User:Metal10961/sandBox

=Consensus= Consensus is a group-decision making process where participants, especially community contributors, gather together to discuss and develop an aim that is generally accepted by all participants. On other platforms, such as Wikipedia or other Fandom wikis (Roblox Wiki, Avatar: The Last Airbender Wiki, etc.), Consensus is generally used nearly every aspect of editor life to strengthen a community bond and empower editors.

The Funkipedia Mods Wiki is not a democracy nor is it a bureaucracy. Although, it shares common similarities between the two.

Basic Principles of Consensus
The preferred way to make decisions on the wiki is through Consensus. Consensus should be applied to the following guidelines: In a nutshell, the choice to make decisions on this wiki should be made at the hands of the community.
 * Content decisions (Splitting pages, removing a page, etc.)
 * Proposals to change guidelines and policies.
 * Changes to the wiki's functionality.

Ideally, decisions that are considered trivial or unlikely to be controversial do not require consensus at all.

Determining Consensus
Consensus voting should ideally start as a discussion, either at a discussion post on the forums, in a talk page, or anywhere on the wiki.

Consensus is generally decided if a reasonable number of editors offered fair, reasonable, and professional input and is fully reached when involved editors agree on a particular decision. To determine if a consensus has ended, if a consensus has been reached, is decided by an editor who participated or an admin.

Involved editors who want to decide are required to either use the   or the [UNDECIDED] templates along with their reasons. Using these templates are mandatory during discussions time of a consensus.

When to use consensus

 * Whenever there is a proposed solution for a complex problem that could change the wiki significantly.
 * When editors are willing to participate on a major topic regarding the wiki.

Engage in an edit war
Edit wars do not solve the major problems at hand. In fact, doing so creates more problems on the wiki.

Give up when multiple people disagree
It's ok to feel like you're alone when so many people are against what you proposed. That's ok, it's normal. Ideally, if you think what the involving parties are doing is wrong or does not meet your standards, then remain calm and settle a general and acceptable agreement between all members.

Calling them out or publicly shame them
Do not make a call out post at a public sphere or proactively shame them because of what they did. Doing so undermines their motives foundations and it may fall under intimidation because you don't agree with them.

Question them
While it is okay to question some things that are unclear or needs clarification, it is not okay to question others in a negative way.

In A Nutshell

 * 1) A consensus is formed.
 * 2) Editors with a certain number of edits and posts get involved in the discussions.
 * 3) Involved editors comment their decisions and reasons.
 * 4) Consensus is reached.
 * 5) Discussions gets closed by an editor or admin.

Absolute Unanimity
Consensus does not always mean total agreement of participants for every decision. (Although, it's ideal.)

A democracy, bureaucracy, or an oligarchy
Consensus is not a political system where users simply vote on what they like. It is a loosely based system where civil editors collaborate to formulate one achievable aim. This process is not limited to just the staff team, but proactive and civil editors.

In favor of the majority
Consensus is neither voting in favor of the majority or a tool for mob mentality. It does not favor a simple majority of participants who agree on a certain decision and leaves minority editors out.

A tool for mob mentality
Mob mentality is defined as the inclination to join a winning side of a conflict, regardless of their individual thoughts on the matter, to defeat the losing side. Mob mentality is a current issue within the internet landscape. The wiki does not tolerate such behavior as it creates more bias within the consensus, thus failing the sole purpose of a consensus. To avoid such scenario:

1.) Stop and think through responses and actions before making them. It is best to do so in a calm, collective, and professional manner, instead of engaging when feeling stressed or pressured.

2.) Research the facts that are given before forming opinions. Be open to new information that emerges to form your individual thoughts and ideas.

3.) Find the comfort and courage to speak out your own thoughts.

A tool for influencers
Attempting to use your close peers or friends, followers or fans, family members, or anyone who is associated with you in order to influence or sway consensus. For example, a mod maker or developer with a huge follower account on Twitter attempts to use their influence and power to sway consensus into their favor. This falls into meat-puppetry and canvassing which is both unacceptable and disruptive and will likely result in you receiving a lengthy block on this wiki.

Consensus is not a democracy, bureaucracy, or a purely oligarchical process among the staff.

What not to do

 *  Off-wiki discussions . Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing. Discussions elsewhere are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust.
 *  Canvassing and meat puppetry . Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is absolutely unacceptable. While it is fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter.
 *  Sock puppetry/Ballot box stuffing . Any attempt of making multiple alt accounts, especially to influence a wiki's decision. Using sock puppetry to influence consensus is also forbidden. Neutral, informative messages to noticeboards, projects, or editors are permitted; but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus-building process are considered disruptive.
 *  Tendentious editing . The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.
 *  Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring . Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case, it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.