. Dreadstar † 04:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the point was whether the "non-inclusion"/removal of something for a period of months could constitute consensus - not that something had been added and then left there. John Smith's (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Dreadstar: we don't typically declare that stuff has consensus, it just does, in a de facto sort of way. It is true that this assumes enough editors are watching all pages so that vanadalism and other silly edits are improved quickly. But there's no formal process to test consensus; all you can do is aim for the de facto kind where nobody changes a certain part of the article any more. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but when someone tries to claim there was no consensus at all it helps if you can say there was. John Smith's (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To add a second question, if there is a dispute over the inclusion of new content (either text or a link) and there is no consensus should it by default stay in or out? You can assume it isn't vandalism. John Smith's (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Small modification to the lead.

I added the following:

Consensus should in no way be construed, however, as justification for hostility to change or to diminish the value of the individual editor, since consensus can change.

Any objections? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean to say in that sentence? The wording strikes me as odd, but I'm not sure how to rephrase it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This strikes me as just another attempt to enforce personal philosophy on policy. CIVIL and other such behavioral guidelines cover that, so there's no need to repeat it here. Likewise, it's quite unnecessary to stress individuals on a page encouraging cooperation when Wikipedia is a group effort. Editing even tells you as much ("If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."). — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

HealthyConflict versus Edit War

A very quick bold, revert, discuss cycle, or even better, a bold, discuss cycle, or bold, bold is one of the ways that consensus can be reached. I think a lot of us have forgotten how that process works. The point of it is to keep a discussion moving. Yes, it's good to discuss changes, but when we got so bogged down that we need prior approval to make them, the Wiki process fails.

There's a huge difference between an edit war, and a meatball:HealthyConflict, but that difference may not be obvious outside the conflict, because of the flurry of changes that can happen to an article.

Bold action is not a threat to consensus, nor is it an attack on the community, it's simply a way to reach a consensus, and sometimes the only way to reach a consensus without weeks of arguing. Fighting is boring, so some of us try to skip that part by making a change, noting the objections if there are any, and quickly making another change to see if they can either build on that or reach a compromise. When two or more editors engage in this, and remain civil, you develop a healthy conflict, that uses the passion of the parties involved to build a better article. This even works for a policy article, but you have to let it work. This technique of responding to the discussion with changes isn't disruptive, unless someone wants to make a big deal out of it.

It's too easy to stonewall a discussion with "there was no consensus for that", and just go into a revert war while someone's trying to reach a consensus through boldness. When that happens, rather than reverting the change, discuss it, try to find middle ground, and make a better change that reflects that. Refactor mercilessly until the finished product is what the community wants. This is how you build barns instead of cathedrals Triona (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

I am confused by one of the steps on this image:

Image:Consensus new and old.svg

Surely if you make a change, trying to establish a new consensus, and it is reverted, surely that means the old consensus remains if you agree with the revert. So how come the Agree part of the question "Do you agree with the revert" goes off to the New Consensus part? Surely that means the consensus was reverted, and therefore consensus remains the same as it originally was? D.M.N. (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Related deletion discussion

Of deep significance to this policy is a current template deletion discussion, of a template that represents a deletion discussion as a vote between two parties:

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 17#Template:Recap

--Tony Sidaway 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions - consensus on a wider scale

In applying

• Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The project cannot decide that for "their" articles, said policy does not apply.

Does World-wide consensus apply?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad Images

These images are not accepted from all muslims because it is not the real picture . Prophet Muhammad was like a light , had a very beautiful face , Had very marvelous behaviors among people ,People loved & still loving him because of his kindful ,honest , greatful ,faithful to God ,and for his caring for muslims to be like him with other Religions followers .He didnot tell us to create a wrong thing on people . So what Iam asking you is if you want to no Prophet Muhammad , Just ask the good muslim peoples .Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.72.252 (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Is there a consensus on the definition of "consensus"? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there also a consensus on the purpose for consensus?

and

a consensus of the motivation/s to reach consensus?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I put "define:consensus" into google and here are some of the results:

• "An informal method for identifying approval of a proposal placed before a group. Consensus is not the same as unanimity. It is sometimes used as a political tool and may be proclaimed without individual voting but may not necessarily be an accurate assessment of the group's general desires." – http://www.domainhandbook.com/gloss.html
• "General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments NOTE Consensus need not imply unanimity" – http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/About-standards/Glossary/
• "A position reach by a group when everyone in the group can say, "I can live with it." That means that all participants may not find the outcome as their ideal solution, but it is not worth arguing about – they can live with it and can support it, they can sleep at night." – http://www.mgrush.com/content/view/70/33/
• "Consensus building is a process where parties to a dispute, with the assistance of a facilitator, identify the facts and stakeholders, settle on the issues for discussion and consider options. This allows parties to build rapport, through discussions that assists in developing better communication and relationships." – http://www.nadrac.gov.au/agd/www/Disputeresolutionhome.nsf/Page/RWP7E251CA71B8E7700CA256BD100135550?OpenDocument
• "A feeling within a group that its conclusion represents a fair summary of the conclusions reached by the individual members of the group. Each individual accepts the group's conclusion on the basis of logic and feasibility." – www.fao.org/docrep/w8961e/w8961e08.htm
• "Consensus is a way of making decisions which aims to include everyone in the decision making process and resolve any objections. It is a form of grassroots or direct democracy and rejects representative forms of democracy associated with voting and hierarchy which can ignore the views of minorities." – www.autonomousgeographies.org/glossary.html
• "A Grove governs itself by consensus - 1 person, 1 vote, all decisions must be unanimous. Two thirds of the members (a quorum) must be present to transact business." – www.mithrilstar.org/glossary.htm
• "Consensus: can be defined as "general agreement" on a conclusion or, conversely, no substantial disagreement with that decision. The parties involved may not agree with every aspect, but taken as a whole, a decision based on consensus satisfies the major interests and concerns of each party to the extent that they can all support it." – http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/lup/lrmp/northern/frtnelsn/terms/glossary.html
• "The set of ideas, beliefs and values that are shared and agreed by the majority of the population, the centre ground that by definition often excludes alternative positions." – faculty.harker.org/BeverleyM/LITINTOFILM/glossary3.html

