![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 24 |
Occasionally, we have large-scale discussions where one group of editors advocates an action based on policies or guidelines and another group opposes the action citing no particular policies or guidelines but indicating the subject of the discussion should be an WP:IAR exception. When those discussions are particularly long or contentious, the outcome is almost always "no consensus", and so we default to carving out an exception to the policy/guideline by maintaining the status quo. It seems sensible that the default outcome should align with policy when policy- or guideline-based rationales meet claims of WP:IAR or editorial judgement. In other words, I'd think it sensible that the "burden" of showing a firm consensus should lie with those wishing to make an exception to a policy or guideline rather than those advocating that an article is brought in line with an existing policy or guideline.
The specific change I'd like to see to this policy would be the addition of a bullet point under WP:NOCON saying "When consensus would be found if not for appeals to ignore all rules, a lack of consensus should default to the outcome supported by policies and guidelines, even if that outcome is not the status quo."
This is not an RfC, but I'd like thoughts on this. If the reception is generally positive, I'll make an RfC. ~ Rob13 Talk 12:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
May be I am missing something here, but WP:IAR is a policy as well. Therefore if in the described scenario the "no consensus" was declared basing on the strength of arguments, the "status quo" outcome is just as well based on our policy. Staszek Lem ( talk) 01:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Rob says, "Occasionally, we have large-scale discussions where one group of editors advocates an action based on policies or guidelines and another group opposes the action citing no particular policies or guidelines but indicating the subject of the discussion should be an WP:IAR exception. When those discussions are particularly long or contentious, the outcome is almost always 'no consensus', and so we default to carving out an exception to the policy/guideline by maintaining the status quo..." The problem is not the No Consensus section of this policy, but that to say that the outcome in that situation is 'no consensus' is a mis-evaluation of the consensus in that discussion. Provided that, as Nikkimaria notes, the application of policy is clear, and remembering that consensus evaluation must be based on strength of argument more than counting heads, then the consensus in that situation should always be evaluated as supporting the application of policy unless the arguments for the IAR exception clearly have consensus. Unless they do, then the consensus backing the policy — not the consensus in that discussion but the consensus in adopting the policy — prevails because, per the CONLIMITED section of this policy, policies (and guidelines) are the "established consensus" of the community. That means in a policy vs. IAR argument the policy side already has consensus unless the IAR side overcomes that consensus with a stronger consensus for an IAR exception. Moreover, the arguments for the IAR local exception have to be more than just "we need an IAR exception here" or "we don't like what the policy does," they must be reasons which address the purposes of the policy and give cogent reasons for why those purposes fail to properly or adequately address the particular situation under consideration. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the clause "when consensus would be found if not for appeals to ignore all rules" is a bit of a red herring because it disregards the quality of the arguments. In my experience, closers treat arguments like because WP:IAR as equivalent to WP:ILIKEIT unless they present compelling reasons why the policy does not fit the case. Arguments to override a policy need to be very strong to carry any weight, but they should not be automatically discounted: The applicability of policy is open to debate.
If there is no consensus on the merits of the case, including well reasoned arguments about the applicability of policies, then there is no consensus. Determining consensus is about assessing the quality of the arguments as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Determining outcomes in the absence of consensus should not be about discounting some arguments irrespective of their merits. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 16:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Some very good points above!
Another instance of the no consensus clause is of course in the case of RMs. I'm heavily involved in the ongoing discussion as to whether or not to move the article on New York State away from the base name New York. This is not the place to rediscuss the latest RM of course, but there's a particular argument that was repeatedly raised in that RM which I think is on-topic here.
I think the best place to see that particular argument is here. It is of concern for two reasons, which are really the same one in different terms:
However, the result of the RM may have been significantly influenced by this argument. There was a closing panel of three. One of them found consensus to move.
The other two both found no consensus, but both also found the move arguments stronger than the oppose arguments, just not by a big enough margin. The worrying thing here is, one of these two appears to have counted this no consensus, therefore no consensus argument in concluding that there were arguments both ways. (The other said none of the arguments against the move appear convincing in the least, but still found no consensus.) So it is hard to tell how much influence this argument had, and requests for clarification have gone unanswered.
There is likely to be another RM, it is just a matter of when. But I'm very keen to clear up any confusion about the no consensus clause beforehand, for obvious reasons. Andrewa ( talk) 20:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
There was a claim made that I am forum-shopping an issue that is posted at
I will absolutely say that the NPOVN discussion, under normal circumstances, should have run its course. We're coming up to the date to vote in the presidential election (I'm a liberal for context), and it seems that timing is crucial on this matter. Most of the conversation is rehashing of what has been said numerous times by the same people. This was an attempt at gathering votes to close the issue. It has been discussed on the NPOVN site, including a request to cast a vote - and it broadened the audience to biography, politics and other project I cannot remember right now.
There's background at the RfC: Jane Doe content discussion about the removal of content about a woman who claims that she was raped at the age of 13 by Trump - although only 16% of a universe of reliable, mainstream media is picking up the coverage.
Your input on this would be helpful! I would not normally forum shop, and in theory agree that there was not enough time given to the NPOVN discussion. Since there has been a claim made - and we're trying to come to a resolution quickly, I thought I'd post this here to get your opinion.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn. When I opened this discussion I did not anticipate having to defend myself against vague accusations of wrongdoing or suggestions that I should be blocked. Next time I suggest a clarification to policy I'll put on my flame-resistant armour first. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sometimes a discussion will close nominally as "no consensus" when actually a consensus to remove content exists. For instance, an AfD might close with clear agreement that the content is unsuitable but opinions split between redirect and delete. Currently the wording seems to allow such a discussion to default to keep. This is, of course, ridiculous. Even worse, it seems to currently allow the minimum outcome of redirect to be prevented permanently on the grounds of the "non consensus" close. I'm seeing people misuse the policy in this way more and more often of late. I argue that this kind of obstructionism is not the intent of the policy. I suggest a clarification that "no consensus" in this context means no consensus between keep and delete, not just disagreement about which way to remove unsuitable content. A little while ago I tried to close this loophole but was reverted. Can anyone think of better wording for this suggested change? Reyk YO! 15:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
|
Add the following to see also:
I have difficulties to find good solutions for situations were I argue with another editor about the removal of possibly critical article content and were do not find a consensus. Imagine the following timeline:
Especially in articles with low traffic (hence few editors on the talk page) I have experienced this "strategy" of B (at least I percieve it as a strategy, it does not necessarily have to be intentional or strategic) to be quiet successful in keeping contested content in the article, especially if A looses interest and/or not too many people participate in the RFC. It is clear that there are disputes where there is no clear right or wrong (i.e. whether something is off topic or not) and I would theoretically be fine with me to just leave the discussion (I have usually been editor A ;-)) and the article as is (with the contested content). That is how I would interpret the current policy in WP:CONSENSUS:
"In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."
