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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@El C, thanks for your answers. How do editors (usually) make "Consensus required enforcement requests"? Is this specifically about the Wikipedia: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 [[Controversial Subject]] getting a related article, [[Something and Controversial]], and the disputants moving right over to the new article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.[/soap] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Everyday" and "much stricter than everyday" cannot both be true at the same time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

El C, I agree with everything you just said. That is the interpretation I am attempting to clarify, because WhatamIdoing and others believe that when longstanding content is removed the onus is on those who seek to restore it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C, the 'problem' is that ONUS actually says that it only applies to "inclusion", and not to removal or other changes. ONUS does not say that other policies might apply to removal or other changes (and they do), but ONUS itself explicitly uses the word inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about WP:ONUS; I'm talking about how Consensus works, and who has the (lowercase) onus to achieve consensus for disputed changes. When I agreed with El C I was agreeing with the process. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I think that is a common misconception. I think inclusion means the retention of "disputed content," regardless of whether it involves an addition or a subtraction of anything. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content — so, inclusion of what? Could it be inclusion in the article of disputed content where, say, a key sentence was removed? Sure. Or where an image was moved from one section to another? Also sure. El_C 01:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. A plain reading of that sentence says that if you are "seeking to include disputed content", then "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion" of said disputed content is on you and not on the person who disputed its inclusion.

Trying to extend "seeking to include disputed content" to encompass "seeking to remove a key sentence" is not reasonable. I don't know whether this sentence accurately reflects the community's view, and I am convinced that it is an incomplete description of the consensus process, but I don't think that it talks about excluding content. Imagine what would happen if you presented this to non-Wikipedians. Hand a bunch of college students a paper, tell them it's a reading comprehension and logic test. The test paper reads "The rule says 'The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content'. Does this rule tell you anything about what happens if you're trying to exclude disputed content?" I doubt that any of them would say "Oh, yeah, it says that if you want to remove content, then you have to get consensus for it first." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting way too hung up on what WP:ONUS says. What El C is saying is correct about how the consensus building process works, regardless of which policy that is written under. Again, this is why I suggested this simple solution: WT:V#Proposed change Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you frame the question like that, sure, inclusion is likely to be confused as being contrasted with exclusion in that context. But here we are simply talking about inclusion of a contested editorial change (disputed content) in the article. That's it. The sentence in question doesn't elaborate on whether one is attempting to include a revision that involves an addition, or a removal, or a rearrangement. I've never known Wikipedia to favour in its consensus and dispute resolution processes removal of longstanding content over an addition or rearrangement to it. That simply does not exist as a maxim in policy anywhere that I know of. And it's good that it doesn't. Because that would not make any sense. The notion that the status quo ante version is the version that should be displayed until the consensus process reaches resolution, is a hallmark of Wikipedia editing. Wikipedia is, technically, all about inclusion (not referring to the inclusionist-deletionist nomenclature, which is unrelated to all this), because every edit you submit includes a revision, regardless if that revision, when compared to another, had items added, removed, or rearranged. They are judged equally as far as longstanding content is concerned. In a more narrow sense, only when I revdelete a revision, am I actually excluding it. But in a broader sense, when I remove, say, a longstanding image, I am hoping that my change is included in the article. If it is challenged, it becomes "disputed content" subject to ONUS. If it is reverted, that change has, for now, been excluded. Now, one does not get to waive ONUS or get any other special breaks when attempting to re-include a change just because it involves disputed content that removed something longstanding rather than adding to or rearranging it. So, it is pivotal to read the ONUS line alongside existing Wikipedia values and conventions. Then you can make sense of it and place it in its proper context. El_C 03:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never known Wikipedia to favour in its consensus and dispute resolution processes removal of longstanding content over an addition or rearrangement to it.

