Wikiversity talk:Respect people

Older sections of this page have been archived.

Make consensus procedural
One hole in the proposal is when it comes to "consensus" if anybody disagrees. That makes it simply for anybody to disagree to force a consensus, which makes this entire proposal insignificant in being effectual.


 * "When disagreements about what being respectful means, or what it means to be fair, balanced and responsible, the Wikiversity community or the people involved in a learning project decide what is meant through consensus."

If such consensus is wanted after a disagreement, then the consensus step needs to be procedural and well defined. If is not procedural, then any disagreement will cause an open debate as we have witness across the wikis. What can we do to make the means of consensus to be procedural up to its closure? Dzonatas 17:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Community Review model seems to be working rather well... perhaps that's where things should go if there's no clear compromise? --SB_Johnny talk 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Could the word simply be changed from "consensus" to "Community review"? Dzonatas 17:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "community review" should be used only if consensus cannot be established by those working on the project first. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but I imagine that if someone thinks someone else is being "disrespectful", consensus will be difficult and outside opinions will be needed (and preferably sooner rather than later, since things can sometimes escalate with surprising speed). --SB_Johnny talk 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dzonatas, I would put it this way: consensus often appears when the strongest opposition becomes tired and decides to quit the discussion and move on.  Inefficient it may seem, but it is still much better than edit wars, which are cyclic and have no end.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 06:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hillgentleman, that's actually in some ways a failure of consensus, since it means that one side will likely leave the project. In some cases that can be answered by forking, in others there is no solution within the wider Wikiversity community. That should only be the result if one side is completely unwilling to accept the desires of the other, or if the two sides simply have such divergent goals that there is simply no way that they can work together. --SB_Johnny talk 07:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Johnny, We can discuss the notion of consensus at a more considered location. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 08:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I believe building/establishing consensus and compromise applies whenever disagreements arise, whether the disagreement is about policy interpretation or not. I think this is something that should be covered by Consensus. --darklama 19:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that a suggestion to make Community review as part of the policy under Consensus and as procedural step? Dzonatas 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'm suggestion that any concerns you have about the consensus process should be addressed by changing or improving the Consensus policy proposal. I don't think a consensus process is something unique to this policy or something that should be defined by it. Respect people could link to the consensus proposal in order to establish a clearer connection that by consensus the respect people policy proposal means the process defined there. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording some more which I hope helps: "Wikiversity participants may decide to remove information that is unfair, bias or irresponsible or to keep information in order to be respectful. Respect consensus and accept whatever decision the learning project participants or the Wikiversity community makes." --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The concerns I have are not just about consensus itself. I also don't see how those changes actually help. It doesn't belong in Consensus because the content that would be under dispute to respect people falls under this principal, so, by how you responded, I don't think you understood the point and question I brought up. The previous version made the easily-gamed part more obvious, and the newer version only obfuscates that part with ambiguity: "accept whatever decision" by consensus. You noted above that "building/establishing consensus and compromise applies whenever disagreements arise," so we can say, by obvious common sense, that the previous text noted above about disagreements is now only implied in the newer change. I think it should be made procedural and include the suggestion above about community review:
 * "If content is disputed as unfair, biased, or irresponsible, then Wikiversity participants may decide to remove the disputed content or they may decide to change it, respectfully. If the disputed content continues to remain unresolved or if any Wikiversity participant feels there may be an edit war over the disputed content, then it is expected to use the Community review process to resolve the issue." Dzonatas 01:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I must still be misunderstanding what your concerns are than and what your trying to fix. Your suggested wording still sounds like you want the details of how and where to resolve disputes to be included in this policy when I think that the how and where would make more sense in the proposed Consensus policy. I also noted above that the consensus process is not something unique to the respect people proposal. Why get into the details of how and where to resolve disputes here rather than in the proposed Consensus policy? Does every policy really need to restate how and where to resolve disputes explicitly, rather than linking to the proposed Consensus policy? If not, than what makes this proposal so special that it needs to do so? I don't think the proposed consensus policy would need to mention this proposal specifically for its producer to apply to disputes about respecting people, just say "when disputes arise use the Community Review page" in the proposed Consensus policy. If you think the consensus process cannot apply to respect people without mentioning it explicitly, than surely every policy would need to be merged because no policy is an island or completely free from needing to rely on another policy? These questions are why I think I must be misunderstanding you still. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 12:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several questions you just asked. Let's go with the first one. Where you ask "Why get into the details of how and where to resolve disputes here rather than in the proposed Consensus policy" is already answered above where I asked what we can do to make it a procedural step. A suggestion was made about the community review. Then you stated it (disagreements in general) should be covered by Consensus, but you didn't answer my question on how to make it procedural here. That is the key difference. I'm not making the argument to change the words how disagreements in general should be handled beyond the scope of this proposal. Your further questions, however, reflect as if I asked for the implementation to effect matters beyond the scope of this proposal, and I make no such suggestion! I stated specifically where I see the hole in the proposal. You changed the proposal, which maybe a unilateral attempt to patch the hole, but I then stated specifically why the change still doesn't fix it. To further answer your question ("why get into... how and where"), there is a very simple answer; after the suggestion about Community review, I asked if we can replace the word "consensus" with "Community review." I hope you realize you made that unilateral change in the proposal instead of an answer to that question. Let's back up here. Please explain why we can not just link to Community review instead of Consensus. The community review process implies consensus. Perhaps you may deduce your questions to a point where it all may seem superfluous to you, but it is clearer, more helpful in the end, and reflects the consensus being built here. Dzonatas 19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what Darklama is suggesting (and I think it's a good idea), is that people should try to reach consensus first, and if that fails take it to Community Review. His suggestion is to include elements about appealing to Community Review within the Consensus policy, as part of developing Consensus.  To replace "Consensus" with "Community Review" would cut out the entire Consensus policy underscoring the need to attempt to develope consensus first, before taking the issue to Community Review.  I think it's important that people understand the consensus process, and I think it's a very good idea to include it here directly.  I don't particularly care if this article then states that Community Review can be used if no consensus can be reached, or if that is simply stated explicitly in the Consensus policy.  But I do think we need to keep the Consensus policy explicitly referenced here.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I guess when you asked what we can do to make consensus a procedural step here, maybe I didn't understand your question, your answer, the reason why you think consensus should be made a procedural step within this proposal, or what you mean by making consensus a procedural step within this proposal. To answer why not point to community review instead of consensus: because the proposed consensus policy should define the process, the steps, and the how, why, when and where of consensus rather than this policy. I don't think linking to Community Review explains anything about consensus and isn't self explanatory as to why that page is being linked to. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 21:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think it might be easier to point to a page where the community can help create a consensus rather than a policy which tries to define consensus. Consensus building definitely falls into the "learn by doing" category, rather than a "read about it and apply it" kind of thing. --SB_Johnny talk 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Consensus policy should be updated to reflect this idea. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Ironically, we've never had a consensus on the consensus policy (it's a proposal) :-). --SB_Johnny talk 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Actually, maybe keep both in by modifying the sentence:
 * Respect consensus and accept whatever decision the learning project participants or the Wikiversity community makes.

