Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 16

CCC sandbox
Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not considered before. On the other hand, if there is recent consensus on a subject, it can be disruptive to bring it up again.

Editors may propose a change either by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") because such explanations provide little guidance to the proposing editor.


 * Please feel free to edit the above text. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I put it to you that the current fourth sentence of CCC is generic wp:BRD advice. I also assert that the proposed two new CCC sentences are the same. So my proposal is to leave those sentences out and replace the current fourth sentence with "For more about modifying consensus by editing see Consensus." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Actually, I think I want to embellish this proposal. So I've put proposed text above for the community to accept or improve. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A very sensible proposal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the core question... in cases where a previously established consensus exists is the "Consensus through editing" method best practice? I would argue not.  I think that in such situations, the "Consensus through discussion" method is best... (and I would stress the "Discuss first" variation). Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * BB, do you agree that the current guidance at CCC does not establish a best practice as between editing and discussion? If so, do you agree that the above draft is an acceptable re-phrasing of the current guidance? If you have answered "yes" to both of these questions then my last question is: Do you agree to the proposed language being substituted for the current CCC language (leaving open the core question of whether additional text should then be added to that language to recommend discussion over editing)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to deny that discussion is better than editing when there is an existing consensus, noting that the salient sign of an existing consensus is a previous discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * RC, in this talk section I am just trying to see whether the community agrees that my proposed language is an improvement over the current language (without changing the meaning). You and Blueboar may want to open up a new talk section with a title of something like "Show CCC through discussion as best practice" to see what the community thinks about adding that content to CCC. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked the question above, so I think the question you raised is if this is already included. My response is that maybe it is because there's no reason to believe the contrary in the context of CCC. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about any ambiguity. I've modified my questions to BB to try to clarify that I am not asking whether his proposal is already included. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I agree that the above draft is an acceptable re-phrasing of the current guidance?... Nope, I don't find it acceptable. I don't think we should tell editors that they can change previously established consensus by bold editing.  That method works for general editing, but it should be avoided when there is a previously established consensus.  We should stress discussion instead.
 * Note - I am not advocating that we explicitly disallow changing a consensus through editing ... I am saying that we should omit mentioning it in this section (because it is so potentially disruptive). Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I've modified the draft to deal with your concern. How is it now? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is better... but it is incomplete without the caution to "discuss first". I have modified the draft to mention it. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Continued modifications. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Although it is stated imperfectly, there is already material in the project on the circumstances that imply a new consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think the "Consensus can change" section is the logical place to consolidate and restate such material... no? Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding of CCC is that it serves to remind us that, while as a practice we accept that a consensus exists because an edit has gone unchallenged ("longstanding consensus"), a new consensus can form; no version is final. I see that you are saying there is something implicit in the name to suggest that this where we cover all aspects of changing consensus, but the project covers consensus formation above. Perhaps the section should be renamed ("No consensus is final") and returned to its place as a subsection. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of the section is that consensus can be changed... it just takes more work (and more discussion) than forming an initial consensus. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

How to "establish" consensus
Would those who want to encourage editors to discuss before proposing a modification to an "established" consensus please say what makes a consensus "established"? (I have suggested that it is a consensus arrived at by a prior discussion. But I am evidently wrong.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus becomes "established" in two ways: 1) by specific discussion on the talk page. 2) by the text in question remaining static over a significant amount of time (this is what people are referring to when they complain about "long standing" text being changed without discussion).   Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that explanation. Can you provide a cite for this explanation that we can incorporate as a link in CCC? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what kind of "cite" you are looking for... it's more a fact of actual practice... the fact is, undiscussed changes to "long standing" phrasing are commonly and consistently reverted on the grounds that such changes go "against consensus" (especially when it comes to undiscussed changes to policy/guideline pages) I can supply hundreds of examples of people doing so, if that is what you are looking for. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's on the project page in section 1.1. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So "established consensus" equals "consensus"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily... an established consensus is presumed to be the current consensus... pending the establishment of a new consensus. This is why we say that consensus can change.  Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the meaning of your sentence does not change if we take out the word "established." (A n established consensus ispresumed to be the current consensus... pending the establishment of a new consensus.) Am I missing something? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I would think so. Not sure. But I disagree that changes to long-standing text can necessarily be said to be against consensus. That only makes any logical sense if the changes being proposed to that text have been considered before. If not, then there is no existing consensus, one way or the other, concerning those changes. (Nor can long-standing text be said to enjoy consensus support if noone has previously paid it any attention - and we must surely be aware that much of Wikipedia's content has never been critically examined by significantly more than one person.) Victor Yus (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there is nothing illogical about saying that a longstanding consensus exists even if not every possible alternative has already been considered. 'Longstanding' does not mean after infinite consideration. It means longstanding. And in this case, it is sufficient for almost all purposes for the consensus to be pre-existing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... A lot depends on the specific page, and how reasonable it is to claim that "no one has paid it any attention". If we are talking about a little watched article on an obscure topic, I can see Victor's point. However, if we are talking about an article that has lots and lots of people watching and discussing it (especially most policy/guideline pages), I don't think it is reasonable to say that "no one paid it any attention". In those cases, if text has remained static for a significant amount of time, I think it reasonable to say that the text reflects consensus (whether that consensus has been overtly expressed or not). Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In that situation, yes, but only with respect to matters that have been considered. We can see (especially on these policy and guideline pages) that in spite of (or perhaps because of) all the attention they've received, they are often pretty rubbish - like this one and many others, they fail to convey any message clearly. If someone comes along with a way of improving them (which is something that we ought to very much desire), and their proposal has not previously been considered, then it makes no sense to say that there is some preexisting consensus against their proposal. Some may have substantial objections to it, in which case they should state them and then everyone should work together in good faith trying to find a solution that meets "all the legitimate concerns", but it doesn't help that process if people are somehow given a licence to opt out of it by simply saying "this text is long-standing so I don't have to address your concerns about it". Victor Yus (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct in saying that there is no preexisting consensus against the proposal... neither is there a preexisting consensus for the proposal. You are correct in saying that no consensus has formed regarding proposal.
 * However, the WP:Consensus section that comes right before CCC states: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove textual material, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the text as it was prior to the proposal."  In other words, the default is to retain the preexisting "long standing" text.  The reason we do this as the default is because there is a presumption that the preexisting text had consensus before any proposal was made to change it. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Many comments begin with a predicate that previous editors didn't know what they were doing. That's the wrong assumption. It is extremely unlikely that today showed up the best editor we ever had with the most insight or understanding. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Commonly results in" doesn't mean it's necessarily the default - ideally there is no default, and the resulting text is the best possible attempt to meet all the concerns that have been raised, including the recent ones. And no, changing existing text doesn't imply that previous editors were "worse" than the most recent one, that's a weird way of thinking. We are all working together towards improving each page, each of us taking what has gone before and trying to make it (even) better. It's not supposed to be a contest. Victor Yus (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Victor, you are assuming that every bold edit actually is an "improvement"... sometimes it isn't. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I'm assuming that? Of course that isn't the case - but you and RC seem to be saying that we should assume by default that such an edit is not an improvement. I'm saying there should be no default assumption, either one way or the other (unless the actual issue at hand has essentially been decided before, in which case a default assumption may be appropriate). Victor Yus (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for misunderstanding your view. For my side, I am saying that we can assume that 1) "long standing" stable language enjoys some degree of consensus... however 2) that consensus can change.  The question is whether that consensus has indeed changed... I am saying that, until we discuss it, we can not know whether a proposed edit will be considered an improvement or not - and because of this uncertainty, we have to discuss it before we can decide whether to implement it... especially when it changes long standing stable language.  If people feel that a proposed edit is indeed an improvement, then we know that consensus has indeed changed and we can implement the edit.  if people feel that the proposed edit is not an improvement, then we know that consensus has not changed, and we do not implement the edit. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe (and I don't think you really believe) that we have to discuss every change, even if the text being altered has remained unchanged for a long time previously. It's a waste of time discussing it if noone really has any substantial reason to object to the change. I also think it makes little sense to talk about consensus having or not having changed, if the would-be improvement has never been considered before. If the question is a new one, then there can be no existing consensus about it - and people should then be strongly discouraged from using some baseless assertion of consensus as a get-out from presenting actual arguments and addressing the concerns of others. Victor Yus (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It really depends on the page where the change is proposed. If we are talking about a core policy page like WP:Verifiability, even a small change can generate a huge amount of controversy.  Changing an "and" to an "or" can significantly impact how people interpret the policy, which in turn affects the entire project.  So, for a page like that, yes... every change needs to be discussed.  If, on the other hand, we are talking about an article on a relatively obscure topic - a page that attracts few editors and where problematic text can be added and sit unnoticed for a long time, a bold edit to correct the issue is more acceptable.
 * That said, I am not arguing that we "have to" discuss (ie it is not a "must") I am arguing that discussing edits first is "best practice".  Even in an obscure article, it is still best practice to a) raise a concern on the talk page... b) wait a reasonable time for a reply... and (if you get no reply) then c) make any bold changes to address the issue.  No one's "time" is being wasted by doing this.  No edit is so crucial that it has to be made "right now". And... by taking a bit of time to discuss first, you might actually be saving yourself time in the long run... by preventing an initial knee-jerk revert and the endless arguments that usually attend them. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it's commonly accepted that this is best practice, nor ought it to be. It clearly does waste time, since it introduces an additional (quite probably redundant) discussion step into the process, and also gives an editor the added burden of keeping track of all the changes he's planning to make once it transpires that there are no objections. Also it's quite likely that any objectors will not wish to revert your edit in its entirety, but to modify it somewhat on seeing it in place - that kind of cooperative editing (as described in this policy) is often more efficient and productive than talk page discussion. Victor Yus (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When we are talking about a core policy, or a highly watched page that has been stable for a long time, then it is far more likely that any objection will be a revert to the established text. Bold editing will not be seen as cooperative, efficient or productive. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is just not my experience. Except on a few policy and guideline pages, where the poor quality of those pages is evidence in itself of the inferiority of your method. Victor Yus (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "No edit is so crucial that it has to be made "right now"."? Some of them really shouldn't wait, even when BLP isn't at issue.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not only is it the common practice, it is the best practice. We are talking about a situation where there is already an existing consensus. Victor, let's not cloud the issue by imagining that each and every change considered by every editor on every page will likely be more or less acceptable when there is already a consensus. Clearly that is an error. There is no magic to an idea that an editor believes hasn't been thought of before, since he's probably just thinking of something that was already explicitly rejected. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Victor on this one. I'll elaborate (and propose a possible consensus solution) as soon as I have more time. But for now I'll just say that I think the two positions are fairly well staked out and that neither side will be able to convince the other to go 100% in its direction. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it is about Victor's position that you endorse. Are you endorsing the mistake that he made? I hope not. This is the time to use your intellectual heft to think clearly about the matter at hand. I didn't criticize Victor's argument just to express my personal preference; I was pointing out that he mistakenly confused cases. This discussion is about what obtains when there is a consensus and an editor wants to make a change despite that consensus ("Consensus can change"). Victor's argument would apply to a different case. If I'm mistaken on that, this is the time to do the hard intellectual work of pointing out the nature of that error. If I'm not mistaken, taking the other position would simply endorse an error. I am trying to be careful to avoid a mistake. This discussion is so that we can all accomplish that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ring, how are you differentiating between "existing consensus" and "former consensus"? So imagine that I have a page whose refs are properly and fully formatted using WP:ECITE.  It's been that way for years.  Now—not back when the page was largely written, but now—the community has decided to officially discourage ECITE formatting.  But that particular page has been stable for five years with ECITE.  So is there an "existing consensus" for that citation style?  Or is there actually a "former consensus", and the existing consensus is that the formatting needs to be updated, only nobody's gotten around to it?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this an argument meant to counter my position in some way? If so, it seems again that you are using an obscure, exceptional circumstance to claim that a common practice has some flaw. That's bad logic. Obviously it is possible to invent a crazy example that seems like an exception. Fortunately, we have the wisdom of consensus to defend us against these monsters. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The case I was addressing is a case where there is no prior consensus, because the matter at hand has not been considered before. (Obviously if there genuinely is a previously established consensus on the matter, then the situation is somewhat different, although the message of CCC seems to be that even in that situation it is not necessarily inappropriate to consider the matter again.) I really can't believe that anyone's experience of Wikipedia (unless they spend all their time editing exceptional pages like WP:Verifiability) is that you feel a duty to propose changes for discussion before making them. Even on very highly watched and honed pages like featured articles, people see ways to improve them, so they just do it. That's how Wikipedia works. (And we can see on policy pages and the like that when this way of making improvements breaks down, the results suffer for it. Look how much effort has been spent on this talk page, for example, and how mediocre is the "policy" page that has been produced as a result.) Victor Yus (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

One way to end this dispute for now
Regarding CCC:
 * Some of us believe that we should, at least, encourage discussion first in almost all cases.
 * Some of us believe that we should not.
 * The discussion on this page tells us that, at present, neither group is going to convince the other group of the soundness of its position.
 * That said, I suspect that most of us agree that discussion is appropriate when editor knows a matter has been resolved by past discussion. (I say "knows" because we don't want CCC to become a bludgeon used to beat up on good faith proposals made by editors who do not know the history of the text they want to change.)
 * If we resolve our current CCC dispute for now by including that recommendation in CCC then the "almost always discuss first" group has the nose of the camel in the CCC tent and come back later and try to expand the recommendation.

Not the ideal solution for either side, but it will allow us to move on to other issues. I would welcome any better proposal to resolve the current dispute. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can certainly live with this as a short term solution.
 * I think the long term solution will be to work on expanding/reworking the earlier sections on the various methods of achieving consensus... to give better guidance as to when reaching consensus by bold editing/revision is the most productive and appropriate, and when it is more appropriate and productive to reach consensus through talk page discussion (and, perhaps when it is appropriate to do a little of both at the same time). I think we all agree that there are times when either method is appropriate... and times when one method or the other would be inappropriate.  I Don't know if we completely agree on where the lines between them are drawn, but it is worth discussing further and seeing if we can find common ground. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Any other comments? Should I use the sandbox to take a first stab at language to implement this proposal? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * O.k., I'll be working on this ... when I find the time. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Changes made [to the sand box above]. Did I get it right? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