Removal of unsourced disputed content in BLPs is mandatory, and fairly common if it's not well-sourced. I also conclude that you do not frequent the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard or COI coordination pages, where removal of long-standing but pseudoscientific and promotional content is widely assumed to have consensus, unless and until proven otherwise. The community is very firm in its commitments to this: garbage goes out, no matter how long it's been on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I definitely wasn't speaking about ONUS applying to scenarios when, say, a BLP is being defamed, or when, generally, WP:BURDEN is being applied to a longdstanding unsourced item. Above (and below) I am only referring to legitimate content disputes absent such policy violations. El_C 18:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I have encountered this confusion often enough. Often enough, I'd advise an editor to observe ONUS, and their response would be that they haven't "included" anything, they just removed something. Then, I'd have to explain to them that what they removed was longstanding, and that because that removal was disputed, the onus is on them to establish consensus for the inclusion of their preferred version. ONUS is always about "including disputed content" — in the context of ONUS, "excluding disputed content" is just a reversion of that respective change back to the longstanding version. El_C 04:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very confusing, and that confusion is why Kolya has spent the last couple of months arguing at WT:V for changes to ONUS. Kolya had expected ONUS to be the rule invoked to prevent non-inclusion-related changes to a highly controversial page (where even exactly which version counts as "longstanding" is doubtful). Those endless discussions, in turn, are why the two of us have descended on your previously stable page.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have had to engage in long-term discussions about ONUS where I have had to suffer comments like these. WhatamIdoing changed WP:NOCON [1]and WP:QUO[2]  during the dispute at WT:V and without notifying the participants of the discussion. Now that I've reverted these changes WAID is making personal comments. Let's chill. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya wrote this:

"If someone makes a policy-based objection to a change or proposal which modifies content which is longstanding or has explicit consensus. In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."

I'm not convinced that CRP is restricted to those circumstances. It seems to me that it would be applied in practice to any editorial dispute, and the "long-standing" nature is really just about which version is considered the status quo ante.

Imagine that a CRP sanction is logged against an article about a living person, and that person died. You wouldn't really say that there was, before the person died, any sort of "consensus" to omit information about the death, or that the versions in which the person is reported as being alive are "long-standing". But you could very well apply CRP to the additions anyway – not necessarily preferring a version in which a dead person is declared to be alive, but certainly requiring discussion and consensus to say anything beyond the bare fact that the person is dead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you're not convinced that CRP is restricted to those circumstances. I don't understand; could you suggest text which fits your interpretation? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I hadn't noticed that you wrote This restriction comes into effect only when there is a dispute about a page, or involving an editor, that is currently under sanctions with the "consensus required provision". What is the difference between a "dispute about a page" and an "objection to a change or proposal which modifies content"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference between what you wrote and what I tried to communicate is that this page only applies to the two (2) articles formally under CRP restrictions under Wikipedia:General sanctions and the handful of articles and editors formally under CRP restrictions under the Wikipedia:Discretionary sanction system. It does not apply 99.9% of the time. (I am thinking about the value of a page move to a less generic name.)

Also, in terms of an "objection to a...proposal", talking about a "proposal" indicates that there's been no edit, and therefore nothing to revert, and the existence of "an" objection is not necessarily a problem (because "an" objection can exist even when there is consensus in favor of the proposal). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked around, I think this page should be moved to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Consensus required provision. I think that would be clearer than just it's full name, Wikipedia:Consensus required provision, which would be my second choice.

Also, User:El C, it's not listed in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions. I think it would benefit from the additional visibility. Do you know off hand if it has previously been listed there, or considered and rejected?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are other page restrictions listed? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We could move the wikilink to WP:Edit warring with WP:Edit warring#Other revert rules. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where else CR is listed. Though I never really looked to find out. But I also don't know where enforced BRD is listed, either (anywhere). A few years ago, another admin asked me to write a supplementary page about CR, and this page is the result. Again, as far as I know, the (now much more prevalent—more of that at the bottom of this AE report) enforced BRD restriction, which did not exist at the time of me authoring this page, does not have a page at all (WP:EBRD is a red link). El_C 18:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, but seriously: the very first sentence in BRD says that it's optional. Why would any admin require it? Also, actual BRD, as opposed to "Nyah, nyah, nyah, I get to revert everything, and you don't get to re-revert until there's consensus on the talk page", normally involves discussion between just two (2) editors (namely, the bold editor and the Very Interested Person who reverted the bold edit), and it lists situations in which it is either inappropriate or not the most effective strategy.