to:
 * Respect consensus and accept whatever decision the learning project participants or the Wikiversity community makes. If you are having trouble reaching consensus with others working on the same topic, consider asking for a Community Review to help reach it.

--SB_Johnny talk 21:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I did acknowledge the point brought up earlier about 'people should try to reach consensus first'. I don't think that acknowledgment was recognized by others. I guess I could made it more explicit if I worded my suggestion like: "If content is disputed as unfair, biased, or irresponsible, then Wikiversity participants may decide to remove the disputed content or they may decide to change it, respectfully by consensus." Note the bold text was added. SB Johnny makes a good point about being able to build consensus rather than just attempt apply it. The policies across the wikis have been heavily unintuitive. Usually people have to run into a problem (and possible get blamed for it) before there is a common understanding if everyone involved in some ways knows each other has equal knowledge of the wiki and its policy. I seen the same problem happen over the years over obviously unintuitive interfaces. SB Johnny made a step in the right direction with the proposed change above, but it doesn't address the concern I have about ambiguity in the words. Here is my next suggestion:


 * "Respect people's attempt to build consensus for what is fair, unbiased, and balanced content. It is recommended to use the community review process to aid in the attempts to build consensus, especially if any dispute arises beyond a trivial change." Dzonatas 22:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

While I admit I still don't think I get what the concern is, I've made some more changes based on recent suggested rewordings: "Wikiversity participants may decide to remove information that is unfair, biased, or irresponsible; conversely, they may decide to include additional information in order to be respectful. If changes are disputed respect and accept whatever consensus decision the learning project participants or the Wikiversity community makes. If after attempting to build consensus yourselves you run into trouble, use community review to help reach a solution." --darklama 00:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the third time I will have mentioned the ambiguity of these words: "accept whatever decision." I also see you didn't comment on my suggestion and went right ahead with another unilateral edit. Is my suggestion to make that more explicit being not respected? You ask people not to make changes while consensus is going on, it would be nice if you followed your own demand, mutually. Dzonatas 03:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My changes are an attempt to respect and reflect on consensus here as best I can. I or anyone else could do a better job of that if what it is you wanted was better understood. So you consider "accept whatever decision" to be ambiguous? How is it still ambiguous? My last attempt changed the wording to "accept whatever consensus decision..." --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 12:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this?: "Wikiversity participants may decide to remove information that is unfair, biased, or irresponsible; conversely, they may decide to include additional information in order to be respectful. If changes are disputed, participants should try to come to a consensus decision either within the bounds of the learning project or among the Wikiversity community as a whole. If after attempting to build consensus yourselves you run into trouble, use community review to help reach a solution." Better? --SB_Johnny talk 08:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Johnny, I would rather have "and" in "unfair, biased, or irresponsible", because it is sometimes subjective to determine what is biased. Contents on wikiversity are not necessarily neutral - that is what makes wikiversity wikiversity.  The problem we have seen in the past month can be traced back to that one side of the conflict had written his point of view in a very one-sided fashion, so much so that the other side had refused to co-operate and decided to remove contents (which, in any case, is often much easier than writing your own account), which escalated to an edit war.  Wikiversity should allow and even encourage responsible accounts of points of views,  as long as they are written to foster dialogues.  --Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 09:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Or just "unfairly biased or irresponsible"? --SB_Johnny talk 09:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Or maybe:

"Wikiversity participants may decide to remove unfairly biased or irresponsible information. They may also decide to include additional information in order to be more respectful. If changes are disputed, you should attempt to come to a consensus decision, or if that fails use community review to help reach a solution. You should respect the decision made or other Wikiversity participants may ask you to improve or adjust your approach. You may also need to adjust your approach when available information changes. If you continue to be disrespectful despite receiving sound advice to revise your practices, you might disqualify yourself from participating any further in Wikiversity activities."


 * --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 13:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I just wonder if "respecting the decision made" is really what we want to say. I imagine things will change over time and evolve. "Decision making is a continuous process". I think HG had the right idea above though: we should discuss consensus in a different policy. I thought we were really just talking about being respectful? --SB_Johnny talk 13:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A general rule of thumb in programming concepts is to use positive terms or phrases. Simply, we change names from NO_XYZ_FEATURE to HAS_XYZ_FEATURE or likewise. It makes discrete logic much simpler for all. The same principle can be applied here, and it is why wrote I it in the positive: "Respect people's attempt to build consensus for what is fair, unbiased, and balanced content." If we take it step further and combine "fair and unbiased" to something more positive, we get the word "impartial." Maybe:


 * "Respect people's attempt to build consensus to determine impartial content. It is recommended to use the community review process to responsibly aid in the attempts to build consensus, especially if any dispute arises beyond a trivial change."


