I don't know if there was ever a discussion regarding how we discuss changes (votes vs. consensus), but it's always been an grandfathered policy that we try to reach consensus in order to pass certain changes (such as deletion, guidelines, etc.) I want to make this into an official one, in addition to sock puppetry (since consensus is affected by it).
User:D-day/Sockfor sock puppetry (almost like Wikipedia)User:D-day/Consensusfor consensus
I'll make changes to the policies depending on the outcome of this discussion, as usual. Most of the content is copied from Wikipedia, as I generally think it's a good place to draft a policy or guideline. There are some changes to them to accommodate our wiki.
I didn't add any numbers (like a ratio), since I don't really like the idea of that, e.g., saying that 70% in favor of a change means it passes. I think it's better to not encourage this, as it sometimes makes it seem it's a vote. I did, however, add something about leaving a discussion for at least a week (which is something I suggest, since it's what I generally do). A discussion does not have to be closed after one week if there's an ongoing and active discussion. ··· 
d·day! 20:22, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to add that there's a statement about making changes to policies and guidelines, provided they're not controversial or anything (which is from Wikipedia). Of course, if anyone contests the change, anyone can revert it and discuss it on the talk page. I'm not sure if anyone's comfortable with this idea, or would rather have discuss this first before. Generally, it should be discussed, but it's mostly for changes that aren't "bad" for editing, e.g., adding further guidelines for layout guide if it's already been a standard already, but hasn't been added. For example, I wanted to add something about not having to read guidelines and policies before editing, but I would be technically required to discuss this on the talk page (well, not exactly true, but let's pretend I must). I think changes like that are okay. ··· d·day! 20:29, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
I'm bumping this thread. I would like to pass these as policies with at least one feedback so I don't seem like a totalitarian since I think they are both fundamental policies. It's not much different than how things are done here at the moment, but it sets everything in stone. ··· d·day! 18:08, May 16, 2012 (UTC)
I support both proposed policies. Does this mean that admin nominations and the like would be carried out by consensus now, or would we stick to the vote for those situations (personally, voting is my preference for things like nominations)? 
King Cousland | Talk 20:37, May 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Admin nominations will always be carried as a vote, in addition to just aesthetic stuff (such as choosing one logo over another), since it's rather hard to discuss about that. It's mostly pertaining editing on the wiki. ···
d·day! 20:40, May 16, 2012 (UTC)
I not sure if I might voice my opinion, but.. I think there is nothing to disagree about User:D-day/Sock, and I generally agree with User:D-day/Consensus, but I'm unsure about "In discussions of <...> editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article." Does it mean that the first editor will have precedence over all the rest on the matter as soon as enough time passes so that subsequent edits are no longer classified as a reversal of an unwanted addition but rather as an "editorial alteration?" If so, how much time exactly? Asherinka (talk) 12:56, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
- If you're afraid you're not an administrator to voice your opinion, please don't be. All users are encouraged to give feedback for any policy and guidelines; this isn't for administrators only.
- Generally, conflicts should end with a compromise, but like any change, the discussion can be re-opened if it was closed or a policy could be proposed again ("Consensus can change" section). The one week period wait is not a defined time but rather a proposed one that it should be enough to gather feedback. The discussion can be left unclosed indefinitely, but at this moment, the edit will be reverted to the edit where everyone agreed upon (and as such, if there's no consensus, it'll be reverted back). Otherwise, if we leave it to the edit that has been met with conflicts, it's like saying we're okay with that particular edit when no one actually agrees on it.
