This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) at 01:54, 6 February 2021 (→Consensus redux). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:54, 6 February 2021 by WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) (→Consensus redux)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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: 6 months  |
| 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: 6 months |
 | 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. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q: When was WP:CONEXCEPT, which says that editors at the English Misplaced Pages do not get to overrule the Wikimedia Foundation on issues like server load, software and legal issues, first added? A: It was added in January 2007 by User:Circeus, after a brief discussion on the talk page in the context of whether this page should be a policy rather than a guideline. It has been discussed and amended many times since then, e.g., here, here, and here. |
| “ | Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. | ” |
| — Jimmy Wales | ||
"Proper" concerns?
Per WP:CONACHIEVE, "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." This seems to make it too easy to stonewall discussion by claiming that an opponent's view is simply "improper". Suggest rewording this as "A consensus decision takes into account all of the good-faith concerns raised." That's really the point, isn't it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- If any change is made, it should be "all editors' legitimate concerns" to match the introduction. The focus is not good-faith concerns. It's on legitimate concerns. A concern being good-faith doesn't make it legitimate. Similarly, some of our policies, guidelines, information pages, and essays stress that an editor can be disruptive while editing in good-faith. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- How do you define a legitimate concern? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- I knew you would ask that. To me, it's a common sense matter. And it's easier to discern than "good-faith concern." If you want to propose that the policy change its long-standing "legitimate concerns" wording, you can of course start an RfC on the matter and/or ask for more opinions on the matter at WP:Village pump (policy). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- "It's a common sense matter" too easily takes the shape of "It's legitimate if I agree with it". See also appeal to common sense. Users' good faith, on the other hand, is simply assumed. "Good-faith concerns" doesn't mean opening the door to trolling, sockpuppetry, or other disruption, because there are other mechanisms to deal with those issues. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Conversely, types of disruption include "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions ... concerning edits" and "repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations". Note that it says "questions" and "explanations", not "legitimate questions" or "legitimate explainations". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- See WP:Common sense. Misplaced Pages works in part based on it. And our WP:Good faith guideline doesn't mean we should consider clearly detrimental arguments or behavior. Our WP:Good faith guideline states, "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism." Again, "If you want to propose that the policy change its long-standing 'legitimate concerns' wording, you can of course start an RfC on the matter and/or ask for more opinions on the matter at WP:Village pump (policy)." I won't be agreeing to your proposed change, which gives a lot of power to editors claiming that their arguments are being made in good-faith. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Your link proves my point; there is no common sense. I could respond to your objection by saying that the current wording gives a lot of power to editors claiming that their opponents' arguments are illegitimate, without having to explain how or why. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I of course know that the opposing "there is no common sense" argument is made beneath that; it's not going to stop me from linking to WP:Common sense. It's a fact that we employ common sense on Misplaced Pages, daily, just like we do off Misplaced Pages. I stand by what I stated above. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Your link proves my point; there is no common sense. I could respond to your objection by saying that the current wording gives a lot of power to editors claiming that their opponents' arguments are illegitimate, without having to explain how or why. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- See WP:Common sense. Misplaced Pages works in part based on it. And our WP:Good faith guideline doesn't mean we should consider clearly detrimental arguments or behavior. Our WP:Good faith guideline states, "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism." Again, "If you want to propose that the policy change its long-standing 'legitimate concerns' wording, you can of course start an RfC on the matter and/or ask for more opinions on the matter at WP:Village pump (policy)." I won't be agreeing to your proposed change, which gives a lot of power to editors claiming that their arguments are being made in good-faith. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I knew you would ask that. To me, it's a common sense matter. And it's easier to discern than "good-faith concern." If you want to propose that the policy change its long-standing "legitimate concerns" wording, you can of course start an RfC on the matter and/or ask for more opinions on the matter at WP:Village pump (policy). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- How do you define a legitimate concern? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- And the "there is no common sense" section states, for example, "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues, and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense." It's not all that opposing to the initial "common sense" material before it. Misplaced Pages editors use common sense with regard to the interests/improvement of the encyclopedia all the time. Use of common sense is why our WP:Buro and WP:Ignore all rules policies exist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think
existing agreements, community foundation issues, and the interests of the encyclopedia
