Wikipedia talk:Consensus defined

Administrator v non-administrator
I just read this essay, presented as a contender for policy status, that is just sitting around. While no discussion seems to have evolved I will offer a missing perspective that begins with The definition of consensus section and is used in other sections.

Administrator
The essay immediately branches off into one deceptive direction of content involving the role of an administrator (Admin) and uses "presiding administrator" three times. Consensus can be determined by any "uninvolved" and impartial editor in good standing, or even an involved editor when all involved are in agreement. Administrators are simply editors given certain "powers" and tools, by the community, and serve at the pleasure of the community.

Non-Administrator
The Wikipedia community has broad powers that are often delegated to an administrator, even when this is not required, although there are certain aspects or tasks that may require the tools of an administrator. Sometimes a situation may arise where the "formality" of an uninvolved admin is sought. Discussions that have reached a time-limit, with little or no recent input, or where it is suggested that closure be sought and not contested, can be closed by any editor in good standing. If a closing decision is contested then then Admin help can be requested.

The community
The entire concept of Wikipedia revolves around community acceptance ,that sometimes does involve consensus by silence, that ceases to exist the moment it is contested. Community consensus, sometimes referred to as "broad community consensus", is not so easy to just dismiss as it usually evolves over a period of time and becomes the "norm", or accepted practice. Consensus can certainly change and is the reason for many discussions and debates, but the community, be it an individual editor can generally close a discussion without the involvement of an administrator. Otr500 (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)