Page semi-protected


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAR)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Weighing scales

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:


Requests for arbitration

Fred Bauder

Initiated by Maxim(talk) at 19:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Not applicable

Statement by Maxim

I've desysoped Fred Bauder per WP:IAR in light of two self-unblocks today. As it's a Sunday and frankly we (or most of us) have lives, it is not clear when Arbcom would formally motion to desysop, and it is not unreasonable to assume that Fred Bauder may unblock himself again. Committee members, how you want to proceed here is your call, whether it is to do a level I/II desysop after-the-fact and dismiss this case, or whether you prefer to do a separate motion altogether. Or whether you want to trout me for my application of IAR. Point being, I'm not here seeking specific relief but more putting my actions on the record. Maxim(talk) 19:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

BU Rob13, I wonder if a proposed scope regarding Level I and what are de-facto bureaucrat reserve powers (in the Commonwealth sense), would be better suited to a well-advertised RfC. There's a whole lot that can be hashed out regarding how bureaucrats and Arbcom handle matters on resysops and desysops. What comes to mind, other than today, are recent contentious requests for resysop at WP:BN. Maxim(talk) 20:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, certainly, I'll try to clarify my reasoning. Self-unblocking (unless it's an obvious accident, i.e. admin blocks himself instead of intended target) is a really clear line in the sand. Doing it twice is over-the-top over the line. I don't think it's unreasonable to think a third self-unblock would occur. So if were a third self-unblock to happen we'd be back at re-blocking again. And so on and so forth. Such a situation is most undesirable given community expectations for admin conduct. The current situation is now effectively stable - that is more desirable than continuing or possibly continuing the unblock-reblock cycle. In ordinary edit-warring cases we use blocks and protections to stabilize the situation because it forces an end to the warring. With an admin unblocking himself twice, the only way you do the same is by desysop. So, I think the desysop is in the best interest of the project. Optically it's not an emergency like a rogue admin but I'd argue it rises to a different kind of emergency, and in both cases the outcome is fairly guaranteed to be the same. Maxim(talk) 22:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, not much happened but the possibility of it continuing did exist (and it is not an unreasonable possibility). And now the possibility does not exist. Regarding protection, I was using it as an analogy. In the situation at hand, I was responding to self-unblocking, not the election question page edit war. Maxim(talk) 22:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what Fred Bauder is referring to, as I undertook the action on my own initiative based on the reading of the unfolding situation. There was no "emergency request from an administrator" communicated to me. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
DGG, I take exception to a couple of parts of your statement. I never claimed it was not an emergency (I never used the terminology "true" or anything synonymous), merely that it was a different kind of emergency, compared to, for example, a rogue admin. Arbitration policy, on paper, does refer to stewards acting in emergencies, but the policy as written predates bureaucrats having the ability to desysop (this came along only when we started desysoping inactive admins). As I'm sure you are aware, changing arbitration policy entails a more laborious process compared to changing other policies. It is not a stretch to extend, in an unwritten manner, from stewards to anyone with the technical access, that is, local bureaucrats, stewards, and Wikimedia staff. Maxim(talk) 17:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Fred Bauder

If Maxim had relied in good faith on an emergency request from an administrator, any such request should be honored without requiring a thorough investigation. It could have been an actual emergency. Although, a glance at my contributions history might have helped.

"Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances."

If you wish me to continue to do some administrative work, I will do so, if you reinstate me. I should have read the election instructions and had enough good faith that the election committee might have helped me with the problems I was having with the question page. As it was, I, inappropriately, felt that if anything was going to be done, I would have to do it myself. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

With the exception of Maxim, who has corrected my initial impression that he was acting on a reported emergency, the blocking administrators, Boing! said Zebedee and Iridescent ( 00:40, November 8, 2018‎ Iridescent (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,552 bytes) (+293)‎ . . (→‎Questions from Eric Corbett: If that helps jog your memory) and [1]), were either involved in posting negative comments on the page in question, or had very strong feelings about me, Future Perfect at Sunrise. If Maxim did look at the nature of the page affected and the nature of what I was trying to do, it hard to see why he thought de-syopping was necessary. Although, indeed, I might have unblocked myself again. After all I was the subject of several discussions I might have participated in. The ban discussion was particularly nasty, as I was not even notified of it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Several users used the questions page not to ask questions but to make comments opposing my candidacy for one reason or another. Some who did ask questions did so in an aggressive nasty way, "When are you going to stop beating your wife?" Bottom line, the page was rendered useless other than as negative commentary. I was trying to improve the situation by editing it. I tried several templates first but they didn't work. Then hit on moving tendentious material to the talk page.

Please look at what I did to the questions page: What is the emergency. Why couldn't Boing! said Zebedee, who repeatedly reverted this page, themselves address the elections committee rather than repeatedly reverting it and even blocking me because I resisted their actions? There was no emergency, merely a dispute, which they resolved by force rather than discussion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

User:KTC and the other members of the Electoral Commission, failed to monitor the candidate pages, thus when my question page was overwhelmed with negative spam, nothing was done. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

Adding myself as a party pro forma in light of the fact that I'm the one who performed the reblock which Fred Bauder reversed—i.e. when the issue changed from a violation of WP:NEVERUNBLOCK to a violation of WP:WHEEL—and as the editor who proposed that Fred Bauder be formally sanctioned in addition to the desysop element. Unless anyone has any specific question, I doubt I have anything to add that hasn't been said at the ANI thread. ‑ Iridescent 19:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010, I think you're misunderstanding why we're here; this isn't a tribunal to rule on whether Fred Bauder should be blocked or unblocked (that's a matter for ANI), this is a case to decide if Maxim exceeded bureaucrat authority in desysopping without an Arbcom ruling to that effect. The committee can't decline this even if they wanted to (unless they intend to ask the WMF to intervene directly, which they won't). ‑ Iridescent 19:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis, if you're taking the "by the letter" route then by the letter of WP:LEVEL2 (or WP:LEVEL1 for that matter) you can't desysop other than temporarily, and are obliged either to restore the bit "once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved", or open a full case. This would have ended up here whichever route you took. ‑ Iridescent 21:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
As a general note, some people here appear to be under the impression that the court reports raised by Eric Corbett and linked by myself (now oversighted so I won't re-link them, although I consider the oversighting out-of-process and inappropriate) were the result of some kind of underhand opposition research. This is not the case; the two court cases in question have been on the record on-wiki since 2004, and the way in which they came to light in the first place was the result of Fred Bauder inviting editors interested in him to Google my name and intensively study the results (an invitation posted on WP:Arbitration/Requests itself, not some obscure page where he wouldn't expect people to see it), not some kind of cloak-and-dagger operation. (WP:Arbitration/Requests is a page frequented by numerous oversighters none of whom have removed the offending discussion for fourteen years, nor has it been removed from the questions page of his previous arbcom candidacy.) As the public face of Wikipedia's governance, along with the WMF board, Arbcom is one of the very few parts of Wikipedia where off-wiki profile is relevant, given that the first thing any journalist writing a "The Problem With Wikipedia" op-ed does is Google the usernames of high-profile figures. ‑ Iridescent 11:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

Maxim's desysop action was well within the bounds of reasonable discretion, and I think it was the right thing to do at the time and it should be endorsed. The subject of my block has come up here wrt WP:Involved. I blocked as an "any reasonable admin" action and then immediately took it to ANI for review, which I think is perfectly acceptable. In the discussion there's one "Good block" comment and one "Strongly admonish" (the admonish comment suggested I had misused rollback, but I did not use rollback). Nobody else out of the many who contributed saw fit comment on my action that I can see (and I don't think I missed any), so I don't see that it comes anywhere near ArbCom business. All ArbCom has to do here, I think, is decide how to proceed with Maxim's desysop action - uphold it, reverse it, elevate it to a formal desysop, whatever, and I'm happy to leave that to ArbCom without offering any personal opinion. There is clearly no community consensus for a ban on Fred, so that's another thing that ArbCom does not need to rule on. If anyone has any questions for me, I will answer as quickly as I can. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I'll just add that as the admin who imposed the original 24-hour block, and with the consent of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who upped it to indefinite, I have unblocked User:Fred Bauder as there seems to be a consensus that the block is no longer preventative. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And just to respond to a comment by User:Opabinia regalis that I was "edit-warring ..., over material you yourself posted" I must point out that it was not just my questions he was moving and to which I objected, but the questions of several people - mine were largely inconsequential requests for expansion on earlier questions, but those of others were not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Another thought. If an emergency desysop request has been sent and received and ArbCom is considering it, perhaps some acknowledgment of its receipt might at least be good manners? If nothing else, it might prevent others taking emergency action when they don't see you as doing anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Opabinia regalis: You say "on-wiki notifications instead of just answering emails is a good idea", but I did not even receive a reply to my email. Did anyone else? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to note some comments I have made on my talk page at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Feedback, as I think they at least partly address some things that have since been raised here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • One thing I'd like to clarify. I see some content has now been removed from Fred's questions page and suppressed by oversight. I obviously can't check now, but I was pretty sure that that material was not the material that Fred was removing and which triggered all this. Can someone please confirm? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lourdes

The community is discussing this issue at ANI and there's no need for the ArbCom to step in here as of this moment. With due thanks to Maxim for the absolutely on the dot action, Maxim could well have emailed the ArbCom than opened up this thread. Lourdes 19:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Per Iridescent's explanation; I realize I'd misunderstood the basis of this filing. Lourdes 15:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion by SN54129

...that this is put to bed as easily and as quietly as possible for all concerned: endorse the L2 desysop, in consideration of the consensus formed/forming at ANI (as yet unclosed, but which presumably will be closed as "Desysop, no site ban"). The committee is not, after all, being asked to consider the length of the block in place or to be based. No fish supper for Maxim, it was a good call. Others have, after all, also emailed the committee tonight. Although: did anyone email a steward? ——SerialNumber54129 19:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Softlavender: Many thanks. i) FYI, I don't "think ANI is still open"; it was open when I posted, and now it's closed. Thus is the way of the world. ii) Please stop talking to me. Yours, etc., ——SerialNumber54129 07:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dax Bane: that would appear to be almost wholly irrelevant. ——SerialNumber54129 07:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Wumbolo: Yes, that's about the only issue that so far actually has been resolved, so at least we can move on from it now. ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG

  • As the editor who triggered the chain of events, I pretty much believe Fred's attitude is incompatible with our current values.
  • And a desysop is the basic minimum, which ought be executed with minimal fuss by the commitee and this case request be dealt with.Maxim's actions were very rational and it was a good call.
  • Per Cas's comment (which frames my thoughts well-enough), the indef shall be stayed unless he can demonstrate his competency.
  • I note that my usage of rollback has been questioned and I agree that it was non-optimal.WBGconverse 19:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Funplussmart

There seems to be overwhelming consensus for a desysop for wheel-warring, but a site ban is probably unnessesary in my opinion (I changed my vote in the ANI post). Of course, we are only here for procedure only. funplussmart (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

And I do support Maxim's desysoping. (of Fred Bauder) funplussmart (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions by Alanscottwalker

What was the imminent harm? I get that there was wheel-warring/self-dealing but why could not the de-sysop wait for emergency process? What was going to happen? Nothing? In other words, so he is unblocked, what did you think he would do, move questions from a page to its talk page? So, those can be moved back, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

And, what? Is it true the desysop was two hours after the last unblock, and what happened in that time? Nothing? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"[T]his seems like it would have been solved with far less drama by stopping immediately after Fred's first revert and asking the election commissioners to review the situation." Indeed, so what if those questions were moved for a few hours or even a day or so, as there was a pointer to them? What was it that could not have been talked through? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Maxim: can you respond to any of the above questions? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it has already been pointed out that desysop requires a case, even after an emergency desysop, is that right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Maxim: Why do you say the situation was unstable? What specifically had happened in the last hour before your action? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Maxim: Also, you say you consider protection in an edit war? This is claimed to have started as an edit war, so, did you consider protection to stabilize the situation? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Maxim: So nothing had happened, and yet you still could not wait for the Committee? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Maxim: Did someone request that you do this? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

The committee, as much as individuals may not want, is required to open a case and examine all the circumstances raised, here, per policy.

First, once again, it is very poor idea as suggested by eg. WBScribe, that unless the committee is going to de-buercrat/desysop/ban/block Maxim or do something terrible to some other alleged malefactor, they should not take a case. A case serves to create a record and clarify issues -- one of the things that is not acknowledged enough, is that because the committee takes and decides cases over the years, over-time the community has arrived at a better meeting of minds on policies, their application, and the issues surrounding them, when it takes up matters (this is only reasonable, because the community really does not have deliberative processes, besides the Arbcom process, (we have, it rather seems, 'OMG, something has to happen', fests)).

And really, come on, when else will the committee be able to explicate, clarify, examine in light of FACTS its emergency process? Never?

Apart, from what would have been a Level 2, given the number of people involved, and the number issues: of provocation (outing? goading? personalization?), of edit-warring (rollback?) (on a deep internal page far from content and even policy?); then blocks (involved?); a claimed "emergency" (to borrow a fire analogy, since they seem a popular analogy in these matters, 'if you come upon the remains of an arson, there are a whole host of reasons not to stir the debris'), when there is already an emergency process? There is a crying need for more clarity per WP:RETURN process ("if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances"). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to remember why it is almost never an "emergency", and why we don't rely on an individual to declare an "emergency" -- it is one of the most basic and foundational tenants of Wikipedia that almost nothing can't be undone, nothing can be broken (except, perhaps, people). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Evidence suggestion

The committee should stipulate that the whole of the election page(and talk page) the whole of the AN/I, the whole of EB's talk page since Sunday (and every administrative act connected to all those) is in evidence and give a very short window (3 days?) for other evidence diffs. Tell the clerks when they open the evidence page to put the stipulated links to pages there. (Also, no need to repeat any diffs offered during this request). [Further note, you largely have the principles written, many times over (they need to be modified and policy already gives you the rest) that just leaves findings (the hardest part arguing over what exactly is relevant) and remedies (but you know, you basically only have like 5 remedies).Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: That's not new evidence, it is already covered by my proposal ("no need to repeat any diffs offered during this request" and "the whole of the AN/I"). And policies are not evidence, diffs are. The Workshop is where the process applies diffs to policies/guidelines (and really, if there is something not covered in what I described and it's important the committee can always decide to reopen evidence on specific matters.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Dave

Said it at ANI and I'll say it here - He should've been desysopped but I believe any sort of ban/sanction is OTT, He didn't go on a rampage blocking everyone and causing mayhem - He simply unblocked himself twice (which is still a dickish thing to do but point is it could've been much worse), I would suggest the committee decline this. –Davey2010Talk 19:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescent I've completely misunderstood why we're here!, This is what 6 hours sleep does to you lol,
Well I support Maxim's actions anyway. –Davey2010Talk 20:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

I'm curious what the committee members mean by "accept". we need to examine why the Arbitration Committee was unable to apply Level I in this situation, a clear example of what it was intended for would need to be discussed among the committee since only the committee would have access to the mailing list/know why three arbitrators were unable to ratify Level I desysop. what bureaucrats are meant to do in emergency situations. could easily be handled by motion/community RfC on whether bureaucrats can remove permissions in an emergency. I don't see how a case is supposed to help with either of those two questions. If the only purpose is to decide those questions, a case seems an excessively bureaucratic and prolonged way of doing so; the structure of case would not seem to aide in any manner in deciding these questions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Examining the initial block might be worthwhile though; per my comments at WP:ANI ([2][3]), that is really the more significant issue since the matter of desysoping for wheel warring/unblocking yourself is well settled. Considering this relatively recent motion in a similarish case of edit warring and then using the admin tools in the same dispute, a look at involvement in relation to edit warring would be beneficial. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

Why couldn't the committee use level I?

If I had seen this earlier, I would have requested an emergency desysop from a steward, but when I saw this the self-unblocks were already 2 hours old. Speaking as a former steward, this could have been acted on by them if the wheel warring was still active. --Rschen7754 20:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with what Ajraddatz said. If this was a smaller wiki, stewards might do an emergency desysop two hours after the fact, but not on enwiki. --Rschen7754 19:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector (re: Fred Bauder)

I would like to see the Committee formally endorse Maxim's action per WP:LEVEL1, due to the sensitivity of the bureaucrat bit and the clear consensus at the community ban discussion.

I also strongly recommend the Committee open a case to review the community's trust in Fred Bauder's administrator privileges, given multiple instances of wheel warring today including at least once after having been warned to stop (see Iridescent's entry from 11 November in Fred Bauder's block log). Perhaps it was not advisable for Boing! said Zebedee to block Fred in the edit warring situation they were in and perhaps that conduct also needs to be examined, but WP:NEVERUNBLOCK is clear that administrators are not permitted to unblock themselves.

I don't know why these experienced editors felt the need to edit war over the placement of Arbcom candidate questions, and I think it might be wise for those editors involved in this to make a statement as to just what the hell they were thinking.

