Misplaced Pages:Consensus: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:20, 8 April 2008 view sourceNewbyguesses (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,860 edits Don't think too hard← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:01, 19 January 2025 view source CommunityNotesContributor (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers11,288 edits →Consensus-building: add WP:CONBUILD shortcut
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Misplaced Pages policy}}
	{{policy\|WP:CON\|WP:CONS}}
			{{pp-move-indef}}
	{{nutshell\|Consensus is Misplaced Pages's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.
			{{pp-protected\|small=yes}}
	\|Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it.}}
	{{~~dablink~~\|"WP:CON~~" redirects here; you may be looking for ]~~ or ].}}		{{Redirect-distinguish\|WP:CON\|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest\|\|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Academic consensus\|Help:Edit conflict\|Misplaced Pages:WikiCon}}
			{{Policy\|WP:CON}}
	]
			{{Nutshell\|This policy describes how consensus is understood on Misplaced Pages, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not), and describes exceptions to the principle that all decisions are made by consensus.}}
			{{Conduct policy list}}

			'''Consensus''' is Misplaced Pages's fundamental method of decision making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Misplaced Pages's ]. It is accepted as the best method to achieve the ]{{emdash}}Misplaced Pages's goals. ] on Misplaced Pages does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a ].
	Consensus is an inherent part of the ] process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected.

			==Achieving consensus==
	Whether the change or addition to the page is reverted, or modified or not, any refinements or objections can be discussed on the discussion page. When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning and cooperation. ] on ] takes place in an attempt to develop and maintain a ]. In cases where consensus is hard to find, the ] provide several other ways agreed by the community, to involve independent editors and more experienced help in the discussion, and to address the problems which prevent a consensus from arising.
			{{Shortcut\|WP:CONACHIEVE}}

			Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated ] continues the process toward consensus.
	== Reasonable consensus-building ==

			A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.
	Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see ]).

			{{Anchor\|E\|Reaching consensus through editing}}
	It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Misplaced Pages's consensus practice. (Note that in the rare case that the "eccentric" position turns out to have merit, the consensus can change.)
			===Through editing===
			{{Shortcut\|WP:EDITCON\|WP:EDITCONSENSUS\|WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS}}
			{{redirect-distinguish\|WP:EDITCON\|Help:Edit conflict}}
			{{further\|Misplaced Pages:Editing policy\|Misplaced Pages:Be bold}}

			] of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or ] it. ''Seek a compromise'' means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.]]
	Even if an editor's contributions appear to be biased, keep in mind that their edits may have been made in good faith, out of a genuine desire to improve the article. Editors ''must'', in almost all situations, ] and must always remain ]. The assumption of good faith is, of course, a mutual obligation between editors.

			Misplaced Pages consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has ] until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the ].
	== Consensus can change ==
	{{policy shortcut\|]}}

			All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear ], or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues must be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when ] another editor's ] work.
	Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. Past decisions are open to challenge and should not be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back.

			Except in cases affected by content ], most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns. If you can't, or if you do and your second edit is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute.
	Misplaced Pages's processes remain flexible for several reasons including:
	*new people bring fresh ideas,
	*as we grow we evolve new needs, and
	*sometimes we find a better way to do things.

			], but not rash. Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through ] and ], not combat and capitulation. Repeated reversions are contrary to Misplaced Pages policy under ], except for specific policy-based material (such as ] exceptions) and reversions of ]. This is true even if editors are using edit summaries to "discuss" the dispute every time they revert.
	Sometimes a representative group makes a decision on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. More often, people document (changes to) existing procedures at some arbitrary point in time after the fact.

			{{Anchor\|Through discussion-Gradually improving\|reason=Unknown; maybe old section name?}}
	However, if one person or a limited group of people can reasonably demonstrate a change in consensus, then it is reasonable to effect the change at a process page. Boldness is encouraged, but good judgment should be used. Remember that we try to document actual practice, not prescribe rule-sets.

			===Through discussion===
	<span id="Asking the other parent"/>
			{{Shortcut\|WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS}}
			{{further\|Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle}}
			When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated ] and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using {{em\|reasons}} based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group. Consensus is an ongoing process on Misplaced Pages; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately.

			When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (], ], ]), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (], ]). Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively. They may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process (such as ], ], or a lack of ]). They may also make decisions about whether edits are or are not allowable under policy, but will not usually go beyond such actions.
	== "Asking the other parent" ==
	{{policy shortcut\|]}}
	It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Misplaced Pages works. Misplaced Pages's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the current consensus — so in the new discussion section, provide a summary and links to any previous discussions about the issue on the articles talk page, or talk page archives, to help editors new to the issue read the reasons behind the consensus so that they can make an informed decision about changing the consensus.

			===Consensus-building===
	A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one. In this situation you may find that any changes you make to the article are quickly reverted by people outside the new talk page discussion. Do not be tempted to ] but instead post comments on the talk page encouraging others to participate in the new discussion.
			{{Shortcut\|WP:CONBUILD}}
			{{see\|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution}}

			Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above. They may still occasionally find themselves at an impasse, either because they cannot find rational grounds to settle a dispute or because one or both sides of the discussion become emotionally or ideologically invested in {{em\|winning}} an argument. What follows are suggestions for resolving intractable disputes, along with descriptions of several formal and informal processes that may help.
	==Consensus in practice==
	{{policy shortcut\|]}}
	Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the , argues a difference between consensus and unanimity:
	<blockquote>
	''In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it''.
	</blockquote>

			{{Anchor\|talk\|Talk\|TALK}}
	In practice, a lot of people look in on an issue and check to see if a (mere) majority exists in favor of their position. However, to find the actual consensus (or what it will end up as), you actually need to carefully consider the ''strength and quality of the arguments themselves'' (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree, and in more complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace should also be checked. If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable.
			====In talk pages====
			{{Shortcut\|WP:TALKDONTREVERT}}
			{{See also\|Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines}}
			In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

			Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who ] discussions, may be guilty of ] and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated.
	] opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical. In situations with a deadline, a perfect compromise may not have been reached by all participants at the deadline. Nevertheless, a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority). Running roughshod over the (then) minority is the best way to get yourself into almost unlimited amounts of trouble. Besides, next time someone from that minority might be the final closer, and you might be one of the people in a minority, so it's a good idea to be a gentleperson at all times and set a good example.

			The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Misplaced Pages's goals and policies while angering as few editors as possible. Editors with ] and ] are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others.
	] who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that a poll (if one is even held) is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one! The final course of action is usually decided upon ''during discussion''. This is another reason you should always provide a further rationale during a poll. People can then engage you in discussion and work out an acceptable compromise. This can be very empowering. Provided you do your homework right, at times your opinion alone will be enough to tip the scales, or even decide the issue all on its own!

			====By soliciting outside opinions====
	==Note on use of discussion page==
			When talk page discussions fail—generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue—Misplaced Pages has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because editors uninvolved in the discussion can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. The main resources for this are as follows:
	While the consensus process does not ''require'' posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged. It is also a good idea to check the discussion page before making an edit, because someone may have thought of it before, or discussed something that sheds more light on the subject. Otherwise "]"; ultimately, improving articles is what Misplaced Pages is all about.

			;] (3O): A neutral third party will give non-binding advice on the dispute. Reserved for cases where exactly two editors are in dispute.
	Edit summaries are short and can be misinterpreted. Among other things, the discussion page is a lot more spacious than the edit-summary field, if used correctly, that space can go a long way towards attracting consensus for your edit.
			;]: Most policy and guideline pages, and many ], have noticeboards for interested editors. Posting a neutrally worded notice of the dispute on applicable noticeboards (or in some cases only their talk pages) will make the dispute more visible to other editors who may have worthwhile opinions.
			;] (DRN): For disputes involving more than two parties, moderators help the parties come to consensus by suggesting analysis, critiques, compromises, or mediation, but generally limited to simple disputes which can quickly be resolved.
			;] (RfC): Placement of a formal neutrally worded notice on the article talk page inviting others to participate which is ] onto RfC noticeboards.
			;]: Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional editors who may help.
			Many of these discussions will involve ] of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than ]. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.

