User:Kotniski/CON

Under construction: new version of WP:Consensus.

Consensus is the basis for decision-making in all matters under the control of Wikipedia editors. This policy explains what consensus is understood to mean on Wikipedia, and how editors are expected to reach consensus-based decisions.

Who is involved
Decision-making involves those editors who express an interest in a given matter. Most everyday editorial decisions are made by single editors making edits that they regard as improvements; the consent of other editors is assumed as long as no objections are raised. When disagreement arises, or when agreement on some proposal is explicitly sought, then any interested editor is free to take part in the process of seeking consensus.

Notifying other editors
In most cases it is not necessary to publicize a discussion – it is assumed that interested editors (or a representative sample of them) will be watching the page where it is taking place. Outside views may be solicited if necessary, but this should be done in an appropriate manner (see WP:Canvassing). However, if the discussion significantly affects more than one page, then notice should be given on the talk pages of other affected pages; and if the matter relates to a whole topic area or to Wikipedia practice generally, then notice should be given at relevant thematic pages (such as WikiProjects) or central fora (such as the Village Pump).
 * Third Opinions: 3O is reserved for cases where exactly two editors are in dispute. A neutral third party will give an opinion about how the dispute should be resolved. Third Opinions are nonbinding, but help the parties reconsider the issues from a neutral point of view.
 * Noticeboards: Most policy and guideline pages, and many Wikipedia projects, have noticeboards for interested editors. If a dispute is in a particular topic area or concerns the application of a particular policy or guideline, posting a request to the noticeboard may attract people with some experience in that area.
 * Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: Similar to Third Opinion but not limited to two parties, mediator/clerks help the parties come to consensus by suggesting analysis, critiques, compromises, or mediation.
 * Requests for Comment: A formal system for inviting other editors to comment on a particular dispute, thus allowing for greater participation and a broader basis for consensus.
 * Informal Mediation by the (purported) Cabal: A place to seek help if prior efforts at dispute resolution have failed. This is a voluntary process that creates a structured, moderated discussion—no different than an article talk page discussion, except that the mediator helps keep the conversation on focus and moving forward, and prevents it from degenerating into the type of heated conflicts that can occur of unmoderated pages.
 * Village pump: For disputes that have far-reaching implications—mostly ones centered on policy or guideline changes—placing a notification at the pump can bring in a large number of interested editors. This ensures broad consensus across the project.

How decisions are reached
Many issues, particularly minor ones, can be resolved through continued editing of the page in question, with editors giving reasons for their actions in appropriate edit summaries, until a generally acceptable version is reached. However, such editing must be constructive, and must not constitute edit warring. If it is apparent that the matter will not be solved efficiently by this means alone, then it should be raised and discussed on the appropriate talk page.

Editors taking part in talk-page discussion are expected to be civil and respectful, to focus on matters of substance, to present arguments to explain their position, to listen to the arguments of others, to be flexible, and to work together in good faith to reach decisions that best serve Wikipedia and its goals. They should seek a solution that addresses, as far as possible, all legitimate concerns raised.

It may sometimes be useful to bring other editors into the discussion – see the previous section.

Discussions should not be treated as a vote, although in some large discussions straw polls are run in order to clarify where various editors stand at a particular point in the discussion. Also, in some types of discussions, editors may prefix their comments with a short boldfaced statement of their position (such as Support or Oppose, in relation to a proposal), to assist the evaluation of where consensus lies (see next section).

The result
In an ideal situation, a disagreement will be resolved with a solution that is acceptable to all interested editors. However, this is not always possible – and "consensus" as understood on Wikipedia does not require unanimity. If discussion has continued for a reasonable time and unanimous agreement has not proved possible, then a "rough consensus" may be identified in support of a particular solution. This is not based on a simple majority of involved editors, nor on any other automatic formula. Often the involved editors will themselves be able to agree where rough consensus lies, but if agreement cannot be reached even on this point, then a neutral, uninvolved editor in good standing (usually an administrator) can be sought to make the determination – this is called closing the discussion. With some formalized processes (such as deletion discussions), closure is a routine part of the process.

A determination of rough consensus should take account not only of the numbers of editors supporting a particular position, but also of the validity of the arguments used, and of any improper occurrences (such as canvassing) that may have skewed the process. For some of the questions typically considered when determining rough consensus, see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS.

Action in case of no consensus
If it is not possible to determine a consensus for any course of action, then normally no action is taken, although other solutions may be possible in some situations. Some particular cases are as follows:
 * In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other page being kept.
 * When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.
 * In article title 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 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.
 * In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

Respect for past decisions
Once a decision has been taken through the full process described above, editors are expected to abide by it. They should not edit so as to thwart the resulting action – this may be considered disruptive and lead to sanctions. If an editor does not agree with the closer's assessment of consensus, a request for a review may be made to other administrators (such as through the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard).

