Wikipedia:Consensus/No consensus RfC 2022

This RfC is under construction. You may add the page to your watchlist but please do not add your response until the RfC begins. Anyone interested in helping with the development of this RfC is welcome. BRD applies or post your suggestions on the talk page. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC to determine if the community supports Wikipedia:Consensus § No consensus (point 3)

To resolve a conflict between policy stipulations and editing practice, it is necessary to determine if the community supports the policy or not. Therefore, this RfC asks: Should the policy provision at Wikipedia:Consensus § No consensus (point 3) regarding contested administrator actions, be retained?

Background (No consensus RfC)

Wikipedia:Consensus § No consensus (point 3) was added to the policy in 2011.[1] Consensus for its inclusion exists through discussion,[2] and through editing.[3] Please give your response with all due consideration.

The conflict

• In practice, when discussions of contested administrator actions result in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally left standing. — Often called "maintaining the status quo" (where status quo means: the existing state of affairs at the end of the discussion). In some scenarios, it can confer an advantage on the first admin to act.
  • Scenario 1: Alice takes an admin action. Subsequent discussion does not reveal consensus for or against. Alice's action is kept.
  • Scenario 2: Alice takes an admin action. Bob reverts it. Subsequent discussion does not reveal consensus for or against. Bob's reversion is kept.
• In policy, Wikipedia:Consensus § No consensus (point 3) stipulates a different result, saying: "When discussions of contested administrator actions result in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." — Often called "restoring the status quo ante" (where status quo ante means: the state in which [things were] before). In some scenarios, it can confer an advantage on the second admin.
  • Scenario 3: Alice takes an admin action. Subsequent discussion does not reveal consensus for or against. Alice's action is reverted.
  • Scenario 4: Alice takes an admin action. Bob reverts it. Subsequent discussion does not reveal consensus for or against. Alice's action remains reverted.

This illustrates the difference between policy and practice. It is the conflict this RfC endeavors to resolve.

Important points

• The policy language, normally reverted, does not mean always reverted, and though examples are not listed, exceptions do exist.
• Wikipedia policy is self-defined at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, saying: "Policies are standards all users should normally follow".
• The scope of this RfC is limited to whether Wikipedia:Consensus § No consensus (point 3) has community support to be retained or not.

The way forward

To resolve the discrepancy between policy and practice, this RfC proposes that we must either:

• Change the policy to align with practice.

  Consensus not to retain the policy provision changes policy enough to align it with practice.

Or:

• Change the practice to align with policy.

  Consensus to retain the policy provision necessitates some change in practice (namely the manner of closing discussions of contested administrator actions).

Publishing responses

The RfC question asks the community, in the simplest possible way: should Wikipedia:Consensus § No consensus (point 3) be retained? Accordingly, the simplest way to frame your response is to begin with either yes or no, followed by any additional comments you wish to included. For example:

• Yes the policy provision should be retained and discussion closers should begin following it.

Or:

• No unused policy is unneeded policy, it should not be retained.

Publish it in the "Responses" section. Threaded discussion underneath responses is allowed but please ensure that the commentary is relevant and necessary. Otherwise, please discuss it in the "General discussion" section. Thank you for participating in this RfC. Best regards.

General discussion (No consensus RfC)

• Demote WP:NOCONSENSUS, the entire section, from the policy. Instead, point to another page that speaks to what to do when consensus is not yet reached. "No consensus", whether the hypothetical case that consensus cannot ever be reached, or a closer's call that the current situation is "no consensus" is out of scope of WP:Consensus, which is a policy about the centrality of consensus, the importance of getting to it, and some guidance on how to get to it.
  Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus is bloaty, and its subsection Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus is especially bloat. It's right that these things are mentioned in the policy, but this policy is not the right page for primary reference of authority on these matters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:What "no consensus" means#Blocking and other admin actions (an essay) states "When discussing the appropriateness of a block (or other admin action), a discussion that results in "no consensus" should result in the reversal of that admin action.". This will need revising if the outcome of this RfC is to change the policy. Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Isn't it more pertinent to find out why this policy point is not followed? If it is policy it should be applied, period. Whether this involves one erroneous practice or a million is immaterial. If practice is wrong, embedding it does not make it right. If policy is wrong/no longer accepted then a wide and deep discussion can establish the way forward. But it probably is not wise to relate policy and practice the way it is asked here. Discuss and decide policy, then apply it to practice. Until it is untenable to do so, for valid reasons. Then go back to discussing policy rather than subverting it in practice. This road is one-way. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Except, the way we work here is that policy is supposed to reflect practice… so if practice has changed, policy should change as well. That said, has practice actually changed? Some statistics would be helpful. Blueboar (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Not wanting to get into a chicken-and-egg question, but per WP:POLICY, all policies (including the conduct policy under discussion) "describe best practices", they do not reflect them. It seems practice is result, not cause? 65.88.88.57 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Policies are supposed to "describe best practices", meaning that first there is a best practice, and then that practice gets written down ("described") in a policy page. With rare exceptions, we put reality first, and documentation second. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Is that so? Policies codify best practices after presumably thorough, wide discussion. Once a policy is so decided though, practice may not deviate from it except in rare cases that are also presumably scrutinized in detail. Otherwise why have policies? So if a policy point is consistently being subverted/ignored/misapplied in practice, is it going to be thought of as de facto overturned, without any investigation of why this discrepancy between policy & practice exists? Before even we get to asking whether the apposite practice is justified. Also keeping in mind that Wikipedia policies are universal in the sense that they impact directly or indirectly all constituencies. Practices though are restricted to just one small constituency, the editors. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)