  • And to this last point I recommend that, since he has been desysopped by a bureaucrat ignoring the rules in the clear best interest of the project and so the immediate threat should be considered mitigated, Fred Bauder should be unblocked to participate in this case request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender: the Malik Shabazz/ARBPIA 3 case was hardly a non-event: when the entire scope of the events leading to the case were evaluated, it led somewhat directly to the creation of the extended-confirmed protection level (WP:ARBPIA3#500/30). If a case resulting from this request leads to clarification/refinement of the emergency desysop procedures, even if the result is simply reaffirming the current procedures, it will be worthwhile as there's clearly confusion even among the current arbitrators. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It should also be noted in evidence if this goes to a full case that the day these events occurred was not just "a Sunday" but the centennial of the armistice of the first World War, an event marked in numerous countries around the world (though Wikipedia for some probably insulting reason chose to highlight only the American observance on the main page). As such it could be reasonably expected that the availability of editors/bureaucrats/arbitrators would have been somewhat less than "a Sunday". I can't make any comment as to whether or not this factored into Maxim's decision to desysop, but so far nobody seems to have noted it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In his statement, Fred Bauder says he was not notified of the ANI discussion, which is incorrect. Here is a summary timeline from 11 November (all times UTC):
    • 15:09: Fred Bauder is notified by Winged Blades of Godric of a discussion at WP:AN3 about the revert war on the elections page
    • 15:10: Fred is initially blocked by Boing! said Zebedee for 24 hours for edit warring
    • 15:16: Boing! makes the initial comment starting the ANI discussion, using a userlink which I believe would have generated a notification to Fred but I'm not entirely sure about that
    • 15:18: Boing! notifies Fred of the discussion at ANI
    • 15:22: Fred unblocks himself
    • 15:28: Fred comments at the ANI thread. He subsequently opines that he has a "right to respond"
    • 15:34: Iridescent notionally restores Boing!'s 24-hour block, noting in the log "unblocking yourself is clear admin abuse per WP:NEVERUNBLOCK"
    • 15:37: Fred unblocks himself for the second time, noting in the log "need to participate in discussion"
    • 15:38: Fred comments a third time at the ANI thread, noting his desire to participate in the discussion.
    • 15:47: Future Perfect at Sunrise blocks Fred indefinitely
Fred may have missed the required notifications as they came during a barrage of comments on his talk page, but they were made. Regardless, he was obviously aware of the discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Bbb23 and Nsk92 have both has picked on Fred's statement that "[he] might have unblocked [him]self again ... [he] was the subject of several discussions [he] might have participated in." For what it's worth I didn't read Fred's words as stating his intention to do so, only an introspective look at how a neutral observer may have viewed the situation (i.e. Fred is offering a justification for Maxim's action). I don't know which it really is, but that's how I read it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23: my apologies, I seem to have read something in your statement that wasn't there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Cryptic

A link to the edit war that led to this seems conspicuous by its absence. [4]Cryptic 20:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I just want to make the (probably obvious) point that even if the initial block was INVOLVED, the self-unblock was not justified and worthy of an immediate desysop. Bauder could have asked any admin he trusted to look at the block and undo it instead of undoing it himself, if the block was a bad one. (I don't think it was, since even in Boing was involved, it would fall under the "any reasonable admin would take the action" considering the edit warring that was going on.)

As for Op.reg's comments about going fast fast - to a large extent that was conditioned by Bauder's wheel warring, which got us to the state we are in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

And while I'm here, I may as well say (for what it's worth) that I support Maxim's desysop of Bauder, which appears to me to be a spot-on application of what IAR was meant for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Endorse Bbb23's suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Would a clerk please update the Arb count? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bbb23

@Opabinia regalis: You're in real trouble when I don't have to scroll down to the signature to know that it's your opinion.Face-smile.svg I agree with Opabinia's comments. There's a fair amount of blame to go around here, but I see no need to take anyone to task for it. Just confirm the desysop by motion, and we're done. You can't clean up the mess at ANI, but you don't have to extend it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm profoundly disappointed in Fred's statement. He still apparently believes that unblocking himself was acceptable. Regardless of the propriety of the original block, an administrator cannot unblock himself unless it was a self-block. I'm also unhappy with the fact that it looks like the consequences of Fred's statement is the Committee will not handle this by motion, meaning additional drama for the holidays (sort of an inverse celebration) even if it's handled in a more controlled manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: With all due respect, that is not what I said above at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: I would add one more item to your analysis of what occurred: Fred unblocked himself twice. The first time, based on the block log, was because he was blocked by a "participant" in the edit war. The second time was because he wanted to participate in the discussion. Neither self-unblock was appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Fred Bauder: Boing! said Zebedee initiated the ANI thread here. Boing! notified you of the thread a couple of minutes later here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Statememt by Beeblebrox

Clearly you don’t need yet another user telling you this but what the hell: take the case and resolve it by motion. I think that is the obvious path, Fred crossed a bright line, twice, so there’s no need to debate his other actions. The committtee has held in the past that doing so is not ok regardless of whether or not the initial block was justified. The community can decide what other remedies may or may not be needed, but only you guys can do the desysop which is mandated both by policy and very strong consensus of the community. And Maxim obviously did the right thing here in preventing the very real risk of further wheel warring, something that must be nipped in the bud ASAP. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: it doesn’t. Fred’s RL identity is no secret so there’s nothing to out. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Digginf up stuff about Fred's real life issues with his law license was petty and irelevant to the election process, and is not something we should encourage, but it did not technically violate the outing policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: yeah, sure, when you cherry pick different passages and string them together leaving out intervening details, sure it looks pretty bad. If anyone really thinks this is outing the very last thing you should be doing is posting about it here, send a request to oversight. I promise I'll leave it for someone else to judge. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by wbm1058

I would like a ruling from the Committee on whether THIS EDIT which linked to a Colorado Supreme Court case was a violation of the WP:OUTING policy. wbm1058 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be relevant that his real identity is known to Wikipedians. The question is whether the link reveals personal information of a harmful nature about Fred that he himself had not previously disclosed. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I hear Littleolive oil's concerns (below), but am assuming that this edit wasn't oversightable, or it would have been oversighted by now. I'm asking if "this type of opposition research and the linking of off-wiki" information is prohibited under the OUTING policy, although it apparently falls short of being oversightable. Or, is this not a clear-cut infraction because, "context matters", and the question is appropriate in this context? wbm1058 (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dax Bane and Serial Number 54129: I see one clear principle that applies here: Admins should not unblock themselves. Can you elaborate on what other applicable principle you see there? Thanks for pointing out this precedent to the Committee; I trust that they'll find it helpful. wbm1058 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblocking will almost never be acceptable (that's almost, not always) to unblock one's own account, except in the case of self-imposed blocks. Each of these may lead to sanctions for misuse of administrative tools—possibly including desysopping—even for first-time incidents. That's may and possibly. The community is wrong to view this as a "bright line" meriting "felony sanctions". Why isn't this a case where "context matters", given the blatant harassment and outing on his Q&A page? wbm1058 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wheel warring usually results in an immediate request for arbitration. Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first-time incidents. Again, I see no "bright line" mandating severe sanctions. In this case, wheel warring did not immediately result in a RFAR, but rather in a proposal to community ban.

I'd be cautious about expediting the evidence phase while significant new evidence is still coming in. wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mz7

I think WP:LEVEL1 failed in this case because the procedure is too long and protracted for something that is supposed to be fast and clear-cut. It still requires at least three arbitrators to respond in a timely manner, which is not always the case on Sunday morning, and then we need to post a statement somewhere, and then a bureaucrat has to be awake to action the request. Honestly, it's no surprise to me that bureaucrats usually end up applying WP:IAR and desysopping unilaterally.

So with that in mind, I think the committee should think about replacing LEVEL1. My opinion on the best solution would be a change to the administrator policy that explicitly allows bureaucrats and possibly also stewards to make emergency desysops in certain bright-line cases, like unblocking one's own account, or an admin account that's obviously compromised, or "is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion". Honestly, we could just copy-paste the language from WP:LEVEL1 into such a policy.

Such a change would probably be in the purview of a community RfC, but doing away with LEVEL1 is for ArbCom to decide. Currently, the only entity that is technically allowed to perform involuntary desysops at its own discretion is the Arbitration Committee (and also the stewards, in "emergencies", but what is and is not an emergency is not well-defined). My thought is that this would just be a codification of existing practice, as most good policy proposals are. Mz7 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil

Fred's behavior aside; it is unconscionable to bring up an editor's personal life in an arbitration election whether before or after the inappropriate behaviour. I had hoped that here at least with admins and arbs we could be better than that. There is to excuse for this. None. Its just shabby!(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)); edited (05:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC))

@Softlavender: Please see your user talkpage.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC))

Statement by Black Kite

An admin running for ArbCom with fewer than 300 mainspace edits in the last six months, and fewer than 30 logged admin actions, who thinks they can unblock themselves because they've been here a long time and are more important than others? F*** that. Desysop them, throw them out of the ArbCom list, and let them go back to being anonymous. Seriously, I have no idea what Fred thought was going to happen when he popped up and ran for ArbCom. Many people here are aware of his past, so someone was going to raise it, weren't they? Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Seriously? Fred was last blocked in... oh, wait, he has zero previous blocks other than his own tests. Since 2002. This is Fred. fucking. Bauder. He was being trolled. Children born since Fred registered can legally marry now. Everyone just needs to walk away. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Govindaharihari

Statement by Softlavender

As per my opinion regarding the events surrounding the previous longterm admin who virtually never uses admin tools yet still holds the mop despite disruption spanning numerous pages/noticeboards/reports, I'm of the opinion that inactive admins who virtually no longer use their tools yet are creating disruption and violating numerous policies and/or guidelines should be and remain de-sysopped (until they re-run at RFA). Nostalgia for early adminship or for longterm associations is not a reason or adequate rationale for anyone to retain the mop who does not either use or merit it.

Question for Littleolive oil: You wrote "it is unconscionable to bring up an editor's personal life in an arbitration", but I can find no evidence of that occurring on this page, and nothing has been deleted. Could you clarify what you are referring to? Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Note to those who thought this matter was being handled at ANI (Lourdes, Serial Number 54129): It is not; the entire thread has been closed because the issue is now at ArbCom: [5]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Small point of order in response to Opabinia regalis: Boing! said Zebedee was not the only person's questions Fred Bauder removed at the Q&A: He also removed questions from Winged Blades of Godric and myself. And Fred Bauer was edit warring originally and mainly with Winged Blades of Godric [6]. All in all Fred Bauer made these reverts: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], which repeatedly removed over 13,000 bytes of questions from three different people. So I think stating or implying that Boing! said Zebedee was edit-warring with Fred Bauer over material he himself posted is very incomplete at best, misleading at worst. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: The way I see it, there are three possibilities here: (A) If Fred Bauder contests his desysop, then ArbCom needs to decide by (1) motion or by (2) case whether to officially desysyop him or not. (3) If Fred Bauer does not contest his desysop or call for restoration of his sysop right, then I don't believe there is anything the Committee needs to do. I do not believe that the actions of any other party to the entire matter, no matter how direct or remote, rise to the level of an ArbCom case, either collectively or singly. Therefore the over-arching question is, does Fred Bauder contest his desysop and does he want his tools re-instated?

For the record, we had an emergency (LEVEL 1) de-sysop in 2015 of Malik Shabazz, who had repeatedly used vulgarities against someone he was edit-warring with, and then also revdelled some of those (his own) edits and unrevdelled some of his oppenent's comments. Here is the announcement of the LEVEL 1 desysop: [15]. Here is the discussion of the LEVEL 1 desysop: [16]. Here is the full case request: [17]. Malik Shabazz did not request reinstatement of his mop ... so the accepted case ended up not being about him but rather about ARBPIA, and the results were a non-event: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Final decision. I really don't think we need to go through the motions of analyzing everything to bits to end up with another non-event of a final decision, unless Fred Bauer contests his desysop. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Note from Dax Bane

There's a couple of similarities between this request, and a past case the Committee may want to take note of. While AC doesn't normally follow precedent, perhaps any proposed motion can borrow a couple of principles from the case?
Just my 2c, Dax Bane 05:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 and Wbm1058: The similiarities I saw in the earlier case and this request was that an Admin had unblocked themselves and was demopped by a 'crat or steward (from what I can tell, this was also an IAR demopping) which was later confirmed by ArbCom. Dax Bane 17:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mz7: Such a change would probably be in the purview of a community RfC, but doing away with LEVEL1 is for ArbCom to decide.
Instead of removing LEVEL1, why not modify LEVEL1 or LEVEL2 (or perhaps create a LEVEL0) delegating emergency authority to crats allowing them to act unilaterally in the clear-cut cases which you describe. This would not only remove the necessity of IAR-demops, but also create a clear procedure in what chain of tasks are necessary should such an invocation happen. ::In a nutshell: crat does a Ln removal, crat is then to inform the committee of such along with their reasoning on one of the ArbCom pages, which then reviews the circumstances and reasoning, then makes a motion along one of the following lines:
* Confirmation of removal, requiring the former admin to go through RfA or appeal to committee (whichever the committee decides, depending on circumstances)
* Declaring the removal as temporary, allowing the former admin to request the tools back on BN after X period of time
* Declare the removal as unnecessary
* Any other outcome the committee sees fit
hopefully, such would rarely (I want to say never, but this is the second time in wikihistory so far as I know) need to be invoked, but at least it'd be a useful fire escape Dax Bane 17:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

How does an RfC into use of WP:IAR work? I'm not sure that we can curtail people taking actions based on WP:IAR, because they could just ignore the rule that says not to ignore the rule. I suppose the RfC could note the community's disapproval of particular actions being done on the basis of WP:IAR but that seems to be about it. The options here are really just that either ArbCom removes Maxim's bureaucrat access or it doesn't. Rightly, I get the feeling it won't. If the community were worried about how Maxim would apply WP:IAR in future, it really doesn't have any option but to seek his resignation or removal as a bureaucrat. Adding a further rule that could also be ignored in a perceived emergency wouldn't change things. WJBscribe (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by There'sNoTime

It's disheartening that something rather clear-cut is now being clouded by faffing around - when this incident began, it would have been reasonable to desysop via WP:LEVEL1 ("(a) an account appears to be obviously compromised, or is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion, or (b) multiple accounts are actively wheel-warring."), however this had stopped relatively quickly and an "emergency desysop" was no longer required. Let's not labour that point though - it's done and dusted, and hasn't caused any harm to the project.

We're now at the point where WP:LEVEL2 is the only option available for dealing with this - it's fairly clear these actions are "inconsistent with the level of trust required for [sysop]", and I don't think we've seen a "satisfactory explanation".

Is a "motion for removal of advanced permissions" currently being discussed on the list, and are we any nearer to it being "endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators"?

Once a WP:LEVEL2 has been completed, or AC decide it is not appropriate, we can then continue the faffing a la "normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.".

ArbCom, you do a thankless task whilst continuously being bombarded with criticism - I'm not sure how or why you do it, but thank you. - TNT 💖 12:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Wumbolo

Boing is right; I wrongly stated in the ANI thread that he misused the rollback right. Boing didn't use rollback, and I no longer stand by my comment at ANI. I apologize for causing any confusion.

However, I uphold my criticism of Winged Blades of Godric, and believe that he misused his rollback right. Furthermore, I am worried by his comment at ANI (diff):

I understand that using rollback was not optimal but I am very willing to use it liberally, in dealing with extreme stupidity; which this was. (emphasis mine)

This strikes me as WP:IDHT behavior and unwillingness to completely adhere to Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by 28bytes

Whether the questions Fred thought were inappropriate should stay on the questions page or be moved to the talk page should have been left to the electoral commission to sort out; that's what they're there for. There was absolutely no need to edit war over it.

Fred was duly sanctioned for his part in the edit war, but the folks who edit-warred against him seem to be doubling down on their actions, which concerns me. Neither of the people who repeatedly reverted Fred using rollback and Twinkle explained in an edit summary why they were doing so. Future Perfect at Sunrise, to his credit, offered a brief explanation for his action in the edit summary when he reverted Fred manually.

I'm not interested in more sanctions getting meted out - I accept that everyone was acting in good faith - but a general reminder from the committee about the expectations of automated tool use in edit wars would be welcome. 28bytes (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by User:Carrite

Admin Rob has identified the essence of this problem in his acceptance rationale: this is really a failure of the system, in that only Arbcom has authority to remove permissions and it is a cumbersome body that would seem to be incapable of making a quick decision on a fast shutdown of administrative rights in a situation like this. There needs to be a discussion about what to do in this sort of situation; software should also be adapted so that self-unblocking is eliminated or curtailed. That Fred Bauder should be losing tools in this fiasco seems too obvious for comment. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Nsk92

The detailed timeline of events given by PMC below is quite informative. I have not yet seen a convincing explanation, here or at ANI, as to why LEVEL1 procedures needed to be circumvented here and in what way there was some sort of emergency situation that made a WP:IAR action by Maxim necessary or advisable. The last re-block was at 15:47, and then Maxim applied Desysop at 19:08, that is 3 hours and 21 minutes later. There were no other self unblocks by Fred Bauder during this 3hr 21 minutes period, and no active wheel-warring occurring during that time. The rationale given by Maxim above that he assumed that "Fred Bauder may unblock himself again" seems rather weak and not really convincing to me. Desysopping is Arbcom's prerogative, and we should not create precedents that, even tacitly, gives this authority to the bureaucrats as well, at least not without either reaching a clear community consensus to do so first or the Arbcom explicitly granting this authority to the bureaucrats in some specific situations. If Arbcom handles this case by motion, as seems likely to happen, I think they need to admonish against any future unilateral desysopping actions by the bureaucrats. If the ArbCom wishes to allow bureaucrats to perform unilateral desysopping actions in some emergency circumstances, then the ArbCom needs to explicitly say so and explain what those emergency circumstances would be. Creating problematic WP:IAR precedents here that other crats might be tempted to follow is not a good idea. Nsk92 (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's comments on this page make it clear that a permanent desysop is absolutely necessary: "Although, indeed, I might have unblocked myself again. After all I was the subject of several discussions I might have participated in." This kind of cluelessness regarding self-unblocking, coming from a long-term administrator and a former arb, is shocking. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the more recent stuff posted in this RFAR request, it seems clear that resolving it by motion is not appropriate and that a full case is needed to examine things more carefully. E.g. Beeblebrox may be correct that bringing up Fred's off-wiki issues from ages ago in the context of an Arbcom election discussion might not have been outing, but it certainly looks like harassment to me. Nsk92 (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Deryck

I urge the committee to open a full case on this incident, not just to review the wheel-warring regarding Fred Bauder's block and desysopping, but rather to examine the aggressive conduct in the candidates' Q&A pages which led to this incident. The accusations of harassment and outing in comments above are well-founded and deserves careful examination. ArbCom is best-placed on this Wikipedia to decide what is and isn't acceptable conduct. Deryck C. 22:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

Bad block, bad desysop, misuse of roll back by multiple parties. More than meets the eye initially here.--MONGO (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

I've been silently observing and reading on this rather than reacting to it; as a former and nearly successful ArbCom candidate last year (not running this time since I'm fresh off a months-long wikibreak for real-life busyness reasons), I've been interested in the overall Arb rede on it and how their views were arrived at (when that much is clear). I'm comfortable supporting the gist of Opabinia Regalis's analysis, though I think that Iridescent's response to it is also correct.

But that's a technicalities analysis. Every page we have about policy and procedure, from WP:POLICY to WP:CONSENSUS to WP:WIKILAWYER to WP:GAMING and many others, tells us under no uncertain terms to interpret our rules in the spirt in which they are intended not as to their exact wording; we are not to apply fine-tuned but subjective interpretation of it to get a result we individually like, but rather go with the interpretation that results in how the community reads it.

Looking at the community take on this entire situation, I can't find genuine, unambiguous fault with Maxim's action; WP:IAR and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY are real policies for real reasons. (And none of our rules are immune to them except those imposed by WP:OFFICE as legal requirements – there's no IAR rationale to blatantly violate copyright, for example.)

If we want to draw a brighter line that more precisely circumscribes what "emergency" means in this context, within exactly what time-frame, and with a clearer distinction between Level 1 and Level 2, then we should do so. But no one should be "prosecuted" for an alleged failure to abide by letter-of-the-law stuff that respondents (here and at ANI, admin and non-admin, Arb and non-Arb) clearly can't actually agree to interpret consistently in their current state.

I won't comment on whether Bauder should remain desysopped, since there isn't any open question about it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Ajraddatz

The practice for stewards conducting emergency desysops is to perform the action then notify the appropriate arbcom/community noticeboard so the action can be reviewed. Bureaucrats should have the same discretionary power, so they don't need to invoke IAR to perform a desysop. None of this level 1 or 2 stuff required, and they shouldn't be required to open a public case like this to inform arbcom. As for the actual case itself, some pretty disappointing behaviour from all sides. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I've had a chance to look at the details of the case more specifically now. I agree with some comments made that there is more going on here, and I think that a full case would probably be the best way for the committee to address the various parts. Specifically:

  • The block and subsequent block of Fred Bauder were both done by the wrong people - one who was involved in the edit war, and one who had previously posted this information on Fred's question page, which to me suggests some level of bias against him. This situation could have been dealt with by stepping back and discussing the content removal with Fred, the elections people, or both. If a block was necessary, it would not have been hard to find an uninvolved admin to place it.
  • Fred Bauder's edit warring and self-unblocks were improper. Once his first question move was reverted, he should have stepped back and discussed the situation rather than engaging in edit warring. When he was blocked, he should have requested unblock on his talk page like anyone else would need to do in that situation. I expect that the two self-unblocks alone are enough for a desysop of some level by ArbCom. (Clarified the second self-unblock per suggestion of Bbb23)
  • Bureaucrats do not have the authority to perform emergency desysops. The 2011 RFC that granted bureaucrats the ability to remove the sysop bit explicitly did not grant them the authority to remove permissions in an emergency (see here). I don't think that IAR is a good justification when a discussion on the topic was closed to the contrary, and when stewards could have been easily contacted to perform the action.
  • I'm not sure how I would have responded if someone asked me to perform this emergency desysop. Emergency desysopping should only be done to prevent further disruption to the project, and I do not think that was the case here. Yes, Fred Bauder misused the tools by unblocking himself, but the most recent at the time of desysop was to participate in a discussion, not engage in disruptive behaviour like deleting good pages or doing other sysop-level vandalism. That said, Maxim acted in good faith and did what he thought would be best for the situation, and I don't think he should be penalized for his actions. Edit: I had assumed that the emergency desysop followed immediately after the second unblock. It did not; the second unblock happened at 15:37, the third block happened at 15:47, and the desysop happened over three hours later at 19:08. No steward would have actioned this so far after the fact, and the IAR justification for an emergency desysop is clearly inappropriate here. There was no indication that Fred was going to unblock himself again, and no indication that he would disrupt the project if he did. Any desysop so far after the event should have been done at the request of ArbCom.
  • I previously said above that I think bureaucrats should have the discretionary authority to desysop in these situations. In cases like this that authority would be fine, but maybe not in all situations. Most situations that require an emergency desysop arise when accounts are compromised, but bureaucrats do not have the full toolkit to investigate those situations when they happen. Potentially compromised accounts are usually locked rather than desysopped immediately, and stewards are in a better position to work with the WMF technical people to determine whether the account was actually compromised. I'll need to think more about this. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kurtis: I am your test case of a steward who likely would not have desysopped in that situation. Three hours after the fact, with no indication of further abuse of the sysop permission, does not constitute an emergency. In a non-emergency situation, it should be ArbCom calling the shots on whether someone should keep their sysop tools, not stewards and definitely not a bureaucrat in contravention of existing policy under a flaky rationale. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by SQL

I am not aware of either party at any time prior to these events attempting to contact the Electoral Commission with regards to any issues at the Questions page. @Mkdw: - At this time, Fred is not disqualified. SQLQuery me! 17:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WaltCip

In light of Fred's desire to retain his administrative role (as per Worm That Turned's reading of the situation), I urge ArbCom to accept this as a full case rather than by ruling through motion. The issue at hand here is one that will most certainly come up again in the future, and there seems to be some ongoing dispute as to whether or not the IAR de-sysop was warranted.--WaltCip (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Pldx1

My opinion is that a more precise wording is required. Bureaucrat Maxim has not desysoped Fred Bauder. He has taken a technical measure, i.e. he has frozen the ability of Fred Bauder to use his sysop bit. Such a technical measure has been taken under the umbrella of an emergency situation. And now, under the umbrella of the existing policies, the ArbCom has to decide how to exit from this frozen state. Being granted by the en:wp community, adminship can only be removed by the said community, through due process. A motion stating "Maxim, pass ; Fred Bauer, fail" seems to be in order. Pldx1 (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by KTC

Adding onto SQL's comment, and writing as a member of the Electoral Commission but not on behalf of it, I am also not aware of any editors at any time prior to these events having made any attempt at contacting the Electoral Commission or any of its members with regards to any issues at the Questions page. -- KTC (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

By mandate of the community, "the Election Commission should intervene only when there is a problem that needs resolving, and either discussion is not working, the rules are unclear, or there isn't time for a lengthy discussion."
@Fred Bauder: As decided by the community, it is not the role of the Electoral Commission to proactively intervene, but only when discussion is not working. Just as a request for arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, the Electoral Commission should only be intervening when there is no alternative. Where was the discussion? -- KTC (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Cyberpower678

As the last member of the electoral commission, I can say for certain on behalf of the commission, it has not received any complaints or requests to thoroughly review questions being posed to Fred. As a result we have not intervened in the situation that has arisen. I have only been observing for obvious attacks and privacy attacks at candidates. I have not seen such a thing. Most questions are asking for clarification to Fred's rather short answers to already posed questions. If the commission were contacted, we would have investigated and acted accordingly. At this time Fred is still qualified to appear on the ballot.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7

@Beeblebrox: I disagree. WP:OUTING: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information ... The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". ... Unless unintentional and non-malicious ... attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac

I read the activity on the questions page and was shocked by the behavior of several Admins and other editors. The damage done to a real person in unnecessary harassment and outing over real world career ending events many years ago far exceeds any damage Fred has done by moving content and unblocking himself. Anyone with experience in legal and quasijudicial matters knows that what is written up in such cases is often not the whole story. The behavior of the other involved editors needs to be examined more than Fred's understandable reaction to harassment. I endorse Hawkeye's statement as well.

Statement by Donald Albury

If the committee accepts this case, I hope it will look at the disruption caused by posting details of a candidate's off-wiki life in Wikipedia. What an editor and/or admin does in Wikipedia is always relevant. What someone does outside of Wikipedia, if it is not publicly identified with Wikipedia, is not relevant to discussions in Wikipedia. Every time I get sucked back into activity in here, something like this happens to remind me why I've gone inactive in the past. - Donald Albury 01:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

because everyone else feels it necessary to comment ...

The consensus of the community is clear that an admin who wheel-wars to unblock themselves should be de-sysoped until ARBCOM has ruled on the situation. I hesitate to suggest that a bureaucrat should be commended for engaging in WP:IAR, but the explicitly written rules are several years behind the community consensus. I agree with the comments that an RFC may be the correct way to remedy this situation.

The rest of the situation is entirely unclear, and must be addressed by the committee. Did other editors edit-war, and-or bait Fred Bauder here? Were the blocks of Fred WP:INVOLVED? Was private off-wiki information mentioned on the nomination-questions page? Those are questions to be decided by a case. I don't expect that an outstanding case will negatively impact Fred's chances of election to this body at this point, so there is no need to resolve by motion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

In response to NYB's "abstain", perhaps the committee can do this on an expedited timeframe? With a short evidence phase (and clear Stipulation of facts, which don't appear to be in dispute) this could reach the point of preparing a decision within a week. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

You need to have a case, as indicated by the quantity of comments here. If there was an improper block, that needs to be resolved too. I am really sad Fred lost hit bit. It seems like ArbCom election stress causes this type of incident. We ought to look at how elections are organized and try to make them less stressful on the candidates. Being hammered with a vast number of questions and criticisms can take a toll on even the most stable person. This is not healthy for our community. We’ve lost too many productive members because of it. Jehochman Talk 12:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

I do not envy those who are tasked with adjudicating this debacle. It's easy to see the merit behind the actions and words of nearly everyone in this case, even if you disagree with them. It could set a new precedent for the parameters of IAR, with ramifications going beyond a single case of administrative abuse. The final decision will be an important one.

First of all, there is no question that Fred unblocking himself twice constitutes a serious abuse of the administrative tools on two different levels: self-unblocking, and wheel-warring. This lapse in judgement was egregious enough in and of itself to warrant desysopping, even taking his long tenure as a Wikipedian into consideration. That said, I do not think a site ban is necessary at this time, and I will make a point of arguing against one if it gets proposed at the case workshop.

Maxim's decision to bypass the proper channels and perform an emergency desysop using his bureaucrat tools raises a much more interesting question – one that lacks an easy answer. On one hand, his decision was clearly out of process and not explicitly permitted in policy (as outlined here). Worst-case scenario, it could be a slippery slope wherein editors are emboldened to further test the boundaries of IAR. After all, if a bureaucrat could get away with an ad hoc emergency desysop, why can't I get away with XYZ? But on the other hand, does anybody here actually think that there was a chance of Fred Bauder not being desysopped after unblocking himself twice? I don't know of a single steward who would look at that and go, "Nope, I don't think a desysop is warranted here." Maxim merely hastened the inevitable.

I am glad to see that this case is currently on track to being accepted. A motion would be insufficient for an issue of this complexity. Kurtis (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: I stand corrected. That portion has been stricken. Kurtis (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Fred Bauder: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Fred Bauder: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Accept whether or not Fred seeks reinstatement of his administrative bit, because I think we need to examine how we respond to situations like this. I'm not interested in blaming Maxim for taking a reasonable action to remove the bit from a sysop crossing obvious bright lines, but we need to examine why the Arbitration Committee was unable to apply Level I in this situation, a clear example of what it was intended for, and what bureaucrats are meant to do in emergency situations. ~ Rob13Talk 19:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The more I look at this, the more I don't like. I would also like to examine the original block to determine if it violated WP:INVOLVED. ~ Rob13Talk 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The resysopping issues should be handled by RfC, Maxim, and I would gladly participate in such a discussion. Until the community decides otherwise, desysopping is ArbCom's wheelhouse. In the past, this means we have set up our own procedures surrounding desysopping. I also believe that we can delegate this responsibility to the bureaucrats in emergency cases without an RfC, just as we delegated other roles of the Committee to non-arbitrators in the past. The Audit Subcommittee comes to mind. ~ Rob13Talk 20:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Accept per Rob. Katietalk 19:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Accept RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Accept and handle by motion Well, first of all, there's no need to have six weeks of inquiry to unravel the great mystery of "why the Arbitration Committee was unable to apply Level I"; the answer is that WP:LEVEL1 was written for obvious emergencies and doesn't apply if any arbs object; I said on the mailing list I'm on board for level 2, don't see the point of level 1 (in this specific instance or in general), and that was taken as an "objection" (fair enough, though it was more of a discussion point than a formal Process; I did also say we should move quickly and would probably have been persuadable to use the faster process despite my general preference for slow-and-steady). So there you go, no need for a case about that.
    As for the actual issue, the core facts here are obvious and not in dispute - Fred unblocked himself under contentious circumstances, that's clearly a misuse of admin tools, Fred should be desysopped. But what has happened is that we're all tripping over ourselves in the hurry hurry rush rush to Do Something and we've repeatedly escalated what is at root a very manageable situation. I am going to stand by the point that "emergency" procedures should be for emergencies. Yes, there's "multiple accounts actively wheel-warring", but that has to mean they are causing harm. In most genuine emergencies - compromised accounts and the like - arb procedures are basically redundant and I am totally on board with IAR desysoppings to stop active damage. In fact I would prefer that the procedure turn that into the R. The "emergency" here was "well, Fred might unblock himself again". Well, yes, he might. The original edit war was about some material on his candidate questions page that he apparently found distressing. Would the wiki have fallen if we waited for another couple of hours to settle that apparently very pressing issue? Erm, no. The key thing about emergency procedures is that they should stabilize the situation pending further review. So - thanks to Maxim for making an honest effort at doing that, but I don't think this was really a necessary escalation; the underlying problem wasn't something that couldn't wait a bit. (I'll push back a little on the "it's Sunday" thing, too - in my book that's an argument to sit on your hands and be patient, not to escalate further.)
    As for the disposition of the case - IMO it's best to just handle it by the motion we were already going to do as a level 2 procedure anyway, but by the letter of level 2 the affected user can request a full case, so I'd be willing to go that route if Fred requests it. While I'm up on my soapbox here, I'll comment briefly on the original dispute - if you don't want someone to be elected, or are skeptical of their platform, fine, but everybody who puts themselves forward is volunteering for a hard job; while we obviously can't have candidates curating their own questions, this seems like it would have been solved with far less drama by stopping immediately after Fred's first revert and asking the election commissioners to review the situation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Iridescent: true, but if someone responds to level 2 with "you can't fire me, I quit!" then we can treat that like any other instance where an admin resigns in response to a case about their adminship - create a shell of a case page to document the result, maybe do a separate motion to dismiss if the loose ends need tidying, and otherwise move on. @Bbb23: Was it the byte count that gave it away? :)
      I agree with NYB's suggestion below - sit tight for a day or two and let Fred decide what if anything he wants to do, and if he doesn't specifically request a case, settle it by motion. (As an aside, I have to point out that - well, Boing! said Zebedee isn't the one who got us here, but blocking someone you're edit-warring with, over material some of which you yourself posted, wasn't the most brilliant idea either. That was recognized at ANI but really shouldn't get lost here - trout for that one, IMO.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Clarified, though I think the significance is mainly the size of the dinner party that can be served. As for "any reasonable admin", I like to at least pretend I'm reasonable, and I still don't understand how this got to blocks and ANI without any of the multiple usually-reasonable people involved saying "Hey, Fred, why are you doing that?". Once the fire's started, though, on-wiki notifications instead of just answering emails is a good idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      @Boing! said Zebedee: Oops. You're right, another email that arrived at the same time was acknowledged, but it looks like yours wasn't, unless someone forgot to cc the list. Fourteen-way self-trout. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Accept, handle by motion, per OR. I was asleep while the situation occurred, so I (obviously) didn't see or participate in any of the initial discussions on the mailing list or on-wiki. Speaking with the benefit of hindsight, it strikes me that the wheel warring over the block was contained to a period of about 40 minutes - blocked at 15:10, self-unblocked at 15:22, re-blocked at 15:34, self-unblocked at 15:37, indeffed at 15:47, at which point there are no further self-unblocks. The de-sysop wasn't applied until 19:08, well after the wheel warring had ended. IMO by that point the situation wouldn't have qualified for Level 1, which requires active wheel-warring. Like Rob, I don't think Maxim's action was unresaonable - Fred's actions were clearly a bright-line violation that would require de-sysopping through one measure or another - but I agree with OR in saying that doing it by IAR rather than waiting for Level 2 was unnecessary.
    Unless Fred wants to push this to a full case, I think we can safely finish this by motion - perhaps with reminder that emergency de-sysopping is to be used for situations where people are actively doing harm to the encyclopedia, not just acting rashly. ♠PMC(talk) 23:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Accept and resolve by motion instead of six-week palaver - Didnt need the emergency desysop and accompanying drama; does need initiation of a level 2 desysop process by Arbcom. Resolve this by motion per OR and PMC. Also ok to wait a few days per NYB's suggestion, to give Fred Bauder a chance to indicate their views on the desysop that's already been applied. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Recuse The WP:ACE2018 election commissioners have disqualified Fred Bauder as a candidate. Even so, until this matter is resolved, the best thing for me to do as another candidate is to recuse out of an abundance of caution. Mkdw talk 01:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@SQL: Yes, I have been following along and saw he was reinstated. I expected it was temporary and why I recused on this matter. Mkdw talk 18:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hold temporarily. Many aspects of today's fiasco were unnecessary, beginning of course with Fred Bauder's conduct, but we're here. We should give Fred a short time (perhaps 48-72 hours?) within which to advise whether he challenges the desysopping. If he does not, we can adopt a one-sentence motion confirming it. If he does, we would then need to review Fred's statement and decide whether to open a full case or pass a motion in lieu of one. I do not perceive the need for a broader case to address wider issues about desysopping procedures in unusual circumstances; I am not convinced that our procedures for urgent matters should be complicated by even more rules. As an aside to any editors who may be unsure, Fred does not currently hold any other advanced permissions (CU or OS) and is not on the Functionaries mailing list, and he has not been for several years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Abstain. I suppose policy suggests that we need to take the case, and certainly there are issues we can spend time discussing and deciding—but somehow I am just 100% certain that the outcome of a case here, no matter how much we reasonably try to streamline it, will not justify the amount of the community's time the process will take. I hope the case is handled in an efficient fashion that proves me wrong. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Accept and hold. There's a lot to look at here, but at the same time, I think it's all clear what happened. I'd need to consider whether this all can be handled by motion, as there have been many individuals who have acted at odds to community norms in this matter. That said, I have no doubt each was trying to improve the encyclopedia / community, following IAR. Indeed, many of the actions, I was seriously considering taking myself - though I was doing my utmost to not break my golden rule of "do not get involved in Wikipedia drama at the weekends". WormTT(talk) 11:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    Given Fred's statement (which I read as acceptance of the circumstances and suggestion that he'd like to remain an administrator), I believe that we should not be handling this by motion. There are a number of questions that need to be settled, from why the Election Commission was not consulted, to whether someone should be blocked by the admin who was a participant in the edit war, to the IAR desysop and what should happen with Fred's admin user-right. There's enough here for a case, though given the narrow focus, an expedited timeline should be sufficient. WormTT(talk) 14:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Recuse Whether or not he's a candidate (and he is now), I'm also recusing. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, this needs to be dealt with a s a full case. I do not think the situation is cut and dried. Fred Bauer's response was excessive and unwarrented, but it was in response to interference with his comments by an involved admin. this is a very extreme form of provocation, and he is not in my opinion solely to blame. I can be perhaps convinced otherwise if we do hve a full case, but i think the arbs are entitled to weigh circumstances, and that it will take a full case to do so. I thin k the case must include the actions of Boing, the admin who apparently provoked him by blocking him while engaged in a dispute with him., (I am not at the moment a candidate for election--if I decide otherwise before the time limit for nominations , I will of course recuse if Bauder remains a candidate).
I also think Maxim should be added in the case. The crats have no such emergency jurisdiction as he chose to assume. There is a need for such an emergency route, but it is the stewards who have that authority. and in a a true emergency there remains the office. Maxim admits about it was not such a true emergency, as for example a compromised account--the disruption was limited to the specific matter. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Maxim, I gather from your comment that you think it justified on the basis that its a logical part of the crat responsibility. . That's one of the reasons we need a case. If your view is supported, the policy statements need modification. and since Arb Com is in general responsible for admin conduct, such a case would seem a place to discuss it. I might well agree with you that it would be a desirable change. DGG ( talk )
@Boing! said Zebedee: Correct, the content which was the target of the suppression was not part of the material that Fred was removing. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles

Initiated by Kingsindian at 13:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Link to remedy

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Information about amendment request
  • Propose that this remedy be replaced by a simple 1RR rule.

