Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 11

Mention of 5 pillars inappropriate?
What are your thoughts on this edit? Unomi (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on whether there should be an explicit mention of the pillars. But in context of the previous edit and the fact that I've seldom seen 5P linked to in the prose of policy, that strikes me as a reasonable edit. --WFC-- 22:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, looking over past versions of this policy, it was initially framed as flowing from the 4th pillar. The text for 5 Pillars themselves state that they are "The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates". If that is the case then shouldn't we indeed be linking to them and affirming their central position? Unomi (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Principles was in the policy before for quite a while, but it was taken out here: with the subject line: Consensus vs. other policies: policy&guidelines[sic] == consensus on a wider scale (so replacing)).
 * Defining consensus in terms of itself really does seem very, very circular, personally I have much less of a problem defining a in terms of b and b in terms of a, than a in terms of a; and I would imagine most people do as well.- Wolfkeeper 00:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The other interesting thing was that principles aren't rules but they were removed as guidelines. Which is a bit strange.- Wolfkeeper 00:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that references to 'policies' were reintroduced, and references to guidelines were added since then as well, but the principles have been left out.- Wolfkeeper 00:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:5P is a simplified summary. Referencing WP:5P sets up circular referencing, and should be avoided.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about that, they're all circular anyway. This is (supposedly) the consensus view about what consensus is, but it's defined as a policy, but policies are defined by WP:Policies and guidelines which is the consensus view of what policies are; but where's the definition of what consensus means? It's here.- Wolfkeeper 00:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Circularity isn't really a problem, because they all do different things. But defining something in terms of its own self is generally much more confusing.- Wolfkeeper 00:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say "in line with Wikipedia's principles" is just about OK; but linking it to 5P isn't (it implies that 5P equals Wikipedia's principles - while 5P is in fact an editable page subject to consensus just like any other.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The wording implies that the 5 pillars page has some kind of overriding status, which is not how the page is intended. It is a summary of principles; it is not an end-all be-all constitutional document or a highest court of appeal. Saying "in line with Wikipedia's principles" without the link is okay, but it really should (and usually does) go without saying.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clear there isn't sufficient support for the initial change linking to the 5 pillars. I'm removing the link to the 5P but retaining the phrase "Wikipedia's principles". That way we mention the principals without making it appear that the 5 pillars page is an overriding law.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

broken ref
Hi, in CON there is a ref that does not appear on the page. Clicking it leads nowhere. I don't know how to fix it, or I would just do that. 018 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. I meant to remove it earlier, but forget - it was just a bit of humor I engaged in while doing revisions.  Basically it made the claim: "The one iron law of Wikipedia is that In any discussion, no matter how stubborn you may be, someone more pigheaded will always eventually arrive."  Which is certainly true, but probably goes without saying.  sorry.    -- Ludwigs 2  18:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clearing it up. 018 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: section change
Sorry, forgot edit summary. Anyway, there is a deficiency in this section because it allows a false "concensus" (i.e., one made by (e.g.), sockpuppetry ) to stand unchallenged,  just because it has been labled a " concensus ". Nucleophilic (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nucleophilic: the reason I reverted that particular additionhere - was that the issue of improper consensus doesn't belong in this section. at best sockpuppetry issues belongs in the lower section (where it is already mentioned, you'll notice); at worst it shouldn't be added at all.


 * Please understand that wikipedia policy pages suffer (sometimes severely) from particularistic additions that can undermine the meaning and scope a policy should have. I call this wp:policy drift (redlinked because it's high time I wrote an essay on it, which I'll do this evening).  This happens because editors read a passage in isolation and insert warnings, clarifications, rationalizations, tweaks and/or twists, or etc into that passage, without stopping to examine whether their addition is (a) appropriate and necessary to the policy in the first place, or (b) properly positioned within the entire document.  the problems I have with your addition, if I may list them out, are as follows:
 * This section describes the proper process of consensus. it doesn't need specific warnings about specific possibilities of failure - that should later in one of the sections about improper forms of consensus
 * This material is already addressed in the sections below on 'intervention' and 'pitfalls'. having it covered in multiple sections merely serves to open the possibility of confusion/wikilawyering over which section is 'correct', which we should avoid.
 * I'm already uncomfortable with the amount of 'guideline' like advice that's present in the pitfalls and errors section. it just seems non-policy-like to me.  I believe that a policy on consensus should spell out general principles and observations about how consensus works on wikipedia, and should avoid as much as possible anything resembling micromanagement of the consensus process.
 * Lastly, the purpose of that paragraph is to suggest to people that they refrain from re-raising the Same-Old-Dispute (hereafter SOD, which should tickles the British readers). the entire section covers the idea that any consensus can be challenged quite thoroughly, and the 'avoid the SOD' paragraph merely asks them to do so judiciously.  we don't need to give them some special permission to challenge improper consensi here, because that is understood in context, and adequately covered in later sections.
 * My point here is that we should keep policy pages like this focused, concise, and clear as a whole, which means avoiding trying to tweak out individual bits on a passage-by-passage basis. do you see what I mean?  Now if you don't think this is adequately covered in the rest of the document we can discuss that and maybe find a better structure for the idea - maybe raise the heading level on the pitfalls and errors section and rename it something like 'improper consensus practices'? -- Ludwigs 2  03:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you have unambiguously clarified that an improper concensus does not get an automatic bye under "same old dispute", I have no problem with the section as it stands.  Unfortunately, the section seemed a little ambiguous on this issue. Nucleophilic (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if you read it narrowly. as I said, Policy should be taken as a whole.  Trust me, narrow specification never helps.  someone who is resistant to the point won't get it no matter how painfully explicit you make it, and trying to make it explicit just give more opportunities for misconstrual.  it's best to keep it simple and encourage people to think it through in context.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. As I now understand,  under one rule or another,  a consensus reached by "illegal" means is not a concensus,  period.   Which is basically what the article says anyway.  I agree that there is no need to say it twice.  Thanks for the clarification and my apologies for unecessarily raising the issue. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"No Consensus"
On an article which I am trying to edit to resolve WP:NPOV concerns, two editors continually revert any contribution claiming there is "No Consensus" to change. When I edit to address concerns they have expressed they revert or demand I self-revert claiming "No Consensus" to change. Neither editor has access to any reliable sources or any domain knowledge, the version of text they continuously revert to favours a particular national narrative. I can't see any way forward as any concerns are dismissed as a content dispute and I have wasted hours and hours of editing time in talk trying to achieve a consensus. The response is always "No Consensus" to change. Is this really the way wikipedia is supposed to work? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It helps if you provide a link to the page in question. As well as links to what venues you have tried earlier.
 * In general "no consensus" is a call to seek consensus, not a reason to ignore arguments. However if the issue has been extensivly discussed earlier then if you have no new arguments then the earlier consensus will still hold, for the reasons that where given in the earlier discussion.  If the consern you are troubled with is a neutral point of view then WP:NPOVN might be a place to seek third oppinions.Taemyr (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the page you are talking about is Gibraltar it seems that there has been extensive discussion and it's not so much a lack of consensus as a clear consensus that the atrocities should be given mention. The reasons given is that several sources detail the events in those terms.  If other significant sources downplay the events then the way to maintain NPOV is to include those viewpoints, not to remove those already on the page.  This is just from a quick glance at the discussion and article, so there could easily be details that I am missing, but your statement that you are being reverted due to "no consensus" is simply wrong.  You are being reverted because other editors feels that you are downplaying what reliable sources are stating about the incident.  If you feel that the current presentation is a vialation of NPOV, and that the arguments for it's inclusion is insufficient then WP:NPOVN might be a place to seek a third opinion.  Some additional eyes on the dispute is seldom a bad thing, although I don't think you'l get very much sympathy.  In general when material is relevant and sourced we tend to include it.  Taemyr (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No I that isn't the case here, it is a lot more subtle than that and you are missing a lot the details. No sources actually describe these events as atrocities - one editor insists on using that loaded term.  Neither of the two editors concerned have access to any sources and what they insist on including is not giving due coverage per what the literature would suggest, rather it is giving undue attention to certain historical details.  What has emerged during mediation is that one of the editors method of working is to decide on an edit, then search in google books to find cites to support that edit and quite often the cite that is lifted is based on a google snippet and I have found is often out of context.  The other editor simply supports him but has neither domain knowledge or access to any sources.
 * The detail I feel you're missing is I'm not downplaying events, nor have I any intention to do so. In the literature multiple reasons are stated for the exodus.  The insistence here is that the text focuses on only one and a single reason that favours a particular national narrative in the modern sovereignty dispute.
 * So the issue not not the inclusion of material that is relevant and sourced but the exclusion of addditional material that is of equal or more relevance. The reason given for this exclusion is simply there is "No Consensus" to include it.  This is the problem I'm faced with.  Your suggestion that material is relevant and sourced we tend to include it is not at play here. Material that is relevant and sourced is being excluded.
 * I've found that people tend to look superficially at the dispute in pretty much the same manner you have just done. Whenever, there is more scrutiny than that, then walls of text as tendentious argument deter more detailed scrutiny.  I've tried WP:NPOVN but I have failed to get any 3rd opinion as walls of text always deter it.  Wee Curry Monster talk 17:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity
Consensus is NOT unanimity, right? If so, this should be clearly said here. (If you disagree, read up on liberum veto... ). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes... we should state this... but we should also make sure to state that Consensus is not a simple majority vote either. The goal of Consensus is to come as close to unanimity as possible. Blueboar (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you arriving here from a dispute elsewhere? I won’t look yet.


 * Consensus is not unanimity, much like it is not a number of other things. (however, unanimity is a strong indicator of consensus)  Consensus lends itself very poorly to measurement, and attempts to define it by measurement or not measurement detracts from the effort to try to communicate the meaning of consensus.


 * Consensus requires consideration of all of the participants’ perspectives, objectives and needs, but how the participants deal with conflicting opinions defies prescription. Formulae, can be cute, even fascinating, but tend to detract from a focus on negotiation and lead to gaming.


 * Where a single person turns up late and asserts a position contradicting the preceding consensus, ideally they will be negotiated with in good faith. In principle, this should be straightforward, and the receding consensus building exercise should have produced a useful record of many issues.  The late dissenter should be debated on the merits of the arguments.  Late arrivals, bringing an unexpected perspective, unexposed to the groupthink, can even be right.


 * Sometimes we encounter trolls and kooks. They, especially, can disrupt consensus building.  It is accepted that once someone is identified as a troll or a kook, they are rejected as a participant.  Not surprisingly, how to measure a troll or kook is as indefinable as how to measure consensus.  The participants have to decide using reason.  If late dissenter is a  troll or kook, ignore him.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy currently says "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes." Do people feel a need to say more than this? Perhaps stating explicitly in the lead (since these are quite likely misunderstandings among newcomers, who come in from an outside world where "consensus" sometimes has different meanings than ours) that consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity (but doesn't mean a simple majority or any specific numerical majority either)?--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ugh. I didn't revise that bit when I overhauled the policy a few months back, and it's kind of ham-handed.  those first two lines really ought to say something like the following:


 * Would that solve the issue? -- Ludwigs 2  08:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno, it's all a bit abstract and idealistic; we still need to know what to do when there is simply a divide of opinions on a matter which doesn't admit of a middle ground - and I think the present sentence describes our actual practice quite well, in simple terms - we tend to go with the majority, though with more major decisions we demand a more conclusive majority in order to depart from what's perceived as the "status quo".--Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, despite beliefs to the contrary, policy is always idealistic - even when you follow the "policy describes community practices" rubric, what you're really saying is "policy enshrines historical practices as an ideal for everyone's behavior". Abstract I can't dispute, though.  Sometimes when I talk I give myself nosebleeds from the altitude.


 * The point here is that we do not ever use voting in that unfortunate "we win so suck it up losers" mode. We always want decisions to be made on the basis of sourcing, policy, common sense, and reasoning (not necessarily in that or any ordering); pure voting is often antithetical to all of those.  Yes we vote sometimes, in the belief that the averaged opinion of numerous informed-but-uninvolved editors will approach a reasonable common sense perspective (as I said, voting is a quick-and-dirty shortcut for a consensus discussion). But really, one person with a sound, reasoned argument ought to hold sway over numerous me-like/me-no-like voters, because the encyclopedia ought not to be written according to what most people 'like'.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Two quick points to build on Ludwig's points. The first is that we switched from a voting model (VfD v. AfD) to discourage a mere headcount and instead encourage (even require) editors to provide thoughtful rationales for their position - the effect of this can be seen, for instance, in the interesting evolution of WP:RS over the last six years. Second, I think the language of WP:CON does need to find a way to represent that the persistence of a minoritarian position should not be used to obstruct larger majoritarian consensus, both on a specific issue and, more important, with respect to the global policies and guidelines that the project has worked collectively to evolve. Eusebeus (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair points, but these things are not incompatible with including in the policy (perhaps at the start) some fairly down-to-earth, easily understood language explaining to newcomers what is actually meant (or perhaps more importantly, not meant) by "consensus" on this project.--Kotniski (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not averse to that, but when I've tried it in the past it's been shot down. Plus, it's not a simple, easily-understood concept, so we'd have to take care not to promote common misperceptions through over-simplification.  To whit:
 * We want to avoid confusing the consensus process with a consensus goal (we want to draw people away from the all-to-frequent belief that consensus is something to be 'achieved' at some given point, and refocus them on the idea that it's something to be 'built' through discussion over time).
 * We don't want to give the idea that encyclopedia entries are based on the popularity of a viewpoint amongst editors.
 * The first leads to all sorts of ugliness as editors decide that consensus has been achieved somewhere and start suppressing new editors and other viewpoints; the second encourages all sorts of silly wikipolitics (canvassing, sock-puppetry, demagoguery and emotional rhetoric designed to gain votes, procedural quagmires where editors can gather just enough 'me-like/me-no-like' votes to keep even really stupid content from being deleted on a 'no consensus' basis...). Unfortunately, there's a certain extent to which we have to expand peoples' minds on this concept, because most people understand consensus in peculiarly authoritarian ways ('consensus' for many people is a word that legitimizes forcing others to obey).


 * I'm open to suggestions, and happy to share the efforts I've made before at defining consensus, but I don't have high hopes that we'll achieve any consensus on a consistent definition. -- Ludwigs 2  17:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think we'll ever have a full definition (nor would we particularly want one). Perhaps we should emphasize the need to engage in the process in good faith and with an open mind, and concentrate on negative definitions (consensus is not unanimity, not a numerical majority of any size,...).--Kotniski (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Consensus at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)
I need editors to review this discussion and help determine whether or not WP:Consensus has been achieved. From what I can see, it has. Five editors are for a particular version of the lead -- no awards information at the top, and no success information split into two different parts -- and have given valid reasons for their stance. Despite this, one editor insists on keeping the lead placed at the current version, or something similar to it, even though the current version is what the five editors have disagreed with. The current version was originally intended as a compromise, but the editor the compromise was for has rejected that "compromise." Since then, the discussion has led no where and the no-consensus, disputed version of the lead remains. I do not see why this version of the lead should remain over a version that five editors to one say should not be employed. I would restore to the consensus version myself, but feel that I would be reverted by the editor I am in a dispute with.

Help is really needed on this matter, so I ask that some of you (or all, whatever works) consider reading the discussion. It seems long, but it's not that long, in my view...and the true discussion ends at the heading Approaching disruptive editing. Besides that, consensus is reached early on in the discussion. If I need to post this discussion somewhere else, I will. But posting it here seemed/seems like a good idea. And I see that other article consensus issues have been brought to this talk page before as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The complaint above doesn't do justice to the exchange of views. There has been a dispute over how to express in the lead section the unique position that the film Titanic occupies historically. (It is the only film to have equaled the records for most nominations and Oscars.) There was some peacock language, but also there was some deemphasis of what is really something important historically, too. In light of the ongoing disagreement, I have offered a compromise. Other editors made some modifications and that seemed fine. Some objections to my draft have been offered, but I believe I've answered them fairly well. And, after all, this is a compromise solution so several viewpoints have to be balanced or included. It is not true that I am the only person to accept this draft, since other editors have worked on it without complaint. Flyer objects and erroneously accused me of bad faith for no reason. I have repeatedly asked Flyer for her own best compromise, but she is maintaining radio silence on that. Since she has recently expressed views that seem to violate WP:OWN, I think it is a good idea to include views and opinions from all sides. Although there are still some things I don't think are right about the lead section, I think this is a good try at finding a good balance that everyone can live with. In that spirit I have offered it, and in that spirit I have asked Flyer to offer her own compromise if she has a better one. That's where it stands. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My complaint above does do justice to the exchange of views. I stated facts. Not my skewed opinions of things, as you have just done. The only one showing WP:OWN issues at the article is you, blocking a restoration of the consensus version of the lead. One editor only tolerated your version as a compromise with a disruptive editor, but clearly expressed her preference for the previous lead. The disruptive editor does not even accept your version. So to act as though others have truly accepted your version of the lead is dishonest. And as I stated there: No one is for your version of the lead, which is why it should be reverted back to the version that most editors here are okay with. Your version is disputed and should not be there at all. You have to gain consensus for your version! You haven't! That is the way Wikipedia works. That is why your version (either version) is not the best alternative. The best alternative would be to go with the version most editors here agree with. And if I were to restore to the consensus version, I would be following policy. If you were to revert me, on the other hand, you would be violating policy. Really, what valid reason would you have for reverting me? What would your edit summary say? "Tsk, tsk, Flyer, we must compromise, per talk"? If so, that would be without merit. In what way is it valid that your version should stay in over the consensus version? If you do revert me, I will report it. Plain and simple. Call it a threat or whatever, but I will report it accordingly -- as a violation of WP:Consensus. I'm not sure what you think WP:Consensus entails, but it does not entail that one must compromise first or at all. If we go by your rules, that I cannot restore the article to the consensus version, that five editors agree with, all because we must first satisfy you, then the WP:Consensus policy would be pretty much moot, wouldn't it? What would be the point of achieving consensus if no one followed it, or if one editor was allowed to keep it from being carried out because they disagree with it? Right now, you are blocking the consensus version of the lead. Again, I ask how does a compromise need to be made? This discussion all started because you said you wanted to make a compromise with a different editor. Now it is clear that that editor rejects your compromise. Now you are saying that we must compromise with you? Why are you acting as though consensus lies with you? That it is not consensus until you agree? That we have to discard the current consensus because you disagree with it? You are always challenging something about Wikipedia's setup -- whether it be the style guideline (headings, other formatting, etc.) or policy. You always act as though those things don't matter, and that we must make our own editorial judgment. That, plus your recent debates/arguments, is why I know you don't follow Wikipedia precedent, guidelines and policies all that well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: The lead has been restored, per consensus. Other editors are still welcomed to weigh in on this discussion if they want to, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Difference between consensus and voting
How is it possible to know what the consensus is without opinions being given? If everyone expresses an opinion, does that not constitute a de facto vote? (W090584 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Not entirely, since opinions that turn out to be based on faulty reasoning or no reasoning at all tend to be discounted - ideally people should modify their opinions in the course of discussion as they listen to arguments presented by others, so everyone's opinions converge to a common position (though it's true that in practice this doesn't necessarily happen, and matters end up being settled by majority vote, or "status quo rules", or "most dedicated edit warriors rule").--Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you'll allow me to put it slightly differently, the assumption behind consensus is that everyone will weight new information and different sides of a discussion as they come in so that (over time) perspectives will gradually start to converge. Different people will come to agree on some things that they disagreed on before, and on things that they cannot agree over they will at least agree on some common ground where they can meet.  The outcome - ideally - should be both fair and neutral, since differences of opinion will either disappear or find some reasonable, livable balance.  It's basically the central idea behind NPOV, thought it's not well developed on that policy page.


