Elder Scrolls
Elder Scrolls

In many cases, changes to wiki-wide policy and/or changes to individual articles are determined by consensus, or a collective agreement via thought-out discussion to adopt a certain policy.[note 1] In the absence of consensus, these issues may be settled by a majority or supermajority of TESWikians polled (as mediated by one or more administrators).

When an issue is settled by either of these methods, attempts by any individual to counteract or violate these decisions without community support (as determined by a renewed discussion of the issue with participation equal to or greater than the original discussion) will be considered vandalism/disruptive editing under the blocking policy.

For community-wide consensus discussions, please visit Board:Consensus Track.

Articles for deletion

Articles for deletion is a decision-making process that is utilized by the TESWiki community to determine the fate of articles nominated for deletion. Similar to the consensus track, Articles for deletion threads are governed by the following guidelines:

  • Articles for deletion discussions should, in general, last two weeks.
  • An admin may close an AFD discussion earlier, after one week from the start of voting on an issue, if the votes overwhelmingly support one option: keeping the article in question, deleting the article, merging two or more articles, or any other proposal advanced in the discussion.
  • If consensus is unclear, admins should wait at least two weeks before closing the discussion with a result of "no consensus." A "no consensus" result will default to keeping the article.
  • Admins may also close a discussion with a result of "no consensus" after less than two weeks, providing that the admin closing the discussion quickly starts a new AFD discussion with a different or more clearly defined set of options which, based on the first discussion, are more likely to lead to a consensus.

Consensus track

With regards to the process of Consensus track forums which are discussed and debated among the entire community, it is the responsibility of administrators both to provide input on consensus track threads, as well as closing the threads when they are finished.

Two weeks is provided as a minimum time frame for thread length, though a thread should only be closed if it is clear that a consensus has been reached, or if no consensus has been reached and the thread has not been edited by a vote-eligible TESWikian in five days after at least two weeks of being active. After one week from the start of voting on an issue, if the votes overwhelmingly support one option, the thread may be closed early. Also, for threads closed by section (some of the MOS ones, for example), each section would have to be dormant for five days after a minimum of two weeks in order to be closed, not necessarily the entire forum; after one week from the start of voting on an issue, if the votes overwhelmingly support one option, the section may be closed early. These length guidelines do not apply to CSD threads. This lack of activity and consensus is an indication that a community agreement is not forthcoming. Should a thread be closed, it is the responsibility of the administration to properly address the result of the thread and apply it to the site and its policies as need be.

Additionally, it is regarded as bad form and against proper practice to close a consensus track thread in which an individual administrator has been heavily involved, though all consensus track closings fall under administrative discretion.

Staff demotions

In the event of a demotion against a particular staff member, it is critical to bear in mind that demotion CTs are meant to settle obviously and widely harmful abuses from a staff members, not as ways to purge unpopular staff members. In this sense, it is somewhat comparable to the impeachment process of a head of state in some real-world countries. What is considered appropriate evidence in such threads can differ if context demands it, but commonly-acceptable reasons for a successful demotion thread are as follows:

  • Blatant and harmful misuse of staff tools or influence on multiple occasions
  • Targeted blocks or unilateral demotions
  • Vandalism or spam
  • Repeated and obvious temperamental conflicts with users

On the other hand, here are some unacceptable reasons for a demotion thread; while these things are occasionally relevant to the conversation, they are generally insignificant if not accompanied by major abuses:

  • Being inactive
  • Making editing mistakes
  • Not participating in certain areas of the wiki

The staff member being accused in a demotion thread must be given a chance to defend themselves, or else the consensus can become so one-sided that its results are virtually useless.

Bureaucrats have the ability to legitimately veto any staff promotion or demotion if doing so is deemed necessary. More broadly, while they have the technical ability to manipulate user rights as they choose, acting without any sort of mandate from the community is typically only exercised in the absence of a stable working environment among the staff in order to facilitate cohesion and regrowth. Such actions are uncommon, and may involve coordination with the wiki's Wiki Manager or Wikia Staff.

Vote ratios

For consensus to be achieved in a consensus track thread on the Forums, a minimum of ten TESWikians must contribute a vote or statement. While all users are free to participate in consensus discussions, if a vote is held, then votes from non-autoconfirmed users are generally not considered.

  • Consensus track threads with 10–16 voters will need a 3 to 1 ratio of votes for passage
  • Consensus track threads with 17–24 voters will need a 5 to 2 ratio of votes for passage
  • Consensus track threads with 25+ votes can be passed by a 2:1 ratio of votes/opinions posted on the thread

Staff promotions/demotions, moot decisions, Member of the Month nominations, and candidates for deletion proposals require a 2:1 ratio of votes to pass, regardless of how many votes are cast. Staff changes additionally require a 2:1 support ratio among active administrators; i.e. a user's rights cannot be changed with a supermajority in the community if an equal level of staff support is not also present (if such a vote is ignored by an active administrator, they are deemed neutral, not in opposition). This consideration exists primarily in order to prevent bad-faith acts of vote manipulation by non-community members from influencing the makeup of the staff.

Casting a vote

To cast a vote, use one of the following voting templates in your reply.
{{VoteSupport}} → Voting-support Support
{{VoteOppose}} → Voting-oppose Oppose
{{VoteNeutral}} → Voting-neutral Neutral
{{VoteComment}} → Voting-comment Comment


  1. An overview of the formal consensus process may be found here. While TESWiki does not always practice a strict version of consensus, the overarching concept of integrating varying perspectives into decisions does carry through in most discussions.