Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:20, 7 April 2013

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consensus page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." -- Jimmy Wales

essays on wrongful consensus and false consensus

I added an essay on wrongful consensus. A shortcut to it is WP:WRONGCON. Previous discussion that led to it is archived with an antecedent. I was going to call the problematic case false consensus (the better name, I think) until I discovered there's already an essay called that. Whereas the wrongful-consensus essay is based on violation of any policy or guideline, the false-consensus essay is based only on violations of ArbCom decisions. I wonder if the two can be merged, to encompass all policy, guideline, and ArbCom violations and to use the better name. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

PREMATURE... I note that you have marked your essay as being the product of multiple editors... however, you are the only one who has actually edited it. In other words, at the moment it is really just your own personal reflections on things said in talk page discussions. As such, I don't think it is appropriate to link to it on a policy page. I am going to remove the link... This can be revisited if others start to contribute. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not mark the "essay as being the product of multiple editors". The template, which is supposed to be there apart from the number of editors, says "one or more", which is accurate. But if essays should not be listed on this policy page unless at least two have edited the essay, fine. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, its not a matter of "at least two"... policy and guideline pages should reflect widespread views, even when it comes to linking essays. It's OK to link a minority view essay, but we need some assurance that that minority is relatively widespread... and the more people who edit an essay, the more we can be sure that the view is relatively wide spread. Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, if noone else edited it, it means everyone who looked at it agreed with it so strongly that they saw no need to change anything... Or again alternatively, we don't mind whether the view is widespread (the essay itself carries a disclaimer in that regard), we might just think that people reading this page would find the views expressed there to be of interest. Victor Yus (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

for the first alternative... can you think of a single case where that would be a reality? But if so, people can be asked to leave a note on the talk page saying "well done". As for the other alternative... obviously I disagree. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you disagree that we should include links to interesting essays that express views that might not be widely held, or do you disagree that this particular essay is interesting? Victor Yus (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that a policy or guideline page should link to essays that express views that are not widely held, no matter how "interesting" they might be. "Minority view" essays can (and should) be linked... but the minority who hold the view (ie support the essay) should be somewhat substantial. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a "merge" is not the way to go - the new essay appears not to rely on what has been written in the past, but expresses a view specific to editorial behaviour not covered in the past by ArbCom as such. Nor do I feel that multiple editors necessarily are all interested in actually improving an essay either. In fact, it is possible in some cases that editors who dilike the premise of an essay may seek to make absurd and damaging edits to it. I would, moreover, suggest that the new essay be retitled to "Improper behaviour by editors in the consensus process" (or "tendentious consensus"?) as I do not think "wrongful" is really the right adjective to apply to the consensus arrived at. Lastly, Misplaced Pages does not and ought not insist that essays be "majority opinion" as that way lies madness <g> and interminable argument. As long as the opinions do not damage Misplaced Pages in any way, let them exist. Collect (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is suggesting a merge... or that an essay should not exist... the question is whether this page should point people to it... or to put it more exactly: whether this specific guideline page should include a link to that specific essay. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you think the harm is? Victor Yus (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If only a couple of editors support the views expressed in an essay, then those views are essentially "fringe". If we deliberately point editors to such an essay, by linking to it on in a policy of guideline page, we give that fringe view point undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

We're not giving it much "weight" by simply linking to it (and anyone following the link will be told immediately that it is a page expressing not-necessarily-consensus viewpoints). We don't really have any reliable way of establishing how many people share what views (nor is it necessarily that important), but it seems that it is important to have a healthy circulation of ideas, including those that have not yet necessarily gained wide acceptance. I don't think it's healthy to try to suppress people's access to ideas merely on the grounds that those ideas can't be shown to have gained a solid following yet. Nor do I think that the number of people who have edited an essay is a good guide to what proportion of editors would agree with any of the points made in it - I certainly don't feel that by editing some part of an essay I am expressing my support for the rest of it, or that by refraining from editing or commenting on an essay I am expressing a lack of support for it. (I don't know how any of this relates to the essay at hand, I'm just concerned about the general principle). Victor Yus (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I very much disagree. Suppose someone dislikes our BLP policy... and writes an essay saying that it is OK to add unsourced accusations against the subject of a Bio article. The editor with such a fringe view is free to express his/her opinion and write an essay, but it would be highly inappropriate for the BLP policy to draw any attention to it... we would NOT link to that essay at WP:BLP (nor at any other policy or guideline page that related to BLPs). Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way... I did not mean to imply that counting the number of people who have edited an essay is the only way to tell whether the views expressed are "widely held" (and I am sorry if I gave that impression)... it is simply one way to do so. Another way to determine the "support level" of an essay is to look at how many editors point to it during article discussions. The more that editors point to it, the more we can say the views expressed are not fringe views. Yet another way is to hold a broad based RFC, asking whether the essay has support and should be linked (the more "yes" votes, the more we can say that the views are likely to be supported by a wide range of editors). Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussions about the essay's title and about merger are continued at Misplaced Pages talk:Wrongful consensus#merge with Misplaced Pages:False consensus essay.

"Well done" or anything remotely like it is almost never posted to a talk page. Threads are much more often about questions or controversies.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I must say I don't at all like the idea that we should base our essay link inclusion decisions primarily on the level of support that the essays have. Are we so frightened of change that we have to try to prevent people from accessing new and unorthodox ideas? As long as these essays aren't proposing something illegal or immoral (which might be the case in the BLP example) we have nothing to fear - let people read and assess the alternative views and the arguments supporting them, maybe Misplaced Pages will come to be improved as a result. Victor Yus (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we ought not delete "wrong essays" - for one thing, the MfD discussion is likely to bring out only a very small subset of editors, and in some cases they may not be a representative subset of all editors, as they are intrinsically "self-selected" for indeterminate reasons. The other reason is that given by John Milton a very long time ago - it is discussion with differing views which leads us forward, not restriction to "approved" views. Collect (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree that we ought not to delete "wrong essays" (and for the record, I don't think Nick's essay is "wrong")... again, the question isn't whether an essay should exist... the question is whether we should link to a given essay on a given policy/guideline page (and if so, at what point we should link to it).