Statement by Kingsindian

[I will quote real people throughout in this ARCA request -- this is not to fault them, but simply to show that the problems I'm talking about are all real.]

This ARCA request is about this "modified 1RR" rule instituted by ArbCom in January 2018. I will first state what the rule means (because absolutely nobody understands it); give multiple reasons as to why it is, to put it bluntly, stupid; and then show a way forward.

What the rule says

The rule, stated precisely, is supposed to handle the following situation:

  1. A makes an edit (addition or removal) at time T1.
  2. B reverts the edit (completely or partially) at time T2.
  3. C re-does the edit (addition / removal, completely / partially) at time T3.

If A and C are the same person and (T3 - T2) < 24 hours, then A has committed a violation.

Note that T1 is irrelevant for breaking the rule, but it is necessary to check if A and C are the same person.

Why the rule is stupid, and how to fix it

I will first enumerate the reasons, then go into details:

  1. The rule leads to absurdities. I predicted these absurdities and nobody listened to me.
  2. Absolutely nobody understands the rule, even those who strenuously argued for it, the admins who implement it or the editors in this area in general.
  3. Absolutely nobody asked for this rule. ArbCom imposed this monstrosity capriciously.

What's the solution? Go back to 1RR with no frills. The crying need is for a clear, simple bright line rule, which everybody understands, is proven to work, and most importantly: something ArbCom cannot screw up.


To illustrate the absurdities I'll take two recent AE cases, one from "each side" of the ARBPIA spectrum (just so tiresome arguments about partisan motives can be put to rest).

This AE case. The case is a violation because of the following argument: Person A is GHcool, Person B is Veritycheck. T1 is 20:22, 7 September. T2 is 19:48, 20 September. T3 is 22:44, 20 September.

This AE case. The case is a violation becaue of the following argument: Person A is Onceinawhile, Person B is Icewhiz. T1 is 27 October, T2 is 2 November, T3 is 2 November.

Two absurdities in these cases are worth highlighting:

  1. An editor can break this "modified 1RR" even if their edit is the first one this day, week, month or year. In the older rule, if you edited the page once a day, you're guaranteed not to break 1RR (which is how it should be). To prove that it is not just me who finds this situation absurd, here is a comment from Shrike which makes the same point.
  2. T1 can be indefinitely back in the past. Or, to put it another way, the starting point ("original edit") for the violation can be anywhere in the edit history. This is illustrated by the first AE request I linked above. T1 in this case was about 12 days before the actual violation. Some people believe that T1 was actually a year before the actual violation (hopefully, I don't need to elaborate on why this is absurd). In the second AE case, T1 was about 5 days before the violation. Where do you draw the line? Is two days ok? How about a week? 10 days? 20 days?

I predicted these absurdities when I urged ArbCom not to impose this stupid rule. At that time, I proposed (somewhat tongue-in-cheek): let's block a member of ArbCom when I am inevitably proved right. Which one of you wants to volunteer?

Coming back to the rule, absolutely nobody understands it. The first AE case should give plenty of evidence on the score. Some admins at AE, like Sandstein, have stated explicitly that they don't understand the rule and they cannot enforce it.

Finally, as I showed in my arguments at the time, absolutely nobody asked for this rule, and nobody followed this rule before ArbCom decided to capriciously institute it.

The rule targets a non-issue

The issue which the "tweak" was supposed to fix was a "loophole" in which an initial addition of text is not considered a "revert". Namely: A adds some text, B reverts, then A can immediately re-revert. Thus, A has the initial advantage in this edit war.

But notice: this advantage lasts for 24 hours at most. After that time period, A and B are on equal terms. Indeed, since WP:ONUS and rules against edit-warring exist, A is actually at a big disadvantage. After the third or fourth revert, A is gonna get blocked without the need for any fancy rules.

What is to be done?

Let's go back to the beginning. The purpose of the 1RR rule was to tweak the 3RR rule. The rule slows down edit wars and tries to encourage discussion on the page. That's all it does. It is not a panacea, and endless tweaking to handle every instance of bad behaviour should not be a goal (unattainable, at any rate). By all accounts, the institution of 1RR in this area succeeded on its own terms. So let's bring it back again.

1RR is a completely fair and completely transparent rule. 1RR is fair because everyone get a "token" every day, which they can spend for a revert. It is transparent because whether you violate it or not depends exclusively on your own actions, not anybody else's actions. All you need is to check your own 24-hour editing history. You don't need to pore over the edit history of the page, and if you edit a page once a day, you are guaranteed to be within 1RR. (Hopefully you also spend some time editing the talk page).

Also, consider the way watchlists work on Wikipedia. Let's take the case of person A who edits Wikipedia every day for an hour before bedtime. They makes some edit on a page on their watchlist. Five days later, while they're sleeping or working, some editor removes text from the page. Editor A logs in, checks their watchlist, reverts the edit, and BAM!, they're hammered by this stupid rule. To avoid running afoul of this rule, they would have to wait till the next day before reverting, which is not how watchlists work. 1RR makes perfect sense in this scenario, but the stupid rule doesn't.

Please fix your mess

ArbCom, please clean up the mess you've made. Kingsindian   13:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Warkosign's comment and clearing up some historical amnesia

As I have said above, I prefer a plain 1RR rule. However, several people have commented on WarKosign statement. It seems that none of the people have picked up on a simple fact: Warkosign's proposal is exactly the same as "Version 1", which used to be the rule before ArbCom capriciously changed it. Let's see how this is true:

Warkosign's proposal is: "Use a plain 1RR with the provision that the initial edit counts as a revert."

How did "Version 1" work?

  1. Editor A makes a change at time T1.
  2. Editor B reverts it at time T2.
  3. Editor C re-reverts at time T3.

If A and C are the same person and (T3 - T1) < 24 hours, A has committed a violation.

Half a minute's thought will show that the two ways of wording the proposal are identical.

There are two key properties of Version 1 which make it desirable, and which avoid the absurdities I listed above:

  1. All the action takes place within a 24-hour time period. [Since T1 < T2 < T3, and (T3 - T1) < 24 hours].
  2. One only needs to really look at editor A's edits. [Since Edit #1 and Edit #3 are the operative edits.]

To clear some more historical amnesia: this rule was the one everyone used, and it used to work fine before ArbCom decided to change it to "Version 2" for no reason at all.

Now, considering this history, you might appreciate why I would prefer that ArbCom not impose any more hare-brained rules on the editor population. Let's stop with the experimentation and go back to 1RR, which was perfectly fine and perfectly understood by all. Kingsindian   02:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian   02:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The proposed remedy consists of going back to 1RR, together with some vague talk about admin discretion. I, of course, support the first part -- but the second part seems either meaningless or dangerous to me. Discretionary sanctions are already discretionary; there's absolutely no need to add some sort of boilerplate language to a remedy. If the intent of the remedy is to advocate for stricter action by admins at AE, I also oppose such things. As people who read my comments at AE probably know, I almost always advocate leniency in these cases.

In particular, I oppose the action taken by AGK, who seems to believe that he can fix the problems in ARBPIA by harsher sentences. There are several possible answers to AGK's position. Firstly, nobody elected anybody to fix ARBPIA's problems. Second, what makes you think you can fix it? You think you're so smart that you can fix problems going back a decade? Third, what if things don't work (as has happened repeatedly, including in the case under discussion). Do the people who makes these rules and/or apply "discretion" in enforcing them suffer any consequences? That was just a rhetorical question.

I would prefer the following situation. Clear-cut cases of violation / edit-warring should be discouraged by reasonable sanctions. Page protection and warnings can be used to handle less clear-cut cases.

Finally, a note about "tag-teaming", and Number57's comments. It is impossible to stop "tag-teaming" because nobody knows what it means. In this area, opinions are often polarized and predictable -- I can often guess people's responses by just looking at their username. It's dangerous to jump to the conclusion that two people who think similarly are "tag-teaming". Number57's solution can be gamed very easily: just wait 25 hours to revert, as much as you want. It takes absolutely no brain power (bad faith is already assumed to exist, so it requires no more bad faith). Kingsindian   06:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

The cases pointed out above involving GHCool and Onceinawhile are not the same. In the first case, GHCool "originally authored" (a picture link to a building!) on 23:38, 6 July 2017 - the article was subsequently edited by several editors over the next year+. The filing was claiming that GHCool's revert from 7 September constituted "original" authorship in relation to the subsequently revert on 20 September. In the second instance (Onceinawhile) this is bona fida new content introduced at the end of October 2018 and blanket reverted in the beginning of November 2018 (with little intervening editing).

The text of the remedy reads: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."

There is a question of interpretation (and admins and editors have varied) here in regards to what may be construed as the "original author" and "first revert" (e.g. is this the first time a (non-revert - as reverts are already covered per 1RR) modification (usually addition) was introduced to the article? Or does this include subsequent times? How far back does one go for "original authorship" (a year+ ago and hundreds of intervening edits?)). Per Kingsindian's (and others) reading - the 24 Hour window applies after any edit - also after the "first revert". Per a different reading of the same text, if editor A introduces text at T1, B reverts at T2, someone (A or someone else) reverts at T3 (say >24hours), B reverts at T4, and A reverts at T5 - then the revert at T5 (even if T5-T4 < 24hours) is not a violation since A's originally authored material was already "first reverted" at T2 (assuming T5-T2 > 24 hours).Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I would posit that much of the difficulty in enforcing ARBPIA's modified 1RR is that it is... modified from standard 1RR/3RR. I think there is merit for the "original author" provision (though possibly more clearly framed - this really should address fairly recent additions of material (or other edits that are non-reverts) that were subsequently reverted) - however I would suggest that a way forward would be to 1RR (or SRR) on a project-wide basis - ARBPIA is not unique in edit warring vs. other topic areas (or articles) with 1RR imposed - and any tweaks to 1RR (or SRR) would make sense in other 1RR projects. It would also make enforcement easier - as one wouldn't have to attempt to explain (assuming one understands the rule correctly one's self) time and time against the particularities of the ARBPIA version of 1RR vs. other 1RRs. Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Awilley: - simpler rule - any edit made to an article (including additions) is a revert. Adding content undoes the null state of the lack of said content. This does slow down cooperative build up - as once someone else edits - no more edits for you for the next 24hrs. Some editors do this regardless (also now) as keeping track of "what is a revert" (e.g. if you readding material which was in the article in a similar form a while back) is not that easy. It removes the first mover advantage.Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

  • I think this rule is not working as it not stopping any edit wars for example see here [18].It only prolonged the edit war.The proper way is to reinstate consensus required rule .Its only way to stop edit wars so users will engage in meaningful discussion. --Shrike (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And like I noted in Ghcool case there were no violation there as he was already reverted --Shrike (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Opabinia regalis: The consensus clause worked fine. Yes it was harder to develop an article but when material was added by agreement it was the best WP:NPOV researched material.No real evidence for any drawbacks were presented. --Shrike (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13: You proposal would not stop this edit war [19]. I support AGK and WJBSCRIBE suggestion about "consensus required" suggestion --16:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WarKosign

The intent of this rule is to avoid the following situation (which was allowed, and regularly happened under regular 1RR):

  • Editor A makes an edit
  • Editor B reverts the edit (for some good reason), using their 1RR quota
  • Editor A un-reverts, using their 1RR quota.

Now for 24 hours the article is stuck with a change that A edit-warred in. In theory, A can continue un-reverting B every 24 hours, effectively forcing their version of the article - until both are banned for slow-going edit war.

Perhaps the rule should be modified so any change by a specific editor that was reverted counts as a revert, so same user un-reverting it is a violation of 1RR. This seems to me far easier to explain and track. WarKosign 15:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

The current rule is extremely difficult to understand and police. I would suggest either a clarification spelling out exactly what the rule is, or more preferably, a new rule that takes us back to the simple times when everyone in the area understood the intent, rules and enforcement of such rules. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

The ruling is a pain in the arse, difficult to parse (as in KI's first example above where it confused the hell out of me, and I'm not a stupid person, honest), and just needs binning in favour of something that's easy to work out. Yes, we're still going to have the issue of tag-teams serially reverting to avoid 1RR, but this remedy doesnt' work against that either. Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

I totally agree that the present situation is absurd, (and, if I recall correctly, stated so at the did User:Zero0000)

However, WarKosign is also completely correct: all this started because in a one-to-one "wikifight", the one inserting something, always "won".

(And as this is the IP area, for "inserting something", read: "inserting something negative about a place, person or organisation")

That first insertion has to count towards 1RR, IMO, ...please, please do not change it to not counting. What WarKosign suggest is very sensible: that the first revert cannot be done within 24 hours their own edit. (and NOT the revert of their edit), Huldra (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I see many "outsiders" (of the IP area) argues that we should go back to the unmodified 1RR rule. Choosing between that, and the present is like choosing between the plague and cholera (as we say in my country).
Surely, we can come up with something better? Huldra (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with power~enwiki: "if content is added, the person adding it cannot restore it within 24 hours of the initial addition." Basically 1RR, but with a small modification.
As for Number 57 suggestion (can only be reverted once within a 24 hour period by any editor), is is more "gameable" than power~enwikis suggestion, hence I prefer power~enwiki solution.
The suggestion from WJBscribe, to bring back the "consensus" clause, is utter disastrous, and is something none of us who are working in the area has asked for. Huldra (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── To refresh your memories: all this started with me coming to ARCA Back in November 2016. My goal was clear, as I stated then: "A strengthening of the 1RR rule for articles under ARBPIA: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period."

I had seen several one-to-one edit-wars, where the one wanting to insert something always won, as that first insertion did not count towards 1RR.

Iow: it was not because edit warring itself was a major problem in the IP area. It simply isn't any more, not after the 1RR and 30/500 rules. I see several editors referring to "slowing down edit warring"...I feel they are, as we say in my country, "shovelling last winters snow".

If we first can agree about the goal, then we can agree about the rule. Huldra (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

PS. (And to those of you who are still talking about "consensus required": to be blunt: to me you are living in a lovey dovey fantasy world. This is ARBPIA. Wake up and smell the gun powder.)

User:BU Rob13 Is it possible to add the sentence:
"Each editor is also limited to one addition of the same material per page per 24 hours on any page in the same area."? That would remove the "addition" bias which started this whole discussion. Huldra (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
User:KrakatoaKatie and User:RickinBaltimore, what do you have against my additional sentence? (bolded above here) Huldra (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thank you, User:Awilley, for nicely tabulating the options. (You could perhaps add an Option 0: roughly going back to 1RR, which is what they are voting over now.)

I would of course prefer any one of the variations of "Version 1".

As one with 70+ K edits, of which at least some 95% are under WP:ARBPIA, I would say that one of the greatest frustrations in the area, are the sub-par actions from some admins on WP:AE.

If you impose a draconian sanction on someone who clearly has made a good-faith mistake (and never given a chance to revert), then you can be absolutely sure that we will have many, many more reports on mistakes, where the "culprit" has never been given a chance to revert.

I.o.w.; it will lead to lots and lots of more time on the AN, ANI, or AE boards...

An editor suggested that a report to AE should not be acted on, if the "culprit" had not been given a chance to undo his/her mistake. I think this is an excellent suggestion.

Giving admins even more power than they already have wrt sanction is not needed, as far as I can see. What is needed is some training of admins so that they administer the rules more equally. (And not like now, when it is a roulette, as someone said.)

User:Opabinia regalis: you said "Version 1" was not "a good option for the same reasons cited in prior discussions - i.e. because it breaks what "xRR" means everywhere else on the project". Well, but so did "Version 2" (ie present rule).

Ok, ok, that didn't turn out well, but my argument has always been for "Version 1", as you will always very easily know if it was 24 hrs since last time you edited an article....but you have to look into each and every edit in order to ascertain that none of the stuff you added had not been reverted in "Version 2". Hence all the confusion and mess with the present "Version 2" option, Huldra (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

I've been editing in the I-P area for over 16 years and three rule changes during that period stand out as making a significance difference. The first was the introduction of 1RR in place of 3RR — this was a very big improvement. The second was the 30/500 rule, which I personally like a lot as it eliminates the need to endlessly defend articles against fly-by-night pov-pushers.

The third change was the "original author" rule now under discussion which, alas, has been a disaster. Nobody can even agree on what it means. Rules have to be clear bright lines that every good-faith editor can understand. This was an attempt to combat some types of edit-warring and system-gaming by adding a more complex rule, but the experiment has failed and it is time to end it. Zerotalk 07:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

In response to Huldra: the 1RR rule alone is probably not the optimal state, but I wouldn't like the "original author" rule to be replaced in this sitting by some other new rule. That would just risk bringing in a rule that turns out to be as bad as the current rule. I suggest taking it slower; perhaps we can have a working group of I-P editors to work up a proposal to bring to ArbCom for approval? Zerotalk 07:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Responding to AGK: I strongly disagree with every word you wrote. (1) The 30/500 rule is easily explained to anyone and can be enforced objectively by e-c protection. (2) "instead forbid making significant changes without consensus...Leave the detail of when "consensus" was wilfully not sought in a given case as a question for enforcement." This would be the greatest catastrophe to ever hit the area. Article development would become tediously slow and the number of AE cases would skyrocket. Rules should be written so that editors know when they are breaking them. I'll be blunt: we know from experience that admins at AE do not maintain a consistency of judgement and sanction and we consider it a form of roulette. It also seems that you don't know the way editing in the area is conducted. Excessive reverting without a concurrent talk-page argument is in fact relatively unusual and in most cases everyone can claim to have "sought consensus".

