Wikipedia talk:Wrongful consensus

merge with Wikipedia:False consensus essay

I think this essay probably can be merged with Wikipedia:False consensus, an essay that is similar in concept except that it is about consensus that is against ArbCom decisions, whereas this essay is about consensus that is based on violation of policy or guideline. I think false consensus is the better term, although it may be a good idea to reserve wrongful consensus against use for other purposes.

There was disagreement (with an antecedent) on whether any name should exist for a consensus that is created in violation of policy or guideline, so both of these essays may get ignored anyway, merged or not. Perhaps, then, keeping the essays separate may be more useful in educating editors on the advantages of calling the problematic consensus something in order to ease talking about it in particular cases.

I also hope for elevation of both of these essays into the Consensus guideline, if consensus agrees.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe 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 <g> and interminable argument. As long as the opinions do not damage Wikipedia in any way, let them exist. Collect (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As you're the original editor of the essay on false consensus, I take it you object to merging them and that largely disposes of the proposal, so, unless other comment turns up soon and is to the contrary, I'll likely end the merger proposal soon. The two essays were drafted separately because I was unaware of, or had forgotten about, your essay when I drafted mine. Possibly, a third essay combining the two can be written, if a good title can be devised; or I might rewrite mine to include ArbCom violations, as I'm not sure why different titles help solve a labeling problem with a criticized consensus. That would be like merging in the other direction, into mine, but without deleting your essay.

The title of this one should be clearly relevant to violations in general and brief. Tendentiousness reminds me of one specific violation, tendentious editing, which is essay-based, and thus seems to exclude policy/guideline violations, which would be confusing in itself. Nor do I want to include just any ground for complaining about a consensus, mainly that it didn't go my way, and that would be inferrabe from improper. There are legitimate concerns about a consensus gone possibly bad without having violated anything, as when experts go one way and nonexperts go another because the expertise is not understood; e.g., I can imagine leading-edge physicists or local history scholars being outvoted by amateurs, and which way that's a problem is itself debatable, but that kind of bad consensus is not within this essay's scope.

Wrongful is not my first choice but, as you know, false is already taken. I'm open to other suggestions.

The other points are left for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#essays on wrongful consensus and false consensus.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The essay I "wrote" is almost entirely actually "written by ArbCom" <g>. I would really think "WP:Tendentious consensus " would be a great title for this essay - which is primarily (as I read it) about editors "wearing down" any objections to what they wish to assert is "consensus" - either by one individual editor or by a small group of editors). I would also suggest that where the other essay deals with ArbCom principles suggesting that such consensuses are invalid from the start, that your essay deals with ones which could have been valid had one or more editors not prevented normal Wikiprocess from occurring (including removing an opposing editor from the mix)? If I err, please tell me.

(The last post above was by Collect (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC). Nick Levinson (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)) (Corrected a user's talk link: 20:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC))

You may have collected ArbCom precedents, but you did it.

I don't read the essay on false consensus as limited to a consensus that started out invalid but as including a consensus that became invald once an ArbCom ruling was violated, whcich can happen after consensus has begun legitimately. Meat puppetry can occur part way through, for instance. Neither essay is based on timing. They're both based on violation whenever occurring (assuming not cured). They differ centrally on what it is that was violated: ArbCom decisions or policies and guidelines.

Take the title WP:Tendentious consensus and craft an essay on the wearing-down process, if you like. I think that's a different concept than this one, because wearing down could be done while adhering to policies and guidelines. For example, continually claiming that an editor must have misparaphrased sources without finding a singe instance of it may qualify. So would arguing invalidly, so that we, by assuming good faith, wind up explaining how Wikipedia works to someone who actually knows how it works but doesn't want it to.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If "Wrongful consensus" is problematic, what about "Flawed consensus"? Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

An editor already advised against using an adjective that sounds almost the same in the past and present tenses because it could result in confusion leading to misunderstanding as a directive rather than as a description. I didn't go through a thesaurus last night; maybe I will soon. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The merger proposal is terminated. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Examples would help

I am not at all clear what this essay is talking about... it would benefit from some examples of situations when a consensus might be disrupted by nontrivial violation of a policy or guideline. (ideally, these examples would be stated as hypotheticals, but the hypotheticals would be based on actual situations that have occurred) Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As I read this essay, it includes the wrongful prevention or termination of participation by another editor which I take to mean abusing Wikiprocesses to prevent a good-faith editor from being heard. As a hypothet: an editor is chased down with multiple AN/I complaints and RFC/Us etc. all in rapid sequence, pretty much eliminating them from the article talk page in the first place. Suppose "Gnarphism" was a "contentious topic" and some "pro-Gnarphism" editors sought a topic ban on the opposing editor at AN/I? By removal of that editor from that topic, they could ensure that the consensus they seek is what occurs. If I am wrong in this interpretation, please tell me. Collect (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You have the right idea. Another, which some editor brought up at WT:Consensus (archived at archive 13 or 14), is having sock puppets outvote someone.

I don't want to base hypothetical cases on real ones as that might lead to editors involved in those cases taking sides on whether they qualify or happened as described, wasting time here. Although I think the principles are clear, I'll try to come up with hypothetical cases.

However, I think there was another line of discussion that said this isn't even needed, because we just develop consensus or agree that consensus can change, so a label isn't needed. An argument was that violations should just be handled for each underlying violation, so that a general label is unnecessary. Here's the problem: Sometimes, editors claim that a consensus has already been reached and those of us who dissent, who may even be a majority, would be disruptive by trying to address core issues, especially when the alleged consensus is based on standards that violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I do not want to use this page to open contests or wounds. That should go elsewhere. Here, I want to foster agreement on a label. Other labels, such as BRD and coatrack, have achieved agreement. This phenomenon needs an agreed-upon label, too.

Have I identified the concerns that are pending?

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetical examples have been added. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that does help. Not sure that I completely agree with everything you say... but I definitely understand it better with the examples. Blueboar (talk) 03:06, 26 November 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. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)