"

Furthermore, previous declination stated ""edit warring is forbidden whether or not it occurs in the enforcement of any real or perceived consensus (let alone a ""majority approval"", because Wikipedia does not operate by majority rule)"". But despite my question, ""How is it ""edit warring"" to implement a version that has approval of a majority pending revision only after further discussion?"" I have received no answer to that simple question.

Also, contrary to this denial, WP:Consensus in fact states ""All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles. Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken.""

Anyone can see on the Talk page I've made an extraordinary good-faith effort to reach a consensus on the wording of the 3rd para. A full consensus could not be reached, but a majority decision was taken. That decision was to implement the wording in question, pending discussion and review. That is a perfectly reasonable solution. It further was agreed only after objections/suggestions have been heard and received peer approval should changes be made. There are a number of rogue editors who've rejected this solution, preferring instead to edit war, editing the para without explanation or discussion. It is therefore those who defy Wikipedia policy on conflict resolution who are 100% responsible for edit warring."