User talk:SlimVirgin/December 2020

Environmental issues again
Hi - Sorry to trouble you with this but I would be most grateful for your thoughts on Impax Asset Management Group. My direction of travel remains that the efforts of companies that do really good things for the environment should be recognised. Impax has been identified as one of just three fund managers that has "consistently focussed on the environment" (Alice Ross, Financial Times), its success has been hailed as evidence of a "transition to a more sustainable economy" (Investors Chronicle) and its efforts for the environment has led to its CEO being chosen as the "Male Industry Leader of the Year" in 2020 (Financial News). Although it is a large listed company (£20.2 billion of assets under management), the article has been nominated for deletion. I believe there is something fundamentally flawed with wikipedia's policies (to put it very mildly) that companies like this are nominated for deletion on the basis that they are "not notable" (despite their widely-recognised positive impact on the environment) yet editors would be regarded as disruptive if they nominated (say) BP for deletion. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Can't promise to comment. SarahSV (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Advice for possible COI
Hello! I noticed and much appreciated the clear and helpful guidance you recently gave the BYU editors at COIN. I wondered if you could advise me on giving guidance to an inexperienced editor who may have a similar institutional COI (but as a volunteer, rather than paid). As often happens, I learned of the possible COI issue because of a different problem, and want to make sure I give the correct COI guidance, as simply and painlessly as possible so the editor doesn’t feel hounded.

If you have time, would you mind having a look? Here’s the copyright discussion where the possible COI came up (gives impression s/he is working on behalf of one or two ed institutions that want this image on WP, one of which is discussed in entry in question):

And for reference I was there because I was the reviewer of this DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Faith Smith

The editor definitely seems well-intentioned so I want to give them the right guidance to contribute constructively, but the back-and-forth in the BYU COIN thread left me genuinely uncertain what this editor’s obligations would be, if they do have an unpaid COI. Thank you for any guidance you can give me! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can't see where she confirms she has a COI. But if she does, it's best to ask her to comply with WP:COIDISCLOSE; use WP:AfC for new articles; and use edit request for significant additions. Hope this helps a little. Sorry I can't say more, but the situation isn't all that clear. SarahSV (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for looking it over, it helps a lot to hear your impression, as well as what to do if a COI becomes clear. Thank you! (Thank you also for the input on the image.) Innisfree987 (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Izno

Guideline and policy news
 * There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news
 * Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Use of user talk pages
I am afraid you are overusing my talk page. You do not need to repeat edit summaries. Moreover, your thoughts on page content should be expressed on the page talk page so everyone can benefit from them. I could find the relevant policies but I hope you see the sense in this. It will also save you time. Many thanks, Jontel (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've posted twice to your talk page, and appropriately so: once to ask you to stop removing that the group is a Holocaust-denial group, and the second to ask you to avoid plagiarism. Neither of these points needed to be made to everyone on article talk, because you were the only person doing them. SarahSV (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you if you were trying to be helpful and I do not mean to be ungracious. Just to be clearer, on the first point, I will be guided by the sources and article talk page, as we all must be, and on the second, your edit summary was sufficient, as I said above. Thank you. Jontel (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hey, so nice to see your name on my talk page, and with such a lovely gift! Thank you, and I hope all is well with you too. All the best, SarahSV (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!
gratitude

Textor Alector (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)  Textor, thank you for the goat, and I'm sorry to break this to you, but I've speedy deleted the article you created. The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medical Women's Association of Nigeria. You have to deal with that first, then abide by their decision. Again, I'm sorry! As I said on that page, it might be possible to create a much shorter article with the sources I linked to, but you should do that in draft space, not directly into main space, given how contentious this has become. Or you could work on it at User:Textor Alector/sandbox. C (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

