Wikipedia:Don't violate consensus

Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, but not all ways of editing are equally welcome. Some issues are discussed at length on the talk pages and editors reach consensus on what to include in an article. Disrespect for this process is not acceptable.

Even edits in good faith are harming the project, when there is a strong consensus against what you are doing. The right approach is not to muscle one's edit through, but to ask other editors to weigh in on the situation.

Once a conclusion has been reached in a wider discussion, the issue is resolved, and noted as such on the top of the talk page. Bringing up resolved topics for discussion without good reason can also result in a ban.

The 3:1 consensus rule

This policy is intended to effectively deal with tendentious editors, who cause trouble for the rest of the community by stubbornly insisting on having it their way without respecting the opinions of others. Editing against the will of an overwhelming majority of regular contributors may result in a ban.

The strict rule to follow is the 3:1 consensus rule. If three times as many established editors are against you as those who support your editing a particular article, then you may not edit that article. In particular, if you are reverted by three different editors, you must immediately stop editing the page and seek support for your edits on the talk page. Not even edits unrelated to the rejected material is allowed until you gain some support on the talk page, you must stop editing that page. The idea is to work with the other editors on finding a compromise solution, rather than ignoring consensus.

Editors should always seek consensus on the talk page, and not edit-war, but this rule only applies in extreme circumstances when a single editor is pushing his opinion against the will of the community. Where disagreement is more even-handed, it falls outside the scope of this proposal.

Asking for help

Consensus among the regular contributors to an article should not override Wikipedia's core content policies. In particular, a group of editors should not be able to impose their particular point of view and refuse the addition of any material contrary to their agenda.

Sometimes a single editor is right, but what can you do, if there is consensus among the cultist that control the article that your edits are not welcome. Even in this case, trying to muscle changes through an established consensus by appealing to the authority of our policies is counter-productive, because it makes it hard to distinguish such behavior from the abuse of policies by editors, who emphasize one aspect of policy over another to push their particular agenda. A typical case is insisting on having well-cited but irrelevant criticism included in a biography, thus prioritising verifiability over due weight.

Instead of using force, one can try to gently persuade the editors and educate them about the policies. However, it may be the case that they are the ones, who are unreasonable, and you need call in other editors for help. There are many places to look for editors that may be sympathetic to your position:

• If it is a matter of differing points of views, the best place to look is the WikiProjects that are interested in that article. These are listed on the articles talk page.
• If the dispute is more concerned with policy issues, then the natural place to ask for outside commentary is the talk page of the relevant policy.
• Finally, you may ask editors you know to join the discussion.

The point is not just to count if there is a 3:1 consensus, but to really seek a solution to the dispute by asking as many people as possible to weigh in. The goal is to resolve the issue, once and for all, so that it isn't brought up for discussion again without good reason. If the point of dispute is considered important enough, it can be listed as a resolved issue for the article.

Resolved issues

When as a result of a dispute process a large number of editors engage in an effort to find a compromise, the result is worth preserving. This discussion should not end in no consensus, but will continue until consensus is found. At the very least a 3:1 consensus, but the ideal should be to aim for a solution that is unanimously supported.

For an issue to be resolved, it is required:

• All Wikiprojects that have placed their banners on the talk page were notified of the process.
• At least ten established editors took part in the discussion.
• The discussion lasted at least one week.
• The article has existed on Wikipedia for at least 2 months.

When an issue is resolved, the discussion is moved to an appropriately titled sub-page of the talk page. The discussion is refactored, or the main points are summarized, and a link to the discussion is added to a list of resolved items on the top of the talk page. It is extremely important that the discussion is summarized and the conclusion clearly justified, it is unreasonable to expect subsequent editors to weed through the entire discussion.

Sometimes it is required to re-open a resolved case. Circumstances change, or the previous discussion might have missed important arguments. It is well known that consenus can change, therefore an editor may propose to re-open a resolved issue, but this requires stating in a single succinct statement the fault of the previous discussion. For example:

• "I know it was resolved to not include a popular culture section. However, the subject is now guest-starring in a prime-time TV series..."
• "I know it was resolved that we should not include criticism about X, but the main reason given for this was the lack of reliable sources. Would the following journal articles suffice to change anyone's opinion?"

In order for an issue to be re-opened, it is required that at least one established editor, who was previously not arguing the case, expresses interest in a renewed discussion. The same procedure is then repeated as resolving a new issue, and the decision is amended, and the discussion is added to the relevant talk sub-page.