O.k., I've made the change to the article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Two sources
This paper, which I haven't finished reading, discusses the problem of knowing whether you have a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting article. There is an important difference in the situations outlined there where consensus was successful. Those cases involve a tacet acceptance of inequality of expertise among the participants which is explicitly disavowed on Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we explicitly disavow inequality of expertise. It's more that we do not explicitly avow it.  Certainly when evaluating the relative reliability of sources, expertise of the author comes into play.  As for expertise between editors... some editors do gain a reputation for knowing what they are talking about in a given subject area, and other editors do pay attention to their viewpoint and give it more weight in discussions.  It isn't an expertise that is backed by credentials... instead, it is an expertise backed by reputation. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I probably did overstate it, although comparative reliability of sources is something else. I sometimes think that more of a virtue should be made here of knowing what you're talking about. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

essays on wrongful consensus and false consensus
I added an essay on wrongful consensus. A shortcut to it is WP:WRONGCON. Previous discussion that led to it is archived with an antecedent. I was going to call the problematic case false consensus (the better name, I think) until I discovered there's already an essay called that. Whereas the wrongful-consensus essay is based on violation of any policy or guideline, the false-consensus essay is based only on violations of ArbCom decisions. I wonder if the two can be merged, to encompass all policy, guideline, and ArbCom violations and to use the better name. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * PREMATURE... I note that you have marked your essay as being the product of multiple editors... however, you are the only one who has actually edited it. In other words, at the moment it is really just your own personal reflections on things said in talk page discussions.  As such, I don't think it is appropriate to link to it on a policy page.  I am going to remove the link... This can be revisited if others start to contribute. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I did not mark the "essay as being the product of multiple editors". The template, which is supposed to be there apart from the number of editors, says "one or more", which is accurate. But if essays should not be listed on this policy page unless at least two have edited the essay, fine. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, its not a matter of "at least two"... policy and guideline pages should reflect widespread views, even when it comes to linking essays.  It's OK to link a minority view essay, but we need some assurance that that minority is relatively widespread... and the more people who edit an essay, the more we can be sure that the view is relatively wide spread.  Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, if noone else edited it, it means everyone who looked at it agreed with it so strongly that they saw no need to change anything... Or again alternatively, we don't mind whether the view is widespread (the essay itself carries a disclaimer in that regard), we might just think that people reading this page would find the views expressed there to be of interest. Victor Yus (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * for the first alternative... can you think of a single case where that would be a reality? But if so, people can be asked to leave a note on the talk page saying "well done".   As for the other alternative... obviously I disagree. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree that we should include links to interesting essays that express views that might not be widely held, or do you disagree that this particular essay is interesting? Victor Yus (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a policy or guideline page should link to essays that express views that are not widely held, no matter how "interesting" they might be. "Minority view" essays can (and should) be linked... but the minority who hold the view (ie support the essay) should be somewhat substantial.  Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a "merge" is not the way to go - the new essay appears not to rely on what has been written in the past, but expresses a view specific to editorial behaviour not covered in the past by ArbCom as such. Nor do I feel that multiple editors necessarily are all interested in actually improving an essay either. In fact, it is possible in some cases that editors who dilike the premise of an essay may seek to make absurd and damaging edits to it. I would, moreover, suggest that the new essay be retitled to "Improper behaviour by editors in the consensus process" (or "tendentious consensus"?) as I do not think "wrongful" is really the right adjective to apply to the consensus arrived at. Lastly, Wikipedia does not and ought not insist that essays be "majority opinion" as that way lies madness  and interminable argument. As long as the opinions do not damage Wikipedia in any way, let them exist. Collect (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting a merge... or that an essay should not exist... the question is whether this page should point people to it... or to put it more exactly: whether this specific guideline page should include a link to that specific essay. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think the harm is? Victor Yus (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If only a couple of editors support the views expressed in an essay, then those views are essentially "fringe". If we deliberately point editors to such an essay, by linking to it on in a policy of guideline page, we give that fringe view point undue weight.  Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not giving it much "weight" by simply linking to it (and anyone following the link will be told immediately that it is a page expressing not-necessarily-consensus viewpoints). We don't really have any reliable way of establishing how many people share what views (nor is it necessarily that important), but it seems that it is important to have a healthy circulation of ideas, including those that have not yet necessarily gained wide acceptance. I don't think it's healthy to try to suppress people's access to ideas merely on the grounds that those ideas can't be shown to have gained a solid following yet. Nor do I think that the number of people who have edited an essay is a good guide to what proportion of editors would agree with any of the points made in it - I certainly don't feel that by editing some part of an essay I am expressing my support for the rest of it, or that by refraining from editing or commenting on an essay I am expressing a lack of support for it. (I don't know how any of this relates to the essay at hand, I'm just concerned about the general principle). Victor Yus (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much disagree. Suppose someone dislikes our BLP policy... and writes an essay saying that it is OK to add unsourced accusations against the subject of a Bio article.  The editor with such a fringe view is free to express his/her opinion and write an essay, but it would be highly inappropriate for the BLP policy to draw any attention to it... we would NOT link to that essay at WP:BLP (nor at any other policy or guideline page that related to BLPs).  Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way... I did not mean to imply that counting the number of people who have edited an essay is the only way to tell whether the views expressed are "widely held" (and I am sorry if I gave that impression)... it is simply one way to do so. Another way to determine the "support level" of an essay is to look at how many editors point to it during article discussions. The more that editors point to it, the more we can say the views expressed are not fringe views.  Yet another way is to hold a broad based RFC, asking whether the essay has support and should be linked (the more "yes" votes, the more we can say that the views are likely to be supported by a wide range of editors). Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussions about the essay's title and about merger are continued at Wikipedia talk:Wrongful consensus.


 * "Well done" or anything remotely like it is almost never posted to a talk page. Threads are much more often about questions or controversies.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I must say I don't at all like the idea that we should base our essay link inclusion decisions primarily on the level of support that the essays have. Are we so frightened of change that we have to try to prevent people from accessing new and unorthodox ideas? As long as these essays aren't proposing something illegal or immoral (which might be the case in the BLP example) we have nothing to fear - let people read and assess the alternative views and the arguments supporting them, maybe Wikipedia will come to be improved as a result. Victor Yus (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that we ought not delete "wrong essays" - for one thing, the MfD discussion is likely to bring out only a very small subset of editors, and in some cases they may not be a representative subset of all editors, as they are intrinsically "self-selected" for indeterminate reasons. The other reason is that given by John Milton a very long time ago - it is discussion with differing views which leads us forward, not restriction to "approved" views. Collect (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that we ought not to delete "wrong essays" (and for the record, I don't think Nick's essay is "wrong")... again, the question isn't whether an essay should exist... the question is whether we should link to a given essay on a given policy/guideline page (and if so, at what point we should link to it).
 * Perhaps this is a question that needs to be discussed in a wider context (and in a venue that will gather a wider audience). I have posted the following at the Village Pump (policy):  When is it appropriate (and when is it inappropriate) to link to an essay on policy and guideline pages... are their limitations, and if so what are they?. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A link from a policy page implies endorsement. It has nothing to do with a disinclination to entertain different views. If the essay is persuasive then its views will be adopted. Nick tried these ideas on us here and they weren't accepted but weren't completely rejected, either. That seems like a normal exchange of opinion and argument. I would note that Nick's proposals were modified in this discussion but his essay returns to his original proposal. That is a further reason, if one were needed, to decline the link for now. It's hard to avoid the inference that he is trying to include them despite their rejection. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fairly common to link policies or guidleines to essays, often marking a link as being to an essay. I don't object that some policies and guidelines don't link or are more limited than others as to which essays to which to link, but linking appears to be a legitimate way to expand communication, as long as it's not confusing. In the case of this one, talk page discussion seemed to have died out. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The merger proposal is no more (as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Wrongful consensus). Nick Levinson (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

sham consensus
I wrote a new essay, WP:Sham consensus. Shortcuts to it are WP:SHAMCONSENSUS, WP:SHAMCON, and WP:SHAM. It incorporates false consensus and wrongful consensus under a single label, while preserving the latter two essays. In listing just one of these on the guideline page, this one, rather than wrongful consensus, should be listed, when the standard or consensus for listing is met. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

procedurally flawed consensus
I have also written a new essay... see: WP:Procedurally flawed consensus please opine and edit. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks okay as a start and is subsantively different than sham or wrongful consensus but has a problem of inclarity I can't solve, not knowing your (the original editor's) intent. Either of the following is true, but not both:
 * Because procedurally flawed consensus is limited to procedures, among policies it includes only those policies that are about procedures, thus is narrower than wrongful or sham. There may be no guidelines that are considered clearly procedural; at least, there is no comparable category. I don't know which essays would be considered clearly procedural.
 * Procedurally flawed consensus includes failure to adhere to, say, BRD or coatrack, which are essay-based procedures (if defining procedure very broadly), and thus the new essay raises a question of which essays establishing procedures should be encompassed (e.g., cf. Do not say "With all due respect"); by the terms of your new essay, it is all of them. The overbreadth is untenable in practice.


 * In general, recognition of all of these kinds of real or so-called consensus is useful to varying degrees. I suggest tightening up the new essay in whichever direction is useful enough or, if both are sufficiently useful, tightening this one way and writing yet another essay for the other kind.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC) (Generally clarified text & corrected a preposition: 16:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC))


 * I intentionally left "procedure" vague. A lot of what you are talking about on your essays is how violations of our Behavioral Policies affect consensus discussions... but we also get people who think a consensus discussion can be invalid because someone didn't follow the correct process ("This was not posted at the right noticeboard"... "The discussion was closed before 30 days passed"... etc.)  Not all of the processes are spelled out in Policy... We have many unwritten procedures on wikipedia (conventions that are not necessarily outlined in policy).  Sometimes these complaints are petty... essentially wikilawyering attempts to undo a consensus that the complainers didn't like.  These can be ignored.  But sometimes the complainer is right and the consensus should be overturned.  It depends on the complaint. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever the nomenclature, there seems to persist the issue that the remedies would be difficult to calibrate and prone to the same sets of errors as the root offense. Thus, these ideas founder by offering only to multiply difficulties instead of paring them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "the remedies would be difficult to calibrate" ... that is exactly what my essay is trying to point out. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought was going on, but, instead of trying to draft failure-prone methods, let's develop something that can work. What I was developing was a name for something. That "something" already happens. To deny it a name is to sweep it under the rug, which is of no help when it presents itself anyway. I still don't understand why giving it a name is a bad idea. We have names for a variety of incurable diseases and this problem is not incurable.


 * Unwritten procedures are not generally a good idea, as they're practically an invitation to arbitrariness and inconsistency of application. Experimentation is good but when an experiment succeeds and sometimes when it fails a procedure that was discovered or invented through that result should be reduced to writing and posted in an appropriate policy, guideline, or essay.


 * The option to ignore a consensus already exists. All of the underlying offenses (e.g., sockpuppetry abuse) are already defined, subject to more being defined in the future. That editors will be offended at the characterization of a consensus as bad is not significantly different than that they will be offended at the characterization of a posting as the result of, e.g., abusive sockpuppetry (for example, when an editor posted that certain editors seemed to be sock puppets another editor deleted the comment rather than reply substantively or answer with a denial except in the edit summary, and that deletion may have been a sign of being offended).


 * I understand the belief that if we just all smile all problems will be solved (maybe that's not your belief but it's common and relevant). Smiling helps a majority of times but not always. We need tools for when trying to achieve consensus is not enough because someone else is violative.


 * I suggest you tighten your essay to make it more practicable. If you have suggestions for tightening mine, please suggest them. A name in itself does not cause unenforceability.


 * Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC) (Corrected two mistypings: 16:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC))
 * Yes, I was essentially giving a name to "something that already happens" as well... (we often deal with complaints that a consensus should be overturned because someone has not followed some procedure... now we have the name "procedurally flawed consensus" that we can use when discussing them). What isn't codified (and actually can not be codified) is what happens when there is a procedurally flawed consensus occurs.... because that depends on which specific procedure was not followed. Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I am not sure I fully understand this:
 * "Serious violations of Wikipedia policy should be brought to the attention of administrators for possible administrative action".
 * If you meant violations by individual editors, this sentence is redundant (serious violations should be brought to attention of administrators irrespective to what your essay says). May be you meant the attempts of some group of editors to build consensus that violates the principles of our policy? --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean serious violations of wikipedia policy (by an individual or a group). Yes it is redundant, but its an essay, so it is OK to be redundant.  Besides, it balances the other side of the coin (petty violations of minor procedures should essentially be discounted and ignored). Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure it is totally redundant. Sometimes, a group of users may achieve a local consensus that directly and seriously violates our policy. Since talk page discussion that leads to such consensus, and individual behaviour of each user are in formal compliance with the policy (everyone is free to express his opinion during talk page discussions), there is no formal reason to bring individual behaviour to the attention of admins. However, the action of the group is much serious violation, and I think that should be clearly articulated in the essay (or even added to the policy).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit the essay. And perhaps further discussion of it belongs on the essay's talk page, not here.  I am not (at this time) proposing that we add a link to it, so there really isn't a reason to talk about it in such depth on this page. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether a "group" "violates" anything depends on whether or not "they" agree with "your" "version" of something. Too many editors invoke policy to push their fringe POV, particularly when opposed by numerous editors. We don't want to fall into content by administrative fiat. I have seen too many administrators fall prey to this sort of reasoning. Uninformed is not the same as neutrality. Coming up with 99 reasons why consensus is not consensus is why people leave WP. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Re people "Coming up with 99 reasons why consensus is not consensus"... a good point. I have reworked to note that a complaint of procedural flaws, if petty enough, can backfire upon the complainer.  (a very petty complaint can be deemed disruptive and, in extreme cases, can result in administrative action against the complainer.) Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the user at 192.251.134.5 may be making a larger point, one with which I strongly disagree, namely that article consensus should be determinative or even that an editor should be alone in deciding what gets into an article or not. Although I've seen abuse, too, the system largely works well, a system in which individual editors' decisions can be checked through page consensus and page consensus can be checked through more-encompassing processes aiding consistency. Decisions that would have been helpful to some part of society but are rejected for Wikipedia can usually find a home somewhere else on the Internet.
 * I agree that uninformed is not neutrality.
 * This discussion may be continued, but it should not be here. If it's about consensus generally, it should be in a new topic on this page with a more appropriate topic title. If it's about any of the essays, it should be on that essay's talk page. Relevant passages from this topic can be copied there for continuity, if desired.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC) (Corrected unexpected redlink to user: 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC))

Blueboar, I think that the issues raised in your essay are important, and the link to this essay should be added to the policy (when you will finish to work on it). In connection to that, I think we should talk about this essay seriously. Re "Too many editors invoke policy to push their fringe POV, particularly when opposed by numerous editors." That is correct. However, consider an opposite situation. The situation described by me is not artificial, it is quite common for low importance articles. In connection to that, don't you find "consensus" achieved on the talk page is procedurally flawed? Has the user A been engaged in wikilawyering or POV pushing? IMO, the answers are "yes" and "no", accordingly. I myself faced the situations when a small group of users appeared to be able to create some consensus about certain topics in low traffic articles, but their attempt to push the same idea in high traffic article (i.e. in the mother article) as a rule fail. In connection to that, I have the following question. The users B-E clearly violate our policy, which clearly define which sources are reliable, and which are not. Moreover, they ignored the community verdict. Therefore, although their behaviour was formally in accordance with our rules (they just participated in the talk page discussion), their collective violation of the policy lead to removal (or not-inclusion) of good quality content to the article. I think, we need some tools to identify such activity, to counteract it, and, if necessary, to punish it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) An editor A proposed to use some source X in the article Y to support of some general statement. The users B, C, and D objected to that, and the user E argued that the source X expresses just author's own opinion.
 * 2) A user A asked the question about the source X on WP:RSN, and the community verdict was that the source X is a top quality source, and it is quite relevant to the article Y.
 * 3) A user A returned to article's Y talk page, described the results of the RSN discussion, and insisted the source Y to be added to the article, but the users B-E opposed. Attempted RfC gave no (or minimal) fresh input, because all discussion was dominated by B-E.


 * Let's keep it simple. When too many people with different views edit the same article on a controversial subject, they will never agree about anything of importance. Do not waste your time; go edit something else. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Following your logic, it is impossible to create a good WP article on controversial topics, which is nonsense. Your advice encourages good users to abandon areas of controversy, so this your advice is hardly constructive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you follow my logic. No, it is entirely possible to create good article on controversial subject, but only if it is edited by people who have a similar view on the subject. They may have a similar view because they know the subject, even though it is controversial... My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Paul Siebert, your use of examples in the abstract would create administrative procedures which editors could then use to game the system claiming "policy" is on their side. Any such discussion cannot be had without reference to specific sources and subjects. I don't see the benefit to creating scenarios which editors can then leverage in the future to push their POV claiming administrative fiat as opposed to addressing concerns regarding their proposed content.
 * !Blusboar, the more we attempt to create procedures the more we move away from the spirit of a collaborative environment. We should spend more time on how to actually write a good article, not how to optimize our wrangling--which would be an oxymoron. Just my personal perspective. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that "procedurally flawed consensus" is itself an oxymoron. You either have consensus or you don't. Whether or not someone has a legitimate gripe or is wikilawyering can only be determined by sources and content, on which WP is administratively agnostic. Again, just one opinion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement "[y]ou either have consensus or you don't" begs the question of what to call and do with a so-called consensus that looks like a consensus but isn't one, such as when a bunch of sock puppets for one editor claim a majority that doesn't really exist, creating a consensus that doesn't really exist. A consensus that doesn't really exist shouldn't be relied on.
 * With the thought that sources and content are all that should matter is probably how most of us start editing, but Wikipedia is edited by people and they can make the same assertion with a result that we're in conflict, thus a need for consensus or other systems for resolving disputes. Suggestions for refining the system of consensus or the other systems are useful.
 * Walking away from an article because of adverse controversy is one way of coping but not the only way. That choice is up to each editor and Wikipedia may benefit or lose either way. We have policies and guidelines against trying to drive editors away in order to achieve certain results with articles, so that walking away should be less necessary.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul... I can see how the situation in your example (above) is a concern... but I don't think you are describing a "procedurally flawed consensus". What procedure is not being followed? Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick... Re: "a bunch of sock puppets for one editor claim a majority that doesn't really exist"... I agree that this is a false consensus, but I am not sure it is a procedurally flawed consensus.  What procedure is not being followed? Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, the policies that have been violated here are WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DEMOCRACY. The former says "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised". A concern of the editor A (that a reliable and relevant source X must be used in the article Y) is the proper concern, whereas counter-arguments from the group of users B-E is not, so the normal procedure for achievement of consensus has been violated there. The latter policy says that "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system," however, in that situation the opinion of the users B-E prevailed only due to their numeral superiority, which also is a violation: their arguments, which are based on zero evidences, shouldn't be taken into account at all, as if no counter-arguments have been provided. Therefore, I see a double violation of procedure here.
 * This abuse of sockpuppetry would violate policy: "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry .... Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, &#91;and&#93; distort consensus". Nick Levinson (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just realised that the cases described in the Sham consensus essay and in your essay are sometimes hard to separate. In connection to that, do you think it is needed to separate your and Nick's essays? What do you think about combining them together?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The essays should not be merged as long as WP:Procedurally flawed consensus is vague about what constitutes a procedure within its scope, an issue that has been discussed and is still pending. At least until then, the essays serve different purposes. Since merging of WP:False consensus and WP:Wrongful consensus has already been denied, WP:Sham consensus is a workaround that would be more or less defeated by incorporating the vague WP:Procedurally flawed consensus into it. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me give an example of a recent debate where the issue was "flawed procedure"... There is a question as to the best title for a page... so an RFC was held... a consensus formed and the page was moved... but an editor objected to the move on the grounds that "this wasn't posted to WP:RM". The objector conceded that a consensus had formed at the RFC, but felt it should be overturned because discussion took place on the article talk page instead of at WP:RM... ie a given procedure was not followed. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you mean such cases, don't you think it would be better just to list possible violations of the procedure (I think, to avoid petty criticism and wikilawyering we need to create an exhaustive list) and add it directly to the policy as a separate subsection? Obviously, this list will not be long, so I see no problem in that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The list might be short or very long, depending on which meaning of procedure the essay author intends. It might include all policies and guidelines and some, most, or arguably all essays. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it should be short and exhaustive, otherwise it is senseless. Our goal is to avoid wikilawyering, isn't it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's start. (I propose all of you to expand the examples):
 * 1) Wrong venue (posting RfC, RM etc at wrong page)
 * 2) Vote counting (when a closing admin counts votes without analyzing strength of arguments)
 * 3) RfC or AfD closure by a user having a vested interest in the topic.
 * 4) Ignoring the opinion of WP community (for example, the results of RSN, NPOVN discussions, etc) during the discussion on local talk pages.
 * 5) (post your examples here...)