Perhaps this is a question that needs to be discussed in a wider context (and in a venue that will gather a wider audience). I have posted the following at the Village Pump (policy): When is it appropriate (and when is it inappropriate) to link to an essay on policy and guideline pages... are their limitations, and if so what are they?. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A link from a policy page implies endorsement. It has nothing to do with a disinclination to entertain different views. If the essay is persuasive then its views will be adopted. Nick tried these ideas on us here and they weren't accepted but weren't completely rejected, either. That seems like a normal exchange of opinion and argument. I would note that Nick's proposals were modified in this discussion but his essay returns to his original proposal. That is a further reason, if one were needed, to decline the link for now. It's hard to avoid the inference that he is trying to include them despite their rejection. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly common to link policies or guidleines to essays, often marking a link as being to an essay. I don't object that some policies and guidelines don't link or are more limited than others as to which essays to which to link, but linking appears to be a legitimate way to expand communication, as long as it's not confusing. In the case of this one, talk page discussion seemed to have died out. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The merger proposal is no more (as discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Wrongful consensus#merge with Misplaced Pages:False consensus essay). Nick Levinson (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

sham consensus

I wrote a new essay, WP:Sham consensus. Shortcuts to it are WP:SHAMCONSENSUS, WP:SHAMCON, and WP:SHAM. It incorporates false consensus and wrongful consensus under a single label, while preserving the latter two essays. In listing just one of these on the guideline page, this one, rather than wrongful consensus, should be listed, when the standard or consensus for listing is met. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

procedurally flawed consensus

I have also written a new essay... see: WP:Procedurally flawed consensus please opine and edit. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks okay as a start and is subsantively different than sham or wrongful consensus but has a problem of inclarity I can't solve, not knowing your (the original editor's) intent. Either of the following is true, but not both:

• Because procedurally flawed consensus is limited to procedures, among policies it includes only those policies that are about procedures, thus is narrower than wrongful or sham. There may be no guidelines that are considered clearly procedural; at least, there is no comparable category. I don't know which essays would be considered clearly procedural.
• Procedurally flawed consensus includes failure to adhere to, say, BRD or coatrack, which are essay-based procedures (if defining procedure very broadly), and thus the new essay raises a question of which essays establishing procedures should be encompassed (e.g., cf. Misplaced Pages:Do not say "With all due respect"); by the terms of your new essay, it is all of them. The overbreadth is untenable in practice.

In general, recognition of all of these kinds of real or so-called consensus is useful to varying degrees. I suggest tightening up the new essay in whichever direction is useful enough or, if both are sufficiently useful, tightening this one way and writing yet another essay for the other kind.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC) (Generally clarified text & corrected a preposition: 16:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

I intentionally left "procedure" vague. A lot of what you are talking about on your essays is how violations of our Behavioral Policies affect consensus discussions... but we also get people who think a consensus discussion can be invalid because someone didn't follow the correct process ("This was not posted at the right noticeboard"... "The discussion was closed before 30 days passed"... etc.) Not all of the processes are spelled out in Policy... We have many unwritten procedures on wikipedia (conventions that are not necessarily outlined in policy). Sometimes these complaints are petty... essentially wikilawyering attempts to undo a consensus that the complainers didn't like. These can be ignored. But sometimes the complainer is right and the consensus should be overturned. It depends on the complaint. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the nomenclature, there seems to persist the issue that the remedies would be difficult to calibrate and prone to the same sets of errors as the root offense. Thus, these ideas founder by offering only to multiply difficulties instead of paring them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: "the remedies would be difficult to calibrate" ... that is exactly what my essay is trying to point out. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought was going on, but, instead of trying to draft failure-prone methods, let's develop something that can work. What I was developing was a name for something. That "something" already happens. To deny it a name is to sweep it under the rug, which is of no help when it presents itself anyway. I still don't understand why giving it a name is a bad idea. We have names for a variety of incurable diseases and this problem is not incurable.

Unwritten procedures are not generally a good idea, as they're practically an invitation to arbitrariness and inconsistency of application. Experimentation is good but when an experiment succeeds and sometimes when it fails a procedure that was discovered or invented through that result should be reduced to writing and posted in an appropriate policy, guideline, or essay.

The option to ignore a consensus already exists. All of the underlying offenses (e.g., sockpuppetry abuse) are already defined, subject to more being defined in the future. That editors will be offended at the characterization of a consensus as bad is not significantly different than that they will be offended at the characterization of a posting as the result of, e.g., abusive sockpuppetry (for example, when an editor posted that certain editors seemed to be sock puppets another editor deleted the comment rather than reply substantively or answer with a denial except in the edit summary, and that deletion may have been a sign of being offended).

I understand the belief that if we just all smile all problems will be solved (maybe that's not your belief but it's common and relevant). Smiling helps a majority of times but not always. We need tools for when trying to achieve consensus is not enough because someone else is violative.

I suggest you tighten your essay to make it more practicable. If you have suggestions for tightening mine, please suggest them. A name in itself does not cause unenforceability.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC) (Corrected two mistypings: 16:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

Yes, I was essentially giving a name to "something that already happens" as well... (we often deal with complaints that a consensus should be overturned because someone has not followed some procedure... now we have the name "procedurally flawed consensus" that we can use when discussing them). What isn't codified (and actually can not be codified) is what happens when there is a procedurally flawed consensus occurs.... because that depends on which specific procedure was not followed. Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, I am not sure I fully understand this:

"Serious violations of Misplaced Pages policy should be brought to the attention of administrators for possible administrative action".

If you meant violations by individual editors, this sentence is redundant (serious violations should be brought to attention of administrators irrespective to what your essay says). May be you meant the attempts of some group of editors to build consensus that violates the principles of our policy? --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I mean serious violations of wikipedia policy (by an individual or a group). Yes it is redundant, but its an essay, so it is OK to be redundant. Besides, it balances the other side of the coin (petty violations of minor procedures should essentially be discounted and ignored). Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure it is totally redundant. Sometimes, a group of users may achieve a local consensus that directly and seriously violates our policy. Since talk page discussion that leads to such consensus, and individual behaviour of each user are in formal compliance with the policy (everyone is free to express his opinion during talk page discussions), there is no formal reason to bring individual behaviour to the attention of admins. However, the action of the group is much serious violation, and I think that should be clearly articulated in the essay (or even added to the policy).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the essay. And perhaps further discussion of it belongs on the essay's talk page, not here. I am not (at this time) proposing that we add a link to it, so there really isn't a reason to talk about it in such depth on this page. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether a "group" "violates" anything depends on whether or not "they" agree with "your" "version" of something. Too many editors invoke policy to push their fringe POV, particularly when opposed by numerous editors. We don't want to fall into content by administrative fiat. I have seen too many administrators fall prey to this sort of reasoning. Uninformed is not the same as neutrality. Coming up with 99 reasons why consensus is not consensus is why people leave WP. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Re people "Coming up with 99 reasons why consensus is not consensus"... a good point. I have reworked to note that a complaint of procedural flaws, if petty enough, can backfire upon the complainer. (a very petty complaint can be deemed disruptive and, in extreme cases, can result in administrative action against the complainer.) Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the user at 192.251.134.5 may be making a larger point, one with which I strongly disagree, namely that article consensus should be determinative or even that an editor should be alone in deciding what gets into an article or not. Although I've seen abuse, too, the system largely works well, a system in which individual editors' decisions can be checked through page consensus and page consensus can be checked through more-encompassing processes aiding consistency. Decisions that would have been helpful to some part of society but are rejected for Misplaced Pages can usually find a home somewhere else on the Internet.