 * This is (obviously) a very high level of communication, and it tends to break down where people have beliefs that are simplistic and rigid. People who don't allow that perspectives they think are wrong might have some merits, or that have difficulty taking a more complex "meta" perspective on a topic, will often hunker down and take a defensive stance, and then you can only hope that someone with a broader view will come along and help them do the weighing.  Such is life.


 * Voting, oddly, is often the antithesis of consensus. Most voting situations avoid and even discourage the presentation of new information or different perspectives, and instead try to lock down people's opinions as firm unwavering matters-of-fact that can then be enumerated mindlessly.  Consensus is a cooperative process which creates a result in which everyone is at least marginally satisfied; Voting is a competitive process in which one side wins and the other side gets nothing, except to the extent that it can force or pander concessions from the winning side.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Voting can (sometimes) tell you whether a consensus exists (in a straight "yes or no" way)... but voting does not help you reach a consensus if there isn't one. Blueboar (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"More than a simple majority"
WhatamIdoing reverted me on this. If what I added is not the point being made there, then what is? Right now, that section sounds contradictory by saying that a majority is fine for consensus but that "more than a simple majority is generally required for major changes." If anything, it makes it sound as though "majority" pertains to small changes...since we don't clarify what "more than a simple majority" means. How is it best not to clarify what it means? In my experience, it means "more than simply votes." The word "numerical" was there before to stress this point. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The more the text discusses votes, or counts, the more is strays from the point that consensus is the result of deliberation, negotiation, and concessions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover, there is no other kind of majority but a numerical majority. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we should not clarify what is meant by "more than a simple majority" right there in the opening. It's not straying, since this very issue (votes) has a lot to do with the topic of consensus. If it did not, that cryptic sentence would not be there. And, really, I added a small clarification, so that people would know what the heck we are talking about (and I added it in parentheses). No big deal. We should say what we mean by "more than a simple majority," which is that majority should not simply be based on the number of people saying "I agree" (or some variation of it). I am not making an argument for re-adding "numerical." I am addressing why "numerical" was added in the first place. While "majority" is "numerical," the person who added the latter word was clearly trying to say that the number of people alone does not make for consensus. You have stressed this point as well, Ring Cinema. Consensus should be built on the strength of arguments as much as the number of people making the arguments. That's my point. If we don't make that clear -- what we mean by "more than a simple majority," then that sentence should be removed...because it does not help the reader to understand consensus at all.


 * That said, I don't feel strongly about this either way. I just find that sentence odd as it currently is (in contrast to the previous explanations about what consensus entails). Flyer22 (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly there could be a lot of rewriting done here (as already noted, the whole page seems to be deliberately cryptic), but I don't think this particular passage is particularly misleading - it just needs filling out a bit. We mean that (a) sometimes it's not possible for everyone to agree; (b) that situation doesn't necessarily preclude the existence of "consensus" in wiki-language; (c) in that situation we generally go with the majority view, but: (d) if the proposed change is "major" then it needs a larger majority. This should be filled out with a lot of information as to how this is applied in practice, possibly replacing some of the rather idealistic stuff with which the policy is currently filled.--Kotniski (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't saying it was misleading; just that it's not clear and therefore comes across as confusing. I don't view it as meaning "a "larger majority," though (I mean, "a larger majority" is sometimes not possible). To me, it's trying to say that the majority should not simply be based on votes...but rather sound reasoning for the major changes. But these different interpretations are part of the problem. Anyway, thanks for weighing in and understanding my point. Flyer22 (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Three thoughts:
 * A simple majority with valid arguments is often insufficient to 'win'. Two people at AFD saying "Delete; no sources found via my favorite web search engine" will lose to the lone person saying "Keep, per the 4 books I found at the university library on this subject, which are..."  The deleters have a valid argument, but the keeper has a stronger one.
 * A supermajority without valid arguments may win per WP:SNOW. In some cases, this is a supermajority that is only apparently without a valid argument, but it looks the same to the person on the losing side.  This may be because the 'winning' editors didn't bother to explain the (to them) perfectly obvious reasons, or it may be because the 'losing' editor is unable to see or admit validity of the argument.  It may also be because the apparent will of the community is more important than the quality of the arguments.  For example, 4:1 wins an RFA, and 4:3 loses it, regardless of the reasons put forward by each side.
 * Major changes normally require a supermajority. In particular, a ratio of 2:1 is the bare minimum for winning a simple dispute via forcing a 3RR block (NB:  not a recommended practice), and that level is commonly expected in most policy discussions.
 * Overall, though, my goal was to keep this section a little simpler. Calculating relative strength in a major dispute is a complex equation, commonly involving the number of editors, the strength of their arguments, and (something we pretend doesn't happen) the reputations of the people involved in the discussion.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining in detail why you reverted me, WhatamIdoing. That makes sense. Though I still feel that not specifying what we mean by "more than a simple majority" is problematic. If it's that complicated to explain, I feel we shouldn't even mention it. Otherwise, there has to be some way to sum up our point about that statement. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In this context it is the practices of Wikipedian consensus that matter. If a definition got that wrong, we'd simply fault the definition as mistaken in some way, and try to match it to the practice. In other words, a definition would be derived from the practice. But the practice is the fundamental, not its definition. So any definition would be reductive unless it reflected the practice exactly right, in which case it would add nothing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What's there now -- "more than a simple majority" -- adds nothing to me. It shouldn't be there, if the reader is not told what it means or what it can mean. An example or two would even be better than just that lone, ambiguous sentence. That's just how I feel. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * On a closely related note, the current wording has been asserted to encourage, to the point of nearly requiring, unanimity on policy pages. We may need to consider ways of being clearer, e.g., removing the word "necessarily" from "Consensus does not necessarily require unanimity".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Flyer: I can't help noting that there is an infinite regress in your wish that we say what the words mean somewhere else. As it stands, the words mean what they mean in English. And if we defined it, then we'd have the words of the new definition. Should we then define the definition so we know what it really means? But then we'd have to define that one, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ring Cinema, I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that "more than a simple majority" doesn't truly say anything in this context. At least the other stuff explains itself. If I were a newbie to Wikipedia coming to this page and saw that line, I would wonder what the heck it means. Heck, I wonder that now. But as a newbie, it could mean absolutely anything to me, and I would probably then use it to my advantage when trying to win a dispute. For example, if most editors are for something, with a count of 56 to 22, I would likely cite that statement and say, "Majority doesn't matter...because more than a simple majority is needed." That wouldn't exactly be accurate, now would it? Because 56 to 22 does matter and could be enough to make major changes or claim consensus. A person may take the line to mean "more than a majority is needed"...instead of "more people are needed to make the majority substantial." And, really, it could mean either of those, and other things, as displayed with examples on this talk page. I'm just saying that "more than a simple majority" doesn't really tell the reader anything and we are better left without it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase truly says something and it says it in a way that works. The practices of Wikipedia make it what it is as much if not more than these definitions. New editors learn the practices through experience. Good faith solves the sticky problems and that works pretty well, right? Perhaps you can't explain why it works, but it works. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not always. --Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Something there is that always works? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing: That wording doesn't nearly require unanimity. It says in so many words that consensus can be attained without unanimity. That's what it said before only now it's more transparent. Now, perhaps it's too transparent. That could be an issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what it says. On the other hand, we didn't write this down for the purpose of telling me how Wikipedia works, so the fact that I already know the answer isn't helpful.
 * I'm not sure what to do about this particular response to this paragraph. (Seeing how people actually respond to policies is the way to figure out how close you've come to the mark.)  Perhaps we need to go back to the older "Consensus is not unanimity" wording; perhaps we need to add words to the effect that even on policy pages, consensus does not require either unanimity or near-unanimity; perhaps it's an outlier and we need to do nothing.  But we should think about it, and see if there are other responses, and make changes, if making changes seems like it would set people on the right track, with the minimum of wikilawyering and a maximum of helpfulness.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which response are you referring to as 'this particular response'? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment linked above, by an editor whose current username is "Rememberway". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A judge is not necessarily wise. A ball is not necessarily round. A word is not necessarily apt. This construction is in wide use but perhaps it implies that there is something wrong with consensus without unanimity. Is that what bothers you? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So...
...how about actually including what consensus is supposed to be in the lede. If there isn't a single agreed upon definition, then put them all in. There's sort of a definition hidden away in the text. But all I see in the lede is:


 * Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. - tells you what this magical thing called Consensus is SUPPOSED to achieve. It's also untrue wishful thinking but nevermind that for now. It doesn't say what consensus is.
 * There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia - ok. But then why not tell me at least some of the definitions. "No single definition" is not the same "as not a single definition", which is what we have here.
 * consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability.  - again, wishful thinking about what this consensus, whatever it is, is supposed to achieve.
 * Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing - they do? How do we know they reach it, if we haven't even bothered to define what it is? But let's just pat ourselves on the back and add some nice sounding phrases about neutrality and inherentness.
 * someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it - state the obvious much?
 * When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages. - well, when editors cannot reach agreement, SOMETHING is most certainly continued by discussion on the relevant talk page (or AN/I, or WQ or AE or ArbCom Req) but I really had no idea that the name calling, insulting, bickering, lying, and mutual accusations that typify many if not most of these disagreements were called "consensus".

Seriously, the whole lead reads like some crappy five dollar self-help book that tells you it will teach you how to achieve happiness and then feeds you a bunch of fluffy stuff about how great it is to be happy. Perhaps the fact that disagreements don't get resolved, conflicts fester and discussions are so ill-willed is because when somebody comes to this page to look up what consensus actually is, they're given a bunch of starry eyed nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You should always tell a reader what something is used for. The reader doesn't care if there's a white chemical with nine carbons, eight hydrogens, and four oxygen atoms; they do care that aspirin is useful headaches, fevers, and reducing blood clots—even if you say that's "wishful thinking".
 * Some of the definitions are mutually incompatible. We don't want to write a self-contradictory policy, and providing them would simply feed disputes as one side says "But consensus is... and we have a consensus to do it my way," and the other says "That's not true!  Consensus is... and we have a consensus to do it my way!"
 * Much of what you've derided here as too obvious or wishful thinking is a clear statement of how consensus is formed, in actual practice, here on Wikipedia.
 * "the process of finding a consensus" is not the same thing as "consensus", in exactly the same way that "the process of finding your house key" is not the same thing as "your house key". Discussion is the process.  The goal (which is not always achieved on every point) of the discussion is finding consensus.  People do not usually engage in lengthy discussions for the purpose of accomplishing nothing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I must admit my reaction on reading this page has always been something similar to VM's as stated above. I realize the policy is supposed to be aspirational rather than grittily descriptive, but it seems to have become so far removed from reality as we often encounter it that it really isn't likely to be of much practical help to anyone. (But as with many WP policies, that's quite likely deliberate, since by keeping people in ignorance we gain power over them.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, some of what is said here is indeed "wishful thinking"... purposely so. Its what we call "outlining best practice"... we don't always achieve it, but we still wish and strive for it. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but here we have "wishful thinking" without substance. In fact, we don't really know if this is "best practice" since we don't even say what consensus is, so it's impossible to compare actual practice with an ideal. This means that most of the text is just plain irrelevant to Wikipedia as she really functions. Might as well add "and everyone gets a free pony" in there somewhere.
 * @WhatamIdoing, yes it's a good idea to tell people what something is used for, but it is even a better idea to first tell them - especially if it's a rule/guideline that they're expected to follow - what that something actually is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not always. I find that my interest in articles on advanced mathematics is reduced by efforts to tell me what it is, and increased by telling me what it's useful for.
 * At some level, though, the resistance here is quite practical: If a person truly doesn't know what consensus is—if he (or she) can't recognize it when he sees it—then he simply does not have the WP:COMPETENCE necessary to be successful on Wikipedia.  Consensus on Wikipedia is fundamentally the same thing as consensus in the real world (unlike "reliable", "neutral", and "notable", all of which are highly technical terms of the art).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's starting to sound rather patronizing (rather like the way the NPOV FAQ used to tell people - maybe it still does - that they were philosophically inferior if they didn't accept the thinking behind the policy). Like the other terms you mention, consensus also has quite different meanings here than it does in the real world, and if we're going to reinvent language in this way, we could at least do people the favour of explaining clearly what it is we've done.--Kotniski (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek has asked a valid question. It's a tough question.  I challenge Volunteer Marek to offer an answer to his question.
 * One answer may be found in the 3rd sentence of the second paragraph of What is consensus?. That whole essay is written in response to Marek's question asked previously.  Unfortunately, it is very hard to improve on the definition beyond setting a boundary of "not"s.
 * For a more robust treatement, try comprehending and improving Consensus decision-making. Debate there is more robust because participants are grounded by being required to source opinions to reliable sources.
 * I disagree that wikipedia-consensus also has quite a different meaning here to elsewhere generally in the real world. Instead, I'd say that the term is poorly defined in the real world.
 * WhatamIdoing's attempted explanation may sound partonising, but it is right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (outdent)My experience with WP is that there are various levels of consensus:
 * Unanimity - everyone agrees with the proposed change
 * Compromise - Not everyone is happy, but there is a lack of active opposition to the proposed change (no reverts)
 * WP:SILENCE - complaints/disagreement on talk page, but no-one reverts
 * Single dissent - Only one editor feels strongly enough to revert the change (or a very small number of editors, where there are a large number of involved editors)
 * I do not think a simple majority is consensus. I also think we should be conservative: it requires WP:CONS to change article text. Therefore it is acceptable practice for a dissenting editor to revert changes back to the existing text (up to WP:3RR) to establish that there is no consensus for change. The onus is on the editor inserting new content to establish WP:CONS. By corollary, there is no onus on any editor to establish that there is WP:CONS to keep the text as it is. --Surturz (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't revert due to "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it doesn't always work like that. If there's unsourced information in an article, then the onus (to justify it) is ultimately on the person who wants to keep it in, regardless of how long it happens to have been there. Though there's certainly an element of truth in what Surturz says - and that kind of list of the various situations that can arise would be useful.--Kotniski (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not in agreement with the idea that 'consensus' should be defined in the article. What matters in this case is that the reader finds the guideposts to understand the practice of consensus for Wikipedia. Institutions of all kinds are defined by their practices as much as by their rules, and consensus happens to be a practice of Wikipedia that is built into its fiber. This article reflects that fairly well and that is a virtue we should not give up. An attempt at a definition would actually be off the mark, I would say, since it would substitute a reductive definition for an explanation of the practice. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sixty-six percent is consensus
An editor is asserting that two editors against one is a consensus. Is that correct? If so we should re-write this policy.  Will Beback   talk    06:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's closer to a consensus than one editor against two, I suppose.--Kotniski (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. 2 editors against one implies the need for more editors to look at the dispute. Consensus is not a number game. Taemyr (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Noting the top edit counts of the article by editor:
 * 325	Will Beback
 * 57	User2004
 * 52	Briaboru
 * 35	Leatherstocking
 * 18	Arkalochori
 * 18	Terrawatt
 * 17	SlimVirgin
 * it is hard to image that Will really needs random help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I guess I need to put this page on my watchlist. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Random help is always appreciated. But the issue here is simply whether two against one qualifies as a consensus. I don't see anyone agreeing with that position.   Will Beback    talk    05:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently Cla68 really does believe that "66% is consensus", as he's claimed consensus for an edit on that basis. If that's the agreed upon consensus here I'll revise the policy language to meet this new definition.   Will Beback    talk    05:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 66% is not consensus.
 * Two versus one is not consensus. The two are supposed to negotiate with the one until a position is found that all three will agree to, even if none of them like it.  Perhaps, sometimes, the two can agree with good reason that the one is a kook, and kick him out.  There is also the problem of what to do in the short term.  If it is complicated, consensus can take forever to achieve.  In standard meetings rules, a two thirds majority is required to overturn a previous decision.  Is Cla68 saying that 2-1 agree in changing something longstanding.  That could be reasonable, but immediately, the discussion needs to turn to the actual arguments.  Consensus is never about numbers.


 * The cited edit here is extremely focused. I guess that we are talking about a difference in two distillations of multiple sources?  The origin of a movement is not typically a well defined thing.  The origin may have been a confluence of whispers - uncitable.  I suggest, to avoid WP:NOR, hanging the sentence to state, with inline citation, something about who said what about the movements origins.  Who reported that it "moved right" when?  The early political realignments of the LaRouche movement would seem to be a notable topic, per Talk:LaRouche movement/political orientation.  However, it could be that the LaRouche movement is not well described by the typical political spectrum terminology, and all we have is a lot of scratching-for-descriptions without traction.


 * I read "If you're unwilling to compromise, then I guess we'll have to go with the consensus, which right now is two editors for, one against. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)" Cla68 here is sounding reasonable, but "consensus" was a poor word choice.  I suggest he have better used "current numbers".


