Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 3

message: It just struck me as weird that "consensus" is a guideline, whereas "consensus can change" is policy... :) (Radiant) 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly, that seems about right to me. :-) -- Visviva 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you walk this path all the way, well, that would be interesting. :-) Kim Bruning 18:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really, it'd just be interesting if you continue looking at the situation on a general scale. I'm curious if you'll draw the same conclusions I did. :-) Kim Bruning 18:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yeah, I am. The two main problems seem to be (1) too much bureaucracy, and (2) many new(ish) editors make incorrect assumptions about how Wikipedia works, based on misinterpretation, partial observation or just not based on anything much, and strongly resist having these assumptions challenged. This is both caused by and causing the utter mess that is the Wikipedia namespace, and is difficult to work with. For a more concrete issue, it seems that the 3RR has become a net detriment, because the relevant process is downright byzantine, and because it tends to give people the impression that edit warring is acceptable if one sticks to the boundaries, and that it's okay to recruit people for the fourth. (Radiant) 10:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is odd.  I don't see how consensus can be anything but policy, since it is an integral part of the wiki process.  As I have mentioned above,  I think this page needs to describe that process better, and should be less about resolving disputes and polling.  Re-written this way, it would be policy as it is a foundation of Wikipedia.  A page about how to solve disputes using consensus would be a guideline. -- Samuel Wantman 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep.  As mentioned above, all of our policies and guidelines depend on this thing called "consensus", but no one really knows what that means. — Omegatron 06:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  While we're on the subject 

message: This seems like it should be a policy rather than a guideline. I'll change it in a few days if nobody has a problem, but that's a big change so it's best to wait awhile and discuss here. Just H 02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that policies are not amenable to exceptions and common sense, but it is accurate to say that making exceptions to policies requires a higher burden of proof than making exceptions to guidelines.  There are obvious exceptions to the principle of consensus on Wikipedia: for example, Office actions and decisions of the Foundation supercede any opinions expressed by consensus; similarly, if there were an apparent consensus to include unsourced information in violation of WP:BLP, that wouldn't fly.  These exceptions should probably be included explicitly on the page, but if they are I would support this shifting from "guideline" to "policy". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy

message: I don't think it's pertinent to have these pages separate when one is basically discussing a specific aspect of the other. While keeping them separate was pertinent when their status was different, it seems irrelevant to keep them separate now, and seems closer to POV-forking (where users have been using WP:CCC to assert that consensus is invalid because it can change at a later date.Circeus 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Since "no binding decisions" has had its name change to "consensus can change" it is more obvious that it actually describes a part of the concensus process, and could well be merged here. // habj 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  CCC should redirect to the appropriate section, though. — Omegatron 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge proposal 

message: Whether a fact satisifies WP:V and WP:OR is, and always has been, decided by consensus. If this policy will claim that WP:V is not subject to consensus, then in order to avoid trolling wikilawyer editors it is necessary to point out that just because a troll doesn't think that WP:V or WP:OR is met doesn't mean that it actually is not met.
I agree with the spirit of the exception, which is the unverifiable material cannot be included even if a consensus agrees to do so.  But if a consensus agrees that the material is verifiable, then it is not OK for a troll to remove it claiming it is not. CMummert · talk 18:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know - it was added a few days ago, and I was just trying to clarify what was here before it got "stuck" the way it was. CMummert · talk 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exception 

message: I changed the wording slightly. It used to say "Editors must always assume good faith". I think, per AGF, that users are allowed to cease doing this when there is overwhelming evidence that a user is not acting in good faith, although they must strive forit whenever possible. IronDuke 19:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds very reasonable to me, good idea. -- Ned Scott 19:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A very important point. — Omegatron 06:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Per [[WP:AGF|AGF]]

message: I've made a first mention of Rough consensus again, but we have a bad definition of it. Note that in that same line, I also state that certain processes may have been somewhat misdesigned if they wish to use consensus (because they do not scale well, and have too many people participating (ie, more than Dunbar's number predicts to be a good idea.) Philip reverted it saying there is no consensus, well... note that this is an objective statement based on predictions made by peer reviewed scientific research (see the links). I don't care how broad a consensus there is for the sky being green. Get proof! :-P --Kim Bruning 11:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rough consensus 

message: :I believe the primitive notion that underpins Wikipedia is agreement. Agreement is defined as "a meeting of minds" in contract (common) law. It requires an offer and its acceptance. In the language of common law, one may 'accept' or 'reject' an 'offer'. A counter-offer is just another 'offer'. 
:It is equally important to recognise that the flip side of the 'agreement' coin is 'conflict'. ie. People may 'agree' to 'disagree', so disagreement alone is inadequate. Indeed, unless opposing parties choose to agree to 'fight' there is no fight! Without conflict (arising from the diversity of access to Wikipedia editors), the articles and even the rules of Wikipedia would never grow / adapt. Remember Wale's 'Ignore all rules' policy? ie. Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia. 
:Do people think some policy needs to be written on agreement and or conflict? Scholzj2006 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus or Agreement ? 