I agree that uninformed is not neutrality.

This discussion may be continued, but it should not be here. If it's about consensus generally, it should be in a new topic on this page with a more appropriate topic title. If it's about any of the essays, it should be on that essay's talk page. Relevant passages from this topic can be copied there for continuity, if desired.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC) (Corrected unexpected redlink to user: 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC))

Blueboar, I think that the issues raised in your essay are important, and the link to this essay should be added to the policy (when you will finish to work on it). In connection to that, I think we should talk about this essay seriously.

Re "Too many editors invoke policy to push their fringe POV, particularly when opposed by numerous editors." That is correct. However, consider an opposite situation.

1. An editor A proposed to use some source X in the article Y to support of some general statement. The users B, C, and D objected to that, and the user E argued that the source X expresses just author's own opinion.
2. A user A asked the question about the source X on WP:RSN, and the community verdict was that the source X is a top quality source, and it is quite relevant to the article Y.
3. A user A returned to article's Y talk page, described the results of the RSN discussion, and insisted the source Y to be added to the article, but the users B-E opposed. Attempted RfC gave no (or minimal) fresh input, because all discussion was dominated by B-E.

The situation described by me is not artificial, it is quite common for low importance articles. In connection to that, don't you find "consensus" achieved on the talk page is procedurally flawed? Has the user A been engaged in wikilawyering or POV pushing? IMO, the answers are "yes" and "no", accordingly.
I myself faced the situations when a small group of users appeared to be able to create some consensus about certain topics in low traffic articles, but their attempt to push the same idea in high traffic article (i.e. in the mother article) as a rule fail.
In connection to that, I have the following question. The users B-E clearly violate our policy, which clearly define which sources are reliable, and which are not. Moreover, they ignored the community verdict. Therefore, although their behaviour was formally in accordance with our rules (they just participated in the talk page discussion), their collective violation of the policy lead to removal (or not-inclusion) of good quality content to the article. I think, we need some tools to identify such activity, to counteract it, and, if necessary, to punish it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Let's keep it simple. When too many people with different views edit the same article on a controversial subject, they will never agree about anything of importance. Do not waste your time; go edit something else. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Following your logic, it is impossible to create a good WP article on controversial topics, which is nonsense. Your advice encourages good users to abandon areas of controversy, so this your advice is hardly constructive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure you follow my logic. No, it is entirely possible to create good article on controversial subject, but only if it is edited by people who have a similar view on the subject. They may have a similar view because they know the subject, even though it is controversial... My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, your use of examples in the abstract would create administrative procedures which editors could then use to game the system claiming "policy" is on their side. Any such discussion cannot be had without reference to specific sources and subjects. I don't see the benefit to creating scenarios which editors can then leverage in the future to push their POV claiming administrative fiat as opposed to addressing concerns regarding their proposed content.

!Blusboar, the more we attempt to create procedures the more we move away from the spirit of a collaborative environment. We should spend more time on how to actually write a good article, not how to optimize our wrangling--which would be an oxymoron. Just my personal perspective. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also suggest that "procedurally flawed consensus" is itself an oxymoron. You either have consensus or you don't. Whether or not someone has a legitimate gripe or is wikilawyering can only be determined by sources and content, on which WP is administratively agnostic. Again, just one opinion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement "ou either have consensus or you don't" begs the question of what to call and do with a so-called consensus that looks like a consensus but isn't one, such as when a bunch of sock puppets for one editor claim a majority that doesn't really exist, creating a consensus that doesn't really exist. A consensus that doesn't really exist shouldn't be relied on.

With the thought that sources and content are all that should matter is probably how most of us start editing, but Misplaced Pages is edited by people and they can make the same assertion with a result that we're in conflict, thus a need for consensus or other systems for resolving disputes. Suggestions for refining the system of consensus or the other systems are useful.

Walking away from an article because of adverse controversy is one way of coping but not the only way. That choice is up to each editor and Misplaced Pages may benefit or lose either way. We have policies and guidelines against trying to drive editors away in order to achieve certain results with articles, so that walking away should be less necessary.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul... I can see how the situation in your example (above) is a concern... but I don't think you are describing a "procedurally flawed consensus". What procedure is not being followed? Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nick... Re: "a bunch of sock puppets for one editor claim a majority that doesn't really exist"... I agree that this is a false consensus, but I am not sure it is a procedurally flawed consensus. What procedure is not being followed? Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think, the policies that have been violated here are WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DEMOCRACY. The former says "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised". A concern of the editor A (that a reliable and relevant source X must be used in the article Y) is the proper concern, whereas counter-arguments from the group of users B-E is not, so the normal procedure for achievement of consensus has been violated there. The latter policy says that "Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system," however, in that situation the opinion of the users B-E prevailed only due to their numeral superiority, which also is a violation: their arguments, which are based on zero evidences, shouldn't be taken into account at all, as if no counter-arguments have been provided. Therefore, I see a double violation of procedure here.