 * Will, I've seen you around a lot, and you are a good Wikipedian, and I really hope you don't take offense, and you may be right, but I think you care to much, and that you should walk away from this article for a month or two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * SmokeyJoe, you've looked at Talk:LaRouche movement/political orientation so you know that the assertion that LaRouche and his movement moved from left to the right or far right, or is simply on the right or far right, is repeated by 68 sources: 10 academic books, 17 other books, 12 magazines or journals, and 29 newspapers (actually many more, but I stopped adding them). Without any clear explanation, Cla68 deleted that information and replaced it with assertions sourced to one book. That is simply unacceptable editing, even if there were ten editors who agreed.
 * (For the early history of the movement see Lyndon LaRouche. There's no significant disputes about it.)
 * As for the text itself, you can see from the thread that I proposed the text a month ago. There were no objections and only one small suggestion for a change. Three weeks later, after taking a couple of weeks off from Wikipedia, I posted the material. It's not like I was pushing though poorly sourced or non-neutral text. I've also compromised with Cla68 by including the specific groups with which the LaRouche movement formed alliances. However Cla68 dismissed by offer of compromise and wouldn't discuss it, instead saying that since it was two-against-one it wasn't necessary to come to an agreement. Cla68 was banned from Climate Change articles because he brought a battlefield mentality to the topic. It seems he's repeating that behavior on this topic. Claiming consensus where one doesn't exist is unhelpful.   Will Beback    talk    07:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to find time to read more deeply, and maybe give a more considered random opinion. It is true that claims of consensus are mistaken.  This is a consensus-not-yet-achieved situation.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Two to one is not necessarily consensus, but it is enough to force the one into a block for a 3RR violation, should s/he be foolish enough to engage in edit warring. Fortunately, that seems highly unlikely here.
 * On the other hand, even one to one can be consensus, when one of them has an indisputable claim to support from the community's policies and guidelines (e.g., to revert vandalism of the "I LOVE CHEESEBURGERS!!!!" or "Johnny has AIDS!!!" sort). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that policy violation case rightly called 'consensus' or is it something else? Consensus involves a meeting of minds. Until that happens, the deliberations continue up to the point where efforts at consensus are abandoned for something else. The "right one" overruling the "wrong one" is just a form of disagreement. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if the policy really does (as it should) represent the consensus of the wider community, then enforcing that policy can be claimed to be in line with consensus, even if the wider community hasn't actually shown up to support your one specific action. (Though there are caveats - policies as written don't always accurately represent wider consensus, and it's accepted that policies can have exceptions anyway.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Clever argument, and while I more-or-less agree with it, I don't think we should invoke claims of "wider consensus" as such is too difficult. Much simpler to say that WP:POLICY does not require WP:CONS to enforce, but it does require WP:CONS to override.

--Surturz (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC notice
There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:Santorum (neologism) that may be of interest to editors here. Dreadstar ☥  16:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the connection to this talk page? It seems like these notices are being placed indiscriminately. The matter has been so well-publicized on Wikipedia that I doubt anyone is unaware of the dispute.   Will Beback    talk    16:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing indiscriminate about it. In this case, since there's discussion on how consensus impacts the decision, it only makes sense to invite those who regularly edit in this policy area. Dreadstar  ☥  16:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This policy affects almost every decision made on Wikipedia. But this page is not a noticeboard for issues for disputes over consensus. This page exists solely to discuss changes to the policy.    Will Beback    talk    17:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if Dreadstar defined the particular issue at Talk:Santorum (neologism) which would be of interest here? There do seem to be issues, such as that editors are voting on only part of the RfC, but I'm not sure what he means. BE——Critical __Talk 19:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look, consensus is mentioned almost a hundred times on that talk page, from comments about how past consensus negates any current discussions; to how any consensus is false becaue of the involved nature of many editors there. To me, it's a question of how consensus plays out when an article is being judged by a large number of editors, including the founder of Wikipedia, as a clear violation of the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia, can a numerical consensus override policy, project and humanitarian concerns? If so, we may need to rewrite Consensus to clarify this.  But hey, go ahead and remove this notice if you think it doesn't belong here; Will is right, it's pretty much well-publicised already.  Dreadstar  ☥  20:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"According to consensus" and "violates consensus"
Regarding the Consensus can change section, if saying "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions, then how do you factor in the many editors who have been blocked for going against consensus? After all, people wouldn't have to gain new consensus through the talk page, would they? Consensus on talk page would mean nothing, wouldn't it? WP:Consensus wouldn't even be a policy, would it? Am I wrong in thinking that consensus must be respected until new consensus is formed? 209.226.31.161 (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is always acceptable to question a previous consensus, and it is acceptable to hold a discussion or RFC to determine whether it has changed. But it must be understood that, while there is always a potential for consensus to change, the reality is that changing an established consensus is rare.  Once a consensus has been established, it usually takes a lot of patient effort and discussion to change it.
 * People don't get blocked for civilly questioning a previous consensus, or determining whether a previous consensus has changed. They get blocked for refusing to accept the result of that determination.  They get blocked for edit warring, or engaging in other disruptive behavior (such as WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT).  They get blocked for pushing for a change when it is clear that a previous consensus still stands (or, much rarer, refusing to accept that consensus has indeed changed). Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, Blueboar. That is what I was explaining to an editor at Talk:Femininity and Talk:Femininity. But maybe it needs to be tweaked a bit on that matter? Because right now, it seems contradictory. It says "'according to consensus' and 'violates' consensus' are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions," but the matter of the fact is...editors reject other editors' suggestions due to past consensus all the time, and consensus must be respected until new consensus is formed. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the point is something like that your argument for (not) doing something shouldn't consist only of a claim that consensus is this way or that way - you should (ideally) provide some kind of explanation as to why you (and presumably many other people, if there really is a consensus) support or oppose the change.--Kotniski (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe that should be clarified then? And as for "provide some kind of explanation as to why," what's wrong with pointing them to the past discussion? I understand a brief explanation along with it, but there's no need thoroughly explain when we can just direct them to the discussion. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why no noticeboard?
This policy says, "As noted above, policy pages generally have noticeboards, and many administrators watch them." But is there a noticeboard for this policy? If not, why not? My experience (especially recently) is that editors will often disagree about whether consensus exists to change an article. Some editors may even stretch logic and common sense to conclude that their position is supported by consensus. Wouldn't it be useful if there were a Noticeboard to help determine if consensus exists to change an article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The usual thing is to take it to the nearest related "content" board. That is, if your question is whether there is a consensus about a reliable source, then you go to WP:RSN; if the question is whether there is a consensus about the article being neutral, then you go to WP:NPOVN; and so forth.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But what if no one is interested in re-hashing a content issue that has already been exhaustively discussed at an article talk page? The only remaining issue is to look at the article talk page discussion and determine if there's consensus to make a particular change to the article.  If someone wants to get more opinions about a content issue, or drag out a discussion further, then your suggestion makes sense.  But that's not the situation I have in mind.  If the core consensus policy is disrespected at an article and its talk page after extensive discussion, why should an editor have to go to some Noticeboard to revisit the disputed content issues, without any reason to hope that the consensus process will ultimately be respected at the article and its talk page? I'm inclined to go ahead and set up a Noticeboard for this policy.  Can I do that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can do that. If people come, it becomes part of this policy; if they don't, we'll put it up for deletion eventually. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the reply and the info. I'll think about it, and maybe others will comment about whether a Noticeboard might be useful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You can... but I'll add that the last time an individual created a noticeboard on his own, it didn't go over well.
 * The new WP:DRN might be useful to you; it has sort of a broad remit that could include consensus. In the situation you describe, you could alternately make a request (at WP:AN) for an uninvolved person to WP:CLOSE the discussion, which is the process of looking over a discussion and determining whether there's a consensus.
 * (Do be careful about saying things like "the core consensus policy is being disrespected at this article"; it's usually taken as an indication that the speaker is the biggest source of the problems.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. I'll make sure to say that only if I'm the biggest source of the problems.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Do we run by majority vote?
This edit is one of the things I would bring to such a noticeboard:


 * If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition. Why should opposition outweigh support? If the majority of users think that the guidelines are fine and think the opposition is wrong, then, sorry, but that's just tough luck. It's impossible to please everybody.

Is this the way we want guidelines to be written? As it happens, the guideline in question is notoriously controversial, and has been protected for months. This would seem the natural result of ignoring 49% of people who disagree; they are not likely to disagree less if ignored.

If this represents general opinion, we should provide a special category of guidelines which work by majority, and are therefore likely to be opposed. On the other hand, if it doesn't, we should say something about this point of view.

In either case, who agrees with the quoted sentiment? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The ideal situation is complete, enthusiastic, voluntary agreement by 100% of editors.
 * When the situation is less than ideal, then a substantial majority (if any) wins. This is the meaning of the policy's plain statement, "if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken."
 * When the situation is bad, then there is no consensus at all, and we continue looking for ways to resolve the dispute. "No consensus", as you know, means "no consensus", not "a consensus to do it 'my' way", no matter who 'I' am (usually with a temporary default of "no change" in policies and guidelines).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If editors abide by a majority vote, then consensus has been reached. Editors, however, do not have to abide by majority votes. Ultimately what matters is whether people persist on reverting the article. This should not be construed as a call to edit war, but the "law of the jungle" is: no reverts = consensus reached. Of course, it might require several page locks and editor blocks to get there. Unfortunately, there really is no way to prove a lack of consensus except by reverting changes. How close one wants to sail to WP:3RR and getting blocked is a decision for individual editors. My experience is that usually doing some more research and finding better references for content is more fruitful than arguing on the talk page. WP:V trumps WP:CONS, IMO. --Surturz (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject is a guideline, not an article; policy would indicate that this would require even more of a majority to be accounted consensus. Unfortunately, verifiability doesn't help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, a simple majority vote does not indicate a consensus... a significant majority vote might indicate a consensus... an overwhelming majority vote does. However, voting is a method of assessing whether consensus exists (or not)... it is not a method of achieving consensus.  The only way to achieve consensus is the combination of open minded discussion and good faith editing by everyone involved. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * One value of an early straw poll is that the minority can't claim a consensus so it helps focus the direction of the discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

“Respect the past consensus” and “consensus can change”
Whilst a paragraph in Process section (beginning with “Some articles go through extensive editing…”) advises us against “forcing everyone to rehash old discussions without need”, Consensus can change section reminds us that “consensus is not immutable.”

I think we should always keep good balance between “Respect the past consensus” and “Consensus can change.” I suspect that giving only one message without the other may, in some cases, influence the editor’s behaviour in a negative way. I believe these passages should always be read together.

In this regard, I would like to suggest that the paragraph in “Process” section be moved to “Consensus can change” section, which will then read:


 * "Some articles go through extensive editing and discussion to achieve a neutral and a readable product. Similarly, other articles are periodically challenged and/or revised. This is a normal function of the ongoing process of consensus. It is useful to examine the article's talk page archives and read through past discussions before re-raising an issue in talk – there is no sense in forcing everyone to rehash old discussions without need.


 *  However, consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge…"--Dwy (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with this proposed change. I find the wording of the "Consensus can change" section rather chatty and thus not optimal for a policy statement. However, I think your proposal is a step in the right direction. If there is general agreement and the change is made, perhaps we could then try to tighten up the wording of that section. Sunray (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Encouraged by Sunray’s support, I implemented the proposed change. I would appreciate it if Sunray or anybody else could make further revisions to tighten up the wording or otherwise improve the section.--Dwy (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Section: Consensus-building pitfalls and errors
The section WP:FORUMSHOP may need revision. Here's the verbatim text:

"Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages or with different wording is confusing and disruptive. It doesn't help to seek out a forum where you get the answer you want, or to play with the wording to try and trick different editors into agreeing with you, since sooner or later someone will notice all of the different threads. You can obviously draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together, but best practice is to choose one appropriate forum for the consensus discussion, and give (as much as possible) a single neutral, clear, and objective statement of the issue. See also Wikipedia:Policy shopping."

The language here is assumptive, that if people state similar ideas on various discussion pages they are trying to reach a consensus through manipulation. This sets a poor precedent, because oftentimes there is topic similarity. This also limits discussions to one page that may be similar on other pages, in which case an editor has to delay posting a comment on a discussion page and search through many other pages to find the most relevant page to base a topical discussion upon. Again, oftentimes topics are highly similar. An example is pages about the topic of deleting articles. Should a user who wants to posit suggestions to improve the AfD process limit their discussion to one page which fewer people will view, or post the information on multiple pages to encourage the building of a true and actual consensus? Many Wikipedia users don't view discussion pages, and it seems that the wording of this part of the policy may limit and inhibit the actual building of consensus. As presented, the policy is assumptive that users want to manipulate Wikipedia, which is quite likely what only a small minority of users intend to do. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Normal practice is to start discussion in one place, and to post links to it to all other relevant pages. This is not forumshopping, it causes no delay, it makes sure that all interested editors can participate, and it makes it possible to reach one consensus instead of multiple, possibly conflicting ones. For more background on this particular case, please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Fram (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy between this page and Policy
This page seems to require talk page discussion before changes to policy pages. The policy policy however allows the bold editing of policy pages. I personally feel that bold editing should be allowed and the wording here modified, although I agree we should admonish caution when making changes. I think an outright ban on editing policy pages(eliminating the possibility of bold, revert, discuss and totally contrary to WP:BOLD) is a bad direction to take the policy of policy, after all, that is how all these pages were created in the first place. Simultaneously (somewhat ironically) I am tepid enough to talk about this discrepancy first, rather then just editing the page. Thoughts? Crazynast 04:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see any conflict—they both say the obvious, namely that normal procedure would be to discuss a proposed change to a policy rather than jumping in and substantively changing it. However, this is not a bureaucracy and there may be exceptions, so "no prior discussion" is not reason to revert a good change. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't read this page or any page as prohibiting the bold editing of policy. If you can improve a policy page, by correcting or improving a description of policy in practice, then do it.  What is discouraged is the bold editing of policy as an attempt to "change the rules" as a means to changing practice.  Policy pages, freely edited, should lag current practice and describe recent practice.  New ideas, and new rules should be discussed first.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Should vs. May

''The older but still valid method is to boldly edit the page. Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards.'' and Substantive changes should be proposed on the talk page first seem to directly conflict. If multiple methods are allowed we should say that or at least not imply that there is only one course of action for change. If the community view (or established practice) is that the only time we don't start at the talk page is when we're ignoring all rules we should reflect that consistently across the policy pages as well. The simple change I attempted was to change should to may in the second passage, undone with the comment "should" is still correct, with rare exceptions per usualWP:BURO and WP:IAR. It seems to me that saying should is inherently bureaucratic as a requirement, where leaving it as a strongly encouraged option would be sufficent. Thoughts? Crazynast 08:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you disagreeing with the statement that substantive changes to policy pages should be proposed on the talk page first? How would replacing "should" with "may" help? Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Should" works better than "may". There is a slice of Lie-to-children here.  If you need to read this page to know what to do, then you should propose first.  If you don't need to read this policy, then it matters little what the precise words are.  Other constructs may improve upon "should".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Perhaps the solution is a re-write from "Substantive changes should be proposed on the talk page first...:" to something like "Accordingly, the best practice is to propose substantive changes on the talk page first ..." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There are probably three kinds of changes being mixed up here. One is merely cosmetic changes to policy pages (spelling corrections, wording improvements, even quite substantial reorganization) - these shouldn't require prior discussion any more than changes to WP articles would. The second is changes that change the substantial meaning of the policy page (i.e. change the rules, if policy pages are seen as rules) to bring it into line with what is actually accepted best practice. The third is changes that aim to change what is accepted as best practice. It's the third that obviously ought to require prior discussion (you can't say that the community accepts something that it doesn't yet do unless it explicitly says it wishes to start doing it). But the first two types of changes ought to take place just like changes to any other page. Unfortunately in practice they often don't, since certain people are very trigger-happy with the revert button on policy pages, having got i into their heads that these pages contain some kind of semi-sacred text (or at least, that they always describe best practices eloquently, accurately and authoritatively, which is unfortunately not the case). --Kotniski (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As to polishing up the language my feeling is perfect is the enemy of good. If somebody sticks in something better fine but I don't want anything contorted which is exactly and perfectly true and consistent. Dmcq (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Majority vote?

 * ''Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes.

This edit introduced a novel policy; it contradicts WP:NOTDEM, and does not seem ever to have been discussed at this page. Its effect, if taken literally, is to replace consensus by majority vote any time a closer chooses to invoke it.

I trust that it is intended more narrowly: that sometimes a decision must be taken, and if it is absolutely necessary to act one way or the other, the majority prevails.

We are not a government; there is very little we must do, that cannot wait for discussion to include as large a proportion of editors as possible. On the assumption that this was what was meant, I shall edit to:


 * ''Consensus, on Wikipedia, is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. Silence on the disputed issue is sometimes an option, but in those cases where a decision is absolutely necessary, and compromise is impossible, it may be necessary to follow the majority. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes.

Please note that even this redefines "consensus." Off Wikipedia, it does mean "Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons," as the OED puts in (italics mine). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If consensus in the real world requires unanimity, then Wikipedia redefined consensus a long time before this page caught up.--Kotniski (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're saying here, but I think the proposed change is an improvement. The way I read the new paragraph, it does not imply that unanimity is a prerequisite to consensus. Crazynast 20:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I wasn't objecting to the new paragraph, just pointing out that the original change to this page (way back whenever) that introduced talk of a majority was hardly a novelty - decisions have been called "consensus" without being unanimous for as long as I've been on Wikipedia, and probably ever since the total number of editors rose above about five. --Kotniski (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me distinguish:
 * For us, decisions don't have to be unanimous to be consensus. I agree, and that is in the new text.
 * But for us, decisions made solely by majority vote are and ought to be vanishingly rare. They would have to be both situations where we couldn't simply say "no consensus" and leave the matter alone and ones where there was no hope of attracting wider approval by amending the proposal ("not A or B, but A'. ")
 * The novelty here consisted in suggesting that majority votes were somehow normal.


 * These are separate points; perhaps they should be separate paragraphs in the policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at my own language, I think one more tweak is warranted. When there is no consensus, sometimes we are silent, but more often we leave things are they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ''Consensus, on Wikipedia, is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no widespread agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissentients without losing those who accept the proposal.


 * ''When no widespread agreement is possible, we call that no consensus. Often this results in no change or in silence on the disputed issue. If there is a case where a decision is absolutely necessary, and compromise is impossible, it may be necessary to follow a simple majority. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes.

