Consensus policy
Reaching consensus in discussions is how decisions are made and conflicts are resolved on the wiki. Consensus does not guarantee everyone will be pleased in the end. Instead, it exists in order to create a plan to move forward with an issue that is tolerable to everyone, especially when there are wildly different opinions. Unanimity in a discussion is not required, nor is consensus determined by a vote count.
Scope
This policy applies to the Minecraft Wikis under Block & Quill's management, although they may have a local consensus policy which could partially or completely override elements of this policy. Discussions held on the Meta Minecraft Wiki, including, but not limited to, forum topics, CATS (and its checkuser subgroup) and global interface maintainer nominations, are subject to this consensus policy, instead of the policy of the language wiki the discussion may have stemmed from.
The following language wikis have policies which override parts of this policy:
- The Russian wiki on closure of discussions.
Process for establishing consensus
The consensus process generally looks as follows:
- Opening: A discussion is opened, optionally with a proposal attached.
- Discussion: A discussion about the issue or proposal is held.
- Evaluation: After some time has elapsed, typically two weeks, the discussion may be evaluated for a consensus and closed. During the evaluation, the arguments from each user are weighed.
- In general: After weighing different arguments, the user closing the discussion states the new consensus. The closer should explain how they have come to a conclusion.
- With an initial proposal: If the initial proposal needs to be revised, the revision is put up for discussion and the cycle repeats.
- Implementation: The new consensus is implemented. In some instances (for example, if the consensus is to maintain status quo or to grant a user additional rights), this can be done quickly.
Aside from implementation, the steps to achieving consensus are explained further below.
Opening
Any user may open a discussion. It is, typically, the first step in establishing consensus. The user opening the discussion can state the issue at hand, and put forward initial proposal(s).
When to open a discussion varies per topic. For example, when it is about the addition, modification or removal of a sentence in an article, it should generally be done after the fact and only when it has been met with opposition. Users are encouraged to "be bold", i.e., when they see something they believe should be changed, they should do so without feeling the need to ask beforehand. When, however, the topic has potential far-reaching impact, for example section ordering on all block pages, altering a widely-used template, or when splitting or merging articles, a discussion prior to performing these changes is preferred. Not only does it allow users to give their opinion, or points where extra care should be taken, it also removes the element of surprise and resulting possible adversarial reactions other users may have if such changes were to happen without a preceding discussion.
Discussion
During the discussion, any user may express their opinion, which could be as simple as agreeing with another user, to being as expansive as a thousand-word essay. When a user disagrees with the discussion's proposals (or parts of them), it's on them to say so. In any case, act civilly and constructive throughout the discussion. The arguments used should be discussed. Personal attacks, harassments and other similar activity, especially unqualified, must be avoided, no matter how much one might disagree with another user. Do not perform canvassing with the aim of artificially influencing the discussion's direction.
If the discussion is about a proposal, the proposer should not change the content of their proposal during the discussion, except for simple typo fixes or other minor changes. Any changes to the proposal that may affect the outcome of the discussion should be announced. This can be done by, for example, posting a link to the diff.
If the discussion is about granting or removing user rights, users should avoid basing their arguments on incidents from years past. No user is expected to have a flawless on-wiki or off-wiki record. Past conduct is only relevant if it reflects a sustained pattern, whether positive or negative. In cases of negative conduct, the user must also have been given a reasonable amount of time to respond to feedback and adjust their behavior.
Evaluation
After some time has elapsed, the discussion may be evaluated and closed. The exact time to close may differ depending on the discussion's activity, but typically two weeks at minimum is required. A discussion may be closed by an established user, preferably someone who had little or no involvement in the discussion. The latter allows for an outcome that is as fair as possible. Although it might not be possible to find a closer who is completely impartial, it is important for them to set aside personal preferences, and treat the discussion as if they had never seen or participated in it before. Significant impact of negative forms of canvassing must be ruled out before closing the discussion. When the closer finds there was little involvement in the discussion compared to the potential impact the result may have, they should consider the section on silence and consensus.
Conditions for closing a discussion are as follows:
- if the topic has (near-)unanimous support or oppose;
- if one side of the arguments have been refuted and a general consensus exists on the other side;
- if the discussion has run stale — this may be closed as if no consensus was achieved; or
- if the topic is irrelevant and/or unnecessary, and does not have the potential for impacting most or the whole userbase.
During closure, assume each user participated in good faith, even if their view on an issue differs.
Different arguments may carry a different weight. A simple vote of opinion, without further clarification, carries the least weight. An argument carries the most weight if it goes in detail of why something should or should not happen. Sometimes, users may refer to someone else's argument(s) or the initial proposal with wording such as "per above" or "per [username]". Since these comments mean that another user has covered all points the commenter wanted to say, they add weight to the comment being referred to. If the argumentation referred to is deemed not relevant anymore, then these "per above" comments also lose their weight. When there were users engaging in arguments, unless one party explicitly states that they accept the other party's answer as resolving their concerns, their opinion should still be taken into evaluation.