There are, however, situations where the argument against the content are violations of e.g. WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, WP:BIO or similar and leaving the article as is would be in my eyes harmful so either a clear guideline or hints on how to proceed or next steps if no consensus is reached would in my eyes help. So, to boil all this text down to some concrete questions:
What are your thoughts? Either extending the guidelines or outlining a good way to proceed in WP:CONSENSUS for such situations would in my eyes be helpful. Just as an example (please do not WP:CANVASS there!), one article where I am involved in such a discussion is Murder of Maria Ladenburger. There are clearly aspects in that article where just leaving it as is would not be too harmful (i.e. leaving the stuff that I personally consider to be off topic like the connection to the other rape case) but others like the WP:SYNTH stuff (the burqa) or the possible WP:BIO violations where I personally would consider the contested stuff to be to harmful to stay. Thanks a lot and a happy new year, LucLeTruc ( talk) 14:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I say we just burn this whole policy to the ground and say best man wins. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Under what circumstances is it unacceptable to discuss an issue which has consensus? Siuenti ( talk) 13:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive.". Mandruss can give their impartial third opinion and whenever someone wants to change that sentence you can say "it has been massively discussed [recently]." If the editor keeps insisting, remind them that such behavior is considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. Repeat until "[recently]" does not apply. BrightRoundCircle ( talk)
e/c
[As for the ground of the matter regarding the first lines of the Trump article:]
The following essays address which arguments can be discounted: WP:arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, and others at Template:Arguments. However, in some discussions, where rules are not mentioned (i.e. absent) in arguments, people may rely on personal opinions to explain their votes. How would personal opinions (of any kind) influence consensus? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
let their opinion be influenced by itdoes not apply, except to whatever extent people read existing discussion before they !vote AND let their opinion be influenced by it. In my opinion that is not common enough to have a significant effect. If you do it, good for you. I sometimes read before I !vote, depending on how much there is to read, and my mind is always open and it changes during discussion perhaps 5% of the time. I'm fairly certain we're both in small minorities, and I tend to think in terms of what is, not what would be in a better world. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
So speak for yourself please- LOL. Are you speaking only for yourself, or applying your subjective perception of the whole? This is where I get off. Thanks. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, this policy we are on asks people to appeal to what it calls "common sense" and "reason" - one person's "common sense" or "reason" will sometimes be another's "personal opinion", we simply can't ban people from putting forward their ideas of "reason" or "common sense" (such a thing would be impossible). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd just like to thank everyone for their opinions above. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The policy should mention the common pitfall "reverting to stable", "better before", "it's been that way for a long time", and other phrases that use the status-quo or the earlier editor's version as a stonewall technique. The policy should mention that consensus according to a policy , guideline, or discussion is a better level of consensus than consensus by editing, which often doesn't reflect consensus but reflects lack of attention from other editors. Either " Pitfalls and errors" or " Level of consensus" should reflect this. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 14:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
the bold editor has the burden of the initial justification— I'm not proposing to change that. This is addressed in WP:EDITCONSENSUS and what you're describing is edit-warring and non-good-faith edits. What I'm describing is good faith edits (for example fixing up a page according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines), having the edits reverted, and then being WP:STONEWALLed with "better before" or "it's been that way for a long time", meaning "despite the consensus represented in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I will not let you apply them to this page because it was better before." Clearly "it was this way before" does not override Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that's what should be made clear. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 09:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
sometimes editors come along who just like to ignore guidelines- Excellent illustration of the problem I describe. You say they "just like to ignore guidelines". I say you and they have different views of the proper role of guidelines in Wikipedia editing. And I say there should be one Wikipedia view on that, not several. It should be formed by clear community consensus that directly confronts the question, not in one local skirmish after another, indefinitely, with differing views about what those outcomes mean in the big picture. Once that clear consensus is established in writing, persistent argument and editing against it is clear, blockable disruption, and so most of it would end. My guess is that nobody wants to do that because they don't want to risk being on the losing side of that community consensus.
e/c
As alluded above, I suggest combining policy from WP:OWNBEHAVIOR into WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I'll make an RfC if this discussion shows that it's a desirable change.
Expand the sentence from the policy WP:EDITCONSENSUS "Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work." with a summary of the three bullet points from the policy WP:OWNBEHAVIOR that start with "An editor reverts":
Suggestions? Bright☀ 14:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Re this diff, some eds have been discussing this in a thread at a personal talk page. I agree with what Transporterman ( talk · contribs) said in that thread about the absence of context. I nearly reverted the DIFF thinking it was a classic example of sour grapes leading a disgruntled ed to take out their bitterness in our rule pages, but then I thought better of reverting. Instead, I don't understand why this is necessary. Could @ El C: or someone elaborate ? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I've now reverted this addition (diff in opening post). The reverted text read
First, I'm opposed to adding "in certain instances" to such an important policy. We would need to specify which ones. Second, the instance that is listed in this text is WP:1RR, which is part of the Edit Warring policy. This policy already links to the edit warring policy in two other places. Its not clear how a third time helps. Third, from the talk discussion on the users page (link in opening post) it appears the example template provided somehow explains the necessity for this, but I'm not seeing it. And the biggest comment of all is that the italicized text seems to be the guts of the desired edit and appears to be adding text to explicitly prohibit a behavior reasonably classified as edit warring behavior and does not elaborate on the concept of consensus. Since the guts of this edit is about edit warring behavior, seems like it should probably be added, if at all, to the edit warring policy. If the desired edit is defended, it would help to begin with a statement of the perceived problem we're trying to fix. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This topic has migrated to Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#Consensus_clause NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The levels of consensus section needs to be elaborated. Right now it names essays, WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages (which may or may not represent broad community consensus, or one editor's personal opinion) and policies (which should represent the broadest community consensus). There are a few intermediate levels of consensus that are mentioned in the policy but not in the levels-of-consensus section:
Original list (version 0) - 11:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
|
The addition is meant to reduce article ownership behavior where an editor refuses to acknowledge consensus because they didn't approve it, or because there's no local consensus. Bright☀ 11:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Prose (version 1) - 09:36, 20 September 2017 |
---|
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. |
Changes in italics. Bright☀ 09:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Alternate bullet-point version below. Bright☀ 09:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
List in its own subsection (version 2) - 23:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
Though consensus is not a vote, the amount of community participation and agreement indicates the level of acceptance of a consensus. Usually, participation follows this rising order:
|
Added bullet-point version. Bright☀ 09:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I returned to load this in my brain, only to find two text boxes in the opening post instead of one. I might be able to decipher the full current proposal reading the subsequent discussion, but.... being a policy page, it will help the final consensus if new comers to the discussion don't have to do that. So as a housekeeping idea... to facilitate discussion... please consider creating a demonstration edit by first changing the policy page, then self reverting and posting the DIFF to the proposal. That would lock it in nice and neat for discussion purposes. If this suggestion appeals to you, I further suggest you name the DIFF anticipating that there may later ones as the ideas are vetted by additional eds. Maybe "DEMO-Ver-01" or equivalent. That way if additional good ideas come along, and the conversation gets convoluted, you can update the proposal with a link to "DEMO-Ver-02", and with proper threading and subsection titling it will be super-simple for people to instantly know what is being proposed and the current status of discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned this above, but it really is an unrelated issue from what is being discussed... so I am hiving it off into a separate discussion. CONLEVEL is missing an important item: where do RFCs fit in? The problem is that RFCs can take place on local pages, but they can sometimes reflect very broad community consensus (indeed some RFCs can reflect a broader consensus than was achieved at the guideline level). Then again, other RCFs reflect consensus of only a few editors. It all depends on the level of participation (not the level of location). Thus, I am not sure how to account for RFCs, but I think we do need to account for them in some way. Blueboar ( talk) 12:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
RCFs reflect consensus of only a few editors. It all depends on the level of participation- exactly. It entirely depends on the number of participants and percentage of agreement. An RfC with a million participants and a 50% split between two options is a clear no-consensus, and so any local consensus is better than it. An RfC with 20 participants and 90% agreement is pretty strong, and local consensuses shouldn't be able to override it; if it's reasonable to believe the RfC might not represent the general consensus any more, then a new RfC can be held. Exact numbers should not be specified. Bright☀ 14:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
inviting others to participate), and in any case whether it's local or "broad" depends on the number of participants and the exposure of the notices of the discussion. I'm getting the feeling this is about the semantics of the word "local" in favor of the word "limited"? In which case, I strongly urge you to avoid quibbling over this, like this seemingly endless quibbling over the word "reason". Bright☀ 15:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
RFC's are a tool for obtaining consensus (just like 3O, DRN, or MEDCOM) , not a type or level of consensus. Depending on how they're "advertised" and where they are used they can either form local consensus or community-wide consensus. The difference between local consensus and wider consensus is the type of place (along, again I would argue, with advertisement) that the RFC occurs. If the RFC happens at Talk:My Pretty Pony or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio, it's ordinarily local; if it happens at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, it's ordinarily community-wide. The best place to illustrate the distinction is at wiki-projects. Ordinarily, RFC's (and, for that matter, ordinary consensus discussions) at wiki-project talk pages only form local consensus and essay-level standards for those projects (as currently stated at CONLIMITED), but with proper advertisement and intent they can create policy or guidelines. Thus, the means of obtaining consensus, whether through ordinary discussion or through RFC, isn't the determinant; it's how the RFC is promoted and advertised. To say it a third way: If an RFC at a wiki-project specifically says that it's proposing to create a guideline or policy and that RFC is, per the Policy policy advertised at places like the Village Pump then it can, indeed, create policy or guidelines. In that case the RFC is community-wide. But if you file an RFC at Talk:My Pretty Pony to determine whether chartreuse ponies can be documented through reliable sources, that's local consensus. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is against including the "scale" subsection.
