Closing as resolved as both involoved editors have agreed to ignore previous contested consensuses and have a fresh RfC. Both editors have indicated they intend to respect the result of the RfC regardless of the outcome Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
A few months ago a dispute arose on the 'Skyfall' article regarding the identification of a character within the plot section that gave a misleading impression of the narrative. A consensus was reached and mediated by an administrator that the plot section should reflect the narrative and the change was made. The discussions can be seen here: diff and diff.
The final decision was as follows:
"When weighing consensus on a closely divided issue like this one a critical factor is which poisition has the support of Wikipedia policies or common practices. Policy says Wikipedia contains spoilers so any comments that it was a spoiler are given less weight. Policy also says that generally an item should be linked the first time it is mentioned. However, there is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film. The rest of the article is of course explicitly exempt from this. So, as amatter of policy we could use the characters full name and link it the first time the character is mentioned in the plot, but there is nothing saying we have to. It seems alterations were made to the article during the course of this discussion to try and reconcile the two options and that there are not any serious objections. It seems prudent to simply leave it at that and consider the current arrangement the "consensus version" of those aspects of the plot summary. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)"
The objection is that to reveal the character's identity at the beginning of the plot section is a mischaracterization of the plot and a consensus was achieved via this November 2012 RFC to not reveal her identity, either directly or via wikilink, until the end of the plot section. In the eight months since that time, however, editors have on occasion inserted a link there in violation of the RFC decision and those insertions have remained in place for several weeks before being reverted. I assert that the RFC consensus still stands and a new consensus must be formed before reinserting the link and SchroCat asserts that the interim unchallenged changes created a new implied consensus for inclusion of the link.
The reasoning behind the RFC decision remains valid and I see no requirement to open a second discussion on this matter that would simply re-state old arguments when no new relevant material or evidence can be brought to bear here.
SchroCat's assertion that the information is a "spoiler" and was a reason advanced for its ommission is a straw man. This was not a factor in the consensus or the admin's decision which is why the identity of the character remains in the lead section prior to the plot description. Any reference made to "spoilers" is an attempt to deflect the argument. The objection and previous decision were, and are, based solely on the fact that it is a misrepresentation of the narrative.
I reject SchroCat's assertions that unchallenged changes (at least until they were noticed) represent a new "status quo" or a "de-facto" consensus. Consensus was reached and the reasoning remains valid unless there are new arguments that can convincingly rebut the reasons for the existing decision.
Additionally, SchroCat asserts that "the previous RfC was closed on the available information at the time. Subsequent to that decision, DonQuixote has pointed out that neither the first or surname for the character are known until the final scene". This information was in fact available at the time - the film has not been edited since then. If therefore there is no reason to identify the character as Eve, there can be no reason to identify her as Eve Moneypenny, either.
He also asserts, "there seems no reason to withhold a surname until the end but have the first name up front - that's completely illogical. It's also farcical to have the first line of the plot as "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed female operative...".
I would rebut this by pointing out the previous RFC: "There is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film". Thus, to use the full name of the character at this point is a clear mischaracterization of the narrative as it implies the identity of the character has been revealed, when it fact it is explicitly and deliberately not revealed until the concluding moments of the narrative. SchroCat's opinion that it is "farcical" is purely his own opinion.
SchroCat quotes WP:FILMPLOT as follows: "Events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen". I would rebut this with the previous RFC decision which stated with reference to the misrepresentation of the narrative, "So, as a matter of policy we could use the characters full name and link it the first time the character is mentioned in the plot, but there is nothing saying we have to", because as stated, to do so in this instance is to misrepresent the narrative as told.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Previous discussion and consensus reached as above.
For the avoidance of doubt - the debate was not about "spoilers" and the decision was reached without any consideration of "spoilers". As can be clearly read, the decision was made because, "...common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film". Nothing about "spoilers". That's a straw man and irrelevant to the discussion. Nsign (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
How do you think we can help?
I request that this user be instructed that a consensus exists and a decision made. Without further consensus they are violating this decision without any justification or mandate, and should refrain from editing the section unless they can provide any reason not already covered.
Or just call her Eve. As previously agreed by consensus and RFC. Nsign (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by SchroCat
An RfC was opened in October 2012 when the film was recently released (although not in all territories). Much of the debate was around the complaints that having the name up front was a spoiler to the film, which has lessened now that the film has been out for some time. At that time—October 2012—a consensus was achieved from the RfC not to have the name up front. It is now eight months later and the consensus has changed. In March an IP editor altered the text to put the Moneypenny link at the top of the plot. Since then DonQuixote has reverted a change back to the previous version, as have I. With the Moneypenny name being present at the top over the last eight months, there is an implied consensus in having it where it currently is, despite the mild edit-warring of Nsign to try and force the change to his preferred version once again, and despite his comments that I "fart around with justifications" while discussing the matter on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd agree with the term "in violation of the RfC", but yes, an IP editor inserted the term (not "several weeks" ago but four months ago, on 19 March). The name has remained in the opening lines of the plot section since that date. In other words, it has spent as much time in the opening lines as the previous version did. The consensus that existed eight months ago has changed in the interim to what is now the new status quo, and as such is a de facto consensus.
