Wikipedia talk:Community assent

message: This page was the subject of an MfD debate closed on 9 March 2006.  The result was Keep. Xoloz 05:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD result

message: From the earlier Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#HMAINS comments thread about the date-linking change to the MoS.  I call it out here because it's caused me to consider the differing expectations people have about how guidelines (and to a lesser extent all policies) can change over time:
The guidance is not long-standing. Do a random pages test, and see just how many pages (which haven't been hit by Bobblewik) have date links. It's been massive longstanding practice to link dates, and this was never an issue until Bobblewik fired up a bot and started making changes en masse. Bots do not make disputed edits. I'm all ears if Bobblewik wishes to talk, but if he doesn't, I will (and am proceeding to) shoot said disputed bot edits on sight. Ambi 04:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think your argument here is entirely correct.  Policies have usually arisen by describing the best practices of our best editors.  But (rarely) policy does go against common practice current at the time in the Wikipedia, and that does not make the policy unenforceable or even lacking in consensus.  If it did, we would never have been able to switch from having introductory paragraphs with Title rather than Title, since, at the time of the change, nearly every article used the form now considered incorrect. --TreyHarris 04:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference there is that there was consensus support for that change. There isn't here - there was no widely publicised vote expressing support for that, and most people are still linking years in their own articles today. Policies have usually arisen by describing the best practices of our best editors, you're right. Occasionally, due to the size of the place, a handful of editors who agree on something can try to slip it in by the back door. When that happens, it still doesn't override four years of common practice. Ambi 05:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to policy 

message: ...unnecessary and redundant. The live version of a policy page is the one that has the community's support. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redundant of what, the dismissive beligerence of a small handful of admins being passed off as consensus?  Bullying others off the page renders that page other than live. You not only fail to convince that this is unnecessary, you create the necessity.  StrangerInParadise 15:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: WMC, if you want to argue about contributions or the bad "spelt" that you ate, please use the user talk page. — Dzonatas 17:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is... 

message: From Wikipedia: "Wikipedia has a set of policies identifying types of information appropriate for inclusion. These policies are often cited in disputes over whether particular content should be added, revised, transferred to a sister project, or removed."
It is evident that the policies and guidelines reflect the content of the articles. Katefan0, WMC, and a few others have shown to protect "live versions" (actually the wiki version) of policy. Any changes made to the wiki version were reverted to protect the "live version." However, other wikipedians also changed the wiki version but were not immediately reverted. Any objections to revert such changes were also reverted. This does not demonstrate community support or equality to edit.
We want to trust articles. When policy or guidelines are used to affect articles, there is question if the affect is nuetral or one that can be trusted. If only certain wikipedians are allowed to update policy and the rest are reverted, the trust is questionable. It also reflects into articles that only certain wikipedians can affect the nuetrality of an article by policies and guidelines.
This proposal establishes a less chaotic approach to community consensus. It does not let the false claim of community support to prevail when there is none. It also puts any claim of community support, especially those that claim "wide acceptance," to the question when there have been several minor changes over time to the wiki version.
Some editors like to be bold and edit the "live version." While other editors like to find consensus first. When editors don't seem to allow people to either be bold or gain consensus, they appear to protect a "live version." With a subpage that protected from edit, which this policy would create, there is no need for editors to quickly revert another just to "protect the live version."
— Dzonatas 17:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...about trust!