Responding to WJBscribe: "editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit". When that one was removed there was a big sigh of relief. This rule would mean that pov-pushers can slow down article development by a large factor with almost no effort, since the rule does not impose any obligation on them to justify their reverts. They can just revert and sit back. Zerotalk 01:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

People who come to edit in the I-P area almost always have a strong opinion about it. The idea that "consensus" is always available for the seeking is simply wrong. The real problem isn't reverts anyway, it is neutrality. Editors who consistently push their politics into articles year after year while carefully obeying the revert limits are completely secure. I don't have a cure to propose for that. Zerotalk 01:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

AGK, it is actually the people who spend their time editing in the area whose experience should be listened to, not admins who sit at AE and don't understand the editing dynamic. The fact is that serious edit wars in the I-P area are fewer now than at any time in the past. A few bright-line rules can help to reduce that further (but never eliminate it), but poorly-defined proposals about requiring consensus are cloud cuckoo land. Leaving the actual meaning of a rule to enforcement, as you suggested, would be be the worst possible outcome. Those editors who enjoy success in eliminating opponents by AE roulette will be encouraged to step up the practice. And they will succeed often enough. Zerotalk 12:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Number 57's idea to reduce tag-team editing is worth looking at, but the actual proposal doesn't work. ("if A adds material, B removes it, then no editor is allowed to make any further revert within the next 24 hours") This enables B to keep something out of the article permanently even against a strong consensus of all other editors. Also, please, let's not have the phrase "original author" in any rule, since there is widespread misunderstanding of what it means. Zerotalk 12:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Number 57: Your response to this is correct, but it involves an extra principle ("don't edit against consensus") that isn't part of your proposed rule. Rules are suboptimal if they require visits to AE to enforce non-bright lines. Such visits would produce or not produce a good outcome more or less at random. I acknowledge that I'm being difficult because I don't have an alternative in mind. I still think that your idea is worthy of careful study. Zerotalk 03:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments on the motion. The first part is good because it is a bright line that worked moderately well when we had it before. The "Editors cautioned" part reduces the brightness of the line established by the first part, and encourages exploratory AE reports to take advantage of the randomness there. The "Administrators encouraged" part is negative as administrators already have too much discretion at AE. Zerotalk 07:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What is most broken about current enforcement is that it consists of punishing one of the participants chosen at random (according to who is reported). It is unfair as well as ineffective. It would be much better if administrators visited articles, mandated more discussion on problematic sections, required RfCs as needed, etc. Zerotalk 07:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

JFG's "enforced BRD" only makes sense if there is a clear starting point. Once some text has been in an out of an article a few times, it isn't clear who has what obligation. Zerotalk 12:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

DGG's analysis is quite correct. BU Rob13's system works like this: A and B have a dispute over content, A reports B to AE, B gets a topic ban, A throws a party and edits the article according to his/her own pov. This is only a good outcome if you think that the purpose of Wikipedia is to eliminate disputes, rather than to write balanced articles. Rather than promoting the "schoolyard of naughty children" model of the I-P area, we should be aiming to replace it by rules that promote compromise. Zerotalk 04:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm replying in-line to this one point, because I think it's important. Why do you have so little faith that administrators will holistically review the situation at AE? If A and B get in a dispute over content and both edit war, then both should be sanctioned equally. If one edit wars while the other is trying to discuss on the talk page, I would want the one edit-warring to be removed from the topic area until they're willing to edit collaboratively. My encouragement to administrators makes clear that the conduct of editors involved in an edit war should be examined even when they do not cross bright lines, which will prevent AE from being used as a tool to remove opponents for crossing bright lines by mistake, which is something we've repeatedly seen under the current sanctioning regime. ~ Rob13Talk 13:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Rob, if it was possible to get admins at AE to behave as you say, I'd be in favor of it. Alas I'm dubious that the current system, which is a form of roulette as I said before, can be reformed just by some words of encouragement. Capricious decisions will still be a problem. A better way to address the case of people being removed for making honest mistakes would be to require that editors only be reported at AE if they fail to respond adequately to a warning. Zerotalk 23:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

As an administrator active at WP:AE, I have on several occasions decided not to take enforcement action because I find the remedy at issue too complicated to understand and to apply fairly. I recommend that it be replaced, if it is still deemed necessary at all, with a simpler rule, such as 1RR or merely a reminder to not edit-war, because edit-warring can result in discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 08:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bellezzasolo

Having seen a few of the associated ARE cases play out, I have noticed that there is a lot of confusion about this particular rule. What to do about it, there is the harder question, but the current rule is in my opinion too opaque and needs to go. Bellezzasolo Discuss 11:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Number 57

I support the rule's existence for the reasons noted by WarKosign, i.e. that it stops someone adding controversial information to force their edit back in.

However, I would also like it to go further (to stop tag teaming), so perhaps it would be clearer and simpler to simply have a 1RR rule whereby an edit can only be reverted once within a 24 hour period by any editor. So if A adds material, B removes it, then no editor is allowed to make any further revert within the next 24 hours. This would hopefully force people to follow WP:BRD rather than rely on weight of numbers to force changes on an article.

Alternatively, we could just reword the current rule so something like "If a change made to an article is reverted, the original author of the change is not allowed to undo the revert within the next 24 hours" – I don't think anyone could fail to understand this unless they were wikilawyering their way out of being caught.

Number 57 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Zero's assertion above that my proposal "enables B to keep something out of the article permanently even against a strong consensus of all other editors". It allows B to revert the information from the page once, at which point the discussion should go to the talk page; if there is a strong consensus there, then it can be readded. If B then removes it against a clear talk page consensus, they can be brought to AE under discretionary sanctions. Number 57 12:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the proposal below is a regressive move; it allows controversial additions to be added back into the article by the original author, and does nothing to stop tag-teaming. I don't believe the current rule is really that difficult to understand. Number 57 00:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Onceinawhile

Since this rule was last amended earlier this year, I have the great pleasure of being the only editor ever sanctioned solely for breaching this “original author” rule (action has been taken two other times, but with additional circumstances). The only comment I will make on this here is please can those who implement ARCA rule amendments please ensure that they are properly publicized (eg on all three Wikiproject talk pages). Long term editors who only edit “once in a while”, and don’t have ARCA or AE on their watchlist, do not reread the banners every time to look for minor amendments to long-running rules.

As to the point at hand, I have recently taken the time to review all the other “original author” AE cases since the rule change; it is clear to me that the rule is not achieving its purpose.

I like Number 57’s first suggestion a lot (one revert for any editor in 24 hours), as it is easy to understand, deals with this “first insertion” point elegantly, and frankly reflects the way most of us already behave. The multi-editor revert wars have to stop.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

One reflection on Number 57’s “an edit can only be reverted once within a 24 hour period by any editor” proposal. Under this rule, we would need to be careful not to allow a situation where any deletion counts as a revert, otherwise major articles could become unstable. Imagine an editor coming to the Israel article, deleting half the history section and writing a wall of text on the talk page to justify it. If that counted as a revert, then the article could have a hole in it for a long time (or at least one out of every two days). Onceinawhile (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I am unconvinced by the proposed motion, which will encourage more "admin roulette" (speculative AE cases).
I propose that to mitigate whatever is agreed, we have a voluntary list at WP:IPCOLL where editors can commit to self-policing with others on the list. Signing up would be a commitment not to take other editors on the list to AE without first warning them of a possible AE and giving them a reasonable opportunity to remedy the perceived violation. Many editors do this already, but if editors choose sign up, it might take some of the uncertainty away.
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: responding to your comment in Zero’s section, if I understand you correctly you are saying that you intend to strengthen WP:BOOMERANG to prevent speculative AEs being used as a weapon.
That assumes that the “battleground” editors only choose to make speculative AE requests when they are fighting over a particular article. Unfortunately that is not the case. Editors in this space are well aware of the dangers of boomerang. There are too many editors who sit back and watch over articles, without contributing, but will take any opportunity to bring a perceived opponent to AE.
If you want to minimize bright line AEs whilst encouraging collaboration, then require that for a 1RR AE to be valid, an editor must have been given a reasonable opportunity to self-revert or otherwise recant. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

The rule itself is not a bad idea, it's just worded terribly. Just change it to the following and all the confusion about what original editor means goes away:

Editors may not re-revert a revert of their edit for at least 24 hours from the initial revert of their edit.

You go back to the original 1RR you go back to the situation where somebody is able to force their edit in based off edit->revert->re-revert (that being the first revert by the initial editor). nableezy - 17:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I see that is a bit how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood-ish, but I think we all would understand it. nableezy - 17:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

  • I agree with Newyorkbrad's question, speaking of ARBPIA, " there any reason it needs special rules beyond those governing the entire rest of the encyclopedia (including all of the other topics subject to discretionary sanctions"? If the committee wants to apply new and better restrictions, they should probably wait for some candidates to emerge from actual practice rather than draft them from scratch. And if they impose a new restriction themselves, they should say what data it is based on. It has happened that a restriction that sounds good on paper will not be understood by either editors or admins. From my own review of the discussions at AE, I don't see anything yet that can compete with the tried-and-true 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

I too am an administrator active at WP:AE. Seemingly, I am also part of the minority who do enforce ARBPIA 1RR, albeit reluctantly. The rule's name is indeed a misnomer.

In any event, an undercurrent to this amendment request was the perceived unjustness of the Revert Rule. Certainly, the rule no longer meets the tests of policing by consent. However, the committee's primary question is not really the due process (or unfairness) of the Revert Rule. We routinely enforce some other 'special' rules – like ARBPIA 30/500 – that are persistently miscommunicated. Respect for collaborators – well-meaning and otherwise – is imperative on a volunteer project. But it is a secondary question of execution or detail.

I rather think that the primary question is how to best secure an editing environment that is stable, produces balanced content, and is not off-putting to well-intentioned editors. In other words, does Wikipedia work there? By any measure, pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, on Wikipedia, are not this kind of environment. Indeed, we've had more arbitration cases (and enforcement requests) about the conflict than any other topic.

ARBPIA 1RR was recently amended by the committee. I believe that amendment was a well-intentioned effort to go further towards bringing about the desired kind of editing environment. The effort failed, perhaps because it was over-concerned with minutiae.

However, there remains a need to address the editing environment. Dealing with the obvious symptoms of user conduct can only do so much. In my view, you should consider how to amend the restriction to instead forbid making significant changes without consensus. Leave the detail of when "consensus" was wilfully not sought in a given case as a question for enforcement.

That said, if this change were implemented, I believe the current environment at WP:AE is too used to "discretion". There is a wide scope of discretion allowed when dealing with more blatant manifestation of misconduct – ie the conduct that discretionary sanctions deals with. It wouldn't do to grant that latitude here too. But, again, these are secondary questions of practicality and implementation. AGK ■ 19:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: By what means can we uphold WP:NPOV? Consensus. I wonder if you are too close to the topic to completely evaluate the problem. I discussed enforcing in my final paragraph. AGK ■ 18:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphim System

I think the purpose was partially to force editors to take 24 hours to think before hitting the revert button and I have found this to be helpful to de-escalate in the conflict area for the most part. But I also agree with concerns voiced in this discussion that sometimes it can be difficult to keep track of which edits are yours, especially if they are months old or years old and have been tweaked during that time. At what point does it stop being your edit? For me, the ideal solution would be to impose a time limit on this, but this might make it even more confusing for the enforcing admins. Maybe we can just leave it as good advice that editors can follow voluntarily? Seraphim System (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Following up on Newyorkbrad and Ivanvector's points, my understanding is that the intent behind discussing violations before sanctioning/reporting allows good-faith editors an opportunity to self-revert. Most 1RR violations are inadvertent and editors will self-revert when they are pointed out. I don't think anyone should be allowed to violate the restriction, but problems inherent to enforcement are not fixed by broadening discretion. The strong preference, in practice seems to be not sanctioning good faith editors without strong evidence of a pattern of CIR, incivility, battleground, etc. (Which, I suppose, is why the present case has garnered so much attention). Most of the time, editors will self-revert and there is no need for admin intervention. Opening the door on inconsistency only adds to the confusion, and runs the risk of deterring participation in critical areas that need attention from experienced editors.Seraphim System (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

I would prefer a return to the simple language we started with, i.e. "Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." 1RR, plus not restoring any reverted edit (regardless of who made it, and who reverted it) without discussion. The key here is to stop various forms of tag teaming or slow edit wars, and force editors to the table for proper discussions. The current sanction doesn't achieve that. I think we should stand firm that reverting is not the way to establish consensus, there needs to be proper discussions on talkpages about controversial edits. As a fall back, Number 57's approach is fine, but worry it still will lead to slow moving edit wars because people prefer to let the clock tick down 24 hours that engage on the talkpage. WJBscribe (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

When there are disputes between good-faith contributors as to the content of an article, there necessarily will be a dispute of some form; the purpose of Discretionary Sanctions should be to encourage this dispute to take the form of a civil discussion on a talk page.

The committee should clarify/adjust the rule so 1RR counts the addition of content as the one revert for the purpose of 1RR; if content is added, the person adding it cannot restore it within 24 hours of the initial addition. That seems fair and is simpler for editors to understand.

There seems to be some appetite for wider reform of the editing rules, but I don't see it as necessary. On long-standing articles with enough talk-page watchers, 1RR (with "consensus required") for additions works fairly well, despite grumbling. For rapidly-developing articles (think Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination in the similarly-contentious American Politics area) 1RR does not work, but I don't see evidence of that kind of issue being frequent in this area. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I agree the wording is convoluted. However, the intent is absolutely sound, as noted by several, above, so if it is to be amended, please find a simpler wording that has a similar effect, otherwise the slow burn edit wars will resume afresh. In preventing that specific form of abuse, the rule as written is effective. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

I'm not involved in this topic at all. However, I have been in other 1RR-imposed topics where the intent was to prevent this behavior, but the message often would get lost. The intent is basically if you make a WP:BOLD change, and it's reverted, you don't get to revert it back in without gaining consensus on the talk page (and blocked if you do that within 24 hours). That is functionally WP:BRD, which could be imposed as a remedy regardless of that page being an essay, but I feel like there has been concern linking to an essay in a remedy description before.

However, WP:ONUS policy is already clear that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I can't say I've seen it really integrated into 1RR DS descriptions yet. People forgot about the policy sometimes too. Would linking to that as part of a supplementary sentence clear things up at all in the remedy? Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

In what ever you do I think you need to ask your self if you KISSed it right and made it feel better. It's needs to be the simplest possible means with the maximum effect.

Two noteworthy suggestions here catch my eye, One by Number 57 and also the arbitrator BU Rob13. Perhaps a combination of both. In clear case of any system gaming, whether editor warring in the bounds of 1RR or what ever replacement editing restriction chosen or any other type of attempt at gaming the system for some benefit to a chosen cause in this dispute.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser

I think there is too much bureaucracy, and this rule is a perfect example. However, once you get the idea, it's actually quite simple to follow or enforce. It is an additional step to keep things quite in an area which is in need of additional care, so we might as well keep this.

If we are looking for a rule that is not being enforced and should be scratched, remove #3 regarding tendentious edits and disruptive behavior. It is either not implemented or implemented arbitrarily. Debresser (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley

Here's the problem as I see it:

Rule Purpose of the rule Negative side effects
Regular 1RR Slow down edit wars, give time for discussion on talk page, encourage WP:BRD Exacerbates the first mover advantage by allowing BRR (a Bold addition by Editor A, Revert by Editor B, Revert by Editor A). It takes two editors to maintain the status quo against one determined editor making bold bold changes to an article.
Current rule (call it anti-BRR) Eliminate the first mover advantage of 1RR by putting a 24-hr timer on reverts of reverts of bold changes. Apparently tricky to understand and enforce; can result in the ridiculous situations mentioned by the OP.
Consensus required Eliminate the first mover advantage of 1RR by forcing a talkpage discussion for bold edits challenged by revert. Can favor the status quo too much, allowing a single determined editor do dramatically slow down article development by forcing a discussion with clear consensus to implement any change they don't like.

I would really like for someone to come up with something like the current rule that fixes 1RR (prevents BRR situations) that is easy to understand and enforce but that doesn't have the negative side effects of the more draconian "Consensus required" rule. ~Awilley (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Re: "make any edit a revert" I definitely don't like that. That's not intuitive, calling something a revert that's not a revert, and results in ridiculous situations where people are only allowed to make one edit per day on rapidly changing articles about recent events that definitely need the attention of experienced editors. ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A bit of a brainstorm

I took the liberty of tabulating some of the suggestions that have been proposed above, adding a couple ideas of my own.

Name Rule Notes
"Version 2" If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit Current Palestine-Israeli rule
Restatements of Version 2 Editors may not re-revert a revert of their edit for at least 24 hours from the initial revert of their edit. Suggested by User:Nableezy
If a change made to an article is reverted, the original author of the change is not allowed to undo the revert within the next 24 hours Suggested by User:Number 57
"Version 1" If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of their own edit. The original Version 1 mentioned by OP User:Kingsindian
Restatements of Version 1 Each editor is also limited to one addition of the same material per page per 24 hours on any page in the same area Proposal from User:Huldra
If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must wait 24 hours (from the time you made the edit) before reinstating your edit. My rewording of the same idea
Consensus required All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). Restriction widely used in the American Politics topic area
Enforced WP:BRD If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must substantively discuss the issue on the article talk page before reinstating your edit. Another idea of mine
Combinations of Version 1 and Enforced BRD If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and/or wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit Possible combinations (either AND or OR), still weaker than "consensus required"

I would have posted this on the talk page except this page doesn't have one. I can add to the table as needed, just ping me if you want me to add something. ~Awilley (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JFG

I am not familiar with the Palestinian conflict domain but I have been heavily involved in American politics, where numerous articles are subject to the "1RR + consensus required" rule. Indeed, this rule is sometimes hard to interpret, with typical confusions about what constitutes an edit (adding or deleting material), what is a revert (restoring material that was boldly deleted is a revert, consecutive reverts count as just one), and how far in the past should an edit be construed as the stable version vs a recent bold change (depends on activity level at the article).

Despite its faults, this rule has a key quality, which matches a fundamental behavioural guideline of the encyclopedia: editors should resolve their disputes on the talk page rather than argue via edit summaries in a slow-moving edit war. With this consideration in mind, I would support Awilley's suggestion of an "enforced BRD", including a reminder of who has the WP:ONUS to obtain consensus for any change. Suggested wording for clarity:

Enforced BRD – If an edit you made is challenged by reversion, you must substantively discuss the issue on the article talk page before re-instating your edit. The onus is on you to obtain consensus for your change. Other editors who wish to re-instate the same edit are also required to discuss the issue first. This rule applies both to edits adding material and to edits removing material.