 * The rest of the words suggested by others above can go under Consensus. =) Dzonatas 14:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think everyone is agreed that consensus should be discussed in a different policy. I think there is only confusion over what exactly Dzonatas wants instead. The only reason consensus is even mention at all, was Jade Knight wanting the policy to be more explicit. I suppose I could of tried to urge better that consensus plays a key role in resolving any disputes concerning the meaning of any policy and shouldn't need to be more explicit. I guess there was also some concern that the need to respect consensus should be addressed in this policy, which I was willing to try to address. Is there any agreement as to whether or not respecting consensus should be addressed by this policy? --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To resolve your stated confusion, I made this edit to make sure it is more clear: . Dzonatas 14:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That change didn't help resolve my confusion only added to it. I thought there was a general consensus so far that community review should only be used after attempts to gain consensus has failed, that consensus is only needed when a dispute exists, and maybe even that this should be in a different policy altogether. I asked if there is a need to mention consensus at all in this policy, in hopes of trying to clarify everyone's position. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 15:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel the same about your change, more confusion instead of less (your edit summary). There are many ways to build consensus, and to state it as only when a dispute exists doesn't cover it, and it creates a hole. Easier said as to respect people and their attempts to build consensus than to say only when a dispute happens, and it is more to the point. What you added back was no accident, it can be moved to Consensus, "You may need to adjust your approach when available information changes or when what is considered acceptable changes. If you're disrespectful, other Wikiversity participants may ask you to be respectful and to improve or adjust your approach. If you continue to be disrespectful despite receiving sound advice to revise your practices, you might disqualify yourself from participating in any Wikiversity activities." As you even stated yourself, "I think this is something that should be covered by Consensus." Perhaps, Consensus can link back to respect people on that note. Dzonatas 16:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with DarkLama. That edit made things worse.  To add to the issues:  Wikiversity doesn't require NPOV, so "impartial" may not be an appropriate word to use here.  It's a tricky line to tread, though.  Why not use the word "respectful"?  It doesn't imply NPOV, but covers pretty much the same ground.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've attempted an edit now. Is it any better?    The Jade Knight (d'viser) 19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset) I like [ this version] better, because the ambiguity of "it" is removed and as your edit summery said the tone is a bit more neutral. I think maybe though "for Wikiversity" should be replaced with "for inclusion". --darklama 19:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * @Jade, so you took "impartial" as NPOV somehow, which probably means we should go back to "fair, unbiased, and responsible." Dzonatas 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I updated it. I still think it needs to be said that community review is an aid to build consensus and not stated in a way where this proposal isn't even effective if any conflict or disagreement arise. "If conflict areas..." is a suggestion that can be put on another policy, but it doesn't belong here about respect. Dzonatas 15:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your changes though makes things sound like consensus building is always needed even if there is no conflict or disagreement. You first seem concerned that this proposal won't be effective if any conflict or disagreements arise, but than seem to be going on to state that what is needed to make this proposal effective when conflict or disagreements arise belongs in another policy. So I'm still confused by what you want. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 16:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider: even if there is no conflict or disagreement, respect people's attempt to build consensus. I believe that is more to the point, and it avoids the situation where any form of "IF X THEN DO Y," stated explicitly or implicitly, can be easily gamed. My first statement was based on it being explicitly stated. If it is to stay explicitly or implicitly stated somehow, then make it more procedural, so it can't be gamed. Conflict or disagreement does not have to exist in order to build consensus. Dzonatas 17:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think without some clarity people can also game the system to force discussion to always take place before anyone can make changes, when its not always necessary to engage in discussion and consensus building until after a problem has been voiced. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 17:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is the BE BOLD way of consensus without discussion, so I don't disagree. Dzonatas 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen people play games with that too. Take for instance someone being bold, but what was done was disagreed with. A person instead of starting a discuss to build consensus or find an acceptable compromise, or improving on the changes, claims their action is going against consensus, was done unilaterally, reverts it as requiring consensus first, and defines consensus as requiring 100% agreement by people only they acknowledge as being eligible to participate. Another one is saying that consensus is not the same as being bold. To prevent this sort of game this proposal should refrain from implying "when" consensus is to take place, and to just focus on respecting consensus. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 16:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal is about being respectful to people. Surely, to say 'respect consensus' is out of scope, which is a point mentioned earlier here. Dzonatas 14:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Respecting consensus