'Et tu SV?' nah ;)

why i didn't follow your initial suggestion was the consideration/feeling of having already dealt with queries relating to article content w/ other editors so i incorrectly didn't interpret it as a directive (sorry, i'll stub it now)

please though, try not to amplify the perceived contentiousness of this edit :(

lol, (i) suspect you're aware of my intentions + are trying to help (me) do things (in what you consider to be) 'the right way'... the gratitude remains unchanged.Textor Alector (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Unwanted comment
Hi Sarah. I thought I'd pop here to follow up on your comment at the Arbcom case, partially because you'd struck it, and partially because I really don't want to be commenting more there. I do understand your concern that those harassed have received sanctions in the past, and the two cases you mention are definitely ones where I'm aware this happened. While I won't go into the background of the cases, I will say that the people who were banned did have a history of disrupting the project. Yes, they were harassed and I like to think that that was taken into account, but that the disruption was moreso. It is disappointing that no one else was sanctioned during those cases, but the committee can only go with the evidence it is given. It is difficult while on the committee to get agreement to sanction while there is plausible deniability and inconclusive evidence - which is why I was able to make this block as an individual - I wasn't on the committee at the time. Anyway - the main reason I came to this page is to tell you that I do like your suggestion for a solution, and while I don't think it will be able to stop the case from happening, I would ask that you suggest it in the workshop. I'd happily endorse it, if you can find a willing group. WormTT(talk) 10:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to barge in, but I, too, thought that Sarah’s suggestion was on the right track, hope it will be explored, and was disappointed when she struck it.  My hypothesis about the escalating problems is that they were enabled by admins who considered themselves “friends”.  These “friends” caused harm by not steering Flyer back on track.  (I note none of them suggesting that deleting the POLEMIC on Flyer’s page would bode well.) I read in the post-arb discussions that similar occurred with both Kudpung and BrownHairedGirl, although I did not have interaction with them to be able to experience it in person or witness it, but if that is a trend, it is of concern. If the case serves for anything, I hope it is to remind admins that they do their “friends” no favors when they accept or overlook certain behaviors in high-volume editors.  Rather than excusing behaviors, suggesting a break, for example, would help those editors who may be stressed by trying to do too much. The real question is, though, can we find admins who will step up to enforce: that is precisely what failed with Mattisse. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and, I didn't consult Flyer before I posted, because I assumed that mentorship would be preferable to a case, but when she saw it, she let me know she didn't want it, which is why I struck it. I've decided not to take part in the case, so I won't suggest anything at the workshop, although anyone else is welcome to take the idea, of course. However, mentorship only works if the mentee supports it and, as Sandy says, if the mentors maintain some independence, so it's tricky. Anyway, it looks as though there's no avoiding a case now. SarahSV (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspected that was the case, and am sorry to hear it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  07:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for elaborating, Sarah. I can understand why Flyer wouldn't be keen on mentorship - who would? I think Sandy is right though, that the best of intentions of friends can do more harm than good by not calling out problem behaviour early on.
 * At any rate, it heartens me that Flyer is watching, even if not participating, as it does mean she may consider returning in the future. WormTT(talk) 10:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * At any rate, it heartens me that Flyer is watching, even if not participating, as it does mean she may consider returning in the future. WormTT(talk) 10:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened
The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier
Hi. asked me at commons:User talk:Mike Peel about editing Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier. Initially I thought it was a question about editing the infobox, but it seems like it's about editing the rest of the page content as well. I pointed them towards Talk:Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier so they could make an editrequest only to find that the talk page is protected. That seems highly unusual - I've been checking through the policies/guidelines but can't find anything about protecting talk pages. Any objections to the talk page only being unprotected? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Protecting the talk page seems to be quite fascist, plot and boycott of "friendly" publishers? If you then look at the cause of the entire boycott (Akerbeltz), you see that he used a sock account to settle disputes and put on the Basque Barnstar of National Merit, an account that was blocked indefinitely.--Sorginak (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Mike, this is a COI issue. There have been similar issues on other wikis. The article was moved out of draft space prematurely, so I've moved it back. The talk page was semi-protected to stop the disruption. I've removed it for now, but if it resumes I'll restore the protection. SarahSV (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that by friendship you help and protect the vandalism of Akerbeltz. Protecting a talk page is pretty fascist. You speak of an alleged COI, but that is not a reason to eliminate an article with contrasted references. Is Wikipedia in English becoming a group of friends who do whatever they want just because of their status and friendship?--Sorginak (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to make edit requests at Draft talk:Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier. Please make sure you have independent reliable sources to support anything you want to add. SarahSV (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Do not pluralize, that decision has been made only by you, without consulting and without the consensus of other editors. You should have left the article where it was and remove the protection from the talk page, that's what the editor asked you.--Sorginak (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The topic is clearly notable, but your attitude does not help. Please calm down and address this with references. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Diana Gould speaking to Margaret Thatcher, 24 May 1983.jpeg
Thank you for uploading File:Diana Gould speaking to Margaret Thatcher, 24 May 1983.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Diana Gould speaking to Margaret Thatcher, 24 May 1983.jpeg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Diana Gould speaking to Margaret Thatcher, 24 May 1983.jpeg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC) &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:Unreviewed featured articles/2020
As you find time, would you review your older FAs at WP:URFA/2020 and add a "Satisfactory" note to any that you have watched and that are still at standard? They don't have to be perfect; we only need to sort out which of the very old FAs need to go to WP:FAR, and which would be an embarrassment if run on the mainpage, and those are typically the ones that are no longer watched by their nominators. If you indicate which of yours are "Satisfactory" (good enough), other editors are then triggered to look in, and get those moved off the list, so we can focus on the truly deficient. We encourage you to add mention of your own nominations that are still "Satisfactory", indicating your involvement (your !vote counts :) No hurry, but I am slowly pinging frequent nominators to get things moving there, so the list can be pared down. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandy, thanks for the note. I'll start taking a look through them. SarahSV (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!
Dear Sarah, thank you so much all your help and time, which is much appreciated here. Best wishes and happy holidays! --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're very welcome, and I hope things work out for you. Happy holidays to you too. SarahSV (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The ONUS mess
Hey, I know you're busy, but if you have some spare cycles, I'd love to have you think about the ONUS mess. Briefly, it works (or fails) like this:


