Wikipedia talk:Consensus

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

Process diagram

About the diagram in the process section, though - it seems to me to be a gross over-simplification, and would belong better in some sort of essay than in a policy.--Kotniski (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The diagram was the focus of long discussion some time ago. The view that I put, which seems to have prevailed, was that the diagram should be simple and immediately understandable for newcomers, that "policy" pages primarily exist to serve as an introduction for the newcomers. What policy pages should avoid is the becoming of forums for high-level oblique philosophical discussions between highly experienced Wikipedians. A number of diagrams were produced. Kim came close to collecting them all together, in an essay, I think. A more detailed version of the diagram that was there for some time previously can be found, half shaded, at WP:BRD. Kotniski, "gross" would seem to imply that you think the simplification is too great, to the point of taking it into error. What exactly is wrong with the diagram, or what is missing that is essential? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, all right, if it were labelled as a "simplified diagram of the process" or something, I guess I wouldn't object to it. But when we make things simple for newcomers, we do them no favours if we make them think that it really is that simple. (If there's an error, then I guess it's the reference to "compromise", which - as noted above - is not necessarily the right solution.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some observations on the current diagram:

• You don't have to edited a page to disagree with a change made by someone else, but the diagram seems to suggest otherwise.
• The time to wait to see if the article is edited further is unspecified (might not seem significant but I've seen arguments based on the length of time between changes)
• Evaluation of the arguments for and against the change (e.g. checking more sources) should be given greater prominence—compromise may not be necessary.

Uniplex (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those are all good points - particularly the first one, as we seem to be encouraging people to edit-war by telling them that their disagreement doesn't count if they don't physically revert.--Kotniski (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a new diagram aimed at covering most of the usual cases: Uniplex (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Uniplex: that's not bad at a glance, but there are a couple of obvious revisions that need to be made

• you need to move the 'make an edit' box up, so that it's clear that that is the effective starting point of the diagram - otherwise there's no clera entry point, visually speaking
• say 'make an edit or propose a revision', to cover both cases
• 'outcome clear' and 'change needed' are ambiguous - they need clearer referents

let me think about it a bit more, beyond that. --Ludwigs2 14:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It is probably not accurate to believe that the policy is examined primarily by newcomers. Another major use occurs when disputes arise and editors look for a way to resolve it. This double use accounts for easy case/hard case problem. For newcomers we want to show how the practice works in most cases (the easy ones), but when there is disagreement the same page is supposed to provide a way out of hard cases. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's an updated diagram with some additional notes to hopefully address and clarify some of the points made. Ludwigs, one thing that the diagram is trying to show is that the process needn't start with an edit: it can also start with someone reading a page (and agreeing with what they see, or taking to talk if they don't). Ring, I think the hard cases are covered by spending a lot of time in box #1: the two eventual options are to give up, or to somehow find a clear way to proceed (which might for involve, for example, compromise or ArbCom) and allow box #3 to be done. Uniplex (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Box #3 should probably read "make the change" (that was clearly decided upon at box #1). Uniplex (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Updated so that it does. Uniplex (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, the more that is specified, the more that seems to need to be specified. The diagram works better when the categories are vague. Let the editors figure out how it works, because they are smarter than us and have real problems to solve. 2. I'm not sure which box is supposed to be number one, but in any case the presumption that editors are reasonably open to changing their views is not what I observe at all. This is an easy case solution applied to a hard case reality. Elsewhere in this discussion I read the view that compromise is overrated and editors should just figure out who has the better argument; in fact, that is not how it goes on the hard cases. The only way to break a deadlock of determined editors without recourse to authoritarian or democratic processes is through compromise. At least, I haven't heard or seen another way. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(And it bears mentioning that democratic solutions are also authoritarian.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is not that compromise should be disallowed or even discouraged, but that it should not be given undue weight (in the diagram) over other debating techniques (such as persuasion, and objective discussion, which are listed ahead of compromise in the policy text). Uniplex (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

RE Uniplex’s three points Here are some observations on the current diagram:

• You don't have to edited a page to disagree with a change made by someone else, but the diagram seems to suggest otherwise.

The diagram is not about rights to disagree. It is about productive methods for moving forward. It is not productive to merely disagree. To be productive, you need to have a solution. This is where the starting edit comes in. If you disagree, then it is likely that only you know what you disagree with, and only you have read the archives specifically reading into the point of disagreement. You are then ideally suited to make the edit that fixes what you consider to be the problem.

If you can’t make you edit? Is it because you don’t have a solution? Then this is idle hand wringing.

The great advantage of making the edit is that it provides a focus for subsequent discussion, if there is disagreement.

• The time to wait to see if the article is edited further is unspecified (might not seem significant but I've seen arguments based on the length of time between changes)

Good point. Why don’t you suggest some lengths of time. I suggest you do it in the caption, not in the figure. For me, an edit is ratified after other regular edits further edit the page. I think “time to wait” is better measured in “edits by others” than in units of time.

• Evaluation of the arguments for and against the change (e.g. checking more sources) should be given greater prominence—compromise may not be necessary.

I think this sounds like a call for a new guideline on logical evaluation of arguments. Ring Cinema has a good point about rejecting weaker arguments in favour of stronger arguments. Where differing opinions are mutually exclusive, it does not make sense to “compromise”. However, it can be helpful to refocus on what is important and to sidestep the point of disagreement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Uniplex, I must object to you making discussion here that references an offsite hosted image. One problem is that for me it is today inaccessible. Another problem is that the use of offsite images does not sit well with the copyright licensing for this discussion. Please upload your images onto Wikipedia, with free licensing, before referencing them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's faster and easier to upload them elsewhere, then I don't mind discussing them while hosted offsite. The final image would need to be uploaded to be useful to us, but the drafts seem unimportant to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Having images integral to the discussion offsite is crossing the line with respect to conducting offsite discussions. I therefore object to this discussion progressing with the image(s) not being available on and from this site.

Personally, I object, because for whatever reason, the site hosting the image(s) is blacklisted to me. I should not have to deal with issues of access to other sites in order to participate here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Uniplex's 1st image referred by him above, reasonably assumed that he licenses it the same as he does his text that discusses it.

User:Uniplex's modified image referred by him above, reasonably assumed that he licenses it the same as he does his text that discusses it.

OK, I got access to Uniplex’s images (easily uploaded and placed left and right). I must strongly object that these diagrams are a model for consensus building. His flowcharts introduce endless cycles with don’t involve edits to the page. Endless cycles of discussion and evaluation before an edit is allowed leads to discussions loosing focus, with tangential lines and debate scoring taking a life of its own, and newcomers to the debate being unable to decipher the point of the discussion. The point of any discussion should be the improvement of the page. The asserted improvements are evidenced in the actual edits to the page. With further discussion, especially where reverting occurs, the so called improvements are modified, and without modified edits being made to the page, it becomes increasingly unclear what edit is subject to the current debate. If in any cycle, an edit to the page is not even attempted, then the process is failing.

Contrary to some of Uniplex’s legend, “Every change to a page should be the results of following the blue/green path”, the ideal situation of wiki editing involves purely direct editing to the page. Discussion is only needed if there is disagreement, or the edits are too fast/complex for the edit summaries to suffice. Indeed, a huge number of decent mainspace pages don’t even have activity on their discussion pages. Uniplex’s model places committee work ahead of actual progress, and this is directly contrary to the wiki-method.

Edit warring and talk page filibuster are two extremes of failure to work productively. One is an extreme lack of discussion. The other is an extreme lack of editing. If there is any conflict, both discussion (to allow for a verbose description of perspectives) and direct edits (to focus the discussion) is needed in every cycle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, One of us is misunderstanding the process depicted in the diagram. Per the diagram on the right, here's how I see a normal edit progressing:

1. Editor "evaluate[s] existing text per sources, policy and guidelines; consider[s] further change"

• Is it clear [to our editor] how to proceed?
• Yes → [Based on that evaluation], was a change decided upon [by our editor]?

3. Yes → [Our editor] make[s] the change

In other words, (1) and the two questions loosely represent the mental processes all editors should go through when editing. Step (2), which is about involving others, is only entered when it is unclear how to proceed. Ideally the editor realizes when this is, but sometimes it takes BRD to find out...

I think this is a good description of the flow that actually occurs, though of course in reality many edits are not always preceded with as much evaluation of existing text against sources and policy as might be ideal. --Born2cycle 04:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, yes, we made different interpretations. Your interpretation is to me a stretch of interpretation in matching the diagram to good practice. However, even your interpretation as stated above places a high hurdle before the editor who has a first edit to make. It is clearly contrary to WP:IAR, and contrary to the message “you can edit this page right now”. Regarding File:Consensus Flowchart.svg (the current diagram), I take it as granted that at the “Edit” step, the editor will have thought first. However, little more than that. It should not be necessary, even recommended, that an editor evaluate policy, guidelines or past discussions. (Evaluate sources, yes, no argument there). RE: “Involving others, is only entered when it is unclear how to proceed.” By making the edit, the editor defines the focus of discussion that is too follow. If the editor is unsure and needs to ask a question, fine, do so, but asking questions first is not wiki-editing. It is good, to be encouraged, but is not wiki-editing and should not be mandated. My interpretation of the suggested diagram is that it calls for pre-agreement before editing. This amounts to requiring edit-request notices to be placed and for positive response(s?) before editing occurs. This would kill the vitality of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, SmokeyJoe, for uploading the diagram (I didn't do it myself as I could find a suitable sandbox for images but I guess it makes no odds). The diagram tries to capture the overall process of making an edit to Wikipedia and to cover the vast majority of cases. If it only helps level our understanding here at talk, then it's been a useful exercise; if it can be rolled out further, all well and good, but of course, it must be 100% clear in what it is saying before this could happen. The trickiest part of the process to explain or advise upon is the details of box#1 as this amounts to "how do you make a decision?", and "how do you win a debate?"—whole books have been written on those subjects, so I don't think we should try do this in the diagram; we can use the text for this aspect. Box#1 is most often a mental process: someone reads the page or just a recently changed portion and compares the presented information with their own knowledge (for which sources may well be available); whether they realise it or not, they often evaluate against guideline and policy (perhaps thinking "that sentence is too long to read easily", or "why should I believe that: it's not cited", or "that's true, but it's only half the story"). If they don't think any of these things then the blue/red path applies and the consensus status has been reinforced a little. I'll see if I can update the text on the diagram to make the mental aspect clearer. Uniplex (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm quite confident that Uniplex did not intend to convey that pre-agreement is required before editing. But since you interpreted it that way, it's likely others will too. That needs to be rectified. How about just changing the text in box #1 to say:

1. Evaluate existing text as needed per sources, policy and guidelines to determine if change is warranted

Is adding the "as needed" sufficient to address your objections? If not, do you have any suggestions? --Born2cycle 06:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the proposed diagram does not reflect WP practices. The first thing that happens when an editor sees something in an article that should be changed is simple: the editor makes the edit. That's not what the proposed diagram says. Is this an attempt to smuggle in a change in the policy? As things stand today, there is not a crisis in consensus. We don't need to change anything. The best way to have a well-functioning editorial process is to let experienced editors do their editing in a context of stable, predictable policies. But a change in the policy is not called for and this diagram would definitely undermine the current practices of Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, there's no nothing underhand going on; it's simply a good faith attempt to better understand and promote best practice. Uniplex (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I’m not seeing anything close to an improvement over the current diagram. It is clear on the two essential points: (1) If you disagree with a previous edit, then you must discuss; (2) The point of the discussion is the next edit.

If there is any problem with the current diagram, the only one I can see is the point made by Ring Cinema. Sometimes, the discussion leads to the conclusion that someone’s argument for change is rejected. In this case, the word “compromise” doesn’t fit, and there is no subsequent edit. However, the rejection of an edit, and discussion that answers a challenge, is not, per se, consensus building. It is mere maintenance of the existing consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

W.r.t. your (1), it doesn't have to be a previous edit (per se) that you disagree with: you may just read a page and find something that you think is wrong. Uniplex (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Very confusing. The arrow points from 2 to 1??? What does that mean? Start at 1, obviously proceed to 2, then, no wait, follow the arrow, but then what makes it 2? Okay leave out 2 but it is second so it must be important. So then maybe start with 3. Yes, that is clear. Read the notes outside the boxes, ignore the labels, follow the path, try to get to 1.