Okay, I know the answer. The answer is that the admins haven't read the page since they were newbies, because nobody reads the directions. But I do think that those "BRD" restrictions are actually looking for CRP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused, I'm not talking about WP:BRD — I'm talking about the DS restriction called Enforced BRD (EBRD). It is currently in effect for Donald Trump (read Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump), as well as being in effect for many other articles where it ended up replacing CR (there's the rub). When Trump was under CR, that was the example article I used for this page. But after this somehow happened, I downgraded to Pence. That's why I'm saying, look at the admin discussion taking place right now at that AE report I linked to above so as to get a sense of how other admins (including yours truly) are precieving the manner in which CR was supplanted by EBRD. Anyway, I don't know if it's mentioned anywhere on a project page, although the creator and implementer of it does have a FAQ on their userspace (User:Awilley/Enforced BRD FAQ). But what I'm getting at is that I have a bit of a sour taste about how EBRD supplanted CR, and I continue to feel that EBRD (in general) is not an improvement over CR. El_C 00:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As there were no clear objections, I've moved this page to my first suggestion. I have no objections to anyone moving it to another name, so long as that name is equally clear that this is about an uncommon, "official" circumstance (and, e.g., not merely an essay about how much some editors like consensus for everyday editing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, please reverts your moves. I think it was clear I did not agree with your proposal. An editing restriction can have its own page, but we can discuss other options. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya, your sole contributions to this part of the discussion said "Where are other page restrictions listed?" and "We could move the wikilink to WP:Edit warring with WP:Edit warring#Other revert rules." That does not sound to me like you objecting to moving the page. In fact, it sounds to me like you are agreeing in principle that the old name is inadequate.

If you'd like to follow up on your proposal to merge it to Wikipedia:Edit warring, then that can be accomplished without worrying about what the page title is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I have asked you to revert your moves because I would like this to be its own page article. Would you do that? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does "its own article" mean? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This still is "its own page". It has not been merged to any other page. It has not had any other page merged into it. I ask again: What does it mean to you for this to be "its own"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it to be the page it would be if you were to move it back to where it was.

FYI, WP:Subpages#Disallowed uses states 3. Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Once it is moved back we can discuss further, but I don't want it merged either. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment - the provision at WP:Subpages#Disallowed uses prohibits the use of subpages in the "encyclopedia" portion of the project—meaning the main namespace. Because this isn't the mainspace (and not part of the encyclopedia), that prohibition doesn't apply. Indeed, subpages are used pretty frequently in project namespace (for example, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions and many other SPI-related pages). I am not sure whether this is the best location for this page, but its location isn't prohibited by policy. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what that means? It sounds like SPI is a process page and that's why it's allowed to have a sub page, and the encyclopedia is Wikipedia itself. Not that this policy should have to be invoked in order to argue that this page should be its own special snowflake page like I want. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a permissible type of subpage. See also ~150 WP:MOS non-process subpages, and the four other non-archive, non-process subpages to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions (1, 2, 3, 4). Comment by WhatamIdoing at 03:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments mischaracterizing reverted page move
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Temporary "procedural" reverts to page moves are not really a good idea. Specifically, A → B → A → C is much worse than A → B → C (e.g., it can confuse the bots that fix double redirects, especially if these changes happen in quick succession). Because of this, if you've got a proposal for "C", then please tell us what it is, so we can go straight there! I'm open to another name, so long as it's clear from the title that this is not merely a general-purpose essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Kolya Butternut, I see that you changed the page title while I was explaining why that was a bad idea. Please don't do that. I mean: It was a bad idea to change it back, and it would be an even worse idea to change it back-back. Please stop moving the page. Leave it right here at this obviously broken name and tell us where you want it to end up (more or less) permanently. If having it at a different name was preventing you from proposing a better one, then great: you've fixed your problem. Now, where's that proposal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I've made clear this is not intended to be a temporary revert.[3] I do not agree with your reason for the original move. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Fine. Now can you explain why a page normally called WP:CRP should be at "Consensus required" and not at "Consensus required provision"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] You know that i did not move the page after your comment. You commented after I moved the page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] That does not answer my question. Why should "CRP" be at "CR" and not have its whole name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] WhatamIdoing, please strike your false statement that I moved the page after you said that was a bad idea. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I wrote you changed the page title while I was explaining why that was a bad idea. The word while means "at the same time". I was already typing that comment (which, of course, you couldn't see) at the moment that you moved the page back to that incomplete and confusing name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] You said Please don't do that. Please strike your entire 3:20 comment. And strike the part of your 3:16 comment where you mischaracterized my revert as procedural even though I made clear it was meant to be permanent. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok WhatamIdoing, let's start over. I moved the page back to where it was originally[4] because I don't agree that the original title is unclear; I don't want this to be a subpage, and I want this to be at its original location. Please discuss why you want to move the page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to move this page to a title that more fully and accurately describes its contents, so that people who do not click the title and read the directions – because Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions – will not be misled from seeing only the title into thinking that a link to "Consensus required" is a page that applies to ordinary editing. If the title itself refers to discretionary sanctions or editing restrictions, then that risk is significantly reduced.