Should the "scale" subsection below be added to the WP:Local consensus section of WP:Consensus? Bright☀ 10:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Scale
Though consensus is not a vote, the amount of community participation and agreement indicates the level of acceptance of a consensus. Usually, participation follows this rising order:
- Implicit consensus through silence or editing, which is no consensus when challenged.
- Consensus through discussion:
- Local consensus, among a small number of contributors regarding one or several pages.
- Broader community consensus, among a large number of contributors regarding a general or community-wide issue, which may be represented in guidelines and policies.
See also the preliminary discussion of this topic. Bright☀ 10:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more explicit about how it would be added? As I've said before, I can't support anything which doesn't preserve the current language. If this is an addition to the current language, I'll be able to support it; if it replaces the current language, then I'll oppose it; it it modifies the current language then my position will vary based upon exactly how it does so. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs below already exist in the policy. The proposal would add the text in the "scale" subsection. This note added by me. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Levels of consensus
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay.
Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.
Scale
Though consensus is not a vote, the amount of community participation and agreement indicates the level of acceptance of a consensus. Usually, participation follows this rising order:
- Implicit consensus through silence or editing, which is no consensus when challenged.
- Consensus through discussion:
- Local consensus, among a small number of contributors regarding one or several pages.
- Broader community consensus, among a large number of contributors regarding a general or community-wide issue, which may be represented in guidelines and policies.
Pinging NewsAndEventsGuy, Scribolt, and Moxy who participated in the preliminary discussion. Strange how the preliminary discussion had almost complete agreement and now the RfC has almost complete opposition, and even people whose survey rationale supports the addition, oppose it. Bright☀ 09:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
An unchallenged edit shows consensus by silence. Agreement among regulars on a talk page indicates local consensus. However if the conclusions from these methods of estimating consensus varies, a wide community discussion is needed for a better measurement.Oppose." When someone says almost word-for-word what the proposal says, and yet opposes it, I get the feeling this proposal is not being weighed on its merits... Then there are oppose not-votes that say "look at a the Daily Mail consensus, which was among a limited number of participants" - technically I guess "a hundred" (30 oppose, 68 support, plus several comments and several more closing admins) is limited... anyway I find that the not-votes here are very much divorced from reality. Bright☀ 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Though consensus is not a vote, the amount of community participation and agreement indicates the level of acceptance of a consensus; and Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. which parallels
Local consensus, among a small number of contributorsand
Broader community consensus, among a large number of contributors. polls [are not] voting—
consensus is not a vote; limited group—
small number; wider scale—
large number. The proposal is not encouraging voting. It discourages local consensus (among a limited group, which is a small number of editors) used to override broader community consensus (which has a wider scale, which means a large number of editors). It's already in the policy. The proposal is collecting it into one place. Bright☀ 16:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
new consensus may emerge with less participants in the discussion- but it's not a broader consensus, it's just a consensus. The proposal doesn't say "new consensus HAS TO HAVE MORE PARTICIPANTS". It says that a broader consensus is usually among a large number of participants. You're somehow interpreting that as "any consensus has to have a larger number of participants than the previous consensus". No. The proposal doesn't say that. Bright☀ 10:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
by all means a "broader" consensusArbCom is explicitly not part of the Wikipedia consensus process, but even if it were, what you are describing is a new consensus, not a broader consensus. If 4 people agree on a topic, and then a marginally larger or smaller group (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, no need to exactly quantify, but on a similar scale) later come to a different agreement on the topic, it's merely a new consensus, not a broader consensus. But regardless this is the third time you bring up an irrelevant "counterpoint" since ArbCom is not part of the Wikipedia consensus process— WP:CONEXCEPT. Bright☀ 02:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
does that mean that the outcome of the discussion would have a less "broad" consensus?the RfC is not remotely worded in the way you suggest ("a consensus with n+1 people is broader than a consensus with n people"). While a broader consensus will have more participants, a consensus with more participants is not necessarily broader. This "n vs n+1" attitude does not exist in the text, you are forcing it where it doesn't exist. Take this existing wording: The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few contributors as possible. Now imagine someone raising, like you, an objection to this on the grounds that "if consensus A angers 60% of people, and consensus B angers 60%+1 people, then this policy implies A the true consensus." Of course not. Consensus is not a vote. And the suggested addition to policy literally starts with a link to WP:WIKINOTVOTE. Bright☀ 02:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The term "Consensus" means: 1. general agreement, unanimity. 2.group solidarity in sentiment and belief. (Miriam Webster's Dictionary). Therefore, the notion that "Consensus" does not require a notable measure of democracy is clearly errant by definition of terminology. Policy needs to be revised to reflect a more accurate term than "Consensus", or else edited to reflect the value of "democracy", as under the current indication of policy that "Consensus is not democracy" is patently inaccurate to the terminology, and therefore, the policy as stated is misleading at best. 108.201.29.108 ( talk) 08:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
[1] User:Beyond My Ken, why are you reverting in support of linkbox clutter of mediocre shortcut jargon to sections that are fluffy descriptions, not authoratively worded policy? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
IP sock of indef blocked editor User:Edward Palamar Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
and to uphold this is a legal responsibility of the WMF, something which it is failing to do. - 100.14.81.196 ( talk) 15:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Consensus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence of § Through discussion, please specify the article’s talk page, as opposed to the disagreeing editors’ usertalks. 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 23:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
associated talk page. WP:CONSENSUS also relates to pages in other namespaces AdA&D 23:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Consensus article is confused and self-contradictory, and worse, does not reflect reality. The reality of Wikipedia editing is that first everyone tries to achieve consensus (unanimity), and if that fails, then the majority of involved editors (there are typically two to four editors in any discussion) impose their will, equivalent to a majority vote among active editors. And often there is a third stage where registered editors perpetuate their majority decision by blocking the article from further editing by non-registered IPs (as is the case with this "protected" Consensus article). That being the real procedure underlying Wikipedia, I propose that the Consensus article is rewritten accordingly. 86.158.154.104 ( talk) 10:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
please assume good faith- Another mistake. I haven't challenged your good faith, I've challenged your competence and judgment. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Now I'm challenging your good faith. See how that works? ― Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add a summary definition of what "consensus" actually is. Currently the first paragraph only explicitly indicates what it isn't! —DIV ( 120.17.222.106 ( talk) 12:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC))
Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel together.(1) It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of deliberating and finalizing a decision, and the social, economic, legal, environmental and political effects of applying this process.