 * To make it short and complete would require editing the essay first and adding the short list there, not into Consensus. If we add it to this policy and miss some, which is the controlling authority would be an open question every time there's a dispute. If a policy or a guideline is amended and this list is not, this list has to be ignored, which leads to confusion and wikilawyering. And should, say, WP:BRD, which is an essay with wide support, be included? Fix the framework first. (I'll likely be back online in a day or two.) Nick Levinson (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. What I propose is to write an essay, but to keep in mind an opportunity that it will be added to the policy when it will be completed. Do you have any other examples of PFC to add to the list?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That, unfortunately, leaves all the framework problems unsolved, which means I wouldn't know whether to spend a lot of time compiling a short list or far more time compiling a long list. Time is needed in order to go through the texts of all of the relevant sources, whether they're the procedural policies or all policies, guidelines, essays, and ArbCom decisions. Then, maintenance is needed, requiring that someone (I'm not volunteering) monitor all edits to all of those sources for changes that might affect the list in your new essay, and there are a few changes almost every day just to those that I already watchlist. May I suggest posting your current essay draft or revision (either in the Wikipedia namespace or in your talk space, as you prefer) and then expanding the list in it? The draft could reveal, for example, what you mean by procedure. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be against adding a list of procedural flaws to the essay... the point of the essay is not to define what a "procedural flaw" is... the point is 1) to request that when there is a complaint about some procedure not being followed, everyone take it seriously (ie not simply dismiss it out of hand)... and 2) to warn editors that in some cases, complaining about procedural flaws can be seen as petty wikilawyering... which is disruptive (and can even result in sanctions against those making the complaint). Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How many procedural flaws that deserve serious attention are theoretically possible, in you opinion? I cannot imagine anything but the examples 1-4 listed above (maybe, even a fourth example does not 100% fit). Let's try to add more examples, and that would help us to understand if the essays is really useful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I added one more example of the procedural flaw. If you have any ideas, please, continue. That may be useful regardless of the essay we are discussing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please define procedure or else I don't know what to include or exclude. If your list is complete, then it is far too inadequate. Compare the list of examples in Wrongful consensus, which has seven, not just four, and it's not exhaustive nor intended to be. If your list is meant to be exhaustive and is added to this policy as binding and limiting of the remedy to that list of four or so, it will effectively remove many policies from being policies and guidelines and ArbCom decisions will be unenforceable as precedent. As such, the change to this policy will lack the needed consensus of most policy and guideline pages and I don't think ArbCom will agree, either. For example, by effectively amending another policy, which this proposed list would, the consensus supporting that policy will probably need to agree, apart from agreement by consensus on this policy. That's a lot of consensuses that have to agree. You may want to start lining them up. You may have your work cut out for you. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC) (Added clarification: 17:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC))
 * @Nick... You may be confused... I don't think anyone is suggesting that we discuss the concept of "procedurally flawed consensus" in this policy. We were talking about an essay that I wrote.  Hell, I have not even proposed that we add my essay to the see also.  I was simply seeking feedback on it. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not confused. An editor wrote, supra, "[w]hat I propose is to write an essay, but to keep in mind an opportunity that it will be added to the policy when it will be completed.". Nick Levinson (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, your essay describes the situations when procedure was not duly followed during determination of consensus. As far as I understand your explanations, this essay deals with strictly formal things, i.e. about the situations when one cannot and should not apply common sense, but should follow some strict formal rules instead. If that is the case, the essay should not talk about some loosely defined things, and I see no reasons why we cannot:
 * enumerate all possible procedure violations that may have significant impact on consensus determination;
 * when the list will be complete, add it directly to the policy.
 * By doing that we will achieve exactly what your essay is intended for: to avoid situations when consensus is being determined with significant procedure violations, and to rule out a possibility of wikilawyering by making frivolous complaints about minor procedure violations.
 * I don't think why cannot we do that: our policy is rather simple, so it would hardly be difficult to identify all possible types of procedure violations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"doesn't help"

 * "It doesn't help to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want."

Doesn't help who? It does help the person in question, if they can find people who agree with them. 86.160.222.156 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. It doesn't help establish true consensus, of course.  --B2C 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not? 86.160.222.156 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If it brings a broader group of participants into the discussion, then maybe it will help. Victor Yus (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That only helps if there is a centralized discussion. Having multiple discussions on multiple forums about the same issue will not give you a true consensus, because the participants at one page will not see the comments of participants at another... comments that might make a difference.  Suppose I have opposed something at NORN... and someone else makes an insightful comment at RSN.  That comment might have caused me to rethink... If I had seen it I might have said: "gee... I hadn't though about the RS aspects of this ... you know what, I have changed my opinion, and now support")... that can't happen if the discussion is fragmented over several pages.
 * So... it does help to notify multiple forums of an issue (pointing the editors to a centralized discussion)... but it does not help to hold multiple conversations about the same issue on multiple pages. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Who decides when consensus is reached?
I'm trying to understand how Wikipedia consensus works in practice. Editor A makes an edit; Editor B reverts; discussion ensues. Of course, if everyone involved in the discussion agrees on a course of action, you have consensus (assuming the action is taken and remains static for some period of time). But consensus does not require unanimity. That leads me to this question: if everyone does not agree on a course of action and discussion is ongoing, who has the authority to decide that consensus has been reached with regard to a particular course of action? Based on other discussions, I gather that an administrator makes that decision with respect to at least some decisions (like deleting a page), but I'm not sure about others. Any help would be appreciated!! (And if this is covered elsewhere, I apologize!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.171.232 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This would indeed seem to be a crucial omission from the policy, as some of us have noticed before. There is a page about WP:Closing discussions (though it doesn't have the magic "policy" marking that would allow good Wikipedians to believe in it). I think the main points of that page should be made part of the policy, and that page should be made into at least a guideline (which is another type of page that people are sort of allowed to believe in). Victor Yus (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that qualifies as an omission, though. Rather, that is the policy. Some editors may think they are the first to consider the workings, procedures, or paradoxes of consensus, but that isn't accurate. Almost all attempts to compromise consensus would effectively institute majority rule. As a good rule of thumb, if a majority of the minority agrees, that's probably a good basis to believe there is a consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand - what is "a majority of the minority"? And it sounds like in one sentence you're saying that we shouldn't be equating consensus with majority agreement, but in the next you're implying we should. Victor Yus (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What is confusing or unclear about "a majority of the minority"? The procedures and purposes of consensus building work to allow disparate viewpoints to be heard. The paradox that it is identified with neither unanimity nor majority rule yet borrows from both is the essence of its grace. That is how it is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From my experience, when there is a dispute over whether a consensus exists or not... there usually isn't one (yet). Further discussion and compromises are needed from both sides in the debate. (remember that WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT can apply to both sides in a debate). Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That may usually be so, but there must also be cases where there realistically is (sufficient agreement to be considered to constitute) a consensus, yet a few sore losers continue to dispute the fact. Who's to distinguish that case from the more usual one? Victor Yus (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confusing consensus with vote results. Consensus involves discussion and compromise. People can lose a vote... they can not "lose" a discussion.  Voting, as part of the consensus building process, can tell you how people feel about an issue under discussion... and the result of a vote should influence the eventual consensus... but the vote result should not be confused with the consensus itself. Blueboar (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is how consensus is supposed to work...
 * Editor A wants the text to read "blah blah blah blah"... Editor B wants it to read "nehr nehr nehr nehr".
 * They each explain why they prefer their text. Others share their opinions (and perhaps make suggestions).
 * As part of the process, a vote might be held to gauge how people feel... let's say 30 editors like "blah blah blah blah" and 5 like "nehr nehr nehr nehr"
 * This vote result does NOT really mean that there is a consensus for "blah blah blah blah"...
 * But it does mean that the end result should be closer to "blah blah blah blah" than it is to "nehr nehr nehr nehr" (everyone now starts to discuss the pros and cons of "blah blah blah nehr", vs "blah nehr blah blah").
 * Everyone compromises a bit... but the "nehr" proponents have to compromise more than the "blah" proponents. In the end, neither "side" is completely happy... but both sides can live with it. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's test this your theory using a fresh practical example. Do you thing consensus has been achieved during this closed discussion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that a consensus is clearly emerging, but there is not (yet) a consensus. The proposal has gained a lot of support, and that shows us the direction the final text should go... but the final text needs to be amended to account for the concerns raised by those who oppose. Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But what is the mechanism for ensuring that that is what actually happens? (Or, if someone else's judgment about what should actually happen is different from yours, for determining which judgment is more authoritative, and ensuring that that is what actually happens?) Without answers to these questions, this whole "policy" is reduced merely to a page of empty aspirations. Victor Yus (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors on Wikipedia generally follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. That is the mechanism. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is more specific than it would be if that were to be the answer. The question is who determines whether or not there is consensus to do something, assuming there is disagreement about whether or not there is consensus to do something (and please don't say that if there is disagreement then there is no consensus, because the policy says explicitly that unanimity is not required). I think in fact the answers to these questions are to be found on the WP:Closing discussions page (though I haven't read that page in detail, it may not correspond exactly to what really happens). There needs to be a section in this policy about such closing (though presumably with the proviso that the great majority of discussions don't require it, since editors can work out the result for themselves, and that should be the desired outcome). Victor Yus (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, from what I've observed, the primary variants of conflicts are:
 * competing opinions regarding a generally undisputed common set of facts/observations/events versus
 * competing versions of facts/observations/events which are mutually exclusive.
 * Consensus can resolve representation of case #1.
 * Consensus cannot resolve representation of case #2. One side or the other (these conflicts tend to be two-sided) seeki to persuade uninformed editors with arguments which at face value appear reasonsable but which, under the covers, are not. Consensus cannot resolve these conflicts. Moreover, since arbitration can only be about conduct and not content, these conflicts eventually/periodically disintegrate into those with less of a leg to stand on goading their opponents into some expression of anger, i.e.,  constituting a personal attack and, voila, one editorial opponent eliminated at least for a while. The reason these conflicts are intractible is because they are based on (assuming good faith) belief systems which are not congruent to verifiable facts (note, I did not say "truth", WP can't decide the "truth" eaither). Eventually players tire if they don't have the facts or finances (paid editors @ Transnistria, for example) to go on forever.
 * Lastly, both cases are susceptible to "plausibility", that is, the more uninvolved editors can be brought in, the more uninformed voices available to be swayed. Best is if you can persuade an uninformed admin to file an enforcement request as your proxy.
 * At least that's been my experience across a number of topic areas, not just related to how WP portays the Soviet legacy. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Short version, "Consensus, when you see it you'll know it." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Victor - The question is who determines whether or not there is consensus to do something. To some extent, this is a flawed question. As soon as a discussion devolves into a dualistic choice ("X or not X") the editors are no longer working towards trying to reach a consensus.  You are no longer considering other options that might resolve the underlying concern... options that might gain a better, firmer consensus.
 * The path to consensus is to avoid asking "Is there a consensus to do X?"... the path to consensus is actually a two step process: First you need to examine the concern being raised, and ask: Is there a consensus to do anything about the concern (in determining this we should examine policies of guidelines that relate to the concern... thsy may limit your options). Most of the time people will be reasonable, and will want to ease the concern... there will be a consensus to do something. At that point, the question becomes "what should we do?".  Lots of people may like X... X may get you very close to resolving the concern... but if someone still has a problem with X, then you should continue the discussion, and discuss variations on X... or consider Y and Z instead. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that consensus is effectively a situation where an outcome is reached where nobody objects, which is obviously the ideal that we would always want to achieve. But experience and common sense tell us that sometimes no such situation is ever going to be reached (at least, not within a period of time that's reasonable for people to spend on discussing the matter - or even, simply, not ever). The policy even tells us that consensus need not require unanimity, and we know from the more formalized processes like deletion discussions that it does not require unanimity or even for your idealized process about addressing concerns to be followed (someone just rolls up and "closes" the discussion, and that's more or less it). So more practical questions arise - in what situations can a discussion be closed, who can close it, what standards are they expected to uphold when doing so, what "appeal" procedures exist, and so on. These are genuine questions that people have a perfect right and expectation to see answered. But I get the impression that there are people here who don't want to see them answered, because they have some airy-fairy idealized vision of a beautiful consensus-forming process that always works perfectly in the end, and are unhappy about saying anything that implies an acknowledgement that sometimes it might not be so perfect and that other practical situations arise that we need to deal with in a sensible way. Victor Yus (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The question isn't actually that hard in >95% of the cases. In nearly all of the cases, the couple of editors involved in the dispute will be able to figure it out for themselves.  In a small minority of cases, an impartial person (usually, though not necessarily, an admin) is asked to formally summarize the consensus based on the conversation of those editors.  In a tiny minority of cases, there is no consensus and no willingness by some or all editors to admit that there is no consensus, or no consensus and the absence of consensus is intolerable (e.g., a choice between X and not-X, with no possibility of a partly-X compromise and no possibility of refusing to make a decision).  Those cases are insoluble under policy, and are usually "solved" via attrition (people get sick of the dispute and quit) or blocking editors who misbehave due to frustration.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As is customary in these discussions, the notion that one formulation works for easy cases and hard ones, for brilliant outliers and incorrigible cranks, for the binary choices and infinite nuances of language is not an easy circle to square. At its core, consensus is paradoxical. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Something else to consider... deterining consensus at article pages is often easier than determining consensus at policy pages. This is because consensus at articles pages is (to a large extent) determined by what policy already says, while consensus at policy pages is about figuring out what policy should say. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But on the other hand, if consensus at articles is partly determined by what policy already says (but certainly not entirely), that provides a new problem in determining consensus - how much extra relative weight to ascribe to arguments that appear to be better supported by policy (and even how to interpret that policy, given that it's usually written deliberately nebulously). In determining consensus about what policy should say, that problem at least should not arise - unless there's some überpolicy or legal considerations in play. Victor Yus (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All true. No one said reaching consensus was easy... only that some consensus discussions are easier to resolve than others.  A lot depends on the specifics of the particular issue under discussion... and the personalities of the editors involved.  And, we do have to remember that there will be times when reaching a consensus will prove to be impossible. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - but you say that in a way that might imply conflation of what are in fact separate points. There seem to be three (different) possible issues: (1) how to try to reach a consensus; (2) how to determine whether there is a consensus; and (3) what to do if there is no consensus. All these are valid topics that a complete policy ought to address; yet the policy currently concentrates in patronizing detail on (1), while giving only partial or perfunctory attention to (2) and (3). Victor Yus (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Policies aren't meant to provide exact details on every point. We can usefully (to new editors) provide details on (1), so we do.  In most cases, providing details on (2) is pointless (because whether a consensus exists is perfectly obvious even to children and cranks in most cases) and difficult (because it's a lot harder than counting votes, and a new editor can't do it anyway, because new editors can't know enough about our policies).  Providing details on (3) is unimportant and unnecessary, because the actual details are kept at the subject-specific policies and guidelines, and we're just providing a brief summary with links to the real thing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because a new editor can't do something, that doesn't mean we shouldn't tell new (or indeed old) editors about the relevant procedures. New editors can't block people or protect pages either, but we still have detailed policies on those things. And I don't agree that (3) is unimportant - it's probably the most important part (since what we do when everyone agrees is obvious, but what we do when everyone doesn't agree is not at all clear and needs policy to guide us). (That said, it may be that there isn't a lot we can say about (3), since Wikipedia policy-making appears to have stalled when it got to the slightly harder questions like that one, so there may not be any norms at all, and things are really just decided by who is prepared to keep reverting longest.) Victor Yus (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No consensus on policies
I've been looking at No consensus (an essay written in 2007 by Carcharoth), with the hope of adding a sentence or two here about what to do with no consensus in a dispute at a policy or guideline page. It suggests basically the following system:


 * 1) No consensus to add a new section/new idea:  Don't add it.
 * 2) No consensus on an existing section/existing idea:  Remove it.
 * 3) No consensus on the page's status:  Remove/downgrade the page (if you really can't get a consensus).

Item #1 is the easy case, and the result is obvious to everyone. I don't think that we need to deal with #3 here, as it's rare, but it might be worth mentioning over at WP:PROPOSAL. (Someday, when I have nothing better to do for a week, I ought to go clean out those old proposals.)

I'm not sure that it's quite right about #2, which is the issue that happens the most. The variant of #2 that is most frequently encountered is a discussion about slightly modifying an existing section. In this case, everyone agrees (for example) that WP:V ought to have an introduction, or that MOS:APPENDIX ought to talk about the section headings used in the appendices, but they can't agree on exactly what it should say. In these instances, "just remove the whole idea" isn't functional.

What do you think? Do we need to describe policy and guideline defaults here? If so, what should we say about them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The impression I get is that the norm is always not to make a change if there's no consensus to make the change. A good enough idea in itself, one would have thought, if only there were some way of forcing people to go through the consensus-forming process that's described here, before falling back on that default. In practice, knowing that they can block any change just by not agreeing to it, many people don't make any effort to address the concerns expressed by the pro-change editors, and Wikipedia's users are left with substandard pages which are like that just because they've been like that. Victor Yus (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The second doesn't seem correct. Changes require consensus, otherwise there will be mischief. It's not a workable process. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot depends on whether we are talking about a BLP or not. The default position for BLPs when there is "no consensus" on existing text is "remove".The default position for non-BLPs when there is "no consensus" on existing text is "retain" The default for Policy/guideline pages is "return to the last stable version".
 * (addendum: woops... sorry... did not see that we were talking purely about policy pages here... so the bit about BLPs/non-BLPs is irrelevant). Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How long is "stable"? Victor Yus (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's up to consensus. :>)
 * ok seriously, "stable" is usually interpreted as "the last version where the sentence/paragraph/section under discussion rested unchallenged for a reasonable amount of time". I suspect that your next question will be: How long is a reasonable amount of time?  My answer would be: at least a month.
 * Note... returning the page to the last stable version does not mean the discussion on the talk page has to halt. Who knows, someone may show up tomorrow and make a suggestion, or say something insightful that results in everyone changing their minds and a consensus actually forming.  Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with "no consensus to make a change, so no change" is that it's too simplistic and enshrines a first-mover advantage. When we really, truly have no consensus about what to do with a page, then we have no consensus to keep the old version, either.  In fact, we may have an actual consensus to make a change, but no consensus on which of several competing proposals to accept in its place.  "No consensus to make this change" is not the same thing as "No consensus to make a change".
 * The recommendation in the essay is that if you have no longer have a positive consensus for a current "rule", then you should remove that rule, even if you can't figure out what to replace it with, because policies should only contain what the community truly supports.
 * So think through this example: We have voluntarily created a rule that says fair-use images of living people are never allowed on the English Wikipedia.  (The point is to encourage editors to take more pictures; it is not legally required.)  Imagine that editors have begun to use these frequently, and the result is a lot of edit warring.  We have a long discussion about this issue, and the community is evenly divided.  Half of the editors want to say that fair-use is okay for BLPs under some circumstances, and the other half want to say fair-use is not okay for BLPs ever.
 * Under the "no consensus, no change" system, we keep the old rule, even though half the community opposes it and is actively doing something else in articles. Under the "no consensus, no rule" system, we would remove the rule completely:  the policy would not mention a rule about fair use for BLPs, on the grounds that the community doesn't, in fact, have any agreement about what its policy ought to say on that point.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose anything that is clear and works well can be described as simple. Simplistic is pejorative, so let's just set that aside. The simplicity is its virtue. And there is no problem with developing a consensus to change draft A to draft B because there was nothing bad about draft A. It emerged from consensus and so it is good enough and provisional until something better comes along, like all of Wikipedia.
 * The real problem would come from allowing the termites to take down any section, sentence, or phrase simply by proposing an alternative. What absurd chaos would result! The deniers and birthers just have to propose something different and they win? Wikipedia would be Swiss cheese: all holes.
 * This is a solution in search of a problem, and we don't have one. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So once any rule gets enshrined in any policy or guideline, then that rule stays there unless and until you can improve it? You would stick with the old rule even if absolutely everyone agrees that there is no current consensus to keep the rule in question, that actual practice has significantly diverged from that rule, and that, if proposed today, the rule would have absolutely no chance of being adopted?
 * Under what circumstances would you simply remove a rule and have nothing there? Only if you can get two-thirds or three-quarters of the community to explicitly agree to remove it?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If there's a consensus to change anything, including deletion, that's it, so I'm not sure what you are thinking of. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If 600 editors say this "rule" is not policy and must be removed, and 400 say it is policy and must be kept, then is there a consensus that the rule is policy?
 * If there is no consensus that this rule is policy, then must it be kept anyway? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Colleague, you forgot that wikipedia is not democracy, and headcount does not count. We do have polls to sound the opinions, but consensus is reached via arguments and counterarguments. If 6000 say "I dont like it", it will not outweigh solid arguments "is is good/bad for wikipedia because..." . Of course, there still be disagreements; there may be goods and bads in both "wrong versions", hence "no consensus". Therefore the principle "if it works,  don't fix it" kicks in in favor of the "last stable version" until an evident harm is clearly seen. And so on bla-bla-bla. You got it, I hope. Therefore neither headcounting nor nasty "stick-into-wheel-throwers" do not really rule wikipedia policies. (And there is no cabal :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Voting" is fundamentally how policies are created. The arguments for and against are largely irrelevant, because 'should ___ be a policy?' cannot be decided by reference to whether adopting the proposal conforms with policies.  If 90% of the community wants (or doesn't want) something to be a policy, nothing short of an WP:OFFICE action can stop them.
 * Writing policy really is different from an AFD or an RFC on content. At a contested AFD, you want to say "This article should be kept, because I demonstrate with the following list of fifteen books and twenty-seven magazine articles that this subject conforms with the following list of policies and guidelines...".  It is impossible to do that for a dispute about whether to have a given rule in a policy.  To use my example above, once upon a time, the community voluntarily agreed that the best way to promote its various goals was to prohibit fair-use images of living people.  This is now the official, and enforced, policy and practice:  Fair use of "pictures of people still alive" is unacceptable.  There is no legal requirement for this; we could treat "pictures of people still alive" under exactly the same standard that we treat "pictures of dead people" or "pictures of computers".
 * The fact is that if this rule were no longer widely supported by the community, it would actually no longer be policy. Our policies are what we do and what we support, in the real work.  What's on the policy page is only an effort to describe our actual standards.  Wikipedia has a British constitution, not a statutory law system.  But if we require a positive consensus to change the written description on a page marked policy at the top, we could easily have situations in which the actual policy (as evidenced by the preferences, beliefs, and actions of thousands of experienced editors) is significantly different from the written policy (as 'protected' by a minority of change-averse editors).
 * This is fundamentally a question of how accurate you want your written policy and guideline pages to be. If most of the community no longer supports a rule, should it be kept anyway?  Is that really what you want?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

My view is that if there is a consensus to delete something, delete it. If there is a rule that seems to require alteration, a consensus decides that. I don't think that is controversial. I guess, to improve your argument in my eyes, maybe we could see a problem if there is a not a consensus to delete something but there is a consensus to change it. But as we know this situation is extremely common and presents no special issues for consensus. In the rare case, I suppose there could be a consensus to retain a passage struck through, to indicate... something? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All this discussion is fairly moot, I fear, as long as we have no way to determine whether there is a consensus, or to compel anyone to respect consensus, or to ensure that people really follow (in good faith) the procedures laid down for reaching consensus. Most of the time people bumble through and good things continue to be done (or else, in cases like deletion, someone comes out of nowhere to make a rather unconvincing assertion that there is consensus one way or the other), but once any situation arises that isn't covered by the specific procedures for deletion and the like, but nonetheless has people taking entrenched positions, then I fear the whole "decisions are made by consensus" thing becomes a fiction - instead, "decisions" are effectively made by those who are willing to compromise least and revert the most. In this situation the "no consensus = no change" rule is probably about the best we can do (where it's assumed that once something has remained stable for a certain length of time then it's been accepted by silent consensus, although still the actual required amount of time remains arbitrary). But this is still not a satisfactory solution, for the reasons already mentioned. Victor Yus (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor, as we keep telling you, we do have ways of determining consensus.
 * If everyone agrees that there is no consensus to keep a rule, would you want to keep it anyway? Do you really think that's best for the community?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you do keep telling me that (you keep telling me that we shouldn't tell people about the ways that we have, because the people who might want to know are new and stupid and should be kept in their place, or something). But if there's no consensus to keep a rule, but also no consensus to put something else (including complete absence of rule) in its place, I don't think we can say obviously what ought to be done. We have to try to find a solution that best meets the concerns of those who want the rule and those who don't. Victor Yus (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ring, what if there is a majority, but not enough to establish consensus, in favor of deleting a section of a policy? Without consensus to delete, we keep, even though only a minority supports keeping?  --B2C 21:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Born, a lot depends on how many people (total) are involved in the discussion. If the majority is five out of seven total... that isn't enough to say there is a consensus to make a change to a policy.
 * In fact, I would argue that even seven out of seven is not enough to really establish consensus on a policy/guideline page. Policies and guidelines are supposed to represent the consensus of the broad community... but the broad community does not pay day-to-day attention to policy and guideline discussions... only a few policy wonks (like you and me) do that.  A small group of policy wonks might form a "majority" within a discussion... but that majority (or even unanimity) may not actually reflect the consensus of the broader community.  Obviously we come closer to achieving a broad consensus if hundreds of editors have expressed an opinion.
 * Here's the point... Policy and guideline pages should not be easy to change. When some bit of text has been in a policy/guideline page for a long time, it is assumed that lots and lots of people have seen it and agree with it (or it would have been challenged long before).  We assume it enjoys broad community consensus.  That means we need a very strong indication that the broader community has changed its consensus before we remove it or change it.  A simple majority often is not enough. Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the point indeed. Editors by and large are not interested in policy discussions. The best thing for them is to have stable and predictable parameters. Shifting foundations are not encouraging for content development. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another possibility that I have found occurs quite often (when a bit of text has been there for a long time) is not so much that people agree with it, but that no-one really understands what it's supposed to say. People by and large can't be bothered to dispute something unless they clearly disagree with it, and if it's practically meaningless then you can hardly disagree with it, so they leave it be. But propose replacing or supplementing it with something that makes sense, and suddenly it becomes something people can disagree with, which of course some of them do, and so the proposal founders. Hence policy and guideline pages evolve to be filled out with junk, while at the same time (as is the case with this page) omitting or obfuscating much of the information that people really want and need to know. Victor Yus (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From my experience, it is rare that "no-one really understands what it's supposed to say"... what I think happens quite frequently is that various "editor groups" develop conflicting interpretations of what it says.
 * Over time, as a policy statement gets applied in actual article discussions, it can take on nuances of meaning and interpretation that may not have been part of the original intent of the policy statement. For example... People who work in one topic area may interpret a policy statement narrowly, as saying "this is required"... while people who work in another topic area may have interpreted that same policy statement more broadly as saying "this is recommended".  Both groups happily (and quietly) apply their interpretation of the policy statement in isolation... until there is an article that overlaps into both topic areas.  At that point the two interpretations come into conflict.  Both groups descend on the policy page to "clarify" the policy (to support their interpretation).  Naturally each group objects to changes that "clarify" in a way that supports the other group's interpretation. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And the usual result, I suspect, is to retain the existing ambiguous statement (or to replace it with something else that fudges the issue even more effectively). To the great detriment to anyone trying to read the page for understanding. The fundamental problem seems to be that these pages have come to be relied on by a certain kind of editor as a sort of authority that can be cited in disputes, while the same pages are also expected to serve a descriptive function. Victor Yus (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that it may take quite a lot of time to settle the debate. We leave the text at the "stable" version to prevent edit warring and further disagreement... while we continue to discuss and debate the various competing interpretations on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's sensible and avoids a lot of mischief. I don't see a conflict between a policy page functioning as description and "authority". --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * These are two separate issues we're talking about now. As to things remaining unchanged in case of absence of consensus to change them, we all seem to be basically in agreement, although I believe it shouldn't be regarded as a satisfactory solution in any way, and it certainly leads to another sort of mischief - people sitting happily on the status quo and not making any attempt to address the concerns of those who see its faults (as they should do according to this policy). As to the two different functions of policy pages, I've certainly found there to be a conflict in practice - I've tried to rewrite certain incomprehensible passages to make them someway clearer, but have been blocked by those who fear that if we explain things properly, then "wikilawyers" will take advantage somehow. The damage can be seen on this very page, where we have people insisting that certain relevant topics - that people reading the page clearly want to know about - be kept out of the policy. All this does genuinely matter (assuming we want Wikipedia to thrive), because if people don't understand the instructions, then they're less likely to want to join in, or if they do, will find it harder to act productively. Victor Yus (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand how frustrating it can be when you try to "explain things properly" and you get resistance. However, if there are concerns that wikilawyers will abuse your suggested change, then you are hardly explaining things properly.  You need to re-think and re-phrase... to find some other way to explain things that takes the concern about wikilawyers into account.
 * One thing I have learned through experience... It is very hard to gain a consensus when the discussion starts with "The text says ABC... I think we should change it to XYZ". The reason it is so hard to gain consensus is that the resulting discussion becomes a referendum on XYZ (and not a discussion about what might be wrong with ABC).  We have more success when the discussion starts with: "I think ABC is problematic... let's discuss the various ways we might resolve this concern".  The second approach takes longer...  but I have found that it has a much better chance of achieving a consensus.  Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The other unspoken paradox in this area concerns the acceptance that policy pages define conduct but also reflect practice. Clearly, if policy simply reflected practice, policy pages would be an imposition, while if policy pages defined good conduct, practice would be expected to conform to it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's only paradoxical if you think of Policy as a narrow set of "rules" and "laws" that must be followed in all situations. However, if you think of Policy as a statement of flexible principles (and not as a set of narrow "rules" or "laws") the paradox disappears (or at least greatly diminishes). This is why so many policy statements are phrased as "should" and not "must"... they strongly recommend certain actions, but allow for flexibility. We can ignore them if need be (WP:Ignore all rules is official policy after all).  There are actually very few absolute "musts" on Wikipedia.
 * I prefer to say that Policy neither "defines" practice, nor is "defined by" practice... Instead I would say that policy informs practice and (in return) is informed by practice. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, all right, but neither policy nor guidelines gently "inform" practice. If guidelines aren't followed, they are a cudgel. Practice, then, changes when editors agree to ignore the rules. And there's not a problem with paradox; how else to have it right with both authoritarians and libertarians? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We assume it enjoys broad community consensus. No, if we have a large group of editors directly says that something no longer enjoys consensus, then we actually assume that it used to enjoy broad community consensus, not that it still does enjoy that status.
 * I believe that when a statement no longer enjoys consensus—and I do mean that it truly does not, as evidenced by substantial discussion and proof that the community's practice has changed—then we should normally remove it, rather than enshrining an outdated "rule" during what may be months or even a year of discussion about what to say instead. Policy statements should have broad community consensus behind them.  If we are certain that a given statement does not enjoy consensus any longer, it should be removed, even if we don't know what to put in its place yet.  So rather than leaving a page at the mythical "last stable version", which could in this situation also be legitimately called the "known wrong version", I think it would be better to remove the known-to-be-unwanted rule, leaving behind only a blank space, not any of the possible future versions whose consensus has not been demonstrated.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To most of the above, the answer is mu. That is, the question is ill posed.