message: Just throwing out ideas here, so feel free to shoot me down, but shouldn't there be a section that explains that consensus - god, it cheeses me off when people misspell that - is not perfect as a way of deciding what should be done and may occasionally not work? And that despite this, however, due to its general success and the fact that there is no evidence to support the contention that any other system would be any better, we still use consensus to decide things?
I believe that there have been several ArbCom findings of fact to this effect. Moreschi  Deletion! 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's the worst system, except for all the others?" --Kim Bruning 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that. So, is this a good idea, or not? Moreschi  Deletion! 13:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's something that we should certainly think about. Maybe try on a separate page first? --Kim Bruning 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failures? 

message: Hey, I love the flow-chart for consensus-building, but I feel that there really should be an extra level of process for edits to policies, guidelines, and other documents which have gained consensus of a large section of the community.  The flow-chart as it now stands works beautifully for articles, but I feel that the first action when building a new consensus for "massive-consensus" articles like policies and guidelines should be at least a post on the article talk page, if not a notice at the Village Pump as well.
:I personally feel that essays should also be included in this flow-chart, but I don't think that's as crucial as emphasizing that policies and guidelines need an "extra mile" approach to consensus.--Aervanath 04:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Right.  Be bold! Thanks for clarifying that!--Aervanath 08:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Consensus flow-charts? 

message: This  recent edit by CentrX ties consensus specifically to the en.wikipedia definition . I wonder if we're actually creating these pages at the correct location? (Perhaps we should be working on meta?) --Kim Bruning 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making page strictly en.wikipedia 

message: Hmmm, interesting addition. Could our friendly IP editor give some more background information or examples of situations where this applies? (though I might be able to think of one or two myself, perhaps :-) )
--Kim Bruning 01:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking the other parent 

message: Very nice flowchart, but unless it states for how long the wait is, then it makes the whole thing rather un-followable! --Rebroad 11:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the number of people participating on the talk page, the size of the article, etc.  We need to seriously cut back on detailed rules like "wait 2 days" and emphasize more common sense rules like "wait and see what other people say". — Omegatron 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flowchart: Wait .... how long? 

message: Hi all. I have a question on the application of consensus. In a feud by a user I'm curious at knowing how many contributors are needed to make a consensus. I understand that most times arguments engage several contributors, however, in some cases, arguments include small numbers of contributors. In these cases, should the argumentors ask help from others or discuss it amongst themselves and have the minor party conceed? Cheers. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone needs to agree (or at least needs to agree to disagree). Else try asking for help at Wikipedia:Editor assistance, they can help you sort out consensus issues. --Kim Bruning 15:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Also, consensus is about creating an encyclopedia, not about the numbers on opposing sides. —Centrx→talk • 17:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much makes a consenus? 

message: I think that that is a "suicide clause". Consensus is very fragile, more fragile than even democracy. If anything else stomps on it, it ceases to function.  --Kim Bruning 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing concept that Consensus subject to other guidelines 

message: The not formally "verifiable" link to the mailing list for a "definition" is problematic, as is the tone that seems to imply that on Wikipedia, Consensus == Majority/Supermajority 
First, we should use a "verifiable" definition of consensus, not one from a mailing list, especially as a primary definition. If we need the link to the posting from the mailing list, it should be posed as a contrasting opinion. The formal definition of consensus includes not only absolutely no voting (the Society of Friends - i.e. the non-religious arm of the Quakers - have been doing consensus-based decision-making for hundreds of years without ever once voting) of any kind, ever, under any circumstances, as well as making sure that every opinion, no matter how contrasting, is heard. When an organization shifts to or uses majority/supermajority voting mechanics in place of consensus, an organization has then stopped using consensus.
I strongly feel that the implication of this policy that consensus and majority/supermajority are equivalent is dishonest and disingenuous. It potentially leads to Deletion Review closers and other admins thinking that nose-counting is consensus-making when it's clearly not, and it leads to us drifting away from the stated point of consensus.
I don't really mind whether policy is changed to reflect the reality of procedure (i.e. some processes use voting instead of consensus) or whether we start using actual consensus again, but the situation as it stands where we at Wikipedia say that we do one thing (consensus) but in fact do another entirely different thing (voting, in some cases), is definitely not okay.
I'll try to furnish some actual edits soon, boldly, and then we can revert and discuss them as needed. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already been some attempts to clarify the difference. Tread lightly :-) --Kim Bruning 22:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The not formally "verifiable" link 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#How much discussion is needed?; a move request was closed as no consensus when I was the only one commenting, and I supported the move. --NE2 10:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some cases, like requested moves and  requests, the admins are looking for evidence of consensus, and may refuse to take action if there isn't any. This is an acceptable, conservative approach to administrative actions. In this case, I think the admin's remark on the article talk page means that he or she is looking to see more comments at the wikiproject talk page.  Try restarting the conversation there. CMummert · talk 12:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one commented when I posted a link there, why would anyone comment this time? Note how many threads without response are on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, and the lack of comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names. What you're suggesting is compulsory voting, an impossibility on a volunteer project. --NE2 13:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel the request by the admin in question was unreasonable, why not raise the issue on his talk page to see if he will reconsider or at least explain his thinking? If that doesn't lead to a good resolution, you are always free to request the move again with an explanation. CMummert · talk 13:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already discussed that. I think my move request was pretty clear in showing what the common name is; why would requesting the move again lead to a different result? --NE2 14:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you had indicated from the start that the closing admin in question has already explained their reasoning . The advice given in that comment seems sound. CMummert · talk 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what I am to do. I've already tried to get others to comment, to no avail. Any more would probably be canvassing. --NE2 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Specifically, someone has said that he supports using the common name, but is not sure exactly how one would find that. Would I be allowed to specifically ask him to comment? --NE2 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all right to do so, particularly if you won't do it too often. Just do it once, and hopefully he will go and support your idea. No mass mailing to everyone, though.--Kylohk 15:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If no one cares enough to comment, is there consensus?

message: I am now in a controversy, with an  editor who insists that article talk pages   do not operate by consensus.  (The point at issue is a project tag he insists on adding to a talk page which only he thinks in relevant to the project.)
Has anyone met this aberration before? If so, should we clarify the page to say explicitly that consensus governs all pages at Wikipedia? If not, will someone click on the link above and tell him so? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess a talk page is somewhat of a different animal.  Individual comments are not governed by consensus.  They are a means to reach consensus.  But what about the common items such as the tags at the top of the talk page?  It seems that those should be consensus driven, though most of them are far from controversial.  What project tag and page are of concern?  maybe the specifics make a difference here. --Blue Tie 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the account at User:TonyTheTiger/DR bot is intelligible. It links, eventually, to two other discussions and the talk page concerned (Talk:Jon Corzine.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk pages

message: At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23, you can read:
:List of people by name – Overturned and deleted. AFD showed a clear consensus to delete which is apparent here too. – Srikeit 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one, it seems. <KF> 21:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Clear consensus" 

message: I think this policy should state that it doesn't override WP:NPOV.  What is the use of having a WP:NPOV if majority rules overrides it?  There may be an instance where someone does not want to follow NPOV at all.  Ideally, we should reach consensus with the goal of NPOV, but where in this policy does it state that requirement?  Some editors could say they have arrived at a consensus in which they desire to only show one POV where other notable POVs exist, overriding the NPOV policy.  This policy should state that it doesn't override the WP:NPOV.--09:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's not made explicit, both the "consensus can not quickly override existing policies" and "consensus does not trump Foundation Issues" include NPOV, with the latter link mentioning it specifically. It would be foolhardy in my view to try to enumerate all the things that consensus can and cannot override on this page. -- nae'blis 15:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Local consensus on one wikiproject cannot override Foundation issues by themselves. However, Consensus Can Change, and even the Foundation issues evolve ever so slowly over time, as conditions and our understanding change. --Kim Bruning 18:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: It seems to me that the idea of consensus has one huge loophole.  If an editor is involved in a content dispute or just simply wants to be a pest, all he has to do is be a persistent three revert violator.  Once reported to WP:3RR an admin may simply lock the page and request further discussion, instead of blocking the disruptive editor.  This encourages holdout editors to avoid ever reaching consensus, in the hopes that they could frustate other editors off of the disputed article.  Perhaps, we can ask admins to dig a little deeper, before locking an article brought to their attention from WP:3RR. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins should block the 3RR perpetrator, not punish other editors by protecting the page. --Kim Bruning 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately though, I've seen more than one admin do precisely that. Of course, you don't want 3RR to become a race where the first one there becomes the content dispute winner by getting the competition blocked, but you don't want the situation I described above either. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, typically I refer people to User:Dmcdevit/Thoughts. Is that useful? --Kim Bruning 19:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to Avoid Consensus