 * Alice adds something to an article. (Assume that this change is verifiable, cited, non-BLP, non-copyvio, etc. – no overriding or hot-button issues here.)
 * Bob decides that this addition makes the article worse and removes it.
 * Alice objects. One of them starts a discussion.
 * If consensus is reached in discussion, then all's well.
 * If consensus is not reached in the discussion, then we look at policies for advice.

What do the policies say?


 * WP:NOCON says that if Alice's change was long-standing (however you define that), then it's up to Bob to prove that consensus is against her change. If Bob's talk-page discussion ends in a stalemate, then NOCON says that Alice wins.
 * WP:ONUS (NB: literal reading of the single sentence in the policy, not the third-hand rumor of what the text might mean) says that because Alice's change was (specifically) an addition, then Alice should not re-revert, and it's up to Alice to prove that consensus is in favor of her change.  If Alice's talk-page discussion ends in a stalemate, then WP:V says that Bob wins.

One of these things is not like the other. Even though this scenario should be rare, it should not actually be possible for editors to read two different policies and end up believing that "policy requires" exactly the opposite outcomes in a dispute. I can see several ways to reconcile them (e.g., NOCON's current nod towards QUO explicitly defers to ONUS in the case of additions, but not for other changes; ONUS grows a reasonable time limit; ONUS disappears altogether because it's trying to legislate BRD, which is an optional process anyway...) but I've not been able to move the needle enough to actually solve the problem. I am hoping that you have better luck than me, and can not only see the problem, but also fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WAID, but I have to comment on "The ONUS mess". I respect your concerns about fringe content being added to articles; can you point to a specific content dispute where my interpretation of ONUS/NOCON would have interfered with removing longstanding fringe content so that I can better understand where you're coming from?
 * Sarah, there is a disagreement over the interpretation of ONUS. I see ONUS and NOCON as consistent:
 * WP:ONUS says that the onus was on Alice to achieve consensus for her inclusion (explicit consensus or long-standing, i.e., silent/implicit consensus).
 * WP:NOCON says that if Alice's change was long-standing (had achieved WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS), then it's up to Bob to prove that consensus is against her change.
 * Where the sentence in Consensus#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" is just reiterating a part of WP:Consensus. WP:Consensus states that editors are to give reasons beyond "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" to "persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." The point of "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" is just that "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article." WP:V is not a conduct policy.
 * I believe and  share this interpretation, they may be able to articulate this better. I haven't paid attention to which admins share the other interpretation; WAID, feel free to ping others. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this boils down to the interpretation of how long something has to exist in an article to acchieve "implied consensus". There is no line in the sand. The longer a statement has been in an article and/or the more individual editors have edited the article without challenging the statement, the stronger the justification (in policy) has to be to remove the statement without first seeking a new consensus. And I thought any discussion on whether or not a statement should be in an article should take place on the article's talk page. There will always be grey areas, and there will always be the need to discuss and try to reach consensus. To use a term that was popular when I was studying linguistics, everything is "squishy". - Donald Albury 13:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the problem with the policy-as-written. The problem with the policy-as-written is that there is no statute of limitations in ONUS.  Under ONUS, as it is actually written, you have an unlimited requirement to prove that there is consensus for any addition (but not other types of changes) that I object to.
 * The question you address is technically separate. There's an open question of what should happen when the existence of an assumed or implied consensus is challenged.  Should my failure to notice and clean up a mess in the past be taken as proof of my support for whatever you object to now?  Or does your objection make the implied consensus disappear, and now I need to actually show up and say that I like it better the old way?  I don't like a model in which you can't change an article just because I claim, without evidence, that the silent majority agrees with me.  (Of course the silent majority agrees with me.  Does anyone ever claim that the silent majority disagrees with them?)