 * “No consensus on an existing section/existing idea: Remove it.”? Well, it depends.  It depends on what is meant by “no consensus”.  Is it describing practice, and there is no consensus that this practice should be normal practice?  This happens.  Here is a disconnect on the question of whether there is consensus support for retaining the section.  There is strong consensus that Wikipedia policies should decribe actual Wikipedia practices.  I think the answer is that “consensus” is not mathematical/boolian/yes-no/votable thing.  The consensus solution usually involves modification of the text in question.  Perhaps the text needs to clarfiy that it describes a current practice unders some dispute.


 * "no consensus to make a change, so no change" is another misstatement on consensus. There will never be "no consensus to make a change” in anything beyond trivial cases.  The question is better focused to “"no consensus to make this change”.  Very likely, the undiscovered consensus lies with another change.


 * Where a policy rule is challenged, I recommend separating the descriptive parts from the prescriptive parts, as a route to finding consensus. It likely that there is a better wording to both parts.


 * For policy and guideline pages, the deciding factor should be whether the words describe accurately. If the words “recommend” or “require”, etc, and they are in dispute, then they belong in a proposal, not a policy/guideline, and if contested the proposal should go to RfC, and in the end the RfC should be closed by an experienced editor in judging concensus, such as a bureaucrat.  If the question is both interesting and meaningful, you’ll find such an editor rising to do the job.


 * “"Voting" is fundamentally how policies are created.” No.  That’s wrong.  Choose your own policy and go to its earliest versions and see how it was created.  Ususally, the inclusion of the word “fundamentally” indicates that the statement is false due to excessive simplification .  Voting is how policies are affirmed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

exception to consensus
In these days of things going viral, we should allow going against consensus. It is not to hard to have mob rule, which is consensus. I propose that one can edit against consensus and have the edit stick if a clear and logic reason exists and the mob does not have a good reason. I suspect using this clause will be uncommon. I propose that whoever is editing the wrong way should be blocked for a day.

An example of mob rule is President Obama's petition system. The petition about space aliens got hundreds of thousands of signatures, not a petition about foreign policy or social security. Bamler2 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Who decides what is clear and logical? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The mob. Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No consensus - article title.
In the section on "No Consensus" (in the context of an article title discussion) we are told:


 * "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."

I'd like to get some clarification on the first part of this:


 * 1) Does "stable" mean "unchanging" or "not heavily debated"?  (If an article has had the same title for several years and it has been unchanged despite heavy debate without consensus - does it get to keep that title under this clause?)
 * 2) How long is "A Long Time"?  Is (say) a year "a long time" in this context?  How about a month?  Six months?

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a similar question regarding "it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub". If a subject had 2 articles with different titles edited by the same person when that person made them not-a-stub, can this tiebreaker applied? &lt; Karlww ( contribs &#124; talk ) 03:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Our role is not to decide actual cases really, so the better comments here would mention what the editors intended when they wrote the phrases in question or what was considered in discussion here. I wasn't an editor here for either case. Informally, Karl's case is a very close match to the policy. Literally, the policy says one further edit is required beyond de-stubbing the two articles but to me that is legalistic. Steve's wish to parse "Unchanging" and "long time" are probably matters that deserve discussion on the page in question. A page that is edited every day has a different long time than a page that is never edited. Off the top of my head, 250 substantive edits by at least three different editors is a long time. Others may not agree. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is important to remember that consensus can change. This was firmly in our minds when we wrote the passages in question. The original intent here was not to permanently settle difficult consensus debates... the intent was to give a temporary solution (guidance on which title to go with until a firmer consensus could be reached). Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Basically, you need to ask this question at WT:Article titles. We are merely summarizing what that policy says.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps then we should link to Moving a Page and Requested Moves. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A problem sentence from Determining consensus
"Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."

Since this is the first sentence in the section "Determining consensus", it should be very precise. Instead, to me it is confused and clashes with lucid reasoning. I would say that the writers of this sentence wanted to impart that the participants to the consensus should pay attention to policy (don't violate it) and the arguments (accept the good ones). The metaphor of the lens is perfectly apt, but the rest gives me pause.

First, we have the word 'determined'. Formally, if X is determined by Y, there would normally be a causal relation. (e.g., The thermostat determines the use of the furnace. Your test score is determined by your answers to the questions.) But there is not a causal relationship between the arguments and the consensus, except as mediated by the participants.

Then there is the subject: "consensus". I think we are trying to talk about a consensus decision, not just "consensus", so this phrasing invites confusion.

Consensus decisions are determined by the participants to the consensus. Their relationship to the quality of the arguments is that they should accept good arguments and reject bad ones. The arguments can't tell the participants what to think of them, as seems implied in the current text. The arguments from all participants should be considered.

Proposal: Consensus decisions are determined by the participants' assessment of the quality of editors' arguments, viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between a "participant" and an "editor" in this sentence? Victor Yus (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I take the sentence as saying Consensus is not a Vote. It essentially means that the arguments of a minority group of editors/participants can outweigh those of a majority... if the minority supports their view with solid and sound reasoning (based on policy), and the majority does not.  Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But the eternal question remains - who decides whether the reasoning is solid, sound, etc.? Victor Yus (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The eternal answer remains: wikipedia community, using conflict resolution process. And the eternal problem remains: "wikipedia community" is different in different subject areas, so that minority may outweigh majority regardless arguments if majority does not give a shit. And eternal solution remains: only a sufficiently broad participation will produce correct results. It is like in thermodynamics: forty two molecules of gas are meaningless for laws of thermodynamics to work. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia editors obey different laws - I get the impression that beyond a certain (quite small) number, the more participants you have, the harder it is to reach consensus. Unless you mean "vote", which is more like what gas molecules do. Victor Yus (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a feature of the reality, but essentially the participants decide. "Outweigh" per Blueboar is a misnomer. That is not how it works. Minority views sometimes prevail -- when they are accepted because of evidence or reason by the rest. Editors are normally more than willing to get things right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So views may go from being minority views to being majority views. But if they remain minority views, then they do not prevail. Is that what you're saying? (But in the past you've said you're against "majority rule", so I don't really know what you mean.) Victor Yus (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously you want me to say that minority views never prevail because they can't claim a consensus but majority rule is anathema to consensus decision-making? Okay. There's obviously no inconsistency to that. Do you think that the rejection of majority rule requires acceptance that a minority viewpoint could claim to be the consensus? If so, you are making an error in logic. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that ""outweigh" per Blueboar is a misnomer", everything depends on how the weight is determined. A simple example of some imaginary RfC is below:
 * "''Should the result of the Battle of the Bulge be a "decisive Allied victory" or a "stalemate"?
 * Stalemate. The Allies lost more troops and tanks, and they didn't advance much to the East by the moment the battle ended. -- UserAAA
 * Stalemate. Per UserAAA. -- UserBBB.
 * Stalemate. --UserCCC.
 * Support UserAAA and UserBBB. --UserDDD.
 * Stalemate. Let me add to that that Wehrmacht was significantly outnumbered by the Allied troops, so the initial German success was amazing.--UserEEE.
 * Decisive Allied victory. According to Churchill, "this is undoubtedly the greatest American battle of the war and will, I believe, be regarded as an ever-famous American victory". --UserFFF.
 * If such an RfC is closed by a simple vote count, the result should be "Stalemate". If a closing user/admin is more experienced, they would disregard opinia of UserBBB, UserCCC, and UserDDD as !vote. However, actually, UserAAA's and UserEEE's opinia are also of poor quality, because they are based purely on their own speculations, whereas UserFFF quotes Churchill's words, so the UserFFF's opinion should outweigh, and the result of RfC should be "Decisive Allied victory". Unfortunately, there is not a common practice to ignore the opinion which is not based on reliable sources or references to the relevant policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's a little bit fanciful. If editors have their facts wrong or use the wrong criteria, other editors will say something about it. Then they'll discuss that. If there is still disagreement, there must be a good reason for it. What is the good reason? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's assume these 6 editors are the only editors who expressed interest in participation in this RfC, and two of them are civil POV pushers and other two are simply ignorant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then Wikipedia will have one of its many errors. Reliable sources sometimes get it wrong, but to the "mistaken" editors there is nothing amiss. All of us have false beliefs all the time, but we don't know which ones they are. We can take a God's eye viewpoint and pick out the errors, but that is seriously begging the question for mere mortals. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think Paul's correct about the closing. You have three editors convinced of "stalemate" by the same facts.  Why should they all have to type out the same words?  "Stalemate, for the reason given by this person" is no worse than "Stalemate, and now let me re-type this person's exact point in my own words".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You missed two important things: firstly, if two users have no fresh arguments, their opinion hardly has any weight per WP:DEMOCRACY. Otherwise, such an RfC would degenerate to simple vote. Secondly, as you should have noticed that UserAAA provided no sources to support his thesis, so his opinion is a pure original research, and any original research, even if it is supported by 100+ votes remains just WP:OR, and cannot be added to Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a vote, but agreement and endorsement are meaningful. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And what is the difference between "vote" and "endorsement"? That is acceptable when both versions of the text are in agreement with the policy (i.e. both are neutral, verifiable, and contain no original research). However, when one of these versions in simply not supported by reliable sources, no endorsement can overrule the policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, what is the difference? Those are English words used in the usual way. I think, too, you are mistaken about the status of UserAAA's comment. You seem to say that if an editor gives the basis for their opinion in an RfC, they have dragged in OR. That's not correct, actually. Having a reason for an opinion is preferable to having no reason. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the "no new arguments" position is rather fraught with issues. For example, with regard to Eastern Europe and the Soviet legacy, there is the current Russian official version and its proponents, and a differing version, mutually incompatible, incompatible in not being based on the same verifiable facts ("version" is not "viewpoint"). The most persistent area of contention is the conflation of version and viewpoint as equivalent. They are not.
 * I personally find myself having to repeat the same set of edifying arguments for a new crop of Russia-position (aka "you can't occupy what belongs to you") oriented editors every few years. That I don't bring a new argument does not invalidate my original argument. Since I've been attacked for not having changed my position, I can only surmise empirically that only on WP is being consistent viewed as a bad thing.
 * There is no substitute for knowledgeable editors debating a topic based on an agreed-upon set of starting facts to create useful content. Unfortunately, with consensus, RfC's and so on, there is a fiction that "uninformed" = "objective". Conflict resolution only succeeds when it is viewpoints, not versions, which are in question and when "compromise" is not defined as "NPOV" = half-way between two incompatible versions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you. What position is known as "no new arguments"? No one else has used that phrase. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's Paul's idea that if three editors are convinced by Reason 1, and one editor opposes because of Reason 2, then you should treat this as exactly equal: one reason for, one reason against, and who cares that three times as many participants, as expressed by their responses to the questison, believe that Reason 1 is more convincing than Reason 2?  Paul's idea is obviously not how things work.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would just point out again that the whole topic of "closing discussions" (in the manner being discussed above) is entirely absent from the policy at the moment, except for a link to an information (non-policy, non-guideline) page in the "See also" section. This still seems to me to be rather a significant omission. Victor Yus (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Proposal: Consensus decisions are determined by the participants' assessment of the quality of editors' arguments, viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.


 * Any objections to this change? --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, for the moment, because I still don't know who the "participants" and the "editors" are. In many cases it seems to be desired that the person doing the determination not be a participant - that it should be someone who is "uninvolved". Victor Yus (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor, this objection is an interesting case of doublethink on your part. The sentence in question doesn't have anything to do with intervention by outside parties, as you contemplate, it is about consensus among those actively working toward a consensus. Now, I know you have a very strong authoritarian streak; you want to "force" editors to do as they are instructed, which obviously has nothing to do with consensus or Wikipedia practice. The question is, should the flawed sentence be replaced, not, should the practice of consensus change to suit your authoritarian impulses. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ring, I encourage you to use caution when labeling and characterizing fellow editors. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strange that you never cautioned Victor on that very point. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not so strange. Due to our prior exchanges I tend to be more aware of your behavior than of that of most other editors. Perhaps Victor should have received a similar suggestion. That, of course, doesn't mean that my comment to you was not valid. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you really saying it's against Wikipedia practice that editors should do as they are "instructed"? If there's been a discussion, and it's closed with an admin's decision that the consensus is to do X, is it in order for an editor who disagrees simply to carry on edit-warring against X? That would seem to nullify this whole policy. For the principle of consensus to work (within a community like Wikipedia's, which is open to all, including the most argumentative and combative), there must be a authoritarian stage somewhere down the line. Victor Yus (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You've got a straw man argument there. No one said an edit war is okay if an admin does something controversial. But now that we've "cleared that up", we can return to the question at hand, which is about something else. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The truth is, consensus is "determined" in different ways on different types of pages (and by different people depending on which type of page we are talking about). At one end of the spectrum we have relatively non-confrontational article talk page discussions, where consensus is "determined" by the article editors... (ie those who have been participating in the discussion).  At the other end, we have AfD, CfD and RM discussion, where consensus is determined by an official "closer" ... someone who has not participated in the discussion.  Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you agree, then, that it is a bit misleading to say that consensus is determined by the arguments and their quality? The quality of the arguments is assessed by those who read them, I would say. Consensus is determined by something else, with the arguments (usually based on evidence and logic) as the guides. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that, ideally, consensus is reached, not determined. That is, a solution is reached which all those involved (preferably) find acceptable, or (at least) recognize as representing the consensus ("I still don't agree with this, but I can see I'm massively outnumbered, so fair enough"). If no such ideal position can be reached, then ultimately someone from outside will have to "determine the consensus", i.e. determine the result of the discussion given the lack of (ideal) consensus. What criteria that person may use doesn't seem to be well-defined (nor probably should it be), but it seems to be a mixture of head-counting and evaluation of the quality of the arguments (which may in turn depend to some extent on how well those arguments are founded in policies and guidelines). I'm not sure exactly what question or set of questions we're trying to discuss here; in fact we might all have slightly different questions in mind, which is causing the apparent disagreement. Victor Yus (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We are talking about one sentence that is already included. The entire policy doesn't have to be captured in this one sentence. Look at how it reads right now. It attempts to place the quality of the arguments at the center of consensus. I think we agree that is good. However, the sentence is slightly incorrect and ill-fitting. So, for this one sentence that leads off a section, can we do slightly better? This discussion is not about reinventing consensus, it is about improving one topic sentence.