This abuse of sockpuppetry would violate policy: "The use of multiple Misplaced Pages user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry .... Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus". Nick Levinson (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just realised that the cases described in the Sham consensus essay and in your essay are sometimes hard to separate. In connection to that, do you think it is needed to separate your and Nick's essays? What do you think about combining them together?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The essays should not be merged as long as WP:Procedurally flawed consensus is vague about what constitutes a procedure within its scope, an issue that has been discussed and is still pending. At least until then, the essays serve different purposes. Since merging of WP:False consensus and WP:Wrongful consensus has already been denied, WP:Sham consensus is a workaround that would be more or less defeated by incorporating the vague WP:Procedurally flawed consensus into it. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me give an example of a recent debate where the issue was "flawed procedure"... There is a question as to the best title for a page... so an RFC was held... a consensus formed and the page was moved... but an editor objected to the move on the grounds that "this wasn't posted to WP:RM". The objector conceded that a consensus had formed at the RFC, but felt it should be overturned because discussion took place on the article talk page instead of at WP:RM... ie a given procedure was not followed. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you mean such cases, don't you think it would be better just to list possible violations of the procedure (I think, to avoid petty criticism and wikilawyering we need to create an exhaustive list) and add it directly to the policy as a separate subsection? Obviously, this list will not be long, so I see no problem in that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The list might be short or very long, depending on which meaning of procedure the essay author intends. It might include all policies and guidelines and some, most, or arguably all essays. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be short and exhaustive, otherwise it is senseless. Our goal is to avoid wikilawyering, isn't it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's start. (I propose all of you to expand the examples):

1. Wrong venue (posting RfC, RM etc at wrong page)
2. Vote counting (when a closing admin counts votes without analyzing strength of arguments)
3. RfC or AfD closure by a user having a vested interest in the topic.
4. Ignoring the opinion of WP community (for example, the results of RSN, NPOVN discussions, etc) during the discussion on local talk pages.
5. (post your examples here...)

To make it short and complete would require editing the essay first and adding the short list there, not into Misplaced Pages:Consensus. If we add it to this policy and miss some, which is the controlling authority would be an open question every time there's a dispute. If a policy or a guideline is amended and this list is not, this list has to be ignored, which leads to confusion and wikilawyering. And should, say, WP:BRD, which is an essay with wide support, be included? Fix the framework first. (I'll likely be back online in a day or two.) Nick Levinson (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. What I propose is to write an essay, but to keep in mind an opportunity that it will be added to the policy when it will be completed. Do you have any other examples of PFC to add to the list?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That, unfortunately, leaves all the framework problems unsolved, which means I wouldn't know whether to spend a lot of time compiling a short list or far more time compiling a long list. Time is needed in order to go through the texts of all of the relevant sources, whether they're the procedural policies or all policies, guidelines, essays, and ArbCom decisions. Then, maintenance is needed, requiring that someone (I'm not volunteering) monitor all edits to all of those sources for changes that might affect the list in your new essay, and there are a few changes almost every day just to those that I already watchlist. May I suggest posting your current essay draft or revision (either in the Misplaced Pages namespace or in your talk space, as you prefer) and then expanding the list in it? The draft could reveal, for example, what you mean by procedure. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be against adding a list of procedural flaws to the essay... the point of the essay is not to define what a "procedural flaw" is... the point is 1) to request that when there is a complaint about some procedure not being followed, everyone take it seriously (ie not simply dismiss it out of hand)... and 2) to warn editors that in some cases, complaining about procedural flaws can be seen as petty wikilawyering... which is disruptive (and can even result in sanctions against those making the complaint). Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

How many procedural flaws that deserve serious attention are theoretically possible, in you opinion? I cannot imagine anything but the examples 1-4 listed above (maybe, even a fourth example does not 100% fit). Let's try to add more examples, and that would help us to understand if the essays is really useful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I added one more example of the procedural flaw. If you have any ideas, please, continue. That may be useful regardless of the essay we are discussing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please define procedure or else I don't know what to include or exclude. If your list is complete, then it is far too inadequate. Compare the list of examples in Misplaced Pages:Wrongful consensus#Examples, which has seven, not just four, and it's not exhaustive nor intended to be. If your list is meant to be exhaustive and is added to this policy as binding and limiting of the remedy to that list of four or so, it will effectively remove many policies from being policies and guidelines and ArbCom decisions will be unenforceable as precedent. As such, the change to this policy will lack the needed consensus of most policy and guideline pages and I don't think ArbCom will agree, either. For example, by effectively amending another policy, which this proposed list would, the consensus supporting that policy will probably need to agree, apart from agreement by consensus on this policy. That's a lot of consensuses that have to agree. You may want to start lining them up. You may have your work cut out for you. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC) (Added clarification: 17:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC))

@Nick... You may be confused... I don't think anyone is suggesting that we discuss the concept of "procedurally flawed consensus" in this policy. We were talking about an essay that I wrote. Hell, I have not even proposed that we add my essay to the see also. I was simply seeking feedback on it. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused. An editor wrote, supra, "hat I propose is to write an essay, but to keep in mind an opportunity that it will be added to the policy when it will be completed.". Nick Levinson (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, your essay describes the situations when procedure was not duly followed during determination of consensus. As far as I understand your explanations, this essay deals with strictly formal things, i.e. about the situations when one cannot and should not apply common sense, but should follow some strict formal rules instead. If that is the case, the essay should not talk about some loosely defined things, and I see no reasons why we cannot:

• enumerate all possible procedure violations that may have significant impact on consensus determination;
• when the list will be complete, add it directly to the policy.

By doing that we will achieve exactly what your essay is intended for: to avoid situations when consensus is being determined with significant procedure violations, and to rule out a possibility of wikilawyering by making frivolous complaints about minor procedure violations.

I don't think why cannot we do that: our policy is rather simple, so it would hardly be difficult to identify all possible types of procedure violations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"doesn't help"

"It doesn't help to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want."

Doesn't help who? It does help the person in question, if they can find people who agree with them. 86.160.222.156 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL. It doesn't help establish true consensus, of course. --B2C 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not? 86.160.222.156 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If it brings a broader group of participants into the discussion, then maybe it will help. Victor Yus (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That only helps if there is a centralized discussion. Having multiple discussions on multiple forums about the same issue will not give you a true consensus, because the participants at one page will not see the comments of participants at another... comments that might make a difference. Suppose I have opposed something at NORN... and someone else makes an insightful comment at RSN. That comment might have caused me to rethink... If I had seen it I might have said: "gee... I hadn't though about the RS aspects of this ... you know what, I have changed my opinion, and now support")... that can't happen if the discussion is fragmented over several pages.

So... it does help to notify multiple forums of an issue (pointing the editors to a centralized discussion)... but it does not help to hold multiple conversations about the same issue on multiple pages. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Who decides when consensus is reached?