an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Can you please change "consensus" to a better and more common word? Which one sounds better: "decision", "discussion", or "agreement"? 207.246.84.117 ( talk) 12:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the NYC subway station naming convention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention#Unnecessary and overlong "disambiguation" parentheticals to station complexes. Users familiar with WP:LOCALCONCENSUS would be useful there. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 16:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
User:CFCF wishes to add another shortcut to the section Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing. Wikipedia:IMPLICITCONSENSUS or Wikipedia:IMPLICIT, both of which he just created. I oppose adding these to the section linkbox, as they are clutter. Sure, the word "implicit" is the 5th word in the section, but a project space search for the word does not reveal a connection. It is just a fairly common word. The current shortcut WP:EDITCONSENSUS is easily clear enough and good enough without needing to muddy the waters by introducing a new recommended shortcut. Use your favourite redirects by all means, but please stop cluttering policy pages with useless distracting linkbox clutter. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. We are having a discussion on how to interpret these guidelines in this section of the Rommel's Talk page. Basically one user (Beyond My Ken) tried to remove an image in the article (not my image originally). I disagreed with the removal, thus I started a Talk section. Because no one else commented, I think the statements in the "No consensus" section of this article mean that "if there is a lack of consensus in the deletion debate, the original content will be kept", so I reverted the page to the original content. The admin TonyBallioni then accused me of edit warring on my Talk page. Beyond My Ken said that "You understand wrong. The content is disputed, so you need a consensus to restore it, and you don't have one. Please don't restore it to the article again without one." Can somebody explain to me about these guidelines? Perhaps they are not clear enough?-- Deamonpen ( talk) 03:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.If there is consensus for inclusion, it will be clear on the talk page. If there is not, then it stays removed. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
My friend is a celebrity so she need a bit of privacy one shud not b able to change easily. Vtandel65 ( talk) 18:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
This page is only for discussing improvements to this policy. Please post your observation on the talk page of the article or articles in question. —
TransporterMan (
TALK)
16:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
|
---|
In the timeline axis it shows H. hei. (it's hard to spell atm since i need to rush) with Neanderthal as a branch of them, yet that race is often thought to be a subspecies of H. sapien, not H. erectus (as H. hei. is thought to be a race of H. erectus). So shouldn't we change it so that Neanderthal is a branch of H. sapien or rather put H. hei., Neanderthalers, and H. sapiens all as H. sapiens? 198.85.118.168 ( talk) 16:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC) |
(1) I request that an explicit definition of 'consensus' be included in this policy.
(2) It is clear what consensus is not: neither "unanimity" nor the "result of a vote". However, a lack of explicit definition allows subjective interpretation. Inclusion will clarify editorial practice. If concise, the definition could lead the policy per MOS:FIRST. For reference purposes, Archive 2 records earlier attempts to provide a conceptual definition.
(3) This policy states that it "describes how consensus is understood on Wikipedia". It does so quite vaguely across different parts of the text. For example:
One definition (3.3) requires subjective interpretation (what is a 'proper concern'?)
(4) In lieu of explicit definition, process (how) versus description (what) is emphasised in the policy. For example:
Note: although Wikipedia policy is invoked, one process (4.2) requires quality judgements.
(5) Despite common practice by editors, there is no policy alignment with (though there is a link at the end to) Consensus decision-making. It is possible that such an alignment is currently precluded. The lead example (at 4.1) separates 'decision-making' and 'reaching consensus'. Practitioner education and/or policy review may align practice with policy.
(6) I have no favoured definition.
(7) Thank you for your consideration. Te Karere ( talk) 09:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
(3.2) "Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia".
What is the general rule for discussions that are correctly closed after the required amount of time but shortly after have objections in that of the proposed idea being a bad idea (as opposed to that the discussion was closed incorrectly). We have Talk:Bury, Talk:Bradford-on-Avon, Talk:World Heritage site and Category:Cars. There is also Talk:Acer Inc. which was re opened.
In the case of Bury the objections mainly came from the incoming links that resulted from the move. However User:Amakuru objected based on the move its self being bad, however the links were cleared up and several other comments following agreed the move was correct. I later asked Amakuru about it who said that the close in its self was not incorrect and that they may one day make the reverse proposal. In this case it was resolved.
However in the case of World Heritage site, the issue looks far more problematic, it was at World Heritage Site for 15 years before a RM in May with little participation got it moved to World Heritage site. The move has meant that many of the sub topics are now inconsistent with the main article. There was then a new RM in August to move it back which resulted in no consensus. It was then listed at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 September and re opened and closed again by User:BD2412 (see User talk:BD2412#World Heritage Site), when there was another MR at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 October#World Heritage site which is still open.
In the case of Category:Cars it was argued that a lack of consensus in the new discussion should result in the long-standing title being restored.
Deletion discussions are different as far as I'm aware as a page can be re created unilaterally and not be deleted under G4 as long as they (at least partly) address the reasons for deletion. I am asking here as I got no response here and it would be helpful to clear this up for all similar discussions.
So should things be restored, in favour, it means that long-standing pages are more stable, but it means that any closed discussion is not "stable" even if closed correctly, meaning its easier to get correct moves reverted. See this post for example. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
---
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.So, if an RM closes with the unanimous approval of three editors to move, but shortly afterwards two others show up with objections after noticing the move, then it's clear that the original limited consensus did not hold up to wider scrutiny. To avoid this, experienced admins should use their judgement to assess the potential for such post-move objections... e.g. has the current title been stable for over a decade? Are sources mixed, i.e. does the Ngram show significant use of both the current and requested title? I don't think there's any rule that says a one-week old RM with limited (albeit unanimous) participation must be closed. No harm in giving it another week. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of "SNOW" closes before the week's run out, unless the request should have been viewed as a technical request. No harm in letting it run, unless there is some sort of compelling urgency to move... again, which makes it a technical move.
PS, re:
World Heritage site: "The move has meant that many of the sub topics are now inconsistent with the main article" is a bogus argument. In cases like "World Heritage sites in [country name]", the obvious, only course of action is to move them to be
WP:CONSISTENT with the parent article, per the RM that already closed. Such normalization moves can be speedied at
WP:RM/TR or just done manually. (Since an MR is open on this one, I would leave it alone until that MR is closed. But the consistency moves should have already happened, at the same time the main article was moved, or immediately thereafter. In a case where an article title is using the phrase as part of a proper name "Site[s]" would be retained (there are no extant examples, but it could in a book title like World Heritage Sites: A Complete Guide, if it were independently notable and we had an article on it). As far as I have seen, not one single person in the debate, including the RMs and the MR, has ever suggested that "site[s]" would be decapitalized in a proper name (rather, the consensus was that the general classification is not inherently a proper name but is just classification, like "Toyota cars" not "Toyota Cars"). Suggesting otherwise is an obvious
straw man fallacy. I doubt Crouch, Swale is doing that, but given the
pointlessly high-strung invective surrounding that little micro-debate over capital-letter trivia, it's best to be prophylactically clear about it.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
11:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can a consensus on an article or group of articles be reached off of Wikipedia? GoodDay ( talk) 18:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Inviting @ Colonestarrice: here. GoodDay ( talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
This thread was prompted by an earlier thread titled "Verbal consensus" and related VPPR thread linked below NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Right now, the "Off-wiki discussions" bullet point actively discourages off-wiki discussion, which does not reflect the current reality of how people communicate about Wikipedia. I propose we change it to:
- Off-wiki discussions. Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion. Discussions on other websites, web forums, IRC, by email, and so on are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust.
Suggestions are welcome. This is merely a workshop, and I will take it to VPP if we reach a wording that people prefer. Shout-out to Izno for the idea, which came out of a VPPR discussion ( permalink). Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
This thread was prompted by an earlier thread titled "Verbal consensus" and related VPPR thread linked below NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Right now, the "Off-wiki discussions" bullet point actively discourages off-wiki discussion, which does not reflect the current reality of how people communicate about Wikipedia. I propose we change it to:
- Off-wiki discussions. Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion. Discussions on other websites, web forums, IRC, by email, and so on are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust.
Suggestions are welcome. This is merely a workshop, and I will take it to VPP if we reach a wording that people prefer. Shout-out to Izno for the idea, which came out of a VPPR discussion ( permalink). Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Under Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building, the 2nd and 3rd subsubsections:
are bloat. They are not "consensus policy". They are useful information, but not everything useful should be written into Wikipedia:Consensus.
It gives too much space to processes and discussions, essentially repeating section 1.2 verbosely, and diminishing the impact of section 1.1.
This information belongs in Wikipedia:Publicising discussions, where much of it already is. I propose merging these to sections to that page, improving that page using what is here, and leaving only a single link to the page alongside, in front of, the current note pointing to: Further information: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:CONEXCEPT states that, "Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates Wikimedia Foundation policies may be communicated to the WMF in writing." Where should such communications be sent? EllenCT ( talk) 20:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I would like to propose a new policy shortcut. WP:CONSBUILDING -> Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building The reason is simple. I have found myself wanting to easily reference the section '1.3 Consensus-building' as a whole multiple times, and been frustrated that no shortcut exists. It feels to me that it may be useful. Would that be something that the community would see as an improvement to the page? Melmann 20:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 24 |
Occasionally, we have large-scale discussions where one group of editors advocates an action based on policies or guidelines and another group opposes the action citing no particular policies or guidelines but indicating the subject of the discussion should be an WP:IAR exception. When those discussions are particularly long or contentious, the outcome is almost always "no consensus", and so we default to carving out an exception to the policy/guideline by maintaining the status quo. It seems sensible that the default outcome should align with policy when policy- or guideline-based rationales meet claims of WP:IAR or editorial judgement. In other words, I'd think it sensible that the "burden" of showing a firm consensus should lie with those wishing to make an exception to a policy or guideline rather than those advocating that an article is brought in line with an existing policy or guideline.