Currently: "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Proposal: Consensus decisions are determined by the participants' assessment of the quality of editors' arguments, viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
 * I think it's an improvement. Let's address ourselves to that single question. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's just not true. There are times when consensus decisions are explicitly not determined by the participants' assessment of anything, so we should not say that consensus decisions are (always) determined by the participants.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What kind of case are you thinking of? How could someone not participating determine something? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many cases where a group of editors convince themselves that a discussion concludes that a particular action is required, yet most editors with a wider experience could tell them that their idea won't fly—their local consensus isn't worth anything if wider community involvement would override it. The whole point of "consenus" is that it cannot be defined in more than general terms, and it is unlikely that wording tweaks would be both helpful and accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are simple examples, such as RFA. The participants at RFA do not determine whether the candidate becomes an admin or whether the comments for or against are more convincing.  That decision is made 100% by an uninvolved bureaucrat.  An experienced editor might have noticed also that AFDs are normally closed by uninvolved admins rather than by the participants.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "An uninvolved bureaucrat"? But if that bureaucrat makes the decision, that person is a participant and they assess the arguments. An experienced editor might realize that everyone who offers an opinion about the arguments is an involved participant. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence as it stands is not helpful, but I think the problem is, as I've said before, that we entirely fail to introduce the concept of "determining consensus". Who does this? How? In what circumstances? Taking what into consideration? With what degree of authority? All these are perfectly valid questions that I'm sure we can, to some extent, answer. The sentence we're discussing might fit into this exposition somehow, but standing on its own it's almost meaningless (though still better than nothing, I suppose). Victor Yus (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, another effort to define the entire article in one sentence, while the question is if the proposal improves on the current draft. As I've mentioned, the current draft is inaccurate. I don't see anyone saying that it is accurate. Would anyone like to defend the position that that current draft is better than the proposal? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well yes, for the same reason that several people have already given, namely that it's wrong (as a general statement) to say that consensus is determined by "the participants". (Also, I'm not trying to "define the entire article in one sentence"; I'm suggesting adding more sentences, so as to properly cover the topic purported to be addressed in this part of the 'article'.) Victor Yus (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Who else determines the consensus if not the participants? --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, let me point out that my draft does not "say that consensus is determined by the participants". Please check the text. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ring, recall that WP Consensus is not the dictionary definition of consensus. Maybe we should use a different word, but let's not get bogged down in semantics.  The dictionary definition of consensus means the relevant participants all agree (some perhaps more enthusiastically than others).  On WP Consensus is something of a cross between the dictionary definition and a courtroom-like "verdict".  In pure consensus only the position of each participant matters - if they all have the same position - that's consensus.  On WP Consensus is a soup of participant positions, their arguments, and the Consensus of the community as reflected in policy and guidelines.   But ultimately the participant positions as well as community Consensus is presented in arguments, so we can accurately say that Consensus is determined "by the quality of the arguments".  The current wording is better than the proposed wording because the proposed wording suggests that Consensus is always and only determined by the discussion participants assessing the arguments.  That's simply not true.  Sometimes it's the discussion participants, but often an uninvolved editor or admin assesses the arguments to decide whether the arguments determined a Consensus, and, if so, what that Consensus is. The point is, regardless of whether it's the participants or an uninvolved editor doing the assessing,  "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." That's accurate. Consider, whether it's a judge or jury doing the assessing in a court case, the verdict is determined by the quality of the evidence and arguments given during the trial.  We're using the same sentence structure here, except replace "Consensus" with "verdict".   --B2C 00:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an OK analogy... Except that we are plaintiff, defendant, witnesses, jury, judge, and police... all rolled into one entity which we call "the community". Also, Consensus is nowhere near as permanent as a jury's verdict in a court case. Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * An editor or admin who comes in after some discussion and assesses the arguments is a participant. Everyone who assesses the arguments is a participant. If they don't participate, they don't assess the arguments. If they assess the arguments, they are a participant. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But when (and if) it comes to "determining", then not all "participants" (if you want to use that term in the way that you do) are equal. The determination is then made by (normally) just one of your participants - and it is considered important that that person not have been a participant previously. The situation could certainly be clarified enormously, but your proposed wording seems to have the opposite effect. Victor Yus (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't have the opposite effect. You are imagining that it says that ALL participants determine the consensus simultaneously in all cases. The sentence doesn't say that. It just states the reality in general terms, which I would expect to be at least partially our goal. The goal of capturing the entirety of the policy in one sentence is certain to fail. Again, the current draft states something that's not true, which I would expect would bother some. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think is not true in the present sentence? Would it be improved by saying "determined based on" rather than "determined by"? Victor Yus (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My first posting at the top of the section lays it out clearly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it isn't really clear to me. But if we wrote "Consensus decisions are determined based on..." instead of "Consensus is determined by...", would that do? Victor Yus (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "...determined based on..." is awkward and unclear, though, isn't it. Two verbs are not the best for clear writing. Are the decisions based on the arguments or determined by them? I'm pretty sure the participants assess the quality of the arguments; the arguments themselves don't say if they're good or not. Since that is what we are trying to impart here -- that the arguments should be assessed and used as the basis of the decisions -- I would suggest that we should say that clearly instead of obliquely. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The quality of the arguments is the causal factor in Consensus determination - therefore the quality of the arguments determines Consensus. As to what determines the quality of the arguments, of course that's partially those making the arguments, but also the underlying basis for the arguments, which of course varies from case to case.  Without policy and/or evidence supporting an argument, it's not going to be of very high quality, no matter how hard the participants try.  --B2C 19:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I basically agree, except that the terminology is a bit ambiguous. To be clear, consensus itself (its nature and application) is not determined by arguments on any particular issue. Consensus (as expressed in the policy) is applied to decision-making on Wikipedia. Consensus decisions are determined by the quality of the arguments, and on that we agree. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the title of the section ("Determining consensus")? Do you think that should be changed? Victor Yus (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could be, if that can make it clearer. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor is it clear to me. First, there is the alleged problem of saying the quality of the arguments determine Consensus; I don't see a problem with that.    "Determine" means to be the causal factor, and the quality of the arguments is the causal factor here; that is, Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments.  I really see nothing in the current wording that is "confused and clashes with lucid reasoning".  And, if you want to use the word "participant" to be inclusive of what is normally called an "uninvolved admin" to defend the correctness of your proposed wording, I suggest you're depending on confusing usage.  --B2C 18:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Determined vs. Achieved
I am wondering if we make a mistake by using the word "Determined" when talking about consensus. The way I see it, a true consensus isn't determined... it's achieved (or not). In most cases, consensus is simply achieved without anyone actually making any formal "determination" of what that consensus is. How do we know? That depends on what method of consensus building we are using. If we are are attempting to reach consensus through editing, we know we have achieved consensus when no one makes any further revisions to the sentence/section being edited. If we are attempting to reach consensus through talk page discussion, we know we have achieved consensus when someone proposes an edit that no one objects to.

The only time we need a "determination" is when the normal system breaks down... when people stop actually trying to achieve consensus, and start trying to impose one. One sign of a broken down consensus discussion is when the question being asked becomes a dualistic "either/or"... "X" vs "Y" (or worse a "yes/no"... "X" vs "not "X").  Once the discussion becomes dualistic, it means people have stopped looking for compromises... they are ignoring the possibility that "A", "B", "C" or "Z" might work to satisfy all parties (ie achieve a true consensus).

Now, unfortunately, the normal system does break down with alarming frequency... but let's understand what is going on when it happens... once the system breaks down, we are no longer trying to reach a consensus, we are trying to resolve a dispute. And we have procedures for this (see WP:DR). Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Reaching consensus" is another useful way to think of it; it's a destination. 'Determined' is the word when we want to express the criteria, I would say, or in another context the process. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if a consensus discussion is a journey (with consensus as its destination), then asking whether consensus has been "determined" is like asking "Are we there yet?" (to which the answer is almost alwasy "no... not yet".) Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We do regularly reach or achieve consensus through editing and/or discussion. Sometimes an uninvolved individual needs to determine whether consensus has been reached, and, if so, what it is.  Regardless of whether an uninvolved individual does the evaluation of the discussion, when consensus is reached or achieved via discussion, it is the quality of the arguments that determine consensus.  --B2C 19:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, although it is a little more precise to say the assessment of the arguments. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the fact that the need for a "determination" means that the normal system has broken down, then the system for deciding on article deletions, renames, etc. must have been totally broken for years, since such decisions are made by determination as a matter of course. I don't like the adversarial atmosphere that seems to develop at those discussions, but on the other hand, I don't think the need for a "determination" necessarily means anything has gone wrong - it just means that enough time has been wasted on discussing whatever it is, the multiplicity of reasonable but conflicting views means there's no realistic possibility of reaching a clear overwhelming majority agreement within any reasonable time period, and the encyclopedia needs a decision of some sort. Victor Yus (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As to the title of the section currently called "Determining consensus", I would suggest "Outcomes". Victor Yus (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You miss my point... We created AFD and RM so that we could resolve disputed deletions and renames (if there is no dispute, then we simply speedy it without going through the process of a formal "determination"). So AfD and RM are part of the dispute resolution process, not the consensus achieving process.
 * Disputes occur all the time, and it is not always possible to achieve consensus. There is nothing "wrong" with that.  All I am saying is that once we engage in our dispute resolution process, we are no longer engaged in our consensus achieving process.  Indeed the dispute resolution process was created precisely to deal with situations where the consensus achieving process isn't working. Blueboar (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but your terminology seems not to accord with actual usage. When someone determines the result of a discussion (at AfD or wherever) they tend to phrase it in terms of "consensus is to do this/that". I agree that those discussions don't have much to do with any real attempt to reach consensus, but still, the practice seems to be that people go for them straight away - you don't first try to get consensus on whether to delete an article, and then go to AfD if you fail (maybe people should, but they don't - I suppose it's predictable that it would just be a waste of time). This policy ought to explain the two meanings of "consensus" as used on Wikipedia - the ideal kind where everyone reaches agreement, and the less-than-ideal kind where an outsider comes to tell them what agreement they've reached. Victor Yus (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree... we often try to get consensus on whether to delete an article before we send it to AfD... that's what PROD and the Speedy criteria are for. AFD is for disputed deletions (so, I consider it part of the Dispute Resolution process, not the Consensus achievement process). We also frequently try to get a consensus on page moves before we sent them to WP:RM.  We only go to RM when there is a dispute. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe, in a sense, but still, the terminology used at AfD etc. refers very much to consensus ("no consensus" is one of the possible outcomes, not a precondition). Victor Yus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree, that a consensus is achieved, not determined.  Consensus can require negotiation and work.  Consensus involves rephrasing the question.  Consensus is not achieved by expert judgment.  In some cases, such as debates agreed to have a limited time, a WP:Rough consensus may be determined.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If Victor is referring to the sentence I brought to the fore at the top of this section, he completely misconstrues what the section is about and how 'determined' is used. He imagines that we only use 'determined' to refer to special cases where consensus decisions are finalized by an outside party. That's completely incorrect. The usage we have been discussing concerns cases routine and unusual. Please read the original in context. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The original of what, in what context? The sentence you are proposing changing is isolated, with virtually no context - which is exactly the problem. Victor Yus (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is the first sentence in a section. You can see the topics covered under the rubric, so this sentence is no more nor less isolated than any other and presents no special problem. It has a role to play in the whole, in this case to summarize in general terms. It is pretty clear from the content, the placement, and the sequel what this sentence should do. It was put there for a reason. Anyway, none of that changes your misunderstanding of the use of the word 'determined' in this context. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be nothing in the rest of that section that relates to that sentence, or indicates how it is supposed to be interpreted. Like much of Wikipedia policy, it's vague and open to multiple interpretations, so that anyone can feel happy that their own view is represented, or (if they like to be patronizing) to tell other people that they are "misunderstanding" it, without the least bit of evidence. Rather than arguing about such matters, we should be working on rewriting the section, so that it tells people the truth and the whole truth, explicitly, with as little room for misinterpretation as possible. Adding something like "by the participants", and expecting people to work out that in certain situations that may refer to a non-participant, is clearly only going to increase the potential for misunderstanding. To do the job properly, we need significantly more than once sentence here. Victor Yus (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Another appearance of the phantom "non-participant"... Exactly who could be a non-participant and assess the quality of the arguments? Not the first time I've asked; as far as I can tell it is conjured from the set of situations that can't occur. If your objection applies only to situations that can't obtain, I am of the opinion it is an objection we can ignore. But perhaps I am overlooking something. So that's one thing. Secondly, I don't think that routinely we explain how to interpret the sentences in the article. Rather, we use English words in the usual way and let the readers read them in the usual way. The exception in this section -- maybe -- is our use of the word 'consensus', where we sometimes seem to mean 'consensus as practiced on Wikipedia'. As a rule, English words on an English page do not need to be specially defined. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You should take note of the fact that more than one person here reacted to your suggestion of adding "by the participants" by objecting that sometimes it is not the participants who decide. If other people here are not divining correctly what you mean by that phrase, then we can expect that people reading the policy would not divine correctly either. Victor Yus (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In MOST situations, consensus is not actually decided by anyone... it simply emerges through editing and/or lack of objection in discussion. The only times when we need someone to "decide" is when there is a dispute. We have a procedure for that... it's called "Dispute Resolution". Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "dispute resolution" is more about sorting out objectionable behavior. The procedures where someone decides consensus are called AfD, RM, RfC, etc. But we've kind of been over all this, it would be worth writing it into the policy somehow. Victor Yus (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But if a consensus exists, there is no need to go to AfD, RM, or hold an RfC... you just do whatever it is that has consensus. We only go to AfD, RM, RfC when there isn't a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've talked about this already, I don't think we disagree about anything substantial (except perhaps some niceties of terminology), but the policy fails to address it, providing people only with this one nebulous sentence. Victor Yus (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about someone "deciding consensus", and this section isn't about "achieving consensus". We're talking about people "determining whether there is a consensus" (and if so, what that consensus is). A more descriptive section heading would be ==Determining whether consensus has been achieved, and if so, what it is==, but that's really too long.

The current first sentence says, Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

IMO it might be more descriptive to say something like To determine whether a consensus is achieved, users consider the level of agreement among the participants and the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Depending on the situation, this determination may be made by the participants themselves or by an uninvolved person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would certainly be an improvement. We should also say something more specific about which situations are like this and which are like that. And something about the expectation that the "uninvolved person" is often preferred to be an admin. Victor Yus (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's absurd -- not to mention hopelessly confusing -- to say that someone "uninvolved" will decide something or assess something. As soon as they start participating, they are involved and, in the ordinary usage of 'participant', they are exactly that: a participant. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Consensus decisions are determined by the participants' assessment of the quality of editors' arguments, viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. The only objection to this proposal has been based on a misreading of 'participant'. Now that we have cleared that up, it seems to be a pretty good improvement on the current text. Any objections? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well yes, still, because if we "misread 'participant'" (allowing that you are to be the judge of what the "correct" reading of 'participant' is), then so will many other people when they come to read the policy. We need to follow WhatamIdoing's idea, which makes it much clearer, but also add additional explanations of the things I've already mentioned, plus (I suppose) what we mean by "uninvolved" (if you insist, we can replace it by "previously uninvolved", but that's not really the point; perhaps we should say "neutral", but in any case define it). (In fact WP:INVOLVED and WP:UNINVOLVED both link to a section which explains the matter quite well, though not specifically in relation to the determining of [...] consensus.) Victor Yus (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well no, still, it takes some work to misread it that badly. Most people know what a participant is. WAID's idea is good for some other place, but at the beginning of the section, where we should be making the most general comments to outline the practice of consensus, he seems to want to explain what happens if there's an impasse. What happens when it is difficult to reach consensus is not the subject at the beginning of the section, unless it's a section on how to handle an impasse. Look at the sentence that is there now; it's a general statement on what goes into consensus here. That's what belongs there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Evidence from this talk page implies that most people do know what a participant is, and it isn't what you think it is. I'm not objecting to having the sentence as it is now at the beginning of the section, but it needs to be followed by more sentences explaining the matter in more detail. WAID's idea, supplemented by some further explanation or appropriate links, would achieve that. Victor Yus (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, badly misstated. Evidence is that it is easy to understand what is meant by 'participant': it's an ordinary English word used in the ordinary way. It takes work to get it wrong. And even the misreadings do no damage to the purpose of the text, so this is a null set in every way. WAID's idea is very badly misjudged, unfortunately, for this place in the policy. My suspicion is that the current text has not been re-read to see where this sentence fits. Currently, there are no extant objections once the misreading is finished. Apart from that, any further objections? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "misreadings" obviously do do damage to the purpose of the text, since they imply that all those who have been involved in a discussion get to determine the outcome, whereas in fact, in one set of cases, it's one person who has not previously been involved in the discussion who makes the decision. This absolutely needs to be made clear, and since this is the section which purports to deal with "determining consensus", this is exactly the right place to do it. Victor Yus (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But most of the time the participants do "make the decision". The only situations when an uninvolved third party (such as an admin) would have to step in and "make the decision" are those where the issue is disputed (for example: a contested deletion nomination or move request... or a contentious RfC).  In other words, calling in a neutral third party to "determine consensus" is the exception rather than the rule. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, although in some areas (deletion, moves) it's the rule rather than the exception. Again, all this needs to be written out on the page, rather than being left as a kind of insiders' secret. Victor Yus (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, you seem to think that an admin who steps in at the end is not a participant who assesses the arguments through the lens of Wikipedia policy. In fact, that is exactly what they are: a participant who assesses the arguments through that lens. There is no special use of the word 'participant' in this proposal. Someone who participates is a participant. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor - as I said before... non-disputed moves do not need to go through the WP:RM process... and non-disputed deletion PRODS don't need to go through AfD. So AFD and RM are by definition dispute resolution scenarios that are outside the usual consensus process.
 * Ring - Would you prefer the terms "involved" and "uninvolved", rather than "participant" and "non-participant"? In those cases where those involved in a discussion can not reach a consensus, and bring in a neutral third party (often an admin) to "make a deterination" (ie settle the dispute) we almost always insist that this third party be someone who has not yet commented on the issue under discussion... ie the Admin has not participated in the discussion prior to being asked to settle the dispute.  Yes... He/She becomes a participant when he/she makes the "determination"... but not before that point. Blueboar (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