This seems a better and clearer description of what we do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. "... and a majority decision must be taken" is a statement of opinion that doesn't belong in this policy.  Where an active decision must be taken, WP:Rough consensus (see also Rough consensus) may be relevant.  Or WP:DR.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The change to the policy was made without consensus, and is also contrary to the spirit of the policy. I think it should be removed completely. By "completely" I mean that we should not replace it with a watered down or modified version. Wikipedia does not work by majority votes. To suggest "we work by consensus, but when we can't get it we settle for a majority vote" is nonsense, because it amounts to no more than a roundabout way of saying "we work by majority vote", which is just not true. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The draft above included a majority vote because we do, on rare occasions, use one: ArbCom elections, for example. But I have no problem treating those as IAR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is a case where a decision is absolutely necessary, and compromise is impossible, it may be necessary to follow a simple majority. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes.
 * is removed. Thoughts? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Three thoughts:
 * That consensus does not require unanimity has been in this policy for years. If "consensus is not unanimity", then consensus is (sometimes) a (weird kind of) majority (including, importantly, that you "count" the !votes of the whole community when you're determining the majority, so that any one editor easily outvotes any number of vandals).
 * The current discussion is prompted by the RFC at WT:V. To avoid any time-wasting allegations about "gaming the system", I strongly suggest making no changes until that RFC is firmly, totally, definitely over with, including plenty of time for whoever feels aggrieved by the outcome to go off and complain in whatever (usually multiple) forums they choose.  If this line can be improved, then it can be improved a month from now.
 * There are times when "no consensus" is an inappropriate, or even impossible, outcome. We cannot simultaneously delete and not-delete images; we cannot simultaneously elect and not-elect people to the Arbitration Committee, and we cannot simultaneously block and not-block users.  Rather than pretending that a true consensus is always possible, we actually pre-define the meaning of "no consensus" in some situations (e.g., "no consensus" at AFD is treated exactly like a full-consensus keep).  This policy has to cover all of those situations, not just the text-changing disputes that are clearly on the OP's mind.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was prompted to read the section by a quote at the WT:V discussion, but that is not why I object to it; I did not realize, despite citing this policy for years, that Kotniski had added a reference to majoritarianism, and I would think it unwise if nobody had cited it. I would object to a restoration of the text at the head of the page; this entire discussion casts doubt on it ever being consensus - or indeed what Kotniski actually meant to say.
 * As for What's examples: those are the sorts of thing that belong in guidelines and other policies; specifying them here makes them too hard to reconsider. Do any of them fall outside the range of no consensus = no change (deletions, moves, blocks) or no consensus = silence? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly there are exceptions. If there is no consensus on whether something is a copyright violation, we normally delete it—a change.  If there is no consensus behind a block, then the account gets unblocked—a change.  RFAs normally pass with 70%, even though that's technically "super-majority" rather than "consensus".  More importantly, "no change" can be meaningless.  Imagine that I create an article.  The next day, you add a sourced paragraph to it.  Some people say your paragraph is off-topic; others believe it's relevant.  The discussion dies out with no consensus.  What does "no change" mean in this situation?  No change, so your newly added paragraph is reverted?  Or no change, so your newly added paragraph is kept?  Either of these choices could legitimately be construed as "no change".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts on this are in my essay: User:ASCIIn2Bme/What "no consensus" really means. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, this is really getting away from the spirit of consensus. If you want to make a meaningful revision, I think you want to lean this way: ''Consensus is a different concept than a numerical count. It is not unanimity and not majority rule, but rather a process of negotiation and balancing intended to create an outcome that most people will consent to, even if they don't agree with it 100%. Consensus in the natural outcome of a healthy collaborative process, where editors have worked together to craft an article they can all live with.'' ''In some cases consensus is not achievable, usually because editors working on the article are unable to edit collaboratively due to ideological differences or personal frictions. In such cases editors may seek outside comments to break the stalemate, using tools such as RfC's. But these are not intended to be votes or efforts at establishing some 'majority opinion'; they should be considered extensions of the consensus process that bring in new editors to overcome the failure of collaboration on the page. Often, in fact, an RfC will produce a result unrelated to its original request, merely because new editors add fresh perspectives to the dispute.''

-- Ludwigs 2 05:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we do we must not remove or hide the key information that on Wikipedia (in contrast to many cases in the real world) the word "consensus" is often used to describe a situation where there is far from unanimous agreement. One gets the feeling that this page, like so many other policy and guideline pages, is not being written with the intention of conveying to people clearly how we actually do things, but in a weaselly way in order to produce (or eliminate) statements that can be used as "arguments" elsewhere.--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is likely to be a difference between Wikiepedia's practices and its rules. That is common for institutions and is not necessarily a bad thing because it allows the solution of difficult cases. Definitions or rules are reductive and, as Kotniski notes, are often written with an eye to how they might be misappropriated; this, too, is normal. This page tries to express the practice of consensus on Wikipedia without writing in an excess of procedure and that rightly leads to editors using "consensus" and its related policies on the hard cases. I don't think we want to discourage that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One more thing. There is a sensible rule of thumb for when a reasonable consensus is reached: when a majority of the minority accepts a proposal, that is very good evidence that the minority views are recognized and incorporated. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue is what to do under a very specific circumstance: (1) consensus cannot be reached and (2) a decision must be taken.  For example:  an image has been reported as a suspected copyright violation.  The discussion is strongly divided.  We cannot both "keep" and "delete" the image.  What do we do?  Pretend that we have a consensus anyway?  Keep the discussion open, possibly for years (a process that puts the WMF in legal jeopardy if it actually is a copyvio), in the hope that a true consensus will magically appear someday?
 * We all want consensus. Actually, we all want perfect unanimity, because it's simple and easy to interpret.  But it is not always possible to achieve this.  And sometimes (not most of the time), we actually have to make a decision despite the obvious absence of consensus.
 * Three days ago, this policy talked about what happens in that (rare) circumstance. Now it doesn't, and we're back to pretending that consensus will always appear, if only you talk long enough (and block irritating people often enough).
 * Think about the possible copyvio: There's no consensus, with strong arguments and good editors on both sides, and we must ultimately make a decision one way or the other.  What would you do?  Endlessly extend the discussion?  Always keep the disputed image?  Always delete the image?  Go with the majority?  Stick your head in the sand and pretend that choosing to take no action is not itself a decision?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * New paragraphs are covered in WP:BURDEN: the burden of establishing consensus rests on those who would add material, so it defaults to no addition, which is no change from the extablished text.


 * Copyvio (and BLP) fall under the same principle: adding material requires consensus. They also have a touch of IAR, since we are acting under legal constraints.


 * Nevertheless, I don't think that we should list such cases here: discussing things on two different pages leads to divergence. Is there a list of places where the meaning of "no consensus" is pre-decided? That would be a useful addition, as another subsection. 15:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't find it useful to think of an IfD as a case where a decision must be taken; if that were the case, once an image was kept, that would settle it indefinitely. But there are, in practice, three resolutions: delete, keep and stop asking, and no consensus. If there is no consensus, there can easily be, and often are, repeated IfDs until consensus does form. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Once positions are ossified, there should be an implicit burden on the minority to craft a proposal that their own like-minded editors endorse, as that mitigates the possibilities of stonewalling. If a minority's proposal is accepted by a majority of the majority, that should be good enough, as a practical matter. Similarly, a majority proposal accepted by a majority of the minority should end the discussion as a practical matter. That recognizes that unanimity is not always possible, that sometimes a decision must be taken, that decisions are revisable, that minority stonewalling is bad and that, in the absence of anything else, majorities are not irrelevant. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thinking about that paragraph, does a brand-new stub really count as "established text"? If you've had something for a few years, then it's easy to claim a "prior consensus" (a claim, BTW, that violates the CCC provisions of this policy), but it's silly to make such a claim for two paragraphs whose age differs in only a matter of minutes or hours.
 * About the image in my example, the fact is that we don't know whether it's a copyvio: we can't make up our minds.  Deciding to choose the default is, itself, a decision.
 * We have many defaults defined in scattered places. A unified list might be useful.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly we should say something about how the "consensus" principle is applied in different areas. It's quite different with deletion decisions, for example, than with day-to-day article editing decisions, and different again for major policy changes (or even minor policy wording changes that people get emotional about, like this "verifiability not truth" nonsense).--Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus seems to offer the best method to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability
Why do we need to say this in the lead? What is it even supposed to mean? What other methods have been considered? Is this the sole or main raison d'etre of the consensus principle?--Kotniski (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To remind those of us who would prefer to run by 51% that this is not mere philosophy; it's how Wikipedia chooses to do things, because - when practiced - it works. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But why specifically "to ensure neutrality and verifiability"? Surely in so far as it works for those two things, it works just as well for all other things we find desirable? (And again, what other methods are we comparing it with? Who has done the comparison? On what basis do they conclude that consensus "seems best"?)--Kotniski (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutrality, because a truly neutral text really needs agreement from rational readers from all the contending sides; finding them is the problem. Verifiability needs the same readers, as a check on what we need to verify.


 * As for the rest, this is a program; those who want to see what an encyclopedia genuinely produced by majority vote would look like, with all the sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry that implies, are welcome to take a fork. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, majority vote is not the only alternative to what we call "consensus" (assuming there really is meaningfully a "method" corresponding to our use of that word). And my objection to saying "verifiability" and "neutrality" was not that consensus fails to produce these goods, but that consensus is equally successful (or arguably unsuccessful) at producing our other goods (completeness, clarity, usability, etc.), so there seems to be no particular reason to single out these two.--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Completeness and clarity are less valuable to us; we are more willing to tolerate an incomplete or turgid article, on the grounds that it will get fixed before WP:DEADLINE, than OR or bias. Also, they are more likely to be attained by individual work, not requiring consensus. But if you want to say something like including neutrality and verifiability, suggest language. My reason for not saying something myself is that I don't see how to qulaify without verbosity Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that it's the best method to establishing verifiability. For example, recruiting, training, and retaining subject-matter experts would often be more effective.
 * I more or less agree with the claim that it produces NPOV compliance. Additionally, it normally produces what we might call good editorial judgment:  if everyone agrees that these two articles ought to be merged, then that probably is the best choice.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, although "it" (assuming there is an "it") doesn't necessarily mean "everyone agrees".--Kotniski (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of out worst editors are "subject-matter experts"; fortunately, some of them are now Citisendium's problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

what consensus is
I changed this section to read as follows:

Ronz reverted with an unclear edit summary. Are there any actual problems with this revision (which I think sums up the concept nicely)? -- Ludwigs 2 16:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Actual problems" This is called "poisoning the well." It's deemed disruptive in consensus-building.
 * The question is, is this an overall improvement? I think not.
 * Better to keep the "What consensus is" introduction concise.
 * If details need to be added, do it elsewhere in the policy, but get consensus to do so. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at it briefly, Ludwigs' text seems to be an improvement - it actually attempts to explain things reasonably fully, which is what I would have thought a section titled "What consensus is" ought to be doing. It's not an introduction (that's what the lead is for), this is the heart of the policy, where tricky concepts (as this one undoubtedly is) need to be explained at whatever length is necessary. --Kotniski (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ronz: I just wanted to know what your 'actual' objections were. The current 'what consensus is' section is largely meaningless and even ungrammatical at points, so that objection can't really be correct.  you still haven't said anything specific about the issues you see, and I can't really credit this as a meaningful objection until you do. But  let's wait a day and let others chime in.


 * Kotniski: Ok. give it a more though review when you get a chance, and let us know what you think.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "meaningless?" "ungrammatical?" where?
 * "I can't really credit this as a meaningful objection until you do" Being dismissive of others is disruptive to consensus-building. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As is reverting others' good-faithed edits without being prepared to explain why.--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I like this text in general. If there is a grammatical error or an unclarity, I do not see it.

I do disagree, however, with "The aim of consensus is to reach understanding, not agreement". No; if someone understands my arguments, and still thinks them evil and mistaken, he is not part of the consensus for them. The aim of consensus is acceptance: that everyone will tolerate the consensus position, without active efforts to overturn it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good distinction. It's acceptance as opposed to agreement, and "understanding" is a very poor word to use because of its multiple meanings. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. The idea behind that, really, was that the more someone understands your perspective, the less likely they are to think your perspective is stupid/evil.  They may still think it's mistaken, but mistaken beliefs are grounds for conversation and compromise, rather than combat.  In the philosophical presentation of consensus-decision making sources talk about creating the correct form of discussion, because setting up the right form is essential to productive consensus processes; but that form always involves trying to understand what your opposite is saying in his/her terms.


 * the theory behind consensus decision making is a little high-toned for use on project, but it would be nice to incorporate some of the principles. -- Ludwigs 2  23:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner is an apocryphal piece of late Enlightenment optimism; even Mme. de Staël, to whom it is attributed, never went quite that far. To see it after the twentieth century is astounding. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, some good stuff in what you have proposed that I think we shall want to incorporate. However, I'm not so sure that "Consensus is a process", more that, "Consensus is the level of agreement needed for a proposal to be accepted within WP's decision-making process". Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should really decide how much abuse of the word "consensus" we are prepared to accept in the policy. Really it's a term that Wikipedia has borrowed from the real world and become accustomed to using to describe any facet of its decision-making process, which is a complex and internally inconsistent thing for which there is almost certainly no real word.--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @PMAnderson: I hate to put it quite this way, but if you want a consensus system, then you have to accept an optimistic view on human nature. if you don't want to accept an optimistic view on human nature, then we should scrap consensus as an ideal and move to a more centralized authoritarian system.  I'm trying to work within the principles of the project here, which insist on cood faith, openness, and a degree of mutual trust.


 * really, the problem here is that the project is caught between two mindsets
 * there is a strong ideal on-project about freedom, liberty, and personal rights (pure excessive enlightenment idealism)
 * there is a strong sense of paranoia about the behavior of others (primal clannism, in-group/out-group fears and aggressions)
 * When you mix those two there are only two possible outcomes (short of authoritarianism): rise above it to something collegial and collaborative, or a descent into Hobbes' world. You can't have both, and if you don't choose consciously you'll always end up with the latter.


 * In other words, I agree with you, but I think you're wrong. Think about that a bit.


 * @Uniplex & Kotniski: I'm just reflecting and clarifying a frequent cause of confusion on project. I thinking of the following kind of dispute:
 * Editor A: "You're not following consensus" (a process claim)
 * Editor B: "You're not obeying consensus" (an established-rule claim)
 * The term gets used in both ways, and I don't think people always realize that difference in usage, so I think it's a good idea to clarify it. -- Ludwigs 2  15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Authoritarianism is certainly a conceivable outcome; it is one way the project could fail. (The result here would be mass abandonment by editors, since emigration is so easy.) The Unbearable Lightness of Being is partly about a combination of Enlightenment idealism and paranoia in the real world, and the effects of its -er- change of state, where emigration was not possible. We will at least avoid defenestration.


 * Consensus requires more optimism than Hobbes; that's not a high threshold. But it does not require that the Barlanders and the Foolanders come to a reign of sweetness and light by understanding each others' positions; most such pairs understand each others' positions perfectly well now, but abominate them. It merely requires that, most of the time, there will be a sufficient number of uninvolved editors to decide between them, and balance on a reasonable course, while maintaining elementary civility - the advantage of a large editor pool, not saturated with any one or two factions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So in fact we can't say that the (realistic) aim of consensus is for everyone to do anything - those whose views are based on the "wrong" motives may need to be eliminated from the approval process, along with those who persist in disrupting the process in any of various ways. In fact our decision-making process is quite a long way from being based purely on what "consensus" would be generally understood to mean - often decisions are made on the basis of a respected but previously uninvolved adjudicator weighing the arguments and deciding which are stronger (partly on the basis of how many people have been convinced by them), while tending to give a (somewhat arbitrary) amount of extra weight to the position that we should leave things as they are. Making editors happy, though desirable, is (and should be) only a subsidiary goal.--Kotniski (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, making editors happy so that the dispute goes away, and they spend time on the encyclopedia instead, is the purpose of the system. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be a purpose (particularly in the case of the lamer disputes), but the central purpose, surely, is to reach decisions which are the right ones (in terms of Wikipedia's mission and principles).--Kotniski (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion is so central to the Wikipedia problem…


 * PMAnderson: I understand your perspective, but I still disagree with it - take that both as a statement and as an example of what I'm talking about. In academic circles (where most everyone is a high-functioning intellectual) you see this all the time: two people who are absolutely dedicated to defeating each other's position, but who go about it in a thoroughly reasonable, thoroughly civil way, with great respect for each other.  On wikipedia it's entirely different: people do not easily differentiate between disagreement and disapproval, or agreement and approval: they get confused and think - as you seem to suggest - that understanding=agreement=approval, so one cannot understand an opponent without getting all namby-pamby, lovey-dovey, group-huggish.  So instead, they get hostile where they should just respectfully disagree.  trust me, academics never get lovey-dovey, but they are very good at working through disagreements.


 * Kotniski: The system we have now is only a consensus system at the margins, where no one is looking. in the center we have a dysfunctional system where the person/group which most effectively casts him/her/itself as a victim dominates the discussion.  that's why this policy needs strengthening and clarification.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The victim problem is real; but what can this page do about it? Hacking down WP:CIVIL and firing the admins who facilitate its abuse can scarcely be done here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but setting up guidelines for civil, collaborative discourse thing a less subjective and less game-able. right now I'm getting massacred elsewhere because editors have managed to warp the concept of consensus discussion so far out of true that any effort to establish a discussion looks uncivil - it's a bizarre manifestation.  Being able to point to what a proper discussion should look like would help a lot.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

So to return to Ludwig's original proposed wording at the top of this thread, does anyone have any problem with it except for the sentence "The aim of consensus is to reach understanding, not agreement - it is expected that people can disagree with the outcome but accept it because they understand the principles in play."? If that sentence were left out (or altered somehow), would we accept the text?--Kotniski (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It still requires substantial tweaking:
 * Such discussions are usually closed when they reach a saturation point in which most of the participants share a loose agreement about which policies and principles are pertinent and how they should be applied to the debate is not how I would describe closing; I'm not sure we need this here, but if so, it would be closer to say that discussions are closed when the discussion stops; to avoid editors repeating themselves until everybody else is bored and then declaring victory, we may need to say is substantially over, and few substantive contributions seem likely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not always achievable for the same reasons that collaboration sometimes fails - strong ideological convictions, interpersonal frictions, or simple good-faith disagreement can frustrate the natural discussion process. is tendentious; frustrate and natural are emotion-laden and beg the question.
 * The following sentence is simply wrong; we should encourage, and we must describe, the preferred reaction to no consensus; coming back with an amended proposal which addresses the concerns of both sides. We should also mention that discussions quite often emerge with a result which was neither the original state nor the proposal; otherwise we will be quoted as prohibiting that useful practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there was also an objection to "Consensus is a process..."' - could that be fixed by saying something like "Consensus-based decision-making is a process..." or "Consensus is the basis for a process..." ?--Kotniski (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is what Wikipedia calls the process which...? But it wasn't my objection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As something of a newcomer to this page I know little of its history and motivation, however, having thought a little more since my comment above, I have to say that I'd expect a policy page to more prescriptive than descriptive, and that the proposed text seems to be more the latter (though so is the existing text to a certain extent). If we're trying to state "What consensus is", I think we should aim for an as clear and concise definition of such as we can manage. Perhaps (most of) the proposed text would be better as an essay? Uniplex (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We ought to have less differentiation between prescription and description than most places; see WP:Policy: Functioning policies do describe what we actually do; if there is real consensus for something, it is what most people will actually do when they think about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, someone once told me that the way to eat an elephant is one mouthful at a time. I'm guessing it might be good advice here; proposing one change (or at least, fewer changes) at time might make for slow progress, but hey, it's progress! Uniplex (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Uniplex - lol - you apparently have not noticed what a big mouth I have.  Strange, because everyone else seems to have.


 * seriously though, that approach is entirely appropriate for fleshing out a developed concept, but it doesn't work for developing a concept in the first place. The concept of consensus on wikipedia is confused, disjointed, and confounded largely because people have been trying to approach it one bit at a time rather than create an overriding concept; it's a vague hodgepodge rather than a clear principle. 'Consensus' is almost impossible to use effectively on project no one has a clear idea what it means, so everyone interprets it is self-serving ways.