The autonomousgeographies and mitrhilstar definitions are not what we mean, since decisions can be made with less than a unanimous vote. Nor are the mgrush, fao, or ilmbwww definition what we mean, because sometimes participants in Wikipedia discussion refuse to accept the group's conclusion and continue to say, "I can't live with that," but the decision is made anyway. The NADRAC definition makes the consensus-building process almost sound civilized. Notice that their description includes the idea of a facilitator, as opposed to the more chaotic system we have here. I think that the domainhandbook, bsi-global and possibly faculty.harker definitions may come closest. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bzzt!

"No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

1. Any combination of "no" and "unilateral" is wrong... violates WP:BOLD.
2. Consensus changes based on one person making an edit. That's what wikis are based on.
3. It is extremely evil to put such a text in consensus can change, since if people were to foolishly follow the advice literally, it makes it almost impossible to change consensus (!)

Text therefore removed.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with the removal of text. What is to prevent an editor from making controversial changes and, when reverted, citing WP:CCC? Already CCC is occasionally used to make arguments like: "Well, consensus has changed because I don't agree." I feel it is necessary to prevent this kind of abuse of the rules and to underscore the fact that consensus does not mean unanimity. Silly rabbit (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree but more mildly. Kim is right that we need to encourage boldness and that a single highly-experienced and well-respected editor can unilaterally make a statement that reflects established consensus and/or precedent - or can raise sufficient well-reasoned objection that the apparent consensus is exposed as incomplete. At the same time, we deliberately do not seek to achieve perfect consensus in its theoretical sense. To do so would hold us hostage to trolls, vandals and others who do not hold our shared vision of writing an encyclopedia. We seek rough consensus. The clause was originally added because trolls (and some good-faith but very inexperienced users) were misinterpreting the rest of the page and claiming that just because they personally disagreed with a policy or position that there had never been "consensus" in the first place and that the policy could immediately be ignored. The wording Kim removed may have been too strong but I do believe that we need something on the page that we can clearly point to that will help us clarify that one person's objections are not enough to overturn (or rigidify) long-established and widely-accepted decisions. My personal rule of thumb is that a decision arrived at through discussion and debate should generally require about the same degree of discussion to overturn. Rossami (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should just follow WP:BRD in establishing consensus, whether it's on policy-related issues or elsewhere. The idea that no one can unilaterally hold the community hostage is implicit in BRD, because anyone can revert. The ensuing discussion then settles the issue. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Obuibo Mbstpo, WP:BRD works well. The text Kim removed seems to be long-standing, and the staus quo should be returned while this is discussed. Kim was bold but without support should be reverted while this is resolved. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

People, define "consensus" first, then decide how it works--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I just realized that my statement above may have been ambiguous. To clarify, I think we should get rid of the language that "No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed" since it could be interpreted as discouraging the B aspect of WP:BRD, which is the wiki process for making both policy- and content-related decisions. It might suffice just to say that consensus can change. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that WP:BRD should be made a more explicit part of the consensus policy. Part of the problem with the policy is that it is open to interpretations which give trolls, POV warriors, and suchlike, potential loopholes. I would not object to replacing the sentence with something more explicit. But removing it altogether seems to eschew the "RD" of "BRD". Silly rabbit (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I support being bold, but that is different from assessing consensus. In the absence of objection bold actions persevere; however, it is when we have objections that the consensus process truly starts. The removed text has to do with evaluating consensus. Theoretically, people who are modifying policies are "evaluating demonstrated consensus," but more likely they are expressing their opinions on how it should be. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They had better ...finely-ing... well be evaluating demonstrated consensus. People who go around expressing "how things should be" are often power-players (aka "playing nomic in the project namespace"), and they should go and ... take a friendly-ing ride to err heck. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC) What, me? Strong feelings about the matter? Nahhhhh, whatever gave you that idea? ;-)

(re silly rabbit) Actually, BRD uses the consensus policy already. Compare schematics? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Silly rabbit: Earlier you objected to: "Well, consensus has changed because I don't agree." : But I believe that to be exactly correct, when editing a wiki. We are trying to describe how the system works, not how we would like to ideally see it work. Here we are describing a key pivot point in decision making. See also WP:SILENCE for more detail on that particular pivot-point.