When I last looked, there were half a dozen or more AfDs and RMs per day. They are not something unusual. There may be a larger number of speedy/PROD deletions and unilateral moves, but those cases don't meaningfully involve any "determining of consensus". I would guess that out of the generality of situations in which consensus could be said to be "determined" (as opposed to simply reached and acted upon), the cases where the "determination" is made by an uninvolved third party might even be the majority. Maybe it would be nice if they were exceptional (if people first tried to agree for themselves what the result of a deletion discussion ought to be, before calling in an admin to arbitrate), but that simply isn't what usually happens, and this page shouldn't be written to imply any such thing. Victor Yus (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that a PROD does not involve a "determination of consensus"... it's just that the consensus is "determined" through silence (ie no one challenges the PROD nomination). Also, consider the fact that our criteria for WP:SPEEDY deletion were determined by consensus. In other words, consensus plays a big part in the PROD process... it simply operates behind the scenes.  Again, we only go to AfD when we expect there to be disagreement ... ie when there is no consensus at the local article level and we need to see if there is a consensus at a wider (project wide) level.
 * Something else to consider...There is more than one way to "determine" consensus... first there is consensus through discussion (an overt form of consensus building, where consensus is "determined" by people discussing - even arguing- on the relevant talk page). But there another form of consensus - consensus through editing (a silent form of consensus building, where consensus is achieved without much (or even any) discussion ... by everyone making edits and tweaks to edits... eventually reaching language that everyone likes and no more edits are made). Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I would perhaps use certain words slightly differently than you do, but I don't think that should matter much as long as a readily comprehensible account of all the things we've been discussing appears on the page. Victor Yus (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no cases where a non-participant decides anything. When someone reads the arguments, assesses them, and offers an opinion, that is a participant and they are involved. Any other use of the word is not ordinary English, which we should use as much as possible. Again, the proposal, which is in ordinary English: Consensus decisions are determined by the participants' assessment of the quality of editors' arguments, viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. As far as I can tell, there is no challenge to the truth of this sentence once we realize that 'participant' refers to those who participate -- which is what it means. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that, but the fact remains that many people interpret "participant" differently, so the addition has no purpose except to provide the potential to confuse. In any case, it's also misleading because you use the plural (and the definite article) - in the case of a closure by a hitherto uninvolved person (even making the rather strained assumption that that person will be understood to be a "participant"), it's not correct to say that "the participants" decide; it would be "a participant" (or, the way most people seem to understand these words, "a non-participant"). Victor Yus (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your objections amount to nothing. First, there's nothing strained or confusing about saying that a participant is a participant (which word from your vast vocabulary is better, Victor?). Secondly, even if someone doesn't know that a participant is a participant, the text says nothing about what this non-participant does, so it is not an objection to the text. Thus, although your objection is poor, it is meaningless even if accepted. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are saying now. The text does say what this (non-)participant does, namely assess the quality [...]. You also haven't addressed the singular/plural thing. Would you object if, instead of trying to write this in one sentence, we wrote it out in several sentences, so as to provide a fuller and clearer explanation along the lines that several people have successfully given here on the talk page? Victor Yus (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus "determination" Let's take a step back
OK... to sort all this out... there are actually three different ways that consensus is "determined"... Does this help clarify things? I think Victor is focused on "Consensus through process", while the rest of us are focused on the other two forms of consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Consensus through editing - here, no one actually "determines" the consensus. Consensus simply occurs (when no one makes further edits to the section in question).  This is how consensus is achieved in the vast majority of situations... especially in article space.
 * 2) Consensus through discussion - here, everyone "determines" consensus together... there is no formal "ruling" as to what the consensus is, no one "closes" the discussion... consensus emerges. Sometimes it emerges quickly, and it is obvious what the consensus is (as when an overwhelming majority all agree)... sometimes the consensus emerges slowly, and is not at all obvious for days, weeks or even months.  Sometimes more participants must be called in to give further opinions before the consensus emerges.  This is how consensus is achieved on our more stable articles... it is also used in most (but not all) RFC's, on many policy pages, and in answering questions at policy noticeboards and village pump pages.
 * 3) Consensus through process - Here, one person (often an admin) or a pre-selected team is asked to make a ruling on the issue and declare what the consensus is. While that "ruling" is based on discussion, the decision rests with the "closer".  Some may say that this isn't actually a form of consensus at all... but if we accept that it is, then this method is best used in contentious binary, yes/no situations where no compromises are possible.  For example, at AfD there is no compromise position between "delete" and "keep" (except perhaps "merge").  This method is also how many serious disputes are settled (example: ArbCom).  These are all situations where experience has proven that reaching a consensus through editing, or through group discussion is unlikely... so a process is created to "force" a consensus... and the "determination" is declared by fiat.
 * I don't think I'm "focused" on that option, I'd just like to see it at least acknowledged in the policy, which doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. Your summary above (like your and others' previous similar summaries) seems pretty good - could it not be written (with appropriate stylistic changes) into the policy, to follow after the single nebulous sentence we currently have? Victor Yus (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When an argument is offered that effectively counters a poorly reasoned objection like Victor's, is that the time the discussion should be interrupted and started over? No, this is the time to recognize that Victor's objection has no teeth. It not only rests on a strained misreading of the text, it is pointless even if accepted. So, let's not take a step back. Instead, let's just say there is no objection to my proposal that has stood up to scrutiny and proceed from there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't really get this "consensus" thing, do you? It doesn't mean dismissing anything anyone else says as worthless, and keep pushing the same proposal over and over again until people get tired of pointing out the various reasons why it's wrong. Or maybe that is how it "works", I don't know. Victor Yus (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is where one of your colleagues mentions how uncivil you are. As a matter of fact, your criticism of my proposal is that you personally misread it. Apart from that, you have no objection. Now, are you taking the position that any time one of use misreads another editor's proposal that means it can't be understood? Another option would be for you, upon realizing that you had tried to interpret "participants" erroneously, would be to say something along the lines of "Oh, I see; that's just the ordinary meaning." Instead, you seem really dedicated to your misreading. I assume that's ad hominem since you haven't raised a substantive objection and you haven't offered an alternative to 'participants' when you were asked to. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What you call "misreading" is in fact reading and interpreting in the same way that several other people (a long time ago) also interpreted it, and which many other people, on reading this text if it were to be added to the policy, would also interpret it. "The participants" simply does not mean "one previously uninvolved person". Possibly you could stretch the meaning of "participant" to include that person (though it's highly unintuitive, as you can see from the objections that were raised), but you certainly can't make "the participants" refer to one person to the exclusion of all the actual participants. What we should say is basically what Blueboar has written, which in rough summary is that usually it's the participants who decide (explicitly, or more likely implicitly) what the consensus is, but on certain significant occasions the decision is made by (someone who has so far been) a non-participant. (Then it would be a good idea to describe what a participant might do if they disagree with that person's decision or dispute that person's appropriateness as decision-maker.) Victor Yus (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Ring disagrees with that. And I think you disagree with Ring disagreeing with that. Can you two just give up trying to convince each other of the error of the other's ways? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Happily, as long as silence on the matter isn't going to be interpreted as acceptance of the change that Ring has proposed. Victor Yus (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the only problem is with the word 'participant', what word would better express the meaning, where the meaning is 'participant'? This is how consensus works: you can address your objection not simply with ad hominem nonsense, but with an actual proposal. In this way, we can improve the article. Which word do you prefer? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor, please respond to Ring's first and last sentences and ignore the unhelpful comments in between. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any single word that will work. The sentence should either be left as it is, or (a much better option) replaced or supplemented with the kind of fuller explanation that Blueboar and others have been giving. Victor Yus (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As a minor nit, the "pre-selected team" isn't always pre-selected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The third way
Victor wants the policy to say something about the third way that Blueboar mentioned above. His proposal is not part of mine and it doesn't belong there. But I agree that the policy might benefit from including something about that. Let's discuss that separate issue here. First of all, is it true that the policy is deficient in the way Victor claims? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I took 30 seconds to check and I think that Victor is mistaken. Section 1.3.2 covers this issue at least in part. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, because the procedures mentioned there are ways of bringing more people into the discussion. The thing that's missing from the policy is the information that sometimes a discussion is definitively (though not necessarily irrevocably) closed by someone from outside the discussion. There is a very clear distinction between that action and the action of offering one's own views on the subject under discussion. Victor Yus (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Put me in the camp of people who would say #3 is not determining consensus. At most, it's an evaluation by a previously uninvolved party about whether consensus has been determined in a given discussion.  In situations where "rulings" are made, yeah, that's often not consensus at all.  --B2C 18:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think "determining" is really the best word to use at all in this section. Like I suggested a long time ago, I would retitle the section something like "Results" or "Outcomes". Then we could avoid some of the nitpicking over terminology - we could just go ahead and summarize the various possible scenarios, as has been done on this talk page. Victor Yus (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This project is about consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Underlying assumptions
I am beginning to wonder whether we even agree on what the word "consensus" means. Some of us seem to see "consensus" as a process, while others seem to see it as an outcome. Or is it something else entirely? Can consensus actually be determined?... or is consensus more of a goal that we constantly strive to achieve... something we can come close to but can never completely arrive at? Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but we have to describe it here as the term is used on Wikipedia, not how it would be used in our personal ideal worlds. When a number of people write either "Keep...." or "Delete..." about some article, and in 7 days an admin comes along and declares the "consensus" to be such-and-such, that doesn't seem to have much to do with consensus as described in this policy, nor I suspect as most of the idealists here would understand it. Nonetheless, accepted Wikipedia practice in a number of areas is for exactly that to happen, and for the word "consensus" (or "no consensus") to be used to describe the outcome. Hence this policy, being the place people are likely to come for to read about practice concerning such outcomes, ought to contain information about them. Victor Yus (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But that begs the question of whether Wikipedia uses the the word consistently or not. Given that the four or five us talking here on this page have differing views of what we mean by "consensus", it would not surprise me if a similar confusion exists throughout Wikipedia.  Different policy/guideline pages may use it in differing contexts do mean different things.  Or to put it another way... it could be that the reason why consensus may be determined one way in one situation... and a different (perhaps contradictory) way in a another situation (and not determined at all in a third)... is because each situation is using a different underlying meaning of the word "consensus". Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The assumption that a precise definition is better than a flexible profile should not be accepted without examination. Flow charts are good for computers, but I don't think it is controversial to say that the preferred result for Wikipedia is a meeting of minds. Some decisions are binary, others are not. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We seem to agree that consensus can mean different things in different situations - but that shouldn't be too much of a problem in writing about it, provided that we don't attempt to nail it down to a single definition (which we don't), and that we cover all of the principal situations, saying what "consensus" customarily means in each case. Victor Yus (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * When a number of people write either "Keep...." or "Delete..." about some article, and in 7 days an admin comes along and declares the "consensus" to be such-and-such, it has everything to do with what this page says, presuming the admin does his or her job, paying much more attention to the arguments represented here by ellipses, rather than the counts of "Keep" and "Delete". --B2C 22:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not entirely, because this page seems to say that editors should discuss, listen to others and reach a position based on the arguments, rather than just state that they have made up their minds, give a brief reason, and go. But anyway, what this page is lacking is a full description of the "job" that the admin (or other closer) is expected to do, or in fact any indication (apart from the "see also" link) that such a job even exists. Victor Yus (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to question the word "lacking"... it assumes that this page should give a full description of a closer's job, and I am not sure this page is the right venue for that. To give an (imperfect) analogy... A driver's ed manual will "lack" a full description of the job that a traffic cop is supposed to do, but no one expects a driver's ed manual to contain this information.  A driver's ed manual is not the the right venue for such instruction.  The manual is designed for the driver, and not the cop.
 * I see this page as explaining an informal process, rather than outlining a formal procedure ... its purpose is to give guidance on how to reach or achieve consensus in fluid situations, and not on how to determine a "winner" in static situations.  More to the point, I don't think this page should be a procedural manual for determining AfDs... if AfD is lacking clear "procedural" instructions for closers, there are better places to put such instructions. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you. Victor's point that the arguments should be attended to is an excellent one. However, for reasons that aren't always bad, there is a strong temptation to look for common ground later rather than earlier. Most editors don't read this page anyway; perhaps we don't offer useful distinctions. The mixture of description and proscription is not spelled out, probably because it would be too contentious. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I don't insist that this page give a full description of a closer's job, but it should at least indicate that in some circumstances (and specify which) there is such a thing as a closer, at least summarize the job of that person, and say how other editors should/might proceed once a closure has been made. And say, as was said before, that in most situations consensus is either reached transparently, or adjudged (or whatever word we want to use), by the people involved in the discussion themselves. That is, basically write what Blueboar wrote above about the three possible outcomes. Victor Yus (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not completely opposed to the idea ... But figuring out how to do it appropriately will take some work.  The page has (up to now) focused more on "how to achieve a consensus" (guidance on a process), and less on "how to determine who wins in a consensus debate" (which would be more of a procedural instruction).  I would like to keep that focus if possible. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm only suggesting adding a paragraph or three, which won't change the focus of the page as a whole. And "determining who wins" (or rather, which suggested course of action "wins") is part of the process, whichever method of determination may apply in a given situation. Consensus isn't an end in itself - a consensus is meant to lead to action (or inaction) to (hopefully) make the encyclopedia better (or not worse). Victor Yus (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're going to have to add a new page to Category:Wikipedia fauna called "WikiPhilosopher" just for Blueboar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Highly inappropriate comment, WAID. Apparently you prefer superficialities but it will be up to you to explain why we should dumb down the conversation. So this is another recent example where the editors who have convinced themselves of their superior understanding actually don't want to do the hard thinking. Not good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I understood the comment to be meant affectionately. Victor Yus (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So did I. :>) More to the point WAID's comment is somewhat accurate... I do tend to think "conceptually" when discussing proposed policy and guideline edits. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If I misinterpreted, my apologies! --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are forgiven. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the Category:WikiPhilosopher were to be proposed, may I propose both myself and B2C as possible foundation members? I would seek their permission first of course. Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. It's usual for inclusion to be based entirely on self-identification.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Forum shop if no opinion given on noticeboard?
I put something that's probably more WP:OR/SYNTH on WP:BLN since it's in a bio. Obviously a mistake since no one answered except an involved editor who merely linked to the relevant talk page discussion. (Later I did add a couple things in a second section more directly BLP related).

When I asked at the BLP notice if it would be a problem to move WP:OR section to WP:ORN, the editor of the questionable edit finally bothered to respond, merely linking to WP:FORUMSHOP. So is moving to another noticeboard if there is no response forum shopping? And if it is not, do such exceptions need to be mentioned in that policy section?

Also, this may be where canvass issues become forum shop issues, but can one then go to the relevant notice board like WP:ORN and post link to WP:BLPN discussion, or is that forum shopping? Maybe it's summer, or maybe the topic too boring, but responses on a lot of problematic issues hard to get lately. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 18:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone answered elsewhere:  WP:FORUMSHOP: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." sometimes you read stuff but don't quite believe it given strong objections. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 15:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Another option is to pick one centralized location where the discussion will take place (the article talk page, the most relevant policy noticeboard, etc), and then leave neutrally worded notices at all the other relevant noticeboards and talk pages linking to that centralized discussion. It becomes canvasing and forum shopping when you try to "prove your case" at all of the different locations separately... save that for the centralized discussion. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In that case it was a law drawn out discussion that needed summarizing. Though I guess one can invite people to new subsection that summarizes the above.
 * I guess the big problem is if you go one place, get lots of opinions from non-involved and neutral editors that you do NOT like, and then go elsewheres. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 16:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes... for more on that, see: WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

CONLIMITED may need expansion
WP:CONLIMITED is being misunderstood. There's a comment up now at WP:ELN claiming that it's irrelevant because it's only about making changes to policies, and this situation is about whether the existing guideline ought to apply in his case.