is what "legitimate concerns" is supposed to mean. If so, we should spell it out. It's unclear how WP:Ignore all rules is supposed to help in drafting the text of a rule itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)- Arguing a point that was never made or implied again since I never stated or implied that "WP:Ignore all rules is supposed to help in drafting the text of a rule itself." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Then it's not clear why you would link to "an explanatory supplement to the the Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules policy" in a discussion of how to word one of the "rules". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is clear. My point was that "use of common sense is why our WP:Buro and WP:Ignore all rules policies exist." You just like to debate every little thing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- We're not discussing a change to WP:BURO or WP:IAR, so that reference to "common sense" frankly seems like a red herring. I asked what "legitimate" means, and your response was "it's a common sense matter", which doesn't answer the question. Two users' interpretation of "common sense", hence "legitimate", can be wildly different. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. This is just you doing what you always do, especially when arguing against things I've argued. But keep going if you want. Seek your desired last word. Cite WP:Aspersions or whatever. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- "Seek your desired last word." Ironic for someone literally trying to have the last word with pointless personal invective. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. This is just you doing what you always do, especially when arguing against things I've argued. But keep going if you want. Seek your desired last word. Cite WP:Aspersions or whatever. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- We're not discussing a change to WP:BURO or WP:IAR, so that reference to "common sense" frankly seems like a red herring. I asked what "legitimate" means, and your response was "it's a common sense matter", which doesn't answer the question. Two users' interpretation of "common sense", hence "legitimate", can be wildly different. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is clear. My point was that "use of common sense is why our WP:Buro and WP:Ignore all rules policies exist." You just like to debate every little thing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Then it's not clear why you would link to "an explanatory supplement to the the Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules policy" in a discussion of how to word one of the "rules". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Arguing a point that was never made or implied again since I never stated or implied that "WP:Ignore all rules is supposed to help in drafting the text of a rule itself." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think
- And the "there is no common sense" section states, for example, "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues, and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense." It's not all that opposing to the initial "common sense" material before it. Misplaced Pages editors use common sense with regard to the interests/improvement of the encyclopedia all the time. Use of common sense is why our WP:Buro and WP:Ignore all rules policies exist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- The notion that editors who are deeply involved and invested in an issue can objectively assess consensus is seriously flawed. Of course our arguments are stronger than your arguments, that's why they are our arguments – and it matters not that you outnumber us if consensus is in fact about strength of arguments, not numbers. There is not much we can do to the guidance to remedy this fundamental flaw, which naively assumes and requires that most humans are dispassionate, fair, and reasonable beings with no particular need to WP:WIN. I propose that we not spend too much time trying to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Fair point, but that word proper just sticks in my craw. If there really is not much we can do, then using a phrase which references an existing policy instead of a vague, subjective notion like "propriety" or "legitimacy" can't do any harm, and may even help. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Good-faith concerns are often irrelevant. There are people who have perfectly good-faith concerns that Misplaced Pages provides information about the certain subjects. These are not "legitimate" concerns as far as the Misplaced Pages is concerned, because we've decided to be WP:NOTCENSORED, even to the point of providing information that would, say, let someone figure out how much arsenic to put in his mother-in-law's soup (in the event that he wishes to spend the rest of his life in prison), or including information that is being contested in a civil lawsuit.
- A "proper" or "legitimate" concern is one that is primarily based upon the values, goals, policies, and best practices of this community. That includes not only what's written down, but all the things that aren't written down, such as ("including, but not limited to") what's fundamentally suitable for an encyclopedia (e.g., yes to the Median lethal dose for most chemicals, but no to a list of every person who immigrated through Ellis Island). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Then I think we should spell out that proper means "based upon the values, goals, policies, and best practices of community" somewhere in the body of the page, maybe with a link to WP:5P. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sangdeboeuf, can you give a few examples of disputes that weren't easily resolved, involved this problem, and you believe would have been easily resolved if we added that verbiage somewhere in the body of this page? If not, then adding the text would be bad practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: There's no WP:CREEP here, since we're not adding a new rule or guideline. We are only clarifying the use of a term. For an example of how the wording "legitimate concerns" can impede dispute resolution, see Talk:Femininity/Archive 5#"Biologically created factors", in particular this comment by Flyer22 Frozen. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone with eyes can see what happened there. Your idea of "impede dispute resolution" is completely off. And there was absolutely no need for you to ping me to this section again, especially considering our above exchanges. Since I am watching this guideline, as I have been watching it for years, do not ping me to this section again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You are the person who first mentioned the idea, and, at a quick glance, it isn't clear to me what your actual concerns were. (Maybe they were based on MOS:LEAD?)