			====Administrative or community intervention====
	Sometimes misunderstandings occur because people see the edit before any rationale is posted on the talk page. If you post a comment immediately ''before'' editing, there's no gap, which can be handy if you're typing a particularly long edit summary. Other people might not have picked up on this practice though, so be sure to wait a little while to see if they might still have been typing something at the talk page.
			{{Shortcut\|WP:CONADMIN}}

			In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole. Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as ]) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process. Sometimes merely asking for an administrator's attention on a talk page will suffice; as a rule, sysops have large numbers of pages watchlisted, and there is a likelihood that someone will see it and respond. However, there are established resources for working with intransigent editors, as follows:
	== Documentation ==

			; Noticeboards
	If we find that a particular consensus happens we often document it as a ], to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over. If you notice that a particular policy or guideline page is not in line with current consensus, feel free to update it. If you notice that certain things haven't been written down yet, create a new page in the wikipedia: namespace and write it down.
			: As noted previously, policy pages generally have noticeboards, and many administrators watch them.
			; ] and general ]
			: These are noticeboards for administrators. They are high-volume noticeboards and should be used sparingly. Use AN for issues that need eyes but may not need immediate action; use ANI for more pressing issues. Do not use either except at need.
			; ]
			: The final step for intractable disputes. The ] (ArbCom) may rule on almost any behavioral or policy-interpretation aspect of a dispute, and has broad powers in its decisions. ArbCom does not settle ] or change policy.

			====Pitfalls and errors====
	Documentation is important so that we can learn from history, and the mistakes and smart things others have done.
			The following are common mistakes made by editors when trying to build consensus:
			* '''Off-wiki discussions.''' Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing. Discussions elsewhere are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust.
			* '''], ], and ].''' Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is ]—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is ] to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. Using an alternative persona ("sock puppet", or "sock") to influence consensus is absolutely forbidden. Neutral, informative messages to Misplaced Pages ], ], or editors are permitted; but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus-building process are considered disruptive.
			* '''].''' The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should ], respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who ] indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.
			* {{Shortcut\|WP:FORUMSHOP}}{{Anchor\|Forum shopping\|Forumshopping\|Forum-shopping\|FORUMSHOP\|ADMINSHOP\|OTHERPARENT}} '''Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring.''' Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you {{em\|want}}. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.

			==Determining consensus==
	==Exceptions==
	{{~~policy shortcut~~\|]}}		{{Shortcut\|WP:DETCON}}
			{{redirect-distinguish\|WP:DCON\|Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Determining consensus}}
	There are a few exceptions that supersede consensus decisions on a page.
			{{see also\|Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions}}
			Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy.

			{{Anchor\|Level of consensus}}
	*Declarations from ], ], or ], particularly for server load or legal issues (], ], and ]) have policy status (see ]).
			===Levels of consensus===
	*] on a specific article (such as stubbing or protecting it) are outside the policies of the English Misplaced Pages.
			{{Shortcut\|WP:CONLEVEL\|WP:LOCALCONSENSUS}}
	*Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The project cannot decide that for "their" articles, said policy does not apply.
			{{see also2\|The ]{{'s}} ]}}
	*] lay out the basic principles for all Wikimedia projects. These represent the largest consensus decisions achievable among all Wikimedia projects. These consensuses are fundamental and affect all other Wikimedia and Misplaced Pages agreements. This means they evolve very slowly.
			Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a ] cannot decide that some generally accepted ] does not apply to articles within its scope.

