Wikipedia:What "no consensus" means

This is an essay on the no consensus policy.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut

WP:NOCON?

In any discussion on Wikipedia, there are three possible outcomes:

consensus for the course of action sought or a compromise course of action,
consensus against the course of action sought and any proposed compromise course of action, and
no consensus.

The result of a discussion ending in "no consensus" depends on the nature of the proposed change. Often, people feel that "no consensus" should mean that the current status quo prevails, which, therefore, defaults to keep. That is not always the case. Also, a lack of a local consensus among those participating does not mean there is no "no consensus" in the broader community. Often it is the case that a closing admin will recognize that arguments for one side are much better founded in (community consensus supported) policy than for the other, and so there actually is consensus support for one particular outcome.

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". [This is debated.^[1]] Please see CONSENSUS for further discussion of what constitutes consensus.

Deletion discussions (XfD)

In any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), "no consensus" defaults to keep—with the exception of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and Wikipedia:Files for discussion. In, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, it may default to retarget or disambiguate in some cases. In Wikipedia:Files for discussion, if there is significant doubt raised about the copyright status of a file, the closing administrator may choose to delete the file under the precautionary principle. Keeping a page preserves all options and the possibility of future discussions.

Deletion review (DRV)

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Requests for adminship (RfA)

At RfA, if there is no consensus to promote, then the only possibility is that there is no promotion.

Policies and guidelines

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 (e.g. policy, guideline, essay), then the status may need to be discussed further and more people brought into the discussion.

Blocking and other administrator actions

When discussing the appropriateness of a block (or other administrator action), a discussion that results in "no consensus" should result in the reversal of that administrator action. As with policy, blocks and other administrator actions should reflect the consensus of the community. And, while an administrator 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. ^[1]

Notes

The following are footnotes:

^ ^a ^b If a "consensus" does not mean everyone, then it is some kind of debated vote, with no need to pretend that it is a joint agreement. You don't have someone's consent when they don't. If they disagree, it's not an agreement, period. Just discuss & vote (but don't claim that "we all agree"). Many people have tried to imply that a failed consensus is still a joint agreement, perhaps because Wikipedia policies did not clarify what actions to take when consensus fails. The attitude is like treating a loss of life, as not death, but some other type of life: seek to keep the patient alive, and seek consensus. Replace the word "consensus" using the term "total consent" and the issues become very clear. The plan is not to "overpower" the dissenting opinion with numerous people who agree against them. The plan is to seek consensus, a joint agreement that all can live with. All agree not to "sneak back" and revert the consensus view.