Editors on both sides of this debate have extensively expounded the benefits and drawbacks of "voluntary editing restrictions". Taking the detailed comments into account, I find that there is a rough consensus that voluntary restrictions are
enforceable as far as that are explicitly crafted to be enforceable and logged at
Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.
While a minority of editors argued that "enforceable" is contradictory to "voluntary", the majority view including some in the oppose section is that "voluntary" is how the contract is entered into, not the applicability of the contract.
Editors on both sides of the debate have raised concerns about potential misuse of voluntary restrictions, in particular uncertainties surrounding who may rescind a voluntary restriction and possibilities for admins to unilaterally impose a sanction under the threat of blocking. The consensus in this discussion would support the following regulations on the use of voluntary restrictions:
- Agreements between editors should not be enforceable by third parties in general, unless they are explicitly stated and logged as enforceable.
- Any voluntary restriction may be rescinded or amended by agreement of the parties involved in its creation.
- Any voluntary restriction may be rescinded or converted to a community-placed restriction through a community discussion.
--(
WP:ANRFC)
Deryck C. 17:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]