Meta tags:

Headings (most frequently used words):

consensus, of, navigation, through, tools, in, wikipedia, contents, achieving, determining, can, change, decisions, not, subject, to, editors, see, also, menu, editing, discussion, building, levels, no, personal, namespaces, views, search, contribute, print, export, other, projects, languages, talk, pages, by, soliciting, outside, opinions, administrative, or, community, intervention, pitfalls, and, errors,

Text of the page (most frequently used words):
the (122), consensus (90), and (88), #wikipedia (62), #editors (42), not (36), are (35), policy (32), for (32), that (31), may (26), page (25), edit (24), discussion (21), pages (20), talk (20), policies (18), through (18), dispute (17), discussions (17), editing (15), this (14), account (14), who (14), article (13), perm (13), they (13), change (13), can (13), community (12), noticeboards (12), all (12), such (12), decisions (12), will (12), should (12), changes (11), guidelines (11), content (11), when (11), see (11), process (11), but (11), also (10), with (10), have (10), than (10), more (9), has (9), shortcut (9), disputes (9), you (8), use (8), other (8), help (8), arbitration (8), request (8), editor (8), how (8), principles (8), administrators (8), wiki (7), requests (7), sanctions (7), does (7), made (7), one (7), cannot (7), opinions (7), view (6), about (6), wikimedia (6), links (6), english (6), information (6), project (6), personal (6), resolution (6), committee (6), user (6), new (6), actions (6), bold (6), good (6), any (6), generally (6), which (6), arguments (6), whether (6), agreement (6), issues (6), building (6), using (5), foundation (5), what (5), here (5), create (5), title (5), quality (5), administrator (5), two (5), people (5), list (5), wmf (5), deletion (5), disruptive (5), sources (5), neutral (5), decision (5), some (5), these (5), however (5), its (5), noticeboard (5), time (5), except (5), over (5), cases (5), revert (5), explanations (5), where (5), lack (5), there (5), proposal (5), often (5), compromise (5), either (5), because (5), usually (5), concerns (5), statement (4), privacy (4), under (4), was (4), simple (4), meta (4), related (4), navigation (4), org (4), wikiprojects (4), arbcom (4), groups (4), global (4), block (4), admin (4), vandalism (4), accounts (4), copyright (4), shortcuts (4), conflict (4), faith (4), warring (4), articles (4), even (4), issue (4), prior (4), take (4), outside (4), propose (4), most (4), results (4), material (4), best (4), others (4), accepted (4), multiple (4), try (4), neutrally (4), while (4), reached (4), need (4), intervention (4), processes (4), encyclopedia (4), reach (4), further (4), associated (4), additional (3), terms (3), apply (3), version (3), file (3), tools (3), current (3), contents (3), categories (3), conduct (3), from (3), proposals (3), control (3), oversight (3), formal (3), clerks (3), template (3), guide (3), only (3), sockpuppetry (3), standard (3), essay (3), blocks (3), blocking (3), addresses (3), get (3), security (3), username (3), summaries (3), section (3), style (3), biographies (3), proposed (3), point (3), ignore (3), civility (3), don (3), include (3), living (3), five (3), pillars (3), common (3), making (3), subject (3), particular (3), their (3), modify (3), matter (3), resolved (3), established (3), then (3), first (3), disputed (3), unless (3), until (3), them (3), normally (3), redirects (3), action (3), important (3), guideline (3), wikiproject (3), levels (3), determining (3), achieving (3), goal (3), invite (3), into (3), way (3), sock (3), rule (3), settle (3), many (3), rather (3), follows (3), another (3), worded (3), bring (3), third (3), several (3), those (3), find (3), discuss (3), reverted (3), describes (3), developers (2), contact (2), available (2), registered (2), non (2), organization (2), 2022 (2), bahasa (2), беларуская (2), mediawiki (2), projects (2), link (2), upload (2), recent (2), contribute (2), main (2), search (2), history (2), read (2), log (2), contributions (2), protected (2), glossary (2), https (2), founder (2), board (2), editorial (2), faq (2), governance (2), bot (2), group (2), filter (2), reviewer (2), mover (2), confirmed (2), event (2), clean (2), start (2), courtesy (2), vanishing (2), offer (2), abuse (2), general (2), banning (2), open (2), system (2), appealing (2), attention (2), changing (2), users (2), why (2), namespace (2), lists (2), lead (2), numbers (2), broad (2), disambiguation (2), protection (2), responding (2), threats (2), interest (2), paid (2), legal (2), ownership (2), attacks (2), rules (2), harassment (2), external (2), persons (2), essays (2), our (2), simplified (2), effect (2), concerning (2), guidance (2), closing (2), ongoing (2), separate (2), software (2), both (2), binding (2), within (2), override (2), scope (2), permitted (2), explicit (2), office (2), among (2), taken (2), terse (2), proposing (2), especially (2), previously (2), stable (2), used (2), after (2), applicable (2), removed (2), question (2), must (2), immediately (2), removal (2), add (2), remove (2), still (2), occurs (2), substantive (2), efforts (2), seek (2), out (2), limited (2), participants (2), decide (2), been (2), advice (2), given (2), sides (2), raising (2), finding (2), asking (2), possible (2), uninvolved (2), individual (2), reasonable (2), give (2), raised (2), shopping (2), considered (2), respond (2), build (2), better (2), effort (2), alternative (2), informative (2), attempt (2), acceptable (2), puppetry (2), off (2), following (2), pitfalls (2), errors (2), intractable (2), sysops (2), resources (2), administrative (2), involve (2), majority (2), polls (2), weight (2), notice (2), rfc (2), comment (2), parties (2), come (2), compromises (2), make (2), fail (2), simply (2), eye (2), themselves (2), soliciting (2), goals (2), likely (2), less (2), civil (2), skills (2), challenged (2), improves (2), assumed (2), always (2), objections (2), argument (2), just (2), like (2), reaching (2), primarily (2), edits (2), work (2), based (2), satisfy (2), result (2), solution (2), accept (2), gradually (2), reversions (2), exceptions (2), your (2), presumed (2), editcon (2), wide (2), method (2), legitimate (2), con (2), jump (2), web (2), oct (2), sep (2), cookie, statistics, mobile, disclaimers, text, site, agree, trademark, profit, inc, creative, commons, attribution, sharealike, license, last, edited, october, utc, ייִדיש, tiếng, việt, vèneto, اردو, українська, türkçe, тоҷикӣ, ไทย, తెలుగు, татарча, tatarça, தமிழ், tagalog, svenska, suomi, srpskohrvatski, српскохрватски, српски, srpski, کوردی, slovenščina, slovenčina, سنڌي, සිංහල, shqip, саха, тыла, русский, română, português, polski, oʻzbekcha, ўзбекча, norsk, bokmål, 日本語, नेपाली, nederlands, melayu, مصرى, malti, മലയാളം, македонски, magyar, lietuvių, қазақша, ქართული, italiano, interlingua, indonesia, hrvatski, हिन्दी, հայերեն, 한국어, galego, français, فارسی, esperanto, español, ελληνικά, dansk, cymraeg, čeština, català, brezhoneg, bosanski, български, тарашкевіца, башҡортса, bân, lâm, বাংলা, تۆرکجه, azərbaycanca, অসমীয়া, العربية, languages, wikivoyage, wikiversity, printable, download, pdf, print, export, wikidata, item, permanent, special, portal, learn, donate, random, events, source, views, namespaces, logged, menu, hidden, semi, move, items, retrieved, index, php, oldid, 1115400224, reforms, petitions, elections, seat, administration, spi, functionaries, approvals, committees, researcher, importer, interface, manager, checkuser, rfb, bureaucrat, rfa, advanced, otrs, volunteer, response, team, rights, rollback, pending, mass, message, sender, exempt, extended, coordinator, helper, autowikibrowser, autopatrolled, auto, creator, instructions, permissions, quiet, return, retiring, enforcer, wikibreak, sleeper, single, purpose, long, term, discretionary, appeals, proxies, ipv6, range, utrs, unblock, ticket, autoblock, bans, outed, compromised, confidentiality, discretion, committed, identity, 2fa, awb, factor, authentication, practices, password, strength, requirements, alternate, unified, login, sul, usernames, reset, passwords, logging, hopper, ips, human, too, unregistered, values, licensing, friendly, space, subpages, boxes, categorization, templates, classification, linking, layout, images, dates, accessibility, manual, understandability, concept, hatnotes, summary, size, enforcement, revision, attack, criteria, speedy, signatures, harm, please, bite, newcomers, gaming, etiquette, disrupt, illustrate, assume, contribution, disclosure, child, patent, nonsense, fringe, theories, hoaxes, plagiarism, copies, lengthy, primary, medicine, reliable, citing, autobiography, notability, titles, image, violations, original, research, verifiability, key, synopsis, conventions, ruleset, historic, jimbo, truth, false, silence, imply, consent, drafting, dos, directory, listing, dashboard, referenced, matters, seem, language, domain, including, staff, volunteers, largely, entities, independent, equal, communities, operate, deem, necessary, appropriate, adding, removing, features, accepting, rejecting, endorsed, limits, configuration, sister, wikis, amended, amend, amendment, responsibilities, reversed, permission, liability, rulings, acts, duly, appointed, designees, precedence, preempt, ruling, act, violates, communicated, writing, conexcept, certain, officers, purview, constitute, exhaustive, much, reminder, workings, self, governing, said, knows, past, avoid, against, provide, little, helpful, formed, raise, unconsidered, circumstances, hand, recently, ccc, preserves, default, major, contributor, ceased, stub, commonly, retaining, suspected, violation, contentious, regardless, being, kept, closes, retargeting, media, delete, happens, next, depends, context, noconsensus, nocon, participation, stability, consistency, accordingly, permit, before, implementing, rarely, welcome, improvements, slowly, conservatively, active, input, place, wider, scale, instance, convince, broader, right, formally, approved, thus, status, documentation, conlevel, ascertained, various, viewed, lens, detcon, essentially, same, reviewers, repetitively, unhelpful, develop, different, forums, hope, answer, known, parent, queries, placed, phrased, order, exist, correct, case, show, else, want, forum, spin, doctoring, forumshop, continuous, aggressive, pursuit, avoided, cooperate, refuse, allow, insist, indefinitely, attain, risk, damaging, filibuster, listen, tendentious, gather, biasing, unacceptable, encouraged, obtain, insights, favorable, prejudice, persona, puppet, influence, absolutely, forbidden, messages, could, reasonably, interpreted, stuff, ballot, box, otherwise, fine, meat, canvassing, elsewhere, communication, generate, suspicion, mistrust, mistakes, trying, final, step, almost, behavioral, interpretation, aspect, powers, high, volume, sparingly, eyes, immediate, ani, pressing, incidents, noted, watch, ideological, mere, disagreements, require, whole, intervene, enforce, impose, disrupting, sometimes, merely, suffice, large, watchlisted, likelihood, someone, working, intransigent, conadmin, sort, determined, counted, regarded, structured, responses, indicating, positions, highest, voting, notification, village, pump, placement, inviting, participate, onto, transcluded, involving, moderators, suggesting, analysis, critiques, mediation, quickly, drn, interested, posting, visible, worthwhile, party, reserved, exactly, opinion, attract, useful, break, deadlocks, fresh, perspectives, involved, middle, ground