Policy Talk:Consensus

Implementation of Policy[edit]

Since nobody has anything to say about this policy, I'm removing the "under construction" tag, and implementing it as is. --Scaletail 13:02, 7 February 2008 (CST)

Re-evaluation of current policy[edit]

Based on this discussion.

I want to re-visit the discussion regarding consensus. In the creation of the canon policy, Frabby, Scaletail and myself really went to great lengths and on a lot of (productive) tangents. When I crafted the draft policy, I had to spend a lot of time reading and re-reading posts for context, to make sure I addressed as many concerns as I could identify and hope that I represented them in the context they were intended, without placing too much of my own bias in the draft.

By experimenting with the categories discussion (especially with the last one, Character Article Flagging/Deletion), I created a 'form' where I could distill the discussion into the proposal, seek stances (not votes) and then clearly identify consensus issues in the consensus summary. The form does require actions that could easily be seen to be a 'straw poll,' but it also has the added benefit of 'allowing' an Editor to add a requirement that was missed in the proposal write-up (or disapproval of an element of the proposal). This would be addressed within the Stances portion of the Consensus Determination, which can then be added to the Consensus Summary.

The proper steps (as I see them), for determining consensus (when the intention is to distill a complicated or lengthened matter into something more clear), would be 1) allow the discussion to flow naturally, until either the conversation peters out or appears to hit loggerheads, 2) suggest a call for a Consensus Determination, 3) apply the Consensus Determination form, with clear goals and proposals laid out, for seven days minimum (but extended as proposal additions/concerns are raised), 4) invite comments via the Chatterweb, 5) summarize the consensus, 6) close/archive the Consensus Determination, 7) record the achievement of consensus on Minor News, 8) remove from Chatterweb, and 9) initiate the action, as required by the determination.

Another issue I see that needs to be addressed is the lack of active voices on BTW at this time. I'm absolutely fine with Editors that seek to focus on a certain aspect of the site and only that aspect, even though their participation elsewhere -especially in administration- would also be appreciated. We cannot force people to participate in BTW, nor can we demand their services in any particular area. But, likewise, some issues have to be dealt with in a timely manner by interested parties. As long as the opportunity exists to include others and within a reasonable amount of time, then any discussions on a topic that reach a consensus, of even only one or two people, must be respected. While they can be re-opened, there should be no need for a quorum or even support, if no one else speaks up on the issue. The creation of the Chatterweb has already achieved a measure of success (im my opinion), but the use of Chatterweb, HPG Newsbursts and/or Minor News are not required as a minimum measure of advertising an issue. MediaWiki employs multiple measures of allowing a User to monitor a subject (Recent Events, My Watchlist, My Contributions, as examples), so lack of participation by Users in a discussion (again, within a reasonable minimum length of time) does not indicate the topic cannot proceed with a consensus determination. I see this viewpoint as being a direct relation to Wikipedia's own essay 'silence implies consent.'

So, I seek comment on my opinion on a) allowing for formalizing Consensus Determination (when appropriate, but not necessary for every issue), b) the method and length of the Consensus Determination I originated and c) the addition to the policy of a caveat that 'silence equals consent.'

Thank you. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:12, 27 August 2008 (CDT)

I think it worked, but I don't think it is appropriate to require all of those steps. I think it should be listed as an optional step that somebody can take if he or she so chooses. --Scaletail 19:29, 27 August 2008 (CDT)
Yeah, writing all those steps was simply me killing time.Yeah, it is definitely optional. The best consensus policy is one that allows for free conversation. I reserve this for policies or other issues I personally deem important, or otherwise for conversations appear to need a more direct methods. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:17, 27 August 2008 (CDT)

New additions[edit]

In light of some recent events, its clear that our policies are as important in their current states and in their ability to adapt and grow. With the additions I've added helpfully supporting my boldness to make additions (see what I did there?), I've suggested two (hopefully) acceptable methods (Lengthy Discussion, BED) for reaching consensus (BED as an adaption of Wikipedia's own BRD essay, with all new writing by myself), as well as adding the concept of allowing consensus to change with time (and its inherent influences). In a blending of BED and Lengthy, I shall interestedly monitor both this talk page and the policy itself. Salutations. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)'s unsource articles[edit]

Hello, a series of articles have been posted by unregistered user. These are articles all lacking of references and somecases no matching to resources least I've been able to come up with. I'm expanding my resources of canon material. Some of his article which made me think there problem is this one Naval Battle over Oriente. This article talk about use of lost designs from the TRO: 3057 Revised being used during Star League era. I am not on Battlecorp so I cannot say short-story detailing any actions during this time period may-may not have come out including these fairly recent designs. However, nearly every major resource book update I've got does not show case use of Lost designs of WarShips in historical battles. I've able to go over some of the articles and corrected them. Including Long March Offensive, which I renamed since it was using name was didn't existing source. Having these events brought to database is not bad thing, but much content i've unable find does concerns me. I get impression, that their made up by the author rather than actual canon source. I like to asking what should be done regarding this individual's efforts? -- Wrangler 12:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)