David Goodman wrote:
I accept this criterion as necessary. And so the repeated AfDs on the most important issues with contradictory results are proof of the system's failure.
On 6/27/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
The only workable concept of consensus I've ever discovered is stability. If hundreds of people edit a piece of work in good faith over a long period, what changes least over time may be presumed to be there by consensus. However even the most apparently stable elements of a work may be deposed quite easily. The result may be a new consensus or, in other cases, a period of instability where the new version and the old version compete.
Only if one takes the premise that consensus can never change. I've seen many AfDs where the first result was "Keep and clean up", "keep and source", "keep and rewrite so it's NPOV", etc. By the time it's on the second or third go-round, and nothing after the "and" has actually gotten done (or is being actively resisted), some who argued that way actually change their mind and argue to delete.