 * so lets try a revision, incorporating what I read above:


 * are we getting closer?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'm coming to agree with the point that was made before, that we shouldn't abuse language too much, and that we should avoid using "consensus" to mean a process - consensus should mean the (desired) result, not the way of getting there.--Kotniski (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * if you're going to make that distinction, make it the other way - the process is what's important here. not the result. If we restrict consensus solely to the result then what we are going to see (as we already see so much of) is people asserting that a 'consensus' has been established and then aggressively destroying any conversation which might change that state.  That is a worst-case scenario in which editors starts using the term 'consensus' to assert more-or-less absolute totalitarian rule.


 * Don't get me wrong, if you want totalitarianism then we can discuss that - there are advantages to totalitarian systems for a project like this - but I object to saying that we rely on consensus and then acting in a totalitarian fashion. that's just confusing for everyone, and disrupts the project on a fundamental level.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that we shouldn't talk about the process - just that it would be linguistically more satisfactory not to call the process "consensus", but to call it something like "the consensus-based decision-making process". That way "consensus" has only one meaning (at least, only one spectrum of meanings), and corresponds somewhat better (I think) with real-world usage.--Kotniski (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to make that distinction clearer then we should talk about 'consensus decisions' and 'consensus discussions' as two separate things. the problem is the people on wikipedia fail to make the proper distinction - when you here someone say 'You're violating consensus!' it's almost never clear whether they mean "you're trying to overturn what we've already agreed on" or "you're not discussing things properly", and that distinction needs to be clear for the conversation to progress.  Do you see what I'm getting at?  I don't want to restrict the word 'consensus' to one sense or the other, because that will work against the way the word is commonly used, but I do want to clarify the potential for confusion between the two senses.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede
How about we simply remove, "and seems to offer the best method to achieve the goals of the project, including neutrality and verifiability, within its collaborative editing model" and be done with the weasel word? It's redundant with "all legitimate editorial concerns" and while I can see how someone might want to emphasize WP:NPOV at a later time, I don't understand the need for any emphasis of WP:V. And until we have one or more definitions, restore "There is no single definition of what the term "consensus" means." Something like: "Consensus refers to the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what the term 'consensus' means – it does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable), but implies that the decision-making process involves an active effort to incorporate all legitimate editorial concerns instead of relying on numerical voting.""Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages." Thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the weasel words should go. In practice, "usually reach consensus" is perhaps a little too much, "often reach consensus" perhaps. Uniplex (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I suggested before, I think this whole sentence about neutrality, verifiability etc. could happily be dispensed with. Obviously the community uses this method (inasmuch as it can be called a "method") because the community thinks it's the best method. I'd also be happy to dispense with the "no single definition" bit, even though I seem to recall putting it there myself sometime in the past.--Kotniski (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The parenthetic clause on unanimity is awkward to my eyes. I'd prefer something along the lines of "Since the ideal of unanimity is rarely attainable, ..." LeadSongDog come howl!  15:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Carry on... what would come after that?--Kotniski (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Existing: "Consensus" on Wikipedia does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable), but implies that the decision-making process involves an active effort to incorporate all legitimate editorial concerns instead of relying on numerical voting. Suggested: "Since the ideal of unanimity is rarely attainable, Wikipedia's decision-making process involves an active effort to find a consensus which incorporates all legitimate editorial concerns without relying on numerical voting." Other wording might be used to similar intent. My immediate concern was just the sentence structure. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That implication isn't really the one we mean, though - if you say "since the ideal of unanimity is rarely attainable", the next clause would have to be something that means "we don't require unanimity".--Kotniski (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which would imply leaving unanimity out of the first sentence and making something like this the second sentence:  "Consensus" on Wikipedia does not mean that decisions must be unanimous; the ideal of unanimity is rarely attainable. First define, then qualify. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry too much about the sentence structure for now. I suggest to go with Ronz's proposal. Uniplex (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's accurate to say that unanimity is rarely attainable. To the contrary, the overwhelming majority of edits are accepted more or less as is. The exceptions stand out because they are contentious, but normally it's not a problem to figure out what to do. Secondly, it's a serious error of judgment to think that we can define consensus as practiced here on Wikipedia without reference to the goals and mission of the site. Definitions and rules are reductive. The practice of consensus on Wikipedia is what this article should try to point to, and a definition will not accomplish that goal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with having no definition is that we are redefining the word. Non-Wikipedians have every reason to be baffled by any of our "consensus" discussions; to anyone consulting a competent dictionary, consensus is unanimity. We must say (and where better than here?) that we mean something different. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that sentiment. However, there is not a widespread confusion about the practice here. More than likely that is partly attributable to what it has said on this page heretofore. Although there is a lot of self-satisfaction in taking out the "weasel words", I see it differently. As far as I can tell, it is exactly correct that consensus "seems" to be the best method to achieve Wikipedia aims. Sometimes "seems" is the fact of the matter. As it has read, it says that we do it this way because we think this is what works, even though we can't be sure this is why it works. The practice has to be connected to the goals to make it clear that if the practice doesn't serve the goal, it is not correct. So this is an important lynchpin to my way of thinking. Over-specification of the concept makes it brittle and that is not what will work. Instead, we need a flexible concept that allows sensible people to use their sensible judgement to solve the problem of putting together articles. Again, we want to point in the right direction, not give a step by step, inch by inch diagram of how we think someone else should go. If we set our egos aside, I don't see why we want to alter what is working unless it is incremental. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ronz's proposal does not state that unanimity "is rarely attainable"; it has "is not always achievable". Also, it has "all legitimate editorial concerns" which of course includes WP policies. An observation that something seems to work is not particularly helpful: it just leaves the reader wondering why the statement is there. If we want to be more explicit, I suggest to incorporate the sentiment of this sentence from the article body: "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority." Uniplex (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but someone above said unanimity is rarely attainable and that is not a good justification for Ronz's proposal. To be clear, I do not disagree with the ideas in Ronz's proposal and the definitions it offers "seem" to state things well. However, Uniplex, I don't think that the status quo says simply that things seem to work; it says that Wikipedia goals are served by consensus to the best of our knowledge. That is a good attempt to be extremely accurate. It states as clearly as possible why consensus remains the policy without going beyond the limit of understanding. In this article, it is important to tie the policy on consensus to the larger means and ends of Wikipedia. There is plenty of time later in the article to cash out the practice (and the practice -- not the meaning of a word -- is what matters, since 'consensus' is just the verbal hook on which we hang this). --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, my "rarely" was overly pessimistic. How about: "Since the ideal of unanimity is not always attainable, Wikipedia's decision-making process involves an active effort to find a consensus which incorporates all legitimate editorial concerns without relying on numerical voting."LeadSongDog come howl!  14:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It still seems to be a nonsequitur. The two clauses are not related in the way that the word "since" would imply: the first clause is not the reason for the second.--Kotniski (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

well, if we want to revise the lead as well, I'd suggest the following (mostly because it follows better compositional style):

Bit of a refocusing, maybe, but I think better… -- Ludwigs 2  18:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but perhaps a bit unfriendly to the average reader, who just wants an explanation in everyday language, not a philosophical treatise right at the start. We need to be clear about the basic points that we all know, but a reader coming from the real world might not be aware of (chiefly that around here, "consensus" doesn't mean that nothing can be done without unanimity).--Kotniski (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * well, point taken, but allow me to make the (somewhat snarky) point that it is far easier to 'dumb-down' a solid philosophical concept than to 'smarten-up' a vague hodgepodge of disconnected sentiments. Saying that it's 'a bit unfriendly' is not as helpful as it could be: either it's a bit unfriendly but right, or a bit unfriendly but wrong.  if it's the former then we can work to make it more accessible.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's try that with verbs; I do not intend any change in meaning:


 * This is some progress but it is getting away from plain English. It has been implied here that 'consensus' should be so well laid out in this article that a neophyte can read it and jump right in with perfect knowledge of Wikipedia practices on consensus. That is not a reasonable or attainable goal. The practice of consensus will only be understood by experience and no definition will express that. Please, get used to that idea; consensus cannot be defined adequately, it can only be shown. Also, to the extent this article doesn't connect the practice of consensus to the larger aims of the encyclopedia it will be a failure. Is it a non sequitur to connect consensus to other Wikipedia values? Well, they must be connected because consensus is the means to the attainment of those ends! Consensus is not the chosen method on account of metaphysical or ideological reasons. No, it is a practical method and its implementation has practical results. We need to place consensus within the galaxy of Wikipedia values to show how to use it. That is not trivial; it is essential. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So what do you propose doing about the sentence in the lede that currently serves that purpose, but has been marked (for understandable reasons) with a "weasel" tag?--Kotniski (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ring: I dispute your claim that consensus cannot be defined adequately. In fact it's easy enough to do it (as we have started to do here), it's just not easy to put it in terms that a layman will immediately find accessible.  However, it would be much better to have a correct-but-not-immediately-accessible definition than to have immediately accessible handwaving.  we should give them a correct definition to ponder, and then let them understand that definition through experience; we should not leave them hanging with a vague "you'll figure it out in time" thing.  Proper instruction requires properly framing material so that people have something to work with.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Kotniski: I find the weasel tag inaccurate. Sometimes "seems" is the right word. It's in the language for a reason. Knee-jerk labeling is cheap, not smart. I touched on this above, but it says "seems" because, among other reasons, there is not a counterfactual comparison or perspective of perfect knowledge from which to judge. It seems that consensus does something for Wikipedia that, say, majoritarianism or authoritarianism does not (and it goes without saying that verifiability and reliability are more important values than consensus).
 * Ludwig: I am not saying that we shouldn't do our best to define the term. That has always been in the article and I am on board with the bit above that tries to improve on that. But it's not handwaving to say that the practice is what matters and to be aware that definitions are reductive, especially when the matter at hand is complex. Again, the idea that it is handwaving to allow the editors to work out the practice as needed is a bit too hierarchical for our purposes. If there was no definition it would be preferable to an over-determination that does not speak to the ends that consensus seems to serve. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

While the term "seems" is sometimes the right word, it has no place here. Seems means to "give the impression". We should not be talking about impressions here. I suggest we take Ronz' original proposal, and incorporate suggestions from LeadSongDog (parenthetic clause on unanimity is awkward), PMA (define first, then qualify), Ring Cinema (saying unanimity is rarely attainable is inaccurate), Uniplex (ultimately determined by evaluating arguments through lens of policy), Kotniski and others...

How's that? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's an improvement, but there remain some issues. Is consensus really a process, an objective, or simply a transient state of a dynamic article (or paragraph, or sentence)? Do we not really mean "that wording to which the editors currently consent"? The "process" is more applicable to consensus building than the consensus itself. We should also make rather more explicit that the dictionary "majority rule" definition is not what we mean. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points! Is this explicit enough?


 * --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Revised wording of last sentence. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Should "compromise" be given more prominence? It's shown in the diagram as being core to the process. Uniplex (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, and, in fact, suggest de-emphasizing if not eliminating other references to "compromise" on the page. I mean, what exactly in the consensus building process is supposed to be compromised?  What standards are to be lowered?  What principles are to be ignored?  What policies dismissed?  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right: the first port of call should be to evaluate arguments through the lens etc. Maybe we can lose the final "because" clause? Seems to make the sentence a bit long and I'm not sure that following Ps & Gs needs much justification. Uniplex (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is clumsy and needs improvement, but let's not toss the baby. I think it's important to convey that it's about determining the consensus of the community, not about determining the consensus of the handful or whatever of editors who happen to be paying attention.  Is this better, or worse?


 * To me, that gets to the essence of consensus determination in WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Minor revision. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that is wrong, Born2cycle. Seems doesn't mean to "give the impression" -- at least not here. Rather, in this context it means what I said: it means that we don't know for sure if the practice is responsible for the result but we think so. And really 'seems' is only the lesser part. It is a naive mistake to divorce the practice of consensus from the ends that it serves. By stating the ends and their relationship to the means, we offer the more enduring guide for the editors. All your definitions are not worth much if they don't lead to the a better practice. If the purpose of this revision is to change that practice, what is the reason for that change? If the purpose is not to change the practice, why change the text? I'm sensing a lot of unfortunate ego and it's not pretty. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong? What is wrong?  How do you distinguish "give the impression" and "we don't know for sure if the practice is responsible for the result but we think so"?  I know they don't mean exactly the same thing, but it's pretty damn close.  For example, if I say that I'm under the impression that the U.S. went to war in Iraq because of oil, and you say don't know for sure if the U.S. went to war in Iraq because of oil, but you think that's why, aren't we expressing pretty much the same opinion? But your point about needing to explain why we use consensus is well taken, though I think we can and should do it without using "seems" or the synonymous terms or phrases just discussed. The purpose of these revisions, as others have noted, is to better explain what consensus at Wikipedia means, because it seems to be a source of confusion to newcomers.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Some copy-editing and attempt to incorporate above concerns:

Uniplex (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I must say I don't much like the increased emphasis on policies and guidelines. The stupidest results seem to come out of discussions where people argue that we have to do things some way "because WP:XYZ says so". Policies and guidelines may or may not reflect community consensus, may or may not reflect Wikipedia's practice, and may or may not be sensibly applicable in a given situation. The "lens" through which we should evaluate arguments is that of Wikipedia's principles and practices, not its pseudo-laws.--Kotniski (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well certainly the polices and guidelines do not reflect broad consensus perfectly, but reflect broad consensus is what they're supposed to do, and largely do do. Otherwise, what would be the point in having them?  I mean, just look at what we're trying to do here.  We're trying to convey as clearly as we can what CONSENSUS actually means in Wikipedia, in terms of how most people in the community actually see it. The same principle applies to the creation and revising of any policy and guideline.  It's not a perfect system (if nothing else because it's trying to reflect something, consensus about this and that and everything else, that is itself constantly evolving) but it is a self-correcting system (we're in the process of "correcting" right now, hopefully).  When we're trying to apply policy/guidelines in a given situation, and realize they say something that does not reflect broad consensus, we can propose revising it accordingly. So when we're trying to decide what policies and guidelines should say, we should be giving consideration to what broad consensus is about the particular relevant questions and issues.  But when we're trying to determine what consensus is about a given editorial questions, we should be considering what broad consensus is about that particular issue as reflected in the appropriate/applicable policies and guidelines.  That's what gives us common ground, and the ability to achieve agreement.  Otherwise we all come to the table working with a different set of rules - you drive on the right, I'll drive on the left... you go on green, I go on red... no problem!  Yeah, right...  Anyway, shouldn't that be explained here?  --Born2cycle (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice that "as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" is long-standing in the current body and we've qualified it in the proposed lede with "applicable", so maybe it's not so far off the mark? If we change "policies" in the 1st para to "principles" (we have "goals" in the 2nd para and then "applicible Ps & Gs" in the third), would that be about right? Uniplex (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would keep any mention of policies and guidelines out of the lead altogether. This is supposed to be about consensus, and consensus (if it exists) takes precedence over pretty much any written rule. The rather complex interaction between consensus and policies/guidelines can be explained at appropriate length in a later section of the page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. The consensus that matters most in WP decision-making is the consensus of the community at large.  This is what consensus is at its very essence.  The consensus reached by two, three, six or even 56 editors in a given discussion pales in terms of importance in comparison to the broad consensus that is supposed to be, and is largely, conveyed in policy and guidelines.  To leave this fundamental concept out of the lede is to completely misconstrue what consensus is.  It's like leaving out wheels in the lede of Bicycle.  --Born2cycle (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think policy and guidelines are fundamental to consensus. To the extent that they do reflect the genuine broad consensus of the community, and to the extent that the general rules they contain can be expected to make sense in a given specific situation, they certainly can be helpful in deciding matters where no clear local consensus exists. But both of those extents are limited, and anyway, this is really a part of the topic of what to do if consensus can't be clearly determined, not the fundamental essence of consensus (part of which is that decisions are made not by following set rules, but by deciding collaboratively what is the right thing to do).--Kotniski (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. But what is fundamental is that in a given situation the consensus of those participating based on who-knows-what is not what should be determined; rather, what should be determined is what the consensus of the community at large is with respect to that situation.    For example, if the 12 people who can't agree on whether to name an article A or B decide to name it A and B, that's a local consensus, but it's trumped by the consensus of the community at large that says the title has to be A or B (or maybe C), but not A and B.  Or just because the only 2 guys working on a BLP reach a consensus on whether to include some unsourced controversial statement does not mean it's okay to include it...  We have a higher standard, and that is the broad consensus of the community.  That's why the discussions in determining consensus should not be about determining a consensus that merely appeases those who happen to be involved, but it should be about what broad community consensus is with respect to that particular issue.  That's the fundamental part in theory.  In practice, it means taking policy and guidelines into consideration, because that's how we collaboratively agree in specificity what broad community consensus is.  So policy and guidelines are fundamental to consensus determination, in this indirect sense.  --Born2cycle (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As to the latest revision, we're not addressing Ring Cinema's concern about not explaining why we use consensus in WP, which used to be explained with the "seems" phrase. I find the clause about policy in the first sentence to be awkward - I don't think we need it. And "consensus" is not a process - but a reflect of broad agreement. Also, I think the first clause in the last paragraph, "Since policy and guidelines have broad consensus at Wikipedia, ...", really needs to say reflects rather than "have" (and if we were to keep "have", it would be "have broad consensus support". I attempt to address these concerns here:

--Born2cycle (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC) --Revised slightly. --Born2cycle (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still disagree strongly with the last part in particular - my experience is that discussions become productive when people stop mindlessly saying "per WP:XYZ" and start giving genuine arguments as to why the encyclopedia is improved by doing one thing rather than another.--Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Genuine arguments based on what'? --Born2cycle (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on the situation; may be simply common sense about what is going to inform users better or help them more, may be a (hopefully shared) awareness of what Wikipedia's principles and practices are. Policies and guidelines are supposed to describe the latter, but do so with limited success, and so their use as sources of wisdom should be limited accordingly.--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the situation Kotniski is describing should be covered by IAR (also policy), but also that the need to IAR should be relatively rare. If so, maybe we can put the lid on the lede for now, and move on to the body to address these and other details? Uniplex (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede (random break 1)
I agree IAR is more than sufficient to cover those situations where community consensus does not apply, or is not reflected well in policy, etc. I do have a suggestion for a change to the first part, and some slight rewording. Well, the introduction of the term, community consensus. Here it is.

