Inkipedia:Policy/Consensus

Consensus
Inkipedia is a democracy. Though it has staff, these users are not "better" than others. Major changes that take place on Inkipedia should be determined by its users in a consensus-based manner.

Inkipedia requires this as its rules must be adhered to by everyone who uses the site. Furthermore, projects and changes may not have clear solutions.

What needs consensus?

 * Making major changes to the site. This includes its scope, policies, interface, and staffing
 * Reversing prior consensus, after a reasonable amount of time or new information has come to light

It is recommended to get a second opinion from a knowledgeable editor before starting any major piece of work that would touch multiple pages.

What doesn't need consensus?
The vast majority of actions on the wiki do not require consensus. If other editor(s) dispute your actions, they may write on the talkpage and/or revert your edits. No more than three reverts should occur consecutively without beginning a discussion on a talkpage.
 * General wiki editing including addition of information, spelling, grammar, style corrections, etc.
 * Removing inaccurate or irrelevant information
 * Renaming your account (an admin and bureaucrat will ratify your request)

How do I create a vote?

 * For changes in Inkipedia policies and scope:
 * Follow the guidelines on Inkipedia:Policy/Requests for Proposal, or for minor changes,
 * Comment on the policy's talkpage. An administrator or bureaucrat will handle the request and make the change, or will ask you to make a new proposal request.


 * For changes in staffing:
 * For Promotion (Requests for Rights)
 * For Demotion


 * For new initiatives and questions:
 * Ink Pump


 * For double-checking before a big task:
 * Ask on Ink Pump
 * Ask on Discord

What is considered a consensus?
Consensus is reached when active editors mostly or completely agree on a topic. Discussions should be analyzed in an unbiased fashion by an adjudicator.

The adjudicator will determine the course of action and form a consensus. For site-wide matters, this will be an administrator or bureaucrat. For other discussions, users are expected to resolve discussions themselves, or escalate to a staff member in cases of no clear consensus.

The adjudicator should:
 * Remain impartial when forming a consensus, including if having voted in the topic.
 * Consider all points raised and which arguments are strongest. Consensus is not purely determined via vote count.
 * Consider if the policy itself would stand on its own, or needs other tweaks.
 * Consider if the policy "makes sense" or if additional explanations are needed.
 * Consider the overall impact of the change on the community and the wiki as a whole
 * Consider the overall impact of the change on staffing
 * Consider if the policy aligns with the wiki's scope and furthers quality, accuracy, trust, or constructive feedback.
 * Policies can change over time. If a consensus has been reached in the past, the adjudicator should consider past reasoning for putting the proposal into place.

What happens when a consensus cannot be reached?
If editors cannot reach a compromise or decision, and arguments for and against are of equal merit, the debate is declared "no quorum" and the subject of the debate fails.

Beginning a similar debate shortly afterwards, especially if no change in the situation has been made, is generally discouraged.

If no other users voice an opinion in a debate, the suggested change may be made; A span of time significantly longer than the normal requirement should pass before this happens.