User:Ricken/SandboxPG/Consensus

AmtWiki policies and guidelines
Policies List · Guidelines List Edit

Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on AmtWiki, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on AmtWiki does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting AmtWiki's policies and guidelines.

This policy describes how consensus is understood on AmtWiki, 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.

Achieving consensus

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

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process. 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. An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted.

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 article talk page.

Through discussions

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the 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. 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.

In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, 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.

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.

The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects AmtWiki'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.

When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building.

In talk pages

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 AmtWiki. 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. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated.

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 – AmtWiki has a process to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This process is called request for comment, and can be invoked by simply adding the template {{rfc}}. 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.

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 AmtWiki policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.

Administrative intervention

In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators. Admins should not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process.

Errors in consensus

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 wiki-related discussions should be held on AmtWiki where they can be viewed by all participants.
• Canvassing and sock 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.
• 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.

Determining consensus

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of AmtWiki policy.

Level of consensus

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

AmtWiki has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. 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.

No consensus

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.
• 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.

Change in consensus

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 Amtgard Inc or the COM are outside the purview of editor consensus.

• Amtgard Inc has legal control over, and liability for, AmtWiki. Decisions, rulings, and acts of Amtgard Inc and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus.
• Actions made by Amtgard Inc for legal purposes are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit permission.