If you would like an example of someone jumping from this page's contents, which are specifically about formal editing restrictions, and appearing to jump to conclusions about this page applying to editing generally, then I point you to your own comments at Awilley's talk page here, when you say I hadn't noticed the article WP:Consensus required written by User:El C, which seems to indicate that there is no greater onus to retain text than remove text under the DS, which I assume extends to Consensus normally. This page does NOT apply to consensus normally; this page applies only to a few highly anomalous situations. Any less experienced editor, being unfamiliar with this page or with your months-long arguments about whether consensus favors long-standing content over current policy-based objections to that content, would be at risk of thinking that you said this page applies to normal editing.

Looking at your recent edits, you seem to be trying to promote the use of this sanction, e.g., by editing WP:1RR. I think that greater awareness of this sanction (and its alternatives) could be a good idea in principle, but I feel like you are promoting something that isn't exactly this page. You proposed linking to this page in your proposed re-write of ONUS at the Village pump, but it is unclear (partly due to the generic-sounding title) from the sentence that the linked page is anything other than the Consensus policy itself, or that this page is any different from WP:QUO (and it is). I notice that you proposed adding a link to CRP at Template talk:American politics AE#Wikilink to WP:Consensus required. I think you should spend a while studying the table at Template talk:American politics AE#Live case study that @JFG created, to explain how various edits would or wouldn't be treated under several different editing restriction systems, including CRP. It does not, unfortunately, compare it against ONUS (which treats inclusion differently from other edits) or QUO (which treats long-standing content differently from other edits), but I think you would have a clearer understanding of CRP by the time you got through the CRP column (which is the one with four big question marks). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite the story. I'm open to consider moving this to "WP:Consensus required provision"; you could have simply discussed your proposal instead of creating a bad faith narrative about me for other people to find from your link at the Village pump.[5] But where exactly does the title "Consensus required" exist without the context that it is a sanction? As for the rest of your statements:

• You said that I was appearing to jump to conclusions about this page applying to editing generally. What are you doing...you dug up a comment from a user talk page where it appears like I meant something I didn't in order to argue for a page title change?
• You're mischaracterizing our months long argument.
• What I am trying to "promote" is people understanding what this sanction means, and for that to happen people need to be able to find this page.

Please chill. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that changing the title of the page will promote people understanding that this is a sanction, which obviously is the first step in understanding what the sanction means.

I proposed Wikipedia:Consensus required provision above, and I would be happy to see you move the page there. Alternatively, I suppose that "Consensus required sanction" would be clear, but that creates shortcut/jargon conflicts with the unrelated WP:CRS page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this page should match Template:American_politics_AE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I think your move to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Consensus required provision was correct and should be reinstated. Otherwise, as has been noted, this page will end up being cited in some entirely different context in the name of WP:CONSENSUS. But this page is really about a relatively insignificant matter: First, because one Admin went on a crusade to replace it with another page restriction (over the objections of other Admins) and second, because Discretionary Sanctions are discretionary and are purposely left to the judgment of Admins who evaluate case by case context and significance of the situations in which they arise. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text in a previous version[6] is essential for clarity:

For pages or editors currently under sanctions with the "consensus required provision", this restriction comes into effect when someone makes a policy-based revert of an edit which modifies content which is longstanding or has explicit consensus. Editors must not reinstate any reverted edit without first obtaining consensus on the talk page. In discussions of edits which add, modify or remove material, a lack of consensus results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the disputed edit.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, does this text from a previous version better explain how the provision works? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: It explains it more but I don't think it's necessarily correct. My understanding is that everything which is in the article is covered by the restriction not necessary things that have explicit consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: notice that the code is [[WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS|longstanding]] or has [[WP:Consensus#Through discussion|explicit consensus]]. Thoughts? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expect that implicit consensus implies that it has been there for some time while this restriction applies whether or not it's been there for a short time or long time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: I'm confused. I would think that anything that doesn't have at least implicit consensus is a new edit which could be reverted according to Consensus required. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Building on what @Callanecc said (which is correct): CRP is not really QUO. When CRP is imposed on a page, then whatever's in that version – even though it's m:The Wrong Version – becomes the version of record, and changes to that version require consensus. This includes edits that were made an hour before CRP was imposed, and contested an hour afterwards.

Generally, most of an article could be claimed to be long-standing, and after CRP's been in place for a couple of months, then this detail doesn't matter. But in that interim space, when CRP is new to the page, CRP sounds like "stop edit warring over anything that was on the page as of the exact second that I told you to knock it off, or else" rather than "it's okay to keep reverting last week's changes because we're not sure what has consensus, but changing settled stuff requires a discussion if anyone objects". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the WP:Protection policy which is different; can you point me to specific language? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that violations of CRP are often responded to with the Wikipedia:Blocking policy, not page protection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non sequitor which doesn't answer my question. Are you filibustering? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WhatamIdoing, that's what I was getting at. The language is at Template:American politics AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, if I understand you correctly, I don't agree with that interpretation. AP template text: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit. This language doesn't lock down the article at the version when the restriction is placed. If someone added new text right before the sanction was placed and then an editor reverted the new text, it would still be up to first editor who added the text to obtain consensus to reinstate their edit. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That language also doesn't say that it's okay to reinstate any edits that the reinstating editor believes are "long-standing".   WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, could you propose language to address your concerns? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Addition section is correct as written but the Removal section is not. Effectively they just need to be merged. That is:

Editor A makes a change to the article
Editor B reverts that change (or part of that change)
Before that change (or part of that change) can be put back into the article, a consensus must be established on the talk page.