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, . Kolya, and myself have already discussed this at length at the talk page of WP:CRP (a restriction which I, myself, view as ONUS on steroids). In the course of that discussion, myself and Kolya had taken the position that "inclusion" in ONUS ought to encompass anything being introduced in an edit into otherwise longstanding content. WhatamIdoing disagreed in that they asserted that it did not encompass removal, but rather, that "inclusion" only meant addition. Then there was Kolya's RfC, which I don't recall exactly what it was about (I did not get a chance to participate), but I do seem to recall that most participants sided with WhatamIdoing's position rather than that of Koyla and myself. Kolya, can you confirm? In any case, when I encounter a dispute, this is what I usually tell participants. I advise them to engage in discussion toward reaching consensus. If there's difficulties there, then something like an RfC that is properly closed may codify consensus or lack thereof for the time being. Such an RfC, incidentally, is one way in which the supremacy of longstanding content is expressed. Because the contending side need to get, at the very least, a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS result, whereas the longstanding side is good with a mere no consensus outcome, which all things being equal, is easier to reach. The second way that the supremacy of longstanding content shows is that during that RfC (or any other discussion or dispute resolution request geared toward establishing consensus), again with otherwise no overriding issues of note, it is customary for the longstanding version (which I emphasize as the status quo ante version) to be displayed in the interim. Briefly, to 's point about how long it would take for SILENT content —noting especially that Silence is the weakest form of consensus— to be viewed as such (i.e. as longstanding). The answer, such as it is, would probably be in the hazy (or should I say "squishy"?) weeks-to-months range, but I suppose it may be viewed as even less for a pages undergoing extraordinary activity. El_C 17:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you on the actual process, but not on the interpretation of WP:ONUS itself. WP:V is about verifiable content, so WP:ONUS wouldn't be describing "introducing" edits where content is removed or where WP:V doesn't apply. Per WP:Consensus the (lowercase) onus is on editors who want to make changes against implicit or explicit consensus (see the text I quoted above). WP:ONUS only describes the portion of WP:Consensus applicable to WP:V.
 * My RfC meant to remove the confusing SHOUTYONEWORD "ONUS" from the content policy and instead add it to a new section in WP:CONSENSUS § Achieving consensus, as I did in this sample edit: . The RfC removed the shortcut WP:ONUS from WP:V with this sample edit: This would effectively change nothing, but add clarity. (The proposed WP:CON text should probably have been: "The onus to achieve consensus for disputed changes to longstanding verifiable content is on those seeking the change." Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I think I understand the general thrust of your argument. I wonder whether perhaps, in reality, this is an issue that in any case mostly gets resolved via WP:BURDEN... But as for the notion of WP:V not coming into play for removals — I'm still uncertain that's a necessarily correct stance. But I do accept that there is a strong possibility that such an outlook may end up being viewed as so nuanced, it effectively would be rendered meaningless. El_C 18:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * El_C, the single sentence that we call ONUS happens to only mention additions to articles. WP:V in general applies to other changes (e.g., changing "red" to "purple"), but generally does not apply to removals except in extraordinary, meaning-changing situations (e.g., removing the word not).  BURDEN technically only applies to unsourced material.
 * I think that if you simply counted additions and removals in Special:RecentChanges, we'd see that most of this gets resolved via WP:IMPLICIT editing: Alice adds something, Bob removes it with a relevant edit summary, and Alice gives up.  I am specifically talking about an edge case that our policies don't handle perfectly.  It should not apply to >99% of edits.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , again, I'm not sure that our interpretation of ONUS' "inclusion" (which to say, inclusion of what?) is the same, especially when viewed through all the myriad circumstances where it might come into effect. Still, I acknowledge that your view is more prevalent than mine, with my own notion probably coming across as being, at best, somewhat esoteric. El_C 20:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , consider a following situation: some user argues that some long standing and verifiable content clearly violates NPOV and NOR. Does it mean a local consensus can be achieved to eliminate these violations? However, we all know that these two policies are non-negotiable, and they cannot be overruled by a local consensus. Therefore, you proposal creates seeds for huge conflicts between our three main content policies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand. What if there were a discussion in the talk page archives from six years ago where three editors achieved consensus to include some verifiable content which clearly violates NPOV and NOR? This would be dealt with in a similar way as with content with an implicit consensus, it would just be harder to overturn the explicit consensus. The question of how to determine consensus is separate from what to do when there is no consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems a couple of important considerations are missing here.


