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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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:
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.
The following are common mistakes made by editors when trying to build consensus:
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.
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.
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.
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.
An extremely narrow group of actions and polices are beyond consensus and must be respected.
Wikipedia essays and information pages concerning consensus: