, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 
 :::::I know from experience that you, Collect, know how to read better than that. Maybe you're just having an off day, so I'll take you by the hand and step you through this. I've never objected to Rule #5. I made an observation that "it appears we've already disregarded it" as Phoenix and Winslow was already off and running with his decision on what procedural matters we should be tending to next. I've never objected to Rule #1. I made an observation that Rule #1 "is standard Civility/NPA policy", and I bemoaned the fact that we need to keep reminding editors about it. Regarding Rules #2 & #3, which deal with consensus, my single objection was against your attempt to redefine Wikipedia policy by assigning arbitrary numeric values (in this case, the number '4') to the process of determining WP:CONSENSUS. I still maintain that objection.  If your intent really is to stop editors from prematurely "self-declaring consensus", why not simply have rules 2 & 3 say: No consensus will be declared as achieved, and no proposal will be actioned until the Moderator explicitly says so. Leave the responsibility with the Moderator. 

 :::::Regarding your comment, "And already you can read where he has defined 'consensus' for his own proposal to exist", no, I've never done such a thing. I abide by the Wikipedia policy as it is written.  I'll leave the redefining to you, and as you've already observed, it will very likely prompt objections. Regards,   17:18