, resolve, reflects, angering, few, successful, negotiation, social, limit, focus, explain, addition, hence, object, yet, continue, guilty, incur, stop, already, participated, stonewall, consider, came, disagree, existing, represents, minority, carry, whatsoever, talkdontrevert, maintain, detached, attitude, described, above, occasionally, impasse, rational, grounds, become, emotionally, ideologically, invested, suggestions, resolving, along, descriptions, informal, winning, particularly, difficult, extreme, authoritative, steps, end, keep, mind, concerned, behavior, authoritatively, behaviors, interfere, allowable, beyond, alone, forming, becomes, sense, suggest, solutions, might, anyone, completely, recognize, perfect, understanding, improving, fight, implement, preferred, reasons, cycle, discussconsensus, rash, improved, collaboration, combat, capitulation, repeated, contrary, specific, true, every, blp, affected, minor, taking, nothing, position, think, second, explained, reason, obvious, clear, indicate, addressed, subsequent, reverting, implicitly, revise, meets, disagreement, diagram, means, continued, implicitconsensus, editconsensus, confused, takes, proper, ideally, arrives, absence, involves, adapting, dissenters, without, losing, initial, natural, choose, continues, toward, conachieve, understood, determine, achieved, proceed, principle, achieve, mean, unanimity, ideal, achievable, nor, incorporate, respecting, vote, evasion, fundamental, marked, addressing, nutshell, cons, widely, follow, reflect, documents, looking, containers, wikiconvention, conference, free, wayback, machine, http, archive, 20221016132249, timestamps, capture, success, 2023, 2021, nov, 2004, 2026, 417, captures,

Text of the page (random words):
e bold but not rash whether changes come through editing or through discussion the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus not through combat and capitulation repeated reversions are contrary to wikipedia policy under edit warring except for specific policy based material such as blp exceptions and for reversions of vandalism this is true even if editors are using edit summaries to discuss the dispute every time they revert through discussion shortcut wp discussconsensus 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 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 when editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus several processes are available for consensus building third opinions dispute resolution noticeboard requests for comment and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute administrator intervention 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 shortcut wp talkdontrevert see also wikipedia talk page guidelines 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 editors as possible editors 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 a 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 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 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 behavioral 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 consensus is reached through on wiki discussion or by editing discussions elsewhere are not taken into account in some cases such off wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust 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 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 shortcut wp forumshop 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 shortcut wp detcon 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 shortcut wp conlevel 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 guideline does 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 shortcuts wp nocon wp noconsensus no consensus occurs when good faith discussion results in no consensus to take or not take an action what happens next depends on the context in discussions of proposals to delete articles media or other pages a lack of consensus normally results in the content being kept however in redirects for discussion no consensus closes may still lead to a retargeting or disambiguation 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 in discussions related to living people a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter regardless of whether the proposal was to add modify or remove it when the material in question is a suspected copyright violation it must be removed immediately in disputes over external links disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them in article title discussions in the event of a lack of consensus the applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title if there is no prior stable title then the default is the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub consensus can change 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 recently established 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 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 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 amendment 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 a separate domain in particular the community of mediawiki software developers including both paid wikimedia foundation staff and volunteers and the sister wikis are largely separate entities 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 some contributions even if their actions are not endorsed by editors here see also this page is referenced in the wikipedia glossary for a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests see the dashboard information pages and wikipedia essays concerning consensus wikipedia essay directory discussions and consensus wikipedia consensus dos and don ts wikipedia closing discussions wikipedia how to contribute to wikipedia guidance wikipedia s...