The specific change I'd like to see to this policy would be the addition of a bullet point under WP:NOCON saying "When consensus would be found if not for appeals to ignore all rules, a lack of consensus should default to the outcome supported by policies and guidelines, even if that outcome is not the status quo."
This is not an RfC, but I'd like thoughts on this. If the reception is generally positive, I'll make an RfC. ~ Rob13 Talk 12:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
May be I am missing something here, but WP:IAR is a policy as well. Therefore if in the described scenario the "no consensus" was declared basing on the strength of arguments, the "status quo" outcome is just as well based on our policy. Staszek Lem ( talk) 01:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Rob says, "Occasionally, we have large-scale discussions where one group of editors advocates an action based on policies or guidelines and another group opposes the action citing no particular policies or guidelines but indicating the subject of the discussion should be an WP:IAR exception. When those discussions are particularly long or contentious, the outcome is almost always 'no consensus', and so we default to carving out an exception to the policy/guideline by maintaining the status quo..." The problem is not the No Consensus section of this policy, but that to say that the outcome in that situation is 'no consensus' is a mis-evaluation of the consensus in that discussion. Provided that, as Nikkimaria notes, the application of policy is clear, and remembering that consensus evaluation must be based on strength of argument more than counting heads, then the consensus in that situation should always be evaluated as supporting the application of policy unless the arguments for the IAR exception clearly have consensus. Unless they do, then the consensus backing the policy — not the consensus in that discussion but the consensus in adopting the policy — prevails because, per the CONLIMITED section of this policy, policies (and guidelines) are the "established consensus" of the community. That means in a policy vs. IAR argument the policy side already has consensus unless the IAR side overcomes that consensus with a stronger consensus for an IAR exception. Moreover, the arguments for the IAR local exception have to be more than just "we need an IAR exception here" or "we don't like what the policy does," they must be reasons which address the purposes of the policy and give cogent reasons for why those purposes fail to properly or adequately address the particular situation under consideration. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the clause "when consensus would be found if not for appeals to ignore all rules" is a bit of a red herring because it disregards the quality of the arguments. In my experience, closers treat arguments like because WP:IAR as equivalent to WP:ILIKEIT unless they present compelling reasons why the policy does not fit the case. Arguments to override a policy need to be very strong to carry any weight, but they should not be automatically discounted: The applicability of policy is open to debate.
If there is no consensus on the merits of the case, including well reasoned arguments about the applicability of policies, then there is no consensus. Determining consensus is about assessing the quality of the arguments as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Determining outcomes in the absence of consensus should not be about discounting some arguments irrespective of their merits. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 16:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Some very good points above!
Another instance of the no consensus clause is of course in the case of RMs. I'm heavily involved in the ongoing discussion as to whether or not to move the article on New York State away from the base name New York. This is not the place to rediscuss the latest RM of course, but there's a particular argument that was repeatedly raised in that RM which I think is on-topic here.
I think the best place to see that particular argument is here. It is of concern for two reasons, which are really the same one in different terms:
However, the result of the RM may have been significantly influenced by this argument. There was a closing panel of three. One of them found consensus to move.
The other two both found no consensus, but both also found the move arguments stronger than the oppose arguments, just not by a big enough margin. The worrying thing here is, one of these two appears to have counted this no consensus, therefore no consensus argument in concluding that there were arguments both ways. (The other said none of the arguments against the move appear convincing in the least, but still found no consensus.) So it is hard to tell how much influence this argument had, and requests for clarification have gone unanswered.
There is likely to be another RM, it is just a matter of when. But I'm very keen to clear up any confusion about the no consensus clause beforehand, for obvious reasons. Andrewa ( talk) 20:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
There was a claim made that I am forum-shopping an issue that is posted at
I will absolutely say that the NPOVN discussion, under normal circumstances, should have run its course. We're coming up to the date to vote in the presidential election (I'm a liberal for context), and it seems that timing is crucial on this matter. Most of the conversation is rehashing of what has been said numerous times by the same people. This was an attempt at gathering votes to close the issue. It has been discussed on the NPOVN site, including a request to cast a vote - and it broadened the audience to biography, politics and other project I cannot remember right now.
There's background at the RfC: Jane Doe content discussion about the removal of content about a woman who claims that she was raped at the age of 13 by Trump - although only 16% of a universe of reliable, mainstream media is picking up the coverage.
Your input on this would be helpful! I would not normally forum shop, and in theory agree that there was not enough time given to the NPOVN discussion. Since there has been a claim made - and we're trying to come to a resolution quickly, I thought I'd post this here to get your opinion.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn. When I opened this discussion I did not anticipate having to defend myself against vague accusations of wrongdoing or suggestions that I should be blocked. Next time I suggest a clarification to policy I'll put on my flame-resistant armour first. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sometimes a discussion will close nominally as "no consensus" when actually a consensus to remove content exists. For instance, an AfD might close with clear agreement that the content is unsuitable but opinions split between redirect and delete. Currently the wording seems to allow such a discussion to default to keep. This is, of course, ridiculous. Even worse, it seems to currently allow the minimum outcome of redirect to be prevented permanently on the grounds of the "non consensus" close. I'm seeing people misuse the policy in this way more and more often of late. I argue that this kind of obstructionism is not the intent of the policy. I suggest a clarification that "no consensus" in this context means no consensus between keep and delete, not just disagreement about which way to remove unsuitable content. A little while ago I tried to close this loophole but was reverted. Can anyone think of better wording for this suggested change? Reyk YO! 15:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
|
Add the following to see also:
I have difficulties to find good solutions for situations were I argue with another editor about the removal of possibly critical article content and were do not find a consensus. Imagine the following timeline:
Especially in articles with low traffic (hence few editors on the talk page) I have experienced this "strategy" of B (at least I percieve it as a strategy, it does not necessarily have to be intentional or strategic) to be quiet successful in keeping contested content in the article, especially if A looses interest and/or not too many people participate in the RFC. It is clear that there are disputes where there is no clear right or wrong (i.e. whether something is off topic or not) and I would theoretically be fine with me to just leave the discussion (I have usually been editor A ;-)) and the article as is (with the contested content). That is how I would interpret the current policy in WP:CONSENSUS:
"In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."