Respecting consensus, respects the people who participated in the discussions, so I don't think its out of scope. I think it reflects that Wikiversity participants are not only expected to be respectful to the subject of a learning project, but also to anyone that they interact with on discussion pages. I think saying to use the community review process is more or less outside of scope in the content of using it to build consensus, because the process of using that page has nothing to do with respecting people, and could even be disrespectful when used to attempt to overturn previous consensus, or to bypass having a discussion with the people involved in the learning project. --darklama 15:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Darklama. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is odd now because the words were at times specific to respect the people, so it is very unclear what you want or why you rather have it explicitly say 'respect consensus' rather than 'respect people'. Consensus doesn't respect people by itself and past decisions may have to be changed in order to have a greater respect of people. Through this discussion, I've gone with suggestion from here and reflected them in edits that vary from being more procedural to not being procedural at all. I don't think it was acknowledged about the variant degree of positions I took here, as I seen the same concern made against me for which seemed unrelated to my position. While this proposal sounded good at start, it appears what is wanted is not really known for sure. It look like people aren't on the same page. A learning resource about this principal seems more appropriate than a wikiversity policy page. Actually, I do think it is disrespectful to create policy like this only because of the recent incident. Maybe what is needed is more background on why have this policy, as looking at this page alone doesn't explain any backstory. Can't expect people to possibly 'respect consensus' when they really don't know why it existed other than 'it sounded good' or 'it seems reasonable'. Dzonatas 16:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this edit is less clear and helpful that the previous version. I think Darklama and I are on the same page in thinking that it's critical for people to understand that when consensus is building, they need to respect the consensus which is forming; failure to do so shows a great amount of disrespect to those who were involved in developing consensus, as well as to Wikiversity as a whole.  Even when one is in the middle of developing consensus with others, respecting the consensus which is beginning to form (by not being bold when people have clearly spoken out against certain edits, for example) is an important way of showing respect.  It may be appropriate to have a learning resource on this topic, or on the topic of consensus, but I think a policy is important, as well.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 19:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How is what you just explained so different from being respectful to the attempts to build consensus? Dzonatas 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think people need to understand that the consensus process exists for a reason as a way of being self-governing and as a means of self-repairing so that people can work freely without being bogged down by or having to worry too much about processes and policies. That respecting consensus is in everyone's best interest in keeping themselves and everyone else productive and Wikiversity running smoothly. That respecting consensus does not mean you and other people cannot disagree with consensus, discuss disagreements, or continue to find ways to improve things without having to get involved in discussions all the time. Respecting consensus isn't limited to just attempts to build consensus. Respecting consensus can refer to any previously established consensus, consensus that has been newly established, what consensus currently appears to be leaning towards even if its not clear yet that the discussion is over or consensus has been completely established, respecting what people have so far agreed upon even if there are still things being discussed and worked out, or accepting that further changes might have to be made later if you go ahead and edit anyways while others are in discussion. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 17:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of what you just explained can be addressed in Consensus, as you have already noted yourself. Also, all of what you just explained needs to be more explicitly said then just 'respect consensus.' Dzonatas 18:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"The reputation you save might be your own."
Does this statement serve an essential function in this policy? My sense is that it is unecessary and could be dropped. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 16:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I think so. I think its function is to make the policy more effective by having people pausing to think a little bit about what being respectful means to them, and what impact there decisions might have on their reputation and how people interact with them. Things like that. The function might be a bit subtle, but I think that is what makes the proposal more effective and help it function not only as a policy, but potentially as a learning aid or thought exercise for people. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I more or less agree with Jtneill. Emesee 18:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly mind it, but I don't think it adds anything, either. I wouldn't be opposed to its removal.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 02:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As is stands, there is no previous discussion of "reputation saving" in the text. My sense is that the statement distracts from the goal of the policy as about "respect" (rather "reputation saving" which is not perhaps the "highest motivation" for respecting others that we might encourage). Perhaps instead, we could try some other approaches - e.g., I think the proposed "pause" could, for example, work better at the end, once someone has read the policy through. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it has to do with divulging or disclosing information about people. If you were to do so without verifying it for instance, that could effect their reputation which wouldn't be respectful to them, or your own reputation. The pause is intended to be right after that paragraph. I think it could imply that doing so without being sure could effect their reputation just as much as your own. Causing a pause there is intentional. Its not intended to be the highest motivation, just cause people to think a bit about how doing so could effect themselves as well as the person their writing about. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 12:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards removing the "reputation saving" bit right now. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I've requested at Colloquium that the community review and comment on the current version. What is your overall impression of this proposed policy? --mikeu talk 15:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jade Knight has reverted changes over 'respect consensus.' In one of the changes he makes the comment, "I didn't say "consensus", but you are the only one objecting to its inclusion, and at least 2 individuals think it should be included. Is there such a strong need to exclude it?" From that, Jade appears to want this to be a non-inclusive and non-cooperative consensus, which means an enumerated vote (i.e. "2-1") makes right despite sound reason. Others have expressed concerns that they thought this is about being respectful of people rather than being respectful of consensus, so when he says "only one objecting" it appears he hasn't acknowledged others previous input. When asked to explain what 'respect consensus' means and how is it different from 'being respectful of people's attempt to build consensus' then both Jade and darklama have given details of what they meant, and these details about consensus would better fit on the Consensus page rather than something about being respectful of people. I also feel excluded and not respected for my input here since it kept being reverted. The words 'respect consensus' being added without solid definition in the same policy is being irresponsible, and I would go as far as to rate that as common sense. A google of "respect consensus" doesn't turn up a definition, out of only 600 hits, so it is can obviously stated as a non-obvious phrase. It is too early to make this into a policy and a learning resource is a better start. Dzonatas