message: JA: I have requested verification of the claim asserted by the 02 Sept 2005 insertion of the {policy} template that "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia.  It has wide acceptance among editors".   Until somebody provides adequate evidence to support this claim, the template is invalid and unverified and can be removed with impunity at any time by any user.  Jon Awbrey 12:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how things work. I've removed the tag, please don't put it back. (note however, that it might be interesting to find verifiability rules for guidelines... that might be a great way to cut down on the mess).  Note that this particular rule is a logical consequence of how a wiki works, so there's not much we can do about it. That and it's the only way to ensure that wikipedia will be around for ~100 years. You need to be able to get out if you accidentally paint yourself into a corner. Kim Bruning 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hoping that Wikipedia will be around for an entire century is a bit ambitious. Copies of it will probably still exist, but let's hope that by 2106 there'll be something even better than this. And then I mean, something better than the world wide web. --Thunderhead 16:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can hope, but in the mean time, this is what we have. It's doable and definately worth going for, even though I know it runs a bit counter to the current-day western psyche. It's still much less ambitious than long now ;-P Kim Bruning 16:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification Needed for Assertion of Policy Status

message: Jon Awbrey, it's great that you're re-inventing bold revert discuss, but I've already done the reverting. Could we get to the next step? Kim Bruning 17:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRD shortcut 

message: We already have a method of making binding decisions, in one small case: the deletion of redirects. WP:CSD G4 permits speedy deletion of recreated pages which are substantially identical to the deleted page; and in general that's a good thing. If someone wants to reopen the discussion on whether to have an article, he need merely write a new article on the topic, and it will be taken to AfD.
But if a redirect is ever deleted, that's permanent. There's only one way to make a redirect from A to B, so anybody, any time, who makes the same redirect will find it speedied. (This is already happening with cross-namespace redirects.) Septentrionalis 18:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Binding decisions

message: JA: Making this new section to continue a previous discussion in a slightly different light.  Jon Awbrey 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aware, Bware, Cware 

message: ...because the title is misleading, and this has been confusing new users. An important purpose of policy/guideline pages is to instruct new users, and because of cognitive laziness they don't always read past the first few lines. The point of this page is not that we make no binding decisions (indeed, that would imply a loner can ignore a consensual discussion entirely). The point of this page, rather, is that consensus can change, and that any consensual decision can later be overturned by consensus (but not by a lone editor who didn't like it). >Radiant< 16:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a suggestion? Maybe Wikipedia:Consensus can change, which differentiates top-down decisions and the five pillars? Wikipedia:No stone tablets has appeal too... -- nae'blis 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs a rename 

message: "Why on earth would you ask about a specific article content issue on Village Pump before on the talk page? that's what talk pages are for, to discuss articles" -- 
*Because this page is about how "Consensus can change". If consensus has been demonstrated a few months ago on an article talk page, asking "is this consensus still valid" on that talk page is very unlikely to get you a meaningful response. Hence, if you wish to demonstrate that consensus has changed, you need to get feedback in a more public spot. >Radiant< 14:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: I think it would be nice if this page mentioned how precedent should be used on wikipedia. I, for one, think that precedent can be involved in discussing changes - but changes should not simply be made based solely on precedent. Consensus from discussion is key, and precedent (like statistics) can be made to prove anything has support. Therefore, I think this page should mention something about precedent - whether or not there is consensus for using precedent or not. Did that make sense..? Fresheneesz 09:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedent - in or out 

message: A popular idea around here is that once a consensus is formed, it becomes "sticky", and you need another opposing consensus to undo it.  Like you get a consensus of five like-minded people on a talk page, slap a policy tag on a page and force people to do stupid shit, and you then need to get a lot more than five people to overrule the original five who won't give up their position in order to remove the tag.  I think this is quite silly, and not the way things are done.  If there's no agreement, there's no agreement.  
However, User:Sarenne made a good point about the fact that the people who like the status quo aren't going to be participating vocally on talk pages...  What do you think? — Omegatron 00:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sticky consensus 