- In terms of solving the dispute (since I assume that you are still dissatisfied), I think it might be an interesting exercise to see whether that sentence could be re-written in Simple English and without any form of the words socially constructed, e.g., "A thing is called feminine if people decide it is feminine. People in different times and different places have called different things feminine. Some things that are often called feminine may be biological, and other things are not." Everyone might find that they agreed more if the statements were a little less jargon-filled and a little more bald and concrete. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: There's no WP:CREEP here, since we're not adding a new rule or guideline. We are only clarifying the use of a term. For an example of how the wording "legitimate concerns" can impede dispute resolution, see Talk:Femininity/Archive 5#"Biologically created factors", in particular this comment by Flyer22 Frozen. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sangdeboeuf, can you give a few examples of disputes that weren't easily resolved, involved this problem, and you believe would have been easily resolved if we added that verbiage somewhere in the body of this page? If not, then adding the text would be bad practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Then I think we should spell out that proper means "based upon the values, goals, policies, and best practices of community" somewhere in the body of the page, maybe with a link to WP:5P. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Fair point, but that word proper just sticks in my craw. If there really is not much we can do, then using a phrase which references an existing policy instead of a vague, subjective notion like "propriety" or "legitimacy" can't do any harm, and may even help. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, ideally. Consensus depends on the sort of decision required. If it is a binary decision, it is not really consensus, not the ideal consensus that takes into account all valid opinions. In the more general sense, the ideal consensus in a contested space requires alteration of the question, usually softening of the proposed statement, so that everyone can agree to the statement, and can agree that the statement if pushed further would create problems for some. An easy consensus statement is: “The majority agree that ”. In this case, the statement does not enjoy consensus, but there is a consensus that the majority supports it. This may be enough to move on, and often, moving on is important. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
"should" vs. "must" in WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS.
The text of WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS includes the following: All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk page.
While I have always read this as strictly requiring explanations, an editor in another dispute argued that it made them optional ('should', not 'must'.) I suggest changing the text of the relevant sentence to must be explained; this reflects current practice and policy, where refusal to explain controversial reverts is 100% sanctionable if it continues. Obviously there are and will be people who violate this (none of our policies are perfectly followed, all the time, and doing so is not possible or reasonable; people aren't sanctioned just for violating a policy once by mistake.) But as a general principle, outside of edits whose reason is obvious, I do not think explaining your edits is or has ever been optional, especially when it comes to reverts; discussion is central to participation in Misplaced Pages, so it is important to avoid an implication that explaining edits is a mere suggestion rather than a requirement. --Aquillion (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
"Misplaced Pages:Too many cooks" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:Too many cooks. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 20#Misplaced Pages:Too many cooks until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
NOCONSENSUS in article pages -- recent edits, and ONUS
I support this edit by Kolya Butternut, mainly because the edit by WhatamIdoing leaves this far too open-ended. If there are "important limitations" they need to be stated or linked. Just saying that they exist is unhelpful. I may have other objections as well, but they can wait until this is made more explicit (if that happens). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- And as I wrote in the edit summary: The Consensus Required DS should be consistent with WP:CONSENSUS. This has been interpreted in discussions linked from here: Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- TransporterMan, I thought that the list Kolya removed did both state and link the three important limitations?
- Contentious matter about WP:BLPs, which get removed in the absence of a consensus;
- WP:ONUS, which says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", and therefore says that if you don't achieve that consensus, then it's not included; and
- WP:COPYVIO, for which "it's status quo, and there's no consensus to remove it" is obviously never an acceptable excuse.