It's perfectly clear to me, and it's been clear since 2007, but perhaps someone else will hae an idea about how to improve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph appears to be false (the small group of editors discussing a particular point can override "wider" consensus, almost as a tautology, and with WP:IAR to back them up if confronted by wikilawyers). The second paragraph is explicitly about changes to policies and guidelines only. Victor Yus (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think saying "ignore all rules" is the same as saying "ignore all consensus." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all consensus, but in this context, "community consensus on a wider scale" seems effectively equivalent to "rule". Victor Yus (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Victor. That sentence has long bothered me. The way that our practices change is that some editors decide to do things differently than the policy/guide. So that must mean that the wider consensus that created the original policy (which only reflects practice to date, supposedly) is ignored by those editors on that article. Thus a new practice is born and if it spreads then it becomes our practice and that leads to a change in the policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes... but... discussion and consensus building is also part of that process. It works like this... An editor makes a change (perhaps ignoring a rule).  If no one objects or raises a concern, that change stands.  If someone does object or raise a concern, we try to reach a local consensus at the article talk page.  If necessary, we bump the discussion up to WikiProject level for wider consensus building.  If necessary, we then bump the discussion up to Policy level (either at a noticeboard or on the policy/guideline talk page). At each stage we broaden the consensus.
 * In other words... as long as no one objects to a local consensus, that local consensus can stand. But if someone does object, you then need to advance to the next (wider) level of consensus building for confirmation of the (previous level) consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone does object, everything depends on the type of objection. I understand the sentence "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" as follows. The local consensus is valid if, and only if it does not contradict to more global rules. For example, if the users A, B, C, and D achieved a consensus that the statement X should stay in the article, but a user E provides the evidence that the statement X is not supported by the source used in the article (in other words, there is a violation of WP:V), we cannot speak about any consensus, and the opinion of the user E should prevail (at least, the burden of evidence is on A, B, C, and D). These four users cannot simply say: "ok, we do not care if the statement X is supported by reliable sources, we think it should stay". I think we need to clarify that. I propose the following modification:
 * "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale, which is expressed in our core content policy (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR), as well as in WP:NFCC and WP:BLP."
 * Regarding "...unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope," I cannot imagine a situation when our content policy is not applicable to some concrete article. This policy is intrinsically universal, and by admitting that some exceptions are possible we can ruin the very basis of Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The policy used to specifically name the core content/sourcing policies. I'm not sure that it's a good idea.  That will be interpreted as meaning "You and your two best buddies are free to spam, so long as you agree to it, because WP:SPAM is 'just a guideline' and 'not mentioned in CONLIMITED' as something that you and your buddies are not allowed to overrule."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is not an argument. Maybe the proposed wording is not optimal, but it at least lists core policies that must be observed under any circumstances, irrespective to the local consensus. In contrast, the current text does not make it clear. Moreover, the current text creates an impression that a group of users can theoretically convince a community that some core policy, under some circumstances, can be inapplicable to some concrete article, which, in my opinion, is a total nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My argument is that your list, which includes less than 10% of our formal policies, is incomplete. All policies and guidelines should be observed, irrespective to the local consensus, and as far as I'm concerned, the only ways to "convince the broader community that such action is right" is to convince the community that the cited advice page is irrelevant (e.g., someone's irrelevantly complaining about WP:Verifiability in the WP:External links section, which is one easy example of a core policy being inapplicable to a situation at an article) or to convince the community to change the guideline or policy in question.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

On your example, I don't quite agree with your analysis. If a source says X and the article says not-X but almost all the editors have the view that the article should say not-X, I would want to know their reasons. You tacitly assume they have none, but that's quite unlikely. For example, there are sometimes mistakes in reliable sources. So the sole editor who thinks the source is correct should properly have the talk about what the problem is. When that talk is had, there will be a chance for a consensus, but not because the one "correct" editor overrules the others. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The editors can have a view that the article should say not-X for two reasons. Firstly, they have some mainstream and reliable source that unequivocally says "not-X" AND says that the source saying "X" is wrong AND there is a serious formal reason to believe the source saying "X" is minority or fringe. Secondly, these users simply believe (for various reasons) the article should say "not-X". In the first case, they should be able to present this source, and after that the issue is considered to be resolved. In the second case, the opinion on one editor must prevail, and not because it overrules the others, but because the policy his opinion is based on overrules a local consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This point could be argued at length without resolution because you are insisting on a binary arrangement of legit or not legit for your example that's very artificial, lending it an air of unreality, and your analysis is suspect as well, since you assume so much about the attainable standard of the majority position's proper evidence. "Unequivocally", "serious", "formal", "minority", "fringe", "mainstream", "reliable" are words that can all bend to the desire of the editor in question without any bad faith. But I can even set all that aside because again if the "better" source (another question-begging God's-eye assessment) is not believed better by those who think not-X, there is no amount of rules that should overrule their best judgment because there would be no basis for it. Why? Because no one knows better if it's better than the editors asked their opinion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Even supposing we want to say that all or some policies or guidelines "overrule" local consensus, the same old question would have to be asked - who decides? (or in this case rather: who enforces?) To what extent is an administrator going to be prepared to say, in the event of an edit war, "I judge editor A's edits to be more in accordance with policy than editor B's, therefore I'm going to block editor B or protect the page following an edit by editor A, to ensure that editor A gets his way and the policy is upheld." My impression is that admins don't make this kind of judgment, or at least, if they do, they don't like to admit it (because there's a general feeling they aren't really supposed to). Nor, for that matter, are they prepared to enforce "consensus" in a similar way. The only way to enforce anything is to get together a group of editors who are sufficiently determined and numerous to be able to out-edit-war the others. Which of course no longer has much to do with the pretty picture of consensus decision-making as presented in this policy. Victor Yus (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Picking this up again
There seems no consensus above, and there's currently no mention of local consensus in the policy, unless you count the redirect from  (which I note was created by a user account which is now blocked indefinitely, I'm not sure why). Does that mean that the term local consensus should be avoided in discussions for the moment?

And if so, should the redirect shortcut from LOCALCONSENSUS be kept? It seems misleading. But there are currently more than 250 (but less than 500) pages that link to it. They include project, project talk and user talk pages (at least). Andrewa (talk)


 * I don't know what you mean "there's no mention of local consensus". The entire article is about local consensus (including non-local consensus, whatever that is) except when it talks about community consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That may be true, but it misses the point. It's all about terminology. The term local appears only in the place I've highlighted, as far as I can see.


 * Can you suggest a simple change to the policy that would clarify this? Andrewa (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the reason for the link WP:LOCALCONSENSUS either. It's not a concept in the project. Separately, I don't care for the angle taken by the paragraph that the link points to, because it doesn't make sense that the wider community overrules the editors of a page -- if that's what it means -- since that would only happen if members of the community, i.e. other editors, contribute to the page in question, at which point the consensus is again local. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason for my interest is the contrast being made elsewhere between local consensus as expressed in a particular discussion and community consensus as expressed in policy and guidelines. At the risk of oversimplifying, the principle as I understand it is that community consensus overrules or should overrule local consensus.


 * This may even be a very useful and insightful distinction and turn of phrase, but it's currently unsupported by policy AFAIK, and there's a problem in that it encourages a sort of anarchy, as everyone is then at liberty to interpret and apply community consensus (which is not always consistent, as policies and guidelines are imperfectly maintained, see User:Andrewa/creed) unrestrained by local consensus as to how these policies and guidelines should be applied. A subtle point perhaps, do you see what I'm getting at?


 * There are a number of current discussions that turn on this point, most important probably Wikipedia talk:Closing discussions. The information page at Closing discussions should of course reflect policy, and on this particular distinction there seems to be no policy to reflect.


 * So I came here. This talk page seems to me to be the best place to discuss the usefulness and meaning of the local/community consensus distinction, in the hope of clarifying things for the editors of pages that are dependent on this policy. Andrewa (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * How does the community make its wishes known but through the editors editing edits? For example, there is essentially universal observance of the principle that the text of articles should reflect the content of reliable sources, and if an editor wanted to substitute her own opinion instead, along the lines of "I was there and I know what really happened", that would actually be fine until other editors changed the text to conform to sources. And even then, reliable sources have errors. So where is there community consensus but in the myriad occasions of local consensus? Maybe I'm overlooking a clear case counterexample, if someone else has one. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The fact that not every editor participates in every discussion does not in any way diminish the authority of consensus where it is clear. Or that is part of my understanding of WP:consensus (but see User:Andrewa/creed).


 * The problem arises from the clause Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy (my emphasis). As I understand it, this lens is what is referred to as community consensus, as it does reflect other past discussions in which consensus was reached. Thus, an interpretation of policy by one editor is seen by that editor as trumping any number of arguments by any number of other editors, on the grounds that these other arguments are not validly policy based, again as determined by this one editor.


 * This is an extreme interpretation, but it's actually coming up in discussions.


 * See also below (in which you are already involved I see). Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Editors should apply policy to their evaluation of editorial changes but the application of policy is itself subject to acceptance on a consensus basis. This, you seem to say, is missing from the project currently. --Ring Cinema (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's being misquoted by a very few, but a persistent and verbose few, IMO. And the redirect from LOCALCONSENSUS and the rather vague instruction to use the lens of Wikipedia policy lend themselves to misquotation. Not sure how to improve it, though. Andrewa (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know this was being discussed here, but I made this change at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS so it actually uses the term, local consensus. WAS:
 * Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot ...

New:
 * A local consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot ...

This is the commonly used term for this concept among WP contributors (just search for "local" on this talk page, for example). Is there a problem with using it in the text? If so, what is the objection? --B2C 19:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (You've made the stringing a bit difficult, would it be possible to use the normal convention in future?) And I see this edit has been reverted. Andrewa (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Replying to Ring Cinema above... you might not "care for the angle taken by the paragraph that WP:CONSENSUS points to", but that "angle" is consensus... community consensus. And, yes, the wider community does overrule the editors of a page. The six editors of an obscure bio page cannot decide to, say, violate WP:BLP, because WP:BLP reflects the opinion of the wider community (unless they invoke IAR for good reason). That is, an admin can come and revert their BLP=violating changes even if it's unanimously approved by the consensus of six. In practice, we usually see good consistency between local and community consensus, so the distinction is often moot. But when there is a conflict (typically manifested by a local consensus making a policy-violating decision without proper invocation of IAR for good reason), yes, the wider community overrules. --B2C 19:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is, how do we decide what is good reason if not by consensus? Consensus, as Wikipedia has used the term to date, most often means local consensus, as you use the term. This turn of phrase shouldn't be a justification for ignoring consensus, wherever it is achieved. There are already ways of appealing consensus, and of escalating discussion, if in your opinion policy is being ignored. Ignoring consensus is not part of this process, and must not become an accepted part of it.


 * And yes, there are rare times when an uninvolved admin can and should take unilateral action to (perhaps temporarily) overrule a consensus decision that is seriously out of step with policy, as they understand it. That's part of the process, and part of the job of the admins. And it works well, but not perfectly. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I just think it's important to distinguish the two types of consensus, and to be clear about which is meant when we use the word "consensus". Many decisions are decided by local consensus, to be sure - and one of those is whether there is good reason to invoke IAR in a given special situation.  But, since IAR is usually not invoked when there appears to be a conflict between local consensus and community consensus as reflected in policy, I don't think that's a big problem. Further, the issue is rarely about whenever there is local consensus regarding a proposal - it's usually when there is no local consensus about a proposal.  In those cases, especially when there is a history of "no [local] consensus" RM discussion results, it turns out that there often is community consensus about the issue.  I believe this occurs when there are sufficient numbers of people who care for a certain title for non-policy-supported reasons, sufficient numbers so that those favoring a policy-based solution can't muster a local consensus. It is in those situations that I think closers need to be encouraged to read and apply community consensus as reflected in policy.   --B2C 16:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What you're saying should happen seems to me to be what does happen now, except that you're using new words to describe it. At WP:RM, for example, closing admins regularly prefer the views of a small number of contributors who base their arguments on WP:AT to those of a larger number who just say I think. I don't see any reason to think that this would work any better if they were encouraged to look for community consensus in those terms. It's needlessly complicating an already complex issue, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "local consensus" is meant to embody a particular, seriously problematic situation: a couple of editors screw up an article, and then attempt to invoke the concept of consensus as their protective shield.

So consider the situation of an external link to a fansite. The editors at article number three: the owner of the fansite and two fanboys. They have a discussion on the talk page in which they establish that three people favor including the link. The three say, "Ha! We are all agreed.  Furthermore, we notice that the policy about consensus says to consider the strength of our arguments, not just the numbers, and we consider our reasons in favor of adding the link to be, in our humble opinions, models of rational thought.  Therefore, we have consensus in favor of the link."

That's a "local consensus". It is a "consensus" only in the sense that there is agreement by solely the current participants in the discussion. The "community consensus" is what you'll hear when you take that link to "outsiders" at the External links noticeboard: the community opposes links to fansites. The community's long-standing and widespread opposition to such links trumps the choices of those couple of editors. By "trumps", I mean that the community is fully prepared to hand out blocks and blacklist sites if that's what it takes to overrule that "local consensus". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Local consensus" is not necessarily problematic. It's only problematic when it conflicts with community consensus, as it does in your hypothetical examples.  Local consensus is how most decisions are made.  --B2C 17:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Most decisions are like the one at Talk:List of 7400 series integrated circuits, where the consensus is that there is insufficient evidence that a 7400 series IC with the part number 74S262 ever existed; important to those of us who want to improve that article, but nobody else on Wikipedia cares one way or the other what we decide. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are not two kinds of consensus. All consensus is local and the distinction is empty. If an important policy is ignored by the editors in a particular instance, the editors apparently believe the policy doesn't apply or is not as important as something else (assuming good faith, which we can). Now, is there a case where an admin would overrule good faith interpretations of policy and its applications? Hard to imagine that would be anything but a mistake. Editors here are particular about doing things the right way and our problems usually come from two different ideas about what is right, not from a bunch of editors who want to do something wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, all consensus is local in that not every editor is involved in every discussion. But I think I can see the distinction that B2C is trying to make, and it's a good one if it's as I understand it. Would it help if, instead of talking about community consensus, we called it historic consemsus? That has the advantage of being a subtle reference to [WP:consensus can change|]], but also makes the point that the policies and guidelines do represent an enormous amount of previously achieved consensus, snd for that reason should not be dismissed lightly. Andrewa (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not to say I agree with everything they've said on the subject . Andrewa (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, "community consensus" simply refers to policy and guidelines. Is there anything else included under the term? If not, we should probably just talk about policy and guidelines. Any other example of community consensus beyond these two? --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a good interpretation IMO... consensus is always in a sense local consensus, as not everybody is involved, and community consensus means polcy and guidelines, and so we should avoid complicating the already difficult concept of consensus by even talking of local and community consensus. That then avoids the temptation to ignore consensus on the grounds that it's only local.


 * But it would be good to clarify exactly how policy influences decisions as to whether consensus favours a course of action. And this is not trivial. Andrewa (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Exactly"? :) --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that we can limit the definition of "local" and "community" consensus this way. There have been some RfCs on article talk pages where hundreds of editors left comments... Surely the consensus reached in such a large scale RFCs reflects a community consensus. More importantly, such large scale RfC's can sometimes lead to a re-evaluation of relevant policy/guidance... with people arguing that current policy needs to change to actually reflect the true community consensus (as demonstrated at the RfC). I completely agree that it would be helpful to clarify how policy influences consensus... but we also need to explain how consensus influences policy. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase Sir Humphrey, "...especially where the consensus on the policy of consensus conflicts or overlaps with the policy regarding the consensus on policy..." But seriously, I think it is problematic to try and define two different "types" of consensus. Omnedon (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so we have two proposed examples where community consensus might be seen as separate from local consensus. One I accept and the other I don't. Nascent policy changes are a good example for reasons that I assume are obvious: new policy emerges on these occasions from multiple tokens of policy "violation". The other case I would still like to be persuaded. If many comment on an RfC, it's still the consensus for that specific RfC (i.e. local). Are we imagining an RfC on a policy matter or a proposal for a new policy project? But in that case we end up with a new policy and the distinction dissolves. Do I have that wrong? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you can add the views of uninvolved regulars at a relevant noticeboard (or similar pages) as another class of community consensus. If you show up at ELN and a couple of the regulars say that your website shouldn't be linked, or that linking it is not prohibited, then that is not a policy/guideline and it's not huge numbers of people, but it's very likely to be the expression of the community's views.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical that this is a new category. To the extent that a practice emerges from a noticeboard, that falls under nascent policy formation (at least that is one way to look at it). Apart from that, the noticeboards participants discuss the relevant policy and a local consensus is formed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's actually possible for uninvolved and highly informed people (such as the regulars at any noticeboard) to form a "local consensus" in the sense that we use this word. The views of uninvolved and well-informed editors are presumed to reflect the views of the community, unless and until proven otherwise.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the wish of regulars who would like to believe that their opinions are tacitly accepted by editors who have better things to do than endlessly discuss abstruse aspects of Wikipedia policy. It's more than a little self-serving for self-appointed experts to declare themselves exempt from consensus and its constraints. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think someone who has expressed a view on the substance of a matter can really be called "uninvolved". However, it seems to make practical sense to have a forum or noticeboard where you can go to get a kind of informal adjudication of a disputed question. It wouldn't necessarily have to end the matter, if people still want to discuss it further, but at least it would give an indication of what should be done in the interim, which all sides might be expected to respect. Victor Yus (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A possible example
See this non-admin close for an interesting example of one interpretation of consensus... possibly even a pointy one, interested in other opinions. Andrewa (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)