Obuibo Mbstpo makes the point that some people were stating they disagreed with the policy, and that therefore they were justified to Ignore All Rules. Well guess what? That's exactly what the Ignore All Rules policy guarantees! Once again, not an abuse. Where such people might fall foul is when we apply further depth to ignore all rules: they need to explain why their approach is better for the encyclopedia. (and then negotiate on a compromise, perhaps). If they do so successfully, then consensus might very well change to their position.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim, you are taking a very absolutist view of "consensus" here. I see your point but it's not realistic when taken to the logical extreme. When you say "consensus has changed because I don't agree" about X, I would be willing to concede the point from you. You are an established editor with a demonstrated reputation for careful thought and research and, more importantly, your contribution history clearly shows that you care about our shared vision of writing an encyclopedia. I will not grant that same assumption to an anonymous or brand new editor with a history of trollish behavior or who can't be bothered to read through the archives to understand why the policy says what it does (or can't even be bothered to actually read what the policy says rather than spontaneously objecting to some minor clause taken out of context). Yes, we are supposed to assume good faith but even WP:AGF has limits. We can not be held hostage by our own policies to those who do not share the vision of writing an encyclopedia.
That puts some realistic boundaries on the idea of changing consensus and, frankly, on the idea of consensus at all. That's why I keep coming back to our stated goal of rough consensus. One person's objections are enough to show that there was not a unanimous agreement but that may or may not be enough to demonstrate that there is no longer the rough consensus that we need to operate. The rationale offered and even the reputation of the editor making the change matters. Wikis don't function on explicit controls but they do rely heavily on social controls. That's why I don't think that a purist statement about consensus (in either direction) is appropriate.
Yes, consensus can change but it can't change on a whim. The clause you took out was trying to help readers who are new to the concept to find the right balance and to counter-balance the folks who were (sometimes deliberately) misusing the idea. Rossami (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Kevin Murray: I'm pretty sure the text wasn't in the original version, so the argument that it was long standing is incorrect. As it roundly contradicts the rest of that section/policy, it should be removed.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Obuibo Mbstpo: Every single time, over and over, in many places, we imply and imply and imply that even 1 single person can change long standing policy, because the policy isn't binding in the first place. We have WP:IAR, we have the rest of WP:CONSENSUS, we have WP:BOLD, we have WP:COMMON, the list is very long ;-)

Now in one place, we explicitly state that no (written) decision is ever binding on anyone. That's at WP:CCC, consensus can change.

At all times, the community and its members who are dealing with the here and now have primacy.

The original CCC talk page

The debate there is a bit more complex, because it started about whether or not people are allowed to vote (something Obuibo might have some experience with by now :-)). We finally agreed that the outcome of any poll, or in fact any discussion was not binding for the future.

"Dramatis personae": While I am opposed to appeals to authority, I have do some thoughts about experience, so ...if you're not familiar with the users involved: Jdforrester was en.wikipedia's main policy expert. He founded the arbitration committee, among other things, and has been a member for a long time (He also was a kind of policy mentor for Mindspillage, and also for myself) . Angela and Eloquence are wikipedians who joined very early (and both have served on the foundation board), Amgine is a very wise metapedian, who has experience with many wikis. Jon Awbry has been banned from wikipedia, though he does seem like a smart guy. Radiant is a long standing wikipedian, he invented the policy, guideline, essay system. nae'blis is an experienced wikipedian, but I haven't had much interaction with them. W.Marsh is another long standing wikipedian. Sam Korn, too. Mindspillage is a current board member, and before that she was on the arbitration committee. And I've probably missed several people from that discussion. ^^;;

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is, at this point I've had too many Sam Adams to figure out whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. Ah, forget this. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Heh, I'll see you in the morning, when you've slept it off? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Our positions differ somewhat atm I think, but I'm mostly providing more information for now.

  Well, I still don't see where the disagreement lies, or if it exists. I mean, aren't we both saying that anyone can edit a policy/guideline page to reflect consensus that is revealed by the current practice and/or consensus expressed in discussion? And that the consensus, once established, is not immutable? Basically, WP:BRD is a continuing cycle; it doesn't just stop. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Fair deal. Agreed! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There were 2 separate edits

• Kevin Murray (*2): I see that you have actually reverted not one but two good faith edits? I deliberately made two edits with different rationales. Could you explain why you oppose each rationale separately? Since you made the reverts, you're the responsible person, (so as a matter of procedure you should provide well reasoned answers for both edits). Thank you. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Kim, under WP:BRD you were bold, I reverted and gave my reasons above. On something as central to our project as consensus, I think that a broad based discussion is proper before changing long standing text. Let's encourage some others to chime-in and I suggest that you advertise your proposed changes at the village pump. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your premise is false on its face, as proven by a diff, in a statement directly addressed to you in this thread, nota bene! I repeat that neither of the 2 areas where I took out text contain long standing text. If you must insist on your personal procedure (which is not documented anywhere on-wiki, afaict... please link to documentation if it is explained anywhere), please revert out the new text, and discuss putting it *in* and thus thereby altering the long standing text (which is what you were trying to avoid, correct?) .If you wish to encourage others to chime in, that's your prerogative.

But at the end of the day, that is neither here nor there. You are blocking consensus, and disrupting normal wiki-editing.

My personal rationale in each case is provided in the edit summaries. But to summarize, (also a repeat!) basically both new texts are false, and contradict all other policy, including CCC itself. The policy tag states that you must ensure that all edits (including reverts) reflect consensus. It is self-evident that a self-contradictory text can never represent a rational consensus. Why do I even need to explain this? Once again, you are violating procedure. Please bring your edits in line with consensus. By re-adding false information without providing a valid rationale, you are not protected by WP:WIARM, and you can be said to be acting in a disruptive fashion.

I am still awaiting your 2 specific rationales in reply (possibly adjusted for new information), as I can validly expect from you. This is the third and last time I shall ask. I'll wait another 24 hours before reverting and continuing as before. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Kim's reversion, if no reply is given. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To help:

• 1.→Consensus can change: slight change to reduce confrontation-potential
• 2. →Consensus can change: "No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." Um. Wrong.

To expand each rationale:

1. The page tried to make a distinction between disruptively or good faithed-ly making an edit. This is new text. This new text encourages conflict, by contradicting WP:AGF. I have therefore removed it, which returns us to the status quo. But I do not actually have to provide a rationale to fit in with some random undocumented procedure. I can simply follow documented procedure state that the text contradicts both CCC and other policy, and therefore does not accurately represent consensus. Removing the text more accurately represents consensus, and therefore the basic requirement is met.

