| Revision as of 01:56, 2 August 2014 editBlueboar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers53,084 edits →Level? or Width?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:15, 2 August 2014 edit undoBlueboar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers53,084 edits →queryNext edit → | ||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
| :::The appropriateness of "asserting" consensus really depends on how ''strong'' the consensus being "asserted" was. The stronger the consensus was (determined by how many people were involved in reaching it, and how many support it) the more we can say that the consensus is unlikely to change... and the more the consensus can be "asserted". For example: when we point to a policy provision to object to an edit, what we are doing is "asserting" consensus (that policy)... policy is, after all, nothing more than ''very'' strongly supported consensus that is extremely unlikely to change. ] (]) 13:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | :::The appropriateness of "asserting" consensus really depends on how ''strong'' the consensus being "asserted" was. The stronger the consensus was (determined by how many people were involved in reaching it, and how many support it) the more we can say that the consensus is unlikely to change... and the more the consensus can be "asserted". For example: when we point to a policy provision to object to an edit, what we are doing is "asserting" consensus (that policy)... policy is, after all, nothing more than ''very'' strongly supported consensus that is extremely unlikely to change. ] (]) 13:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I do a lot of ] work and have to look at questions like this fairly often. Let me note here that the agreement which asserts the two-person consensus was made in , with a corresponding edit in the article that same day. The next edit to challenge it was, I think, made in the article text in and on the talk page in . Unless there were some prior edits that I've missed that's 14 days between consensus assertion and objection-by-editing. In a "hot" article such as ] (i.e. one which gets a lot of editor attention), I have to say that I think that in ordinary circumstances it would be a ''very'' close call whether or not the subsequent objections were sufficient to prevent a consensus from being formed by the prior agreement and edit. ''However,'' this is a BLP article, it was a clearly controversial edit, and the quality of both sources and consensus (see the second bullet point of the ] section of this policy) are of importance. On the whole, I either think that either there was no consensus formed due to the subsequent objection ''or'' that the quality of the consensus (and the interpretation of the source, though that's a different issue) should keep the disputed edit in play without further bickering over whether or not there was a consensus. Regards, ] (]) 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) '''PS #1:''' Unusually, I disagree with Blueboar in this instance. A consensus is a consensus. However weak it may be, it cannot be set aside merely by objecting to it. A new consensus must be formed to set aside the old consensus. An objection to the prior consensus may be enough to form a new consensus, of course, if no one objects to the objection. '''PS #2:''' I strongly object to the idea that any sort of formality should have to be observed in order to form consensus. I could say more about that, but I don't think that's really necessary to resolution of the specific problem here. '''TM''' — 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | ::::I do a lot of ] work and have to look at questions like this fairly often. Let me note here that the agreement which asserts the two-person consensus was made in , with a corresponding edit in the article that same day. The next edit to challenge it was, I think, made in the article text in and on the talk page in . Unless there were some prior edits that I've missed that's 14 days between consensus assertion and objection-by-editing. In a "hot" article such as ] (i.e. one which gets a lot of editor attention), I have to say that I think that in ordinary circumstances it would be a ''very'' close call whether or not the subsequent objections were sufficient to prevent a consensus from being formed by the prior agreement and edit. ''However,'' this is a BLP article, it was a clearly controversial edit, and the quality of both sources and consensus (see the second bullet point of the ] section of this policy) are of importance. On the whole, I either think that either there was no consensus formed due to the subsequent objection ''or'' that the quality of the consensus (and the interpretation of the source, though that's a different issue) should keep the disputed edit in play without further bickering over whether or not there was a consensus. Regards, ] (]) 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) '''PS #1:''' Unusually, I disagree with Blueboar in this instance. A consensus is a consensus. However weak it may be, it cannot be set aside merely by objecting to it. A new consensus must be formed to set aside the old consensus. An objection to the prior consensus may be enough to form a new consensus, of course, if no one objects to the objection. '''PS #2:''' I strongly object to the idea that any sort of formality should have to be observed in order to form consensus. I could say more about that, but I don't think that's really necessary to resolution of the specific problem here. '''TM''' — 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I don't think we actually disagree. I am certainly not saying that a previous consensus gets "set aside" merely because someone objected to it. I am saying that when someone objects, the previous consensus goes "on hold"... pending ''either'' a reconfirmation ''or'' the formation of a new consensus. ] (]) 02:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Level? or Width? == | == Level? or Width? == | ||
Revision as of 02:15, 2 August 2014
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consensus page. |
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consensus page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." -- Jimmy Wales
Bird article name (capitalisation)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crowned Crane about four articles related to birds species. The rationale is that there is no reason why bird names should be capitalised while Misplaced Pages recommends that all animal names should not be written with capitals. Please participate to the discussion.