Nonetheless, consensus can change, and decisions do not remain binding for ever – a matter can be raised for discussion again after a reasonable time, and a new decision may be reached. Raising a matter again only a short time after it has been decided may be considered disruptive (and lead to the new discussion being closed summarily), although the time to be waited may be shorter if the previous discussion did not reach a consensus, or if there are important issues that were not taken into account. A matter may also be reopened if the previous discussion was not sufficiently publicized.


 * Wikiquette alerts: Wikiquette is a voluntary, informal discussion forum that can be used to help an editor recognize that they have misunderstood some aspect of Wikipedia standards. Rudeness, inappropriate reasoning, POV-pushing, collusion, or any other mild irregularity that interferes 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.
 * Noticeboards: As noted above, policy pages generally have noticeboards, and many administrators watch them.
 * Administrator's intervention noticeboard and Administrator's noticeboard: 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.
 * Requests for comment on users: A more formal system designed to critique a long-term failure of an editor to live up to community standards.
 * Requests for arbitration: The final terminus of intractable disputes. Arbiters make rulings designed to eliminate behavior that is disrupting the progression of the article, up to and including banning or restricting editors.


 * Consensus-building pitfalls and errors ====

The following are common mistakes made by editors when trying to build consensus:
 * Too many cooks. Try not to attract too many editors into a discussion. Fruitful discussions usually contain less than ten active participants; more than that strains the limits of effective communication on an online forum of this sort. Where large-scale consensus is needed then it should be sought out, otherwise the input of one or two independent editors will give far better results.
 * Off-wiki discussions. Discussions on other websites, web forums, IRC, by email, or otherwise off the project are generally discouraged. They are not taken into account when determining consensus "on-wiki", and may generate suspicion and mistrust if they are discovered. While there is an occasional need for privacy on some issues, most Wikipedia-related discussions should be held on Wikipedia where they can be viewed by all participants.
 * Canvassing, Sock puppetry, and Meatpuppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is perfectly 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, and it is surely objectionable to to gather people by simply using other accounts on your own. Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia 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 would be considered disruptive editing.
 * Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process. Issues that are settled by stubbornness never last, because someone more pigheaded will eventually arrive; only pages that have the support of the community survive in the long run.


 * Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages, to different admins, or with different wording is confusing and disruptive. It doesn't help to seek out a forum where you get the answer you, or to play with the wording to try and trick different editors into agreeing with you, since sooner or later someone will notice all of the different threads. This is also known as "asking the other parent". Obviously, you draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together, but best practice is to choose one appropriate forum for the consensus discussion, and give (as much as possible) a single neutral, clear, and objective statement of the issue. See also Policy shopping.

Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia 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.
 * Determining consensus==


 * Level 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.

Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to Policies and guidelines 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.


 * Consensus can change ===

Decisions properly reached through consensus are expected to be respected, even by those editors who disagree with them. However, consensus is not immutable, and matters that have been decided in the past may be raised again – consensus may be found to have changed since they were last discussed.

Proposals or actions should not therefore be rejected simply on grounds like "according to consensus" or "violates consensus". The reasons for objecting should be explained, and discussion on the merits of the issue should be allowed to continue. (However, if a matter has been extensively discussed relatively recently, it may be considered disruptive to bring it up again immediately, unless there are new arguments or circumstances that were not properly considered before.)

It may also be found that consensus within a limited group of editors is different from that of a wider section of the community. In such cases, the wider consensus should be considered to have more weight. However, avoid forum shopping – bringing up a matter repeatedly in different places until you get the result you want.


 * No consensus ===

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 deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other page being kept.
 * When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.


 * In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.


 * Beyond consensus==

An extremely narrow group of actions and polices are beyond consensus and must be respected.


 * Declarations from Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, must be respected by editors. See also Wikimedia Foundation Policies.
 * Office actions are not permitted to be reversed by editors without Office permission.
 * A ruling of the Arbitration Committee may introduce a process which results in temporary binding decisions. For example, Ireland article names.

Wikipedia essays and information pages concerning consensus:
 * See also ==
 * What is consensus?
 * How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance
 * Don't revert due to "no consensus"
 * IPs are human too
 * No consensus
 * Silence and consensus; cf. Silence means nothing
 * Staying cool when the editing gets hot
 * Method for consensus building
 * Closing discussions
 * Compromise
 * Consensus doesn't have to change


 * Articles concerning consensus:
 * Consensus decision-making
 * False consensus effect
 * Truth by consensus


 * External links ==
 * WikiEN-l mailing list July 2005
 * Conflict and Consensus categories on MeatBall Wiki.