Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Continued Rollout of AFT/reply (29)

It's not possible to supply "a" link to discussions, because there have been multiple discussions over many months, which have generally either been supportive or neutral. I and others have provided links to more than a dozen such discussions and announcements in the past, and I'm sure that there are more that I didn't see at the time. I don't have time to go look up a long list again, but I believe that you will find at least some of them at the end of the FAQ page.

In the meantime, I recommend that you think about what en:WP:Consensus says about the relationship between discussion and consensus: discussion might shape consensus and it might document consensus, but it is not a required step in forming consensus—and it is definitely not necessary to hold a single, organized, long, large, noisy discussion to have a consensus. We have a consensus when most people agree on something, even if nobody says anything out loud. It is not necessary for even normal editors to seek "written permission in advance" for good-faith changes. It is certainly not necessary for the WMF to seek written permission to make good-faith changes.

Fact: The WMF has surveyed thousands of users about this tool, and only about 5% have said that the tool is not useful. That's far less opposition than every single one of en.wiki's major policies received at the time of its adoption, and far more people expressing an opinion. You are doubtless one of the people in that 5%, but 5% out of thousands of users is never going to be accepted as a consensus against the tool.