Wikipedia talk:Attempting to overturn recent consensus

Some observations:

1. 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.
2. As the page has no force as policy and even policies are not law, prescriptive language such as "should" seems too tendentious.
3. 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."

There haven't been any more AFDs since then. Andrew D. (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• I prefer "moratoria" as a plural form matching the etymology, and more commonly used. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You'll have to ask @RGloucester: - I originally created the page at "Moratoria", and he moved it with a "Please use English" edit summary. bd2412 T 12:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Moved back . --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

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/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Moratorium_following_any_new_Clinton_move_discussion

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/Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_20#Proposal:_Move_discussion_moratorium_and_community_sanctions

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/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive261#Move_request_moratorium_at_Genesis_creation_narrative

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:Mackensen%27s_Proposal/Straw_Poll#Question_6:_Moratorium_on_New_Userboxes

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:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_12#Proposal:_Moratorium_on_some_tags_for_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive692#Moratorium_on_hyphen_page_moves

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

Talk:Russian_Winter#Current_title provides in case where there is clear resistance to repeated RMs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Should the imposition of moratoria be limited to administrators or should page movers be empowered to impose moratoria following Wikipedia:Requested moves? Katzrockso (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm kind of leaning towards admins, but I'm having a hard time actually justifying that to myself. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Some relevant background might be the past discussion about default moratoria. See e.g. . Katzrockso (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can suggest a moratorium but no single editor can impose a moratorium without real consensus for a moratorium. If there's true consensus for a moratorium, which is rare, it will be enforced naturally. If there's no real consensus, multiple editors will contest it on the relevant talk page or elsewhere, and when that's done in good faith, nothing can or should stop discussion. Station1 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This essay already said (before @Beland changed it:

Where a proposal is made repeatedly, and essentially the same proposal is made again, without new evidence or arguments, only a short time after the close of the previous proposal, administrators closing the discussion may, based upon sentiments expressed in the discussion or an express request, impose a moratorium on future efforts to repeat the failed proposal for a period of time

As an additional option to a consensus specifically in the discussion to impose a moratorium. "An express request" doesn't require a "clear consensus". The question was over whether non-administrators may impose a moratorium on this basis, since they also close RMs and other discussions.

Given that this essay preceded the creation of the page mover userright to allow non-administrators to move pages, whether or not it is permissible for non-administrators to impose a moratorium isn't clear. Katzrockso (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Closers are supposed to discern consensus, and need to do that skillfully but don't need administrator tools to do that. Administrators are expected to close discussions where admin tools are needed to implement the discussion, but that has nothing to do with correctly discerning whether or not there is consensus for a moratorium. It seems the use of the word "administrator" here was a casual error, as that status doesn't come up anywhere else in the essay. If it was important I would have expected it to say that non-administrators shouldn't declare moratoriums. -- Beland (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your sentiment whatsoever. I noted at an existing move review that this essay was written in 2015, before the page mover right was split off, but there has also been an increase in acceptance of non-administrators closing discussions since then too. Katzrockso (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

BD2412, the original author of this essay, clarified at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May § Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration that "I did not intend that only admins could ever impose one". -- Beland (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Katzrockso (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

My view is that no one, admin or not, should be imposing a moratorium without consensus (see this MRV closure). But when it comes to determining whether there's consensus, I'd say admins and non-admins are on equal footing per WP:RMNAC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPI § Moratoriums. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:54, 5 July 2026 (UTC)