On 6/30/06, Jon Awbrey jawbrey@att.net wrote:
The fact is that good faith contributions by previous editors were not being respected, worked with, and modified, if need be, in the recommended manner, but simply being deleted wholesale under the guise of a "consensus" that was ever being declared by a small (but mysteriously growing) number of editors, with no real attempt at discussion except among themselves.
If the majority of editors on the page agree that the block quote is inappropriate, this is concensus. If you disagree with this decision, you can initiate a discussion on the talk page, and ideally these editors would discuss the issue with you.
I'm still trying to sort out exactly what your complaints are, so I don't want to accuse you of saying or advocating something you are not saying, as I inadvertantly did regarding the 3RR. So I have some questions: What would have been the ideal outcome in this case? Do you think the editors should be forced to discuss the issue with you before removing this block quote? Do you think consensus should not be used to guide decisions regarding Wikipedia content? If so, then what decision making process should replace it?