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I totally misread your initial edit, What. I should be trouted (I'm getting old...). I've struck out my initial comment, above. I now express no opinion. I've not been following the ONUS discussion at V, so I might have an opinion if I get around to digging through it, but I have none at this point except to note that V and CON ought to match. Sheepishly, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Crossroads, WhatamIdoing added this text during the middle of an intractable dispute; it had no consensus from the beginning. In addition, the threshold for implicit consensus is typically at least 30 days; this edit has been in place 20 days. WhatamIdoing added this text the same day they commented at WT:V that they thought
WP:NOCON...is wrong
. I expressed disagreement at the time, and explicit 'disagreement 8 days later. - By the very logic of the new NOCON text, disputed additions which do not have consensus should be removed, so please revert to the WP:STATUSQUO and let's discuss. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- But WP:ONUS is very relevant to what is there. I know you have been trying to change its meaning at WT:V, but it is still in force and therefore absolutely applies here. It thus makes no sense not to mention it. As for "the threshold for implicit consensus is typically at least 30 days", I don't know where you heard that. Crossroads 20:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Crossroads, I have not been trying to change its meaning, I simply have an interpretation of ONUS that is different from yours. As I said, there is no consensus for this change because it has been disputed from the beginning. As an act of good faith please revert and let's collaborate to find a solution. (By Kolya Butternut)
- But WP:ONUS is very relevant to what is there. I know you have been trying to change its meaning at WT:V, but it is still in force and therefore absolutely applies here. It thus makes no sense not to mention it. As for "the threshold for implicit consensus is typically at least 30 days", I don't know where you heard that. Crossroads 20:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- TransporterMan, I fully agree with you that that V and CON ought to match. That, I think, is the most important thing to achieve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, pinging MelanieN, since a comment she made in 2017 is being cited here as an authority. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Crossroads, WhatamIdoing added this text during the middle of an intractable dispute; it had no consensus from the beginning. In addition, the threshold for implicit consensus is typically at least 30 days; this edit has been in place 20 days. WhatamIdoing added this text the same day they commented at WT:V that they thought
- I totally misread your initial edit, What. I should be trouted (I'm getting old...). I've struck out my initial comment, above. I now express no opinion. I've not been following the ONUS discussion at V, so I might have an opinion if I get around to digging through it, but I have none at this point except to note that V and CON ought to match. Sheepishly, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- TransporterMan, I thought that the list Kolya removed did both state and link the three important limitations?
I think that this mess needs to get restored to the last stable version before the September 22nd changes and then go from there. My own concerns are about structural problems with the reference to the "onus" section. The context that limits it's scope to new inclusions at wp:ver is missing from the referral from here. Also we should not deepen the problem that wp:consensus is the proper place to fully cover this process, not kick the can to some "subset" comment that doesn't even belong in wp:ver; over there it's just a bandaid for failing to clarify that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Where does WP:ONUS limit its scope to new inclusions? It doesn't say that. As for the idea that it "doesn't even belong" there, the policy says what it says anyway. Crossroads 21:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- This was getting too ironic. I restored the stable version with this edit summary:
per this very version of NOCON which I am reverting: "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, there are important limitations: ... When the dispute is about whether to include something, see WP:ONUS."