message: What is the status of an article that has had an AfD end as a Keep? Is there any limitation on additional attempts to delete the article and does there have to be any material change in fact to justify initiating a second AfD after a previous AfD established a precedent to Keep the article? The way I read WP:Consensus -- "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome." -- there is an implied "protection" for an article that has a demonstrated consensus for retention. The way I interpret this statement, if AfD1 ends in a Keep, then a strong burden is placed on the prospective nominator of AfD2 (on the same article) to demonstrate that "... there is new information to discuss.", as the policy continues, before starting a new AfD. If a Keep precedent on an initial AfD provides no measure of protection to an article, there is nothing to prevent any other editor from taking a second (or third, fourth or fifth...) stab at deleting the article. And if AfD #37 finally achieves the desired result, there would seem to be nothing in WP:Consensus forbidding the article from being recreated as is, and the AfD cycle starting all over again. Does AfD precedent have any meaning in terms of the future of an article? Alansohn 16:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Precedent for retention after an AfD Keep

message: This may have already come up, but I think this policy should have a nutshell, such as:
Please comment on the proposed wording. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --☑ SamuelWantman 07:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you added "Consensus is not a vote" or something like that it could be useful.  Sophia 07:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy in a nutshell, potential wording 

message: A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one.
This appears to be an argument from silence. Discussions move on - new research is linked - how can the previous participants in a discussion be held as some sort of unassailable status quo? Surely if they cared that much they would revisit to explain their take on things again?  Sophia 21:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Asking the other parent" section

message: I think this is a crucially important point about consensus that should be in the intro:
:"When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'; a common view by a limited group of editors almost never outweighs the consensus of the community as documented by policy."
This is a point that often comes up in dispute, particularly in connection with POV and ownership issues: "It's consensus the article should handle it this way, so your view is marginalized". Unless consensus within a debate operates within the framework of policy, which itself represents the much larger consensus of the community, it's flawed logic.
I've added a brief sentence to this effect. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro addition 

message: Somehow the numbers got added again.  I've removed them. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The numbers 

message: I hope folks like the reworking of "Consensus can change". The new version keeps almost all the original wordage, but trims essay-like stuff and a few other things that aren't so helpful in gaining an understanding of consensus on Wikipedia:
# Moved example of WP:ATTRIBUTION and description of ccc as it pertains to policy to a new subsection "consensus and policy change", so this section can focus more directly on consensus change in general.
# Described consensus change more, before going into who can and can't declare it is changed.
# Trimming a few excess words ("however" etc) and phrases ("when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree" -> "when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree").
# Focus on policy: for example changing the emphasis of consensus seeking, so that it is not so much about seeing whether other editors "agree" (OLD) but more about seeing "what points other editors think are important, and to compare and examine the different viewpoints and reasons." (NEW) The latter is much more in line with wiki-ish collaborative approaches, as well as supporting policy such as AFD where simply stating agreement is far less important than actually raising and considering discussion points.
# Improving flow/reorganize sentence order: sentences regrouped into 4 paragraphs, covering 1/consensus is not immutable and can change, 2/ small groups can make decisions but these are not fixed or OWNed, and the wider community can disagree, or they can be questioned, 3/ consensus change distinguishes between good faith concerns for good reason, and disruptive attempts to force a view, 4/ original paragraph on philosophy of consensus change, "Wikipedia is always changing as new editors and information arises", with very slight reword to reduce risk of being taken to imply "Wikipedia is unreliable because it's always changing".
Diff: 
FT2 (Talk | email) 23:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactor of ccc explanation 

message: In general, I think that "nutshell" statements are pointless and often counter-productive.  While convenient, they encourage readers to assume that they understand the full policy just by reading (or quoting) the nutshell and miss all the nuance that's described on the rest of the page.  
In this case, the "nutshell" has been moved four paragraphs down the page, defeating what little purpose it ever had.  I think the template should be removed from this page.  Removing it will clean up the flow of the page but not sacrifice any content.  Rossami (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell 

