Misplaced Pages

:Consensus: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:05, 11 January 2012 view sourceRing Cinema (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers6,691 edits →Consensus can change: here's a try← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:17, 7 January 2025 view source Butwhatdoiknow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,840 edits Undid revision 1267961478 by Blueboar (talk) Revert non-substantive reversion (see wp:DRNC). Do you have an objection to the entirety of the change other than that it is a change?Tag: Undo 
(945 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Misplaced Pages policy}}
{{dablink|"WP:CON" redirects here; you may be looking for ] or ].}}
<noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}}
{{pp-protected|small=yes}}
{{policy|WP:CON|WP:CONS}}
{{Redirect-distinguish|WP:CON|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest||Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Academic consensus|Help:Edit conflict|Misplaced Pages:WikiCon}}
{{nutshell|Consensus is Misplaced Pages's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.}}
{{Policy|WP:CON}}
{{conduct policy list}}
{{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'''''' refers to the primary way in which decisions are made on Misplaced Pages, and is accepted as the best method to achieve ]. ''Consensus'' on Misplaced Pages does not mean ''unanimity'' (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a ]. This means that the decision-making process involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting our ]. '''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 ].

This page describes what consensus is understood to mean on Misplaced Pages, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not), and what exceptions exist from the principle that all decisions are made by consensus.


==Achieving consensus== ==Achieving consensus==
{{Shortcut|WP:CONACHIEVE}}
Editors usually reach consensus as a natural product of editing. After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated ] continues the process toward consensus.


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.
Consensus decisions take 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 widespread agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accept the proposal.


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.
=== Reaching consensus through editing ===
] it. ''Seek a compromise''' means to attempt to find a generally acceptable solution, either through continued editing or through discussion.]]
{{further|], ], and ]}}


{{Anchor|E|Reaching consensus through editing}}
Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Misplaced Pages. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor ]. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time without any needless procedures – editors do not need to seek permission before making changes. Even if there is a difference of opinion, often a simple rewording will satisfy all editors' concerns. Clear communication in ] can make this process easier.
===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.]]
Editors may make changes without prior discussion (to "]", in Misplaced Pages parlance). If an edit is not an improvement, then it should be ]. Any such revert should have a clear edit summary stating why the particular edit is not considered to be an improvement to the article, or what policies or guidelines would require the edit be undone. Further discussion should then be undertaken on the article discussion page. Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "]" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly if the edit being reverted would imply a change in established practice (as on policy and guideline pages), since such a change would need to have wide consensus to be valid. Informative edit summaries help to indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus on the matter. Repeated reversions are contrary to Misplaced Pages policy under ], except for specific policy-based material and for reversions of ]. Frequently a minor change in wording can end arguments.


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 ].
===Reaching consensus through discussion===
When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the ] and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to ''persuade others'', using ''reasons'' based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerned. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. 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 "perfect" version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view.


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.
When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, a number of processes are available for consensus-building (], ], informal mediation at the ]), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (], ], and ]). 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 ]ring, ]ing, 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.


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.
=== Consensus-building ===
{{see|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution}}


], 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.
Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above. However, editors occasionally find themselves at an impasse, either because they cannot find rational grounds to settle a dispute or because they 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.


{{Anchor|Through discussion-Gradually improving|reason=Unknown; maybe old section name?}}
==== Consensus-building in talk pages ====
{{See also|Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:TALKDONTREVERT}}
Be ''']''', but not foolish. In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute. Use clear edit summaries that explain the purpose of the edit. If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns. Edit summaries are useful, but do not try to discuss disputes across multiple edit summaries; that is generally viewed as ] and may incur sanctions. If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue.


===Through discussion===
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. 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.
{{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.
Limit talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of ] and incur sanctions.


===Consensus-building===
The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible. People with ] and ] are more likely to be successful than people who are less than civil to others.
{{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-building by soliciting outside opinions ====


{{Anchor|talk|Talk|TALK}}
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 uninvolved editors 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:
====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.
;]: 3O is reserved for cases where exactly two editors are in dispute. A neutral third party will give non-binding advice on the dispute.
;]: Most policy and guideline pages, and many Misplaced Pages projects, have noticeboards for interested editors. Posting neutrally worded notice of the dispute on applicable noticeboards will make the dispute more visible to other editors who may have worthwhile opinions.
;]: For disputes involving more than two parties, mediators or clerks help the parties come to consensus by suggesting analysis, critiques, compromises, or mediation.
;]: Placement of a formal neutrally worded notice on the article talk page inviting others to participate which is ] onto ] noticeboards.
;]: A place to seek help only if prior efforts at dispute resolution have failed. This is a voluntary process that creates a structured, moderated discussion on the issues involved.
;]: Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional ediors 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.


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.
==== Administrative or community intervention ====
{{policy 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 inappropriately. 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:


====By soliciting outside opinions====
;]: Wikiquette is a voluntary, informal discussion forum that can be used to help an editor recognize that they have misunderstood some aspect of Misplaced Pages standards. Rudeness, inappropriate reasoning, POV-pushing, collusion, and any other mild irregularities that interfere with the smooth operating of the consensus process are appropriate reasons for turning to Wikiquette. The process can be double-edged – expect Wikiquette respondents to be painfully objective about the nature of the problem – but can serve to clear up personal disputes.
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:
; Noticeboards: As noted above, policy pages generally have noticeboards, and many administrators watch them.
;] and ]: These are noticeboards for administrators. They are high-volume noticeboards and should be used sparingly. Use AN for for issues that need eyes but may not need immediate action; use ANI for more pressing issues. Do not use either except at need.
;]: A more formal system designed to critique a long-term failure of an editor to live up to community standards.
;]: The final step for intractable disputes. The Arbitration Committee may rule on almost any aspect of a dispute other than on a content dispute, and has broad powers in its decisions.