I'm trying to understand how Misplaced Pages consensus works in practice. Editor A makes an edit; Editor B reverts; discussion ensues. Of course, if everyone involved in the discussion agrees on a course of action, you have consensus (assuming the action is taken and remains static for some period of time). But consensus does not require unanimity. That leads me to this question: if everyone does not agree on a course of action and discussion is ongoing, who has the authority to decide that consensus has been reached with regard to a particular course of action? Based on other discussions, I gather that an administrator makes that decision with respect to at least some decisions (like deleting a page), but I'm not sure about others. Any help would be appreciated!! (And if this is covered elsewhere, I apologize!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.171.232 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This would indeed seem to be a crucial omission from the policy, as some of us have noticed before. There is a page about WP:Closing discussions (though it doesn't have the magic "policy" marking that would allow good Wikipedians to believe in it). I think the main points of that page should be made part of the policy, and that page should be made into at least a guideline (which is another type of page that people are sort of allowed to believe in). Victor Yus (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that qualifies as an omission, though. Rather, that is the policy. Some editors may think they are the first to consider the workings, procedures, or paradoxes of consensus, but that isn't accurate. Almost all attempts to compromise consensus would effectively institute majority rule. As a good rule of thumb, if a majority of the minority agrees, that's probably a good basis to believe there is a consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand - what is "a majority of the minority"? And it sounds like in one sentence you're saying that we shouldn't be equating consensus with majority agreement, but in the next you're implying we should. Victor Yus (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

What is confusing or unclear about "a majority of the minority"? The procedures and purposes of consensus building work to allow disparate viewpoints to be heard. The paradox that it is identified with neither unanimity nor majority rule yet borrows from both is the essence of its grace. That is how it is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

From my experience, when there is a dispute over whether a consensus exists or not... there usually isn't one (yet). Further discussion and compromises are needed from both sides in the debate. (remember that WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT can apply to both sides in a debate). Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That may usually be so, but there must also be cases where there realistically is (sufficient agreement to be considered to constitute) a consensus, yet a few sore losers continue to dispute the fact. Who's to distinguish that case from the more usual one? Victor Yus (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing consensus with vote results. Consensus involves discussion and compromise. People can lose a vote... they can not "lose" a discussion. Voting, as part of the consensus building process, can tell you how people feel about an issue under discussion... and the result of a vote should influence the eventual consensus... but the vote result should not be confused with the consensus itself. Blueboar (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is how consensus is supposed to work...

Editor A wants the text to read "blah blah blah blah"... Editor B wants it to read "nehr nehr nehr nehr".

They each explain why they prefer their text. Others share their opinions (and perhaps make suggestions).

As part of the process, a vote might be held to gauge how people feel... let's say 30 editors like "blah blah blah blah" and 5 like "nehr nehr nehr nehr"

This vote result does NOT really mean that there is a consensus for "blah blah blah blah"...

But it does mean that the end result should be closer to "blah blah blah blah" than it is to "nehr nehr nehr nehr" (everyone now starts to discuss the pros and cons of "blah blah blah nehr", vs "blah nehr blah blah").

Everyone compromises a bit... but the "nehr" proponents have to compromise more than the "blah" proponents. In the end, neither "side" is completely happy... but both sides can live with it. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's test this your theory using a fresh practical example. Do you thing consensus has been achieved during this closed discussion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say that a consensus is clearly emerging, but there is not (yet) a consensus. The proposal has gained a lot of support, and that shows us the direction the final text should go... but the final text needs to be amended to account for the concerns raised by those who oppose. Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

But what is the mechanism for ensuring that that is what actually happens? (Or, if someone else's judgment about what should actually happen is different from yours, for determining which judgment is more authoritative, and ensuring that that is what actually happens?) Without answers to these questions, this whole "policy" is reduced merely to a page of empty aspirations. Victor Yus (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors on Misplaced Pages generally follow Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. That is the mechanism. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The question is more specific than it would be if that were to be the answer. The question is who determines whether or not there is consensus to do something, assuming there is disagreement about whether or not there is consensus to do something (and please don't say that if there is disagreement then there is no consensus, because the policy says explicitly that unanimity is not required). I think in fact the answers to these questions are to be found on the WP:Closing discussions page (though I haven't read that page in detail, it may not correspond exactly to what really happens). There needs to be a section in this policy about such closing (though presumably with the proviso that the great majority of discussions don't require it, since editors can work out the result for themselves, and that should be the desired outcome). Victor Yus (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, from what I've observed, the primary variants of conflicts are:

1. competing opinions regarding a generally undisputed common set of facts/observations/events versus
2. competing versions of facts/observations/events which are mutually exclusive.

Consensus can resolve representation of case #1.

Consensus cannot resolve representation of case #2. One side or the other (these conflicts tend to be two-sided) seeki to persuade uninformed editors with arguments which at face value appear reasonsable but which, under the covers, are not. Consensus cannot resolve these conflicts. Moreover, since arbitration can only be about conduct and not content, these conflicts eventually/periodically disintegrate into those with less of a leg to stand on goading their opponents into some expression of anger, i.e., constituting a personal attack and, voila, one editorial opponent eliminated at least for a while. The reason these conflicts are intractible is because they are based on (assuming good faith) belief systems which are not congruent to verifiable facts (note, I did not say "truth", WP can't decide the "truth" eaither). Eventually players tire if they don't have the facts or finances (paid editors @ Transnistria, for example) to go on forever.

Lastly, both cases are susceptible to "plausibility", that is, the more uninvolved editors can be brought in, the more uninformed voices available to be swayed. Best is if you can persuade an uninformed admin to file an enforcement request as your proxy.

At least that's been my experience across a number of topic areas, not just related to how WP portays the Soviet legacy. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Short version, "Consensus, when you see it you'll know it." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

@Victor - The question is who determines whether or not there is consensus to do something. To some extent, this is a flawed question. As soon as a discussion devolves into a dualistic choice ("X or not X") the editors are no longer working towards trying to reach a consensus. You are no longer considering other options that might resolve the underlying concern... options that might gain a better, firmer consensus.

