Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to

achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity
(which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and
reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
This policy describes how consensus is understood on Wikipedia, 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.

Contents

 1Achieving consensus
o 1.1Through editing
o 1.2Through discussion
o 1.3Consensus-building
 1.3.1In talk pages
 1.3.2By soliciting outside opinions
 1.3.3Administrative or community intervention
 1.3.4Pitfalls and errors
 2Determining consensus
o 2.1Levels of consensus
o 2.2No consensus
 3Consensus can change
 4Decisions not subject to consensus of editors
 5See also

Achieving consensus
Policy shortcut

 WP:CONACHIEVE
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
Policy shortcuts

 WP:EDITCONSENSUS
 WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS
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.

Further information: Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Be bold

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is
not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. 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.
All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit
summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk
page. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in
subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Edit summaries are especially important
when reverting another editor's good faith work. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia
policy under Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as WP:BLP exceptions)
and for reversions of vandalism.
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. Often, a simple
rewording will satisfy all editors' concerns. Whether changes come through editing or through
discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through
combat and capitulation.
Be bold, but not rash. In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the page, 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 edit warring 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 associated talk page to discuss the
issue.

Through discussion
Further information: Wikipedia: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. 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 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. The
quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors
take a longer view.
When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available
for consensus-building (third opinions, requests for comment), and even more extreme processes
that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, formal mediation,
and 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: Wikipedia: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
See also: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
Policy shortcut

 WP:TALKDONTREVERT
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 contributors as possible. Contributors 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.
Noticeboards
Most policy and guideline pages, and many wikiprojects, 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.
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.
Formal mediation
For disputes involving many parties or complicated issues or which otherwise need more
time for resolution than is allowed at DRN, the Mediation Committee (MedCom) is staffed by
members with proven mediation ability.
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
Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.
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 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 behaviorial 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. Discussions on other websites, web

forums, IRC, by e-mail, 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 Wikipedia-related discussions should be
held on Wikipedia where they can be viewed by all
participants.
 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 editing.
 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.
Shortcuts

 WP:FORUMSHOP
 WP:ADMINSHOP
 WP: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 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
See also: Wikipedia: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
Wikipedia policy.

Levels of consensus
Policy shortcuts

 WP:CONLEVEL
 WP:CONLIMITED
 WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
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 guidelinedoes
not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice
pages, how-to and information pages, and template
documentation pages have not formally been approved by the
community through the policy and guideline proposal process,
thus have no more status than an essay.
Wikipedia 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. Bold changes are 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
Policy shortcuts

 WP:NOCON
  WP:NOCONSENSUS
Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take or not
take an action. What happens next depends on the context:

 In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally

results in the article, page, image, or other content being
kept.
 In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove
material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results
in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the
proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters
related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in
the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of
whether the proposal were to add, modify or remove it.
 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.
 In article title discussions (WP:TITLECHANGES), the
policy gives a default action for a no-consensus result:

 "If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus
can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major
contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."

Consensus can change

Policy shortcut

 WP:CCC
Editors may propose a change to current consensus,
especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or
circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a
recent 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
Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia
Foundation ("WMF"), its officers, and the Arbitration
Committee of Wikipedia are outside the purview of editor
consensus.
Policy shortcut

 WP:CONEXCEPT

 The WMF has legal control over, and liability for,

Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may
issue binding decisions, within its scope and
responsibilities, that override consensus. The
committee has a
noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendme
nt, 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 Wikipedia
(en.wikipedia.org) are, in fact, in a separate
domain. In particular, the community of MediaWiki
software developers, including both paid Wikimedia
Foundation staff and volunteers, and the activities
of Wikimedia Commons, are largely separate entities,
as are the many non-English Wikipedias. 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 images, even if their actions are
not endorsed by editors here. 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
Wikipedia.

See also
This page is
referenced in
the Wikipedia
Glossary.
For a listing of ongoing discussions