What is the problem with consensus that this confusing diagram addresses? We already have the policy operating with all kinds of good results. If the diagram is different from the written policy, which should be followed? If there is no difference, why is it there? It's not clear on any point that I can see and it doesn't have the practices correct. Believe it or not, most editors know how to manage without our help. Let's not get in their way. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You find the diagram confusing? You start at the top at Provisional Consensus and then follow the blue arrow to box #1 where you evaluate the text, and from there to the bottom decision diamond. Making that decision will take you either to box #2 (black/no arrow) to consult with others or to the decision diamond in the center (blue/yes arrow). From the center diamond you either go to make the edit (box #3) or, because you've decided there is nothing to change, you go back to the top and off to evaluating more existing text. --Born2cycle 07:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem with the current diagram that the proposed diagram addresses is that the current diagram implies that edits are made without consideration for anything. The edit-with-consensus process does not start with making an edit; it starts with evaluating the existing text. I mean, the current diagram applies to vandalism edits that aren't noticed the same as it applies to consensus edits... there is no distinction.

So I don't understand the objection to the proposed diagram, especially with my suggested "as needed" change to the wording in Box #1. It addresses the problem with the current diagram I just described, and accurately describes how edits are normally done (as I outlined above). --Born2cycle 07:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest update incorporating suggestions above:

Uniplex (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ring, I added the numbers primarily to facilitate discussion; they should probably be removed in a final draft. Further simplifications are possible: the two notes on the left, though useful, are not essential, so could go to the text. The note asscociated with box 2 could be incorporated into the text of box 2. Uniplex (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Break (process diagram)

Just my impression on coming back into the discussion - I'm not seeing anything useful in the (latest version of the) diagram that's been proposed. I can't imagine how anyone would understand anything better on looking at this diagram than they would by reading text describing the processes. I would rather do without a diagram altogether - to be honest, the activity we're talking about doesn't follow any set process or algorithm, and it's misleading to imply that it does.--Kotniski (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to lose the current diagram: it purports to be general but it's scope seems very limited; it's purpose is unclear (we've had suggestions that is both for and not-for newcomers). Uniplex (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The diagram proved so successful that the problem it addressed has largely gone away. The problem was that many otherwise intelligent editors couldn't seem to rationalise direct wiki editing with a consensus building process. There was in some places a lot of Bold editing turning into edit warring, and in other places endless discussion that didn't move anywhere. Many diagrams were suggested. Some had more detail than others, but they coalesced around one core feature – the editing cycle during conflict includes both discussion and editing. The purpose of the diagram is to provide a very simple picture to communicate a proven method for consensus building through wiki-editing. The diagram is applicable for all editors, whether newcomer or old timer.

Today’s unease with the diagram I find difficult to understand. What, in theory or practice, is wrong with it? There was a problem with “compromise”, which Kotniski has just recently largely attended to, but no suggested problem of structure. Uniplex’s diagram suffers a very severe flaw – it includes cycles that don’t involve any editing. Experience, experience from before the rise of popularity of WP:BRD, was that endless discussion disconnected from actual editing would lead to tangential meandering, off-topic arguments, impenetrable talk page threads for newcomers, and exhaustion.

The advent of the consensus diagram would seem to be here: Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_3#What.3F_You_still_don.27t_get_it.3F_Do_you_want_me_to_draw_a_picture_or_something.3F.21. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the question of what's wrong with it has largely already been answered, by Uniplex near the start of this thread - for one thing, it implies there must be an edit and a revert (or further edit) before any discussion can start, and that the only initial way of expressing your non-acceptance of an edit is to fight it.--Kotniski (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The implication is right. There is little point in starting a discussion in the absence of an edit and a revert (or further edit). Maybe a point is for editor education, but it is a discussion not directed at improving the page. Some people seem to like discussion for the sake of discussion, but it is not so productive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen many people start discussions questioning existing text or proposing an addition, without any recent edit having been made—these are all part of the consensus-forming process. Uniplex (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can't agree that Joe's interpretation is either current practice or good practice. Often discussion is started before making a change (if you know it's going to be controversial, or you have doubts about it yourself, or...); and often discussion of others' edits is started without reverting or editing further. I think such behaviour would even be regarded as more admirable in many cases, as it avoids edit-warring and maintains a more respectful atmosphere.--Kotniski (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you two are only thinking about high traffic pages? I've just gone through several random articles. Many of them don't even have talk page content! Of course if something is controversial, then discuss. But how do you know it is controversial. If you think you can improve it, and there is no history of related edits or discussion, you should make the edit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is the point - sometimes one approach is right, sometimes the other, but the diagram would have people believe that there's only one route to follow.--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and another problem I'm seeing, looking at it again, is that the "implementation" of a "compromise" is treated the same as a bold edit, not as the establishment of a new consensus. If we are to assume the compromise really was accepted by (almost) everyone in thorough discussion, then this is wrong - it would imply that any one editor who doesn't accept the consensus and wants to be a pain about it can effectively keep the discussion going (or returning to the prior status quo) indefinitely.--Kotniski (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don’t see the problem. Implementation of the compromise may yield unforseen issues. An implementation of compromise should not be quickly assumed to be a new consensus. The change may attract new participants. It is quite right that this may go on for some several, even many cycles. If there is a disagreement, it is not normal for a consensus to appear after a single cycle. Eventually, if the process is followed, if most of the edits are not reverts, the process finds a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by a "cycle". It seems you're considering a process where consensus is reached chiefly by editing, and it may be that this is the process that the author of the diagram mainly had in mind. However an important part of the process in practice is the bit where editing alone fails, and agreement is reached through discussion. In this case, I think we have to say that the agreement reached (provided certain conditions are met, such as sufficient publicity and correct closure) does represent a new consensus, and indeed an even stronger one than the implicit one we say exists when something hasn't been disputed for some amount of time. If explicit consensus decisions are not to be respected as consensus decisions, then we go back to the situation where nothing can be done without unanimity except by resorting to edit-warring.--Kotniski (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the author of the diagram (who was not me), is a strong advocate of “consensus is reached chiefly by editing”. I was a convert.

RE: What “represent a new consensus”. Do you not accept the definition: “Consensus is achieved when there are no further changes made”? You seem to be creating an artificial definition with too many caveats for it to be workable. Your notion of a “consensus decision” I submit is elusive in practice.

RE: “where nothing can be done without unanimity”. This goes to the question of how the group decides to reject the weaker argument. It’s a good question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't accept the definition that "consensus is achieved when there are no further changes made", whatever that would mean in practice (presumably that consensus is achieved when Wikipedia is switched permanently into read-only mode). Consensus on Wikipedia means that, when valid arguments are considered, most people agree (or something like that). It does not mean that everyone agrees, or that everyone who's prepared to edit-war over the matter agrees. --Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a longer version? Would you accept the definition that "consensus is achieved when there are no further changes made (directly relating to the point in question) after the same editors make other accepted edits nearby, and there are no unanswered objections on the talk page. " (obviously page protection, or editors departing exacerbated is not evidence of consensus). The problem I have with your definition lies in the pragmatics. Who decides when valid arguments have been considered? Who decides who and how many can be excluded from the “most people agree” camp? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin (or other uninvolved editor of good standing). Obviously that then raises further questions, but thankfully we don't have disputes over such matters too often. But I don't think we can have a definition that makes consensus (ultimately) dependent on "no changes being made" - that would effectively entitle any single belligerent-minded editor to prevent a matter being settled in a way he/she doesn't like. --Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

My objections are that the proposal diagram doesn't reflect current practice, it can't be edited, and it doesn't self-destruct when an editor realizes that it misrepresents the contents of the article. Again, if the diagram says something different from the article, I assume that the diagram should be ignored. Where does it say that? And if that is the case, what is the purpose of the change? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, I don’t get what you are saying. What is “it”? Are you saying that the current diagram is in conflict with the policy text? If so, can you explain more precisely? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

When you say 'current' do you mean the diagram now in the article or the draft change proposal above? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

By 'current', I mean File:Consensus Flowchart.svg, the diagram currently on the policy page. Note that policy pages are not articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

For the curious, the wikijargon for all pages in the WP: namespace is "project page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Ring's point is that whilst policy pages should be edited only with care, it should still be possible for anyone to edit them, including diagrams. This may be a fundamental problem with WP, that it doesn't provide a diagram editor. Uniplex (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to apologize for a confusion. I misread or misspoke "current diagram" in some places above as the current proposal. So, to be clear, the current diagram (as found now on the page) is not a problem with me. It states less than the policy so it's fine. The proposal diagram on this page is a problem. It's not an accurate statement of the practice. Again, my apologies. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ring, you said "if the diagram says something different from the article, I assume that the diagram should be ignored"—the current diagram does say different to the policy. Cherry-picking is not fine: it's misleading; were similar to occur in an article it would be called POV. Uniplex (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My point is that if the diagram is different from the policy, a mistake was made in the creation of the diagram. For that reason, the current diagram -- simplified and therefore clearly not a full statement of the policy -- is useful but the muddled proposal on this page is bad (i.e. confused, unclear, contradictory). There's no question of cherry-picking with the current diagram because it's a stripped-down representation that can't be mistaken for the full policy and probably does help a newcomer. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Most newcomers have their edits/arguments rejected because they don't "get" V. When they start to get V, they then fall foul of RS, and their next hurdle is often DUE. Suggesting to compromise doesn't help them along this road of understanding at all. I'm not proposing that the diagram that I drafted should necessarily replace the existing one (in fact, it seems that there are valid arguments for having no diagram); at this stage it's primarily a vehicle for discussion and invites helpful suggestion for improvements to get it to a state where it might be useful for further dissemination. Uniplex (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to say, this section itself is a perfect example of typical work through consensus, and it is not represented by the current diagram on the policy page, but is represented by the proposed diagram. It is not represented in the current diagram because the current diagram starts with someone editing the article (or, in this case, the policy page). Yet no one has done that here. A proposal has been made, it was not "clear how to proceed", so it went to "seek more opinions". Now we're all in box 1 together talking about whether change is warranted. This is very typical for how edits are often done.

The other way edits are often done is also represented in the proposed program - where the box 1 deliberation is done within the mind of a sole editor, who decides it is clear how to proceed, and he goes ahead and edits. Now, some comments about what was said above:

• Kotniski, first you said, " I'm not seeing anything useful in the (latest version of the) diagram that's been proposed.", then you said, "Often discussion is started before making a change, ...". Well, what's useful in the proposed diagram is that it clearly depicts that discussion is often started without making a change", while the current diagram on the policy page does not. Do you not see that, or am I missing something?

  Then a bit later you said, "another problem I'm seeing, looking at it again, is that the "implementation" of a "compromise" is treated the same as a bold edit,", so now you are seeing not only one problem, but two? Is that with the proposed diagram, or the current diagram? Or maybe you're saying the problems you see in the current diagram are not resolved by the proposed diagram? Well, this particular problem is addressed by the proposed diagram, I think, by intentionally conflating both kinds of consensus (bold and compromise) into what he calls "provisional consensus". But is that not accurate? I mean a bold edit is often likely to be accepted by consensus, and "compromise" consensus edits often aren't. Do we really prefer compromise consensus to bold consensus? I mean, sure, when you know a particular change is against consensus, that's to be discouraged, but that's going beyond bold editing, isn't it? So, like Ring, I don't see a problem with conflating compromise and bold consensus. The "provisional consensus" notion is actually quite brilliant, if you ask me.

• Ring, you say "My point is that if the diagram is different from the policy, a mistake was made in the creation of the diagram." How is the proposed diagram different from the policy? I mean, I think everyone understands that a diagram can only be a high level overview, and that you have to look at the text to get the details of what exactly each box means, but do you see anything depicted in the proposed diagram that is incorrect or misrepresentative of policy? I don't, but I do see misrepresentation in the current diagram on the policy page (it implies everything starts with edits, which ignores situations like this very one).
• SmokeyJoe, you said, "There is little point in starting a discussion in the absence of an edit and a revert (or further edit)". I just noted above how this entire section is an example of exactly that - starting a discussion in the absence of an edit and a revert. I find this to be very familiar and typical. Do you not? --Born2cycle 16:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I find this familiar and typical, but not in a good way. There is an implied edit here – the removal of the figure. This conversation would likely be clearer had someone actually removed the figure. At the moment, this conversation confuses the removal of the figure entirely and the discussion of new versions. This confusion hinders progress. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How can something be so clear and obvious to one (me) and so confusing and muddled to another (you)? Specific issues with the current diagram have been identified by multiple people. There is a proposed version which is evolving in the obvious hopes to replace the current one. Some people have suggested removing the original one and not replacing, but no one wants that enough to actually have done that, apparently. So the discussion is mostly about replacing the current diagram with the proposed diagram (or a revision of it). --Born2cycle 02:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How can something be so clear and obvious to one and so confusing and muddled to another? Easy. You can have a lengthy meandering discussion that is decoupled from editing. This is my point about what is good about the current diagram, directly contrary to others’ positions. This thread “Process diagram” begins with a post suggesting removal of the diagram. If this thread is no longer advocating removal of the diagram, then how is it a reasonable discussion, especially to someone newly arriving? “Specific issues with the current diagram have been identified by multiple people”. They mixed through the discussion, and not the focus of it, and I disagree that their issues read as specific. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Most everything starts with edits. It's a distortion to imply that garden variety editing involves anything other than edits as a starting point. Then there's discussion in search of a compromise. So for a newcomer -- who doesn't contribute to policy pages anyway -- the current diagram is a useful streamlined summary. It's not complete but it doesn't pretend it is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe it's lack of coffee, but I just cannot understand your objection. One of the most common acts I see newbies do is post on talk pages making suggestions for the article, obviously because they're not sure if it's appropriate to add or whatever. And the difference between an experienced editor and such a newbie is that the experienced editor can do a better job in box 1 in his own mind, so he can answer the first question affirmatively, and proceed with the edit. But this is also true for newbies when it comes to relatively minor changes about which they are confident. All of this is covered in the proposed diagram, and yet you say it's a "streamlined summary" and "not complete". Of course it's an overview, but that does not mean it's incomplete. What, exactly, do you think is missing? And, even if something is missing, how is the proposed diagram still not better than the current diagram which is blatantly incorrect by implying everything does start with an edit, when it never does (unless it is vandalism or poorly conceived edit, it always starts with evaluation of the text, and consideration of other factors like UNDUE, as depicted in the proposed diagram). --Born2cycle 17:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my objections in a few words: my objection to the present diagram is that it's simplified to such a degree as to make it wrong about certain things; and my objection to the proposed diagram is that it looks so complicated that it's not going to help anyone understand (or want to understand) what we're trying to get across. Until someone can come up with a magic solution that is both reasonably simple-looking and reasonably accurate, I think we do best to dispense with any diagram and just use ordinary text like we do for almost everything else in our policies.--Kotniski (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The diagram is appropriately simple. There is nothing in it that is wrong. There is no case to remove the simple diagram, it works well and faultlessly. I suggest a more detailed diagram can be added after the simple one. Please review the several in the archives. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I think the reason you don't see anything wrong with the diagram is that you yourself are wrong (or out of sync with the community's views) about certain things. You seem to think that consensus is purely an editing process (when people stop editing, we have consensus), which is commendable up to a point (I agree that discussion is generally overrated, and constructive co-editing underrated, as a means of producing better content), but it can't be only that - discussion and explicit consensus-forming/decision-making inevitably play an important part too, and the diagram doesn't properly reflect that. In fact I don't think any diagram can, as the two processes are often concurrent and interact in too many ways for us to be able to predict.--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don’t think I am “wrong” or “out-of-sync”, I think the problem is that you want more from the diagram than it gives. I certainly don’t pretend that the diagram alone covers everything. It is necessarily a simplification of the text that it supports. I personally support including additional diagrams with more detail. We attempted that years ago, and I think the effort is worth continuing. However, the current diagram is not wrong in what it does contain. It represents a very good method for finding consensus through coupled editing and discussion. It is obviously more complicated that WhatamIdoing’s very simplest and most common case below, which occurs when there is no opposition. And it does not cover situations of entrenched oppositions, where calls for further opinion are needed, or dispute resolution, etc.

I am sure that the proposed diagram is faulty because it doesn’t tightly couple the discussion to the focus of the discussion.

I do think that consensus is best achieved through editing. Discussion provides an abstraction of what people want. Editing demonstrates what people want.

When people stop editing, we have consensus, yes, except of course unless editors have been bullied or bored out of the process.

RE: “explicit consensus-forming/decision-making”. What is this? I don’t see it in the proposed diagram. It would be great it you could formulate a recipe or diagram for doing it, and I will be impressed if you can. If you can, it would have obvious application in the guidelines on how to close an RFC.

Can you clarify for me: Do you want to remove the current diagram? Do you want to work on a more comprehensive diagram? Do you think that the current diagram is worse than no diagram? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would happily remove the current diagram (though I could live with it as long as it's explained that it's a simplification, and preferably in what ways it's a simplification). I don't want to work on a more comprehensive diagram, since I don't believe this is an issue that can be conveniently represented diagrammatically (though someone may prove me wrong). And yes, I believe that the current diagram is worse than no diagram (again, because it misleads people into thinking there's some simple algorithm at work here).--Kotniski (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and about “explicit consensus-forming/decision-making” - I mean the taking of decisions as a result of talk-page discussion (either through the discussion being formally closed, or through the result being clear to everyone). Of course I don't have an algorithm or a "recipe" for doing this, but it's an inevitable and important part of the process. (Personally I wouldn't say that this kind of decision-making is necessarily based on "consensus", but the word is so much part of wiki-religion that people have come to use it as jargon to describe any kind of decision that originates from editors rather than The Powers.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The current diagram has six shapes connected by lines: so does the proposed diagram; however the proposed diagram describes about 99.9% of cases whereas the existing diagram covers a much smaller number. The notes could move to the text (if they're not already there) to yield a) a simpler looking diagram and b) text that can easily be revised. As long as WP keeps its collaborative editing model, the geometry/topology of the proposed diagram is unlikely to ever change. Certainly, we shouldn't show a diagram that's misleading, but if the diagram is clearly presented (and we're still waiting to hear what exactly is not clear) then those readers for whom a picture paints a thousand words can focus on the diagram; those who prefer text can focus on that. Uniplex (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we could all agree on the very simplest and most common case, which looks something like this:

(Make a WP:BOLD edit) → (Everybody [perhaps silently] agrees) → (Voilà, consensus!)

But I'm not sure that this is useful enough to bother diagramming. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No. That's the point of the proposed diagram. Even the simplest case that involves action only from one editor is this:

(consensus) → (Evaluate text; change needed?) → (determine change is needed) → (make the change) → (consensus)

In cases where collaboration is needed

(consensus) → (Evaluate text; change needed?) → (not sure how to proceed, seek opinions) → (determine change is needed) → (make the change) → (consensus)

The green part can loop, as shown in the proposed diagram. --Born2cycle 00:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you're thinking about the editing process. The consensus process begins with someone's desire to change something. Until a change is wanted, then there's no point behind trying to decide whether everyone accepts the change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The current diagram has the virtue of being so simple that it will not be mistaken for the actual policy. It is clearly a representation of something more complicated with the details left out. Since that is clear, that will be seen as its purpose. It is true that different editors go for consensus in different ways, and we are better off letting them do that. Much as I admire the intensity of this group's respect for WP, we must humbly accept that we are self-appointed experts who likely lack the magic wand of consensus. I think it is possible to take issue with the current diagram because it smuggles discussion in under "compromise"; it's a reasonable summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

RC, no one, including you, has identified how the proposed diagram is an inaccurate or misleading summary of what policy is. I say it is accurate.

We agree the current diagram is over-simplified. You say "so simple it will not be mistaken for the actual policy"; I say, "so simple it does not reflect policy at all". --born2cYcle 16:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WAID, I'm definitely not thinking about the "editing process". AFAIK, the "editing process" is: "click on edit; edit; save".

I wouldn't word how the consensus process begins as "with someone's desire to change something", but I essentially agree. An editor decides an improvement could, or might, be made, with a change. If the decision is it could be made and it's clear what to do, he does it. If it's unclear it would be an improvement, or it's unclear exactly how to proceed, he consults with others. All of this is depicted in the proposed diagram.

Look, I had nothing to do with coming up with this proposed diagram. I just came along and recognized how amazingly accurate, and yet simple, it is. It's amazing in that it has as many shapes as the current diagram, and yet is comprehensive. I agree the presentation/layout could be clearer, but the flow depicted is spot on as far as I can tell. So far everyone who has objected to it cannot identify something wrong or inaccurate with it. It applies to every situation I've ever been or, or can imagine anyone being in, from the most trivial copy edit task to a months-long debate involving dozens of editors, countless proposed revisions, and multiple straw polls, etc. The linchpin of the diagram is box #1, which ingeniously represents the mental processes of individuals as well as points and reasoning shared in discussion which are key to maintaining and finding consensus. I think Uniplex deserves a barnstar for this stroke of genius. --born2cYcle 16:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposed diagram leaves out the most common editing process. According to the proposal, an editor who is clear about how to proceed makes an edit and arrives at consensus immediately. Another editor reverts that edit and we're not on the diagram any more. So according to the proposal the two editors are in different places -- one says it's clear how to proceed and the other is probably over in box 2. This is what I meant above when I said it lacks a point of view. The current diagram is from the perspective of the person reading the diagram; they don't have to read anyone else into it to figure out how it applies to them right now. So in that way it's a summary that works for newcomers: it answers the question, "What do I do now?" --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh, you say they are in different places but don't identify where each is. No. That's not my interpretation at all. You're looking at it at different times. The first one is at "clear how to proceed" before he edits. After he edits they're both at provisional consensus. Then the second editor goes through loop, and reverts. The the fist editor either accepts the revert, or they both end up in #2/#1... What I see in the proposed diagram:

1. an editor who after evaluating text per box #1 is clear about how to proceed and so makes an edit and arrives at provisional consensus immediately.
2. a second editor who after evaluated text including 1st editor's change per box #1 is also clear about how to proceed and makes another edit (a revert, hopefully with a thoughtful/helpful edit summary), and also arrives at provisional consensus immediately.
3. now the first editor either accepts the revert, or goes through the process again, but this time via box #2 to bring in others, at least Editor #2, together with him into box #1 which which ingeniously represents the mental processes of individuals as well as points and reasoning shared in discussion which are key to maintaining and finding consensus.

They're both in the diagram and at the same place... right back where they started with the same text... at the top in provisional consensus. The difference is that presumably this time in box #1 the first editor will take into account the 2nd editor's input, or, if necessary, will "seek more opinions" per box #2 before proceeding.

The proposed diagram also answers "what do I do now?". The difference with the current diagram is that the proposed diagram gives a correct answer. --born2cYcle 18:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Revise --born2cYcle 19:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Your description doesn't seem to match the diagram. The first editor goes straight to consensus (blue blue blue green green). Every consensus is provisional, no? In the current diagram, he waits to see what happens to his edit ("Wait"). So the proposal seems wrong and over-specifies the policy. Secondly, the second editor is in another part of the diagram (2, I think) saying things like, "Hey I have a different opinion." But the proposal says that the consensus is already done. Of course, I know what you mean and how you want me to read it because I know the practices of WP. But that's not the point, right? Tendentious or creative misreadings will happen if they are allowed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How long should he "Wait"—a week, a month, a year? In reality, he need not wait at all; he can do anything he likes. "the proposal says that the consensus is already done": no, the proposal says that consensus is provisional. Uniplex (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the box "Is it clear how to proceed?" seems superfluous. I see an identity between knowing how to proceed and agreeing to a change, unless there will be no change, in which case the diagram seems to strand us in the middle forever. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am baffled by what you're apparently seeing and saying. I with you up to where you ask if every consensus is provisional. Yes. Then you say that in the current diagram it shows the editor waiting after making his edit (true, that's what it depicts), and that that somehow makes the proposal diagram wrong and an over-specification of policy. I don't see how that second part follows the first part at all. The wait in the proposed diagram is implied, and, accurately, is not necessary. The editor, can, for example, decide to make another edit, or even revert himself. He will not necessarily wait, which the current diagram incorrectly states he will do.

Then you say the second editor is in another part of the diagram ("2, I think"). It's unclear if you're talking about the second editor before or after he reverts, but in either case, he never takes the black path through #2. He also goes blue-blue-blue-green-[edit (revert)]-green.

The proposal never says "the consensus is done" - it says consensus is always provisional (another brilliant aspect of it).

I don't see how the diagram strands us in the middle. To use our own situation as an example, you and I are circling from #1, through the diamond you say is superflous, answering no each time, and reentering #1 via #2 (at the moment only you and I are actively participating, but we're certainly seeking input from others too). Are we stranded here? Perhaps, but that's reality. Until we get to a point where one of us feels it's clear to proceed, there we will stay. Eventually, we will either agree on how to proceed with a change (from #1, blue-blue-green-green), or we will realize we can't agree on a change or will agree no change is needed (blue-blue-red). In either case we will finally answer "yes" to what you say is a superflous question, and then either yes or no at the diamond in the middle.

If you're now trying to say the diagram could be misinterpreted - and giving example of how it could be - okay, we can work with that, by trying to make it more clear. Would you agree to at least try to work towards making this diagram convey more clearly what we want it to say? Because that's very different from an effort to try to show it's unworkable. --born2cYcle 21:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I could ask you to re-read my last post with an eye to the fact that I sometimes refer to the proposal and sometimes to the current diagram. Sorry if I do that in a confusing way. That said, I think my objection stands up just fine. If an editor starts at 1 (why is that on the side?) and follows blue-blue-blue-green-green, he can think of an edit change, decide it should be done, do it, and have a new consensus all on his own without coming across any other editors. At that point, according to the diagram, his work is the new consensus. That is what the diagram says. I am not making that up. And that does not seem to be the actual process. Since it is not the way the practice goes here, I think that constitutes a divergence of the diagram from the practice, and that divergence is what I object to. (I'm not sufficiently interested in this to repeat myself on the other objections, although I think they're definite problems.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've gone back and reread your last two posts with particular care to whether you're referring to the proposed or current diagram - my same observations and questions stand as posted. I was not confused about which diagram you referred to when. I am confused by statements like this:

In the current diagram, he waits to see what happens to his edit ("Wait"). So the proposal seems wrong and over-specifies the policy.

How does the fact that the current diagram shows a wait after the edit support the conclusion that the proposal diagram is wrong and over-specifies the policy? Does the policy specify a wait? No (I even searched for the word "wait" in the text at WP:CONSENSUS... not there). It's the current diagram that over-specifies the policy by indicating that wait.

Now in this latest post you write:

If an editor starts at 1 (why is that on the side?) and follows blue-blue-blue-green-green, he can think of an edit change, decide it should be done, do it, and have a new consensus all on his own without coming across any other editors. At that point, according to the diagram, his work is the new consensus. That is what the diagram says. I am not making that up. And that does not seem to be the actual process. Since it is not the way the practice goes here, ...

Above you were told by both me and Uniplex that the numbers in the boxes are just labels. You always start at the top, at "Provisional consensus". Starting at the top the editor can follow blue-blue-blue-green-green. But from box #1, it's just blue-blue-green-green (the first blue got him to box #1 from provisional consensus). But that nit aside, yes, tracing that path is the normal path for a unilateral edit (if you will), and the end result is a provisional consensus for that updated text, which remains until that text is changed again, which could be a few seconds later, or not for years. You're not making that up. That is what the diagram depicts, and that is the actual process. Of course. What about this seems like it's not the actual process to you? --born2cYcle 05:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, more than one editor is involved in consensus-making. It seems more accurate and less likely to cause problems if it's recognized that consensus depends on some kind of acceptance, especially since it's implied that consensus is always provisional. There is a difference between a change that's worked over thoroughly and one that's just put up, even though both are revisable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is a difference. But every change ever made, whether it lasted forever (so far), or just a few minutes, was 5 seconds old 5 seconds after the editor who made it clicked save. And if it was never changed again then the consensus support it had at 5 seconds was no different than the consensus support it had at 3 years. Time does not determine consensus for a change, but it helps confirm whether there is consensus, but even then it's always provisional. There is no bright line, and I fail to see how waiting is a factor in the consensus process we're trying to depict in the diagram. If you find something in an article that is problematic, it doesn't matter whether it was there 5 minutes or 5 years - you will, presumably, challenge it just the same.

Anyway, the current diagram implies that there is some unspecified "wait" period after an edit is made that determines whether there is consensus. But this is plainly wrong. First, even if the edit is reverted during the unspecified waiting period, that doesn't mean there was no consensus (in the extreme, it might have been a vandal that reverted, more realistically, it might be the one person who is against consensus that reverted). Second, even if the edit is not reverted, or not changed further, during the unspecified waiting period, that does not mean there is consensus. It could mean no one noticed. WP is riddled with unnoticed edits made by vandals that fall into this category. --born2cYcle 18:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that waiting to see how others react to an edit is part of what good editors do. It's certainly a better description of the process than the proposal diagram, which allows the erroneous interpretation that a new edit is consensus upon its adoption by a single editor. And your counterexamples seem to require bad faith edits to undermine the utility of the current diagram. This page is about consensus. I have other problems with the proposal as well, primarily based on its over-specifications. For example, the box labelled 1 seems to limit the valid reasons for an edit and I know from experience that if good edits have to be for specified reasons according to policy, then edits made for other reasons will be reverted for illicit reasoning. Sometimes that is good and sometimes it is bad, but this is not the place to take that up. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"than the proposal diagram, which allows the erroneous interpretation that a new edit is consensus upon its adoption by a single editor". No. The proposed diagram correctly presents that a new edit is provisional consensus regardless of whether it has been adopted by just one, or dozens, of editors, and that it achieves and retains this status as long as it is not changed again, or challenged, which could be five seconds, or five years or more.

You say that good editors wait, and that waiting is part of what they do. Wait for what? Wait before they do what?

Some editors edit and move on, and don't even know if their change is reverted or challenged. Others may watch the page to see what happens, but in the mean time they do others things too. I don't get the "wait" thing at all. To wait means to delay some other action. What are they delaying? I don't see how "wait" accurately describes what editors, including good editors, actually do, at all. Can you explain? --born2cYcle 19:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a sort of passing comment: If Ring is confused by the diagram, then it's likely to leave other people confused, too.

Also, the diagram gives a seriously misleading definition of "bold". Cleaning up someone else's typos is still bold editing, even though it's perfectly clear that typo correction constitutes an improvement. I really cannot support its current form. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The word 'bold' means 'courageous and daring'—experienced editors especially would not consider fixing typos to be bold. That said, my recommendation above was to minimize the text in the diagram per se and provide necessary notes as editable text. Arguably, mentioning bold editing is not necessary; it all depends how much you want to cover in the diagram and its notes. Uniplex (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's only in the real world. BOLD is wikijargon and has a substantially different meaning on-wiki, just like "Notable" means "qualifies for its own stand-alone article, as proven by the fact that multiple reliable sources have already taken notice of it" on-wiki, rather than what the dictionary says, which is closer to "worthy of someone taking notice of it (whether or not anyone actually has)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response WAID; will have to return to this subject to this later—too many irons in the fire at the moment! Uniplex (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Both good points. I think we're passed misunderstandings with RC and are actually at a disagreement about how consensus works. In particular, whether "waiting" is a fundamental aspect of it. Do you have a view on that question (please review the last few comments above)? Also, once we get that ironed out, I'd like to work on tweaking the diagram to make it easier to understand. And of course make wording changes to address problems like the one you just noted about bold editing. Any suggestions on what wording to use instead there? --born2cYcle 06:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think some find the two chained yes/no questions hard to follow as they consider these to occur (in some cases at least) simultaneously. So maybe these should be collapsed into a single question: "Conclusion?", with three possible answers "Unclear", "No change warranted", "Change decided upon" or some such. Uniplex (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not confused about what tie diagram says. For the record, I have no problem locating some parts of WP page editing in the proposed diagram. However, tendentious readings will be made under pressure and in that context detailed definitions become destructive and distracting. Wikipedia's strength is in its editors not its policies. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Lord, I've lost track of how many different different objections for the proposed diagram you've raised and, apparently, abandoned. If this is just a game of Whac-A-Mole for you because you're just against the diagram for some unstated reason, and so the stated reasons are not really important to you, we cannot have a productive discussion about this. --born2cYcle 21:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My objections are perfectly coherent; none of them are abandoned; all of them still stand. However, long posts are not read here. Careful consideration yields good decisions. I suspect the proposed diagram would not be a good idea and I am happy to share my objections in a eupeptic form. There is no problem before us and stable policies are a lot more important than adding a dubious diagram to a policy already functioning well. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"There is no problem before us"...!!! Have you attended any RfCs lately? They're mostly freakin' disasters, inordinately inefficient, and the just the tip of the iceberg of the petty squabbles going on underneath. "a policy already functioning well"... Why do you think we've arrived here at this policy page? Because we've observed it functioning so abysmally. Also for consideration, why do you think, as has been reported, that "good editors are leaving WP in droves"? Jimbo himself complains that the project looks backwards instead of looking forwards. I'm astounded by how far removed from reality your statements appear to be. Uniplex (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I get that you're generally opposed to incorporating the proposed diagram, but your specific objections are a mystery, at least to me, and I've been trying to pay very close attention. Note that I at least recognized you were not confused about what the proposed diagram says. If you're just going to repeat vague general objections without engaging in a genuine effort to explain what your specific objections are so that they can be addressed, or so that others realize that they cannot be addressed, you're just being disruptive. You had two somewhat specific objections to the latest revision below. I addressed one, and Uniplex addressed the other. If those objections "still stand", please explain, in detail, how and why they were not adequately addressed by us. Anything else? --born2cYcle 16:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Break 2 (process diagram)

Consensus is the broad, community agreement that we strive for in making decisions on Wikipedia.

[Assessing ‘true’ consensus (observing that the entire community gives simultaneous agreement) is neither practical nor particularly useful since, because the community, its views, and the world at large on which those views are based, are in a constant state of flux, any determination of consensus is potentially out-of-date the moment after it has been made.]

Consensus in Wikipedia is deemed to be provisional, that is, it may be considered to represent ‘true’ consensus, providing that it is not subsequently challenged and replaced with a new, provisional consensus.

The decision-making process in practice is depicted in the diagram and starts from A, the current state of a page. As above, consensus is provisional.

Changes (adding, removing, or modifying content) are most often the result of a single editor judging that change is needed and editing the page. This is shown by the path A→B→C→D→A.

To determine if and what change is warranted, an evaluation (B) per sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is made; this, even if by a single editor, best ensures that the result should constitute community consensus.

At D, all that is needed beyond editing the page (citing sources as appropriate), is to give an appropriate edit summary, including the reason for the change (e.g. "... per given source", or "... per guideline X").

Others who view the page may decide to change it further (ABCDA again) or give silent agreement (ABCA).

If it is unclear whether to make (or perhaps revert) a change, the issue is opened for discussion (E) at an article-, policy-, or other talk-page as appropriate, and evaluation (now a collaboration by a group of editors) resumes at B.

Pared down diagram with editable notes. Seeing as the proposed diagram takes a generalized view, and the existing diagram details a smaller set of specific circumstances, if they are clearly designated as such, there's no reason why we can't have both. Uniplex (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support including Uniplex' diagram in the article. --born2cYcle 21:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It has the same problem as the previous proposal: a single editor goes all the way to consensus without any other editorial input? Plus, is there really an identity between consensus and provisional consensus? If so, why "provisional"? Seems to me experienced editors are aware that a consensus goes through stages of acceptance. And if not, it's an extra word. I'm not sure what problem is being solved by adding a diagram that can't be edited. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a single editor goes all the way to consensus without any other editorial input, just like in the current diagram...