That should take into account most of the sources of confusion and wikilawyering that we have witnessed since this restriction has been in place. I think we don't even need 1RR if we switch to such an enforced BRD rule. — JFG talk 07:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Once some text has been in an out of an article a few times, it isn't clear who has what obligation. Actually, it's been rather clear, based on activity level on each article, which version is longstanding enough to be considered the base version upon which a recent change is being disputed. Admins could certainly figure this out easily when complaints about rule violation arise. — JFG talk 12:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector

As an administrator who makes occasional forays into adminning in discretionary-sanctioned topics, even sometimes intentionally, I endorse Kingsindian's statement absent the parts impugning the competence of the Committee members who arrived at this restriction. Even with Kingsindian's explanation and other supporting comments here I, probably one of the more provocatively "process-for-the-sake-of-process" administrators here, understand very poorly what is meant to be restricted by this restriction. I have no idea whatsoever why this word salad is preferred over standard 1RR. I think I see what the difference is but I read it as 0RR for the initial contributor and 1RR for every subsequent revert, and in any situation where I might be tempted to sanction an editor in relation to this restriction I'm going to end up giving them a "grace revert" so that I can be sure that a violation has actually occurred. How many reverts was that, anyway? I've lost count.

I suggest the "general 1RR prohibition" be replaced with this text, which is mostly copied from the three-revert restriction that everybody understands: An editor must not perform more than one revert on any single page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behaviour. In addition to the usual revert exemptions, reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this restriction.

As a tangent, the General Prohibition itself is redundant to standard WP:ECP, which was not available at the time of the prohibition's initial drafting. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Having said this, the motion below is reasonably clear from my perspective. I hear what Newyorkbrad is saying regarding the "first offence" provision but as an administrator I prefer this wording: we're not required to block someone on a first offence, but neither are we prohibited from doing so. Removing the clarification creates an expectation that a user who violates the restriction will be warned, then allowed to violate the restriction again before being blocked, and that's fatal to a 1RR restriction (it automatically becomes at least 2RR).
Also, please correct the wikilink to "General Prohibition" to target the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#General Prohibition section, unless that is not the intended general prohibition. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting more statements, but based on everything I’ve seen over the past few months, I’m inclined to agree that the rule-set for this topic-area has become unduly convoluted. No comment on any specific current or recent situation, but editors who feel aggrieved by a sanction have the right to appeal, either to AE or to us here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Onceinawhile: If you disagree with the sanction imposed on you, you have the right to appeal, either to AE or to us here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • General question: Recognizing that the Israel-Palestine topic-area is an exceptionally contentious and difficult one, is there any reason it needs special rules beyond those governing the entire rest of the encyclopedia (including all of the other topics subject to discretionary sanctions)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • We seem to have a consensus that change is warranted, but much less so on what the change should be. (Imposing a "consensus required" rule may sound sensible at first glance, but it has hardly been a panacea in the American politics topic area.) But I will add that regardless of whether we stick with the current wording or change it, arbitration enforcement sanctions, much less severe ones, should not be imposed on good-faith, policy-mindful editors who may unwittingly commit an isolated, inadvertent violation of a recent change to a uniquely complicated set of rules. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this rule is very clearly defined, but if only to stop the endless wikilawyering, we should just bin it. Back to normal 1RR, probably with a heavy encouragement in the remedy that administrators consider the use of discretionary sanctions when 1RR isn't violated but an edit war is nonetheless waged. ~ Rob13Talk 17:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If it's not working, we should try something else. Going back to 1RR seems like a step in the right direction. WormTT(talk) 18:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think consensus required is at least as hard to make work sensibly but I'm willing to listen to arguments that show it can work without someone keeping track of consensus. Since people are saying the current rule doesn't work, I'm willing to go back to 1RR. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm being an idiot. We can't "go back" to 1RR because that's part of the current sanction, at least according to the template that says "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, reasonably construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." Doug Weller talk 09:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, I'm saying that we wouldn't be replacing the enhanced 1RR with the ordinary 1RR, just removing the enhanced. I'm not sure that the enhanced is as some suggest, but if it is causing so much confusion maybe it needs to be abandoned. Doug Weller talk 06:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Would like to hear from more editors working in PIA before making a decision, but certainly willing to considering returning to 1RR. Mkdw talk 01:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Allowing the clock to run down remains a possibility in nearly all scenarios including the standard 1RR. Number 57's suggestion of "an edit can only be reverted once within a 24 hour period by any editor" seems as straightforward as possible. Mkdw talk 19:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I am with Mkdw on this. I'm also willing to consider a return to 1RR, but i would like to hear from more of the editors in the ARBPIA area before making my decision. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't like this rule, but I haven't liked most of the other ones tried either. The path that led us here went through this complaint about the "consensus required" stuff, very similar in its frustrated tone to the current request, so let's not do that again. Plain 1RR didn't work, none of the various modified versions tried have been satisfactory, and the only significant "modified 1RR" proposal yet untested is Huldra's "1RR but the first edit counts" idea, which IMO isn't a good option for the same reasons cited in prior discussions - i.e. because it breaks what "xRR" means everywhere else on the project. So, uh... any new brilliant ideas? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Like my colleagues, I agree that the current version seems to not be working, just like many previous versions did not work. Not a final decision by any means, but I actually like WarKosign's suggestion, because it eliminates the first-move advantage that seems to be the major issue in this area. I know it isn't what 1RR is on most of the project, but couldn't we just call it something else? SRR for special revert rule? ♠PMC(talk) 15:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • We were asked to do something. We did, but if it’s not effective, we should do something else. I quite like Number 57’s proposal myself. It’s closer to true 1RR than our current 1RR rule is. Katietalk 19:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles

The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:
Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Further, the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to include the following sections:

Editors cautioned
Editors are cautioned against edit warring, even if their actions are not in violation of the general 1RR prohibition active in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Instead of reverting, editors are encouraged to discuss their proposed changes on the article's talk page, especially when the edit in question has already been challenged or is likely to be challenged.
Administrators encouraged
Administrators enforcing arbitration remedies in this topic area are encouraged to make use of appropriate discretionary sanctions to prevent or end prolonged or low-speed edit wars, even when the general 1RR prohibition has not been violated by any involved editor.


  1. Proposed. This rolls back the remedy to the normal 1RR restriction, but it further adds what amounts to a remedy and a note on enforcement of the existing discretionary sanctions to discourage low-rate edit wars. Any editing is welcome, of course; this was thrown together fairly quickly. ~ Rob13Talk 16:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. I’m willing to give this a shot. Katietalk 21:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. I think this is the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Agree with trying his. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. Let's try it. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


  1. Reprising comments I've made before, I cannot support any reformulation of this (or any) restriction that contains the sentence Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense without qualification. Too often for my taste, we have seen editors blocked or sanctioned this year for isolated, inadvertent violations of a 1RR or similar restriction. (In fact, I believe a lengthy topic-ban imposed for an isolated 1RR violation, by an editor who didn't realize that the 1RR rule in the I/P topic-area had been changed again, is what led to this very request for amendment. An appeal from that sanction is currently pending on AE, and if the appeal is not granted there, it should be brought here.) I understand the need for stricter rules in our most problematically edited topic-areas, but not at the expense of fairness and proportionality. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


Comments by arbitrators

  • I want to specifically comment on why I didn't propose Number 57's suggestion, since it gained some support. I appreciate the suggestion, but I think it has serious flaws. First, editors would be sanctioned with a bright-line based partially on the actions of other editors. If I reverted something without realizing it had already been reverted in the last 24 hours by someone else, I would be crossing a bright line and face a block. Bright lines work when it's obvious when one is crossed. This seems more like a tripwire than an obvious line, and given the general enforcement situation in this topic area, I think such a remedy would be brandished as a weapon to remove opponents from the topic area.

    Second, the issues with this remedy do not represent a failure of wording or of this one remedy. They represent a failure of the entire approach the Arbitration Committee has taken with this topic area. We've continuously tried to prescribe narrower and narrower bright lines to prevent edit warring, and we're routinely met with either wiki-lawyering or confusion as the rules grow more complicated. If anyone currently on the Committee is to blame for that failure, it's myself, as I've championed that approach since before my time on the Committee. I have to accept the fact it simply hasn't worked. Number 57's suggestion continues this approach, and I think it would ultimately face the same issues. Instead, I think we need to start relying more heavily on administrative discretion. Our administrators know edit wars when they see them. Let's stop worrying about where the bright line is and start enforcing discretionary sanctions in cases like this. [20] ~ Rob13Talk 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

    • @Shrike: I have to respectfully disagree with you that such an edit war would not have been stopped under my suggestion. As soon as it broke out, admins could either fully protect the page or implement a 0RR on that specific edit's contents as a discretionary sanction. They could also look at some of the individual editors who showed up to continue the edit war after the initial edit and revert to see if any should possibly be warned or sanctioned for perpetuating edit wars given their history in the topic area. ~ Rob13Talk 19:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Huldra: My view is that the added benefit is outweighed by the almost certain wikilawyering. For one, we'd have an ARCA within the month questioning what should be done with cases where the deviation from status quo was a removal of content that doesn't fall neatly into the category of a "revert". I'd prefer to leave it to our enforcing administrators to sanction editors who routinely violate WP:BRD in the topic area. Reverting a revert without discussion is edit warring, and when done repeatedly, it is sanctionable behavior. ~ Rob13Talk 23:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      • We got into trouble, Huldra, when we tried to re-define 1RR because we also unintentionally boxed ourselves into the definition of revert. Like Rob, I’d rather give the admins broader discretion and see how that goes before we try to strictly define terms again. Katietalk 02:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Tomorrow is a deferred holiday in lieu of Remembrance Day. I'll try and find time then to review the community's comments about Rob's proposal. There was a lot of support for Number 57's proposal, so I will need time to evaluate this one.Mkdw talk 03:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@BU Rob 13: relying of admin discretion is what has gotten us into this situation. In previous example of unresolvable RW ethnic conflict, there have been a relatively small number of editors here with a particular interest in the controversy, and a great man established WPedians with a neutral perspective. In this area, perhaps more than any other that arises in the enWP, there are a very considerable number of editors with very strong views on each side, to established accepted political or historical position, very little common ground, and, to be frank, very few administrators who do not have a fairly strong opinion of their own. Some admins, and some editors, have the exceptional ability to deal with it neutrally regardless of their predispositions, but even so, those who do not like the results of such edits rarely believe that those editors or admins are neutral.
What we need here is a rule so transparent that it does not rely on any admin discretion at all. I do not favor such bright line rules in general--I think we normally do need to take circumstances into account. This area is an exception. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I have to disagree. In the best modern example we have of an area this contentious – India-Pakistan – the problems in the area were reduced the most by topic bans enacted via administrator discretion. Bright line rules had absolutely no effect. No bright line has worked here, no matter how clear, and I don't think any one will work. The editors in this topic area have shown a willingness and ability to maximize their disruptive behavior within the constraints of whatever bright line we set up. ~ Rob13Talk 02:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


Requests for enforcement


This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Calton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBAPDS, 1RR/consensus required restriction per {{2016 US Election AE}}
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 2 November 2018, 15:11 UTC – First revert on Steve Bannon, a page placed under DS with 1RR + consensus required. This edit restored content, a "See also" section, that had been added by another editor on 2 November 2018, 00:25 UTC, and that I had removed on 2 November 2018, 12:18 UTC. This constitutes a first violation of the "consensus required" provision that states "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." As is customary with this restriction, the alert is placed in a prominent edit notice.
  2. 3 November 2018, 14:19 UTC – Second revert, violating both 1RR (albeit barely, after 23 hours) and more importantly violating the "consensus required" provision a second time, instead of going to the talk page for an attempt to gain consensus.

On 3 November 2018, 11:07 UTC, I called upon Calton to seek consensus on the talk page, and I opened a discussion there on 4 November 2018, 08:40 UTC, including a ping to Calton for attention. Calton did not reply, although he edited Wikipedia several times since then. Consequently, I decided to file this AE report.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

Two prior AE blocks for violating 1RR in the DS/American Politics domain: 24 December 2017 (24 hours) and 11 June 2018 (72 hours, lifted after a day); see Calton's block log.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Was blocked for 1RR violations on 24 December 2017 (24 hours) and 11 June 2018 (72 hours, lifted after a day), see the block log linked to above.
  • Participated in WP:AE debates several times in the last twelve months, most recently on 24 August 2018 and 12 September 2018.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The disputed content is still in the article, as I did not want to edit war over it. Somebody should remove it if Calton does not self-revert, and the content debate should take place at Talk:Steve Bannon#"See also" section.

Further notes:

  • Reading comments by various admins, I concur that the "consensus required" provision is overkill for the Steve Bannon article, and I would welcome its being lifted, with no action on my report.
  • Regarding Calton's position, casting aspersions on my motives ("you view WP:AE as just another tool in getting your way on political articles", expressed on my talk page instead of here), I have replied that we may not like the rules but we must all follow them.
  • About the basic content dispute, I note that several other editors have continued the revert game, and I'm the only one who opened a thread on the talk page to discuss the relevancy of those "see also" links. @X1\, Calton, Adavidb, D.Creish, Volunteer Marek, and Wumbolo: Please join the talk page discussion. — JFG talk 07:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@MastCell: Obviously, I would not have reported Calton for a 23h 1RR. The reasons for the report, as clearly stated above, were his two successive violations of the "consensus required" provision, and refusal to engage in a discussion towards consensus. Even today, he still has not defended his edit on the article talk page. I am not amused by your calling me "strikingly clueless or actively hypocritical", and I would appreciate your striking this aspersion in light of the actual content of my report. — JFG talk 18:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@MastCell: At the risk of excess digging, I'll post another reply. You are misrepresenting my report, which clearly refers chiefly to the diffs documenting two consecutive violations of "consensus required", and only mentions the barely 1RR in passing (viz. more importantly violating the "consensus required" provision a second time). And for sure, I was also within an hour of 1RR when I reverted Calton after his first violation; sorry about that. The difference is that I started a dialogue on the talk page, and he refused to engage. Our WP:AVOIDEDITWAR policy clearly states: Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page. I did that, the reported editor did not. In this regard I'm surprised that you would suggest to "come down a little harder" on me instead of on the person who did not seem to care about the consensus process in this particular instance, and who only replied to this filing by throwing political aspersions on my talk page. — JFG talk 20:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Adavidb: I did not mean that you took part in edit-warring: indeed your addition to the text was constructive. I merely pinged you as one of the people who edited the disputed section, so that everybody could chime in on the talk page; sorry for the misunderstanding. — JFG talk 18:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

 Done [21]

Discussion concerning Calton

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Calton

Statement by Govindaharihari

Topic ban both users from the whole segment not just this one article, American politics editing ban for both users. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

I'd just ignore it (and trout JFG for bringing this). They both made reverts 23 hours apart and haven't otherwise edited Steve Bannon. Wikipedia suffers when AE admins enforce the letter of the law (here 1RR) and ignore everything else about those edits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac

Calton is a level headed editor who does good work. The inclusion or exclusion of these two See also links is no big deal one way or the other. Imposing 1RR on the American politics sanctions on page where the subject is not a politician but is a controversial complex person is not helpful. Best to let thos drop re Calton and consider taking this 1RR off the page. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Adavidb

Despite my being identified above as having 'continued the revert game', I merely added an introductory sentence to the section in question (with the intent of ending the reverting). —ADavidB 07:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Calton

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Calton is clearly aware of this filing [22], and has apparently chosen not to respond. It does look to me that both Calton and JFG ([23], [24]) violated 1RR and consensus required, and I would propose topic banning both from the Bannon article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • While I'd prefer to get a sanity check before proceeding here, if no other admins have any comments, I'll proceed as proposed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I interpreting the silence by other administrators as a collective shrug. Looking at the underlying content dispute (whether to link 2 articles in a See Also section) I can't help but add to that shrug myself. Looking at the article history it looks like there are 3 users who have technically violated the consensus required restriction (including Calton) and 2 users (Calton and JFG) who have technically violated 1RR with 23 hour reverts. I'm not familiar with Calton but I have observed JFG's editing in the American Politics topic area. My own perception of JFG is that while they typically take predictable positions on issues that divide editors favoring different points of view, they are also more likely to collaborate, compromise, and respect consensus than a lot of the other players in the topic area. I'm still not sure of the best way to handle this, but when I see the "consensus required" sanction being used as a revert rationale it makes me wonder if we need to rethink the sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur in the shrug. I normally expect the administrators who place page-level sanctions to enforce them. In this case, that would be Doug Weller, who created Template:Editnotices/Page/Steve Bannon. Sandstein 16:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's reasonable to expect Admins who place page-level sanctions to be the prime enforcer. Having said that, I've changed my mind about consensus required. @Awilley: if you have time could you remove that? If not, I'll try to find time but I'm pretty busy and the talk page header change looks complicated. That was Coffee's design. Edit summaries are easy. Maybe there's another TP header? I'll have a look. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @Doug Weller: I'll see what I can do. I've been thinking about trying to add options to the template so the admin placing the restriction can choose whether to do just 1RR or 1RR and consensus required. Also I just realized the template you used is a different template than the one I recently got consensus at AN to modify, and it affects another hundred or so different pages. Luckily it doesn't include the civility restriction, so I shouldn't need to go back to AN for a second consensus to make the changes necessary to bring some uniformity. ~Awilley (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @Doug Weller: I do think that it is reasonable to expect sanctioning admins to undertake any required enforcement work. Adding sanctions templates to an article generates enforcement work that other admins may not be willing to undertake – especially when, as in my case, I find the templated sanctions themselves somewhat questionable. Sandstein 15:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
            • I don't think that an ordinary DS with 1RR needs to be mainly enforced by whoever added it. I take your point about consensus required and Coffee, who created the template, used to keep track of consensus on talk pages, which frankly I think is too big a burden to expect anyone to do. However, the issue for Steve Bannon is now moot as both the edit summary and the talk page banner have had consensus required removed. @Awilley: I hope you haven't spent a lot of time on it, AGK did it for me. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pretty much in agreement with Seraphimblade, Awilley, and Doug. I see 1RR violations by both Calton and JFG. Both are pretty stale at this point, and it's hard to argue that a block would be anything but punitive in either case. That said, they're both experienced editors and they should both have known better. I'd favor a logged warning to each of them about the 1RR violations, and no further sanctions. I am disappointed in JFG; it's either strikingly clueless or actively hypocritical to report someone for a 1RR violation while simultaneously violating 1RR oneself, and insofar as trouts and warnings are handed out, I'd come down a little harder on him for that reason.

