Wikipedia talk:Attempting to overturn recent consensus
 | Essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Early observations[edit]
Some observations:
- The page does not currently explain what a moratorium is. As it is an essay, the page can be most helpful by explaining the term and providing examples of usage, both inside Wikipedia and perhaps elsewhere.
- As the page has no force as policy and even policies are not law, prescriptive language such as "should" seems too tendentious.
- An example for consideration or inclusion is at Talk:List of unusual deaths, where there have been repeated AFDs:
 | Per the 7th AFD, "all further nominations should be closed as violations of WP:DELAFD unless there is new or changed policy backing the AFD". And per the DRV "[The preceding sentence] should be read as an admonition against superfluous nominations. It is not a moratorium." |
Moratoriums or moratoria[edit]
- I prefer "moratoria" as a plural form matching the etymology, and more commonly used. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Review of past moratoria[edit]
I think a review of past moratoria is a good idea. I am intending to do this. Below is a start, I intend to format better later.
Search results on "moratorium" in talk, user talk, Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk, first 60 results, real world moratoria excluded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown#Propose_moratorium_on_pagemove_discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-05-16/Arbitration_report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-07-25/Arbitration_report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-05-02/BAG,_CU_nominations 2008 "on any more [BAG appointment] requests, until input is gained on whether the process should be continued"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive266#Appeal of broadly construed three month topic ban 2014 topic ban appeal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gibraltarpedia#WP:BRD_on_Moratorium_revert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_August
- The close in Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request also included a minimum 30-day period before a new discussion could be initiated, although we did not use the word, "moratorium". bd2412 T 03:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mustang_(disambiguation)#Proposal_for_moratorium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-04-02/News_and_notes WikiMedia business
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_June
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_May
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BAG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheryl_Cole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lithuania/Conflict_resolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_21#Category:Women television writers Discussed at DRV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive195#Proposed standstill agreement on Bilateral Relations articles June 2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_18#RfC:_Three_months_moratorium_on_page_moves — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 00:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
ongoing[edit]
Talk:Russian_Winter#Current_title provides in case where there is clear resistance to repeated RMs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
An editor culture expecting moratoria[edit]
Without the use of the word "moratorium", I think I see evidence that some editors expect moratoria to be assumed, and that this expectation is disputed. See here. Was User:Klaxer unqualified to enforce the assumed moratorium? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think there are expectations on par with WP:Too soon and WP:Not now that discussions may be closed or proposals shelved if they are clearly not going to fly based on their timing. bd2412 T 03:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Tiered moratoriums[edit]
In a few cases when closing move discussions I've set a two-tier moratorium - a straightforward bar on all move discussions for a short period of time but also an ongoing restriction of same user nominations within a period - examples include Star Wars (film) (full moratorium of six months, same user renomination minimum of one year) and Grand Duke of Luxembourg (full three months, same user minimum six moths) (EDIT: Now at Monarchy of Luxembourg). In both case proposers were simply bringing back the same proposal immediately which was generating tensions and splitting out the remedy has allowed things to calm down.
There's also the prospect of requiring a minimum number of users to propose yet another RM so that a single editor can't set it all off in one go. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think that is right, and good. Often, the repetitive proposal is the fault of one or few individuals, and at the end of the moratorium it is probably a very good idea to let more dispassionate outsiders to the issue open the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Moratoria preclude discussion[edit]
Does a moratorium means "X cannot be carried out directly, or proposed officially" or does it mean "X cannot be discussed at all"? Siuenti (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Siuenti, mostly it means do not disrupt others by discussing it. I think this means in practice do not discuss it at all at the locations where it might be formally proposed after the moritorium has expired, and it definitely means do not WP:FORUMSHOP, but it is probably ok to discussion on your own user_talk page, or to make notes in a user essay in your own userspace. "X cannot be discussed at all" is a bit strong, but it almost is right. Don't discuss it publicly. It is not that the topic is forbidden, but that the repeated discussion is disruptive to others trying to volunteer their time productively, with the underlying rationale that a break will do good for everyone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at MR[edit]
The topic of default moratoria is being discussed at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_June#FC_Steaua_București. I feel standard moratoria have a strong consensus, but we are lagging in documenting it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Renamed Wikipedia:Attempting to overturn recent consensus[edit]
So the page has been renamed to WP:Attempting to overturn recent consensus, and announced at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Attempting_to_overturn_recent_consensus.
As I wrote there: (cross-posting because I find VPP threads hard to keep track of)
- BD2412, I think it is nice expansion from WP:Moratoria.
- It is a mix of sort-of existing and recognized best practice, to wait before trying the same thing again, and is gently pushing the concept further. It crosses the unclear line between essay and proposal. It is very similar to WP:RENOM, which is primarily for seeking deletion after an AfD "keep" decision.
- It lacks comment on relitigating a discussion that was closed as "no consensus". These cases tend to be worst cases of beating dead horses until the community gets more than annoyed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)