The path to consensus is to avoid asking "Is there a consensus to do X?"... the path to consensus is actually a two step process: First you need to examine the concern being raised, and ask: Is there a consensus to do anything about the concern (in determining this we should examine policies of guidelines that relate to the concern... thsy may limit your options). Most of the time people will be reasonable, and will want to ease the concern... there will be a consensus to do something. At that point, the question becomes "what should we do?". Lots of people may like X... X may get you very close to resolving the concern... but if someone still has a problem with X, then you should continue the discussion, and discuss variations on X... or consider Y and Z instead. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that consensus is effectively a situation where an outcome is reached where nobody objects, which is obviously the ideal that we would always want to achieve. But experience and common sense tell us that sometimes no such situation is ever going to be reached (at least, not within a period of time that's reasonable for people to spend on discussing the matter - or even, simply, not ever). The policy even tells us that consensus need not require unanimity, and we know from the more formalized processes like deletion discussions that it does not require unanimity or even for your idealized process about addressing concerns to be followed (someone just rolls up and "closes" the discussion, and that's more or less it). So more practical questions arise - in what situations can a discussion be closed, who can close it, what standards are they expected to uphold when doing so, what "appeal" procedures exist, and so on. These are genuine questions that people have a perfect right and expectation to see answered. But I get the impression that there are people here who don't want to see them answered, because they have some airy-fairy idealized vision of a beautiful consensus-forming process that always works perfectly in the end, and are unhappy about saying anything that implies an acknowledgement that sometimes it might not be so perfect and that other practical situations arise that we need to deal with in a sensible way. Victor Yus (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't actually that hard in >95% of the cases. In nearly all of the cases, the couple of editors involved in the dispute will be able to figure it out for themselves. In a small minority of cases, an impartial person (usually, though not necessarily, an admin) is asked to formally summarize the consensus based on the conversation of those editors. In a tiny minority of cases, there is no consensus and no willingness by some or all editors to admit that there is no consensus, or no consensus and the absence of consensus is intolerable (e.g., a choice between X and not-X, with no possibility of a partly-X compromise and no possibility of refusing to make a decision). Those cases are insoluble under policy, and are usually "solved" via attrition (people get sick of the dispute and quit) or blocking editors who misbehave due to frustration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As is customary in these discussions, the notion that one formulation works for easy cases and hard ones, for brilliant outliers and incorrigible cranks, for the binary choices and infinite nuances of language is not an easy circle to square. At its core, consensus is paradoxical. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Something else to consider... deterining consensus at article pages is often easier than determining consensus at policy pages. This is because consensus at articles pages is (to a large extent) determined by what policy already says, while consensus at policy pages is about figuring out what policy should say. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

But on the other hand, if consensus at articles is partly determined by what policy already says (but certainly not entirely), that provides a new problem in determining consensus - how much extra relative weight to ascribe to arguments that appear to be better supported by policy (and even how to interpret that policy, given that it's usually written deliberately nebulously). In determining consensus about what policy should say, that problem at least should not arise - unless there's some überpolicy or legal considerations in play. Victor Yus (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

All true. No one said reaching consensus was easy... only that some consensus discussions are easier to resolve than others. A lot depends on the specifics of the particular issue under discussion... and the personalities of the editors involved. And, we do have to remember that there will be times when reaching a consensus will prove to be impossible. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - but you say that in a way that might imply conflation of what are in fact separate points. There seem to be three (different) possible issues: (1) how to try to reach a consensus; (2) how to determine whether there is a consensus; and (3) what to do if there is no consensus. All these are valid topics that a complete policy ought to address; yet the policy currently concentrates in patronizing detail on (1), while giving only partial or perfunctory attention to (2) and (3). Victor Yus (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Policies aren't meant to provide exact details on every point. We can usefully (to new editors) provide details on (1), so we do. In most cases, providing details on (2) is pointless (because whether a consensus exists is perfectly obvious even to children and cranks in most cases) and difficult (because it's a lot harder than counting votes, and a new editor can't do it anyway, because new editors can't know enough about our policies). Providing details on (3) is unimportant and unnecessary, because the actual details are kept at the subject-specific policies and guidelines, and we're just providing a brief summary with links to the real thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because a new editor can't do something, that doesn't mean we shouldn't tell new (or indeed old) editors about the relevant procedures. New editors can't block people or protect pages either, but we still have detailed policies on those things. And I don't agree that (3) is unimportant - it's probably the most important part (since what we do when everyone agrees is obvious, but what we do when everyone doesn't agree is not at all clear and needs policy to guide us). (That said, it may be that there isn't a lot we can say about (3), since Misplaced Pages policy-making appears to have stalled when it got to the slightly harder questions like that one, so there may not be any norms at all, and things are really just decided by who is prepared to keep reverting longest.) Victor Yus (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No consensus on policies

I've been looking at Misplaced Pages:No consensus#Policy.2FGuideline (an essay written in 2007 by Carcharoth), with the hope of adding a sentence or two here about what to do with no consensus in a dispute at a policy or guideline page. It suggests basically the following system:

1. No consensus to add a new section/new idea: Don't add it.
2. No consensus on an existing section/existing idea: Remove it.
3. No consensus on the page's status: Remove/downgrade the page (if you really can't get a consensus).

Item #1 is the easy case, and the result is obvious to everyone. I don't think that we need to deal with #3 here, as it's rare, but it might be worth mentioning over at WP:PROPOSAL. (Someday, when I have nothing better to do for a week, I ought to go clean out those old proposals.)

I'm not sure that it's quite right about #2, which is the issue that happens the most. The variant of #2 that is most frequently encountered is a discussion about slightly modifying an existing section. In this case, everyone agrees (for example) that WP:V ought to have an introduction, or that MOS:APPENDIX ought to talk about the section headings used in the appendices, but they can't agree on exactly what it should say. In these instances, "just remove the whole idea" isn't functional.

What do you think? Do we need to describe policy and guideline defaults here? If so, what should we say about them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The impression I get is that the norm is always not to make a change if there's no consensus to make the change. A good enough idea in itself, one would have thought, if only there were some way of forcing people to go through the consensus-forming process that's described here, before falling back on that default. In practice, knowing that they can block any change just by not agreeing to it, many people don't make any effort to address the concerns expressed by the pro-change editors, and Misplaced Pages's users are left with substandard pages which are like that just because they've been like that. Victor Yus (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The second doesn't seem correct. Changes require consensus, otherwise there will be mischief. It's not a workable process. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A lot depends on whether we are talking about a BLP or not. The default position for BLPs when there is "no consensus" on existing text is "remove".The default position for non-BLPs when there is "no consensus" on existing text is "retain" The default for Policy/guideline pages is "return to the last stable version".

(addendum: woops... sorry... did not see that we were talking purely about policy pages here... so the bit about BLPs/non-BLPs is irrelevant). Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

How long is "stable"? Victor Yus (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That's up to consensus.  :>)

ok seriously, "stable" is usually interpreted as "the last version where the sentence/paragraph/section under discussion rested unchallenged for a reasonable amount of time". I suspect that your next question will be: How long is a reasonable amount of time? My answer would be: at least a month.

Note... returning the page to the last stable version does not mean the discussion on the talk page has to halt. Who knows, someone may show up tomorrow and make a suggestion, or say something insightful that results in everyone changing their minds and a consensus actually forming. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "no consensus to make a change, so no change" is that it's too simplistic and enshrines a first-mover advantage. When we really, truly have no consensus about what to do with a page, then we have no consensus to keep the old version, either. In fact, we may have an actual consensus to make a change, but no consensus on which of several competing proposals to accept in its place. "No consensus to make this change" is not the same thing as "No consensus to make a change".