There are, however, situations where the argument against the content are violations of e.g. WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, WP:BIO or similar and leaving the article as is would be in my eyes harmful so either a clear guideline or hints on how to proceed or next steps if no consensus is reached would in my eyes help. So, to boil all this text down to some concrete questions:
What are your thoughts? Either extending the guidelines or outlining a good way to proceed in WP:CONSENSUS for such situations would in my eyes be helpful. Just as an example (please do not WP:CANVASS there!), one article where I am involved in such a discussion is Murder of Maria Ladenburger. There are clearly aspects in that article where just leaving it as is would not be too harmful (i.e. leaving the stuff that I personally consider to be off topic like the connection to the other rape case) but others like the WP:SYNTH stuff (the burqa) or the possible WP:BIO violations where I personally would consider the contested stuff to be to harmful to stay. Thanks a lot and a happy new year, LucLeTruc ( talk) 14:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I say we just burn this whole policy to the ground and say best man wins. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Under what circumstances is it unacceptable to discuss an issue which has consensus? Siuenti ( talk) 13:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive.". Mandruss can give their impartial third opinion and whenever someone wants to change that sentence you can say "it has been massively discussed [recently]." If the editor keeps insisting, remind them that such behavior is considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. Repeat until "[recently]" does not apply. BrightRoundCircle ( talk)
e/c
[As for the ground of the matter regarding the first lines of the Trump article:]
The following essays address which arguments can be discounted: WP:arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, and others at Template:Arguments. However, in some discussions, where rules are not mentioned (i.e. absent) in arguments, people may rely on personal opinions to explain their votes. How would personal opinions (of any kind) influence consensus? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
let their opinion be influenced by itdoes not apply, except to whatever extent people read existing discussion before they !vote AND let their opinion be influenced by it. In my opinion that is not common enough to have a significant effect. If you do it, good for you. I sometimes read before I !vote, depending on how much there is to read, and my mind is always open and it changes during discussion perhaps 5% of the time. I'm fairly certain we're both in small minorities, and I tend to think in terms of what is, not what would be in a better world. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
So speak for yourself please- LOL. Are you speaking only for yourself, or applying your subjective perception of the whole? This is where I get off. Thanks. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, this policy we are on asks people to appeal to what it calls "common sense" and "reason" - one person's "common sense" or "reason" will sometimes be another's "personal opinion", we simply can't ban people from putting forward their ideas of "reason" or "common sense" (such a thing would be impossible). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd just like to thank everyone for their opinions above. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The policy should mention the common pitfall "reverting to stable", "better before", "it's been that way for a long time", and other phrases that use the status-quo or the earlier editor's version as a stonewall technique. The policy should mention that consensus according to a policy , guideline, or discussion is a better level of consensus than consensus by editing, which often doesn't reflect consensus but reflects lack of attention from other editors. Either " Pitfalls and errors" or " Level of consensus" should reflect this. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 14:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
the bold editor has the burden of the initial justification— I'm not proposing to change that. This is addressed in WP:EDITCONSENSUS and what you're describing is edit-warring and non-good-faith edits. What I'm describing is good faith edits (for example fixing up a page according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines), having the edits reverted, and then being WP:STONEWALLed with "better before" or "it's been that way for a long time", meaning "despite the consensus represented in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I will not let you apply them to this page because it was better before." Clearly "it was this way before" does not override Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that's what should be made clear. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 09:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
sometimes editors come along who just like to ignore guidelines- Excellent illustration of the problem I describe. You say they "just like to ignore guidelines". I say you and they have different views of the proper role of guidelines in Wikipedia editing. And I say there should be one Wikipedia view on that, not several. It should be formed by clear community consensus that directly confronts the question, not in one local skirmish after another, indefinitely, with differing views about what those outcomes mean in the big picture. Once that clear consensus is established in writing, persistent argument and editing against it is clear, blockable disruption, and so most of it would end. My guess is that nobody wants to do that because they don't want to risk being on the losing side of that community consensus.
e/c
As alluded above, I suggest combining policy from WP:OWNBEHAVIOR into WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I'll make an RfC if this discussion shows that it's a desirable change.
Expand the sentence from the policy WP:EDITCONSENSUS "Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work." with a summary of the three bullet points from the policy WP:OWNBEHAVIOR that start with "An editor reverts":
Suggestions? Bright☀ 14:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Re this diff, some eds have been discussing this in a thread at a personal talk page. I agree with what Transporterman ( talk · contribs) said in that thread about the absence of context. I nearly reverted the DIFF thinking it was a classic example of sour grapes leading a disgruntled ed to take out their bitterness in our rule pages, but then I thought better of reverting. Instead, I don't understand why this is necessary. Could @ El C: or someone elaborate ? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I've now reverted this addition (diff in opening post). The reverted text read
First, I'm opposed to adding "in certain instances" to such an important policy. We would need to specify which ones. Second, the instance that is listed in this text is WP:1RR, which is part of the Edit Warring policy. This policy already links to the edit warring policy in two other places. Its not clear how a third time helps. Third, from the talk discussion on the users page (link in opening post) it appears the example template provided somehow explains the necessity for this, but I'm not seeing it. And the biggest comment of all is that the italicized text seems to be the guts of the desired edit and appears to be adding text to explicitly prohibit a behavior reasonably classified as edit warring behavior and does not elaborate on the concept of consensus. Since the guts of this edit is about edit warring behavior, seems like it should probably be added, if at all, to the edit warring policy. If the desired edit is defended, it would help to begin with a statement of the perceived problem we're trying to fix. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This topic has migrated to Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#Consensus_clause NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The levels of consensus section needs to be elaborated. Right now it names essays, WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages (which may or may not represent broad community consensus, or one editor's personal opinion) and policies (which should represent the broadest community consensus). There are a few intermediate levels of consensus that are mentioned in the policy but not in the levels-of-consensus section:
Original list (version 0) - 11:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
|
The addition is meant to reduce article ownership behavior where an editor refuses to acknowledge consensus because they didn't approve it, or because there's no local consensus. Bright☀ 11:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Prose (version 1) - 09:36, 20 September 2017 |
---|
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. |
Changes in italics. Bright☀ 09:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Alternate bullet-point version below. Bright☀ 09:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
List in its own subsection (version 2) - 23:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
Though consensus is not a vote, the amount of community participation and agreement indicates the level of acceptance of a consensus. Usually, participation follows this rising order:
|
Added bullet-point version. Bright☀ 09:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I returned to load this in my brain, only to find two text boxes in the opening post instead of one. I might be able to decipher the full current proposal reading the subsequent discussion, but.... being a policy page, it will help the final consensus if new comers to the discussion don't have to do that. So as a housekeeping idea... to facilitate discussion... please consider creating a demonstration edit by first changing the policy page, then self reverting and posting the DIFF to the proposal. That would lock it in nice and neat for discussion purposes. If this suggestion appeals to you, I further suggest you name the DIFF anticipating that there may later ones as the ideas are vetted by additional eds. Maybe "DEMO-Ver-01" or equivalent. That way if additional good ideas come along, and the conversation gets convoluted, you can update the proposal with a link to "DEMO-Ver-02", and with proper threading and subsection titling it will be super-simple for people to instantly know what is being proposed and the current status of discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned this above, but it really is an unrelated issue from what is being discussed... so I am hiving it off into a separate discussion. CONLEVEL is missing an important item: where do RFCs fit in? The problem is that RFCs can take place on local pages, but they can sometimes reflect very broad community consensus (indeed some RFCs can reflect a broader consensus than was achieved at the guideline level). Then again, other RCFs reflect consensus of only a few editors. It all depends on the level of participation (not the level of location). Thus, I am not sure how to account for RFCs, but I think we do need to account for them in some way. Blueboar ( talk) 12:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
RCFs reflect consensus of only a few editors. It all depends on the level of participation- exactly. It entirely depends on the number of participants and percentage of agreement. An RfC with a million participants and a 50% split between two options is a clear no-consensus, and so any local consensus is better than it. An RfC with 20 participants and 90% agreement is pretty strong, and local consensuses shouldn't be able to override it; if it's reasonable to believe the RfC might not represent the general consensus any more, then a new RfC can be held. Exact numbers should not be specified. Bright☀ 14:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
inviting others to participate), and in any case whether it's local or "broad" depends on the number of participants and the exposure of the notices of the discussion. I'm getting the feeling this is about the semantics of the word "local" in favor of the word "limited"? In which case, I strongly urge you to avoid quibbling over this, like this seemingly endless quibbling over the word "reason". Bright☀ 15:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
RFC's are a tool for obtaining consensus (just like 3O, DRN, or MEDCOM) , not a type or level of consensus. Depending on how they're "advertised" and where they are used they can either form local consensus or community-wide consensus. The difference between local consensus and wider consensus is the type of place (along, again I would argue, with advertisement) that the RFC occurs. If the RFC happens at Talk:My Pretty Pony or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio, it's ordinarily local; if it happens at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, it's ordinarily community-wide. The best place to illustrate the distinction is at wiki-projects. Ordinarily, RFC's (and, for that matter, ordinary consensus discussions) at wiki-project talk pages only form local consensus and essay-level standards for those projects (as currently stated at CONLIMITED), but with proper advertisement and intent they can create policy or guidelines. Thus, the means of obtaining consensus, whether through ordinary discussion or through RFC, isn't the determinant; it's how the RFC is promoted and advertised. To say it a third way: If an RFC at a wiki-project specifically says that it's proposing to create a guideline or policy and that RFC is, per the Policy policy advertised at places like the Village Pump then it can, indeed, create policy or guidelines. In that case the RFC is community-wide. But if you file an RFC at Talk:My Pretty Pony to determine whether chartreuse ponies can be documented through reliable sources, that's local consensus. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is against including the "scale" subsection.