 * Your argument that I'm interested in a "non-inclusive and non-cooperative consensus" may more appropriately be turned upon your own head; you are interested in the policy maintaining a position held by only one of three people, to the opposition of the other two. It appears that your decision to remove the edit supported by Darklama and I shows that you "haven't acknowledged others previous input."  While a definition of what "respect consensus" means certainly belongs at Consensus, we believe that a statement saying that one should respect consensus needs to belong in this policy.  I am sorry that you feel excluded, but your decision to unilaterally remove material which has more support than opposition seems to bely any effort to develop consensus before making controversial changes.  I will gladly discuss the matter further with you, though it appears that you are not on the same page as Darklama and I.  You may note that I have requested at the CQM that the community chime in with what they feel should be done about this particular phrase; if there is, in fact, community consensus that it should be excluded, I will respect consensus.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for the record, very few phrases are given definitions, and then generally only when they are idiomatic. I think you'll find a definition of respect here, and a definition of consensus here.  In particular, you want definition 3 of respect, and definition 1 of consensus—"respect consensus" is quite literal; if it required a set idiomatic definition of the entire phrase, it would have been less obvious.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you are saying it was unilateral. Once the consensus to approve the proposal started, I didn't edit it. I notce Darklama did, and I pointed it out as a unilateral edit. He then replied to edit it. It was obvious that the approval would need to be redone at that point. I did acknowledge people's suggestions, and I made changes based on them. Yes, I also have my own input. I acknowledge you wanted consensus explicitly stated, and I left the word in to try to come to something we all can agree with together. I didn't completely erase it. I don't agree with just the words 'respect consensus' like that. It is not a sound phrase that will work well for this policy. It seems you want 'respect people' to actually mean 'respect consensus'. Somehow you think that is OK because you are saying that I'm out numbered. I believe that is a good example of consensus without respect. On the phrase, no a dictionary definition is not what was meant. I looked for anything that would have held some kind of study on how people can respect consensus. Out of about 1000 hits, I found Wikipedia and Wikiversity amounted to 400 of them. It was obvious that 'respect consensus' is a term coined by Wikipedia. I also believe it would be good to build policy based on sound reason. There is nothing that can be cited about 'respect consensus'. I found reports with the phrase 'consensus with respect', but they don't seem to express the same ideas as you. Darklama said "Personally I believe building/establishing consensus and compromise applies whenever disagreements arise, whether the disagreement is about policy interpretation or not. I think this is something that should be covered by Consensus." That just seems quite odd how you then kept reverting 'respect consensus' back into this policy. The phrase 'respect consensus' doesn't say enough, and in order for it to say enough in this proposal it better suited in Consensus. What you have done is taken a much more random position, and even directly reverted the changes to put 'respect consensus' back in without any further suggestion or compromise type of language. It was obvious if I make another change that you will just edit war. I didn't change it yesterday because I agree with your revert. I didn't change it because I knew you would edit war as you started to have done. Now, if you look at HG and SB Johnny's comments in the discussion above, they also express that we should discuss consensus in another policy. Dzonatas 20:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you consider to move your change to the consensus proposal, like . Dzonatas 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps your still a bit confused by what we mean maybe. I'm not saying that this proposal is about or should only be about respecting consensus, and I don't think Jade Knight is either. What I'm saying (and I think Jade Knight is saying too) is that "respect consensus" belongs in this proposal because consensus involves people and people should be respected, and this proposal is all about how people should be respected.
 * I think what "respect consensus" means (and I think Jade Knight agrees with) can be understood by reading and understanding this proposal and the consensus policy. What being respectful means is defined by this proposal and what consensus means is defined by the consensus policy. So the "respect" and the "consensus" parts of "respect consensus" are covered by two separate policies, and there isn't a need for any further clarification of what "respect consensus" means in this proposal as far being respectful is concerned. I think we might all agree that what consensus means and entitles may need to be clarified and that those clarifications belong in the Consensus policy. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 21:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Darklama is correct. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Further clarification is very helpful. I didn't see any comment made about the change to Consensus, or why it is better here than there. To put 'respect consensus' here doesn't make it clear since the principal to this proposal is to respect people. I think if you want this proposal to say 'respect consensus', which I certainly don't agree with to stand on by itself, then Darklama would answer my first question on how we make it more procedural. You didn't Darklama, instead, you answered with what belonged in Consensus. The phrase respect consensus is obviously very questionable. What happened when there is disagreements? How does one respect consensus? What do you do if one doesn't respect consensus? Where do you draw the line? These questions are bettered answered in the principal of consensus. If you think I'm confused, obviously you think others will be, too. Dzonatas 23:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset) I did try to explain why its better for "respect consensus" to be here than there. I'll quote it for you again: ""respect consensus" belongs in this proposal because consensus involves people and people should be respected, and this proposal is all about how people should be respected. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">darklama 21:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)"