2. "No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined.". This is new text. This new text states the opposite of what CCC is trying to explain. It also contradicts WP:BOLD. I have therefore removed this text, which returns us to the status quo. But I do not actually have to provide a rationale to fit in with some random undocumented procedure. I can simply follow documented procedure by stating that the text contradicts both CCC and other policy, and therefore does not accurately represent consensus. Removing the text more accurately represents consensus, and therefore the basic requirement is met.

For each of these 2 rationales, you will need to explain in your own words one or more of: how they do not meet the requirements of WP:WIARM; and/or do not meet the requirements of {{policy}}; and/or do not meet the requirements of wikipedia:policies and guidelines; and/or are inaccurate or logically flawed; and/or do not accurately represent consensus.

I will attach consequences to your answer. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dun dun dunnnnnn.--Father Goose (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! :) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Behave. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Kim, I see that Mbstpo supports your position. But I think that you should document some broader support by advertising the idea at the village pump, or other means. I'm not going to debate you line for line, but I will support you if you can demonstrate that a broad base of informed wikipedians support your position. I like and respect you too much to split hairs, but if you can't show some more support, I can't agree with you on this. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• 2nd issue. While I agree with the following statement, I won't actively oppose Kim in removing it if he feels that it is out of place here: "There is a distinction between unresolved good-faith concerns over a reasonable or policy related matter, and disruptively trying to enforce an individual view." --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Ah, well I respect you too, but this is becoming a bit of a problem, you see. Wikipedia is based on consensus. Other people can give their own rationales, and they can speak for themselves, and edit for themselves. In an election, it would be strange if you cast your vote for someone else's opinion. In a consensus system, it is strange for you to act on other peoples perceived positions. So what I need from you is your personal rationale for opposing, as opposed to "I'd like to see other people do stuff". "Other people" are all rational human beings, and can look after themselves, just like you. Honest!

As per best practices that I documented myself, I mostly talk with people who oppose my actions. Since Consensus can change, if someone comes by (even months or years later) and chooses to oppose them then, that's still no problem. :-)

Right now, for me to be able to talk with you, and come to compromise and/or consensus, I'd like to know your own reasons for opposing or not. If you have them, could you explain what your reasons are, in your own words, please?

I beleive that the statement: "No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." is true, pertinent to the project, and should be included in the text of this process page. How can I be more clear? --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this statement is entirely false. So we need to discuss our reasons for believing so. I've already pointed out that it contradicts WP:CCC itself (CCC is specifically about one or more people actually being able to challenge the status quo!) and WP:BOLD (which recommends editing "unilaterally" as much as possible). And I also pointed out that it was a new statement that wasn't in earlier versions of the text.

On your side of the story, can you point out why you think the statement is true? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim, let's not make it a Kevin versus Kim thing. Let some others discuss it for a while and maybe I'll see more merit to your point. I'll go for what is best for the project. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing the same with every other person who comes by to oppose my actions. I trust that over time, everyone who has an interest in the page, and in any changes I have made, will in fact show up and discuss those changes with me. In return, those people have similar expectations of me.

As I am too polite to revert a revert just like that, you are effectively vetoing me changing the page. So right now, you're a very important person to me. I am waiting for your every word, and I really would like your reply. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim, for most of us this is a part time avocation -- we don't all have the energy or enthusiasm to debate all the issues in infinite detail. In a more perfect world we could fine tune the processes to perfection, but for now I prefer stability. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessary. Just give a short, to the point answer, which allows room for negotiation. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC) if you're not used to that, it might take some practice. But many experienced wikipedians can resolve this kind of discussion in mere minutes, typically :-)

(after e/c) On the 2nd issue. If you personally agree with the position, you shouldn't simply let me remove it either! Can you explain why you think it is important here? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I do play fair, you see. :-)

Kim, I don't think that it is that important, and am willing to concede the point. While the statement is true, it may be out of place or a statement of the obvious which clouds the issue. I'll trust your judgment. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. I'm not very satisfied with that answer. Your rationale is important to me. I am most curious and interested to hear your reasoning, no matter how trivial or profound. However, if you choose not to answer further, I will live with it. :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Example of improved CCC section

I edited the CCC section to streamline the content and hopefully incorporate some of the new ideas expressed here recently. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&oldid=198002280 I've tried to provide an example of a clearer text with what I hope has ideas which address Kim's and my concerns. After creating the example, I reverted to the status quo, but would be happy to affect my edit if others support the rewrite. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have had a couple of looks at this, and I do think it works. It is shorter, not wrong in meaning, and avoids personalising the issue with "this group of editors" and so on. Good move, putting it up and then reverting, makes it easier to compare. my2cents --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I unreverted. If you want the community to decide on a version, you need to put the version up for the community to see. Keep in mind how watchlists work! Thanks :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've read it, it's really really really wrong. It does not correctly reflect the fact that consensus can change. Which is the entire point of that policy, even before it was merged here. (not only is that the explicit point of CCC, it is also implicit in BOLD, IAR, some of the arbcom policy, and more). The reason for the existence of CCC is to establish, maintain, and make absolutely and explicitly crystal clear that consensus is mutable. Can we please establish and then maintain the fact that Consensus is in fact mutable, and then not contradict ourselves in this section at least? If there are exceptions or comments to be made, perhaps those can be listed at the end of the section. (if necessary we can do so in notes, showing observed situations, to save having to integrate too much at once.)

Because Kevin Murray is apparently unfamiliar with our fundamental polices about page editing, I have only made 1 edit so far (removing a section that somehow had managed to concentrate a large amount of wrongness. ;-) ) and will now wait for Kevin (or anyone else :-) ) to take a turn. Kevin, can you now try to improve the section to take into account my comments? Also, read the original CCC discussion to understand more about the background. (and worst case we can revert back to status quo ante.)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Naturally, if others want to pitch in, please feel free!