- I'll give an example: let's pretend someone added that Danarius is a half-elf because of his ears, but it's been reverted, and then reverted back again by the first editor. So we are now using the modified version. After two weeks of discussion, no one can agree with that edit. Should we keep it to the first editor's edit that Danarius has ears? No: it's reverted to the edit when it was not changed (that is, the version without mentioning the ears). ··· d·day! 15:23, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm generally more concerned with another scenario. Say, someone writes that a mythical knight-commander is a tyrant. And that version of the article exists for a month. Then someone stumbles on it and edits it, writing that he is a nice guy. During the discussion on the talk page editors learn that 40% agree with the initial statement while 60% disagree, i.e. there is no consensus and it is evident that none will be reached. Does the new policy mean the article should be reverted to the very first edit that existed untouched for that month or that speculations should be deleted altogether instead of giving preference to any of the versions? Asherinka (talk) 16:43, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to put words in D's mouth, but in cases such as that speculation should always be deleted per our existing policy (unless blindingly obvious such as in the case of Larius or Janeka's possession in which case I don't think anybody would have a problem with it being mentioned). However, unless we have solid, canon material which backs up claims, speculation such as the example you provided should never be included. King Cousland | Talk 16:52, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to put words in D's mouth, but in cases such as that speculation should always be deleted per our existing policy (unless blindingly obvious such as in the case of Larius or Janeka's possession in which case I don't think anybody would have a problem with it being mentioned). However, unless we have solid, canon material which backs up claims, speculation such as the example you provided should never be included.
- I'm generally more concerned with another scenario. Say, someone writes that a mythical knight-commander is a tyrant. And that version of the article exists for a month. Then someone stumbles on it and edits it, writing that he is a nice guy. During the discussion on the talk page editors learn that 40% agree with the initial statement while 60% disagree, i.e. there is no consensus and it is evident that none will be reached. Does the new policy mean the article should be reverted to the very first edit that existed untouched for that month or that speculations should be deleted altogether instead of giving preference to any of the versions? Asherinka (talk) 16:43, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
- As KC said, removing speculation altogether is what is going to happen, since other policies will trump it, such as adding pointless trivia (which is a good thing we have those guidelines set). That would also be the case for the Danarius's scenario actually (it was kind of a bad example now that I think about it, heh). Otherwise, removing the conflicting edit is the compromise, which I think is the key to what we want to do here. The consensus policy is there to help reach consensus, but should generally not be used to decide whether a trivia is good when the guidelines specifies it is not. Exceptions may happen, but they are unlikely.
- The "no consensus" is also going to be used for policies where no one can decide upon something, e.g., everyone is divided on how long an user image can deleted without notification (it has happened). We simply decided to not implement the policy, e.g., what was done before (basically, no time or whatever was set before). ··· d·day! 17:02, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
- The "no consensus" is also going to be used for policies where no one can decide upon something, e.g., everyone is divided on how long an user image can deleted without notification (it has happened). We simply decided to not implement the policy, e.g., what was done before (basically, no time or whatever was set before). ···
Good policies for a happier wiki. (that is how it is said I think). I support them. Diain (talk) 16:16, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm more than a little late to the party here, I just wanted add my support. The policies are very sensible indeed. Where would the wiki be without you D-day? 
Loleil Talk 22:39, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
- Ahh, I have almost forgotten about this! I'm waiting for Tierrie's reply as I have ask him if he had any comment/feedback to give (I don't want to close this without his comment since it'd be rather rude). I'll leave this up for any question, comments, etc., and give a warning before I close this. It doesn't change that much on the wiki (imo anyway), so I think it's fine to leave it up a while. :'] ··· d·day! 16:08, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for the late reply. I reviewed the proposal and I feel that something that is puts a long time policy into writing. The proposal is narrow enough in scope that I feel that there is little room for abuse, and I believe that sock puppetry detracts rather than adds to the community. Thank you for drafting this and bringing it to my attention. You definitely set the bar for administrators ;) -- tierrie talk contr 03:52, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
Dragon Age Wiki:Consensus and Dragon Age Wiki:Sock puppetry have been created per this discussion. As usual, the policies may be revised at a later time, and if there's any questions or concerns, anyone's welcome to ask. ··· d·day! 15:38, June 14, 2012 (UTC)