For further clarification the respect part of "respect consensus" is procedural in this proposal because if someone disrespect people they might no longer be welcome by the community to participate at Wikiversity, which is what it more or less already says. So what happens if someone doesn't respect consensus? They might no longer be welcome at Wikiversity. Where the line is drawn on what qualifies as consensus is determined by the consensus policy, so determining if consensus is not being respected is determined by the consensus policy as well. This proposal only needs to draw a connection between consensus and respecting people because consensus involves people. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">darklama 00:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus means that everyone agrees and no one disagrees. Consensus is reached when all objections have been dealt with through compromise and creative problem solving to craft mutually agreeable common ground.  Moulton 00:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, consensus in wikimedia projects means there is a broad agreement and consensus is reached when people feel all reasonable objections have been adequately addressed, which isn't the same as everyone agreeing and isn't necessarily the same as having had all objections dealt with. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 00:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Historically, there was broad agreement (among males) that females did not deserve the right to vote or hold office. Historically, there was broad agreement (among whites) that blacks did not deserve the right to vote or hold office.  This is 2008.  Thoughtful humans have evolved to the point where there is broad consensus for the concept of civil rights, human rights, children's rights, and scholars rights.  Unanimity minus one against one is not consensus.  Unanimity minus one against one is the fundamental mathematics of an abhorrent and anachronistic cultural practice known as alienation and scapegoating.  It is crucial that Wikiversity not fall into the popular mistake that has long plagued humankind, because that mistake is corrosive of any forward-looking culture that strives to achieve academic excellence.  —Moulton  00:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If everyone was required to agree, blacks would still be slaves, women would still be required to be housewives, children would have no rights, and there would be no human or civil rights, since not everyone is civil or agrees on what is right. The lack of requiring everyone to agree is what allows progress to be made. Requiring complete agreement is such a high standard that no progress could ever be made, since not everyone has and every will be able to agree to the same standards. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 01:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I cannot think of a single issue where everyone in the world agrees; not a single one, even when it comes to things so simple as whether or not humanity should exist, or whether human life is valuable, or whether a tomato is a fruit, or whether Napoleon is dead. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support 354815, this deals with consensus properly. Geo.plrd 02:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Dzonatas): If you find simply the phrase "respect consensus" problematic, instead of the principle behind it, I would support rephrasing it to "abide by consensus", which, IMO, means almost the same thing (not quite as good, IMO, but along the right lines). The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * @Jade, neither the phrase 'abide by consensus' nor 'respect consensus' alone will guarantee that people will be respected. @Darklama, you quoted what you said even after I directly quoted from the same sentence immediately before you repeated it to me. Hmmm. If you truly believe that there only needs to be some connection between being respectful and the process of consensus, then you would be more open to other phrases besides 'respect consensus'. You don't even seem open to the words I quoted from you to help explain it more. Dzonatas 15:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What point are you trying to make by saying that those phrases alone won't guarantee that people will be respected? No policy is guaranteed to be followed by everyone. I am open to other phrases that makes the connection and makes it clear that part of respecting people must be respecting consensus and even trying to explain why briefly in the context of respecting people, as both Jade Knight and I attempted to do. You removed abide by consensus which had an explanation and was even in the context of respecting people. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 15:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be in the context of 'respect people', but it stood as a condition rather than an explanation. The condition itself was not explicitly explained except as noted above that it was thought to need no further clarification beyond the phrase alone, which I don't think is fair to say since it surely could be explained more as demonstrated. An example of a fundamental problem here: a consensus exists, but the consensus itself is found not to respect people. Further example of trouble made by such fundamental problem: people get blocked because, and some of those were accused they didn't respect consensus and others were accused they didn't respect people. Impossibility found: people tried to respect people and respect consensus, but since the consensus didn't respect people they couldn't do both. It's a flaw to have such condition in policy. A flaw better known as a catch-22. Dzonatas 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what issues could exist with being respectful and respecting consensus. There could maybe sometimes be a conflict between respecting consensus and someone who feels disrespected or feels someone else isn't being respected by the consensus decision. So with that in mind I've added "Respect consensus even if you feel disrespected or feel abiding by consensus would be disrespectful towards other people." --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite what looks like attempts to thread the needle to get that specific phrase in there over and over, it still is flawed even in the words you just suggested. You have gone from a descriptive policy to a prescriptive policy, and one that even prescribes disrespect to people, which can be quite disruptive. I'm surely not going to support that. Dzonatas 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What you are saying, Dzonatas, is that you feel people should sometimes disrespect consensus, correct? (You:  "An example of a fundamental problem here: a consensus exists, but the consensus itself is found not to respect people").  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I made an edit to help people with such question. Dzonatas 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset) If your satisfied with that edit Dzonatas than we might be finally be getting somewhere. What should people do if they still feel disrespected or feel people are being disrespected after having taken it to Community Review? Without some more additions people could just game the system in an attempt to delay or prevent consensus by repeatedly bring it up for review again and again, which wouldn't be respectful of the community either. In other words when does disrespecting consensus become no longer acceptable? --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">darklama 22:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Those kind of questions are why it is to better separate the principles instead of have everything under one principal. Too much creep. It is obvious this needs to be refactored to apply at any level. Dzonatas 00:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer his question. How can this policy clearly communicate to others when they should follow consensus and when they should disregard it?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 05:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In regards to that kind of question, maybe you now realize why I originally asked "What can we do to make the means of consensus to be procedural up to its closure?" Dzonatas 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so much interested in communicating to others when they should follow consensus in this policy (because that belongs in the consensus policy), as I am in communicating that people must be respectful of consensus decisions while being clear so as to not be confused with following or agreeing with consensus. People can respectfully disagree with consensus and should be able to find ways to work within or around consensus, without being disrespectful of people. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 18:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, indeed. "Respect consensus" could thus be included, with the explanation that, if consensus is disrespectful, this does not mean one must "abide by consensus", but be respectful of it and try to find non-disruptive ways of improving the project which are still respectful.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the tricky part is I don't think it should say anything that could be misconstrued as saying its ok to ignore consensus if its disrespectful either. So maybe it would be better to say something like: "When you disagree with or feel disrespected by consensus, or feel consensus disrespects other people find constructive ways to improve the project that allows you to still be respectful towards people who you disagree with and the person or people you feel are being disrespected." --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, and good suggestion, though it would be nice if it would include something about being respectful to those who have developed consensus explicitly. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset) This 'respect consensus' phrase can be easily gamed just by sudden creation of many, random consensus. Dzonatas 00:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What would be an example of a "sudden, random consensus"? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 00:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One example would be a if somebody claims a discussion that took place on some random talk page as a consensus. Dzonatas 00:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "some random talk page": You mean, a talk page totally unrelated to the page at hand?  Someone can say anything they like, but if most people disagree with that individual, then there's clearly not consensus, and anyone claiming consensus when they're in the minority will look somewhat foolish.  Is this the sort of thing you're worried about?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 00:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, it is best to not make them look foolish. as the one person might be the only one right. Getting back to "some random talk page," you ask people to respect consensus. That could imply you mean just any consensus that comes up anywhere. Someone could tuck away a consensus on their own talk page, but we can't expect everybody to respect it, especially if they weren't involved or couldn't even possibly have known about it before. To even suggest someone is disruptive if the ignore such a random consensus is like a cookie cutter approach to totalitarianism. Dzonatas 01:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Golden Rule"
I dislike the inclusion of this phrase: "Treat other people as you expect to be treated, even if other participants don't treat you as you would like." Frankly, I think including this would be a can of worms, as a user with an agenda could easily say "Well, this is how I want to be treated", or conditionalize things with moral or veracity judgments. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you think about "Be respectful even if other participants don't show you the same level of respect" or "Be respectful even if other participants aren't"? That is what I was trying to say before Moulton made some changes and I tried to adjust the wording based on those changes. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 06:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm fine with either of those. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording in [ revision 354990] to reflect this. I also made some others changes, as can be seen, because I think the development of Wikiversity was too specific and did not also consider that for example policies are also developed through consensus and so equally applies to policies as it does to projects. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 13:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Balance
Do we really need this in here? I mean what about cases where someone really needs a good chewing out? Geo.plrd 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What changes do you propose? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 03:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be respectful even if you feel someone needs a good chewing out. Responding to disrespect with disrespect doesn't solve anything and could even make things worse. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 03:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that there may active users who don't understand the problem with the question starting this section. Who decides when someone "needs a good chewing out"? God? Some super-admin who has perfect knowledge of the needs of everyone? Or is the truth more that the person thinking this is projecting their own needs onto the other person? I.e., the truth here is likely to be that the one who imagines someone else needs a serious reprimand, and who might say it this way, is angry, and "needs" to chew the other person out.