			], ], ], and ] have not gone through the ] and may or may not represent a broad community consensus.
	== See also ==
	;Articles
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

			Misplaced Pages has a standard of participation and consensus for changes to ]. Their stability and consistency are important to the community. Accordingly, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. ] changes are permitted but rarely welcome on policy pages. Improvements to policy are best made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.
	;Project pages
	* ]
	* ]

			{{Anchor\|No consensus}}
	;Essays
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

			=== No consensus after discussion ===
			{{Split section to\|Misplaced Pages:Editing policy\|discuss=Wikipedia_talk:Editing_policy#Move_NOCON_to_this_page?\|date=January 2025}}
			{{Shortcut\|WP:NOCON\|WP:NOCONSENSUS}}
			:''For an essay recommending a best practice during discussion of contested material, see ].''
			<!--
			This section summarizes existing policies and guidelines. It does not make any new rules. If this page and the more specific policy or guideline disagree, then this one should be changed to conform with the more specific page.
			-->

			What happens when a ] concludes with no agreement to take or not take an action? It depends on the context:
	{{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}}

			* When discussions of '''proposals to ] articles, media, or other pages''' end without consensus, the normal result is the content being kept.
	]
			** However, in ], no consensus closes may ].
			** Similarly, in ], if there is ''significant doubt'' raised about the copyright status of a file, the closing administrator may choose to delete the file under the ].
			* When discussions of '''proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles''' end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However:
			** ''Living people.'' In discussions related to ], a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.
			** ''Copyright violation.'' When the material in question is a suspected ], it must be removed immediately and not restored when a discussion ends without consensus.
			** ''External links.'' In disputes over ], disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
			* When '''article title''' discussions end without consensus, the ] preserves the most recent stable title. If there is no prior stable title, then the default is the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a ].

			==Consensus can change==
	]
			{{Shortcut\|WP:CCC\|WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE}}
	]

	]
			Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive.
	]

	]
			Editors may propose a consensus change by ] or ]. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to {{em\|also}} include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed).
	]

	]
			==Decisions not subject to consensus of editors==
	]
			{{Shortcut\|WP:CONEXCEPT}}
	]
			Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), its officers, and the ] of Misplaced Pages are outside the purview of editor consensus. This does not constitute an exhaustive list as much as a reminder that the decisions taken under this project apply only to the workings of the self-governing community of English Misplaced Pages.
	]

	]
			* The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Misplaced Pages. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates ] may be communicated to the WMF in writing.
	]
			* ] are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit office permission.
	]
			* The English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its ], that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, ], for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time.
	]
			* Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Misplaced Pages (<samp>en.wikipedia.org</samp>) are in a separate domain. In particular, the community of ] software developers, including both paid Wikimedia Foundation staff and volunteers, and ], are largely separate entities. These independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as adding, removing, or changing software features {{crossref\|(see ])}}, or accepting or rejecting some contributions, even if their actions are not endorsed by editors here.
	]

	]
			==See also==
	]
	]		{{Misplaced Pages glossary}}
			For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the ].
	]

	]
			'''] and ] concerning consensus:'''
	]
			* {{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Essay directory\|Discussions and consensus}}
	]
			*]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			'''Articles concerning consensus:'''
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			{{Misplaced Pages principles}}
			{{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}}
			{{Misplaced Pages accounts\|state=collapsed}}
			]
			]

Latest revision as of 13:01, 19 January 2025

Misplaced Pages policy

"WP:CON" redirects here. Not to be confused with Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources § Academic consensus, Help:Edit conflict, or Misplaced Pages:WikiCon.

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcut

WP:CON

This page in a nutshell: This policy describes how consensus is understood on Misplaced Pages, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not), and describes exceptions to the principle that all decisions are made by consensus.

Conduct policies
Block evasion Civility Clean start Consensus Dispute resolution Edit warring Editing policy Harassment No personal attacks Ownership of content Sockpuppetry Username policy Vandalism
v t e

Consensus is Misplaced Pages's fundamental method of decision making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. It is accepted as the best method to achieve the Five Pillars—Misplaced Pages's goals. Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote.

Achieving consensus

Shortcut

WP:CONACHIEVE

Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.

A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.