• [previous consensus] → [make an edit] → <was the article edited further?> (no) → [new consensus]

And, yes, there is a distinction between consensus and provisional consensus. There really is no such thing as consensus in Wikipedia - it's really always provisional, and the proposed diagram emphasizes this, which is good. --born2cYcle 01:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ring, that consensus can be considered to be "provisional" is explained in the first note: "since pages are always subject to further change". The ABCA cycle occurs every time someone reads a page or a diff and lets it stand as is. Prior to such, the consensus for the page is provisional (subject to change), and after such, it is still provisional (subject to change)—this is the very nature of Wikipedia. You appear to have an objection to diagrams "that can't be edited"; one can only wonder as to what relevance this might have as: AFAIK, it applies equally to all diagrams in WP; if it doesn't, a helpful response would be to suggest a more suitable format to use—either way, the diagram is so simple that modification through recreation is an easy option. Uniplex (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

On the "wait" issue - it seems like there is an unstated general agreement that the period between an edit and any other edit to that page is significant to the consensus process. That is, if you make an edit it's especially provisional until someone else makes an edit; that if someone else makes an edit, without reverting your change, that somehow counts as overt acceptance of your change.... now there are two people who apparently support the change, which makes reverting it a bigger deal. Maybe this is what RC is trying to get at, and sees reflected somewhat in the current diagram but not in the proposed diagram? --born2cYcle 16:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The infinite loop running through BCE seems altogether too accurate a description of seriously dysfunctional disputes to be something that we want to recommend as a best practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

But it doesn't suggest an infinite loop, since one way or another, some kind of conclusion is eventually reached, especially as "seek more opinions" escalates as per the dispute resolution process. Like it or not, this is the recommended and tried-and-true practice. --born2cYcle 23:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's basically wishful thinking. Seeking more opinions on a content dispute does not always result in reaching a conclusion about what to do with the article. In fact, #1 under ==Pitfalls== is "too many cooks", i.e., you have sought more opinions and it has made the dispute worse, not better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

♣ The role of the diagram is not to encourage any particular path; that's a job for the text. The diagram merely reflects certain aspects of the text, specifically, the most common paths taken in the consensus process. Perhaps the title of the diagram could make its role clearer in this respect. Perhaps note E could express caution at progressing up the chain; perhaps all the notes could be worked into the main text (or are already there). The specific benefit that the diagram brings, is that in reference to it, the current text can be made shorter and still convey the same meaning. This is true for two reasons, paths may be referred to in the text very succinctly (e.g. ABCA) and some of the paths that are currently treated as being different in the current text, are in fact the same path, or the same path with only a modicum of textual qualification. Consider the diagram as a road map: a road map doesn't tell you the best route, but it is used in conjunction with a route-finder app that does. Uniplex (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept the "up is down" logic that provisional consensus is distinct from consensus because all consensus is provisional (see B2Cycle above). 2) I don't accept the "two are one" logic that Uniplex uses to imply that consensus is the same kind of provisional both before and after subsequent edits. The true statement that all WP articles can be changed does not imply that consensus is constant after a new edit. Rather, there are several criteria one can reasonably employ to assess the "stickiness" of an edit, i.e. time, discussion, subsequent edits. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It has been neither implied nor stated that "consensus is constant after a new edit". Neither has it been implied nor stated that the diagram offers a means to assess the "stickiness" of an edit. It has been stated (many times now) that consensus is provisional after any edit: i.e. that the edit represents consensus providing that is it not subsequently challenged. This is the reality we find ourselves in at WP; one can never know if a challenge will subsequently occur. For example, this edit, was eventually reverted as practical-joke/mistaken after being present in the article in one form or another for 19 months. Did that edit represent the consensus view during that time? No, it just hadn't been properly assessed. Did that edit have provisional consensus during that time? Yes, it was taken at face value, copy-edited, and worked in with other text, but it was always subject to the eventual assessment that would see it reverted. Does it have "constant" consensus now? No, the current text (without the edit) could be challenged again today. Will WP articles ever have "constant" consensus? Unlikely, but that's not the point, such things are best discussed in the text: the diagram's role is to inform you or to remind you of most of what you need to know, for most of the time. Uniplex (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's try an example and see whether it helps. Here is an actual, good-faith change made yesterday by an editor. This person presumably:

A. Read the article (which had "provisional consensus" according to this diagram).

B. Considered a possible change.

C. Concluded that a change was needed.

D. Made the change.

and—according to this diagram—this change, which replaces a direct quotation from a reputable source that is firmly against this thoroughly discredited alternative cancer treatment with a made-up recommendation to use it—instantly acquired the status of "provisional consensus", even though we could trivially predict that nobody was going to agree with this person's change, and in fact it was reverted six and a quarter minutes later.

Now are you really prepared to declare that person's edit to be just as valid and just as consensus-driven as any other change made to the page? Did that change actually have any level of support that could be described as "provisional consensus" with a straight face? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I say again:

It seems like there is an unstated general agreement that the period between an edit and any other edit to that page is significant to the consensus process. That is, if you make an edit it's especially provisional until someone else makes an edit; that if someone else makes an edit, without reverting your change, that somehow counts as overt acceptance of your change.... now there are two people who apparently support the change, which makes reverting it a bigger deal.

How to address this in the diagram? What if we added:

[E. Wait for another edit to the page] → <is change reverted> → (yes) → [F. change has provisional consensus]/ (no) → [F' change is not consensus] → [A. provisional consensus]

In words, once the change is made whether it has provisional consensus is determined by the next edit to the page. If it's reverted it obviously does not; if it's not reverted, then it apparently does. Either way, you're back to Box A. --born2cYcle 20:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• WAID, I can't declare that an edit is not valid until I've reviewed it, and nor can anyone else. Furthermore, there is no formal review process, no guarantee of when or if an edit will be reviewed. In the mean time, the edit has provisional consensus and readers may be viewing it. This is the very nature of WP's editing model: we trust our editors, but no more than to declare their editorial decisions as provisional. The probability of an edit having full, community consensus may go up depending on the breadth of the discussion that approved it, and the length of time it remains unchanged—we never formally measure this probabilty though, because our process doesn't require us to. (Note to self: probability of community consensus may also go down with time, as information may go out-of-date and the likelihood of a challenge goes up.) In these terms, it all sounds a bit crazy—how could it possibly produce a useful encyclopedia? But it does. Uniplex (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jumping back: Uniplex, we agree that consensus is mutable by nature. However, I think we part company in our willingness to leave the impression that consensus becomes sticky. The diagram that you defend says that all consensus is the same kind of provisional, and I don't think a project page on consensus should give that impression. Consensus is different before and after other editors have been on the scene. Yes, there is a sense in which both are provisional, but it is so equivocal as to be misleading to use the same expression for a fresh edit done this morning and a compromise solution arrived at after two weeks of discussion. I find it a misrepresentation of consensus rather than a useful simplification. This seems to be the position you are defending, although you might point to something in the diagram that makes this distinction clear. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that both you and WAID are misinterpreting the purpose of the diagram, which is to supplement the text. The diagram shows the general case; how "sticky" consensus is depends on specific circumstances; the diagram makes no comment on it. The reply ♣ I made to WAID above may help. Also, what "bad thing" are you afraid of happening if we use the diagram? The rules are not being changed. Bad edits will still be reverted. Edit warring will still be disallowed. Uniplex (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

While it may in your mind be a supplement, it will be read tendentiously. Again, there seems to be an easy case/hard case problem. If I was going to design a diagram to supplement, I might think about box labels that match the article's section headings. Or a box for each process with arrows for segues. Discussion seems to get short shrift in this proposal even though it is the place where things get worked out. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't writing "See text for details" next to the diagram perform a mind transfer to the readers? Discussion of discussion is where we are trying to get to, if only we could get the basic ground rules in place first. Uniplex (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we be able to? Sure, if every single editor were a cooperative, mature person who wanted nothing more than the ideal contents for the project. In practice, it doesn't work that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry WAID, you've lost me there. Let's roll back: RC complains that the fact that the diagram supplements the text is in my mind and not in the readers' minds, is a problem. I suggest that we can transfer it from my mind, to a note—"See text for details"—and from there to the readers minds. RC also expressed an interest in the discussion area of the process; I suggested that we ought to try to do one thing at a time. What are you suggesting? Uniplex (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In translation: "Rejoice! You are neither cynical nor a born bureaucrat!"

It does not matter how many disclaimers you add. If you put up a diagram that is wrong, or at least one that could be seriously wrong in some messy dispute, someone is going to pound on the table and demand that the diagram is the one True™ way. You can no more stop them from doing this than you can stop them from taking half-sentences out of context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This comment is in reference to Uniplex's statement, "I can't declare that an edit is not valid until I've reviewed it":

I understand what you're saying, but the fact is that a change like this does not have consensus from the very instant that the change is thought about, even if nobody ever sees it. It is not possible to have consensus for a change that seriously and unquestionably violates major content policies.

"Consensus" is not "the agreement of the couple people who happen to notice the change". Consensus is based on the whole community's views. It is not possible for a POV pusher or a spammer to override the major policies even if nobody ever sees their bad changes. That's what we mean at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS when we say "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

This edit was a serious violation of consensus from the very beginning. Any individual might not be able to act on that violation (by reverting it) until he has seen it, but there is zero consensus for the change even before any specific human realizes that we have a problem, because there is a strong, unshakable, community-wide consensus not to dramatically misquote sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

WAID, I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure what bearing this has on the diagram. Perhaps I can ask you the same question that RC steadfastly refuses to answer: What "bad thing" are you afraid of happening if we use the diagram? (Since no rules are being changed: bad edits will still be reverted; edit warring will still be disallowed, etc. etc.) If someone would answer the question then we might be able to do something about it. Uniplex (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, your accusation is inaccurate, Uniplex. I have repeatedly raised the ways in which the proposed diagrams can be read that are antithetical to current practice or good practice. Now, perhaps you want me to then say, "And the editors will then be allowed to insert falsehoods into the articles." However, a clear causal link from a bad diagram to a poor WP article might never be made. But that is not the point, right? I think that I have less faith in our ability to make a rule and know how it will be followed. (You are incorrect that adding the proposed diagram changes no rule; you are talking about your intention.) That is why I like to mention that the best path to WP excellence comes from experienced editors working within a stable set of practices that are widely understood. Changes to this page are not stable. Changes to this page that can be read in bad ways are not stable. So, what bad thing have I steadfastly refused to mention? I have been quite clear: the proposed diagram could make the work of good editors difficult and I've said it implicitly or explicitly in every post. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I assure you, Ring Cinema, you have been anything but clear. I cannot think of any discussion in which I have ever been involved on Wikipedia in which someone's comments were less clear or more nebulous than yours have been. After spending hours over a number of days reading and thinking about everything you've written, I have only the slightest and most general of inklings of what you're trying to say. By the way, saying you've been clear and that you've said "it" does not make it true.

If you really wanted to be clear, then you would do this:

1. State your objections as clearly as you can in a draft post,
2. Review everything in that draft that you've already said above and how others have responded to it, and
3. incorporate clarifications in your statement that addresses what others have said.

If you do that, then you can say you've been clear. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Uniplex, what matters is that your diagram says that this zero-consensus-from-its-conception edit has "provisional consensus". It doesn't have provisional consensus. It has no consensus whatsoever. It is exactly the kind of edit that is prohibited by all of the content policies. But you have incorrectly and misleadingly labeled that zero-consensus edit as having some kind of consensus, solely on the grounds that it happens.