Yes, KB, others do want to pitch in (though not in a big way). Please, I am finding it difficult, in that you're "framing" this as Kim B. versus Kevin M, and requiring answers to every arcane or disputed point. We all just don't have that amount of time, you know. The editing here is fine, but the discussion is too verbose. (Also, I disagree with your point. HaHa! I think the shorter version is MORE correct, not less. We cannot have a million words to document every point, that is called, um, instruction creep. We also dont want discussion creep.) <smiley> --Newbyguesses - Talk 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Err, I'm not. He reverted, so that's why I discussed with him specifically. It just got long because he kept either evading or (WP:AGF) not understanding what I needed. He still hasn't given any rationale on-wiki mind you.

Still, failing that, how about assuming some more good faith and letting him edit? That might work.

The current wording is short, concise, clear, and very wrong. 3 out of 4 isn't too bad. ;-) Still, I'll wait for Kevin to edit again, and/or 24 hours.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Kim, I am familiar with the processes; however, from time to time I like to break out of the box. I really appreciate you supporting my boldness, as I felt uncomfortable making such a big change unilaterally. I have no problem with you removing the precedents section; I left it in from a prior generation, but broke it out for clarity. Regardless, it seemed off-topic. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you call breaking out of the box, then I don't want to know what it's like inside there. I'd get acute claustrophobia. ;-) .

Your change was not so big really. Even if it was, making "large unilateral changes" is strongly encouraged by the guideline: WP:BOLD. Also, we have a template {{sofixit}} that we always give to newbies.

I thought you might have no issue with the precedents section, I'd already read your opinion here on the talk page, and had a bit of a feel for what you'd be willing to support.

We're making progress along this line. I'm currently still not pleased with the page, but that's ok, I think that following the consensus process will bear us out. (normally I wouldn't type this much on talk, but let's keep a running commentary for now, and archive it later :-) )

So if you have the above discussion in mind, you might already be able to guess what my next edit will be. This one will probably take some discussion. Can you predict it and pre-empt my next action yourself? (a variant of "Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy" in the project namespace.) If you do, you might be able to skip the revert and discuss stages entirely. If you don't, that's fine too. In any case, I won't edit 'till tomorrow evening.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a good edit. the language is clearer, it makes good points about the value of open discussion, and I think it is shorter. No, it doesn't go too far, there do not seem to be any untoward policy implications here. --Newbyguesses - Talk 02:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It does describe a method some people use. I do not actually consider that to be a successful method, however. At any rate it is the radical opposite of CCC. (It's actually more like Wikipedia:Process is important, a dissenting essay, though probably even more radical than that. At least that page recognizes consensus ^^;;) . So now I'm pondering what to do next. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, belay that. I'm still interested in what is being described there, even though that's not CCC.

A current problem with that diff is that it does state "the best process is ... " but then does not document the actual mechanics of the process. In essence, you are adding "and then a miracle happens" to the flowchart. ;-)

Just to pour salt into the wounds, this is Wikipedia:Consensus, if you refer to *any* other process from off of this page, it is very easy to create a self-referential loop: "We get consensus through this process. How does this process work? Well, it's based on consensus. So how does consensus work? We get consensus through this process..." . So as a rule of thumb, references to external process "are not allowed" on this page. You might be able to pull it off in theory, but in practice, it's really hard.

So instead, it's much easier to try to describe all the steps of the process on this page.

So this new text still needs a lot of work. It might be radically moved around at some point, but that's for later. Right now, I am interested in the outcome. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Emphasizing facts and de-emphasizing consensus as decision criteria

Consensus

(Re-factored from Village Pump)

"Consensus" I believe is another problematic word in some cases. It is inherently confusing because it has many possible definitions, some of which imply absolute unanimity, which is never a requirement here for action to be taken. However, other definitions do not carry this implication (see Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Definition) so that by itself does not make it an incorrect use of terminology. It is hard to find a satisfactory definition of consensus, as applied to Wikipedia, and if you read through the archives of Wikipedia_talk:Consensus, you'll find that people have been grappling with this for some time. But let's start with a few that, while not entirely satisfactory, express certain attributes often applicable to Wikipedia decisionmaking:

• "An informal method for identifying approval of a proposal placed before a group. Consensus is not the same as unanimity. It is sometimes used as a political tool and may be proclaimed without individual voting but may not necessarily be an accurate assessment of the group's general desires." http://www.domainhandbook.com/gloss.html
• "General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments NOTE Consensus need not imply unanimity" http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/About-standards/Glossary/
• "The set of ideas, beliefs and values that are shared and agreed by the majority of the population, the centre ground that by definition often excludes alternative positions." http://faculty.harker.org/BeverleyM/LITINTOFILM/glossary3.html

Many guidelines suggest that decisions on Wikipedia are made by "rough consensus." For instance, WP:DEL states:

“ These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate. ”

On its face, this appears to be an accurate description; and anyone who has been in deletion debates for awhile knows what it is talking about. But there are some subtle ambiguities and inaccuracies present in this statement (and many like it) that I believe we would do well to correct. It will take me awhile to pick apart and explain, but please bear with me.