--Born2cycle (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * These successive attempts to write the lead seem to me to be gradually making things worse; they make the whole matter even less readily comprehensible than it is at the moment, and introduce extremely dubious new concepts and simply untrue statements, such as "policy and guidelines reflect community consensus" - they might be supposed to, but we all know they often don't; and even when they do, they don't necessarily reflect it in regard to the matter at hand (which will often involve aspects the community never considered in its deliberations, if there were any, on the wording of the general rule).--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The concept of local versus broad consensus is already discussed in the body, so I wouldn't describe it as new as such; as for the term we adopt for this, I've no particular preference. I tend to think that  policy and guidelines do reflect community consensus, at least to the best of our ability. Granted, they may be incomplete, or they may be "wrong", but in these cases, the best course of action is often to address this directly (at guideline talk) rather than at article talk. Again, I'd suggest that this could be covered in the body. Uniplex (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Kotniski's points above are resonating with me. Editorial discussions that turn on policy points don't make for good articles. And to me it is a bit of a conceit that policy reflects a broader consensus or participation of WP editors. Who is here but us chickens? Just a few of us, it seems, self-appointed experts all. I also would offer for consideration the view that the sort of "defining" evident here easily goes astray because of the easy case/hard case problem, i.e. it is easy to say what consensus is when there's agreement, but what is it when editors dig in their heels? It seems useless, yet it remains the method by which editorial decisions are made -- supposedly. To me, given that there is no crisis of consensus in the land, we should be making incremental changes only and observing their effects before more changes are considered. The best argument for a rewrite is that supposedly a newcomer won't understand consensus as practiced here, but I would say that is perfectly all right. The practice is in the editors, not in the abstractions of a definition which will with 100% certainty fall short of explicating the practice. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again we return to the descriptive/prescriptive divide. In practice, we start out just doing something, then someone describes it, and if that description is well regarded it is used until it fossilizes into policy over time. We're losing the point with abstract discussion though. We all know that the vast majority of constructive editorial decisions are tiny in scope, often just one or two words changed with little if any discussion. If I may suggest a more descriptive lede:
 * LeadSongDog come howl!  16:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I too understand and agree with Kotniski's point. Policy does not always reflect community consensus. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is a big difference between local and community consensus, and we might as well make the distinction in the lede, so we can talk in terms of using local consensus to determine what community consensus is and how it applies in a given specific situation. The community consensus reflected in applicable policy is often instrumental in that process.

Does this address your concerns, while still conveying what actually happens? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Also incorporated LeadSongDog's point. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no it does not. Elegance matters, particularly in a lede. If we ask newbie editors to wade through something that complex, the few who do will not understand it anyhow. The application of consensus to policies and guidelines is far from being the main application, in fact it should probably not make the immediate following paragraphs. Most editors are not "policy wonks" and should not be burdened with lengthy discussions of the philosophy behind the making of policy. They simply want to know how to go about editing articles. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree editors should not be burdened with lengthy discussions of the philosophy behind the making of policy. This does not do that; it does not discuss the making of policy at all.  It simply explains that community consensus can often be found in policy  because policy usually/generally reflects community consensus.  In order to removal all mention of the making of policy in this wording, and how consensus is applied to polices and guidelines, not one byte would have to change. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) I feel the same way as LeadSongDog. Some of these points might be usefully made somewhere on the page. But this is not how the lead should be written. --Kotniski (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, can you be more specific? I honestly don't understand LSD's objection at all since the wording says nothing about making policy.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In my case, the objection (apart from the ones I've made before) is simply that this is too complex and unfathomable for the lead to this page, which ought to be something that introduces the topic in a reasonably transparent way for those who might be totally unfamiliar with it. --Kotniski (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I addressed your earlier objections. Which do you believe I did not address?  Well, it's now four short paragraphs.  If that's too complex and unfathomable, I don't know what to say.  There are a number of key points regarding consensus, and it merely touches on each of them.  Isn't that what a lead is supposed to do?  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I just arbitrarily chose to look at WP:AGF... check it out. Its lead is also very similar to this - four short paragraphs.  Is that too complex and unfathomable too?  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone remember what started this long discussion? It was a concern about how to understand consensus in the context of revising a core sourcing policy.  "Follow the policy" is not a useful answer to "What shall we say in this policy?"
 * I like pointing out the role of policies and guidelines, but it's a very much article-focused approach, and consensus is not an exclusively article-focused issue. That paragraph should probably be qualified suitably, with words like "in resolving disputes over article content", so we're clear that "follow the policy" doesn't actually apply to 100% of consensus-related disputes.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I pasted the above text by Born2cycle in this readability calculator and found that it requires an estimated six years of post-graduate education to understand (grade 22). Yes, that is too complex and unfathomable. The wording I suggested came to grade 14, but I suppose it could be further simplified:
 * This gets down to grade 12. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure it can be explained better, but that might mean making it longer. But for now let's focus on whether we have local consensus here on whether the proposed wording accurately describes what consensus is.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And, to be fair, I just pasted the current lede into that, and also got grade 22. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * WhatAmIDoing, hmm, AGF (as an example) is a consensus-supported policy that applies in all discussions whether about article content or not. So, when we comply with WP:AGF we are also doing what community consensus wants us to do.  So, maybe I'm missing something, but I think following (applicable) policy does apply to all disputes.  No? And isn't it useful, in explaining what consensus is, to point out that simply following policies and guidelines is usually being consistent with consensus? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Follow the policy" tends to result in proposals being mindlessly opposed on the (specious) grounds the rules say that we have to follow the (existing) policy. We have no policies that tell us what WP:V's lead should say; we have many advice pages that tell us what the lead to Barack Obama should say.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The lede of wp:AGF came to grade 13, while the lede of wp:V came to grade 22. NPOV was grade 15, and NOR was grade 17. Evidently this problem is more widespread than I had noticed. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's very challenging to get that grade level down. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be hard work. Perhaps, for now, we should shift focus back to the beginning of this discussion, i.e. what to do about the weaselly lead sentence. Maybe: Uniplex (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait, though I like this wording, the latest proposed lede above scores no worse in terms of complexity than the current lede, so this complexity is no reason to abandon this effort and start from scratch again. The weasel wording in the current lede was removed from the latest proposed lede many versions back.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but there were concerns that the proposed lead sentences were not as accessible or engaging as perhaps they should be, especially to the new editor. And I wonder if we might faster progress by taking smaller steps (including where possible,  the above efforts). Uniplex (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, elegance is challenging. It is worth the effort. This lede "sentence" is difficult for no good reason:
 * In fact it isn't even a real sentence. It is comma spliced to death. The initial "or" can be taken two ways: "these are synonyms" or "these are alternatives". The following "is" (rather than "are") implies that they are intended as synonyms. In that case we should simply lose either "Consensus in general, or" or else "or community consensus," from the lede sentence. The part following the word "but" is also simply wrong. It implies that sometimes only the participants consent. In truth the silence of eligible non-participants also deems consent until they end that silence. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede rewrite - making it more accessible
Uniplex, we got here pretty much one small step at a time. I believe we have addressed all concerns with respect to what it says, now we're working on making it more accessible. To that end, I incorporate LDS's latest suggestions.

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That first para gets down to a 19, but it can get to 12 by leaving out externalia. :LeadSongDog  come howl!  23:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I got para 2 from grade 20 down to a 12 too.
 * That gives us:


 * --Born2cycle (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Got para 4 from a Grade 37 (!!!) down to a Grade 16. para 3 is already a Grade 17; not bad.
 * --Born2cycle (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, then grade 14 for para 3:


 * LeadSongDog come howl!  05:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Revising para 4 to grade 15:


 * LeadSongDog come howl!  05:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede - any remaining objections/suggestions?
I dumbed down para 4 and got it down to Grade 12! To recap paragraph grades using standards schmandards:

NOTE: Ease varies from approximately 90 (comic books) to 10 (legalese) and lower (I've seen negative scores).


 * Para 1: Grade 12/Ease 40
 * Para 2: Grade 13/Ease 19
 * Para 3: Grade 14/Ease 20
 * Para 4: Grade 12/Ease 30

Any remaining suggestions or objections? Does anyone have an issue with replacing the current lede with this?

--Born2cycle (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Snuck in last sentence from above. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is not an improvement. It seems very much the product of a committee. No change is necessary and perhaps this effort should be scrapped.

I think it is a mistake to remove the bit about verifiability and reliability, since it is by paying attention to the dissenters that we catch the mistakes of the crowd.

The last paragraph doesn't seem to say anything at all.

Perhaps this is a better try:


 * The first sentence should ideally be "consensus in a nut-shell": readers should be able to read the first sentence and ask: "Has this told me all I need to know?", and if we've done a good job, the answer will sometimes be "yes" and the reader need read no further. I think Ring's 1st sentence is more likely to fit this bill; one thing missing though is an indication that WP consensus is different from that in the world at large (i.e. broad, not unanimous agreement). Also, I'd prefer if we can (as I tried above) to mention the project goals in the 1st sentence to further increase its potency as a "nut-shell".  I'm not keen on the "believed to be the best way" bit as it seems to state the obvious: all policies are believed to be the best way; if they weren't, we'd change them accordingly. Was consensus "chosen" as such, or is it more a consequence of the pillar that "anyone can edit"? Uniplex (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly I still prefer the lead we've got at the moment (assuming the problem of the "weasel word" can be sorted out somehow). All these alternative suggestions seem to be introducing quite controversial philosophical viewpoints that need at least to be addressed at length, not presented upfront as if they were fundamentals of the subject. --Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say, though (and this applies to both the current lede and the suggested ones) that it's not only editorial decisions that are made by consensus - it's any decision that we're capable of making.--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's an attempt at improvement of just the lead sentence, and incorporating your point.

Shown first bare, then with embedded justification:

IMHO, this is more complete and concise that the current lead sentence—I can't see why we should emphasise any of the 5 pillars in particular: they're all pillars. Uniplex (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Guys, this is getting worse and worse. The versions presented in this section are unclear, poorly written, and are landing fairly far away from the theoretical concept of consensus.  What in heaven's name is going on?  Nothing in this section is usable - I'm happy to give extended details on that if you like - so let's close it and start a new one.  -- Ludwigs 2  12:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could give some details of your thoughts on the sentence marked ⋈ above? If it's the syntax, please suggest a better cast. If "broad agreement" is too far from the theoretical concept of consensus, which should change, the term "consensus", or the interpretation of our decision-making as being based on "broad agreement"? Uniplex (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have any big problems with the current version. Given the importance of the subject, it would be a bad idea to alter the lede like this. Perhaps there are some incremental changes but I doubt it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The present version is badly broken. Policy should be written in language that supports "anyone can edit", not just "anyone with post-doctoral reading skills". LeadSongDog come howl!  14:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Uniplex: the ⋈ sentence is not well-written, and its meaning is ambiguous. the core of the statement is that consensus is "the broad agreement that we seek in making any decision", which is difficult to parse and problematic.  When you twist it around so that the result is first in this way you end up with people playing mid-east politics (the standard trope among mid-east dictators is that they have a consensus to rule and that anyone who disagrees is a rebel who must be suppressed to protect that consensus; we see too much of that on wikipedia pages already).  Further, the way you toss the 5P in there chops up the sentence, making it harder to parse, and reinforces a 'rules first, discussion second' mindset that antithetical to any theoretical conception of consensus.  I mean, I understand what you're getting at, but a naive reader is going to take entirely the wrong message from that line.
 * Yes, I wasn't overly enamored with the structure (but I think the subject matter is right for the lead sentence), hence my invitation to re-cast. Uniplex (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @LeadSong: it's not clear what you're referring to when you say 'The present version…'. which version are you objecting to, specifically?  -- Ludwigs 2  14:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "The present version" means the one at the lede of Consensus as of the time of the comment. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

rolling back the discussing
A revision of Ring's rewrite of my version above:

I think this covers the major points highlighted above, and separates out the 'ideal' of consensus from the 'practice' of consensus (which is where a lot of the above confusion rests). -- Ludwigs 2 14:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I quite like that as far as "However,..." - after that it seems to go off at various tangents for unclear reasons.--Kotniski (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In other words, you like the first twolines - lol.   ok.


 * Look, here are the points I think it is vital to outline in the lead. maybe we can start from an outline like this and build it up:
 * consensus is a decision-making process that aims for mutual acceptance (the more general that mutuality, the better)
 * consensus and collaboration are essentially the same thing - consensus is really just a more abstract, verbal manifestation of practical collaboration
 * consensus is an ongoing process that is never fixed or settled: one can't 'claim' a consensus, one can only 'reach' one, and it may need to be reached over and over again
 * editors out to debate from the perspective of the encyclopedia, because that is the best arena in which to find mutual acceptance.
 * If these points aren't covered then we are not helping people to understand what they are supposed to do with this policy. so how do you want to write it?  -- Ludwigs 2  15:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to roll back a little further still. The first thing we need to do is agree what is wrong with the current lead; without this in place, we have nothing concrete against which to judge new proposals. You've mentioned "the major points highlighted above"; in reality, I think a number of editors have raised a number of points at various times, but we haven't agreed as a group which of these points are valid and should be addressed. For example, is the current weaselly statement, superfluous, useful and clear enough to most, useful but not as clear and concise as it should be, or a shining example of written expression? We've had various views. Should we be writing conversational-like prose or legalese-like prose? We've seen proposals of each. Is the problem that the lead doesn't effectively summarise the body, or are we trying to update the lead to reflect changes in practice or ideals (that we shall then flesh out in the body)? We can't even answer questions such as "How should we approach changing the lead: small incremental changes or a redraft?" until we've answered the more fundamental questions. Ludwigs, your points 1-4 may well help here, if we agree that a) the lead doesn't already cover them, b) they are right (w.r.t. WP principles), and c) they're not not over-detail for the lead. Uniplex (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The first problem I'd suggest for the lead (which is kinda where we started) is that it ought to start by establishing where it sits in the hierarchy of WP procedural docs: 5P delegates an aspect of WP's operation to be handled in this policy; the first thing this policy ought to do is acknowledge that that is its purpose and context. It currently seems to try to do this but in a vague way, referring to two other policies (linked) and one fundamental principle (not-linked), instead of just referring to the principles statement. The second problem is that it refers to just editorial decisions, whereas it's use as arguably wider than that. Uniplex (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the draft, Luwigs. I like it. Your bullet points are also well taken. I have a concern about the divide between the lede and the rest of the article. Would it be preferable to confine the lede to a more concise summary of the major points with the understanding that whatever is missing there is filled in below? Maybe you are striking the right balance but it is worth considering. And, Uniplex, too, is correct: what is wrong with what we've got? Its imperfections have functioned well so what is a rewrite supposed to accomplish? But Ludwigs's draft is a good start. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Specific comments on Ludwigs' points 1-4: Uniplex (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I think B2C's view (as I understand it) is well worth incorporating here: that consensus should probably always be viewed as being community consensus i.e. the entire community's view is always present in any decision by virtue of it being made in reference to (as applicable) guideline, policy, or principle (and that these are updated as necessary in line with any change in community view).
 * 2) Maybe, I'm not sure how useful it is to state this though.
 * 3) I think there are a couple of points here, both correct: that WP:CCC and that consensus cannot be claimed or declared (it can of course, on occasion, be judged). First point at least, is already in the body; whether it needs to be explicit in the lead or can be inferred, remains to be seen.
 * 4) I think this is covered by 1.


 * @Ring: well, most of the current body text is from a revision I made months ago, so the principles should be roughly the same as what I'm looking for here. there will probably have to be some juggling done, though.  Mostly (right now) I want to get an 85% draft - one that we all mostly agree is clear and on-point, but probably wordy.  then we can filter it down by moving things into the body as needed.


 * @Uniplex: your first point is one I agree with, but it's difficult to get at. In my own head I think of the ideal of consensus as something that anyone would accept: it's a kind of Kantian notion that we try to write content that any person, anywhere, would judge as an acceptable-if-imperfect presentation of the topic.  Then a debate between a small number of editors becomes a microcosm of that effort to craft universal acceptance.  I'm just not sure how to say that without sounding mildly psychotic.