The recommendation in the essay is that if you have no longer have a positive consensus for a current "rule", then you should remove that rule, even if you can't figure out what to replace it with, because policies should only contain what the community truly supports.

So think through this example: We have voluntarily created a rule that says fair-use images of living people are never allowed on the English Misplaced Pages. (The point is to encourage editors to take more pictures; it is not legally required.) Imagine that editors have begun to use these frequently, and the result is a lot of edit warring. We have a long discussion about this issue, and the community is evenly divided. Half of the editors want to say that fair-use is okay for BLPs under some circumstances, and the other half want to say fair-use is not okay for BLPs ever.

Under the "no consensus, no change" system, we keep the old rule, even though half the community opposes it and is actively doing something else in articles. Under the "no consensus, no rule" system, we would remove the rule completely: the policy would not mention a rule about fair use for BLPs, on the grounds that the community doesn't, in fact, have any agreement about what its policy ought to say on that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose anything that is clear and works well can be described as simple. Simplistic is pejorative, so let's just set that aside. The simplicity is its virtue. And there is no problem with developing a consensus to change draft A to draft B because there was nothing bad about draft A. It emerged from consensus and so it is good enough and provisional until something better comes along, like all of Misplaced Pages.

The real problem would come from allowing the termites to take down any section, sentence, or phrase simply by proposing an alternative. What absurd chaos would result! The deniers and birthers just have to propose something different and they win? Misplaced Pages would be Swiss cheese: all holes.

This is a solution in search of a problem, and we don't have one. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So once any rule gets enshrined in any policy or guideline, then that rule stays there unless and until you can improve it? You would stick with the old rule even if absolutely everyone agrees that there is no current consensus to keep the rule in question, that actual practice has significantly diverged from that rule, and that, if proposed today, the rule would have absolutely no chance of being adopted?

Under what circumstances would you simply remove a rule and have nothing there? Only if you can get two-thirds or three-quarters of the community to explicitly agree to remove it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If there's a consensus to change anything, including deletion, that's it, so I'm not sure what you are thinking of. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

1. If 600 editors say this "rule" is not policy and must be removed, and 400 say it is policy and must be kept, then is there a consensus that the rule is policy?
2. If there is no consensus that this rule is policy, then must it be kept anyway? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Colleague, you forgot that wikipedia is not democracy, and headcount does not count. We do have polls to sound the opinions, but consensus is reached via arguments and counterarguments. If 6000 say "I dont like it", it will not outweigh solid arguments "is is good/bad for wikipedia because..." . Of course, there still be disagreements; there may be goods and bads in both "wrong versions", hence "no consensus". Therefore the principle "if it works, don't fix it" kicks in in favor of the "last stable version" until an evident harm is clearly seen. And so on bla-bla-bla. You got it, I hope. Therefore neither headcounting nor nasty "stick-into-wheel-throwers" do not really rule wikipedia policies. (And there is no cabal :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"Voting" is fundamentally how policies are created. The arguments for and against are largely irrelevant, because 'should ___ be a policy?' cannot be decided by reference to whether adopting the proposal conforms with policies. If 90% of the community wants (or doesn't want) something to be a policy, nothing short of an WP:OFFICE action can stop them.

Writing policy really is different from an AFD or an RFC on content. At a contested AFD, you want to say "This article should be kept, because I demonstrate with the following list of fifteen books and twenty-seven magazine articles that this subject conforms with the following list of policies and guidelines...". It is impossible to do that for a dispute about whether to have a given rule in a policy. To use my example above, once upon a time, the community voluntarily agreed that the best way to promote its various goals was to prohibit fair-use images of living people. This is now the official, and enforced, policy and practice: Fair use of "pictures of people still alive" is unacceptable. There is no legal requirement for this; we could treat "pictures of people still alive" under exactly the same standard that we treat "pictures of dead people" or "pictures of computers".

The fact is that if this rule were no longer widely supported by the community, it would actually no longer be policy. Our policies are what we do and what we support, in the real work. What's on the policy page is only an effort to describe our actual standards. Misplaced Pages has a British constitution, not a statutory law system. But if we require a positive consensus to change the written description on a page marked {{policy}} at the top, we could easily have situations in which the actual policy (as evidenced by the preferences, beliefs, and actions of thousands of experienced editors) is significantly different from the written policy (as 'protected' by a minority of change-averse editors).

This is fundamentally a question of how accurate you want your written policy and guideline pages to be. If most of the community no longer supports a rule, should it be kept anyway? Is that really what you want? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

My view is that if there is a consensus to delete something, delete it. If there is a rule that seems to require alteration, a consensus decides that. I don't think that is controversial. I guess, to improve your argument in my eyes, maybe we could see a problem if there is a not a consensus to delete something but there is a consensus to change it. But as we know this situation is extremely common and presents no special issues for consensus. In the rare case, I suppose there could be a consensus to retain a passage struck through, to indicate... something? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

All this discussion is fairly moot, I fear, as long as we have no way to determine whether there is a consensus, or to compel anyone to respect consensus, or to ensure that people really follow (in good faith) the procedures laid down for reaching consensus. Most of the time people bumble through and good things continue to be done (or else, in cases like deletion, someone comes out of nowhere to make a rather unconvincing assertion that there is consensus one way or the other), but once any situation arises that isn't covered by the specific procedures for deletion and the like, but nonetheless has people taking entrenched positions, then I fear the whole "decisions are made by consensus" thing becomes a fiction - instead, "decisions" are effectively made by those who are willing to compromise least and revert the most. In this situation the "no consensus = no change" rule is probably about the best we can do (where it's assumed that once something has remained stable for a certain length of time then it's been accepted by silent consensus, although still the actual required amount of time remains arbitrary). But this is still not a satisfactory solution, for the reasons already mentioned. Victor Yus (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Victor, as we keep telling you, we do have ways of determining consensus.

If everyone agrees that there is no consensus to keep a rule, would you want to keep it anyway? Do you really think that's best for the community? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you do keep telling me that (you keep telling me that we shouldn't tell people about the ways that we have, because the people who might want to know are new and stupid and should be kept in their place, or something). But if there's no consensus to keep a rule, but also no consensus to put something else (including complete absence of rule) in its place, I don't think we can say obviously what ought to be done. We have to try to find a solution that best meets the concerns of those who want the rule and those who don't. Victor Yus (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ring, what if there is a majority, but not enough to establish consensus, in favor of deleting a section of a policy? Without consensus to delete, we keep, even though only a minority supports keeping? --B2C 21:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Born, a lot depends on how many people (total) are involved in the discussion. If the majority is five out of seven total... that isn't enough to say there is a consensus to make a change to a policy.

