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.
A simplified diagram 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.
Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has
presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then 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 need to 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 through combat and capitulation. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under
edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as
BLP exceptions) and for reversions of
vandalism. This is true even if editors are using edit summaries to "discuss" the dispute every time they revert.
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 does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; 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.
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 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 Wikipedia'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—Wikipedia 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:
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.
NoticeboardsMost policy and guideline pages, and many
wikiprojects, have noticeboards for interested editors. Posting a neutrally worded notice of the dispute on applicable noticeboards 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 pumpNeutrally 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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.
Administrative or community intervention 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:
NoticeboardsAs noted previously, policy pages generally have noticeboards, and many administrators watch them.
Administrators' noticeboard of incidents and general Administrators' noticeboardThese 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 arbitrationThe 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.
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 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 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.
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.