message: So I removed them.  --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you not read the section above? There is not consensus to remove them. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The numbers have been in the article long time (looking at the history with 500 edits set returns the edit on  5 April 2005 which has the numbers in it, and the initial number of 80% was added on 5 December 2004). It is up to you to show that there is a consensus to remove them. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, I've just checked all the referenced pages, and can't find a useful citation to support the position of that paragraph. (I looked at each page one by one, and ended up removing each of them from the list). Hmph, I think use of {[citation needed}} in the project namespace might be way useful. ;-) --Kim Bruning 12:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The way forward there is obviously not going to be found by using numbers though. For instances like these, we should introduce some way to put different names on equal footing. Let me ponder on that for a bit. --Kim Bruning 15:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The numbers came back again

message: Hello, I was wondering if there is a general guideline or principle regarding statements like: 
:if it's added/removed in this article, it should be added/removed in the other article.  
For example, the case currently is that in the United Kingdom article they are including some information about the the personal union between countries specifically via the Queen, and in the Canada article, there is a discussion if that info is better served in a daughter article.  I'm not sure, but I think I remember that consensus usually happens per page, and if the editors on one page don't think it needs to be in one page, the effects of it being in another page don't really matter that much.  Any thoughts would be much appreciated.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would post the issue at both pages and try to get a consensus among all of the editors.  WP is one project, not a confederacy of individual page clubs (theoretically). --Kevin Murray 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A mixed bag, I think.  Sometimes the individual article pages are laboratories for deciding when something applies and when it doesn't.  Sometimes the result isn't consistent or unanimous.  As long as no great damage is done it's useful to allow different outcomes, and see where things are headed.  The outcome of one consensus process is instructive but not binding (as a lawsuit outcome might be binding) for future cases.  If it's truly a broad issue, or something important where the two cases are truly comparable, I agree that it's best to alert people on the other page and reach consensus in tandem.  If it's a very widespread issue it is best discussed on policy pages and notice boards to avoid needless duplication of efforts, problems having to do with notice, and inconsistent results.  For example, there were recent deletion debates about whether there should be national origin-based list articles (list of German-Americans, list of Lebanese-americans, etc).  In individual debates some lists were kept and some deleted, seemingly without a consistent pattern.  That kind of thing needs to be centralized and discussed in one place.Wikidemo 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Across pages 

message: The New York Times has today an article on how scientists came to a consensus that low fat diets were healthy, while getting the science completely wrong.  It is worthwhile for Wikipedians to consider the thinking in the article  Points it makes are that 1) whatever position is taken first is more likely to be the outcome than if a different position was taken first, 2) social pressures on dissenters don't help get the right answer, and 3) if a group is given data leading to the right/wrong outcome in a 60/40 ratio, there is still a 1/3 chance of the group coming to the wrong decision.  All of us should take care with regard to these issues.  GRBerry 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth reading 

message: I'm not being facetious here - when reading edit disputes, I often see these mandarin-like opaque admonitions that we must "seek consensus" but "wikipedia is not a democracy" and we should not be "voting". What metric do we use to assess consensus if we are not supposed to count the frequency of expressed opinions which agree with each other? --feline1 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is  a really good question.  One problem that I see with "voting" is what I call drive-by votes where people unfamiliar with the issue stumble in to express opinions without an indepth understanding or to promote a narrow agenda.  Unfortunately when you remove the quantitative assessement, evaluating consensus becomes subjective and unlcear.  Sometime it becomes who can shout the loudest or the longest.  For some reason though the system seems to work fairly well over time, although not at every moment.  --Kevin Murray 16:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - so basically, "voting" is "bad" because: people have to be presented with a finite set of "either/or" choices, when the reality may be more complex; also, a pure Yes or No vote says nothing about the competance of the voter to make the decision...... but  I do not see how recognising these flaws in "democracy" helps us assess objectively when "consensus" has been reached. Clearly, in effect, expressed views ARE being counted and "weighted" in some way so that those deemed more "valid" count for more...?--feline1 16:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clearly.  It seems to be a combination of weight of numbers, strength of argument, and consistency with other trends at WP.  An abstract evaluation of consensus is to try to assess the intent of those who have not expressed specific opinions, but indicate their preferences through their actions particularly in the policy areas.  --Kevin Murray 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think voting is a good "last resort" to break deadlock and edit wars, when everyone's been over each others' positions and no-one has anything new to say. Indeed I've sometimes had votes go against my position and found it actually reduced my "wikistress", as it meant the issue could be closed and everyone could move on. —Ashley Y 09:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How do we assess if consensus is achieved?