It is often said that we make decisions primarily by "consensus" or through "discussion" rather than polling. (In using the word "consensus," there is some ambiguity – do we mean "consensus" in the sense of "an informal method for identifying approval of a proposal placed before a group," in which case it might mean basically the same thing as "discussion"; or do we mean that in most cases, the opinions are nearly unanimous one way or the other? Probably both of these things are implied, but the use of the word "consensus" makes it fuzzy.) On its face, this seems true. We do, after all, discuss things before a decision is announced, and the decisions is typically based on things said or brought to light in the course of the discussion. But is it accurate to say that our decisions are the result of the discussion or comments made therein? (Most deletion debates are closed with a statement such as "The result of the discussion was Keep")

In a system such as the U.S. Congress, it is correct to say that decisions are a result of the vote. Whatever the members vote to do, that is the action taken, as long as it doesn't contradict rules that they themselves have set up. Under their rules, it would be a perfectly valid decision for the body to pass a resolution, for instance, stating that "Whereas, mutated superintelligent polar bears with orange spots are bombarding the Pacific Northwest states with heavy artillery; and whereas this has had a profound negative impact on the economy of this region; now therefore be it Resolved that $10 million is appropriated for economic stimulus in this region, to be allocated by the President." Regardless of the facts being incorrect, they can vote to do what they wish, and action will be taken accordingly. Indeed, they can even violate their own rules if they raise a point of order and motion, and the members vote to interpret the rules in such a way that the violation is permitted; this is what the nuclear option is all about.

Now, on Wikipedia, what happens when the participants in a discussion ask for an article to be kept or deleted based on inaccurate facts or blatantly misapplication of policy? The closing admin has every right to take action based on the facts and policy. It does not even matter if the decisive argument was not raised in debate; facts and policy are what they are. The ten participants in a debate can unanimously argue in favor of keeping an unverifiable article, citing many eloquent reasons for why, and the closing admin can delete. So in that case, the action taken is not the result of the discussion or rough consensus.

The subject of deletion, due to its complexity, opens up a whole can of worms, so perhaps a better better example is WP:FAC. FAC rules state:

“ For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the FA director, currently Raul654, determines whether there is consensus. (References in these instructions to "the director" include Raul654's nominated delegates.) If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The director determines the timing of the process for each nomination. ”

It might be more accurate to say that FACs are determined based on the merits as judged by the FA director, a determination that he makes after reviewing the article and taking into consideration the arguments made. Clearly, an article can be promoted even if there is unanimous opposition, if the director determines that the article is of sufficient quality and the objections are non-actionable. So, it is patently inaccurate to say that "For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria."

And of course, article content is not decided by consensus, but by the merits. I believe TBSDY ran into this situation once, when the consensus was to change the article on Australia to say it is a republic. The one editor who, correctly, says that it is a constitutional monarchy is entitled to have his edit stand. WP:CONSENSUS already says, "Note that in the rare case that the "eccentric" position turns out to have merit, the consensus can change," but that's somewhat of an ambiguous statement. Does that mean that the person with the eccentric position is entitled to keep reverting back to the correct version, or that he is supposed to change consensus by persuading the others? What if they won't be persuaded? We might clarify that people are allowed to correct factual inaccuracies, no matter what the consensus is.

But what about situations (whether in FAC, AFD, or elsewhere) in which it's a close call as to how to best apply facts or policy and there is room for reasonable disagreement? In those cases, headcount can begin to play into things, most certainly; and the closer in strength the arguments on each opposing sides are, the more weight headcount will tend to carry. And I think MFD is often an excellent example of this. It is inaccurate to imply that decisions will never made by headcount. To say such a thing gives people an unrealistic expectation of how things will work here; and I think fostering that expectation can come back to bite us.

Rather than saying that decisions are made by discussion or consensus, it would be more accurate to say that decisions are made based on the merits when possible (specifically, facts and policy); that discussion is used to present relevant facts and arguments to aid in determining the merits; and that head count (with adjustments made to account for possible sockpuppets, votestacking, etc.) begins to become a factor as the strength of the arguments on each side approaches equality.

Of course, the application of policy is a bit of grey area, as some rules are not supposed to bend at all, and others (especially guidelines) have more give. All in all, it's a bit tricky in certain borderline cases, because the closing admin has to consider the relative weight of the facts, policies, guidelines, and possibly headcount. For these reasons, it's difficult to draft a statement that expresses clearly and accurately how decisions are made here. But to say that decisions are made as a result of "consensus" or "discussion" is clearly an oversimplification, and easily misinterpreted.

The catchall used (often implicitly) when a departure from the description of practice laid down in rules is made is WP:IAR. Thus, we can ignore the rule that decisions are made by consensus if the opinions expressed by a preponderance of editors is wrong. But, when possible, we should avoid having poorly-worded rules that make it necessary to invoke WP:IAR on a regular basis.

So, in short, I think we might revise references to decisionmaking by consensus to place more emphasis on decisionmaking being made primarily according to the merits, in a judgment made by the closing admin that is informed by the discussion, the facts he is able to assess for himself, and binding policies; and when there is some question as to the merits, taking into consideration rough consensus, as expressed in the more flexible guidelines and in the particular debate.

I am not proposing any change in the substance of the rules, just rather changing them to make them more accurately and precisely describe actual (and best) practices. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Responses