The first "bad thing" that's going to happen is that some people will be honestly confused (especially people who don't read the text, and that's a lot of them) and thus believe that this zero-consensus edit has some sort of consensus. The second "bad thing" that's going to happen is that wikilawyers and POV pushers will find it very convenient for insisting that their anti-consensus changes have some sort of consensus. Neither of these are beneficial to the overall project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WAID, firstly, referring to the diagram as "your diagram" belies and attacks the fact that it is the result of a collaboration: it has thus far, been updated to incorporate the comments of (off the top of my head) five other editors. Secondly, your comments belie the fact that virtually every WP policy, guideline, and paragraph therein, cannot be read in isolation. Thirdly, the diagram does not imply that deliberately bad changes have any sort of consensus: a deliberately bad change omits B: Evaluate existing text as needed per sources, policy, and guidelines, to determine if change is warranted. Uniplex (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The third point here is particularly important. I'm curious to know if that satisfies WAID, and, if not, why not? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The third point is entirely irrelevant. The diff I give as an example was impossibly bad, but it was actually made in good faith. The edit summary plainly indicates that the newbie thought his change was going to be helpful to readers. The newbie did "evaluable the existing text to determine if change is warranted": He thought the existing text violated NPOV (by emphasizing the mainstream story), and he adjusted the text to line up with sources that support his POV.

This was a good-faith, zero-consensus, obviously policy-violating change. At no point in time did anything about this change have any form of consensus, "provisional" or otherwise, behind it.

And there is still no path on this diagram that allows this misguided newbie to make a change without that change being declared "consensus". According to this erroneous diagram, every single (good-faith) edit results in consensus. This is simply wrong. "Make an edit" must be able to lead to something other than "consensus". "Make an edit" must have the option of leading to "discover that the edit you honestly thought was supported by sources, policies, and guidelines definitely wasn't, and thus got reverted". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like let us know what it is that a good faith edit, evaluated according to V, NPOV, etc. does have (if not provisional consensus). Also, please let us know, what the bad faith edit that I mentioned above which persisted for 19 months had (if not provisional consensus) during that time. Uniplex (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

All irremediably inappropriate edits, whether made in perfectly good faith or in particularly bad faith, have the same status: no consensus for the change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fool I, for asking two questions, the first of which you did not answer. Ultimately, the purpose of the policy and the diagram is to describe best practice. The terms that we "hang" on that description are just that: terms, meaning whatever we define them to them to mean. The proposed diagram (and associated text) promotes best practice to achieve community consensus in important ways that the current one does not. It promotes collaboration, and evaluation according to policy & sources, and it discourages (through deemphasis) disagreement, compromise, and persuasion—all things that result from opinion, something that is expressly forbidden. The proposed diagram is derived from the current diagram as follows:

• The existing policy clearly states that decision is primarily by evaluation, not compromise: so replace compromise (before the second edit) with evaluation.
• Evaluate before the second edit but not the first? Clearly not best practice, so place evaluation also before the first edit.
• Wait. Who should wait? And for how long? Is there some obligation here? No, there is no Wikipedia principle that obliges anybody to wait for approval for an edit: either before or after. Review is possible but in no way mandated.
• So, the first and the second edits are in fact governed by exactly the same rules: we have an iterative process, but one that though it makes a steadfast approach towards and to track community consensus, can never be known to have met it.
• Assuming good faith (which we are obliged to do), "provisional consensus" is a reasonable term to express the state between our best effort steps. It reflects the fact that if editors follow the principles embodied in the modified diagram, then the trust that this term bestows in them is deserved. It's a two-edged sword though: contrary to what you suggest, the term "provisional consensus" makes it easier to overturn claims of consensus for POV, since by definition, that "consensus" was only provisional.
• The escalation path in the proposed diagram (BCE) is relatively insignificant: with the above in place, it's need would be dramatically reduced.

We could proceed without the term "provisional consensus", for example, by replacing it on the diagram with "Start" (and the process paths "go back to the start"); though this would likely give a slower move towards our ultimate goal of maximising the number of edits that move the project directly towards community consensus. Uniplex (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

RC, though you still haven't answered the question in a way that could allow the diagram to improved, we now understand your objection: the diagram represents a change, and change, in your opinion, is bad. Here are some comments from Jimbo for you to ponder: "This enshrines old bad practices and privileges the past over the future ... That radically conservative attitude conflicts with WP:BOLD and WP:IAR". Uniplex (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that what he's trying to say? It's change and change is bad? Really? Wow. In any case, the proposed diagram seems like a change to how the policy is presented, but not a change to the policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is particularly alarming: "the best path to WP excellence comes from experienced editors working within a stable set of practices that are widely understood". Okay, so I'm not Jimbo, but I'm certain he'd say something more akin to: "WP excellence will come from simple, efficient practices that are easily understood by new editors". His comments just above (BOLD, IAR) are in reference to policy improvement. Uniplex (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so there we have it. You mistakenly believe that new editors, many of whom don't know what they're doing, will somehow make improvements, when it is pretty obvious that the backbone of WP is the experienced editors who do the bulk of the work. To undermine the experienced editors by destabilizing important policy is a destructive idea. So, yeah, wow, I have an idea about how to maintain a well-functioning institution. You don't.

Speaking of things that haven't been articulated, there is a gaping hole where the reason to change the policy should be. Uniplex? B2C? Any ideas about what you're trying to fix? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I should mention, for the record, that B2C and Uniplex have misstated my objections rather crudely. I don't have one objection, and they land on different levels of detail. It is not hard to understand (e.g.) that the proposed diagram can be read as different from current practice -- even if the advocates claim they don't intend that -- but that reading is very simple. Since we don't need this diagram, we should do with it what we do with all the proposed edits we don't need. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ring, I'm sure that you're already aware that Delete – No need is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, one to be avoided. As for the reasons for looking for improvement, several have already been given; you did not respond. Here are some again:

"There is no problem before us"...!!! Have you attended any RfCs lately? They're mostly freakin' disasters, inordinately inefficient, and the just the tip of the iceberg of the petty squabbles going on underneath. "a policy already functioning well"... Why do you think we've arrived here at this policy page? Because we've observed it functioning so abysmally. Also for consideration, why do you think, as has been reported, that "good editors are leaving WP in droves"? Jimbo himself complains that the project looks backwards instead of looking forwards. I'm astounded by how far removed from reality your statements appear to be. Uniplex (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you think happens to experienced editors? They leave. What will new editors become (if they don't run off screaming)? Experienced editors. Why do you ignore Jimbo's views? Do you even know who he is...? Uniplex (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I see the genetic fallacy in that reference to Jimbo, Uniplex. I'm sure Jimbo can speak for himself. I also don't know what you mean when you say that experienced editors leave, since the definition of an experienced editor is one who stays. I would take issue with the idea that the proposed diagram would make RfC's more efficient or that the policy on consensus is the cause of any problem. Depending on consensus is intrinsically difficult so it's unsurprising that there are sometimes problems; it is removed from reality to believe that there are rules for consensus that would obviate those problems. Even less do I accept that a flawed diagram that misstates the practice of page editing could improve the editing of pages. But I am open to good ideas about how to incrementally improve WP practices. You may recall that I mentioned the majority of the minority as a group that might be undervalued in our thinking. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ring, I guarantee that, one way or another, every experienced editor will leave WP; think about it. Sorry, but "the flawed diagram" is IDONTLIKEIT—there is nothing that can be done for such claims. The diagram does not embody any change to WP practice; it merely reflects (a substantial portion of) the current text. Uniplex (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If that is really your argument, Uniplex, it falls spectacularly flat on its face. I feel quite certain that we do not have a problem with mortality attrition among WP editors, and if, as you claim, the proposed diagram was put forward to solve the problem of editors lost to death, you painted yourself into a corner. This makes it clear that the diagram isn't proposed for a useful stated purpose. As for your assertion that the diagram would not change WP practice, this is pure speculation on your part and, based on my experience, certainly false. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

NB that Uniplex's account is less than four months old. Do you really expect someone who has been around for only four months and has less than a thousand edits to believe that he knows less than someone who has been around for far longer and has far more experience? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Break 3 (process diagram)

Consensus is the broad, community agreement that we strive for in making decisions on Wikipedia. True consensus (simultaneous agreement of the entire community) is never determined; instead, one or more editors make their best effort to estimate it and the result is deemed provisional, meaning that it may act in place of true consensus, providing that it is not subsequently challenged and replaced with a new, provisional consensus.

How this works in practice is depicted in the diagram and starts from A, the current state of a page. Changes (adding, removing, or modifying content) are most often made by single editor, judging that change is needed, and editing the page; this is shown by the path A→B→C→D→A.

To determine if and what change is warranted, an evaluation (B) per sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is made; this, even if by a single editor, best ensures that the result should constitute community consensus.

At D, all that is needed beyond editing the page (citing sources as appropriate), is to give an appropriate edit summary, including the reason for the change (e.g. "... per given source", or "... per guideline X").

Others who view the page may decide to change it further (ABCDA again) or give silent agreement (ABCA).

If it is unclear whether to make (or perhaps revert) a change, the issue is opened for discussion (E) at an article-, policy-, or other talk-page as appropriate, and evaluation (now a collaboration by a group of editors) resumes at B.

Though it may be revisited as necessary during the evaluation, the most important thing to first establish is the set of criteria by which the potential change will be judged.

This involves identifying which policies and guidelines apply particularly to the matter in hand, and determining which types of reliable source will be used to provide the evidence for the criteria to be assessed.

If multiple source types are considered pertinent, "weighting" them in some way is sometimes appropriate. For example, depending on the subject matter, mainstream press may be considered more or less authoritative than books on the subject. WP:RS and WP:NPOV discuss this in detail.

Once the criteria have been established, it should be a relatively straight-forward task to consult sources to gather the evidence required to make the decision. If the decision seems difficult then options include: gathering more evidence, reestablishing the criteria, or it may become apparent that the the discussion would be better moved to a more appropriate forum (e.g. from article-talk to guideline-talk).

Note that to maintain clarity in a group evaluation (whose members may "dip in and out" as their time allows), it can help on the talk page to keep established information (such as the criteria and the gathered evidence) separate from the journal of related discussion.

Let's remind ourselves of how this discussion started: problems with the current diagram. Despite its best intentions, the current diagram supports the following conclusions:

• any edit (including bad ones) has consensus if no other edit occurs on the same page (after 24hrs, say)
• any edit has consensus if other edits subsequently occur on the same page
• NPOV editors have to compromise with POV editors (so that a partial amount of POV material receives consensus)
• POV edit 1 modified by POV edit 2 makes for a strong, "sticky" consensus

These are serious problems for something that plays such a central role in WP's operation. It's no wonder that when day-to-day editing includes elements of the above, we end up with train-wreck RfCs. With this in the mix, editors just aren't sufficiently cognizant of WP's principles or best practice. If day-to-day editing didn't suffer from the above, most problems would be solved early on and few would even get to RfC.