 * To the rest of your points - yes, we can adjust along those lines. -- Ludwigs 2  17:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard to Ludwig's points listed above, I concur with Uniplex above. The following point needs to be made: I think it's important to say that here in the lede because it's a point that is often lost or overlooked in many discussions. It explains how consensus and policy are related and thus why following policy is important. We don't follow policy because it's the rule - we follow policy because the community has agreed to do what policy says to do. I don't care exactly how it's worded, but it needs to be in there, as it's crucial to understand what, in practice, one actually does to find out what consensus says to do in a given situation (you do it by looking at policy and guidelines). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Policy and guidelines usually reflects general consensus, and, so, decisions that comply with policy usually agree with consensus.
 * Well, hmm, it seems I keep having to point this out - policy and guidelines often don't answer such questions, for the same reasons I keep giving - policy as written might not properly reflect actual consensus or practice, there might to good reasons to deviate from normal practice in whatever case is under consideration, and of course policy often doesn't provide an answer to the question anyway.--Kotniski (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but no. For 99% of changes, the policies and guidelines do answer such questions for article content:  May I spam my website all over Wikipedia?  WP:EL says no.  May I say that Magic Johnson has AIDS?  WP:BLP says yes, but only if you support the claim with an inline citation to a reliable source.  May I add a little well-sourced information about a minority opinion on this subject?  WP:NPOV says yes, within limits.
 * It's only in a very small number of situations that the policies and guidelines don't provide a useful answer (either saying nothing, or saying something potentially misleading), and even then, the policies and guidelines are themselves the jumping-off point for discussions. We don't really need to write this policy to emphasize the <1% of most challenging disputes.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again I made the error of presuming that it goes without saying that policy is imperfect; apparently not. Of course there are questions for which policy and guidelines do not provide an answer (often because there is no consensus for how those particular questions should be answered), and of course there are situations to apply IAR - but that's no reason to not look at policy and guidelines for guidance.  And it's certainly not a reason to avoid pointing out that policy and guidelines usually reflect consensus.  I mean, there is general consensus about how decisions should be made on this project, and there is (imperfect and incomplete) manifestation of that consensus in writing, which is stated in our policy and guidelines.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) There's a logical chain: guidelines (and essays), policies, principles; if you can't find applicable guidance in one, move to the next—I'm not sure there's any other course of action we can take. If guidelines are lacking in an area and this is causing you problems with articles, add to the guideline (with consensus of course). Uniplex (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The other course of action, obviously enough, is to THINK FOR OURSELVES. Guidelines and so on will sometimes answer questions for us; most times they won't, and nor should we expect them to. --Kotniski (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec, reply to WAID) I'm not sure what universe of disputes you're considering. Most of the questions that policies will answer definitively are not serious disputes (usually everyone except one newcomer knows the answer, and they just point him to the relevant policy by way of explanation). But once there is a genuine dispute between experienced editors, then it's almost certain either that it's a matter that no policy or guideline will settle, or that one side or the other is putting forward valid arguments to deviate from those rules.--Kotniski (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm considering the universe of actions that are bound by this policy, not just those that you would label as a "dispute". WP:Consensus applies to every single action, not just content disputes.  If you fix a typo, your action is subject to this policy.  That's why we have the section that begins "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia..."  This policy applies to those "invisible" forms of consensus every bit as much as they apply to knock-down, drag-out fights with people screaming about the consensus clearly being on their side.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is all becoming very abstract. If I fix a typo, I'm just fixing a typo, I'm not concerned whether Wikipedia has a policy that says "fix typos". If I change the wording of a sentence, I'm just being bold and doing what I think best - highly unlikely that any policy will settle the matter of which wording is superior, and even if there is an obscure guideline somewhere that appears to address it, it's probably just something written by one person off the top of their heads, and not worth a great deal.--Kotniski (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not abstract at all. It's a practical result of good policy that we  have few disputes in those areas where policy is clear.  I suggest the evolution of policy on BLPs is a good example of that.  Over time, we worked out a lot about what should and should not be in BLPs, and this is reflected at WP:BLP.  Anyone who doesn't know is quickly reminded and can easily refer to it. The fact that those areas where we do have a lot of disputes is also where consensus (and, thus, policy) is not so clear, really makes this point. It's also an indication that there's an area where general consensus should be worked out so policy can be tightened up, so the incidence of disputes in that area can be reduced.  Policy and guidelines are intimately connected to consensus in this way.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem the least bit abstract to me. If your bold change sticks, then there is true consensus for your change.  This policy has said that for years.  Consensus does not have to involve a single word of discussion.  Everything that is accepted, even if that acceptance is silent, counts as consensus.
 * Oh, and the policy that tells you to fix typos is WP:Editing policy, especially the WP:IMPERFECT and WP:HANDLE subsections. The Manual of Style and WP:Basic copyediting can help you identify which minor changes and re-wordings are likely to be appropriate.  While you are a good enough writer that you don't need to consult them normally, none of these are "just something written by one person off the top of their heads".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So if five years ago someone added "Your nose smells" to some article, and no-one noticed it until now, then that addition has "true consensus"? And OK, the MoS is quite often cited and is a useful resource, but the other guidelines you mention are unlikely ever to answer an actual question. People do what they do mostly guided simply by common sense, and long may they continue to do so.--Kotniski (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on. Of course we're assuming we're talking about changes that others observe and don't object, not about changes that get in undetected. And of course consensus and policy are often in sync with common sense, so simply following common sense often works, and will continue to work.  But that just means common sense often approximates consensus and policy, and, so, following one's perception of common sense is usually a good indication of what to do, not that common sense is the base principle at work.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this should have been put the other way round - consensus and policy are often in sync with common sense, so following consensus and policy often works, but that doesn't imply that they are the base principle. The base principle is intelligent people working (alone at times, together at times) to produce what they intuitively know will be a good resource for humankind. Policy is mostly quite a good description of certain aspects of what they do; consensus reflects the fact that most of them more or less share the same vision of what this resource should be like.--Kotniski (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Claiming consensus
I also don't get this "can't claim a consensus" thing - of course you can claim that there's (enough of) a consensus to imply a decision do something - so what is it y'all mean by that?--Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Strictly speaking no, if you reach consensus, it's obvious to all involved that this has happened. In my experience, if this doesn't occur, more often than not, it's due to there being no clear guideline (so fix this as above). Uniplex (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't know what you mean. Many times there are valid differences of opinion about whether a consensus has been reached or not. --Kotniski (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski: last comment before I'm off for the day. the problem with 'claiming a consensus' is that you only need to do it when someone disagrees with you.  if you claim that we have a  consensus and I agree with you, what's the point of making the claim?  if you claim we have a consensus and I disagree with you, then in a fundamental sense your claim is wrong.  At best you get into a situation where some editors say "we've all developed a consensus, and you're not part of it; sorry", which is sometimes necessary but shouldn't be done without hearing what the person has to say (i.e., trying to reach a consensus, and failing).  in short, it's bad to use 'we have a consensus' as a tool for shutting down or blocking discussion, not unless discussion has already happened and reached a deadlock where it needs to end.  consensus requires hearing people out, even if you don't want to. -- Ludwigs 2  18:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most disputes involve such small numbers of people that you can easily count heads and see if everyone accepts the outcome. If everyone accepts that ____ is achievable (i.e., won't tempt others to the sin of edit warring) and no worse than what we've got, then you have a consensus for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec, reply to Ludwigs) I agree with the last part of what you say, but certainly not the first - there, you're claiming that if there's a disagreement about whether there's consensus or not, then there isn't consensus. Which would only make sense if we had a reqiurement for unanimity or some other obejctive test for consensus, which we don't and won't. Since it's subjective, there will and should be disagreements about it, and hence there can and should be "claims" on both sides.--Kotniski (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And Ludwigs is right: if I am screaming that "X" absolutely must be in the article, and four editors are pounding on the talk page saying "not-X is the only acceptable outcome!", then we don't actually have consensus.
 * If those four say that we have a consensus, and I say we don't, then I'm signalling that I'm not prepared to accept the fact that I've been outvoted (yes, outvoted) in this instance. I know that in this situation, I'll lose—as described in the section on acceptance immediately below—but the fact remains that we don't have consensus about what ought to go in the article.  At best, we might have a consensus about what will go in the article.  (Everyone here can count well enough to realize that no single editor is able to out-edit-war four determined opponents.)  When I accept that I've lost, then we can claim a consensus, but when I don't (yet) accept my loss, we do not have a consensus.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What you say would be true if "consensus" on Wikipedia meant what it means in the outside world - but it doesn't. Here, it doesn't (for practical reasons) require unanimity. (And if you say it does - well I disagree with you, so sorry, your view doesn't have consensus...)--Kotniski (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski is spot on about this. The only way "having to claim a consensus means there is no consensus" is true is by presuming the 100% agreement of all involved parties definition of consensus, which we don't use at WP. For example, I claim there is a consensus that all articles about U.S. cities that are not on the AP list are to be predisambiguated with ", State", even if their names are unquestionably unique.  I happen to strongly disagree with that rule, but the claim that consensus supports that rule can never-the-less be made.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that consensus is not unanimity on WP, and would add that in my experience effective consensus decision-making in real life does not require unanimity either (WP article on Consensus decision-making discusses this at length).

I may not be quite clear on what is meant by "claiming consensus." It seems to me that closure on a discussion is often beneficial. This may require someone acting as recorder, checking whether all legitimate concerns have been addressed and summarizing the discussion. Sometimes one or more participants may not be clear as to what a legitimate concern actually is or that unanimity is not required (some participants may be new to Wikipedia or habitually tendentious). I agree that consensus is usually reached, but find that there are also circumstances where closure needs to be facilitated. It seems to me that may mean claiming consensus. Sunray (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sunray, in my view reasonable editors will always reach a reasonable consensus. This is because reasonable editors are more interested in being accurate than in being right, and they will find a way to balance differing viewpoints against each other to reach something that everyone can accept.  The problem comes from unreasonable editors - editors who for one reason or another are unable to accept some particular content point or perspective.  When there are unreasonable editors, we expand the discussion (through RfC's, policy and policy noticeboards, mediation and the like) in order to reach a consensus on whether the particular point they are being unreasonable about is a valid concern for the encyclopedia.  So yes, closing a discussion can be beneficial and can be a valid part of consensus, but it has to be a reasoned closure with an opening for further discussion: efforts to lock a particular 'consensus' so that it can never be discussed and never be changed violates the spirit of consensus.


 * My own view is that we have to treat consensus as an educative process: any consensus debate must be concerned with raising the understanding of the various participants so that they can see all sides of the problem. Not everyone will be able (or willing) to do that, obviously, but it's only by making the effort that we can reach effective consensus.  using the concept of consensus shut down all discussion is anti-educative - we're not telling people what they need to know to understand the consensus, we're just telling them to shut up and go away - and that's destructive.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I certainly agree that "claiming consensus" should not be used to shut down discussion. I also think that consent is an important component of a consensus decision. That breaks down when one person is being unreasonable (and most of have been unreasonable at one time or another). Good policy should cover all eventualities. So how do we stay educative and still get closure on discussions? Sunray (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, there comes a point where the discussion ought to be closed - we can't waste our time discussing certain things eternally, and the point of these discussions is to make a decision about what's best for Wikipedia, not to soothe editors' souls. Sometimes there are going to be decisions that quite significant numbers of reasonable people disagree with - that's inevitable - and there are also going to be decisions where quite significant numbers of reasonable people disagree with the closer's assessment - and (given that we will never have an objective definition of "consensus") that's inevitable too. Neither of these things are bad. What I think is worse, in fact, is the debates that go on and on without receiving the attention of a legitimate closer - that means lots of editors' time wasted, and the actual "decision" more likely to be made through edit-warring than through proper evaluation of the arguments (and it's often the unreasonable editors who are also the more likely to edit-war). And, of course, a debate that has been closed can be reopened after a reasonable time has passed - or even earlier, e.g. if someone's got a significant argument that was overlooked in the previous debate.--Kotniski (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with these points, but I don't think we can cover all that in this policy without being confusing. Maybe the compromise is this: describe what consensus is, give some kind of metric for when consensus fails, but don't try to talk about remedies: make a link to dispute resolution processes, which can each have their own particular rules about decision-making.  For example, something like:"If editors spend more than a week debating a point with no progress, or if talk page discussion begins to get heated, they should turn to one of the available dispute resolution procedures and treat the decisions made there as a new consensus."Then we can focus on those DR pages and try to clarify the specific procedures.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, it depends what kind of discussion it is. If it's something like an RM or AfD, then the procedure is already in motion, and you might as well just sit back and wait for someone to close it (although this policy ought also to give advice to closers on how to assess consensus). If it's a more generic discussion, the most general advice we can give in these situations (and I think we already do) is to bring more people into the discussion (in a way that avoids charges of canvassing). --Kotniski (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that advice is supposed to be at Closing discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Acceptance
On what "all participants can accept":

We operate with two kinds of 'acceptance' here. One is that we work out a compromise that leaves everyone more or less satisfied, e.g., we tweak language so it is a little softer or stronger than any individual really wants, but which finds the sweet spot where "just barely strong enough for me" overlaps with "just barely soft enough for you".

The other is that one or more participants accept the fact that they've lost. Knowing WP:How to lose is an important skill. Sometimes continued discussion is just a waste of time, because there is no overlap in the participants' positions. If I am absolutely determined that the only acceptable title is "Ganges", and you are equally determined that the most common name is "Ganga", then there is no half-way position. For technical reasons, we must have exactly one article title: we cannot choose two titles, and we cannot choose zero titles. At some point, one side or the other has to admit defeat (at least temporarily). For better or worse, the decision in this uncommon class of disputes is usually made more or less as a majority vote.

The article title problem makes a somewhat extreme example, but this happens all the time: I have a great new idea that gets shot down by a dozen editors. I may still believe in my idea, but I accept that "consensus", as embodied by a WP:SNOW storm, opposes it. I may want to re-write an article to reflect what I (an individual, and therefore individually biased, person) believe is the current state of knowledge, but if I encounter strong opposition, I may well accept that further efforts are a waste of everyone's time (for now), because the article's current balance is supported by a "consensus". In all cases, I'm accepting that I've "lost", not accepting a compromise that leaves everyone (barely) satisfied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So what is it you want the policy to say with regard to all this?--Kotniski (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be explained in the body of the policy, but not in the lede. Perhaps a subsection on "acceptance"?  With WP:ACCEPT as a redirect to it?  Looking forward to be able to say, "Looks like I need to accept that ..."  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur, for the reasons given above: major/unsolvable disputes may be high-profile but they are very, very few compared to, for example, a revert with an edit comment of "per such-and-such guideline" and then no more is said. Uniplex (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Born2cycle's suggestion of a separate section seems like a good idea. Perhaps it should go just above the new (and still incomplete) section on no consensus.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So what would this new section say?--Kotniski (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically what I've said above: You can have consensus ("agreement") because you all accept a particular result as being good (or good enough), or you can have consensus because you accept that you've lost.  In this latter case, you are not accepting the particular result as something that is even remotely appropriate from your perspective, but only accepting that no desirable outcome is actually achievable.  Both of these situations count as "consensus" on Wikipedia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so we have consensus when everyone agrees what to do, and we have consensus when everyone agrees that there is sufficiently wide agreement as to what to do. Those are the easy cases. The hard cases are when there is disagreement both about what to do and about whether there is sufficiently wide agreement as to what to do. What do you want to say about those cases? Nothing that would imply, I hope, that there can be no assertion of consensus in such cases, since that would effectively bring us back to a situation where unanimity is required in order to do anything.--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that legitimate concerns are very important in cases of protracted disagreement. If one or more participants in a discussion are raising what they believe to be a "legitimate concern" (i.e., something that clearly addresses, or goes against, a WP policy), it needs to be addressed before there is closure to a discussion. A problem arises when there is only one individual making such a claim. In such cases, it is perhaps best to secure agreement from at least one other individual that there is, indeed, a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed. Such cases would often require an outside opinion (e.g., from an appropriate noticeboard). Sunray (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, at least part of the concern is about "claiming consensus" when certain legitimate concerns have not been addressed. Frankly, I've seen improper claims of "no consensus" too - by which I mean a position whose legitimate concerns have not only been addressed, but dispensed with, but is still considered in deciding there is "no consensus" because some significant number of people continue to hold that position despite there being no legitimate concerns favoring that position. In both types of situations, the encyclopedia would be improved if the arguments on both sides were given more consideration and objectively evaluated and weighed against each other - to determine consensus - rather than paying attention to the number of individuals who are supporting one position or another. Can we all agree that it's okay to "claim consensus" even though some are not agreeing, when their disagreement has no basis in legitimate concerns? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; but also, sometimes we have to make a decision even though there are legitimate concerns on both sides, and there is no way of fully addressing all those concerns. Sometimes, as in everyday life, we just have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of all of the (imperfect) options, and choose one of them, warts and all.--Kotniski (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I think such situations are far rarer than many presume them to be.  People in the real world as well as at WP are often too quick to assume there is no consensus solution, and all too willing to compromise when there is no need.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, those situations are quite rare. However, they do exist, and this policy used to address them, by saying that if all else fails, we'll have to take a more-or-less majority "vote", at least as a temporary measure.  That this applies to (in my experience) fewer than 1% of talk page discussions and noticeboard actions doesn't mean that it never happens.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned this elsewhere, but I think it is worth keeping in mind: In cases where a straw vote is taken and the number of editors is more than a few, a proposal from the majority that is acceptable to a majority of the minority (the straw poll minority) ought reasonably to have some standing. At the same time, this is a fallback position. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't consider these situations to be particularly rare - particularly among the cases that are likely to cause this policy to be consulted (i.e. those where it's not clear whether there's enough of a consensus to do something). In most cases of dispute there are pluses and minuses to each available course of action, and it's quite common for different people to attach different weights to these pluses and minuses; it's also quite common that no solution has an obvious supermajority supporting it, so there could well be dispute about whether sufficient consensus has been reached or not (thankfully we don't often debate that issue, we tend to accept the decision of the closer in the case of the kind of discussion that gets formally closed, and that of the most dedicated edit-warrior(s) in other cases).--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give a real or hypothetical example of a dispute with the sort of pluses and minuses you mentioned? Uniplex (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a good example. [] has been a long conversation that turns on the relative merits of navigation boxes and an infobox field with more or less the same information. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen a similar issue debated related regarding infobox album. In that case, IIRC, they found distinct uses for each and so all were happy. It seems that we have two categories of issue: 'style' or 'accessibility' issues, and 'content' issues. For the latter, numerical voting should be disallowed, otherwise we risk to lose NPOV. For the former, numerical voting is not quite as worrying (V & NPOV issues are much less likely); however, the best way to judge is probably via feedback from readers: maybe try one style on one group of pages and the other on another, then see which gets better ratings (we have "Rate this page", although presentation isn't currently included). Uniplex (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dramatic change are in store for the WP:Article feedback tool, so that particular method won't work, even if we could validate it as effective (which I doubt).
 * Article content issues, especially where WP:FRINGE applies, are naturally worrisome. However, some of the worst fights in en.wiki's history have been about completely non-content matters (anybody else remember the date de-linking ArbCom case?) that were ultimately so unimportant that they could have been settled by a straight-up majority vote—or by flipping a coin and taking the outcome—without a single word of content being harmed either way.  Both "2011" and "2011" are equally compliant with all major content and sourcing policies, and yet we had people screaming for months (or was it more than a year?) about the "lack of consensus".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Virtually every (contested) move discussion is an example of this sort of situation. The article titles "policy" (WP:AT) even lists a set of criteria that may have to be weighed up against each other in deciding on a title. Different people will weigh these in different ways in a given case - and when the numbers of people on each side (as there usually are only a finite number of sides - you can't very often find a compromise title) are fairly equal, different closers might take different views about which way to decide it. None of this implies that anyone is being unreasonable or that anything has gone wrong with the process - indeed, it would be very worrying if there were no such cases.--Kotniski (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, article titles are a good example of the problem:
 * You must pick exactly one title. It is not (due to the software) possible to have a page without a title.  It is also not possible to have two or more actual titles for a single page.
 * Thoughtful, reasonable, experienced editors sometimes disagree about what the best name is.
 * Their reasons are often very much policy-based and very similar in strength: Do we pick the simplest name or the most precise name?  Do we pick the most common name for all English-speaking sources or the most common name for sources specifically from the local area?
 * These discussions often do not, and cannot, end up as a compromise that (at least barely) satisfies all parties (the ideal for an NPOV dispute in the text). There is no way to set the article title so that it is partly Leukemia and partly Leukaemia and partly Leukæmia.  These discussions are basically decided as a sort of majority vote (taking into account the strength of arguments, not just mere numbers), with the minority's "consent" being only their acceptance of the fact that they had their say and still "lost".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But it can wind up with a situation which (almost) everyone is willing to accept, in this sense: There is no move request active on Leukemia; as far as the talk page will show, there never has been. (This may well be because the dialectical difference is explained, in bold, in the first line; that 'is'' a compromise, as much of one as we can easily manage.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Compromise is over-rated. It encourages "solutions" that are worse than either of the original positions. I suggest Fixed-winged aircraft is probably the best known example of that (never mind all the rationalizations contrived to justify it), but more recently is the (thankfully brief) local consensus reached by electronic game console enthusiasts who couldn't agree on Sega Genesis or Mega Drive and so "compromised" on Sega Genesis and Mega Drive.  In that case reason ultimately prevailed (but it wasn't easy) and it's now at Sega Genesis, which is good precisely because it's one of the two, and not a compromise. The adoration for "compromise" is way overblown, IMHO.  Compromise titles should be the rare exception, and ideally eliminated, by definition (a compromise is not the ideal by definition).  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that compromise (in general) should take a back seat to evaluation of the arguments, so suggest to change the diagram in the Process section accordingly. Uniplex (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, although there are many cases too (not so much with article titles, but with matters of content) where a "compromise" is a good, and perhaps the best, solution. But the emphasis should be on finding a solution that best satisfies all the legitimate concerns, rather than necessarily one that best satisfies all the editors (though in most cases the latter criterion will be a good enough reflection of the former). --Kotniski (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Septentrionalis, it's true that there hasn't been an active dispute over its name, probably because it's neither a controversial article nor a subject that attracts less-mature editors (unlike, e.g., certain video game disputes).
 * But imagine that it was a brand-new stub (or, if it's easier for you to imagine, pretend it's still one of the many subtypes of leuk(a)emia that are still redlinks), and there was a dispute about the spelling for the article title: Two editors have contributed equally to the article.  They differ in their spelling.  Three other editors offer an opinion:  two favor the British spelling and one favors the American spelling.  All five reject the ligature ("æ") spelling.
 * How would you close that discussion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it depend on what arguments had been advanced? If it was just "I'm British so I prefer the British spelling" and so on, then I guess the rules at WP:ENGVAR would be applied, rather than considering the (essentially empty) content of the discussion. --Kotniski (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ENGVAR is useless:
 * An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation—it doesn't have any ties to any particular nation.
 * When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article—no "consistent usage" has been established.
 * the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default—it's still a stub, and the contributions of the disagreeing editors are equal.
 * There really aren't any possible policy-based arguments for this issue, because none of the choices are more verifiable, neutral, etc. than the others. And we must make a decision:  we cannot have multiple titles, and we refuse to tolerate edit warring over this.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it's just left as it is, then (or at whatever title it was originally created at). This seems more of a matter for the MoS (where ENGVAR appears) than for here.--Kotniski (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not properly a MoS issue: it's an AT issue, and AT specifically says that the decision must be made according to this policy (second sentence, first section).  So what do you think the consensus is in that situation?  Do you think that any consensus exists?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Although if there were an argument about it, I suspect a consensus could be reached about how to apply the principles of ENGVAR and the national varieties section of AT to resolve the situation.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the beginning of your reply. No, WP:AT isn't the official advice on selecting article titles?  No, there isn't a consensus?  No, something else?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't a consensus. (But I'm not quite sure why we're discussing this.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's highly unlikely for a debate to commence about the English variety of an article's body and its title while it is still a stub. At any rate, even if such a debate begins, one is better off creating content than huffing and puffing pointlessly on the talk page.  The first one who makes enough of a contribution to make the article not a stub establishes "the variety used in the first non-stub revision", and that becomes the default for the title as well as the article, per ENGVAR.  As long as the article remains a stub the point of ENGVAR being useless is technically accurate but ultimately moot.  The only potential issue then is perhaps about which revision made enough of a contribution for the article to no longer be a stub. Again, debate about that too is unlikely in practice.  For example, consider the initial revision of Yoghurt (which was at Yogurt - speaking of examples where ENGVAR is ignored)... clearly  not a stub at a creation: . --born2 c Ycl  e  17:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And what would you do in between now and when that happened? Permit the two original contributors to continue their move-warring, because some day, someone else will finally add another paragraph and then you can finally apply ENGVAR?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I (oh, you weren't asking me, but still) would put it back to the title it was at when it was created (or whichever of the alternative reasonable titles was used first) (or whichever it was most recently stable at). If the wording of AT and ENGVAR isn't tight enough to cover this situation, then that's a matter for those pages, not this one.--Kotniski (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So you would make up your own rule about how to handle it. I believe, by the way, that your proposed rule was deliberately rejected by ENGVAR.
 * The reason why this example matters for the discussion at this page is that WP:AT sets consensus as the most important criterion for selecting an article title. This policy used to address the problem of "no consensus" when a decision must be made (at least temporarily, until some sort of consensus appears):  it said that as a last, desperate resort, you might rarely need to choose a majoritarian approach instead of pretending that consensus was always going to appear.  I think it still needs to address this issue directly.
 * There are very few realistic options about what to do, as a general rule, when no consensus is currently available: You have suggested a first-come, first-served rule.  This is normally labeled the "prior consensus version" rule.  We can do that in a very few cases, including article titles.  However, it makes a poor general rule, because it applies to so few cases.  For example, is the "prior consensus version" the one just before I added a sentence in September, or the one just before you reverted it in November?
 * Alternatively, we can refuse all contested actions. We can accept all contested actions.  We can apply a (more or less) majority vote.  As far as I can tell, that's about it for our options.
 * IMO following the majority (or plurality, and except where other policies specify the outcome for a no-consensus discussion result), although basically an undesirable option, is probably the least-evil choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Stability means not significantly challenged as well as not moved
This edit by removed wording that clarified the meaning of stability with respect to article titles. The original words, with the removed part highlighted:

Why was this removed? The edit summary says, "over-defining -- let the editors do the editing". Why leave such a general decision (what something means) ambiguous for the editors to debate on a case-by-case basis? Consider two articles A and B. Say each was originally at some other title, but both have been at their respective current titles for over five years, despite repeated attempts by many people to move these articles, with RM discussions always resulting in "no consensus". Are these current titles "stable", or not? The answer to that question of course determines whether each stays at its current title or be moved back to the original title. If we don't clarify whether the repeated challenges means they are or are not stable, then anyone can argue either way, based on whatever title he or she prefers for some completely unrelated, irrelevant and unstated reason. In other words, it's meat for WP:JDLI rationalization. Why tempt like that? Now, in theory, we could of course decide to define "stable" in this context either way. But in practice, I think we if we honestly look at the spirit of this idea to go back to the original title when the article is "unstable", we must admit we're talking about there being disagreement about the current title. Just because all the attempts to move it via RM failed because the current title is always favored in "no consensus" decisions does not mean it's stable. After all, the only reason it hasn't actually been moved repeatedly is probably due to the technical reason that you have to be an admin to move a title over an existing redirect that has history. I suggest it's inappropriate and unhelpful to define "stability" in a way that depends on a technicality like this. So, I seek agreement to have this edit reverted. Comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it's out of scope. If you want to have that be the rule for article titles, then you need to convince the folks at WT:AT to agree with you.  (Don't be surprised if it's rejected because by some on the grounds that it would be an outright gift the persistent complainers about the title chosen for the Ganga/Ganges River.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The editors can handle this. They are smarter than us. My objection is that, while now there's a call to define "stable", next we'll have to define 'significant' or 'challenge', which begets definitions of the terms of those definitions. Definitions are not a solution. Experienced editors with an understanding of a stable set of practices are the key here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with WAID and would go further to suggest that this entire bullet point is out of scope. The policy should cover the principles of consensus; how to apply it in specific circumstances (or even commenting on such) ought to be in guidelines. Uniplex (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ring Cinema, subjective matters like quantifying "significant" are one thing, but it makes no sense to require editors to reinvent-the-wheel (in this case, decide whether "stable" refers specifically to no physical moves of a title, or also means no significant opposition to the title) on a case-by-case basis. This is a simple binary question.  I get that we want to avoid defining too much in general, but this seems like exactly the kind of thing we do want to define so that it is interpreted the same way in all cases. It makes no sense to decide that A is unstable in one discussion, because there has been significant opposition to it since the article was moved to A, even though it has never moved since, and also decide that B is stable in another discussion, despite there being significant opposition since it was moved to B.  And, yet, this is what we're allowing, arguably even encouraging, by refusing to answer this question one way or another.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think in practice, we default to the currently stable title regardless of how much it's been challenged. But I disagree that the entire bullet point is "out of scope" - this is a common and important example of how Wikipedia deals with consensus-related problems, and people coming to this page will want to know such things, not just be given meaningless airy-fairy ideals that have no clear practical application.--Kotniski (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Policies and guidelines have distinct roles: examples of how policy might be applied in a given situation might be given to illustrate a policy point. However, this is a potentially dangerous thing to do since how policy actually is usually applied in a given situation is described in the appropriate guideline (which might be referenced from the policy page). Uniplex (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dangerous? To whom? How??--Kotniski (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dangerous to clear and unambiguous expression, i.e. there is the potential that the reader will confuse might be applied and is usually applied as above. Policies and guidelines lie respectively in the realms of the general and the specific; whilst there might be a grey area where these realms meet, general editing of pages is clearly general, whilst precisely what to do about particular types of conflict over article titles (a specific mechanism, perhaps subject to change), is clearly specific. Examples in policy docs are best avoided, lest they be confused with guidelines; guidelines should be placed where they belong, in guideline docs. For example, no policy change would or should be needed to invent a new type of redirect—an "alt-title" redirect—which if used, would display it's name as the article title instead of, as currently, "Redirected from ..."; but as stands, this policy would likely need to be updated to reflect a minor change of mechanism. Uniplex (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Examples frequently are helpful to assist in making the connection of theory to practice. It is true, though, that they have to be labeled as an example. The case here reads not as an example, but as a detail on the policy. Perhaps it was ill-advised to discuss the issue of no consensus in article title disputes, but at least what it says currently is accurate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Uniplex, are you fully aware that all three of these examples are taken directly from actual policies? We're not making up new rules here.  We're only repeating the bits of other policies (with links directly to those policies) that are relevant to consensus disputes.  That's why I told Born2cycle that if he wants to change the actual policy on article titles, then he needs to go change the actual policy on article titles, not merely the summary on this page:  these are mere pointers to the long-standing rules, not new rules.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't. I'd assumed that WP:AT was a guideline (and had then wandered off into generalities). Thanks for pointing that out. Uniplex (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if AT were a guideline, it would still be the controlling advice page for that issue. WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays is subtle (or even non-existent, according to some experienced people.  WP:Five pillars, for example, is "just" one of many essays written for newbies, but it may actually be more important than any other page).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Reaching consensus through editing
Until a few days ago, the second para discussed reverting generally; after an edit reduced it's scope to that of bold edits, I regeneralised it. Given that this has just been reverted, I've restored the previous stable version and suggest we discuss whether or not the para should be general or specific to bold edits. Uniplex (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the problem is - what other kinds of edits other than bold edits do you have in mind?--Kotniski (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen many edits reverted that are not 'bold' as such: naive edits, uncited trivia, poorly written prose. Uniplex (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Blatant violations of UNDUE, especially in BLPs, the list goes on and on... Picking up on a theme I just wrote about above, this is why I like the concept of "provisional consensus" so much, and that consensus stemming from both truly bold edits (when the editor genuinely believes there's a good chance the edit is consistent with consensus) and from so-called compromise consensus is pretty much the same thing - we don't prefer one to the other. --Born2cycle 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why any of these things are not "bold". The wording that Uniplex objects to is "Although other editors are perfectly entitled to make changes without prior discussion (to "be bold", in Wikipedia parlance), sometimes you might believe that a recent change is not an improvement. In this case you may decide to revert (undo) the change. When doing this, however, it helps to state (in your edit summary or on the talk page) the actual reason for your disagreement,..." I don't really see (a) how this restricts the principle only to bold edits, any more than the restored version of the paragraph does; or (b) why this sumary definition of "bold" would exclude all the bad types of edit mentioned above. If it's done without prior discussion, then as far as this paragraph is concerned, it's bold. (It might also be stupid, but it's still bold.) --Kotniski (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When you reference WP:BOLD, what is said on that page is implied. And what is said at WP:BOLD is in reference to encyclopedia improvements.  Implicit in a WP:BOLD edit is the presumption that the bold editor is making what he believes to be an improvement to the encyclopedia - that certainly does not apply to vandalism (which may be "bold", but they are not WP:BOLD).  --Born2cycle 18:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but when you revert vandalism, there's no particular encouragement to explain why you're reverting it (it will be obvious to everyone), so it's right that the paragraph should be narrowed in scope to exclude such reverts.--Kotniski (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, "not okay", because vandalism isn't one of the many examples given above of non-bold edits. Naïve edits, uncited trivia, poorly written prose, and NPOV violations are very often BOLD edits.  The opposite of a BOLD edit is a timid request on a talk page.  The extreme of a BOLD edit is a reckless one.  Edits do not stop being BOLD merely because someone else (or everyone else) disagrees that the change constitutes an improvement.  Making a direct attempt at an improvement (even if made from an ill-informed POV) is enough to count as a BOLD edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even discussed edits may be reverted—by someone outside the discussion. There are many edits that are reverted and the story ends. A bold editor OTOH, doesn't run away when someone reverts his change: he follows it up with a repeat of the same edit but with an additional cite, or a better explanation in the edit summary, or he discusses it BRD-style.  An argument that if an edit was reverted, then it must have been bold, doesn't hold water---how does one know that it wasn't the revert which was bold? If we want to refer to un-discussed edits, just call them un-discussed edits. If we want to discuss reversion (which is I believe the intention of the para in question), discuss the mechanism and its implication to the process; don't conflate it with boldness—the reason for a revert is the same as for any other change: because the editor believes that it improves the article to do so. Uniplex (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * BOLD editors most certainly do "run away" when someone reverts their changes; in fact, I have repeatedly and strongly recommended that strategy to people who weed link farms. You can usually remove spammy links from ten or more articles in the amount of time that it takes to explain why you removed the links that you did.  Ten improved pages usually contributes more to the ultimate goal of a well-written encyclopedia than one discussion about the links in a single article.  WP:Bold, revert, discuss is an optional process.  "Running away" is often the optimal strategy, and it, too, is a form of consensus:  I'm accepting and agreeing not that your reversion is an improvement, but that my time is better spent in tasks other than discussing the changes with you.
 * High-volume editors do a lot of BOLD-and-ignore editing. Outside of the project pages, you could probably revert 90% of my edits without me even noticing, much less contesting, your reversion.  I've edited more than 22,000 unique pages so far:  it is impossible for any human to keep track of the changes in that many pages.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have wandered off, so let's go back to the diff:, and look at the changes one by one. The first sentence, then: the old (restored) version has It is not necessary for editors to seek written permission in advance to make such changes, and the absence of a prior discussion does not prove that the change is not supported by consensus. Well, the first part has already been said in the paragraph above, and the second part has too many negatives to be fathomable (but is probably just trying to say the same thing again). Is it not better to replace this as proposed, with (something like) Although other editors are perfectly entitled to make changes without prior discussion (to "be bold", in Wikipedia parlance), ... This makes clear that we're not making a new statement, and gives a useful link and jargon explanation to boot. Is anyone saying this isn't better?--Kotniski (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The current first sentence is saying "Undiscussed changes are permissible, and may be supported by consensus." Uniplex (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of which are true. Most changes are undiscussed; most of those are uncontroversial, which is consensus even in the dictionary sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph under discission here I agree that the paragraph could use re-writing. I prefer the end of the proposed version, but disagree with beginning any paragraph with "Although". Both versions suffer the same fault of opening the paragraph in the negative. A paragraph is best opened be stating what it is stating. I suggest:
 * Sometimes you might believe that a recent bold change is not an improvement. In this case you may decide to revert (undo) the change. When doing this, however, it helps to state (in your edit summary or on the talk page) the actual reason for your disagreement, rather than just citing "no consensus" or "not discussed". This is not only polite, but also helps indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach a consensus on the matter.

This paragraph appears to be about how best to revert something, especially a bold edit. It is not about bold editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per its section title, the paragraph is about "Reaching consensus through editing". Why discard information pertinent to the subject? I.e. that undiscussed changes may be supported by consensus. Uniplex (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Would the following:
 * Sometimes you might believe that a recent bold change is not an improvement. In this case you may decide to revert (undo) the change. When doing this, however, please state (in your edit summary or on the talk page) the actual reason for your disagreement. Note that the absence of a prior discussion does not prove that the change is not supported by consensus.  Reverting merely due to "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not polite.  Citing the actual reason for your disagreement helps indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach a consensus on the matter.
 * be better? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Not polite" is not a good choice of words here. "No consensus for this change" might actually be the politest way the editor can think of to say "Only a raving lunatic would believe that garbage".
 * The stronger reason to avoid that edit summary is that if you have a substantive objection, then "no consensus" doesn't communicate useful information about your legitimate concern. (If you don't have a substantive objection, then the edit summary is highly informative... but most people don't want others to know that they are thoughtless, bureaucratic obstructionists, so they, too, should avoid that edit summary.)
 * A link to Product, process, policy might also be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Where good faith is not to be assumed, such as for obvious vandalism or lunacy, I don’t think any of this policy page is intended to be applicable.


 * I personally am not attached to “not polite” and support the proposal to edit this paragraph being implemented, with all editors encouraged to improve the wording. To me, the paragraph says “give a substantive reason for reverts”, with the background reason “unexplained reverts are counter-productive to consensus building”.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the motivation for rewriting the paragraph? Granted, the first and last sentences are a little wordy, so just a trim a few words (without changing meaning, such changes would be considered "minor" and not require prior discussion). Uniplex (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So what do you think is (or should be) the substantial meaning of this paragraph (which is only part of the section). Or in other words, what points (about "Reaching consensus through editing" - the section topic) remain unaddressed by the first paragraph of the section, and thus need to be dealt with in a further paragraph(s). To me it seems we've already made the point about "bold is OK", and the points to make now are (1) "revert after bold is also OK"; (2) "explain your reverts". Is there anything else you want to say?--Kotniski (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The second and third sentences are clearly stated and their meaning is self evident (and not covered in para 1). The last sentence gives justification for, and consequence of, the instruction given immediately before. The first sentence largely provides context for the second (which invites comparison with the first through "However")—of course, part of the first sentence has been copied to the first para so there is some overall redundancy. Uniplex (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So do you agree that a shortish half-sentence beginning "Although..." would do a better job of seting the context than a rambling, negative-filled sentence (repeating something we've already said above) followed by "However..."?--Kotniski (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As above, I'm quite happy to see the wordiness reduced; I've no particular preference between words such as "although" or "however"; minor copyediting changes don't need to be discussed. Uniplex (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So if we take the proposed version, replace "When doing this, however.." with the original "When reverting an edit you disagree with..", and remove the reference to "politeness" (though I actually think that's quite a significant factor), would you (and others) be happy with it?--Kotniski (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This explanation is complicated. Why don't you show us what you mean?  I don't mind "polite".  Make your edit and leave it to WhatamIdoing to further improve as required.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll try.--Kotniski (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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: Uniplex (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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. -- Ludwigs 2  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)



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)


 * 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: UniplexConsensusProcessDraft3.png 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. --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)


 * 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) → → (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".  --born2 c Ycl  e  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.   --born2 c Ycl  e  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:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.  --born2 c Ycl  e  18:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Revise --born2 c Ycl  e  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. --born2 c Ycl e  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:
 * 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:
 * 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?  --born2 c Ycl  e  05:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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?  --born2 c Ycl  e  05:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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?  --born2 c Ycl  e  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.  --born2 c Ycl  e  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?     --born2 c Ycl  e  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? --born2 c Ycl  e  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.  --born2 c Ycl  e  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?  --born2 c <span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">Ycl  e  16:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Break 2 (process diagram)
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. --born2 c <span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">Ycl  e  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.  --born2 c <span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">Ycl  e  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? --born2 c <span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">Ycl  e  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.  --born2 c <span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">Ycl  e  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] → → (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. --born2 c <span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">Ycl  e  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:
 * State your objections as clearly as you can in a draft post,
 * Review everything in that draft that you've already said above and how others have responded to it, and
 * 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: 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)
 * 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.

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)
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: 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: 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)
 * 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
 * possibly open to misinterpretation
 * 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 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].  ✅. 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 Publicising discussions responsible for providing advice on “engaging others”.


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