On a related point, I'm not sure that DRN is the right way to address this point: there was scarcely much of a discussion before this was opened and an RfC would seem to have been the more sensible and appropriate course to take. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I should add that the previous RfC was closed on the information made clear at the time. Subsequent to that decision, DonQuixote has pointed out that neither the first or surname for the character are know until the final scene. There seems no reason to withhold a surname until the end but have the first name up front - that's completely illogical. It's also farcical to have the first line of the plot as "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed female operative...". As per WP:FILMPLOT, "events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen", to aid the reader, and this is the case with the status quo that is present on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd also add that the talk page thread on this has confirmed that a consensus clearly has been formed that the current version is valid and preferred, with only Nsign preferring the old consensus. Most of those who have commented have pointed out how this is possible under the various policies and guidelines that we use for film plots. The previous RfC decision was based on erroneous information provided, and the closing summary that "practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully", is not strictly true. Most plot summaries on Wiki are not 100% faithful to the film narratives: they move names and information around to aid reader. This is exactly as per WP:FILMPLOT, which states "events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. If necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot". This is exactly what we have in place at the moment: a very, very minor re-ordering to aid understanding and to avoid the frankly ridiculous and farcical alternative of having to refer to "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed agent..." in opening line, "Bond arrives in time to join Mallory and the same unnamed female agent from the opening scenes..." partway through the plot and then finishing with "Following M's funeral, the previously unnamed female agent who we've seen twice already, introduces herself as...". Farcical indeed! - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not either "taking" or opening this for discussion at this time, but merely asking for a clarification. I've read through the opening material and am not at all certain that I understand the situation, so let me see if I can sum it up correctly: There is a character named Eve in the film who appears early on and who towards the end of the film is surprisingly revealed to be Miss Moneypenny. To reveal her identity at the beginning of the plot section was seen by some as a spoiler and/or a mischaracterization of the plot and a consensus was achieved via this November 2012 RFC to not reveal her identity, either directly or via wikilink, until the end of the plot section. In the eight months since that time, however, editors have on occasion inserted a link there in violation of the RFC decision and those insertions have remained in place for several weeks before being reverted. Nsign now asserts that the RFC consensus still stands and a new consensus must be formed before reinserting the link and SchroCat asserts that the interim unchallenged changes created a new implied consensus for inclusion of the link. Nsign recently countered that, nonetheless, the reasoning behind the RFC decision remains valid. Is that about the size of it? Please answer in your opening comments section, above, not here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
PS: Please do not comment on one another's positions or discuss this matter, other than to answer my inquiry, until a volunteer opens this for general discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have amended my comments above as requested. Nsign (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, good enough to move on to the next step (and I'm still not opening this for general discussion or taking it, but still trying to just tee it up for the best possible response by a volunteer). It is clearly possible for intervening discussion or edits to set aside a previous consensus, so could the editors please provide the diffs of all changes to the article text in question between the end of the RFC and today? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The RfC closed at 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC). As far as I can see,
As far as I can see, this is the full history of that particular piece of text. I'm not a bot jockey, so I've had to do it manually and therefore I may have missed something. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's see if a volunteer now picks this up. I thought that I would be able to do so myself, but now that I've looked into the history (thanks to SchroCat for the detail), I believe that the issue of whether the RFC consensus has been set aside by subsequent implied consensus is a very close question. Unfortunately, in looking at that issue I have come to some very strong personal opinions about the way this matter ought to come out and about the result reached in the RFC and I fear that those opinions may be tainting my opinion about how the implied consensus question ought to come out. In light of that, I must recuse myself from this matter in accordance with DRN rules. I'll post a note at the DRN talk page saying that and asking for another volunteer to take this up. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
OK - thank you for your honesty. Nsign (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Considering the issue I can't actually decide which side of the fence I come down on so would be willing to take on this case. Give me some time to fully read up all the supporting content surrounding the dispute and I'll try get back to this within 24 hours. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 10:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Cabe. If you need any more info (from either of us) please let us know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Nsign (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Can both editors link me a version of the article which contains the version that they'd like to see be the 'official' version please. Just one each. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 07:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Can I ask that, in general, when you refer to a thread or similar you provide a link, it makes finding exactly what you are referring to easier and avoid confusion/misunderstandings Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I've tweaked to provide the link. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that. Now we'll wait for Nsign Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 09:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Schrocat asserts above that his preferred version "appears" to be the new consensus according to the thread referred to. This "consensus" consists of the support of users Dr. Blofeld, Betty Logan, DonQuixote, Cassianto and SonOfThornhill. I'd point out that the consensus reached via RFC is supported by users Charlr6, SilverSeren, BletheringScot, A wild Rattata, edbrims, 331dot, MisterShiney, a further 4 IP editors and administrator beeblebrox who made the final decision, unless they have since changed their minds. We could always ask them again, but it seems farcical if we need to do this every couple of months when someone changes it back and asserts the existence of a new "implied consensus" or a "de facto status quo" (if these are indeed defined Wikipedia policies). Nsign (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks guys. Nsign, consensus can change especially when dealing with things that are time-sensitive. What was important at one point may be different in the future. Also, 'implied consensus' is a policy: WP:EDITCONSENSUS states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus" If Schrocat wants to launch another RfC to determine if consensus has changed then he's perfectly entitled to. I ask you both: If an RfC was to take place would you respect the outcome regardless of which way it comes down? Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 12:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes I would, but my preference would be to just have a ruling on it, rather than another discussion which will simply be re-stating old arguments. The consensus was, in fairness, not unanimous, and the change was made due to admin making a decision. I can't see how this coming out any differently so ultimately would it not be a waste of time when admin will probably end up deciding anyway? Nsign (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
At DRN we are volunteers and have no authority over the articles or users which come to the board. The best we can do is mediate an agreement between the editors and try to come to an agreement. If you both agree to have an RfC then feel free to list it. I could make a 'ruling' on this dispute but it'd just be my opinion and wouldn't carry any more weight that yours or any other editor. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 12:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
So am I right in concluding that, in your opinion, the edits made were in fact not in violation of the RFC and that a new consensus does in fact exist, and that in order to reinstate the version agreed by RFC I must open a new RFC? The recused volunteer described it as a "very close question" and I'd prefer some clarity on that before we think about a new RFC. I suspect a new RFC would simply be a repeat of the old one and if I'm completely honest, I'm not sure I have the time or the willpower to go there again. Nsign (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Not quite, I'm saying that the edits are valid and go a ways to establishing a consensus however, silent consensus is the weakest consensus. Think of it like a challenge to the current consensus. It's gain enough weight that it can't simply just be dismissed but, at the same time, it can't become the new de-facto consensus. Instead of debating which consensus is the valid one (consensus on which consensus?) we simply throw away both previous consensuses and establish a brand new one based on current information available. I.e. instead of chipping away at the current ones to make it fit, lets bin them and start fresh Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 13:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. However...(wait, come back!) does this not set a precedent whereby once a consensus is established via RFC, it can be freely violated and even though, as you say, the edits cannot become the new de-facto consensus, we simply hold another RFC and repeat the exercise? Sorry, I know I'm being a pain :) Nsign (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Also - the edits as outlined above were done without discussion and when editors tried to move back to the consensus version, were simply reverted, as was I until I raised it on the talk page. Nsign (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ An RfC is an informal procedure, it's not binding. Its similar to a straw poll in that it guages the general consensus of the community at that time to help resolve a dispute. Even MedCom isn't binding. See this image:
You don't 'have' to do an RfC, you could agree between yourselves on a compromise but it seems both of you are standing by your stances. An RfC is asking the community to decide for you and only works if you respect that process Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 14:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree but I'd argue that the process wasn't respected, which is why we are here. "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". Well, the edits were disputed but attempts to move back to the consensus version were simply reverted.
I realise this may be pedantic but I can't see a valid reason for simply "binning" the existing RFC. Nsign (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell they weren't discussed. That boat has sailed I'm afraid. If they were discussed appropriately at the time then perhaps we wouldn't be here but they weren't. As such we treat things as they are now not how they were or potential could be. This goes back to my comment on lets throw it all away and start fresh rather than looking back. Both of you have agreed to have an RfC to resolve the issue, I'll leave this open for further comments for a short period but I expect to be closing it within 24 hours Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 14:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't say I agree with the method of simply repeating the whole process as a means of resolving this. However your point that if discussion had taken place at the time we wouldn't be here is well taken. It was remiss of myself and the other editors who supported my position not to watch the article following the RFC to ensure it wasn't violated and this is the result. I'll therefore accede to another RFC. Nsign (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Nsign, It's not about "violating" an RfC. An RfC does not mean that something is set in stone which cannot be changed except by way of further RfC - we'd have ground to a halt a long time ago if that were the case. Things change, the word moves on and circumstances that were previously applied are different now and will be different later. That's the way of the world and that's why no article is ever deemed to be "perfect" or "finished". I'll open the RfC now, as we are both in agreement that is the appropriate course. - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Whatever. It was violated and those who tried to fix it were simply reverted without discussion. The circumstances behind the logic of the decision have not changed since the RFC. And I don't agree that a new RFC is the appropriate course but it has been presented to me as the only option. Nsign (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion. I have opened the RfC on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)