- Anythingyouwant and Awilley were part of those Consensus discussions too. Sorry Awilley, you keep coming up. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Crossroads, what is your interpretation of ONUS? I don't know if we even disagree. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- It says that
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
That means that if there is no consensus in favor of disputed content, it stays out. The alternative is that if there is no consensus for (or against) the content, it has to go in. Well, in that case, we're effectively laying out the red carpet for all sorts of fringe ideas and POV pushing that we can't quite get a full consensus against. Ironically, you've removed mention of it here citing ONUS, but ONUS still exists unchanged regardless of whether it is mentioned here. Mentioning it here would be helpful. Crossroads 01:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)- I see; I misread your previous comment. You were challenging the idea that ONUS only applies to new inclusions. I thought you were challenging the idea that ONUS only applies to inclusions, as opposed to removals. I am not sure I understand your point of view. You believe that the change to NOCON which we are discussing which was in place only 20 days has consensus so it should not be removed even though it (was) and is being challenged, but you believe ONUS says we should remove disputed content? I cannot reconcile that. I feel like this can be simple and fears may be overblown? Consensus inclusions require a new consensus to remove. If the community believes that an inclusion is fringe or otherwise problematic, we will remove it. At worst it will take an RfC, but it depends how strong the consensus was to begin with. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- What is a "consensus inclusion"? Do you mean "long-standing text for which there is currently no consensus"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're asking me if an inclusion that has consensus is text that has no consensus? Please stop. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- You may still be misreading it. ONUS does not limit itself to new inclusions only; it applies to inclusion in general, but especially to new content since pre-existing text may have consensus for it. I'm done arguing about whether wanting it here was consistent with ONUS itself or not. I think it simply would be beneficial here and there is no reason to fight it, but whatever. The fact is that what you are advocating at WT:V privileges pre-existing text far more than does the present version of ONUS. No, not all pre-existing text everywhere on Misplaced Pages necessarily has a strong consensus for it (see WP:CONLEVEL), such that once someone shows up to challenge it they can be said to be going against a consensus, rather than shifting its state to "no consensus". Low-traffic articles exist, as do articles with few watchers or ones who only watch it cursorily.
- Here's a scenario for you: You stumble upon an obscure article on a topic you are familiar with. You notice some content that has sources but that is in some way fringe (synthesis, poor sources, misuse of sources, or some combination thereof), and/or that is undue emphasis on some POV, and remove it. Some editor, either its WP:OWNER or someone who has it on their watchlist but doesn't know the topic well, reverts you because you "removed sourced content" and it looked fine to him, and says that per WP:ONUS (the version you are advocating for right now), you need to get a full-on consensus to get it removed. Yes, there are ways to do so, but they may not get enough attention, and besides, the point is that this alternate version of ONUS made it much harder to do so.
- Misplaced Pages's quality comes just as much from what we keep out as what we let in. Since your goal seems to result in making it much harder to keep some things out, I have to oppose that. Crossroads 15:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Kolya, we're talking about the "No consensus" section. What is a "consensus inclusion" in the context of something for which there is "no consensus"? The only thing I can think of is that you mean "something that was included last year, and we thought it had consensus back then, but we now have actual evidence that there is no consensus either for or against its inclusion at this time". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:Consensus can change, but otherwise NOCON. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Crossroads, I disagree with your interpretation of ONUS, and you aren't interpreting my proposal at ONUS accurately. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Kolya, we're talking about the "No consensus" section. What is a "consensus inclusion" in the context of something for which there is "no consensus"? The only thing I can think of is that you mean "something that was included last year, and we thought it had consensus back then, but we now have actual evidence that there is no consensus either for or against its inclusion at this time". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're asking me if an inclusion that has consensus is text that has no consensus? Please stop. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- What is a "consensus inclusion"? Do you mean "long-standing text for which there is currently no consensus"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I see; I misread your previous comment. You were challenging the idea that ONUS only applies to new inclusions. I thought you were challenging the idea that ONUS only applies to inclusions, as opposed to removals. I am not sure I understand your point of view. You believe that the change to NOCON which we are discussing which was in place only 20 days has consensus so it should not be removed even though it (was) and is being challenged, but you believe ONUS says we should remove disputed content? I cannot reconcile that. I feel like this can be simple and fears may be overblown? Consensus inclusions require a new consensus to remove. If the community believes that an inclusion is fringe or otherwise problematic, we will remove it. At worst it will take an RfC, but it depends how strong the consensus was to begin with. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- It says that
- Crossroads, what is your interpretation of ONUS? I don't know if we even disagree. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- This was getting too ironic. I restored the stable version with this edit summary:
- Having seen WhatamIdoing's post referring to this discussion at FTN but not having previously followed it, my somewhat-outsider's POV is that the discussion may have gotten bogged down in the weeds a bit. Under most circumstances, ONUS and STATUSQUO should have the same outcome. In any but the most highly-edited articles, the status quo is the last stable version before the edit or edits which failed to gain consensus. This is the same as saying that onus is on the proposed edit or edits to gain consensus before acceptance. Only in highly contentious debates does determining last stable version or version before the proposed edit become problematic, as it was in this discussion. When there is no consensus in a discussion such as that one, neither ONUS nor STATUSQUO is really of much help. In that instance I used a slightly IAR third option that did not take either into much account. In practical terms, therefore, there doesn't seem to be a lot of functional space between ONUS and STATUSQUO and trying to reconcile them doesn't seem to serve much purpose. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, @Eggishorn. So you think the process should look something like this:
- Bob writes, in a non-BLP article, that the subject was mentioned in an online comic strip, and includes a passable source. During the next year, a reasonable number of editors make edits to other parts of the article.