    I agree with getting rid of the consensus-required sanction by any means necessary. While it's a good idea in theory, it has proven endlessly counterproductive in practice. I haven't seen much good come from it, and it provokes quite a bit of wikilawyering. I'm fine with leaving this report open for more adminstrative input if anyone feels strongly, but given how long it's already been open I would favor closing it now. MastCell Talk 00:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

    • @JFG: You now claim that you reported Calton for violating the consensus-required provision, and not for violating 1RR. In fact, you reported Calton for violating 1RR and for violating the consensus-required provision. It's right there, in black and white, in your original filing, so please don't try to convince me that 2 + 2 = 5.

      In any case, as Seraphimblade noted above, you also violated the consensus-required provision, so even if I were to accept your assertion about 1RR, it would still be somewhere between clueless and hypocritical to report another editor for behavior which you yourself were concurrently engaged in. It's okay to be clueless sometimes; I've certainly done things that were strikingly clueless. In those situations, it's usually best to fess up and move on. Your response here—equal parts sanctimony and easily-disprovable falsehood—is more concerning than the original, rather minor, violations. That said, I still think warnings are reasonable (as opposed to the page bans proposed by Seraphimblade), but I'll leave it to another admin to close this report. MastCell Talk 19:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

      • @MastCell, I don't think Seraphimblade meant to say that JFG volated consensus-required, I think they meant to say that JFG also violated 1RR. That's the way I read the comment the first time, and I also looked at the article history pretty closely and I only saw the 1RR violation (with JFG reverting to the status quo revision). In any case I'm going to close this now with no action. On second thought I'll let a regular here close this as they see fit. I had mis-read MastCell's comment above thinking that MC had already logged warnings for both editors, which was more than enough trouting for me. ~Awilley (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

No action taken. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Malik Shabazz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 09:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions : specifically, violation of TBAN imposed by DS.[25]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 03:04, 7 November 2018 - removal of ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement notice from talk page. The Land of Israel#Modern usage, Land of Israel#History, and Land of Israel lede contain conflict related material - the notice is not off topic (one may possibly claim that removing an ARBPIA notice from a clearly unrelated page (e.g. Thrombosis) would fall under an exemption - but in this case the notice is clearly applicable to significant parts of the page).
  2. 03:12, 7 November 2018 - article itself is closely related to the conflict. The edit itself removed "Zionist baby killers" as a cited example of contemporary antisemtism - the phrase itself being conflict related.

The diffs below are possibly stale and less clear cut, but are presented to show a possible pattern of edits around the conflict during the TBAN:

  1. 14:43, 20 October 2018 - conflict related - edit cited BLP exemption. Possibly stale, added to show possible pattern.
  2. 03:52, 18 October 2018 - edit to The Electronic Intifada which is intrinsically conflict related.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 17 August 2015 - 48 hour block for "Repeated personal attacks and incivility"
  2. 20 January 2017 - 4 day block for "To enforce an arbitration decision and for your personal attacks on others ("dickhead", "moron") in the context of discussions about the WP:ARBIPA topic area"
  3. 12:47, 23 May 2018 TBANed from ARBPIA for 6 months.
  4. 3 June 2018 Warning of TBAN violation.
  5. 6 July 2018 Blocked 31 hours for "To enforce an arbitration decision and for personal attacks at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard".
  6. 09:07, 30 July 2018 - blocked two weeks for "topic ban violations, incivility and personal attacks".
  7. 10:31, 30 August 2018 - blocked 72 hours for personal attacks.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This complaint is about the 7 November edits - the October diffs are possibly stale and are are not as clear cut, however they were added to show a possible pattern.

In regards to the conflict relatedness of diff2 - a reasonable interpretation of "Zionist baby killers" is that the implied nationality of the babies in question is Arab, particularly since the cited WaPo source for that stmt continues in the same paragraph to say "...dismissing Jewish students as “Zionist baby killers.” At rallies on college campuses, speakers regularly list “Zionists” in the same category as white supremacists and Nazis. Progressive leaders circulate lists of acceptable Jewish organizations, including only those that do not address Israel or that define themselves as Palestinian solidarity groups." - tying this to I/P.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
addendum - in 12:35, 7 November 2018 Malik Shabazz used the edit summary "rv vandalism" when reverting a mandatory notice of this AE filing against him. I will note that the AN/I complaint leading to the last block on 30 August - ANI archive 991 section - mentions a previous use of such language in relation to a mandatory notice.Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Malik Shabazz

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Despite Icewhiz's assertions, every mention of the state of Israel is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If Sandstein had intended to ban me from anything related to Israel, I think he would have said so. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As usual, Sandstein, you focus on form instead of substance. Adding an ARBPIA template to a page doesn't make the page related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor does removing a misplaced template. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz forgot to mention that I broke the speed limit at least three times on my way to work this morning. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

I very much disagree with the notion that removing an ARBPIA template from a page where it does not belong and was added without discussion by an involved editor in the topic area is covered here. If an uninvolved admin decides that a biblical concept is part of a conflict that began in the last hundred years or so then they can do it, but that is not what happened here. The second diff is wholly unrelated, neo-Nazis in the United States not exactly being a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. nableezy - 16:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, Icewhiz is here reporting straight reversions of vandalism as meriting sanctions. That is about as bad faith as an AE request gets. He reports this reversion of an editor who has, citing "eye for an eye", made a couple of vandalism edits (here and here) in response to a favored website being listed as Islamophobic (removing that here). Takes a special kind of bad faith to report that, so much so me thinks a boomerang is in order. nableezy - 16:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WarKosign

While Sandstein is correct in noting that "it is conceivable that there is non-Arab antisemitic anti-Zionism", the edit in question was removing reference to this article, which discusses anti-Semitism in regard to I-P conflict. Moreover, the user was banned from editing "anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", and while anti-Semitism can be practiced by anyone, it is very much related to the conflict. WarKosign 12:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Malik Shabazz

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The request has (partial) merit. The topic ban does not cover a "mention of the state of Israel", but rather the Arab-Israeli conflict. The edit in the second first diff at issue pertains to text that relates to that conflict. Specifically, Malik Shabazz removed the template {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}, which describes the discretionary sanctions that apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the first second diff is not actionable because it concerns "antisemitic anti-Zionism", i.e. antisemitic opposition to the state of Israel, which in and of itself does not relate to the Arab part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In other words, it is conceivable that there is non-Arab antisemitic anti-Zionism. I would therefore take action only with regard to the second first diff and invite admin comments about what to do. Sandstein 12:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm somewhat unconvinced here, because yet again it's someone immediately jumping on a possible violation by an editor whose edits they oppose. A far better thing is to discuss it with the editor concerned, suggesting they revert rather than running off to AE. For example, here's an edit that I made on User:יניב הורון's talk page suggesting that they may want to back away from that subject. That editor hasn't contravened their topic ban since. My inclination here would to be to warn the editor about any edit that skirts round the edge of their topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Having reviewed only the November diffs, I'm unconvinced a sanction is required. I'm not terribly happy about the template removal, but really the substance of that topic is not ARBPIA related, and it requires some real nitpicking to believe it should be sanctionable simply because it involved an ARBPIA template. That said, I would recommend that Malik avoid such a removal in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think it showed the best judgment to remove the template, but I also agree that we don't need to sanction for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


There is no indication that 1l2l3k was made aware of discretionary sanctions prior to the violations. By being the subject of an AE request, 1l2l3k is, going forward, considered aware and advised to comply with any discretionary sanctions in place. If anyone believes that sanctions against the filer are warranted, this should be the subject of a separate request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning 1l2l3k

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Gobulls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
1l2l3k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit.

  1. [26] Revert after text [27] was removed not waiting 24h
  2. [28] First introduction of text.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

The user is well-aware. The page is in the middle of an edit war and one user has been suspended for it already.

  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
  • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I don't understand how to request it. This is my first time, and I would like some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobulls (talkcontribs) (I've moved this post here from the admin section where it was misplaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

I have notified him on his talk page.

Discussion concerning 1l2l3k

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by 1l2l3k

My two reverts were done at a distance of 4 days, not 24 hours. The first one was on 2 November and the second one on 6 November. Still, I self reverted, after seeing this report, for the sake of the peace among wikipedians who are discussing in the talk page, in order to promote a better working environment, and also since the reporting party is so upset about my revert. Further, when a discussion is ongoing, the reporting party should refrain from making edits, that's why I did my second revert (4 days after the first one). Also, I don't see any diffs above in his report to be able to say anything else. I'll get back to this report when the diffs are clearer as to what exactly I did wrong. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

Not a violation - 1l2l3k didn't originally author anything - he reverted on 2 November, and again on 6 November - and regardless self reverted.

In addition, one should note that filer has engaged in personal attacks and casting aspersions - on the Wikiproject Palestine page - 16:38, 6 November 2018, had edited in violation of the general prohibition on 18:03, 23 October 2018 (becoming extended confirmed due to subsequent editing on unrelated topics), and has also played loose with 1RR - performing reverts 24 hours + 13 minutes apart - 15:59, 5 November 2018, 16:12, 6 November 2018. Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

  • The user was never notified of the sanctions in the ARBPIA
  • This case for WP:BOOMERANG per ICEWHIZ diffs.Also before the filing I left notice[29] on his talkpage to strike his personal attack instead and remove violation of WP:CANVASS instead doing that he filed AE action. --Shrike (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning 1l2l3k

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Cleaned up the format of the request and moved a comment by Gobulls to their section as it was misplaced in this one. No opinion otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Gobulls, for sanctions to be possible, you must show that the editor against whom you are requesting sanctions has been made aware in one of the prescribed ways. I do not see that the editor has received a discretionary sanctions alert ([30]), so unless you can show awareness in one of those ways, not just by asserting they are, this complaint will have to be dismissed. (Of course, by having been the subject of an AE request, 1l2l3k will be considered aware going forward, but they must have been aware at the time the claimed violation occurred.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 23:09, 7 November 2018 Straight revert of this
  2. 23:12, 7 November 2018 partial revert of this
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

Blocked for 2 weeks for 1RR violation previously

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Debresser on the talk page wrote I reverted a few things. Not [t]he same thing twice. That is counted as one revert. However the two reverts listed above have an intervening edit (here), making those 2 reverts that do not count as "one revert" and a clear violation of the 1RR. He made the same argument on his talk page, despite having multiple users show it was a violation. Given Debresser declined to correct the issue and instead argued that there is no violation, I brought this here.

Even if one were to accept the (absurd) notion that calling Benny Morris a Zionist is a BLP violation, the exception only allows for removing the BLP violation. Debresser's second edit did much more than that. There is no, afaik, exception for "nearly consecutive edits". Icewhiz's dissembling below is utterly irrelevant. Once Debresser was notified of the 1RR violation he chose not to correct it but argue it away on both his talk page and the article talk page. So even if the intervening edit were "unnoticed" he surely noticed it when he was directed to it. nableezy - 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Um Beyond My Ken, a sanction would generally require more than a feeling that something is getting old. This is a black and white 1RR violation. You want that ignored because you dont like the filing editor? Any comment on the substance of the issue? nableezy - 20:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Well if there is no substance to your view besides a feeling I am not sure it needs much of a response. For the record, I have yet to make a single edit to Efraim Karsh in this dispute, so the argument that my editing is what brought me here is apparently also based on nothing more than a feeling. nableezy - 21:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: on what basis? Can you point to any frivolous request I have made here? The idea that there should be a sanction for reporting actionable misconduct strikes me as capricious and having no basis in our policies. nableezy - 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: with all due respect, I do exactly that, all the time. The reason I did not discuss this with Debresser is because several other editors had attempted to do so, and Debresser refused to self-revert. And below again argues that his 2 reverts are not a violation of the 1RR rule. When somebody is given the opportunity to correct an issue and refuses to do so your position is that he should not be reported? Then why have a 1RR? This is entering bizarro-world. This is a basic report, there are 2 reverts and a user who refuses to abide by a topic-wide prohibition. If yall would do something about editors who act like the rules dont apply to them I would not be here that often. nableezy - 03:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you have cited no such thing, you have theorized based on a feeling. This is an utterly pointless distraction from a basic violation of the 1RR. I welcome somebody to actual look at that, and if you or anybody else would like to file a report against me where I can defend myself properly that would be just great. Completely ignoring the report however seems to be what you are going for here. nableezy - 03:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Um, there is an objective 1RR violation here, a violation that Debresser was informed of and then refused to rectify. And now says does not matter for reasons that escape my comprehension. Does that matter at all? Or are these bright line rules not something that counts here? nableezy - 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Debresser

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Debresser

I was surpised to see myself reported here, since I have explained the pertaining guideline both on the article talkpage and my user talkpage:

An editor can make multiple reverts, just not of the same content, and that is not a WP:1RR violation. I have been there a few times over the last ten years. I remember once reporting somebody and having it explained to me, many years ago. An intervening edit does not make a difference in this respect. By the way, that specific intervening edit was made in the middle of my edits to another section, so I had technically no way of noticing it before pressing the "save" button.

On a sidenote: I see no real reason to institute a "mutual report ban", so to speak. If a report is bogus, like this one, jus close it asap, and be done with it. If there were bad faith involved, I'd propose to use WP:BOOMERANG, but I generally do not suspect Nableezy of bad faith. Debresser (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@All those who say I misunderstand 1RR. It does not make a difference, because, as I explained already, the edit of the other editor was made between my previous of 01:09 and my next edit of 01:10, and since it was made to another section, there is technically no way I could have been aware of it. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

Debresser's edits were nearly consecutive - his editing that day was all in a 6 minute window, 23:06-23:12, with an intervening edit by Al-Andalusi in 23:09 to a different paragraph, which could've quite possibly gone unnoticed in the space of consecutive edits. Furthermore, the second cited revert would quite possibly fall under WP:NOT3RR(7) as it makes the assertion that a BLP is a "Zionist historian" - this assertion is not supported by the cited journal article, is not the common way this BLP is described, and "Zionist" itself is used a pejorative by some.[31][32][33] Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Huldra - Wikipedia is not a RS, definitely not for BLP. I did not add this label to Benny Morris (to which I made a couple of small edits a while back). I did remove this now, as it does not appear in the citation given (see "embarked+upon+the+research+not+out+of+ideological+commitment+or+political+interest.+I+"+zionist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip0_DK4cXeAhVRPFAKHehyARMQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q="embarked%20upon%20the%20research%20not%20out%20of%20ideological%20commitment%20or%20political%20interest.%20I%20"%20zionist&f=false (google books preview of the cited page). He is more often described as a post-Zionist historian,"post-zionist+historian"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7mtOa4MXeAhXOKVAKHeGLBxsQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=benny%20morris%20"post-zionist%20historian"&f=false or "new historian"."post-zionist+historian"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7mtOa4MXeAhXOKVAKHeGLBxsQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=benny%20morris%20"post-zionist%20historian"&f=false But that is a content question on the Morris article. Assertions on BLPs should be sourced per policy.Icewhiz (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: - my relations with Debresser are friendly, AFAICT, we never were in conflict. In regards to Nableezy, I have never been uncivil towards him and as far as I recall have not made meritless claims at AE regarding him. I have spoken in defense of Debresser in several filings by Nableezy against Debresser. I do accept that I comment from the peanut gallery too much (though fixing my typos does inflate my edit count) - silence is a virtue that I need to get better at. However, several other editors in ARBPIA have also commented frequently at AE. Icewhiz (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In regards to Huldra's comments below of filing herself and "bad blood" - I would like to point out that on 22:49, 4 November 2018 Huldra seemed to suggest that having people from the "other party" blocked at AE for "good faith" mistakes would be desirable in order to advance a desired policy change.Icewhiz (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Wishful thinking Beyond My Ken (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Would anyone be interested in a topic ban for Debresser and Nableezy filing AE reports against each other? It seems to happen every other week or so. Maybe an IBan between the two would be a good idea? It's really getting old. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You could throw Icewiz in there too. None of them can talk about any of the others, file at AE about each other, or comment on any filing (AE, AN, ANI) involving any of the others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, Nableezy, the vast majority of editors have never filed an AE report, and have never been the subject of an AE report. You, on the other hand, appear in both roles regularly, and it is -- at least in my opinion -- becoming disruptive. If you can't edit without filing AE reports or causing others to file them against you, then you're most probably not editing in the best possible way. If you can't change this, then perhaps the community will be interested in changing it for you, and for your opposite numbers as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I never said I didn't like you -- in fact, I don't know you. My complaint has nothing to do with your personality and everything to do with the way you and your opponents use AE as if it was your private complaints department. Just one time, or two or three, let it go -- if it's as bad as you seem to think it is, someone else will report it. The same goes for those who file against you. Wikipedia will not shatter into a million pieces if you don't report every problem you come across. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Huldra: AN and ANI are what are pejoratively called the "dramah boards". Generally AE is not considered one of them, because it's not free-form the way those pages are. Here, the discussion is much more strictly structured. So, does Shrike outnumber Debresser and Nebleezy on AE? If so, then maybe Shrike should be included in the group topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nableezy: If any admin were indeed tempted to impose such a topic ban, it wouldn't be on the basis of this report per se, it would be on the basis of the history of you and the others I've cited filing AE reports at the drop of the hat, apparently as a means to get a leg up on your opponents. If it were to happen, this report would, I assume, simply be the needle that broke the camel's back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Nableezy, I'm certain that you think my suggestion is a "distraction" from another use of AE to get at an editor whose POV opposes yours, which really is rather the point. Neither you nor your allies nor your opponents should be using AE as a weapon against each other, and I'd like to see it stop. I'd like to see admins look past the immediate report and see the bigger picture behind it, and ban you all from filing AE reports. I think that is quite justified by the history of this page, and will be borne out by its archive. The evidence is there for anyone to see, and is quite obvious to anyone who, like myself, has been reading this page for years. You've all had your fun beating each other over the head with the AE hammer, and now it's time that it stopped.
I'm under absolutely no illusions that this is likely to happen, but I think it would be best for Wikipedia, and for the editing in this contentious subject area, if it were to come about. It's clear that discretionary sanctions haven't worked as well as they might have, since they've simply provided the warring editors with more tools with which to fight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Zero: I can't help but think that you've misunderstood my proposal (well, not really a proposal, more like wishful thinking). I have not suggested stopping "everyone" from filing reports at AE, I have suggested banning editors who have become disruptive at AE because of the volume and frequency of their reports and of being reported. Your response is somewhat similar to decrying blocks or topic bans of disruptive editors in Mainspace as meaning that we "may as well shut down the encyclopedia".
On the other hand, Zero may well have a point that the topic DS has helped - but it also has shifted some of the disruption here. In any case, I think this is the last I need to say about this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

I would like to mention that Debresser was given plenty of opportunity to revert, but refused. (See his talk page.)

