Wikipedia talk:Don't violate consensus

Hopeless...

Yes, of course, this has near zero chance of ever being close to real policy. The fact that it is essentially two radical proposals in one, and sadly both involve so much process. Perhaps though, if people make very BOLD changes to this proposal something good might come out of it... What I'm trying to address is that we have an official policy on Consensus, but we fail to deal with tendentious editing that violates that that policy. In short, I think we need a consensus policy with balls. --Merzul 18:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that you're proposing something which you realize has almost zero chance of passing, to make a point about the problems you see with current policies? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice way of interpreting my intentions... Well, I might not know the solution, but something like this I think is needed. I believe in the ideas expressed in this proposal, but I'm deeply annoyed at having so many numbers, rules, and procedure, as it currently contains, but the basic ideas in this proposal I strongly believe in...

Is it disruptive to propose imperfect proposals? --Merzul 08:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here... This proposal combines two good ideas into a terrible one. The two good ideas are:

Whether a person is right or not, we should maybe do something to disallowed editing against consensus. It is more productive to state one's case on the talk page, and there are many possibilities to ask for a third opinion, either formally via the third opinion or RfC processes, or informally through the WikiProjects.
Having a list of resolved issues with links to refactored discussions would be terribly useful. We have FAQs sometimes, and some pages have links to discussions in the archive, but having a constantly updated sub-page justifying the decision on a recurring topic would probably solve a lot of running-in-circle disputes. But this is not something that should be enforced by any policy, I will simply try this idea on some pages where I edit myself.

Combining these two ideas into a proposal for mass-discussion, enforced consensus and resolved issues, with massive instruction creep is where things went wrong. I will streamline this proposal into a very simple rule that would amend the 3RR, it could be thought of as the 5RR... That would at least be worth discussing, and once I've cleaned this mess, I will stay away from the MediaWiki namespace for at least one year. --Merzul 14:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done!

At least it is now short and to the point... I think it is a good idea, but I don't know, if it is actually worth the effort in implementing and working out the details. The goal is to reduce WikiStress, but it is not clear, if something like this would help. --Merzul 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 vs. n

So in the case of 1 editor versus 5 editors, the one editor is clearly wrong. But what about 2 or 3 editors versus 5 editors?Bless sins 04:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes... the line is completely arbitrary! Anyway, adding more rules is probably not going to solve the problems, so I'm giving up on this proposal. However, I will not mark it as rejected myself. I still feel that single editors, who are on obvious POV-crusades, can create too much head-ache for the rest of the community, sometimes causing valuable NPOV-respecting contributors to leave.

I have also experienced the situation, where I believe a single editor was right, but even then, trying to push a change against consensus is disruptive and only creates bad feelings. I believe that having some stronger rules against consensus violations would be very helpful. I hope that maybe somebody will think of something clever to do with this proposal. If not, then feel free to mark it as rejected. --Merzul 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if you get reverted by 12 angry men? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]