;] (3O): A neutral third party will give non-binding advice on the dispute. Reserved for cases where exactly two editors are in dispute.
==== Consensus-building pitfalls and errors ====
;]: 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====
{{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:

; Noticeboards
: 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====
The following are common mistakes made by editors when trying to build consensus: The following are common mistakes made by editors when trying to build consensus:
*'''Off-wiki discussions.''' Discussions on other websites, web forums, ], by email, or otherwise off the project are generally discouraged, and are not taken into account when determining consensus "on-wiki." In some cases, such off-Wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust. Most Misplaced Pages-related discussions should be held on Misplaced Pages where they can be viewed by all participants. * '''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 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 editing. * '''], ], 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 listen, 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. * '''].''' 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.
{{shortcut|WP:FORUMSHOP|WP:ADMINSHOP}}
*{{anchors|FORUMSHOP|ADMINSHOP}}'''Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring.''' Asking "the other parent" does not work well in real life, nor does it work well on Misplaced Pages. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, may be construed as "forumshopping." Queries placed on noticeboards 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 noticeboards is proper, as frequently where the "wrong" noticeboard is used, the editor is directed to a more appropriate noticeboard. ''See also ].''


==Determining consensus== ==Determining consensus==
{{Shortcut|WP:DETCON}}
Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy. If the editors involved in a discussion are not able to agree on where the consensus lies, the determination is made by any uninvolved editor in good standing.
{{redirect-distinguish|WP:DCON|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.


=== Level of consensus === {{Anchor|Level of consensus}}
===Levels of consensus===
{{policy shortcut|WP:CONLIMITED|WP:LOCALCONSENSUS}}
{{Shortcut|WP:CONLEVEL|WP:LOCALCONSENSUS}}
{{see also2|The ]{{'s}} ]}}
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.
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.


Misplaced Pages has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to ] than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others. 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.


{{Anchor|No consensus}}
=== Consensus can change ===
{{policy shortcut|WP:CCC|WP:TALKEDABOUTIT}}
Decisions reached through consensus should be respected by everyone who participated in its formation. However, consensus is not unchangeable, and matters that have been discussed in the past can be raised again, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not properly considered before. On the other hand, if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again. As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal.


===No consensus === === 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:
Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus ''either way'': it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus ''not'' to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context.


* In ], no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept. * 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 ].
* When ] are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.
** 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 ].
<!-- DO NOT DELETE this comment block or the "onlyinclude" line that follows -->
* 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:
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|noconsensustitles}}}|noconsensustitles|
** ''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.
* In ] discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
** ''Copyright violation.'' When the material in question is a suspected ], it must be removed immediately and not restored when a discussion ends without consensus.
}}</onlyinclude> <!-- DO NOT DELETE -->
* In disputes over ], disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them. ** ''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==
==Decisions not subject to consensus of editors ==
{{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.
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.

{{policy shortcut|WP:CONEXCEPT}}
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).
* 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 amongst editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates may be communicated to the WMF in writing.

==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. * ] 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. * 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 == ==See also==
{{Misplaced Pages glossary}} {{Misplaced Pages glossary}}
For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the ].
Information pages and ] concerning consensus:

'''] and ] concerning consensus:'''
* {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Essay directory|Discussions and consensus}}
*]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] <!-- unregistered contributors in consensus processes-->
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]; ''cf''. ]
* ]
* ]



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


== External links ==
*
* and categories on MeatBall Wiki.

== Related information == <!-- see ] -->
{{Misplaced Pages principles}} {{Misplaced Pages principles}}
{{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}} {{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}}
{{Misplaced Pages accounts|state=collapsed}}

] ]
]

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 15:17, 7 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
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

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

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
Image of a process flowchart. The start symbol is labeled "Previous consensus" with an arrow pointing to "Edit", then to a decision symbol labeled "Was the article edited further?". From this first decision, "no" points to an end symbol labeled "New consensus". "Yes" points to another decision symbol labeled "Do you agree?". From this second decision, "yes" points to the "New Consensus" end symbol. "No" points to "Seek a compromise", then back to the previously mentioned "Edit", thus making a loop.
A simplified flowchart of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.

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 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

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 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 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

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 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: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 See also: The Arbitration Committee's statement of principles on levels of consensus

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.
  • 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

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.

See also

This page is referenced in the Misplaced Pages Glossary.

For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard.

Information pages and Misplaced Pages essays concerning consensus:

Articles concerning consensus:

Misplaced Pages principles
   

Five pillars
Statement of our principles

Jimbo's statement
Historic principles

Simplified ruleset
Synopsis of our conventions

Wikimedia principles
Common to all projects
(in Meta-Wiki)

Principles
Other essays on Misplaced Pages's principles

Misplaced Pages key policies and guidelines (?)
Content (?)
P
G
Conduct (?)
P
G
Deletion (?)
P
Enforcement (?)
P
Editing (?)
P
G
Style
Classification
Project content (?)
G
WMF (?)
P
Misplaced Pages accounts and governance
Unregistered (IP) users
Registered users
Account security
Blocks, bans, sanctions,
global actions
Related to accounts
User groups
and global user groups
Advanced user groups
Committees and related
Governance
Categories: