This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 06:17, 29 October 2020 (→What's this page for?: refine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:17, 29 October 2020 by El C (talk | contribs) (→What's this page for?: refine)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Incompleteness
This page covers simple cases of "Addition" and "Removal", but does not cover any variety of "Change" (e.g., copyediting, changing the meaning, rearranging). Should it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, the thing to remember is that this restriction only comes into effect when someone objects (substantively) to a change, otherwise that change eventually become the new consensus itself by virtue of WP:SILENCE. But it doesn't really matter if it involves plus or minus bytes being added/removed. Even whenever there is zero byte change accompanying an edit, it would still involve new letters being added (replacing older ones) to change words in sentences (or a new image or template replacing an older one, whatever). Likewise, when someone makes a substantive objection to words (or images or templates, whatever) being rearranged. As a change is being introduced so as to modify longstanding content, the sanction may come into effect. So, the focus is on the alteration of longstanding content, which includes page arrangement or anything whatsoever that is being introduced. That's it. It's just that plain addition or removal of text (or images, templates, infoboxes, whatever) usually account for over 99 percent of Consensus required enforcement requests (in my experience), so I didn't really bother qualifying it further in the "Possible scenarios." But, yes, it may also include edits which, say, moves an infobox from one section to another. Anything. Hope that answers your question. El_C 23:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @El C, thanks for your answers. How do editors (usually) make "Consensus required enforcement requests"? Is this specifically about the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement process? From the page links, I don't see much outside of the formal ArbCom process.
- Also, can you imagine this provision being placed on a new article? New articles don't have long-standing content, but I could imagine a
]getting a related article,], and the disputants moving right over to the new article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)- Yes, WP:AE to have it decided by a quorum of admins, but one can also bring such a request to an individual admin's attention. I'm of the school of thought that, when the need arises, you start with the basic 1RR or protection (semi, ECP), then if those still don't do the trick, you move on to the additional enhancements. Consensus required isn't meant for new articles. Indeed, it would be absurd, because even really high-traffic articles would need about a month (certainly no less than weeks) before longstanding text can even be said to exist in any meaningful way. But keep in mind that there really aren't that many articles still subjected to this restriction. There used to be more, but then one admin supplanted most of em (I'm told) with enforced BRD, which I actually feel is inferior in most cases to Consensus required. But what I'm getting at is that it isn't applied to pages often, and even when it is, generally there just isn't a lot of enforcement requests. Sometimes there are exceptions: for example, throughout 2019, I have seen more Consensus required enforcement requests on the MEK talk page (more than half of which I would decline) than all other articles combined. But again, it currently applies to only a few articles and enforcement requests tend to be rare. El_C 02:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, about the MEK: it is the only GS page I know with the Consensus required restriction attached. Background: I am the one who actually suggested it as a binding arrangement to the chronically-conflicting MEK participants. They agreed, so we went forward with it. A year or so later, once the IRANPOL General sanctions was created, it was integrated under it. So, to answer your question more succinctly: yes, DS rather than GS almost exclusively. But, boy, was that one GS page just the Consensus required gift that kept of giving... (Meaning, it was effectively gamed as much as it was used appropriately — though in the final analysis, I think the MEK article would be in much worse shape if it weren't for its stabilizing effect.) El_C 02:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, looking at the IRANPOL page, I notice that Maryam Rajavi (the leader of the MEK) is also under Consensus required, it having been applied by another admin. So make that two GS pages I know of with that restriction being in effect.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 03:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, about the MEK: it is the only GS page I know with the Consensus required restriction attached. Background: I am the one who actually suggested it as a binding arrangement to the chronically-conflicting MEK participants. They agreed, so we went forward with it. A year or so later, once the IRANPOL General sanctions was created, it was integrated under it. So, to answer your question more succinctly: yes, DS rather than GS almost exclusively. But, boy, was that one GS page just the Consensus required gift that kept of giving... (Meaning, it was effectively gamed as much as it was used appropriately — though in the final analysis, I think the MEK article would be in much worse shape if it weren't for its stabilizing effect.) El_C 02:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, WP:AE to have it decided by a quorum of admins, but one can also bring such a request to an individual admin's attention. I'm of the school of thought that, when the need arises, you start with the basic 1RR or protection (semi, ECP), then if those still don't do the trick, you move on to the additional enhancements. Consensus required isn't meant for new articles. Indeed, it would be absurd, because even really high-traffic articles would need about a month (certainly no less than weeks) before longstanding text can even be said to exist in any meaningful way. But keep in mind that there really aren't that many articles still subjected to this restriction. There used to be more, but then one admin supplanted most of em (I'm told) with enforced BRD, which I actually feel is inferior in most cases to Consensus required. But what I'm getting at is that it isn't applied to pages often, and even when it is, generally there just isn't a lot of enforcement requests. Sometimes there are exceptions: for example, throughout 2019, I have seen more Consensus required enforcement requests on the MEK talk page (more than half of which I would decline) than all other articles combined. But again, it currently applies to only a few articles and enforcement requests tend to be rare. El_C 02:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
What's this page for?
Different editors seem to have different views on the purpose of this page. One possible interpretation is that this is a specific set of rules that is more restrictive than average and which applies only when Misplaced Pages:Discretionary sanctions about consensus are being enforced. The other obvious interpretation is that this is meant to explain the normal, everyday approach to consensus-based collaborative editing. User:El C, what was your intent? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Can't those both be true at the same time? This restriction follows the same dynamic as Consensus but is much strict, similar to 1RR vs 3RR. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Everyday" and "much stricter than everyday" cannot both be true at the same time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- This discretionary sanction can largely be seen as a more strict (binding) version of WP:ONUS. So, while ONUS ought to be observed, one is unlikely to face sanctions for failing to do so, even multiple times (though someone who chronically ignores it, eventually, probably will). El_C 23:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- El C, this discussion was initiated because WhatamIdoing and I disagree on the interpretation of WP:ONUS (and WP:NOCON). I believe the (lowercase) onus applies equally to all changes against content which has achieved consensus, whereas WhatamIdoing believes the onus is on editors who want content to be included, regardless of whether it enjoyed longstanding silent consensus. Have you seen the discussion at WT:Verifiability#Proposed change? I think we could keep the meaning of the policy the same while also clarifying it if we moved the wikilink WP:ONUS to CONSENSUS. When people reference WP:ONUS they're really talking about one piece of the consensus building dynamic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Kolya Butternut, no, I was not aware of that discussion — and I'm not sure I'm gonna find the time to give it a comprehensive review in the immediate future. Also, sorry, I don't quite understand what the dispute is about as you've explained it. But briefly, in my view, both ONUS and CR are the same in so far as the burden of establishing consensus rests upon those wishing to introduce the change — once that change is met by a substantive objection, of course. While disputants are engaged in the consensus process, the notion of displaying the status quo ante version (representing longstanding text) in the interim ought to be observed in the case of ONUS, and must be observed in the case of CR. Anyway, again, I'm not sure what you're attempting to clarify. ONUS is a staple of ordinary editing disputes, whereas the more strict CR is limited to highly unstable pages as a sort of last resort. But the general thrust is the same for both. El_C 06:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)