Wikipedia talk:Consensus

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

Protected edit request on 7 December 2014

37.230.25.130 (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

NOT DONE... As we told the editor directly above, we need to know the specifics of the edit you are requesting. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Forum shopping or something else?

Discussion should generally occur over a dispute to at least some degree to try to reach consensus before going outside an article talk page to the noticeboards (reliable sources, original research, etc.), or other forms of dispute resolution. However, can going to a noticeboard too quickly be a form of forum shopping when this is done repeatedly on different topics over time? This is different than a single dispute being brought up at multiple noticeboards in quick succession that WP:FORUMSHOP currently mentions. For something that could be considered a slightly more worse-case scenario, say an editor opens a talk page section, gets a reply or two they don't agree with, immediately opens a thread at WP:NPOVN before even making their second reply on the article talk page, and continues this behavior in different topics on the talk page over time.

To me this seems to violate the spirit of discouraging forum shopping, yet it's not explicitly mentioned either. On one hand, going to a noticeboard can be beneficial at the right time to get uninvolved editors input. However, doing this too early basically shuts down the conversation on the article talk page, and can result in it not even being clear where the dispute really is when it hasn't been talked out at all at the article yet. I'm curious what folks think of this scenario and if something should be added to this page about it? I don't think there's really a bright line for this behavior, just like we have with currently defined forum shopping or 3RR. Maybe it's just a matter of stressing to such editors that an attempt to reach consensus should occur first on the article talk page before going to noticeboards. Do we have something in existing policy that can drive this point home to editors when the behavior becomes problematic, or is this somewhat new territory? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A distinction needs to be made between dispute resolution, per se, and other noticeboards. All content dispute resolution forums and processes — 3O, DRN, MEDCOM, and to a much lesser extent RFC — require thorough talk page discussion before seeking help there and those restrictions are vigorously enforced in the first three forums. (While that discussion should take place on the article talk page, we're — I say "we" because I regularly work in all three of those forums — pretty lenient on it taking place somewhere else, such as user talk pages or other noticeboards, so long as it takes place somewhere.) Having gone past the true DR forums, I don't think that going to other kinds of noticeboards fairly quickly ought to be prohibited as a general rule. Since those forums are neither tribunals nor dispute resolution forums, they exist for obtaining advice. Once it's clear that a conflict has arisen, which can easily happen after just one or two article talk page comments, then such advice can be useful in clearing up one or the other editor's misconceptions about how things work here. There's no need for editors to continuously reinvent the wheel when one or the other of them is pretty clearly wrong or when both editors are clueless. It's a somewhat different situation when a particular editor always jumps to the noticeboards whenever they are first challenged, but even then it kind of depends on the circumstances. If it's an experienced editor who does that whenever he's challenged by a clueless (and usually-wrong) newcomer or POV pusher, I don't see much harm in that. Ditto if it's a newcomer who's using the noticeboards to feel his or her way along while learning the ropes. It's only when it's someone who is doing it to knowingly manipulate the system that I think it could be objectionable and that can be dealt with as disruptive editing on a case by case basis. No, I think that such a rule could be more counterproductive than helpful by discouraging people from seeking advice and reducing conflict and disruption. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The scenario I'm mainly thinking of is when we're dealing with experienced editors who repeatedly do this to the point where the noticeboard post seems intended to supplant article talk page conversation when the editor knows they tend not to get traction with other regulars on ideas. Basically, it seems the discussion is being shifted immediately to the noticeboard for a different forum rather than using the noticeboard to answer a pointed question. Definitely a case-by-case thing, so I definitely agree that a hard rule could easily be problematic as it could be double-edged towards newcomers, etc.

The main part of this page I'm looking at though is Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions. There we're basically told to go to the noticeboards after discussion has failed. If it appears there's hasn't been a good faith attempt towards discussion though, is that the best part of this page we have to direct people towards to trying to focus on discussion first? Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To some degree, it depends on which noticeboard you are talking about, and why you are taking the issue to that noticeboard. For example, if you want to know whether some source is reliable, it is absolutely appropriate to ask for opinions at WP:RSN... that's primarily what the noticeboard is for. And it is not out of line to ask there before you challenge the source on the article talk page. The editors who answer questions there tend to be very experienced and understand the subtle nuances of reliability.