- This means: Content was boldly added, the "status quo version" includes the content, and the content is sourced, so it can't be WP:CHALLENGED.
- A year after Bob added this information, Alice sees it and removes it, on NPOV grounds (i.e., she thinks it's trivia).
- We stipulate here that Alice knows the content to be accurate. She's only saying that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.
- They are unable to resolve their differences on the talk page. Whether other editors support inclusion seems to have more to do with how much they like internet memes than whether this content is really relevant to this particular article. The discussion ends in no consensus, with no particular hope that this will change.
- Bob cites STATUSQUO and reverts Alice's removal.
- Alice says QUO is "just" an essay, cites ONUS (part of WP:V) and reverts Bob's restoration.
- Bob cites NOCON and reverts Alice's removal again.
- Alice points out that ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", not those seeking to change or remove it, and that no consensus therefore means no inclusion, and removes the content again.
- A passing admin blocks them both for edit warring.
- Bob writes, in a non-BLP article, that the subject was mentioned in an online comic strip, and includes a passable source. During the next year, a reasonable number of editors make edits to other parts of the article.
- What's your next edit? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the question, WhatamIdoing. To me it's simple: Reinstate Bob's edit. At the time Bob included the content, it was uncontroversial and remained uncontroversial for an extended period of time. Calling it "disputed content" is therefore anachronistic and ahistorical based on the edit history. Alice's attempt to exclude it from the article is the actual dispute. She has no consensus for her version and should respect the previous consensus. It is vital to note in these situations that there was a previous consensus that Alice disrupted; that of the inclusion of Bob's content. Silent consensus may be the "weakest form" of consensus but it is still a consensus. If Alice's arguments do not persuade the editors of her argument, then both STATUSQUO and ONUS mandate the reinstatement of Bob's content as a reversion to the version prior to dispute. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- ONUS, as it is currently written, doesn't mandate the reinstatement of Bob's content. ONUS actually says the opposite: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". It sounds like you think ONUS should be re-written to take the STATUSQUO approach, maybe "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those trying to make changes to an article, regardless of whether that change involves adding, removing, or changing the content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Bob had already met the onus and achieved consensus. After that point WP:Consensus can change. WP:ONUS doesn't need to be rewritten; you're just misinterpreting it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. Rewriting policies to eliminate all possible misinterpretations is impossible. Common sense is allowed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- We may need a link to an interpretation, though. WhatamIdoing had added the misinterpretation of ONUS into WP:NOCON to change it, which then reinforced the false interpretation of ONUS. My reversion triggered this discussion. This all is connected to the interpretation of the Consensus Required DS as well. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut, what is "the Consensus Required DS"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- We may need a link to an interpretation, though. WhatamIdoing had added the misinterpretation of ONUS into WP:NOCON to change it, which then reinforced the false interpretation of ONUS. My reversion triggered this discussion. This all is connected to the interpretation of the Consensus Required DS as well. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- > "already met the onus and achieved consensus."
- So ONUS is a one-time thing? If this is the generally held view, then it should say so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- ONUS refers to CONSENSUS...which is more complicated than a "one-time thing"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- ONUS says that if Bob wants to have a sentence in the article, then it's Bob's job to demonstrate that there's a consensus for it, and not Alice's.