Through editing

Shortcuts

"WP:EDITCON" redirects here. Not to be confused with Help:Edit conflict. Further information: Misplaced Pages:Editing policy and Misplaced Pages:Be bold

Misplaced Pages consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time.

All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues must be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work.

Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns. If you can't, or if you do and your second edit is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute.

Be bold, but not rash. Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not combat and capitulation. Repeated reversions are contrary to Misplaced Pages policy under edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as BLP exceptions) and reversions of vandalism. This is true even if editors are using edit summaries to "discuss" the dispute every time they revert.

Through discussion

Shortcut

WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS

Further information: Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group. Consensus is an ongoing process on Misplaced Pages; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately.

When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, arbitration). Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively. They may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process (such as edit-warring, abuse of multiple accounts, or a lack of civility). They may also make decisions about whether edits are or are not allowable under policy, but will not usually go beyond such actions.

Consensus-building

Shortcut

WP:CONBUILD

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution

Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above. They may still occasionally find themselves at an impasse, either because they cannot find rational grounds to settle a dispute or because one or both sides of the discussion become emotionally or ideologically invested in winning an argument. What follows are suggestions for resolving intractable disputes, along with descriptions of several formal and informal processes that may help.

In talk pages

Shortcut

WP:TALKDONTREVERT

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated.

The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Misplaced Pages's goals and policies while angering as few editors as possible. Editors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others.

By soliciting outside opinions

When talk page discussions fail—generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue—Misplaced Pages has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because editors uninvolved in the discussion can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. The main resources for this are as follows:

Third opinion (3O): A neutral third party will give non-binding advice on the dispute. Reserved for cases where exactly two editors are in dispute.
Noticeboards: Most policy and guideline pages, and many wikiprojects, have noticeboards for interested editors. Posting a neutrally worded notice of the dispute on applicable noticeboards (or in some cases only their talk pages) will make the dispute more visible to other editors who may have worthwhile opinions.
Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN): For disputes involving more than two parties, moderators help the parties come to consensus by suggesting analysis, critiques, compromises, or mediation, but generally limited to simple disputes which can quickly be resolved.
Requests for comment (RfC): Placement of a formal neutrally worded notice on the article talk page inviting others to participate which is transcluded onto RfC noticeboards.
Village pump: Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional editors who may help.

Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.

Administrative or community intervention

Shortcut

WP:CONADMIN

In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole. Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:Biographies of living persons) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process. Sometimes merely asking for an administrator's attention on a talk page will suffice; as a rule, sysops have large numbers of pages watchlisted, and there is a likelihood that someone will see it and respond. However, there are established resources for working with intransigent editors, as follows:

Noticeboards: As noted previously, policy pages generally have noticeboards, and many administrators watch them.
Administrators' noticeboard of incidents and general Administrators' noticeboard: These are noticeboards for administrators. They are high-volume noticeboards and should be used sparingly. Use AN for issues that need eyes but may not need immediate action; use ANI for more pressing issues. Do not use either except at need.
Requests for arbitration: The final step for intractable disputes. The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) may rule on almost any behavioral or policy-interpretation aspect of a dispute, and has broad powers in its decisions. ArbCom does not settle content disputes or change policy.

Pitfalls and errors

The following are common mistakes made by editors when trying to build consensus:

Off-wiki discussions. Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing. Discussions elsewhere are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust.
Canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. Using an alternative persona ("sock puppet", or "sock") to influence consensus is absolutely forbidden. Neutral, informative messages to Misplaced Pages noticeboards, wikiprojects, or editors are permitted; but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus-building process are considered disruptive.
Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.
Shortcut
- WP:FORUMSHOP
Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.

Determining consensus

Shortcut

WP:DETCON

"WP:DCON" redirects here. Not to be confused with Misplaced Pages:Deletion process § Determining consensus. See also: Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy.

Levels of consensus

Shortcuts

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, template documentation pages, and essays have not gone through the policy and guideline proposal process and may or may not represent a broad community consensus.