The proposed diagram attempts specifically to address the problems in the current diagram, and thus be a good, base reference for what consensus is. It doesn't preclude having other diagrams which "unroll" particular paths worthy of specific comment. Problems with the proposed diagram raised and not addressed thus far:

• possibly open to misinterpretation

The writer's challenge is to present ideas clearly and concisely—are we not up to that challenge? If not, why are we even here? If we use the diagram and a problem occurs, we'll fix it. If we can't fix it, we'll revert and think again, based on the valuable knowledge that we gained in trying—to make WP better. Uniplex (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that your conclusions reflect reality? I think your conclusions are not realistic, certainly not under the scutiny that any bold edit attracts, and when push comes to shove, editors refer to the text, not to a simple diagram. However, I would like to encourage you make a more complete diagram, covering more of the details. This should be in addition to the simple diagram, which should come first. Experience is that "detailed and correct" inevitably is so complicated that it is not helpful as an introduction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Joe. I suspect that all of the "conclusions" I gave, do occur in WP to a certain extent (and I think WAID alluded to some of them, somewhere above); whether or not they occur because of the diagram, is hard to say—the existing diagram could be used to bolster such claims though. The proposed diagram covers a large number of scenarios and doesn't seem to have the same problems. In fact, just about everything that has been thrown at it so far, it has coped with. It doesn't include a "give up" option: I've hesitated to do so since a) it's fairly obvious that any process can be abandoned at any point, and b) it's a bit defeatist! (We have, of course, a text section on "no consensus"). Which are some of the most important details that you think should be included in the more complete diagram? I have an idea for describing best practice for consensus discussions, but I was thinking that this may be best in text... Uniplex (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where any of the objections have been knocked down. The proposed diagram still has the same problems that were mentioned from the beginning. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As equally does the present diagram. Do people not see by now that consensus-forming is not something that follows a diagrammatic process, and we would do better simply to abandon all attempts to illustrate this policy with diagrams?--Kotniski (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you distinguish processes that are "diagrammatic" from those which are not? I suggest that any process is diagrammatic, and that any process that is not diagrammatic is not a process. Are you saying consensus-forming is not a process? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I suppose - at least, not a single process with defined steps and paths that can realistically be represented on a diagram.--Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, then, I present the proposed diagram as a refutation. How, specifically, is the process of consensus-forming not represented by this diagram? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is currently the proposed diagram?--Kotniski (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest version now at the top of this section. Uniplex (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

All right, so this proposed diagram is possibly an improvement on the present diagram, but it still seems wrong to me - depending on how you interpret it (whether "evaluate" means individually or as a group), it implies either that any edit has "provisional consensus" regardless of how long or short a time it's stood, or that you can't make any change until it's been discussed by the group. Combine the two diagrams somehow (I mean the present one and the proposed one), and you might have something that starts to look acceptable. --Kotniski (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at my reply above (12:22, 29 November) which also covers a lot of this. Yes, any consensus decision is subject to being overturned at some unknown time in the future, so "provisional" is very apt. Are you referring to the group graphic? The reason it's there is because the view it presents is radically different and preferable to the pitched battles prevalent in many current discussions. It mustn't confuse though; I could perhaps move it under the arrow. I did at one point try to re-express the current diagram in terms of the proposed one, but it simply doesn't work: the current diagram allows things (see bullet points at the top of this section) that rightly, are not allowed by the logic of the proposed diagram. Uniplex (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Update: moved the graphic. Uniplex (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus is the broad, community agreement that we seek in making decisions on Wikipedia"? This seems inaccurate and subject to many interpretations, some of which could be false. If the whole community doesn't participate in a decision, is it still consensus? According to this sentence, maybe not. Uniplex tried to include this on the main page already and I reverted it. Now, it's almost like he might want to smuggle it in where it can't be edited. I'm sure he's not thinking that way but here it is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We strive for community consensus, but we only ever achieve an estimation of it, made frequently by no more than handful of editors. This is explained a bit more in the notes with the diagram above. @SmokeyJoe, per your suggestion, I've also added a first draft of an expansion of box B. Uniplex (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this sentence is inaccurate and misleading. Although it is vague, it still manages to misstate consensus according to the current policy and practice. Since we don't have a problem with consensus at the moment, it's unnecessary, and in any event mischaracterizing it is destructive. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It states it in a way that is compatible with the rest of the proposal: sometimes, incremental change is not appropriate. "we don't have a problem with consensus at the moment". Why do you think Jimbo had to step in and administer closure of the Pregnancy RfC this week? The current policy is expressed and depicted in terms of disagreement, persuasion, and compromise. Well, they disagreed, they couldn't persuade each other, and they wouldn't compromise—these are all facets of opinion, the antithesis of community consensus. Uniplex (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that's poor reasoning. I don't accept that the exceptional cases that are seen on RfC's constitute the norm, demonstrate a systemic problem, exemplify a chronic affliction, or reveal endemic failings. Does this diagram proposal do anything to help editors compromise? No. Is it, then, an attempt to change the practices of WP? If so, that should be done explicitly in the usual way, not smuggled in or accidentally included or incompetently overwritten. No, Uniplex, I'm afraid you haven't started to make your case. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Especially since even most RFCs aren't as contentious as that one, and most of them don't involve a binary choice between X and not-X (e.g., putting a nude in the lead, or not putting a nude in the lead: it is impossible for the lead to simultaneously contain "nudity" and "no nudity"). Most disputes are resolved pretty easily, through incremental changes, education (e.g., talking about the sources and the policies) and compromise (something that isn't possible with X/not-X disputes).

BTW, I think that dispute makes a poster child for the fact that true consensus is actually impossible, and that when (1) a decision must be made and (2) there is opposition from a significant minority, that the community does temporarily substitute a kind of majority rule for true consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Break4

The first of the listed "errors" is essentially wrong: "any edit (including bad ones) has consensus if no other edit occurs on the same page (after 24hrs, say)".

Actually, neither of the two points here is correct. A policy-violating edit never has consensus, full stop. You cannot have a consensus to violate the WP:COPYVIO policy. It is actually impossible. Secondly, the "after 24hrs" is nonsense. If a change is made and nobody looks at the page for the next ten years, and when they look at it, they remove it, then that edit does not have consensus. There is no magic time limit.

An edit has consensus when other people approve of it (or do not disapprove enough to remove it). There are various practical mechanisms for figuring out whether other people have approved of your change (passage of time, number of page views since the edit, talk page comments, subsequent change to the article, etc.) but it is the fact of approval, not the existence of these markers or indicators, that constitute consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's pointless to declare retrospectively that an edit that persisted for years did or did not have consensus. An edit may never have been disputed and reverted simply to restore balance after other editing—whether it ever had consensus though, no one knows. Philosophizing about this and what may or may not happen eventually, is a complete waste of time. Characterizing consensus as "provisional" is a practical way of avoiding all of the nonsense. Doing so merely reflects that WP:CCC: any consensus, regardless of its supposed "stickiness", may be overturned by another. So trying to measure stickiness with page views since the edit etc. is again, pointless in this respect. Uniplex (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an opinion that I do not share. Sometimes there is a significant point to declaring that the community does not and has never support a change, e.g., when apologizing for long-overlooked vandalism to the subject of a BLP who has complained. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And, yet, that's what the current diagram on this page (not the proposed one) indicates. That's the problem, and that was Uniplex's point. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The current diagram gives the option of the copyvio edit being rejected (e.g., by someone else editing the article to remove the copyvio). This is IMO an accurate reflection of reality and an appropriate description of how consensus works: if you commit a copyvio, someone will (eventually) discover it and remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. To the contrary, the current diagram strongly suggests that if the article is not edited further after some unspecified "Wait", the copyvio edit becomes "New consensus". The proposed diagram indicates the existing text needs to be evaluated per sources and policy before deciding how to proceed, which at least implies copyvio edits are not even "provisional consensus" (because they violate policy), much less "consensus" or "new consensus".

Further, the proposed diagram gives the same option of rejecting a copyvio change as does the current diagram. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposal should be placed in a form where all can edit it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• These new diagrams are not looking much like positive improvements. It seems to be misunderstood as to what is the role of a diagram in supporting text. The diagram necessarily must be a simplification of the text. If the legends and captions of the diagram begin to approach the detail of the text-proper, then the diagram fails its purpose. Another fundamental problem is that some people here are locked into an extremely cautious view of editing, one completely at odds with WP:BOLD and the slogan “you can edit right now”. This approach places unreasonable obstacles in front of an editor who can make an improvement right now, and creates a quagmire of inaction that becomes increasingly unfocused and entrenched. To the extent that this reflects a developing reality (see “verifiability not truth” at WT:V for an example of massive circles of discussion), you may have a point, but policy pages are not merely for describing latest practice, they should describe accepted best practice. Best practice is definitely not holding back on your edits until you are certain that you have consensus/agreement. If that was how we did things, the project would have not got to this point. If that is how things are to be, then its continued growth is to be stifled. Editors pushing for a cautious default process of building consensus here seem to be only at the level of beginner in Wikipedia:Levels of competence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • SmokeyJoe, do you think the proposed diagram encourages "holding back on your edits until you are certain that you have consensus/agreement"? If so, how? To me, I see A→[Evaluate possible change]→[Conclusion?]→(yes)→[Make the change].  Done. Where is the holding back?

    If not, why are you talking about this here? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Yes, without doubt. Firstly, the diagram itself. Is the editor newly stopping by required to read the diagram before making the improvement? Does the reading of WP:NPOV and WP:RS constitute a mandatory preliminary action before an edit is allowed. No, it must not, we don’t want that hurdle. More about the diagram: the caption includes so much text that by the time you have read it you will have lost your train of thought on the edit to be made. Or is it to be assumed that only WP:CONSENSUS experts will edit in future. Then, much worse, diagram II balloons in detail on what “evaluate” means. Is the diagram II process supposed to be copleted before "evaluate" is completed? This is way over the top for an introductory diagram. Step 1 must be no more complicated than “make an improvement”. Any more detail is to hold back the start of editorial process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
      • This is an absurd and unrealistic position. If someone from France flies into California and rents a car, he is expected to drive according to the rules. Does that imply reading the California Motor Vehicle Code first? Of course not. Similarly, WP editors are expected to edit in accordance with policy, but are not expected to read policy first. How? Because, just like driving rules, WP policy and guidelines largely coincide with common sense. The actual written rules (and helpful diagrams) are only needed for clarification and reinforcement when there are questions or conflicts. To interpret the diagram as introducing the hurdle that the diagram must be read before editing is to presume that all policy must be read before editing. Absurd!

        Point taken about too much text in the diagram, but that's beside the point we're discussing here. I think I agree the more detailed 2nd diagram is not needed. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that my position is at all absurd, or that you make any points saying that it is absurd. Perhaps we are talking cross points. Are you arguing that WP:IAR should be overturned?

Editing wikipedia is *not* like driving. There is nothing reasonable that any person can do that can’t be undone. They can’t break the project. They can’t break the interface. Newcomers have always been told to jump in and edit. Do you want to change this? Editing wikipedia is better compared to learning to crawl.

You second absurd is absurd. No diagram should be considered read unless it is read, at least through one cycle depicted, and all relevant caption. Even then, irrelevant caption must be read to know that it is irrelevant. This is a significant hurdle, unless your position is that few will read the diagram. If few will read the diagram, then what is its purpose?

About the first diagram (whether the current, or whatever is to be the first diagram). Do you disagree that the first action, to be found near the top left, is an initial edit? If you disagree, I feel this line needs to be pursued. The vast majority of pages have no recent activity. If you agree that an initial edit belongs at the top left, then you should agree that the offered diagram needs change.

My preference is to keep the current diagram. I cannot understand any of the objections, other than complaints that it is not the complete truth, which I consider a feature, not a bug. An initial diagram should be as simple as possible while still being workable for simple cases. A subsequent diagram of more detail would do well to be included if it were reference along the lines of “if the process illustrated above fails, try the diagram below”. One should always try the simplest, most common approach first.

Have you yet read the relevant archives (Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_3 to Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_6) which contain the history of how we got to be here with the current simple diagram? It feels like new editors want to start from scratch for no good reason.

There was a lot of interest in a more complete diagram. I still think it is a worthwhile idea, but that it should be an expansion of a simple diagram. “Engage others” is missing from the current simple diagram, and is important when a small number are at loggerheads. “Make an edit” is an excellent first method to engage others, but it’s return diminishes with use. The concept of attracting further opinions was present in this diagram, File:CCC Flowchart 4.jpg, for example. We now have the page Wikipedia:Publicising discussions responsible for providing advice on “engaging others”.

Any process of consensus building is thwarted by Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, bad faith, trolls or kooks, for example. A recommended consensus building process should refer to the possibility of needing to resort to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

I’m not so certain that I agree that the more detailed 2nd diagram is not needed. I see clear purpose for it. Many poor discussions (including this one) suffer from unclear criteria. Personally, I recommend use of the next edit to define the ongoing discussion, but I can’t deny that on popular contentious pages there is an expectation that editors will desist from repeating reverted edits, and in the case of multiple distinct reverted edits, defining the problem is a worthwhile challenge. However, I’m not familiar with that ever working without “compromise”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot to discuss here, but I've only got a couple of mins just now. Remember that Consensus is policy and (per the current lead) V & NPOV are very important considerations for WP. Be Bold is a guideline which uses a slogan to try to get people to join the project. However, its message (if you read further) is actually "Be bold, but be careful", an oxymoron. You can't have your cake and eat it. But that problem is one to be conjured with with a "marketing" hat on over at BOLD; here, we're dealing strictly with policy. The notes with the diagram espouse the underlying philosophy of evaluation and Community consensus (which are mentioned in the current text but, for historical reasons, mixed in with opinion-related philosophy. which should be very much secondary), so much of the notes for the proposed diagram could probably become part of the text. Uniplex (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Uniplex. Yes, WP:Consensus is tagged as policy. This happened relatively lately for kind of a funny reason. It is, regardless of tag, more a guiding page than an rule page, and it is hard to read it otherwise. WP:Consensus is better described as a principle than a policy (I’m tempted to re-tag). WP:V and WP:NPOV are very important, yes, but this is going off-track. It is not for WP:Consensus to elevate WP:V and WP:NPOV above WP:NOR among the core policies, or among any of the policies. I believe, directly and indirectly from what you have said here and previously, that you misinterpret “bold”. Bold is not incompatible with careful.