Should the "scale" subsection below be added to the WP:Local consensus section of WP:Consensus? Bright☀ 10:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Scale
Though consensus is not a vote, the amount of community participation and agreement indicates the level of acceptance of a consensus. Usually, participation follows this rising order:
- Implicit consensus through silence or editing, which is no consensus when challenged.
- Consensus through discussion:
- Local consensus, among a small number of contributors regarding one or several pages.
- Broader community consensus, among a large number of contributors regarding a general or community-wide issue, which may be represented in guidelines and policies.
See also the preliminary discussion of this topic. Bright☀ 10:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more explicit about how it would be added? As I've said before, I can't support anything which doesn't preserve the current language. If this is an addition to the current language, I'll be able to support it; if it replaces the current language, then I'll oppose it; it it modifies the current language then my position will vary based upon exactly how it does so. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs below already exist in the policy. The proposal would add the text in the "scale" subsection. This note added by me. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Levels of consensus
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay.
Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.
Scale
Though consensus is not a vote, the amount of community participation and agreement indicates the level of acceptance of a consensus. Usually, participation follows this rising order:
- Implicit consensus through silence or editing, which is no consensus when challenged.
- Consensus through discussion:
- Local consensus, among a small number of contributors regarding one or several pages.
- Broader community consensus, among a large number of contributors regarding a general or community-wide issue, which may be represented in guidelines and policies.
Pinging NewsAndEventsGuy, Scribolt, and Moxy who participated in the preliminary discussion. Strange how the preliminary discussion had almost complete agreement and now the RfC has almost complete opposition, and even people whose survey rationale supports the addition, oppose it. Bright☀ 09:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
An unchallenged edit shows consensus by silence. Agreement among regulars on a talk page indicates local consensus. However if the conclusions from these methods of estimating consensus varies, a wide community discussion is needed for a better measurement.Oppose." When someone says almost word-for-word what the proposal says, and yet opposes it, I get the feeling this proposal is not being weighed on its merits... Then there are oppose not-votes that say "look at a the Daily Mail consensus, which was among a limited number of participants" - technically I guess "a hundred" (30 oppose, 68 support, plus several comments and several more closing admins) is limited... anyway I find that the not-votes here are very much divorced from reality. Bright☀ 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Though consensus is not a vote, the amount of community participation and agreement indicates the level of acceptance of a consensus; and Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. which parallels
Local consensus, among a small number of contributorsand
Broader community consensus, among a large number of contributors. polls [are not] voting—
consensus is not a vote; limited group—
small number; wider scale—
large number. The proposal is not encouraging voting. It discourages local consensus (among a limited group, which is a small number of editors) used to override broader community consensus (which has a wider scale, which means a large number of editors). It's already in the policy. The proposal is collecting it into one place. Bright☀ 16:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
new consensus may emerge with less participants in the discussion- but it's not a broader consensus, it's just a consensus. The proposal doesn't say "new consensus HAS TO HAVE MORE PARTICIPANTS". It says that a broader consensus is usually among a large number of participants. You're somehow interpreting that as "any consensus has to have a larger number of participants than the previous consensus". No. The proposal doesn't say that. Bright☀ 10:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
by all means a "broader" consensusArbCom is explicitly not part of the Wikipedia consensus process, but even if it were, what you are describing is a new consensus, not a broader consensus. If 4 people agree on a topic, and then a marginally larger or smaller group (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, no need to exactly quantify, but on a similar scale) later come to a different agreement on the topic, it's merely a new consensus, not a broader consensus. But regardless this is the third time you bring up an irrelevant "counterpoint" since ArbCom is not part of the Wikipedia consensus process— WP:CONEXCEPT. Bright☀ 02:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
does that mean that the outcome of the discussion would have a less "broad" consensus?the RfC is not remotely worded in the way you suggest ("a consensus with n+1 people is broader than a consensus with n people"). While a broader consensus will have more participants, a consensus with more participants is not necessarily broader. This "n vs n+1" attitude does not exist in the text, you are forcing it where it doesn't exist. Take this existing wording: The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few contributors as possible. Now imagine someone raising, like you, an objection to this on the grounds that "if consensus A angers 60% of people, and consensus B angers 60%+1 people, then this policy implies A the true consensus." Of course not. Consensus is not a vote. And the suggested addition to policy literally starts with a link to WP:WIKINOTVOTE. Bright☀ 02:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The term "Consensus" means: 1. general agreement, unanimity. 2.group solidarity in sentiment and belief. (Miriam Webster's Dictionary). Therefore, the notion that "Consensus" does not require a notable measure of democracy is clearly errant by definition of terminology. Policy needs to be revised to reflect a more accurate term than "Consensus", or else edited to reflect the value of "democracy", as under the current indication of policy that "Consensus is not democracy" is patently inaccurate to the terminology, and therefore, the policy as stated is misleading at best. 108.201.29.108 ( talk) 08:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
[1] User:Beyond My Ken, why are you reverting in support of linkbox clutter of mediocre shortcut jargon to sections that are fluffy descriptions, not authoratively worded policy? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
IP sock of indef blocked editor User:Edward Palamar Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
and to uphold this is a legal responsibility of the WMF, something which it is failing to do. - 100.14.81.196 ( talk) 15:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Consensus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence of § Through discussion, please specify the article’s talk page, as opposed to the disagreeing editors’ usertalks. 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 23:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
associated talk page. WP:CONSENSUS also relates to pages in other namespaces AdA&D 23:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Consensus article is confused and self-contradictory, and worse, does not reflect reality. The reality of Wikipedia editing is that first everyone tries to achieve consensus (unanimity), and if that fails, then the majority of involved editors (there are typically two to four editors in any discussion) impose their will, equivalent to a majority vote among active editors. And often there is a third stage where registered editors perpetuate their majority decision by blocking the article from further editing by non-registered IPs (as is the case with this "protected" Consensus article). That being the real procedure underlying Wikipedia, I propose that the Consensus article is rewritten accordingly. 86.158.154.104 ( talk) 10:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
please assume good faith- Another mistake. I haven't challenged your good faith, I've challenged your competence and judgment. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Now I'm challenging your good faith. See how that works? ― Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add a summary definition of what "consensus" actually is. Currently the first paragraph only explicitly indicates what it isn't! —DIV ( 120.17.222.106 ( talk) 12:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC))
Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel together.(1) It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of deliberating and finalizing a decision, and the social, economic, legal, environmental and political effects of applying this process.