I haven't read the discussion up until now, but in response to the header and original statement just below it: Consensus and encyclopedic are subjective terms. Wikipedia is a subjective place. When judging policy violations etc, people are told to use common sense. It don't get more subjective than that. This is intentional. Wikipedia is different from a state with laws. That is also intentional. Wikipedia doesn't want to be a legal system. That's why we discourage lawyering, and we say we're not a democracy or a bureaucracy. If everything were objective, we would be those things we don't want to be. Will it last? Can it last? Maybe, we'll see. But for now, people who can't live with a system like that should go elsewhere, because those are the core principles here and they're unlikely to change. My personal opinion is that I'm honestly not sure if it can last. It's a little bit like tyranny -- not in a derogatory sense, but in the sense that it is basically run by "lifetime rulers" who pass power on to each other, and who tell everyone that gets pissed off "if you don't like it, leave". That's a system begging to be overthrown, and it may happen. I myself think it's a very interesting system, and one that's more fun to participate in the way it currently stands; whereas if it were just like real life, I think it would be quite boring. So for as long as it lasts, I'll enjoy it. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:19, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is sometimes a subjective place, but it's not supposed to be primarily a subjective place. When facts are available, we're supposed to go by those regardless of what the consensus says. Also, certain policies don't yield bend. E.g., you can't delete a verifiable article for nonverifiability, even if the consensus wants to do so. There has to be some other rationale for deletion. Policy should reflect that's how we do things – on the merits when the merits are incontrovertible; and when they are not, by rough consensus. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yield? I don't know what that means exactly. You're saying you can't delete something verifiable for unverifiability? Yes, that's true, the laws of logic and physics still apply. Rules are ignorable though. We can delete verifiable things, if there's consensus to do so, despite the verifiability policy. As for what Wikipedia is "supposed to be"? Not for anyone to decide. It simply is what it is. It runs on consensus, a subjective thing. Facts are given their due weight regardless. I'm not sure what you're arguing exactly. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:24, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Various pages say that we make decisions by consensus. We don't, primarily. Decisions are made based on facts. Sometimes crucial facts emerge at the 11th hour, after almost everyone has already given input, and that can nonetheless can tip the decision the other way. As mentioned, this is not a proposal to change how we do things, but to have policy and guidelines more accurately describe our practices, which will be useful in avoiding problems in which people say, "Hey, why'd you do that??" I'm not saying we can't delete verifiable articles based on other things; but we can't just say, "We're deleting this obviously verifiable article based on the consensus reached in this debate that it was unverifiable." There would have to be some other reason, such as notability. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Facts can't decide actions. When there's a decision to be made based on facts, we have a discussion, and hopefully form a consensus. That's how we come to a decision. So I'm still not sure what you're saying. Let's get more specific: What change do you suggest, for example? Equazcion •✗/C • 18:57, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) For WP:FAC for instance, we might try this language:

“ For a nominated article to be promoted to FA status, it must meet the criteria. The FA director, currently Raul654, determines whether the criteria are met based upon his review of the article, taking into consideration objections presented in the discussion and edits made to address those objections. (References in these instructions to "the director" include Raul654's nominated delegates.) If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the director have not been resolved, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The director determines the timing of the process for each nomination. ”

Isn't that much closer to how things actually work than to say that they are determined by consensus? There can be a unanimous vote of 50 people to promote an article, but if the article is crap, it doesn't get promoted. Likewise, if there is a 49-1 vote against promotion, but the article meets the FA criteria, it can be promoted. The proposed language would tend to discourage sockpuppetry and canvassing. (And if there's anything on Wikipedia I can't stand, it's those two things.) WP:DEL is going to be a tougher nut to crack, I'll need to think about that in more detail, but let's start with WP:FAC first. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Responses, cont'd

Hardening the language to describe how it works, even most of the time, locks us into certain practices and invites lawyering, which again we don't want. We don't want to have a process set in stone so that if, let's say, we feel the need to ignore it once in a while, someone can come around and lawyer their way into forcing us back into the process. There's simply no reason to harden the language as you suggest. Consensus is the broader version and covers what you perceive as the current practice, but also allows for other options should the need arise. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:48, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

What is an example of a situation involving FAC where we would want to use "other options," rather than relying on the criteria? An article should be well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable, meet the style guidelines, etc. in order to be promoted. And if it meets those criteria, then a consensus should not be able to prevent it from being promoted. Any exceptions can be written into the policy. Generally, if exceptions are anticipated, the best thing is to write them into the rule. But if exceptions are not anticipated, then we might as well harden the language, to prevent abuses. Rules are there, after all, to prevent abuses, not to create opportunities for them. As George Demeter wrote, "Rules are necessary because it is dangerous to rely on the inspiration of the moment for standards of action or conduct." Larry E. Jordan (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A consensus should not be able to prevent it? For what reason? Just because exceptions are anticipated doesn't mean specific reasons for making exceptions are expected can be predicted. What you're suggesting is a complete change in the way Wikipedia works. And by now, you should be able to gather from both the percentage of responses in opposition as well as the overall lack of interest in this discussion, that it just ain't happening. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:50, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting a change in how Wikipedia works. What I'm suggesting is a change to the wording of the rules to reflect how Wikipedia actually does work, so that it's not giving a false impression. Can you think of a time when an article that didn't meet the criteria got promoted based on a consensus, or an article that did meet the criteria didn't get promoted because of a consensus? But there are times when the promotion decision went against rough consensus, as it should have. For instance, sometimes people cast "object" votes, the objection is addressed, and they don't return to strike it out; and Raul654 disregards their objection because it doesn't square with the new facts. Occasionally, people freak out thinking that ill-informed or irrelevant votes will tip the outcome, because the rule, as currently stated, lead them to believe that. We can easily prevent that from happening by describing the process more accurately. Also, in reference to which side is on the majority in this Village Pump discussion, please note you are the only one who has responded with regard to the consensus question here; and with regard to the encyclopedic question, see Wikipedia_talk:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Definition_of_.22encyclopedic.22. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

← I had no idea you were only addressing FAC. I thought this was about using the word "consensus" in our policies in general. I don't know much about how FAC works, having never been very involved in it, so I'm ill-equipped to discuss that particular process or changes to its policy. You're right I'm the only one who responded -- I didn't realize that whole long thing was only your original post. But, again, that shows the lack of interest in this proposal, and the only one who responded (me) is against. Also, when people don't return to strike out their comments after they've been "addressed" doesn't mean they necessarily think the issue is resolved. I've often left objections in discussions, and despite their having been responses to them, I don't necessarily come back to continue the argument. Sometimes it's just not productive to do so, and the disagreement comes down to just that -- a disagreement -- that doesn't necessarily have hope of being resolved. If people stated what they wanted to state, not coming back doesn't mean they don't still stand by their objection. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:30, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

How do you know on which side the silent majority stands? Maybe those users who aren't participating here have better things to do, and didn't feel like reading my lengthy explanation? I knew that risk was involved in writing at such length, but it's a complex subject; that's probably part of the reason things are still worded the way they are. Especially when you're dealing with deletion, the issue gets confused because under conditions we do things one way, and under other conditions another. (Although that doesn't mean we can't still reduce it down to rules fairly easily; it's just a bit more complex than FAC.)