I'm in the camp that believes that removing something from an article isn't always a revert. Instead a revert has to be either intentionally reversing something added to the article or a reversal of some specific edit or series of edits. So, "longstanding" isn't a good word to use given the implication is that something has to have been in an article for some long period of time. Instead, it doesn't matter how long something had been in the article for it be covered by the consensus required restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, I'm having trouble understanding your comment; would you say that more clearly? I feel like the removal section is the most helpful part. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut: That is, only my indented bit above should be in the "Process on articles" section rather than separate addition and removal sections. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, it's important to me that you address my questions more clearly, because I feel that gaming has been going on at this talk page and I need your help to get things back on track. Please restate your comment I was asking about. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, which bit in particular? I've done a bit of a copy edit if that helps. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, I don't really understand any of it. It sounds like you may be using the word "revert" differently than how it is used in the description of the restriction. "Revert" refers to the edit which undoes a change from consensus. You also wrote that "it doesn't matter how long something has been in the article for it to be covered by CRP", so I'm completely lost. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut: Okay. So, first thing I guess to ensure is that revert = reversion = removed = challenged (all the same thing). So if something that was in the article is reverted/reversed/removed then a consensus is required before it can be put back in the article. For the purposes of this enforcement provision, if a piece of content is in an article (doesn't matter for how long) and is removed it has been challenged so can't be added back without a consensus in favour of having it there. In this way, it doesn't matter whether the content was initially added to or removed from the article before being reverted, the fact that it has been challenged (by removing/reverting or reversion) means it can't go back into the article without a consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, I don't believe that's the correct interpretation of this provision; that's not how it is enforced at AE. Implicit consensus is worth something, otherwise much of an article could be blanked for months until everything disputed undergoes an RfC, even if the content was present for years. There is a related discussion at WP:Silence and consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well some of the article content would have consensus from prior talk page discussion and consensus doesn't need to form in something as formal as an RfC. But I would absolutely contend that a consensus from discussion (even amongst a relatively small number of editors) overrides an implicit consensus. For other parts of the article where there is not an active, established consensus, administrators have discretion not to act but to leave the previous content in the article and then force a discussion. I would imagine that where there is a longstanding implicit consensus on the article content and no significant issues are identified with the content (e.g. BLP, NPOV, RS) then admins would be more likely not to sanction someone for adding it back into the article the first time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe CRP has ever been enforced that way at AE. That contradicts this page as of November 20[7] and older. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that Emir of Wikipedia made an Arbcom clarification request which resolved part of this.[8] They had asked about adding language to clarify the restriction, but changing the template language is unnecessary because this page is intended to provide that clarification (although the current version of this page fails to do so IMO).Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page cannot do that. Each individual administrator who applies the consensus required provision chooses what the wording will be. At this stage, they have (as far as I know) all applied the version of it which is listed in the template. As it is a discretionary sanction, the agreement of every admin who has placed it or a "clear and substantial" consensus at AN or AE is required to change it. That would only apply to consensus required provisions which have already been placed. Only the Arbitration Committee can place limits on the type of restrictions admins can place (e.g. only this version of consensus required) and I cannot see them doing that in this instance (they are "discretionary" after all). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 03:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, it sounds like you're answering in non sequiturs. Obviously this page does not change the wording of the language in the templates or set any limits on what restrictions admins can place. This page is intended to provide clarification for the existing sanction called "Consensus required", and this page must be consistent with the Arbcom clarification request I cited.[9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been about as patient as I can be to try and explain to you how discretionary sanctions work but you don't seem to be grasping that there isn't one particular hard and fast rule but instead a whole bunch of people with different ideas (discretion) trying to ensure that editors can work together on improving the project. Those people (in this case, admins) each have their own ways of approaching problems. Sure they tend to come up with the same or similar ways of dealing with those problems (1RR, this provision, topic bans, etc) but there is no single way that you have to edit. At the basis of this provision (and the enforcement of it) is that Wikipedia works on building articles based on its policies and consensus. In enforcing this provision, admins will use their discretion to determine what the best outcome for the project is rather than being bound by only following one very specific interpretation of one particular discretionary sanction. The knowledge and skill that you pick up in order to do that happens over a period of years and tens of thousands of edits. My very strong suggestion to you is to gain much more experience in editing the articles of Wikipedia and the actual practice of these policies before trying to involve yourself in the meta-discussions in enforcing them. I don't see that there is anything more to be gained out of us continuing to discuss this issue so this will be my final post on this page for the time being. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentum ad hominem. You haven't provided any evidence that your interpretation of this provision is not incorrect, which is a separate issue from how admins choose to enforce things. I agree that our discussions have not been productive. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had added a wikilink to Consensus required at WP:Edit warring#Other revert rules.[10] and I opened a discussion at WT:Edit warring#WP:Consensus required link. While this is a provision which concerns edit warring and reverting, I'm not sure whether it should be mentioned at WP:Edit warring or WP:Consensus or both. 1RR and 0RR are also DS restrictions which are described at WP:Edit warring. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is really about stopping edit warring rather than forming consensus.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So would you support reinstating the edit at WP:Edit warring? If it's to be a subpage that might be the appropriate place, but only if we include a wikilink there, and I'd feel more comfortable with a formal move proposal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is about stopping edit warring, which means that it's about Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (which are not synonyms) and possibly related to Wikipedia:General sanctions, although I'm not aware of any non-DS general sanctions that currently involve CRP. But if you are choosing between WP:EW and WP:CONS, it's closer to EW than to CONS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Consensus required is a page restriction too, so it would be inappropriate to move it to a subpage of Editing restrictions. WP:1RR is used the same way, and 1RR is described at Edit warring. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe – but haven't double-checked – that 1RR originated as part of that policy, whereas this originated as part of the sanctions systems. IMO we don't have a good organizing principle for sanctions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not answering the question. Do you support including a Consensus required wikilink at Edit warring? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should be linked at all.