 * First, some articles are written by a small number of users, and they are not being watched by others. If a user A made some edit in such an article, and this edit has never been contested for last 6 years, should it be considered a stable consensus version, or it stays just because nobody paid attention to that? Accordingly, if some user finds that article and decides to fix some outrageous bullshit that was unnoticed during last 6 years, does that user have to achieve consensus? I think, no. It would be totally incorrect to apply the same criteria to some level 2 or level 3 article that is being continuously maintained by 50 users and watchlisted by 1,000 users, and to some low level article that is being occasionally edited by a couple of users.


 * Second, consensus is achieved by addressing all legitimate concerns. If a user B was participating in a consensus building process, and some version of an article (a version #X) was created as a result, that version should be considered a consensus version. If a user B decides to change it without bringing new facts or arguments, that change is supposed to be reverted unless a new consensus is achieved. However, if a user C, who never participated in a previous consensus building process, comes and brings in new facts and arguments - can we speak about any prior consensus? I don't think so. These new arguments were not considered during previous discussion, so they had not been addressed during a previous consensus building process. That means, there is no consensus anymore until new legitimate concern has been addressed. Therefore, if a new user C brings fresh arguments, sources and facts and, based on that, removes some text, it does not matter how long that text stayed: the process of re-addition must start de novo, and burden of proof is on those who wants to keep that text.
 * Ops, I've just noticed my #1 was partially discussed by --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair point, Paul. I was mostly looking at it through a sort of law of averages prism. But you're right, certainly there are pages where SILENCE would be rendered moot due to these changes effectively falling through the cracks by virtue of low activity, limited exposure, or whatever. El_C 20:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Some history: from 2008 until 2014, WP:ONUS was directed to the burden of evidence section, now called "Responsibility for providing citations", which says: "the burden [of evidence] ... lies with the editor who adds or restores material".

In May 2014 JzG edited WP:ONUS to redirect it instead to Verifiability. In August 2014 he added the following sentence to that section: "The onus is on those seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion", which is about consensus and shouldn't be in the sourcing policy. In September 2014 Kephir moved ONUS to its current position on the policy page and rewrote JzG's sentence to produce the current "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

, to answer your question, the sentence is a problem because (apart from needing a copy edit) (a) it discusses inclusion only; (b) it's imprecise (disputed by how many, how long-standing, etc); (c) it's about consensus, not about sourcing; and (d) it's the kind of issue that shouldn't be in a policy because it's too complicated, and what happens in disputes will depend on how many people are involved on each side (unless there's a clear policy violation, e.g. BLP). SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I might expand your list to add that people IMO over-value the state of the article during the process of determining consensus, so that when something's disputed, it's terribly important to revert the most recent edit to my preferred version the status quo ante instead of leaving it at The Wrong Version for even a few minutes.
 * How would you fix the problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the history, Sarah. I was not aware of that — how peculiar., so long as that something is genuinely disputed, I don't actually see a problem with that. Though, sure, patience is a virtue, so depending on the dispute, taking a minute before reverting may not be the worst idea, either. That's different, of course, from purely reflexive reverts — I, for one, treat Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" as pretty much policy, even though it's an essay. And I've seen some strange revert explanations stemming from its misuse over the years. Like when the reverting editor demands from the bold editor to get consensus in advance for no apparent reason. But, no, that is not how WP:BOLD edits should be challenged. El_C 00:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year!
  Hey Slim! You're the best and always have been! Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message