There are three possible paths for policy proposals: a policy is not necessary; the policy is adopted as-is; a policy is necessary, but it cannot be adopted in its current form. If a policy is deemed necessary but the current proposal is declined, it should be amended and then put up for discussion again until, eventually, a proposal is adopted.
No consensus
If the discussion results in a (near-)tie or no consensus, then a solution that changes little to nothing is preferred to give space to future discussion. This will generally be the status quo. For example, in nominations for user rights, this results in not granting these rights; in biographies of living persons, the removal of the matter put up for discussion; and in a request for deletion, the page being kept. At a later date, the subject can be discussed again without having had potential major impact on the wiki.
A "no consensus" call cannot be made if there is broad support for a solution, especially if the concerns or arguments of the opposing side have been addressed or taken into account.
Silence and consensus
Sometimes, consensus can be assumed to exist until someone disagrees. The most common example of this are edits of which the content remains or is expanded upon — even better when it is referred to by other users or outside the wiki. However, on many occasions, such as discussions on policy changes, silence does not necessarily imply consensus. Instead, it could mean uncertainty, lack of information, discomfort, disengagement or even a lack of trust. Only under healthy circumstances does silence imply consensus; otherwise it implies no consensus.
Most users will generally be fine with assuming that consensus exists, if even for a short period of time. It is more important to work on the wiki co-operatively and in good faith. However, when users are affected, such as when a block is requested, explicit consensus is preferred.
Consensus can change. This is especially important to keep in mind when there was only a weak consensus or just silence. An oppose to consensus on a proposal can be given at any time, as short as a few days after it was reached, or as long as years later.
See it. Say it. Sorted.
If a user disagrees with a proposal, or makes them feel uncomfortable, then the burden is on them to say so. Only then can their disagreement be taken into consideration during the discussion and its evaluation. Hypothetical disagreements do not exist until they are written down.
The wikis are large and any user's time is limited. Multiple discussions may simultaneously be open on the forum, on noticeboards or on talk pages, and it is unreasonable to assume a given user can keep up with all of them. Because it is impractical to forever wait for affirmation to a proposal, it is, in the meantime, sometimes best to assume that silence implies consensus. Users can hold this assumption until someone disagrees with it, as it is very likely users will eventually be affected by a decision they weren't aware of at the time or were unable to join the discussion for. At the same time, the more visible a proposal was at the time, and the longer the outcome of its discussion remains unchallenged, the stronger the implication that consensus exists. Again, however, consensus is not set in stone.
Therefore, "See it. Say it. Sorted."
Canvassing
Canvassing refers to the process of notifying other users of an ongoing discussion. Generally, it is acceptable to notify and ask users of their opinion on the matter at hand. However, these notifications should not be written or sent in a way in which it could reasonably be thought to potentially affect the outcome of the discussion in an unnatural way. If, during evaluation, a closer finds out forms of negative canvassing took place (not necessarily just the four described below), or is made aware of them, and they judge the impact on the discussion to have been significant, they may declare the discussion compromised and close it in the same way as if no consensus was achieved.
Signs of negative forms of canvassing are: user accounts whose sole contributions are giving their opinion in the ongoing discussion — thus typically with a low edit count, created while the discussion was ongoing, and most displaying a similar point of view —; biased messaging on user talk pages; inviting users to participate in the discussion from elsewhere, who wouldn't have done so otherwise when not invited, to express their opinion; a disproportionate amount of anonymous editors compared to other discussions; and similar such things.
Campaigning
Like its real-life counterpart, campaigning is inherently non-neutral in wording, tone or intent. In a discussion, it is a valid way of presenting arguments. Outside the discussion, however, notifying users in this way inevitably affects their opinion on the matter before giving them a fair chance to read the discussion fully and form their own opinion independent of someone else's influence, thereby impacting the outcome. If a user wants to make a discussion known to a broader audience, they must do so in neutral wording.
Forum shopping
Forum shopping refers to the practice of repeatedly asking for opinions until a favorable opinion has been obtained, or, in other words, "asking the other parent". An example of this is requesting the review of a ban. If the conclusion is that the ban was correctly given, it's then unacceptable to ask for another review. Forum shopping also includes repeatedly bringing up the same issue in the same type of topics, in the hopes of swaying the consensus to one favorable to the user, or asking an administrator to perform an action that another administrator has declined to perform.
Stealth canvassing
Stealth canvassing refers to the practice of notifying users about a discussion through off-wiki means. Examples of off-wiki ways of communicating are through e-mail, in-game chat or in chat programs. It is discouraged, because it inherently excludes other wiki users. Another form of stealth canvassing is holding a discussion on a location inappropriate for the scope of the discussion. An example of this is a discussion on an article's talk page of which the outcome is intended to affect all pages in the same class of articles.