The NPOV noticeboard, on the other hand, is more of a "complaints board"... a place to call for help when you have been unsuccessfully trying to resolve a POV problem. But then the goal of that noticeboard is to bring third party opinions into existing discussions (and usually a posting to NPOVN results in more eyes at the article, as opposed to a discussion and resolution at the noticeboard). Blueboar (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No consensus defaults written in policy at WP:TITLECHAGES

Regarding this series of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=649896570&oldid=649284018

I object to this policy paraphrasing another policy at the same or similar level of detail given at the other policy. It sets up a situation where it is very unclear which refers to which, and which has precedence in case of differences of meaning. There is an interspersed history of editors interested in changing other policies making additions or changes at this policy page as a side route for making changes there. That is a very unhealthy way to develop consensus. I have changes the reference here to a direct quote, but I think this policy should probably only point directly to the section and paragraph, and avoid appearing to represent a statement of titling policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Too many shortcuts

Dustin V. S. (talk · contribs) has re-reverted[1] to reinsert his recent unused creation, WP:NOCON, a shortcut pointing to Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus.

Firstly, there are too many shortcuts littering policy and guideline pages, and inclusion of more barely intuitive, never used, jargon-encouraging, bright blue ALLCAPSONEWORDS is not good for the project, mainly because they decrease accessibility for newcomers.

Secondly, the section should not be the subject of encouraged policy short cut linking. The section is not proper policy per se, but links to other policy mentions of "no consensus". Referring to this section as the policy source for "no consensus" creates circular referencing.

His logic, that there are other cases of excessing shortcut advertising in prominent boxes on policy pages is no reason to add to the problem. Individually should not be entitled to add their own recently created previously unused shortcuts to policy page. Note that this in no way limited the creation of the redirect, or use of the redirect, just its pasting on the policy page.

See also the similar issue discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry/Archive_13#How_many_advertised_shortcuts_to_the_policy_page.3F. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mixture of consensus and no consensus

I have just added this paragraph:

“ In situations where there is consensus that something ought to be changed in an article, but there is no consensus about how to change it, and there is no consensus that any change should be made absent consensus about how to change it, then normal practice is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. This assumes that the material in question is not about living people. ”

I strongly believe that this policy should address this kind of hybrid situation which in my experience is quite common. I made a similar proposal here years ago, but perhaps there will be a better reception now. For the record, this is not motivated by any article that I have edited this year, nor will I ever cite this paragraph if it is accepted into the policy, for the rest of my life (nor thereafter).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition so it can be talked out here. I get your point, but I am very mildly opposed to the change simply because it addresses too narrow a sub-issue of what's already adequately covered in the first bullet point of the NOCON section. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The first bullet point says: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." First of all, that bullet point can be easily understood (or misunderstood) as referring to deletion of entire articles, as indicated at the link, although it does mention "other content" at the end of the sentence.

More importantly, even if that bullet point clearly referred to deletion of something within an article, that would not cover additions or replacements. And even if it did cover additions and replacements, that first bullet point only covers situations where there is no consensus, whereas the proposed paragraph specifically says there is consensus that something ought to be changed. Other than that, however, you are 100% correct to delete the paragraph. 😍 I would like to have it restored.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

My bad. I meant the second bullet point, which does cover those things. (Memo to self: Must remember to use fingers and toes to count next time.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I read bullet point two carefully before proposing the additional paragraph, and deliberately borrowed some of its language. Bullet point two begins this way (emphasis added): "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The proposed paragraph specifically says there is consensus that something in an article ought to be changed. So it's apples and oranges. Over the years I have encountered situations where someone will say, hey, there's consensus to change something in the article, so then s/he plunges in and starts an edit war or the like, even though there was never any consensus about how to change the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I do get your point, but see it differently (and this may well be one of those glass half-empty/half-full things). Consensus that the article needs to be changed is only half the process towards changing it and the process is not complete until the how is worked out. Until that second half is complete, there's not really any consensus to do or not do anything and there's still, in terms of the second bullet point, a lack of consensus. But as I say, I do get your point but I still feel as I did, above. Let's wait to see if anyone else who monitors this page cares to weigh in. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)