Wikipedia:No consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
In any discussion on Wikipedia, there are two possible outcomes. Consensus for some course of action and no consensus. However, what a “no consensus” result means differs depending on the nature of the discussion. Often, people feel that no consensus should mean that the current status quo prevails. That is not, however, always the case.
Discussion and debate on a proposal may continue on talk pages after a "no consensus" situation, but in the meantime it is important that affected articles are not subjected to edit wars despite a lack of policy or guideline direction on an issue. A status quo approach is preferable where practical and possible to promote article stability and to prevent edit warring.
It is important to note that a few vocal dissenters do not create “no consensus.” Please see CONSENSUS for further discussion of what constitutes consensus.
Contents |
[edit] Deletion Discussions
In any XfD, “no consensus” defaults to keep. Keeping an article preserves all options and the possibility of future discussions.
[edit] Deletion Review
A no consensus result at DRV is best addressed by relisting the article at XfD. Without clear direction to either endorse or overturn a ruling, further discussion is always appropriate.
[edit] Request for Adminship
At RfA, if there is no consensus to promote, then the only possibility is that there is no promotion. Again, like most no consensus decisions, this leaves the door open for future discussion, should the editor in question wish to attempt RfA again.
[edit] Policy/Guideline
In a discussion regarding a section of policy or guideline, no consensus means that a proposed section should not be added. If the discussion is about a section already in the policy, that section should be removed. Policy and guideline should reflect consensus. If there is no consensus as to existing policy, then it no longer reflects that and should be removed. Similarly, if there is no consensus over the status of a page (eg. policy, guideline, essay), then the status may need to be discussed further and more people brought into the discussion.
[edit] Blocking and other admin actions
When discussing the appropriateness of a block (or other admin action), a discussion that results in no consensus should result in the reversal of that admin action. As with policy, blocks and other admin actions should reflect the consensus of the community. And while an admin does not need to have a discussion prior to acting in good faith, if a subsequent discussion fails to produce consensus for the action, it should be reversed.