Regarding the specific edit you made, I thought your wording was awkward, so I don't support that particular edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is really apples and cantoloupes. "Consensus Required" is a rare beast, enforced by discretion, and not a policy. Every time we link to something only marginally related, or remotely related, it diffuses attention on the core PAGs when difficult or controversial issues arise. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, do you support linking to this page from the American politics AE template? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the page restrictions called "Consensus required" are the same. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the American politics topic area at this stage. For example, as an enforcing admin I could pick any page in the American Politics (or any other topic area where discretionary sanctions apply) and write a new version of it. In the American politics topic area it's likely that that wouldn't happen and admin would stay with the same version. In other topic areas ... who knows at this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the existing Consensus required restrictions in every topic area under discretionary and general sanctions are the same. If you were to write a new version you should not call it "Consensus required" and cause needless confusion -- just as if you wrote a new version of 1RR you should not call it 1RR; just write it out without naming it until it catches on. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a debate at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#CRP violation report on whether an edit that restores the meaning without restoring the exact text counts as a revert. Here's what happened:

Table 1. Is there a CRP violation?

Edit	Change in text	Change in meaning
Longstanding version	contains "it [MEK] was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun"	mentions Iraqi involvement
SB makes EditA	changes it to "it [MEK] was involved in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun"	removes mention of Iraqi involvement
VR makes EditB	changes it to "MEK and Iraq jointly launched several operations against Iran: Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars and Operation Shining Sun"	restores mention of Iraqi involvement
SB makes EditC	changes it to "it [MEK] was involved in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun"	re-removes mention of Iraqi involvement

There were more reverts since ([11][12]), but the key question is: was EditC a violation of CRP? To me EditB counts as a WP:revert because at WP:3RRN an edit that restores meaning without restoring the exact text still counts as a revert. (Admins at 3RRN take dim view of users who claim such an edit doesn't count as a "revert"). Hence I believe EditA was challenged via reversion and EditC should not have re-instated the meaning without consensus. But maybe I'm wrong?

I don't know who watches this page so I'll respectfully ping the last few users: @Kolya Butternut, Callanecc, SPECIFICO, and WhatamIdoing: VR _talk 04:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent, the definition of 'a revert' is found at Wikipedia:Edit warring, and as far as I can tell from reading it a couple of years ago, it's meaning is either identical to most editors call 'an edit', or so close to identical that it doesn't make any particular difference. If someone feels aggrieved, then the official definition will support them in claiming to have been reverted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, WP:EW says "To revert is to undo the action of another editor." That does seem broad and would include edits that restore the meaning without restoring the text (like EditB above). El_C, since you wrote the examples, may I ask what definition of "revert" did you intend? Would an edit that undoes the meaning without reverting back to the identical text count as a revert? VR _talk 23:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]