I think we should de-emphasize consensus in deletion policy and completely remove it from FAC policy. I just chose to address FAC first because it's a more clear-cut example. But if you want an example of facts overriding consensus, look no further than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversation opener. The consensus was clearly to delete (and indeed it was deleted) but deletion was overturned based on facts that had changed. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The decision was overturned because consensus at DRV was to overturn it. (and to address the length issue, i'd suggest you cut down your posts significantly. better that people respond and not necessarily get the full details right away, than no one read it to begin with, right?) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:56, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't really a consensus on DRV either to undelete; I think GRBerry basically took it upon himself to do that, based on the facts. Most of my posts are fairly short, but this one had to be lengthy because of the nature of the subject matter. Wikipedians have been struggling for years trying to figure out how to define "consensus" and incorporate it into rules in a clear way that accurately reflects processes. That's not to say it can't be done, but all those attempts have produced so little agreement that all we have is an oversimplified version. It takes a little while to explain how it really does work. On Wikipedia, we say that the consensus rules. But sometimes it doesn't, and shouldn't!

It's kinda like two people arguing, with one saying, "America is a democracy where the majority rules. For instance, the majority of voters voted for Bush in 2004 and he was elected." And someone else argues, "No, it's not a democracy; in 2000, Bush didn't get the popular vote but he became President anyway." They can argue like that forever. The full story is more complicated and takes awhile to explain.

But if you want an accurate understanding of what's going on (and newbies to Wikipedia, who are supposed to be one of the main audiences of our policy, need to gain an accurate understanding) then what's needed is more than just an oversimplified version. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

← As for the silent majority, there is none. Wikipedia isn't a majority vote. If you don't show up for a discussion, you don't get your opinion heard. Period. I don't quite understand what you want to do. On one hand you seem to agree that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but you are continuously pushing for new rules and changes to wording. Mr.Z-man 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion is arguing that since few people have participated in this discussion, that means the change in wording shouldn't be made. But as you say, if you don't show up for a discussion, you don't get your opinion heard. So why should we presume that those who are silent are against me, rather than for me, or neutral? Larry E. Jordan (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Try making the change and then see who speaks up. Doesn't matter anyway, since people are speaking up (myself and z-man), and they're against. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:27, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, I have permission to WP:BRD then? (One of the purposes of BRD, anyway, is to attract attention and input from those who care enough to have the page watchlisted.) By the way, although I often propose adding language to rules, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of more bureaucracy. Usually my changes are in favor of more freedom. For instance, policy creates a ban on canvassing. I try to carve out an exception that will allow consensual canvassing. Is that more bureaucracy? It's kinda like if there's a law that says you can't go through a red light, and someone adds language to the law saying that you can, in fact, go through a red light if you're turning right and stop first to make sure there's no one coming. Is that more bureaucracy, just because it makes the law longer? Larry E. Jordan (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

←Since when do you need anyone's permission to do anything? It's more bureaucracy because of the way disputes will have to play out due to those changes. When you hard-code things, you encourage people to go combing through policies looking for loopholes etc. There's already some of that going on here but we aim to avoid it. General wording means people use more common sense and less legal tactic. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:37, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to be general, we might as well say that we make the decision based on facts and applicable policies, and leave it at that. As it is, we say that the decision is based on consensus. In reality, we base it on facts and applicable policies first (which the debate may or may not shed sufficient light on), and if facts and applicable policies alone don't/can't make the right decision obvious, then we base it on rough consensus as expressed in applicable guidelines and by the rough consensus in the particular XFD (or whatever decision it is.) It probably would be hard to nail it down any more firmly than that (and we might not want to). Larry E. Jordan (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just remember, particularly for policy pages, it is WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRR....D. If you get reverted, discuss it on the relevant talk page and see if there is consensus. If it is a significant change that all of WP maybe affected by, you may need to have an RFC on policy or the like. The key thing is that we are trying to write an encyclopedia, not create a framework of rules and requirements. Every policy and guideline, barring those edicts passed down from the Foundation, should be interpreted as common sense, not as rules and procedures. --MASEM 23:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's not a change to how we do things – just a wording to accurately reflect how we do things. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus generates policy, it is not the other way around. --MASEM 23:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It's a controversial change to the page, and you've been reverted. Now discuss. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:51, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

be bold and be instantly reverted. --87.113.93.118 (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not BRD, it's not BRRRRR...D. It's a BRD cycle. That is to say: B->R->D->B->R->D->B->R->D->B->... . And the objective is to go from there to just B->B->B->B.

Keep cycle time short. In theory, 1/25th second is ideal for a human feedback cycle. In reality, count on a couple of hours from B, R and D back to B, but try to keep it short, find the quickest possible solution that will at least get some people happy already.

Anyway, there's a lot of discussion here and no edits. I think that that's additional fuel for the "problems with discuss-first" fire. :-P

That, and this is Wikipedia:Consensus. If you can't do proper consensus process here, we're frankly doomed. :-P

So please, be bold. Show us what you're thinking of. If it sucks, we'll revert and discuss. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So please, be bold. Show us what you're thinking of. If it needs more work, we'll make an improvement and discuss, further, (if necessary). --Newbyguesses - Talk 00:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)