Misplaced Pages has a standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines. Their stability and consistency are important to the community. Accordingly, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Undiscussed bold changes are permitted but rarely welcome on policy pages. Improvements to policy are best made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.

No consensus after discussion

It has been suggested that this section be split out into another page titled Misplaced Pages:Editing policy. (Discuss) (January 2025)

Shortcuts

For an essay recommending a best practice during discussion of contested material, see WP:QUO.

What happens when a good faith discussion concludes with no agreement to take or not take an action? It depends on the context:

When discussions of proposals to delete articles, media, or other pages end without consensus, the normal result is the content being kept.
- However, in Redirects for discussion, no consensus closes may still lead to a retargeting or disambiguation.
- Similarly, in Files for discussion, if there is significant doubt raised about the copyright status of a file, the closing administrator may choose to delete the file under the precautionary principle.
When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However:
- Living people. In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.
- Copyright violation. When the material in question is a suspected copyright violation, it must be removed immediately and not restored when a discussion ends without consensus.
- External links. In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
When article title discussions end without consensus, the applicable policy preserves the most recent stable title. If there is no prior stable title, then the default is the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

Consensus can change

Shortcuts

Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive.

Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed).

Decisions not subject to consensus of editors

Shortcut

WP:CONEXCEPT

Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), its officers, and the Arbitration Committee of Misplaced Pages are outside the purview of editor consensus. This does not constitute an exhaustive list as much as a reminder that the decisions taken under this project apply only to the workings of the self-governing community of English Misplaced Pages.

The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Misplaced Pages. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates Wikimedia Foundation policies may be communicated to the WMF in writing.
Office actions are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit office permission.
The English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time.
Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Misplaced Pages (en.wikipedia.org) are in a separate domain. In particular, the community of MediaWiki software developers, including both paid Wikimedia Foundation staff and volunteers, and the sister wikis, are largely separate entities. These independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as adding, removing, or changing software features (see meta:Limits to configuration changes), or accepting or rejecting some contributions, even if their actions are not endorsed by editors here.

v t e Misplaced Pages accounts and governance
Unregistered (IP) users	Why create an account? Create an account Request an account IPs are human too IP addresses are not people IP hopper
Registered users	New account Logging in Reset passwords Username policy Changing username Usernames for administrator attention Unified login or SUL Alternate account
Account security	Password strength requirements User account security Personal security practices Two-factor authentication 2FA for AWB Committed identity On privacy, confidentiality and discretion Compromised accounts How to not get outed
Blocks, bans, sanctions, global actions	Blocking policy FAQ Admin's guide Tools Autoblock Appealing a block Guide to appealing blocks UTRS Unblock Ticket Request System Blocking IP addresses Range blocks IPv6 Open proxies Banning policy ArbCom appeals Sanctions Personal sanctions General sanctions Contentious topics and Log Essay Indef ≠ infinite Long-term abuse Standard offer Global actions
Related to accounts	Sockpuppetry Single-purpose account Sleeper account Vandalism-only account Wikibreak Enforcer Retiring Courtesy vanishing Clean start Quiet return
User groups and global user groups	Requests for permissions Admin instructions Admin guide Account creator PERM (Auto) confirmed PERM Autopatrolled PERM AutoWikiBrowser PERM Bot Request Edit filter helper Request Event coordinator PERM Extended confirmed PERM File mover PERM IP block exempt Request Mass message sender PERM New page reviewer PERM Page mover PERM Pending changes reviewer PERM Rollback PERM Template editor PERM Global rights policy Volunteer Response Team
Advanced user groups	Administrator RfA Bureaucrat RfB CheckUser and Oversight Request Edit filter manager Request Interface administrator Request Founder Importer Researcher
Committees and related	Arbitration Committee Bot approvals group Functionaries Clerks SPI clerks ArbCom clerks
Governance	Administration FAQ Formal organization Editorial oversight and control Quality control Wikimedia Foundation Board Founder's seat Meta-Wiki Proposals WikiProjects Elections Policies and guidelines Petitions Noticeboards Consensus Dispute resolution Reforms