I think I largely get where you are coming from, and largely agree in general if not in detail. What do you think of File:CCC Flowchart 4.jpg? Can you image anything better that could use it as a template? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. That decisions are made by consensus is the principle (correctly located at WP:5P). That consensus is "determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" is the statement of policy (bizarrely buried deeply in the current page). How to make edits that are likely to have consensus is the guideline. So the policy statement should be on its own page (a short policy, but then so is IAR). I suggest that we do this before continuing further, as it will help to put everything else in the correct perspective. Uniplex (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

About flowchart 4: it's hard to see the policy statement reflected in this flowchart; the decision points tend to suggest editor opinion may be a significant contributor to the decision process. Uniplex (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, we're not understanding each other. I'll try to be more clear. You wrote: "Firstly, the diagram itself. Is the editor newly stopping by required to read the diagram before making the improvement?". I took this question to be rhetorical, and taking the position that the proposed diagram somehow implies that new editors are required to read the diagram before editing. If that's not what you meant to convey with the question I just quoted, what is? If it is what you mean to convey, that is the position that I found to be absurd, and I explained why.

Of course knowing and following the rules while driving is much more important than while editing WP because when driving lives are stake. But my point is that even with driving reading the vehicle code is not required. So if the existence of the vehicle code and the expectation that drivers know and follow the rules in the vehicle code does not mean drivers are expected to read the vehicle code, why would you think the existence of the drawing and the expectation that editors do what it says implies an expectation that editors are required to read it before editing? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, my main point there is that the diagram is too complicated, and on an editor's first reading it isn’t relevant to the simplest most common process of consensus building. I asked you a number of simple direct questions above. It would help me if you answered them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposed diagram foundered on the contradictions of its aims. It cannot be honestly maintained that it would not have altered the policy, yet that objection was repeatedly answered with the claim that it merely reflected policy. Also, I sense mission creep: there was a wish to diagram all of 'editing' not 'consensus'. But what is the Frame of consensus? In some way it is the ghost world double of all Wikipedia activity. Apart from that, SmokeyJoe mentions rightly that the current diagram does not include engagement; I have mentioned myself that it says nothing about discussion, where, for the purposes of consensus, the heavy lifting is done. That said, the proposed diagram was just way too detailed to work as an adjunct to the article. The usual purpose of a flow chart is to represent visually the flow of data or decisions concomitant to a process; this proposal went beyond that aim with all of its notes, seeking to define what the policy does not; that is why this effort didn't work. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the effort is still ongoing, so it's inappropriate to use the past tense. But how about my simpler solution - simply remove the present diagram, and don't worry too much about replacing it? Why is everyone so attached to the thought that there has to be a diagram in this policy? Do any other policies have diagrams? Given that any diagram anyone has come up with so far has been fundamentally faulty - why insist on including a diagram in this policy?--Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What is faulty, much less fundamentally faulty, with the proposed diagram? --Born2cycle (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I did answer this above, and I don't really understand Uniplex's point in reply. This diagram shows "making change" as coming right at the end of the process. So (depending on how you interpret the diagram) it means EITHER we're not allowed to make bold changes OR any editor's decision to make a change counts as a new (provisional) consensus. Moreover there doesn't seem to be anything in either the present diagram or the proposed diagram that actually relates to the subject of consensus-building. The existing diagram is basically a representation of the WP:BRD process, and would be better off being put on that page (and that page should be advertised as more than a mere essay, but that's another matter). The proposed diagram seems not to say anything except that decisions are made (somehow) and then acted on. None of this has much to do with how we reach and evaluate consensus, which is supposedly the topic of this page, and which (I continue to believe) is too multifaceted and multipathed a process to admit of any useful diagrammatic representation.--Kotniski (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, while the existing diagram fits very well with WP:BRD (and do you deny that WP:BRD is a very successful method for quickly finding concensus in cases where consensus is to be found?), the existing diagram is an accurate representation of the process described in the second paragraph of the lede.

The existing diagram very nicely serves the purpose of illustrating (a supplementary form of communication to the text) how consensus building works with editing a wiki page. There used to seem to be a problem that many intermediate editors thought that in the face of a single objection, consensus needed to be achieved through discussion before further editing. That approach would lead to endless unfocused, tangential, interpersonal point scoring essay writing on talk pages. The diagram helps. It doesn’t hurt – nobody misquotes the diagram. Your only sound objection seems to be that it leaves stuff out, and that objection logically suggests the addition of more complete diagrams. I think that to remove the current diagram entirely would be a backward step. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, the purpose of the proposed diagram is to promote best (or at least better) practice (and as above, this is in fact guideline, not policy). An edit made in consideration of policy & guidelines is more likely to have community consensus than one made without it—that's really all the diagram is saying. The details of how to make the decision is covered in the second diagram. Uniplex (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still disagreeing with both sides here. The BRD cycle is just one aspect of the topic of this page, and doesn't need to be overemphasized with a diagram (or if it is, it should be captioned to make clear that it's just one part of the consensus-forming process). And if we want to tell people that a single objection doesn't preclude further editing, then we should say that clearly in the text - the diagram doesn't seem to convey clearly any point of that nature. I'm not saying that the diagram is especially harmful, but it seems to give the impression that consensus is all about following some strictly defined procedure, whereas in fact multiple actions are possible at any point provided they're done in good faith and with common sense. And this objection also applies to the proposed diagram (or any diagram) - and also, if the diagram is saying only "an edit made in consideration of policy...is more likely to have community consensus", then again, that's a sentence to put in the text, not a concept to try to illustrate with a diagram that doesn't even make that point particularly clearly.--Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with, and indeed I don't think any of us quite understands any other, but I think I agree with everything in your last post. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RC, why are you so fatalistic about this effort? In post after post rather than making specific suggestions on how to make the proposal acceptable, you express very general and barely comprehensible objections to it. This doesn't feel like a collaborative effort with you; rather, it seems like argument for the purpose of argument.

For example, you write: "It cannot be honestly maintained that it would not have altered the policy, yet that objection was repeatedly answered with the claim that it merely reflected policy." What? Yes, it can be honestly maintained that (a) the proposed diagram does not alter the policy, and (b) the proposed diagram merely reflects policy. It doesn't change policy, it reflects policy. What is contradictory about that? What is the point of writing such nonsense? At least I can't make any sense out of it.

You also finally concede (you say you've acknowledged this before, but I must have missed it) that the current diagram fails to say anything about engagement, and yet you don't explain why that is not reason enough to warrant an improvement that you could support, not to mention all of the other shortcomings we've mentioned about the current diagram before.

I disagree that this proposal seeks to define what the policy does not, but even if it did that, why not point out what exactly that extra stuff is and explain why you think it goes beyond policy, so we can discuss it and see about removing it to make it acceptable to you? Why instead you again choose to make these unproductive nonspecific objections is puzzling, and quite frustrating, frankly. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So you are mistaken, B2C. The proposal would have changed the policy. I suppose I could equally lament your failure to collaborate because you pursued a project I considered poorly conceived. In fact, your goal was to write a diagram for the page; my goal is to improve the page. I mentioned repeatedly that over-specification or over-definition of practices or terms will yield unintended consequences. That was a very practical consideration. Since you seemed to believe that we could eliminate unintended consequences, I simply had to keep pointing out the types of errors that will arise. Good results come from experienced editors with stable policies; I'm impressed by the absence of any reasoned contradiction of that idea. (Mockery was tried but the idea survived.) So, you see, my objections were not the least bit abstruse. True, you couldn't change a word here or there to paper over our disagreement. But until there was a reason to add a diagram, I didn't see why adding a diagram would have been good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please explain as clearly and specifically as you can how exactly policy would be changed by including the proposed diagram on this page.
• Please explain as clearly and specifically as you can why the issues identified with the current diagram - including it failing to say anything about engagement - is not reason to genuinely try to improve it.

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how policy would be changed, but it is evident that the diagram proposed says something different and is easily interpreted to imply things different from the policy text. When the diagram is different from the policy and a certain sort of dispute arises, editors might find support in the diagram (policy change) or the policy will be sufficient (otiose diagram). Possibly the proposed diagram differs not at all from policy. Then it lacks a reason. I should mention that there is a justifiable resistance to including something in the article that cannot be edited. That can lead to distortions of the editorial process here as edits are fitted around the diagram text. So it doesn't seem to be working and has too many trap doors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, RC. Above, you made the unqualified statement, "The proposal would have changed the policy. " Now you not only admit that you don't know how it would be changed, but that "Possibly the proposed diagram differs not at all from policy." Are you Newt Gingrich? ;-) No wonder I've been having so much trouble comprehending what your objection is.

The purpose of a diagram on such a page is never to say something different from the text; but to say the same thing as some part of the text is intended to convey in a way that may be more accessible/comprehensible to some ("A picture is worth a thousand words...") If the diagram says something different from the text, then we're not doing our jobs. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my objections stand and are extremely clear. Your restatement is tendentious, but it's a good illustration of the kinds of problems that the proposed diagram would present. Imagine: you took my words and willfully attempted to form a meaning that suited you instead of me. You left out some things, you misinterpreted others and you did that very quickly for reasons that had to do with your wish to appear unpersuaded. Not a very good job, in my opinion, but that kind of word twisting and hair splitting is exactly the problem that the proposed diagram would visit on Consensus. Thank you for the excellent illustration of precisely the problem I'm wishing to avoid. Someone determined to misread a text can do it and believe in their own good faith at the same time. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't twist anything, Ring. If you intended to convey anything other than an assertion that the proposed diagram is different from policy with the sentence, "The proposal would have changed the policy", don't blame me for twisting. That is the plain and simple interpretation of those words in the context in which they were written.

Similarly, you also conveyed, given a plain and simple interpretation of your later words in the context in which they were written, that you were not sure at all that the proposal would change policy.

Which is it, and how the hell is anyone supposed to know from reading your words? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The proposed diagram is in no state to add. As an initial diagram, it is too complicated. It is not obvious where the newly arriving editor starts. There are multiple decision points to pass before an obvious newly insightful solution may be applied. It does not apply to the vast majority of improvements where there is no opposition. As a supplemetary diagram, it is too brief, being little more than an more wordy, more stops version of the current simple diagram. It is not, however, fundamentally flawed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposed diagram is fundamentally flawed. It calls all edits, even edits for which consensus is actually impossible, to have "provisional consensus". It goes directly from "make the change" to "you have consensus", with no intervening opportunity for evaluation, objections, reversions, or modifications by other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I hold back from "fundamentally" because, for example, I consider "provisional consensus" and variations to be semantics for "new version of the page". There are numerous problems, none undoubtedly impossible to fix. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If anything's fundamentally flawed, it's the idea that this page is about a process that can be diagrammed. Just drop the idea that we have to have a diagram anywhere on this page, and the problem will immediately go away, and we can start working on the wording of the policy text, which is a long way from ideal.--Kotniski (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Frame

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

1. Consensus is a state, not a process

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

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

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

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

Goal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who determines the quality of arguments?

The policy says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Create consensus on lead here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by ...by editors' consensus."

The WP:NPOV policy says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No consensus in the mainspace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Violates consensus"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No consensus section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Start of "rough consensus" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rough consensus is not "majority rule".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silly result

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

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

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

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

Mentoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead again

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

How about the lead incorporating both our concerns by reading:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about this as a way of dealing with no consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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