Wikipedia:Nose counts and consensus
Essay on editing Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Consensus is not a vote.
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. |
However, determining consensus via robust methods consumes a lot of time and energy from editors, not in the least because in any nontrivial situation you will generally need someone who isn't involved in the discussion to close it; and the amount of time this takes can lead to stalled discussions. It is unreasonable to expect every discussion to be formally closed; sometimes we need a quick-and-dirty way to assess where things stand at the moment.
It is also simple fact that people in a dispute are, naturally, going to feel their arguments are stronger. If they didn't feel that way, there wouldn't be a dispute in the first place.
Therefore, it is reasonable to take a quick nose-count of expressed opinions in an ongoing discussion in order to move things forwards, especially in situations where discussion has stalled and where contributions are lopsided or even one against many. This doesn't necessarily mean that a nosecount immediately ends discussions, but it's reasonable as a way to move things forwards without requiring a full RFC, and to put the ball in the court of whatever position is in the minority - essentially saying "this looks like a consensus to me; if you disagree, demonstrate it somehow."
If you find yourself in the clear minority of such a stalled dispute, and people are moving to end things with a nose-count even though you think that your side nonetheless has stronger arguments or would prevail with a broader audience, the correct answer is usually not to insist that consensus is not a vote but to either ask for a formal closure or move on to a proper WP:RFC.
Moving on to one of those things demonstrates that you're trying to resolve the underlying dispute; simply insisting that consensus is not a vote, especially in situations where your preferred version is the current status quo, accomplishes little and can come across as stonewalling or demanding that people satisfy you instead.