Discussions should be started in a place where most affected people can be reasonably expected to notice the discussion. If a discussion broadens in scope so this is no longer the case, it should be moved respectively. For instance, when the discussion's result only affects an article, it is appropriate to hold it on that article's talk page. If the intended result affects multiple pages, the discussion should be held elsewhere, for example on the forum, a noticeboard, or on the style guide's talk page, or moved to the appropriate place.
As time has progressed, various social media channels — especially Discord — have proven to be a useful tool in managing wiki-related subjects. This inherently includes forming consensus based on discussions only held there. It is strongly encouraged that these channels, in their rules, include wording which, at the very least, requires major topics be discussed on the wiki rather than in these channels. This allows users who are not part of them, voluntarily or involuntarily, to participate in the discussion. When a user in the off-wiki channels or on-wiki believes the discussion should be held on-wiki instead, and sees some support, then the discussion must be held on-wiki.
Votestacking
Votestacking refers to the process of notifying only users who have expressed, or are thought to have, a particular view on the subject, with the goal of having them participate in the discussion. This disproportionately sways it to a particular viewpoint. In case a discussion is rerun, for example because the previous one ended in no consensus, it is similarly unacceptable to disproportionately message users who expressed a particular point of view. For example, it would be disingenuous to message all supporting voices and only a handful of opposing voices in a discussion where 20 opposes were given and 5 supports. Either inform all users who previously participated in the discussion, or a proportional amount, or inform none of them.
What consensus is not
All or nothing
Consensus is not all or nothing. If, in a discussion, there is only consensus among users on a subset of items, then they should move forward with these. The same in complex cases, where several issues may be at hand, some more controversial than others. A disagreement on one issue must not hamper finding consensus on others. Issues can always be revisited later; in the meantime work with where common ground has been found.
A contest
Consensus is not established by the user with the greatest endurance or who can get the most users behind them. It is not a race to first place, it is an exercise in quality of reasoning and how this aligns with the ultimate goal of the wiki: documenting the Minecraft franchise.
Hypothetical
Consensus cannot take hypothetical opinions into consideration. During a discussion, any user may express their opinion, but it does not mean allowing a discussion to remain open indefinitely. Neither does it mean consensus can be changed by an appeal to, if the user so believes, the "silent majority". Either prove the opinion exists by referring to an existing discussion or suggest starting a discussion with a larger part of the userbase.
A majority vote
Consensus is not established through a vote. A vote completely disregards the value arguments have and the userbase's sentiment; worse still, due to the permanence of a vote, generally the only way to change a decision established this way is to hold yet another vote. Votes are additionally unfair to those who have just arrived, either during or after a vote. Especially when it's clear one side is set to win, it discourages them from participating, as their vote will effectively be meaningless.
From time to time, a user may summarize the discussion by means of a count of the fors, againsts and neutrals. However, such counts are meaningless and do not indicate consensus has been reached, nor that it had been present in the first place.
In numbers
Consensus is not numerically determined. Through forum shopping, users can make it look like consensus has been changed or achieved. This is a very poor manner in which consensus could be changed and goes against the spirit of the wiki. A wiki makes its decisions based on reasoning, not on the number of users voting one way or another.
It does not mean inviting users to the discussions is frowned upon. Instead, when inviting users to the discussion, the phrasing must be neutral and sent to a reasonably-neutral group of users, for example all active users or through the sitenotice.
Permanent
As times change, so may the prevailing consensus. Past decisions are thus open to discussion and making changes to the prevailing consensus is thus often reasonable, even if only weeks or months after an initial consensus was established. This flexibility is required, because, for example, new users bring new ideas; users may change their minds; the scale of the wiki changes, requiring new needs to be met; or better methods are found.
Unanimous
Consensus is not the same as being unanimous. In line with assuming good faith, every discussion should allow those participating to hear and understand one another. During evaluation, however, some arguments may end up carrying less weight than others or are ignored so that a discussion can move forward.
Insisting on unanimity only stalls a discussion, with the eventual result of no-one daring to raise an issue and ultimately the wiki dying. Insistence on unanimity may be classified as a form of disruptive editing. Instead, a user opposed to the proposal should describe how and why it is not in the best interest of the wiki that it is accepted. That also means being open to accepting the opposite happens despite this.
A walled garden
Establishing consensus depends on broad engagement. Preference found within a select group of users does not represent a preference which is best for the entire wiki. For example, consensus established on the forum cannot be overridden by a decision among a handful of users on an article's talk page.
Exceptions to this policy
Block & Quill's board elections follow the established voting process explained there. Actions requiring immediate attention that protect the operation of the wiki, such as page protection, blocking vandals, software configuration changes or changes to comply with laws or regulations, are not subject to consensus. Users are free to discuss these cases, but they should keep in mind there could be limitations which prevent consensus from being implemented.
Attribution
Aside from being based on current practice, the text is based, sometimes in large part, on the consensus policies of the RuneScape Wiki and English Wikipedia.