Thank you! Mama meta modal (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
Request for comments
There is now also an ongoing request for comments on the same subject: Talk:Crowned Crane#Request for comments.
Do not hesitate to come and comment on this question. Mama meta modal (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC).
Consensus
The discussion was closed (and the pages moved) on 26 March 2014, see Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move for details.
Mama meta modal (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
- Move review for species pages at Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2014 March. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
New discussion
An important discussion started on Talk:Crowned crane and Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane now moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#A new proposal regarding bird article names.
Mama meta modal (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
- The consensus is now clear. The relevant pages will soon be checked and made consistent with Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Bird common name decapitalisation.
- H. H. Wander Strata (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC).
WP:1AM
Please critique my essay about "one against many" consensus situations at WP:1AM. Comments should be posted on Talk:1AM. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's very good but not sure how practical it is. I've certainly found myself in 1 against many situations, and I usually walk away. Much more common are a few against many situations. That's much more difficult. The history of the yogurt title comes to mind, and of course the US city name controversy, and much more current now is the RM discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton.
To address a specific type of a few against many situations, I wrote this essay, intended primarily as advice for RM closers: User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle. --B2C 19:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Damn... I was hoping that an essay with the short cut "WP:1AM" would be advice saying not to edit at 1:00 in the morning - after coming home from the pubs. Now that would be a useful essay. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Expand description of Forum shopping
At present the policy on WP:FORUMSHOP says "Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus." (Talk page archives show different versions of this line.) I suggest expanding the description to say "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards or talk pages,...." (Suggested addition in italics.) Thoughts? – S. Rich (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
New essay
Just started a new essay at Misplaced Pages:Confusing arguments mean nothing. Would appreciate any collaboration.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
WT:EW
There's a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring#BRD cycle related to WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BRD that may interest some editors who watch this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
query
Should we differentiate between an "agreement between two editors" where no formal section seeking consensus is started from this process of actively seeking to accommodate the opinions of all the editors on an article or BLP?
I have run into such a case, and said that such an agreement is not the same as "establishing consensus" but one of my many fans has gone around posting that this is an absurd position for me to take, thus I present it here as a query.
Under what circumstances should an agreement between two editors to be regarded as any sort of consensus, especially where far more than two editors have opposed the consensus by rejecting it in edits on the article? Collect (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Two editors may presume a consensus subject to evidence otherwise, according to WP:Silence. One editor acting alone can also do this. I would hope that the editors have made some effort to gather evidence of the opinions of others recorded previously.
- The two editors may not refuse to acknowledge a later objection by a third editor on the bases that they decided consensus previously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- There were six other editors who objected to the edit in the case at hand. I think "agreement by silence" is not the proper interpretation. When the objections were given on the article talk page within days of the agreement, I think that claim would likely fail? There was no attempt to ascertain views of others AFAICT, and no section title on the talk page indicating that the agreement was going to be asserted to be stare decisis. I think that "consensus" should only be claimed where an attempt to obtain consensus has been openly sought - which would be a slight change? WP:SILENCE is an essay and of nugatory value IMO. It does however include Similarly, in the presence of a revert, there is neither silence nor consensus. which would seem dispositive even for the essay that as soon as a revert is made, consensus can not be asserted. Collect (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- We always have to remember that consensus can change... Two editors can indeed reach a consensus, but two people do not make a very strong consensus. The consensus they reach only lasts until someone comes by and questions it. At which point we need to re-open the discussion and either reaffirm the previous consensus, or establish a new consensus. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- My observation is that people who like to assert the existence of a consensus tend to be dogged, combative, and not partial to working towards a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- The appropriateness of "asserting" consensus really depends on how strong the consensus being "asserted" was. The stronger the consensus was (determined by how many people were involved in reaching it, and how many support it) the more we can say that the consensus is unlikely to change... and the more the consensus can be "asserted". For example: when we point to a policy provision to object to an edit, what we are doing is "asserting" consensus (that policy)... policy is, after all, nothing more than very strongly supported consensus that is extremely unlikely to change. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I do a lot of dispute resolution work and have to look at questions like this fairly often. Let me note here that the agreement which asserts the two-person consensus was made in this edit on July 4, with a corresponding edit in the article that same day. The next edit to challenge it was, I think, made in the article text in this edit on July 18 and on the talk page in this edit on July 25. Unless there were some prior edits that I've missed that's 14 days between consensus assertion and objection-by-editing. In a "hot" article such as Donald Trump (i.e. one which gets a lot of editor attention), I have to say that I think that in ordinary circumstances it would be a very close call whether or not the subsequent objections were sufficient to prevent a consensus from being formed by the prior agreement and edit. However, this is a BLP article, it was a clearly controversial edit, and the quality of both sources and consensus (see the second bullet point of the WP:No consensus section of this policy) are of importance. On the whole, I either think that either there was no consensus formed due to the subsequent objection or that the quality of the consensus (and the interpretation of the source, though that's a different issue) should keep the disputed edit in play without further bickering over whether or not there was a consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) PS #1: Unusually, I disagree with Blueboar in this instance. A consensus is a consensus. However weak it may be, it cannot be set aside merely by objecting to it. A new consensus must be formed to set aside the old consensus. An objection to the prior consensus may be enough to form a new consensus, of course, if no one objects to the objection. PS #2: I strongly object to the idea that any sort of formality should have to be observed in order to form consensus. I could say more about that, but I don't think that's really necessary to resolution of the specific problem here. TM — 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think we actually disagree. I am certainly not saying that a previous consensus gets "set aside" merely because someone objected to it. I am saying that when someone objects, the previous consensus goes "on hold"... pending either a reconfirmation or the formation of a new consensus. Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I do a lot of dispute resolution work and have to look at questions like this fairly often. Let me note here that the agreement which asserts the two-person consensus was made in this edit on July 4, with a corresponding edit in the article that same day. The next edit to challenge it was, I think, made in the article text in this edit on July 18 and on the talk page in this edit on July 25. Unless there were some prior edits that I've missed that's 14 days between consensus assertion and objection-by-editing. In a "hot" article such as Donald Trump (i.e. one which gets a lot of editor attention), I have to say that I think that in ordinary circumstances it would be a very close call whether or not the subsequent objections were sufficient to prevent a consensus from being formed by the prior agreement and edit. However, this is a BLP article, it was a clearly controversial edit, and the quality of both sources and consensus (see the second bullet point of the WP:No consensus section of this policy) are of importance. On the whole, I either think that either there was no consensus formed due to the subsequent objection or that the quality of the consensus (and the interpretation of the source, though that's a different issue) should keep the disputed edit in play without further bickering over whether or not there was a consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) PS #1: Unusually, I disagree with Blueboar in this instance. A consensus is a consensus. However weak it may be, it cannot be set aside merely by objecting to it. A new consensus must be formed to set aside the old consensus. An objection to the prior consensus may be enough to form a new consensus, of course, if no one objects to the objection. PS #2: I strongly object to the idea that any sort of formality should have to be observed in order to form consensus. I could say more about that, but I don't think that's really necessary to resolution of the specific problem here. TM — 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- The appropriateness of "asserting" consensus really depends on how strong the consensus being "asserted" was. The stronger the consensus was (determined by how many people were involved in reaching it, and how many support it) the more we can say that the consensus is unlikely to change... and the more the consensus can be "asserted". For example: when we point to a policy provision to object to an edit, what we are doing is "asserting" consensus (that policy)... policy is, after all, nothing more than very strongly supported consensus that is extremely unlikely to change. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- There were six other editors who objected to the edit in the case at hand. I think "agreement by silence" is not the proper interpretation. When the objections were given on the article talk page within days of the agreement, I think that claim would likely fail? There was no attempt to ascertain views of others AFAICT, and no section title on the talk page indicating that the agreement was going to be asserted to be stare decisis. I think that "consensus" should only be claimed where an attempt to obtain consensus has been openly sought - which would be a slight change? WP:SILENCE is an essay and of nugatory value IMO. It does however include Similarly, in the presence of a revert, there is neither silence nor consensus. which would seem dispositive even for the essay that as soon as a revert is made, consensus can not be asserted. Collect (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Level? or Width?
Is consensus really something that is best described in terms of "Levels"? I am wondering if we should shift the language a bit, so we talk about consensus in terms of width and strength of consensus ... a narrow consensus (reached by a small group of editors) is not very strong and is easily challenged... a wider consensus (made by lots of editors) is much stronger and not as easily challenged. The reason why Policy/guideline pages are so difficult to challenge and change is that they represent a very very wide consensus (one that is Wikiwide). Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)