an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Can you please change "consensus" to a better and more common word? Which one sounds better: "decision", "discussion", or "agreement"? 207.246.84.117 ( talk) 12:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the NYC subway station naming convention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention#Unnecessary and overlong "disambiguation" parentheticals to station complexes. Users familiar with WP:LOCALCONCENSUS would be useful there. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 16:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
User:CFCF wishes to add another shortcut to the section Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing. Wikipedia:IMPLICITCONSENSUS or Wikipedia:IMPLICIT, both of which he just created. I oppose adding these to the section linkbox, as they are clutter. Sure, the word "implicit" is the 5th word in the section, but a project space search for the word does not reveal a connection. It is just a fairly common word. The current shortcut WP:EDITCONSENSUS is easily clear enough and good enough without needing to muddy the waters by introducing a new recommended shortcut. Use your favourite redirects by all means, but please stop cluttering policy pages with useless distracting linkbox clutter. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. We are having a discussion on how to interpret these guidelines in this section of the Rommel's Talk page. Basically one user (Beyond My Ken) tried to remove an image in the article (not my image originally). I disagreed with the removal, thus I started a Talk section. Because no one else commented, I think the statements in the "No consensus" section of this article mean that "if there is a lack of consensus in the deletion debate, the original content will be kept", so I reverted the page to the original content. The admin TonyBallioni then accused me of edit warring on my Talk page. Beyond My Ken said that "You understand wrong. The content is disputed, so you need a consensus to restore it, and you don't have one. Please don't restore it to the article again without one." Can somebody explain to me about these guidelines? Perhaps they are not clear enough?-- Deamonpen ( talk) 03:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.If there is consensus for inclusion, it will be clear on the talk page. If there is not, then it stays removed. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
My friend is a celebrity so she need a bit of privacy one shud not b able to change easily. Vtandel65 ( talk) 18:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
This page is only for discussing improvements to this policy. Please post your observation on the talk page of the article or articles in question. —
TransporterMan (
TALK)
16:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
|
---|
In the timeline axis it shows H. hei. (it's hard to spell atm since i need to rush) with Neanderthal as a branch of them, yet that race is often thought to be a subspecies of H. sapien, not H. erectus (as H. hei. is thought to be a race of H. erectus). So shouldn't we change it so that Neanderthal is a branch of H. sapien or rather put H. hei., Neanderthalers, and H. sapiens all as H. sapiens? 198.85.118.168 ( talk) 16:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC) |
(1) I request that an explicit definition of 'consensus' be included in this policy.
(2) It is clear what consensus is not: neither "unanimity" nor the "result of a vote". However, a lack of explicit definition allows subjective interpretation. Inclusion will clarify editorial practice. If concise, the definition could lead the policy per MOS:FIRST. For reference purposes, Archive 2 records earlier attempts to provide a conceptual definition.
(3) This policy states that it "describes how consensus is understood on Wikipedia". It does so quite vaguely across different parts of the text. For example:
One definition (3.3) requires subjective interpretation (what is a 'proper concern'?)
(4) In lieu of explicit definition, process (how) versus description (what) is emphasised in the policy. For example:
Note: although Wikipedia policy is invoked, one process (4.2) requires quality judgements.
(5) Despite common practice by editors, there is no policy alignment with (though there is a link at the end to) Consensus decision-making. It is possible that such an alignment is currently precluded. The lead example (at 4.1) separates 'decision-making' and 'reaching consensus'. Practitioner education and/or policy review may align practice with policy.
(6) I have no favoured definition.
(7) Thank you for your consideration. Te Karere ( talk) 09:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
(3.2) "Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia".
What is the general rule for discussions that are correctly closed after the required amount of time but shortly after have objections in that of the proposed idea being a bad idea (as opposed to that the discussion was closed incorrectly). We have Talk:Bury, Talk:Bradford-on-Avon, Talk:World Heritage site and Category:Cars. There is also Talk:Acer Inc. which was re opened.
In the case of Bury the objections mainly came from the incoming links that resulted from the move. However User:Amakuru objected based on the move its self being bad, however the links were cleared up and several other comments following agreed the move was correct. I later asked Amakuru about it who said that the close in its self was not incorrect and that they may one day make the reverse proposal. In this case it was resolved.
However in the case of World Heritage site, the issue looks far more problematic, it was at World Heritage Site for 15 years before a RM in May with little participation got it moved to World Heritage site. The move has meant that many of the sub topics are now inconsistent with the main article. There was then a new RM in August to move it back which resulted in no consensus. It was then listed at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 September and re opened and closed again by User:BD2412 (see User talk:BD2412#World Heritage Site), when there was another MR at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 October#World Heritage site which is still open.
In the case of Category:Cars it was argued that a lack of consensus in the new discussion should result in the long-standing title being restored.
Deletion discussions are different as far as I'm aware as a page can be re created unilaterally and not be deleted under G4 as long as they (at least partly) address the reasons for deletion. I am asking here as I got no response here and it would be helpful to clear this up for all similar discussions.
So should things be restored, in favour, it means that long-standing pages are more stable, but it means that any closed discussion is not "stable" even if closed correctly, meaning its easier to get correct moves reverted. See this post for example. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
---
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.So, if an RM closes with the unanimous approval of three editors to move, but shortly afterwards two others show up with objections after noticing the move, then it's clear that the original limited consensus did not hold up to wider scrutiny. To avoid this, experienced admins should use their judgement to assess the potential for such post-move objections... e.g. has the current title been stable for over a decade? Are sources mixed, i.e. does the Ngram show significant use of both the current and requested title? I don't think there's any rule that says a one-week old RM with limited (albeit unanimous) participation must be closed. No harm in giving it another week. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of "SNOW" closes before the week's run out, unless the request should have been viewed as a technical request. No harm in letting it run, unless there is some sort of compelling urgency to move... again, which makes it a technical move.
PS, re:
World Heritage site: "The move has meant that many of the sub topics are now inconsistent with the main article" is a bogus argument. In cases like "World Heritage sites in [country name]", the obvious, only course of action is to move them to be
WP:CONSISTENT with the parent article, per the RM that already closed. Such normalization moves can be speedied at
WP:RM/TR or just done manually. (Since an MR is open on this one, I would leave it alone until that MR is closed. But the consistency moves should have already happened, at the same time the main article was moved, or immediately thereafter. In a case where an article title is using the phrase as part of a proper name "Site[s]" would be retained (there are no extant examples, but it could in a book title like World Heritage Sites: A Complete Guide, if it were independently notable and we had an article on it). As far as I have seen, not one single person in the debate, including the RMs and the MR, has ever suggested that "site[s]" would be decapitalized in a proper name (rather, the consensus was that the general classification is not inherently a proper name but is just classification, like "Toyota cars" not "Toyota Cars"). Suggesting otherwise is an obvious
straw man fallacy. I doubt Crouch, Swale is doing that, but given the
pointlessly high-strung invective surrounding that little micro-debate over capital-letter trivia, it's best to be prophylactically clear about it.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
11:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can a consensus on an article or group of articles be reached off of Wikipedia? GoodDay ( talk) 18:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Inviting @ Colonestarrice: here. GoodDay ( talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
This thread was prompted by an earlier thread titled "Verbal consensus" and related VPPR thread linked below NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Right now, the "Off-wiki discussions" bullet point actively discourages off-wiki discussion, which does not reflect the current reality of how people communicate about Wikipedia. I propose we change it to:
- Off-wiki discussions. Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion. Discussions on other websites, web forums, IRC, by email, and so on are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust.
Suggestions are welcome. This is merely a workshop, and I will take it to VPP if we reach a wording that people prefer. Shout-out to Izno for the idea, which came out of a VPPR discussion ( permalink). Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
This thread was prompted by an earlier thread titled "Verbal consensus" and related VPPR thread linked below NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Right now, the "Off-wiki discussions" bullet point actively discourages off-wiki discussion, which does not reflect the current reality of how people communicate about Wikipedia. I propose we change it to:
- Off-wiki discussions. Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion. Discussions on other websites, web forums, IRC, by email, and so on are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust.
Suggestions are welcome. This is merely a workshop, and I will take it to VPP if we reach a wording that people prefer. Shout-out to Izno for the idea, which came out of a VPPR discussion ( permalink). Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Under Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building, the 2nd and 3rd subsubsections:
are bloat. They are not "consensus policy". They are useful information, but not everything useful should be written into Wikipedia:Consensus.
It gives too much space to processes and discussions, essentially repeating section 1.2 verbosely, and diminishing the impact of section 1.1.
This information belongs in Wikipedia:Publicising discussions, where much of it already is. I propose merging these to sections to that page, improving that page using what is here, and leaving only a single link to the page alongside, in front of, the current note pointing to: Further information: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:CONEXCEPT states that, "Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates Wikimedia Foundation policies may be communicated to the WMF in writing." Where should such communications be sent? EllenCT ( talk) 20:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I would like to propose a new policy shortcut. WP:CONSBUILDING -> Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building The reason is simple. I have found myself wanting to easily reference the section '1.3 Consensus-building' as a whole multiple times, and been frustrated that no shortcut exists. It feels to me that it may be useful. Would that be something that the community would see as an improvement to the page? Melmann 20:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)