Wikipedia talk:NFCC Criterion 8 debate

Some sections moved to the talk page from the front page, in order to focus discussion on the actual criterion and its wording.

Role of administrators[edit]

The initial draft of the page emphasised that Howcheng and Black Kite are administrators. To redress the balance, I've pointed out that three of the editors taking part in the initial discussion were also administrators. I've also made other changes and added a better (more permanent) link to the edit warring part of the page history. I've also depersonalised the intro so others can edit it. Carcharoth (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't mean to infer that our edits were any more valid or invalid purely because of our admin status. Black Kite 10:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad to hear that. TONY (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And maybe this can go to the talk page as well? The remaining sections actually discuss NFCC#8. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for assessing consensus[edit]

Although there's no surefire way of establishing a boundary between success in reaching consensus and failure to reach it, I just want to make the point that there appear to be more criteria than just the numbers for and against, and the total numbers, the assumption above. In addition, there's the amount of time that is given over to the discussion and generation of consensus, and the extent to which the attempt to generate consensus is advertised. Can those who are challenging the fact of consensus please make a case on this basis? TONY (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a surefire boundary to establish that you do not have consensus: when your edits are reverted, they did not have consensus.

You do not have consensus. Some of the people who have an interest have/had not yet been heard. The edit was made, it got reverted. Discuss as quickly as possible and try to get back to normal editing.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so anyone, at any time, can announce that they "have an interest", revert and have the site frozen. This is the kind of action/assumption that undermines some of WP's basic pillars. TONY (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they cannot have it frozen, that's the opposite of what anyone wants (if everyone is rational). They can edit/revert and force further discussion, however. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been politic to freeze it as it was, having been established consensually by seven people over a generous period of time, and advertised widely, rather than raise the suspicion—the appearance—that two people operated in concert to revert and freeze. I don't care what the template says about not endorsing any particular version when frozen; it's going to have that effect. TONY (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you're worried because it's protected on the wrong version? Shouldn't someone have actually not tried to edit war by reverting a revert, perhaps? ;-)

I agree that page protection sucks though. Should we go ask the protecting admin to unprotect? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This subsection on consensus can go to the talk page as well. It is mostly you and Tony, anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SILENCE[edit]

This is a textbook example of WP:SILENCE in action. Fascinating! I love descriptive documentation in the morning! :-)

7 folks made a decision, but then number 8 and 9 showed up, and reverted on sight, exactly like our documentation predicts can happen.

The unfortunate part is that the 7 existing people don't/didn't quite realize that their actions can no longer be said to have consensus, and weren't being very graceful about it at first. That part could have been handled somewhat better, though folks are discussing now- just making a huge mess of it across several pages (it's a cycle, you should be able to go much faster, it helps if you meatball:LimitScope).

It's very important to get WP:NFCC unprotected as quickly as possible too, as the situation ultimately can't be said to be resolved until that happens and normal editing is restored. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less likely to happen because of the heavy-handed tactics involved. Two people represent consensus, do they? TONY (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. And neither do 7. (and possibly not even 9 ₂₊₇₌₉ :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC) You won't know you have consensus until the page has been unprotected for a while... and perhaps not even then[reply]

Right, so "consensus" means 100% then, does it, and consensus can be rendered non-consensus by anyone, at any time, simply by reverting (no matter who, where or when—newbie, long-established editor, anon, a week later, a year later, ten years later). Sounds suspicious to me. Want to rethink that? TONY (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Shrug* Not really. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug back at you, too. You people are missing that point that by your heavy-handed actions, you'll damage the prospects for goodwill, cooperation, collaboration and future consensus generation on that talk page. You should care about that rather than rudely shrugging your shoulders at us (is that your way of thumbing your nose? If so, it's not endearing). TONY (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, Kim is making a philosophical point here. I do object, though, to him including me (and others who haven't returned to the debate) in the people that "weren't being very graceful about it". Kim's point about consensus should rightly be discussed at WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SILENCE and WP:CCC, though he is right that this a classic case of it in action. Carcharoth (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually taken any actions yet. I'm just commenting that most of what happened was brought down on themselves by the people involved, who could have read the fine documentation and acted to prevent the problem. :-P

Alright, I'm done pointing and going "RTFM" and "should have known" and "could have told you" now.

What kinds of action do you need to lighten things a little, for you? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the esoteric discussions of how consensus works to the pages I suggested, and allowing those trying to hammer out an actual consensus on a policy to discuss things without this distraction? I realise you have the best of intentions, but good progress is being made here, and I wouldn't want to see this section become any more of a distraction that it is at the moment. I suggest moving it to the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's esoteric? Woah. I would love to see what you call practical then. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reference to the MeatBall wiki is esoteric. Loved the restaurant story though. There is a great lightbulb thread on the mailing list. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So to unesotericize, I ought to summarize some more of those meatball discussions over ? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection of the page[edit]

I will un-protect the page when it is clear that there's an agreement from both sides over how it should be written. Until then, do try to hurry and reach an agreement. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was the change in protection from one week to indefinite intended to help this process? I've said on the front page that only DCGeist and Black Kite were edit warring. If those two agree not to edit war, then I think the page could be unprotected. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should never have been protected in the first place. I'm OK about removing the protection, but that is in the expectation that people here will take seriously the need to rethink and rewrite 8 properly, soon. TONY (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to immediately start work on it after protection is lifted. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said that I think the important point is made. Black Kite 17:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've gotten Black Kite and DCGeist to agree to not edit the page for now (72 hours), so that no one can possibly accuse them of edit warring ;-), and I've asked Kwsn to unprotect. This doesn't mean that everyone should jump in and edit right away, just that if we proceed carefully, things will hopefully work themselves out.

Black Kite and DCGeist might still opt to use the talk pages during that period of time, and might ask others to do edits.

In summary: I've told Kwsn there won't be more edit wars, don't make me a liar now! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll unprotect, but if any edit warring returns, it goes back. I know you guys can work together on this. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

\o/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]