In fact, I would argue that even seven out of seven is not enough to really establish consensus on a policy/guideline page. Policies and guidelines are supposed to represent the consensus of the broad community... but the broad community does not pay day-to-day attention to policy and guideline discussions... only a few policy wonks (like you and me) do that. A small group of policy wonks might form a "majority" within a discussion... but that majority (or even unanimity) may not actually reflect the consensus of the broader community. Obviously we come closer to achieving a broad consensus if hundreds of editors have expressed an opinion.

Here's the point... Policy and guideline pages should not be easy to change. When some bit of text has been in a policy/guideline page for a long time, it is assumed that lots and lots of people have seen it and agree with it (or it would have been challenged long before). We assume it enjoys broad community consensus. That means we need a very strong indication that the broader community has changed its consensus before we remove it or change it. A simple majority often is not enough. Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the point indeed. Editors by and large are not interested in policy discussions. The best thing for them is to have stable and predictable parameters. Shifting foundations are not encouraging for content development. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility that I have found occurs quite often (when a bit of text has been there for a long time) is not so much that people agree with it, but that no-one really understands what it's supposed to say. People by and large can't be bothered to dispute something unless they clearly disagree with it, and if it's practically meaningless then you can hardly disagree with it, so they leave it be. But propose replacing or supplementing it with something that makes sense, and suddenly it becomes something people can disagree with, which of course some of them do, and so the proposal founders. Hence policy and guideline pages evolve to be filled out with junk, while at the same time (as is the case with this page) omitting or obfuscating much of the information that people really want and need to know. Victor Yus (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

From my experience, it is rare that "no-one really understands what it's supposed to say"... what I think happens quite frequently is that various "editor groups" develop conflicting interpretations of what it says.

Over time, as a policy statement gets applied in actual article discussions, it can take on nuances of meaning and interpretation that may not have been part of the original intent of the policy statement. For example... People who work in one topic area may interpret a policy statement narrowly, as saying "this is required"... while people who work in another topic area may have interpreted that same policy statement more broadly as saying "this is recommended". Both groups happily (and quietly) apply their interpretation of the policy statement in isolation... until there is an article that overlaps into both topic areas. At that point the two interpretations come into conflict. Both groups descend on the policy page to "clarify" the policy (to support their interpretation). Naturally each group objects to changes that "clarify" in a way that supports the other group's interpretation. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And the usual result, I suspect, is to retain the existing ambiguous statement (or to replace it with something else that fudges the issue even more effectively). To the great detriment to anyone trying to read the page for understanding. The fundamental problem seems to be that these pages have come to be relied on by a certain kind of editor as a sort of authority that can be cited in disputes, while the same pages are also expected to serve a descriptive function. Victor Yus (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is that it may take quite a lot of time to settle the debate. We leave the text at the "stable" version to prevent edit warring and further disagreement... while we continue to discuss and debate the various competing interpretations on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It's sensible and avoids a lot of mischief. I don't see a conflict between a policy page functioning as description and "authority". --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

These are two separate issues we're talking about now. As to things remaining unchanged in case of absence of consensus to change them, we all seem to be basically in agreement, although I believe it shouldn't be regarded as a satisfactory solution in any way, and it certainly leads to another sort of mischief - people sitting happily on the status quo and not making any attempt to address the concerns of those who see its faults (as they should do according to this policy). As to the two different functions of policy pages, I've certainly found there to be a conflict in practice - I've tried to rewrite certain incomprehensible passages to make them someway clearer, but have been blocked by those who fear that if we explain things properly, then "wikilawyers" will take advantage somehow. The damage can be seen on this very page, where we have people insisting that certain relevant topics - that people reading the page clearly want to know about - be kept out of the policy. All this does genuinely matter (assuming we want Misplaced Pages to thrive), because if people don't understand the instructions, then they're less likely to want to join in, or if they do, will find it harder to act productively. Victor Yus (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand how frustrating it can be when you try to "explain things properly" and you get resistance. However, if there are concerns that wikilawyers will abuse your suggested change, then you are hardly explaining things properly. You need to re-think and re-phrase... to find some other way to explain things that takes the concern about wikilawyers into account.

One thing I have learned through experience... It is very hard to gain a consensus when the discussion starts with "The text says ABC... I think we should change it to XYZ". The reason it is so hard to gain consensus is that the resulting discussion becomes a referendum on XYZ (and not a discussion about what might be wrong with ABC). We have more success when the discussion starts with: "I think ABC is problematic... let's discuss the various ways we might resolve this concern". The second approach takes longer... but I have found that it has a much better chance of achieving a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The other unspoken paradox in this area concerns the acceptance that policy pages define conduct but also reflect practice. Clearly, if policy simply reflected practice, policy pages would be an imposition, while if policy pages defined good conduct, practice would be expected to conform to it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It's only paradoxical if you think of Policy as a narrow set of "rules" and "laws" that must be followed in all situations. However, if you think of Policy as a statement of flexible principles (and not as a set of narrow "rules" or "laws") the paradox disappears (or at least greatly diminishes). This is why so many policy statements are phrased as "should" and not "must"... they strongly recommend certain actions, but allow for flexibility. We can ignore them if need be (WP:Ignore all rules is official policy after all). There are actually very few absolute "musts" on Misplaced Pages.

I prefer to say that Policy neither "defines" practice, nor is "defined by" practice... Instead I would say that policy informs practice and (in return) is informed by practice. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all right, but neither policy nor guidelines gently "inform" practice. If guidelines aren't followed, they are a cudgel. Practice, then, changes when editors agree to ignore the rules. And there's not a problem with paradox; how else to have it right with both authoritarians and libertarians? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

exception to consensus

In these days of things going viral, we should allow going against consensus. It is not to hard to have mob rule, which is consensus. I propose that one can edit against consensus and have the edit stick if a clear and logic reason exists and the mob does not have a good reason. I suspect using this clause will be uncommon. I propose that whoever is editing the wrong way should be blocked for a day.

An example of mob rule is President Obama's petition system. The petition about space aliens got hundreds of thousands of signatures, not a petition about foreign policy or social security. Bamler2 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)