 * And so "chewing out" the other editor comes from a position that allows personal discharge of anger, quite possibly concealed underneath an arrogant presumption of superior knowledge ("I know better than you what you need") and a lack of concern for likely negative impacts. How often does someone respond well to this "chewing out"?


 * Sometimes it can work, but there are special preconditions normally required. The first is that one actually knows the "offender" well, actually does know not only what that person needs, but what they might be able to hear. And the second is that sufficient rapport is established, so that the offender doesn't simply blow it off as a comment from an enemy or someone who "just doesn't understand." And the third is that there is no hidden agenda, because such will often be sensed and will torpedo the effort. If there is an agenda, the "correction" might still be received if the agenda is disclosed.


 * More likely, the desire to "chew out" is coming from personal anger. That anger might be on behalf of others who are being harmed, or from attachment to some overall social goals that are expected to be respected, or, more seriously, from interference with one's own personal goals.


 * Civility policies in general are designed to encourage users to interact constructively, in ways that function to improve overall community activity. "Chewing out," if it is to be done at all, should be reserved for private communication, where it can be more effective under the right conditions. Public reprimands can be shaming, and sometimes children have been manipulated this way by parents, teachers, and peers, but it can do major damage, and, to avert some of this, many develop defenses against shame, and become angry with anyone who tries to shame them, especially when it's public. Darklama pointed to this, that the "chewing out" can just make things worse, as the target then responds with whatever the target can find or invent, and it can spin out as others rush to defend their friend. On both sides.


 * So, as a community, we need, I'd say, to nip this in the bud. I'm in favor of short blocks, non-punitive, for incivility. If I had the consent of the community as an administrator, I'd probably block far more often than is actually done, generally, but I'd ban far less. A short block is just an enforced "Stop!" And I'd unblock immediately if the editor simply agrees to stop. Almost all people will perform on such agreements, and if we have someone who doesn't keep even short-term agreements, we have a serious problem and possibly a candidate for a ban.


 * It is not our job to punish, but it is our collective job to protect each other and to protect our common projects. I'd call a short-block an "injunction," and, as an administrator, I'd consider simply warning a user that, in lieu of blocking, I'm demanding that the user cease some specific behavior, cease interacting with some specific user or on some page, or the like, for the period which I'd otherwise block for, reserving the right to block if the user doesn't agree to comply. Always we should attempt to secure voluntary cooperation. If the editor came back with, "But he ...," I'd seriously consider warning the other editor, too. We should all be willing, at all times, to sit down, to stop arguing and revert-warring, if that's involved, and seek consensus, including seeking advice from a larger community when we can't resolve a dispute ourselves. We should, indeed, we must, respect people, including "offenders." Being firm with community boundaries is not disrespect, and almost all of us cross boundaries sometimes, we get angry, we act hastily, we lose perspective, and we can help each other -- truly -- by reminding each other and protecting our interactions from degenerating into battles over disagreements that might be resolved through civil discussion.

Sometimes, I think, we should encourage or arrange facilitated direct discussion, even with voice links or, even, better, when possible, personal meetings. High-bandwidth. --Abd 00:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)