User:Caulde/consensus

"Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected.

Whether the change or addition to the page is reverted, or modified or not, any refinements or objections can be discussed on the discussion page. When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning and cooperation. Negotiation on talk pages takes place in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view. In cases where consensus is hard to find, the dispute resolution processes provide several other ways agreed by the community, to involve independent editors and more experienced help in the discussion, and to address the problems which prevent a consensus from arising."

Does anyone not find it amusing that WP:CON redirects to consensus? Entertainment aside, consensus is an important issue–a controversial one, however. How can we define the term? Well the excerpt above does a considerable attempt at trying to, but with so many editors discussing what counts as consensus and what doesn't (which can sometimes be influenced by past experiences) the definition is continually changing, and the community suffers as a victim, in my opinion. Only a small proportion are affected, but nevertheless a small portion is a small portion. I am slightly at a loss nowadays over what is the new discussion in regard to–but that's got to be a good thing hasn't it? As some may have seen before, I regularly refer to a principal motto that I uphold which is "Discussion = Progression". This is useful when commenting on various XFDs, completing block reviews and even extends to the prominence of the mainspace in such areas as peer reviews and/or GA/FA candidate reviews. The consensus issue is however, discussed to a further extent in the administration of Wikipedia, for example at the requests for adminship area.

Potential administrator candidates
In my first request for adminship (which closed as no consensus at 39/16/1) I was determined to show that I was a potentially excellent candidate for the mop, but clearly, I wasn't. This is due to many factors, the main being a severe lack of experience, in most areas–so in some perspectives, I am almost glad that I wasn't 'given the mop'. I probably (infact its highly likely now in retrospect) that I would have caused a considerable amount of disruption–after all, if administrators can't trust in themselves, how can the community? I apologise for the slight ramble that this piece is foraying into.

Requests for adminship is a broken process–that's the view shared by a number of editors here on en.wp. As luck would go, I disagree. I find that a pretty poor argument, and this is probably why the issues which have been raised, have never materialised into a substance which could have revolutionised the way user rights management is modified. The major problem with that proposal is that consensus itself cannot be determined, and what exactly is wrong with the RFA process is still a debate. Going back to the RFAs themselves, there is on average about 3–4 candidates per week added for consideration on the RFA mainpage. Some say that consensus lies at around 75-80% with this rising to around 85-90% (in general) for potential bureaucrats, with this being backed up by a recent poll which was instigated after the surge of RFBs during February/March 2008.

When editors oppose for a certain user where I have supported beforehand, I always review that oppose further, looking for potential conflicts of interest contained within the very fact that that editor inparticular has opposed, or I 'dig' a little further into the contributions, although as I do this quite a bit before I do support, this is rarely the case. These conflicts of interest can be a huge problem when it comes to the bureaucrat closing them, but they do retain some value and are a helpful insight into the communities view of the user, despite it being for example that the user may have had a bad experience with him or her. This was demonstrated in a discussion recently.

Snow closures
WP:SNOW closures are a regular occurence at RFA, and most RFAs which have been closed because of that are listed here. The test for me for a WP:SNOW non-crat close has always been "the discussion here is becoming so one-sided and miserable that it risks demoralizing this editor so badly he or she might leave Wikipedia." In addition, any editor can go through the mechanics of closing and logging an RfA that has been withdrawn by the candidate. Short of those two situations, the closes are best left for the bureaucrats. If a user believes an early closing might be in order, a note can be left on this page (WP:BN) for the 'crats to consider That was Bradley's view of SNOW closures which are now usually closed by administrators or normal editors, as opposed to 'quick-removals' by bureaucrats. I very much agree with Brad on this occasion, as I usually do. What makes a snow closure for me is the near one sidedness of an RFA (say 1/15/3, with that support usually being a moral support) combined with a severe lack of experience and edits (sometimes candidates come with around 450 edits or less). Other RFAs which are say at 13/17/6, are not for administrators or other non-bureaucrats to close, otherwise a note (as NYB says above) should be left at the bureaucrat's noticeboard. As a general rule where numbers are near equal, any given RFA should be let to run its course, where it would nudge no consensus rather than a SNOW close.