The page mediator for a page is an editor who helps mediate between the different editors interested in the page when differences occur. Their job is to help the interested editors achieve consensus about controversial edits as well as maintaining and updating the "about page" for the page. By helping to ensure forward progress rather than deadlock, the goal of a page mediator should be to help maintain the enthusiasm of all editors.

• Both the actual page and the about page should reflect, as much as possible, consensus among interested editors.
• Page mediators are chosen by consensus among editors interested in the page for a term determined during their election (usually 6 months). They may quit whenever they wish, and may be recalled if a consensus develops that their recall would be in the best interest of the wiki.
• Tact and attention to people's feelings are vital qualifications for a page mediator. Sound judgment, creativity in finding "win-win" solutions, the respect of other editors, and persistence can also be vital in breaking through deadlocks.
  
• A page can have multiple page mediators, none at all, or something related to but different from a page mediator, depending on what the community thinks is best.

Consensus is a core principle and official policy of Wikipedia. Because their goal is to achieve consensus, page mediators may refer to relevant pages from Wikipedia for ideas about how consensus works in Wikipedia:

• A Wikipedia essay entitled, "What is consensus?"
• Wikipedia's official policy on achieving consensus
• (While we often use Wikipedia's policies as a starting point, we may eventually develop policies of our own that differ from Wikipedia's.)

Variation: Page mediator with ability to hold a vote about the page

If the wiki community desires it, it may give a page mediator the ability to hold a vote among the editors interested in a given page. Guidelines for calling such a vote will be created when needed.

Variation: Page mediator with decisionmaking authority over the page

If the wiki community desires it, it may give a page mediator with an exceptional reputation for good judgment the ability to weigh the arguments and feelings of different editors and make a summary judgment. This judgment should be determined by their opinion about the best way to resolve the differences among the parties interested in the issue and should not prioritize their own preferences. An advantage of giving a page mediator decisionmaking authority rather than the ability to call a vote is that it allows the page mediator the ability to protect the interests of groups of editors who have very strong feelings but are still a minority. A page mediator with decisionmaking authority must call a vote prior to making the decision and must carefully and thoughtfully explain why they overrode the majority if they do indeed do so. Guidelines for exercising decisionmaking authority over a page will be created when needed.