- Consensus says that "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." The obvious corollary is that as soon as Alice "disputes or reverts" Bob's addition, we can no longer assume that there is consensus for the edit.
- @Kolya Butternut, do we agree on this much? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're saying the same thing that I disagree with...so I would again point to WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE for the procedure. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with your
useinterpretation of "assume". WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS means a longstanding unchallenged edit is assumed to have achieved consensus. Once the existing consensus text is challenged, we assume the newly proposed text has WP:NOCON until a new consensus is achieved. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)- @Kolya Butternut, I used the word assume because that's the exact word that IMPLICITCONSENSUS uses. Do you disagree with IMPLICITCONSENSUS (as it is actually written, and has been for much longer than you've been editing, not as it might get passed around in the telephone game that is most editors' only understanding of what policies allegedly say)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, I disagree with your interpretation. Your comments are getting personal so I think we're done. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I really want to understand how you understand this, @Kolya Butternut. IMPLICITCONSENSUS uses the word assume. But when I directly quote the exact sentence, you're telling me that it's just my "interpretation".
- A little background might be helpful here: I've spent the last dozen years writing polices and guidelines for the English Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:Policy writing is hard (I wrote that, too), and the only way I can get the policies to line up with the community's best practices is if you're willing to patiently explain to me how you understand what's been written and how well it lines up with what you believe to be the best practice. In WP:BRD terms, you're my "Very Interested Person", and I need you to keep explaining your problem here.
- What I'm guessing – and I very much want you to correct me if I'm wrong – that when you read "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus", you're understanding this to have an unstated time limit, so that even though it doesn't say anything about time periods, it really means something like "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus for maybe about the first month or so, and after that, it should be considered to be proven to have consensus, just as much as if there had been a huge discussion about it on the talk page first". Does that sound approximately right to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I clarified my previous comment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone would interpret my comments that like. There are many, many more experienced editors who disagree with the changes you are proposing to the long-standing policy . Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- This policy has said, for years, that we only "assume" that consensus exists in such a situation. You seem to be saying that longstanding, boldly added text has "achieved" consensus – that it is no longer just an assumption (i.e., an assumption that might be wrong); it is a bona fide consensus.
- If the community thinks that the length of time the text has existed is a critical factor, then the policies should say that. To not include key material is non-transparent and unfair to less experienced editors. It also undermines credibility in the community.
- Right now, when new editors remove long-standing text, experienced editors are going to have to tell them "This is our policy! Once a sentence has been in the article long enough, IMPLICITCONSENSUS says there's definitely a consensus for including it, and you have to get active agreement to get that out. Okay, the policy doesn't actually say that in plain English, but, trust me, it means that."
- If the community's actual policy is to keep long-standing but possibly-now-unwanted content in articles unless and until there is active agreement to remove it, then the written policies should just say that. They currently do not just say that. They currently contradict each other by saying that we're "assuming" consensus exists, but when it's been proven not to exist, then we default to both keeping long-standing text (NOCON) and to removing text with no consensus to include it (ONUS). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, I disagree with your interpretation. Your comments are getting personal so I think we're done. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut, I used the word assume because that's the exact word that IMPLICITCONSENSUS uses. Do you disagree with IMPLICITCONSENSUS (as it is actually written, and has been for much longer than you've been editing, not as it might get passed around in the telephone game that is most editors' only understanding of what policies allegedly say)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- ONUS refers to CONSENSUS...which is more complicated than a "one-time thing"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. Rewriting policies to eliminate all possible misinterpretations is impossible. Common sense is allowed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Bob had already met the onus and achieved consensus. After that point WP:Consensus can change. WP:ONUS doesn't need to be rewritten; you're just misinterpreting it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- ONUS, as it is currently written, doesn't mandate the reinstatement of Bob's content. ONUS actually says the opposite: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". It sounds like you think ONUS should be re-written to take the STATUSQUO approach, maybe "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those trying to make changes to an article, regardless of whether that change involves adding, removing, or changing the content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the question, WhatamIdoing. To me it's simple: Reinstate Bob's edit. At the time Bob included the content, it was uncontroversial and remained uncontroversial for an extended period of time. Calling it "disputed content" is therefore anachronistic and ahistorical based on the edit history. Alice's attempt to exclude it from the article is the actual dispute. She has no consensus for her version and should respect the previous consensus. It is vital to note in these situations that there was a previous consensus that Alice disrupted; that of the inclusion of Bob's content. Silent consensus may be the "weakest form" of consensus but it is still a consensus. If Alice's arguments do not persuade the editors of her argument, then both STATUSQUO and ONUS mandate the reinstatement of Bob's content as a reversion to the version prior to dispute. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, @Eggishorn. So you think the process should look something like this:
I do respectfuly disagree with WhatamIdoing's 9/22/20 edits which it appears are the central issue. One concern is that those edits deepen the problem of trying to have wp:ver cover decision-process issues which are rightly the purview of and overlap with wp:consensus. Next, the way Misplaced Pages works is that automatically, strong categorical policies that exclude material are going to exclude it regardless. And consideration of less-categorical policies and guidelines is also going to influence include/exclude decisions, thus being weighed along with the soft-guidance given here. An attempt to enumerate (an incomplete list of) "exceptions" sort of changes and messes up those concepts. It implies that the guidance given here is more categorical / stand-alone, and that items not enumerated are overruled rather than being additional factors to be taken into consideration. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @North8000, I agree with you that WP:V has strayed into process, and that's not necessarily desirable. I'd be happy to move ONUS over here. However, that only transfers the self-contradiction from one page to the other. We need to get the self-contradiction out of the policies entirely.
- We should not continue to talk out of both sides of our mouths. When we're talking about long-standing, sourced, non-BLP, non-copyvio content, the choices are either that Bob has to "achieve consensus for inclusion" per ONUS, or that Alice has to achieve consensus for removal per QUO. It cannot be both. We cannot default to both exclusion and inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify: In the scenario above, we initially assumed that Bob had consensus for inclusion. But after the step in which "They are unable to resolve their differences on the talk page", we have now proven that there is no consensus (either way) at this point in time. Under these circumstances, ONUS says that Bob has to achieve consensus for inclusion – which, again, we have just moved from assuming consensus for Bob's change to proving that a consensus for Bob's change does not exist (any longer) – but QUO says that Alice has to achieve consensus to remove it, because it's been there a long time.
- This puts us in a stalemate: keeping the content violates ONUS, because we just proved there is no consensus for inclusion, but removing the content is against QUO, because it's already been there for a year and we've also just proven there's no consensus to remove it. Bob and Alice should not be able to point at different sentences in policies and declare, with justification, that their preference is the one supported by policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: I agree with everything that you just said. My concern is just with the attempted fix. My proposal at wp:ver (see the "How to quickly fix it all" subheading) would fix all of that plus solve several other problems. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The solution is to change the word "onus" at WP:VER to read "WP:ONUS", and then move the redirect here. That will clarify things. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- If we say, on the same page, that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" and that "If there's no consensus to include disputed content, then we keep it anyway if it's been around long enough", then we have not solved the problem at all. We have merely re-located the problem.
- Is your plan to simply remove the bit about "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (i.e., from any and all policy and guideline pages) rather than to transfer it from that page to this one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- What I suggested sounds nothing like what you're saying. My suggestion looks like (see proposal below) (only the formatting of the word "onus" could be prettier). Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposal
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
Shortcuts "WP:VNOG" redirects here. For the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability, see WP:BURDEN. See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:IINFOWhile information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
Where WP:ONUS would (I assume) be another redirect for WP:NOCONSENSUS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposed_change Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
BOLD implementation
Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#BOLD_implementation Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
RfC: Should we move WP:ONUS to WP:CONSENSUS?
Discussion at Village Pump: WP:VPP#RfC:_Should_we_move_WP:ONUS_to_WP:CONSENSUS? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Consensus redux
If a current consensus (by way of RFC) is sought on a topic and there was a prior consensus (also reached via RFC), of which is there is no notice of on the talk page, from a few years ago should the newer request for a consensus or RFC be closed for not stating it was an RFC to overrule a prior RFC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonkeyPunchResin (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)