Wikipedia talk:Don't violate consensus

Hopeless...

Yes, of course, this has near zero chance of ever being close to real policy. The fact that it is essentially two radical proposals in one, and sadly both involve so much process. Perhaps though, if people make very BOLD changes to this proposal something good might come out of it... What I'm trying to address is that we have an official policy on Consensus, but we fail to deal with tendentious editing that violates that that policy. In short, I think we need a consensus policy with balls. --Merzul 18:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that you're proposing something which you realize has almost zero chance of passing, to make a point about the problems you see with current policies? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice way of interpreting my intentions... Well, I might not know the solution, but something like this I think is needed. I believe in the ideas expressed in this proposal, but I'm deeply annoyed at having so many numbers, rules, and procedure, as it currently contains, but the basic ideas in this proposal I strongly believe in...

Is it disruptive to propose imperfect proposals? --Merzul 08:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]