Brainstorming-stage proposal: Method for consensus building

I'm really glad you're working on this. I'm avoiding Wikipedia like the plague at this point in my lifecycle. (I consider this strategy wiki a career change, a place where I can do what I enjoy, and encounter less bad faith spoiler behavior.) So I won't be posting there. But I hope you continue to get feedback.

I think you might be better off distilling your idea down to the main point. Some headings like "discussion starts as normal" and "discussion continues" are obvious. I've learned that most editors aren't going to read every proposal in detail, and "long" is synonymous with bureaucratic and complicated. It looks to me like your main point focuses on what the next step is whenever no consensus is reached. I'd simplify and summarize the other stuff, and drill into that heavily.

IMO, that is the major problem. Most of the time, editors can discuss in good faith, or can get feedback from other editors who want to move the discussion forward. The problem occurs when people reach no consensus. A spoiler isn't just someone who disagrees -- that's to be encouraged. A spoiler is someone who continues to push the same solution over and over, but refuses to acknowledge that it will never gain support. Whatever we do, we have to encourage people to gradually come to the middle.