Consensus editing is the process that wikipedia articles go through. It is presumed to result in something called "neutral point of view", which some consider an ideal rather than a realistic goal of the process. Some refer to this editing as more a process of attrition, which they see as leading to systemic bias, making editing more of a w:war of attrition than any kind of w:consensus decision making, with people trying to neutralize articles running out of patience as they run into ideology or dogma, especially by those who have sysop status.
If your concern is about ethical behavior in general, please review the main wikipedia's w:list of ethics articles, and review the Simple View of Ethics and Morals. If you find them unclear or feel they are wrong, please comment in the appropriate Talk file, and beware of editing too reactively, as those are necessarily controversial subjects. Ethics begins with patience... which makes the time to make ethical choices.
Please add your observations about consensus editing and its etiquette here:
No editing allowed on a blocked page. Blocked pages to be used only to cool spirits. Not to allow sysops to push their advantage, and prevent the non-sysops from reverting the biased stuff inserted by sysops.
- The latter does seem to be its primary usage now. Proposal: to accept any sysop privileges is to give up all editorial privileges except in Talk files. If you are a sysop, you can't edit anything, unless and until you give up the sysop power.
A brainstorming-stage proposal on Wikipedia, w:Wikipedia:Method for consensus building, would provide guidance for editors to reach consensus among themselves better, and limit the ability of uncooperative "spoilers" from filibustering discussions. The proposal can use feedback and suggestions toward achieving that goal.