And if Nableezy hadn't reported it, I would have.

Compare the above report, on this page where Onceinawhile was reported by Shrike, without any warning first. Onceinawhile was given a 3 months topic ban (within 2 hours). Why should Debresser be treated differently? Huldra (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As for Icewhiz statement "Furthermore, the second cited revert would quite possibly fall under WP:NOT3RR(7) as it makes the assertion that a BLP is a "Zionist historian" - this assertion is not supported by the cited journal article, is not the common way this BLP is described, and "Zionist" itself is used a pejorative by some."

...let me remind you that the Benny Morris article state in the intro that Morris regards himself as a Zionist. It has done so at least since 2010 (I didn't check further)...and Icewhiz himself edited the article as late as August this year, without removing it. Huldra (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

....aaaaaand gone, Huldra (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Icewhiz: Of course WP isn't a RS; but my point was that an assertions which has been in the lead of the Benny Morris article at least since 2010, hardly can be considered "a redline BLP vio".
  • Beyond My Ken: your statement "the vast majority of editors have never filed an AE report, and have never been the subject of an AE report" might be true in general, but it certainly isn't true for anyone editing in the ARBPIA waters. Virtually all of us appear here at regular intervals; that goes with the territory. Btw, other regulars, say Shrike, has a higher percentage of his edits to the "Dramah" boards than Nableezy. (I just checked: "gut feeling" isn't enough in ARBPIA), Huldra (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Beyond My Ken look at their contributions; the answer is yes (pr percentage). And I would think it terrible if anyone would be sanctions just because they have a high number of edits to AE or ANI: what should matter its the number of spurious reports, ie. reports which goes nowhere (except wasting peoples time).
  • User:Thryduulf To repeat: Debresser was given a chance to revert, but refused. BUT: a lot of reports are made without "the accused" being given a single chance to revert. The case with Onceinawhile (on the top of this page, appeal just after this case) is one such case: Onceinawhile was brought here (by Shrike) ...then topic banned for 3 months (after less than 2 hours by AGK). Needless to say this has created a lot of bad blood. Don't expect that people after that will sit idly by when Shrike, or any of his friends (like Debresser) break the rules, Huldra (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Icewhiz: Shrike just filed a report on a "good faith" mistake made by Onceinawhile, and was "rewarded" with having Once topic banned for 3 months by User:AGK. When Shrike ..or Debresser goes straight to AE or ANI to file reports over "good faith" mistakes, then don't for a moment expect that I, or others, wont start doing the same. Huldra (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphim System

With all due respect to BMK's views that the vast majority of editors have have never filed an AE report, and have never been the subject of an AE report. That simply isn't true for editors who are active in the conflict area. If someone reverts your work, and there is a 1RR restriction on the article, you could be sanctioned for reverting back. If you ask them to self-revert and they don't, you are supposed to report it. Most of the time the report is enough to prompt a self-revert, but they may not do it until the report is filed. Admins here have consistently asked us to file the reports and not to revert back and risk sanction ourselves. Topic banning AE reports from both parties would be like lifting the 1RR restriction for those two parties. Seraphim System (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm very concerned that Debresser does not seem to understand the 1RR policy. Based on his comments it seems we can expect further similar violations: An editor can make multiple reverts, just not of the same content, and that is not a WP:1RR violation. This is not one if the difficult to understand parts of the policy: whether involving the same or different material and if other editors as you to self-revert, you should. This is a rule that every editor in the topic area is expected to follow. His comments here are sufficient evidence that nableezy made the right call kicking this up to AE. Seraphim System (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

Summary: Debresser breaks 1RR but denies it on the basis of an incorrect understanding of the rules. Icewhiz tries diversionary tactics, unsuccessfully. BMK wants to clamp down on reports of editors who violate 1RR and refuse to act on several warnings.

Recommend: Minor penalty optional. Inform Debresser that his understanding of the rule is incorrect and warn of a more severe penalty if he re-offends. Zerotalk 03:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

BMK's proposal is completely bizarre. If nobody is allowed to make reports here, we might as well just close down this noticeboard and undo all the ArbCom motions it is supposed to enforce. I remember very well what the I-P area was like back then; I wonder if BMK does. Zerotalk 06:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

BMK, Debresser objectively broke 1RR and refused to self-revert despite two different editors asking him to. Bringing him here after that is not disruptive. It is how the system is supposed to work. Shooting the messenger would not be an improvement. Zerotalk 14:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Govindaharihari

Support banning User:Debresser and User:Nableezy they are both disruptive in this area. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

I'll first comment on the technical aspects, then make some general comments.

Technically, this is clearly a 1RR violation. However, if you look at the edit times, all the edits are within a few minutes of each other, and Debresser probably simply didn't see the intervening edit here. I would AGF here and advocate for no sanctions.

In general, Nableezy complains that Debresser might have initially been unaware that they committed a vioation, but their refusal to revert when it has been brought to them shows that they don't care. In general, I think it's wise for people to self-revert here. I would just point out the excellent essay WP:Editors have pride; people will not want to admit mistakes publicly, even if they privately resolve to not do the same thing in the future.

Another broader comment: one of the purposes of 1RR is to slow down rapid-fire editing. People in this area used to (still sometimes do) engage in lots of rapid-fire reverts/edits with little care for consensus or BRD or talk page discussion. To some extent, this is fine (most consensus is achieved through editing, proper phrasing etc.), but doing so can also step on a lot of sensitive toes. Kingsindian   05:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Debresser

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I haven't examined the diffs in question, so no opinion on the merits of this filing, but I'm certainly tempted by Beyond My Ken's idea of a three-way mutual iban that explicitly includes a prohibition on any of them filing an AE request against any of the other two. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not a sanction for reporting actionable content. It's a sanction for seeing every little thing that puts a toe on and possibly over the line and jumping straight to an AE filing. Other people exercise judgement, talk to the editor concerned and only file when actually needed. These editors will be perfectly capable of reporting any misconduct by the other parties, just as they will be perfectly capable of reporting any misconduct of yours they would have reported. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Onceinawhile

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Onceinawhile (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
3 month topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, imposed [34], logged [35]
Administrator imposing the sanction 
AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Acknowledged. AGK ■ 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Onceinawhile

I broke then ”original author“ rule a week ago, having not previously been aware of it. I made just one edit to the article that day (a revert); my previous edit had been four days prior. I pled guilty and apologized. I was hit with a very severe sanction.

A topic ban impacts me severely. I have great interest in the area, and my contributions are always constructive. I created the only Israeli-Palestinian conflict-related FA in the last 8 years, the only GA in 2018, and five of the last 10 DYKs. I am passionate about collaboration between the two “sides” - see WP:IPCOLL which I rewrote a few years ago. I operate only by consensus and 1RR (as I had previously understood it).

Since the sanction, a few things have become clear:

  • The closing admin’s sanction was shown to be unprecedented in its severity (of 8 previous “original author” cases, only 2 were sanctioned previously - but both with multiple other reverts) [36]; this was not disputed
  • The closing admin’s closing comment about the article being “in the throes of an edit war” at the time of my edit was shown to be incorrect [37]; this was not disputed
  • The “original author” rule itself was shown to have lost the consent of the community (see ongoing discussion at WP:ARCA)
  • That I had been unaware of the rule was acknowledged by the closing admin and confirmed subsequently by the nominator’s failed search to disprove my statement.[38]
  • The nominator’s subordinate claim of OR (re content dispute, but it goes to my reputation) was shown to have no substance, relating solely to whether the article title should be “short form” or “long form” (multiple threads here).

I appeal to admins to reconsider. I believe a warning would have been more appropriate.

@WJBscribe: you’ll note I did not criticize AGK’s behavior nor show frustration even once; despite my disappointment, he is entitled to his judgement here. But I think your comment was absolutely outrageous. To paste that snippet out of context from the rest of that post – its stated World War I centenary context, the block log (which shows American Politics and PIA as the two most sanctioned areas) and my juxtaposition of “collaborative” vs “battleground” editors (where I stated I have never been in the latter camp) – is wholly unacceptable. I have made dozens of posts which explain how I think about battlegrounds in Wikipedia, and I will not stand for being misrepresented. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
PS – in case it helps, I had been to see a WWI exhibition on the evening I wrote that post. It is the 100th anniversary of the Armistice of 11 November 1918. I shouldn’t have to worry that every time I make my discussions here a little more colorful I am putting myself at risk of having an admin draw a conclusion on the basis of a misread metaphor and entirely out of context from everything I have ever written and the way I have always behaved. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@WJBscribe: If you wish to continue to cast aspersions about my “mindset” based on a metaphorical sentence (actually about rank vs. “on the ground” experience), I request that you spend a moment looking at any or all of my other comments in recent years for substanting evidence. You won’t find anything to substantiate your attacks on my reputation, but you will find endless comments advocating for collaboration.
PS – Happy Armistice 100 Day. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

Onceinawhile (OIAW) does not dispute that they reverted another editor at Enclave law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to restore back text that was deleted and disputed. OIAW also does not dispute that the revert was a breach of the Arab–Israeli conflict § Reverting general restriction.

I accepted the explanation, at the time of the enforcement request, that OIAW was truly unaware of the restriction. However, I would not choose to take enforcement action principally because an editor refused to apologise. Conversely, apologising is not a 'get out of jail free card' that negates the need for an administrator to look at disruption in the article being reported for enforcement. The enforcement action taken was to exclude OIAW for 3 months (90 days) from the affected topic area.

In the days after the original enforcement request, I spent some time at my user talk page discussing with OIAW why they reverted the editor. I am not sure the discussion will be immediately helpful to any colleagues reviewing this appeal. There was more than a touch of wikilawyering, particularly around the 'awareness' aspect. I cannot see that during the enforcement request, in their appeal to me directly, or indeed in this new appeal that OIAW recognises jumping to a revert is the type of conduct that tends to disrupt articles such as these.

At the time of applying the sanction, I also considered that the affected article – and topic area – is 'live' and suffering from poor standards of editorial quality. Recently, the topic has been at this noticeboard frequently.

Perhaps you will agree that this action was commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, that I respond[ed] flexibly and proportionately, and that the decision was within the bounds of administrator discretion (WP:AC/P#Enforcement). Note that the underlying remedy is the subject of some ongoing discussion at WP:ARCA as to its fitness for purpose. AGK ■ 22:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor Huldra

Please end this topic ban now. Just read the "Debresser" section above this, to see how much "bad blood" this sanction (And Sandsteins on Nishidani) has created.

Admins are supposed to "put out flames", not throwing petrol on the fire, Huldra (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser

The violation was real. The editor should have been aware of it. IMHO these two simple points means that there is no grounds for removing the sanction altogether. It was overly harsh, though, and I wouldn't mind if it were shortened to a week or two weeks. In the future, admins should take care to sanction all violations more or less to the same degree, allowing for slight variations based on circumstances that may be grounds for leniency or harshness. Debresser (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Below, Black Kite wrote: There really needs to be some sort of consistency here, or we risk being accused of making up sanctions at random, or worse of being biased. LOL It's a well-known fact that Wikipedia sanctions, particularly with respect to ARBPIA, are arbitrary and capricious. I'm glad that's starting to dawn on the clueless admin corps. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong, Zero0000. It is for the benefit of the encyclopedia. After all, one of the most clueless of them all assures us it is a feature, not a bug. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

The sanction against Once was a good example of bad judgement. Frankly I was shocked when it happened, and less than impressed by AGK's attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

For a long time it has been a convention between the regular editors of inviting each other to self-revert when they make a mistake. None of us want to break the rules on purpose but all of us can forget previous edits, miscalculate the time, or fail to understand the rules in the same way that others do. Here and here are two examples where Shrike (who reported Once without a warning) benefited from this convention. There is no doubt whatever that Once would have immediately self-reverted if the rule breach was brought to his attention. Shrike knew that 100%.

I find it hard to recall more than one or two editors in the past decade who worked as hard as Once at getting the facts right by meticulous source collection and collation. If you want to see how valuable he is, look at Balfour Declaration, which Once brought to FA status largely by himself despite it being a subject fraught with controversy. With a little work it could be published in an academic journal. As proof of the respect I hold for him, I spent hours visiting a library across town to obtain obscure sources that he wanted to check. But one revert against a rule he was unfamiliar with and he's gone for 3 months. This is supposed to be to the benefit of the encyclopedia? Zerotalk 02:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

To WJBscribe:: Your understanding of Once's "foot soldier" comment is erroneous. Description of the I-P area as a battleground is unfortunately a correct description and every regular editor is in the trenches by that metaphor. Once did not create this situation and does not approve it. The distinction that Once makes, which you ignore, is between those for whom the aim of the battle is to write good articles despite the toxic atmosphere, and those for whom the battle consists of obstruction, destruction and pov-pushing. Once places himself in the first camp, which is where every editor in the area should be, but for some reason you think that is a bad thing. In fact he is one of those regular editors most clearly in the first camp. Zerotalk 06:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

I strongly support lifting this topic ban. A few days ago, I left a message on Onceinawhile's talk page encouraging him to appeal his sanction, offering my own opinion that he does have a case to plead. This is someone who has done great work for Israel-Palestine articles; even a cursory review of his talk page should demonstrate this. The one revert he made might technically have been a violation, but it is offset by otherwise highly productive and collaborative editing on his part. I'm prepared to accept Onceinawhile's explanation that he was unaware of the restrictions until the AE report in which he was sanctioned.

Sandstein hit the nail on the head. Topic bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. The only thing we're preventing by banning him from his area of expertise for three months is the creation of high quality content in one of the most contentious parts of Wikipedia, which makes it counterproductive and useless. Kurtis (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

I will simply copy-paste what I wrote on AGK's talkpage. The only small tweak is that currently there's an ARCA request about this stupid rule which would probably avoid these kinds of situations in the future.

  1. The rule is extremely confusing, and nobody (not even admins) understands it. Several admins at AE have said so explicitly. Also see this entire AE request, where everybody, including Shrike, shows that they don't understand the rule. Not to toot my own horn, but I was the only one who had the correct interpretation. It is unclear to me that AGK even knows how confusing this rule is and how it has been treated at AE, since I don't recall them ever weighing in on a dispute on this rule.
  2. Onceinawhile stated explicitly that they would be happy to self-revert. It is very common for people to break 1RR by mistake. I have done so many times. Here is one of many examples.
  3. AGK decided (based on what criteria, it isn't clear), that a single infraction of this unclear rule deserves a three-month topic ban. How did AGK get to this conclusion? Do they hand out 3-month topic bans for isolated 3RR violations on the edit-warring noticeboard? Perhaps all the work Onceinawhile put in to get Balfour Declaration to FA clearly shows to AGK that the former isn't qualified to edit in this area. That was sarcasm. Kingsindian   06:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, WJBScribe's comments make no sense to me. It's not an admin's job to look out for what will benefit Onceinawhile ("I'm only punishing you for your own good" is really lame, by the way). It's their job to look out for what happens on Wikipedia. Kingsindian   06:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Onceinawhile

Statement by JFG

This looks like an excessive sanction and I endorse the appeal, fully concurring with statements by Kingsindian and Sandstein. Remember that sanctions are supposed to prevent further disruption, not punish editors and taint their record for minor or unwitting violations. — JFG talk 07:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Onceinawhile

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I think this is a very harsh sanction, for the simple reason that currently at AE editors aren't being treated equally. Every one of the cases that comes up regarding this useless first-mover remedy (and various other 1RR issues) ends up differently. You only have to look back through the archives of this page (and there's one currently going on just above) to see that sanctions for violation of this 1RR range from no action, to warnings, to short blocks, up to long topic bans like this. AGK actually said to OnceinaWhile on AGK's talkpage "You breached that requirement and have been excluded from the topic for a time. Any other editor who breaches the requirement will be excluded too, in their turn." - this simply isn't true. There really needs to be some sort of consistency here, or we risk being accused of making up sanctions at random, or worse of being biased. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I was sympathetic to this appeal until I read "I am just a foot soldier fighting for our encyclopaedia on the front lines of one of our two most contested battlegrounds" on AGK's talkpage. Whilst at the severe end, AGK's sanction was within the band of reasonable responses to the breach of sanctions, and that comment makes it clear to me that Onceinawhile would benefit from stepping away from the topic area for a few months. I would decline the appeal. WJBscribe (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that needs to be taken in context. Later, OIAW says "On the other hand, some battleground editors have become specialists, rarely building anything, but instead walking the line carefully, pushing and prodding well-meaning editors until someone loses their cool, trips over a bright line, or frankly gives up from sheer exhaustion. They also enjoy the game of "admin roulette", throwing up an AE or ANI and hoping they strike lucky.". And they're right. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I’m sure I’m missing something, but the context doesn’t help for me. I don’t think WW1 anniversaries excuse expressions of battleground mindsets, nor do the frustrations at the reality that different admins will - naturally - exercise discretion differently. As I said, I was minded to support the appeal until I read the words I quoted above. WJBscribe (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @WJBscribe: I've reviewed the diff and I don't think Onceinawhile was expressing a battleground attitude. Onceinawhile seems to note that they were "fighting for our encyclopaedia" (emphasis added), not for a given POV; the clear meaning of that sentence was merely to establish an understanding that AGK is more experienced in arbitration/governance-related matters. The WWI references are unfortunate in retrospect, but certainly don't convey any battleground attitude that I can see. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 09:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Responding to a couple of other points:
  1. Kevin/Zero, a belief (however genuine) of being on the correct side doesn't really help to alleviate my concern about someone describing parts of Wikipedia as a battleground and their role being a foot soldier.
  2. Kingsindian, my point was that the concerns I outlined led me to the conclusion the encyclopedia may also benefit from Onceinawhile not editing this area for a while.
  3. Onceinawhile, your comments here have shown me quite the opposite. I accept that it was possible that the words I quoted had simply been poorly chosen. However, your behaviour on this page suggests otherwise; I expressed sympathy for your appeal, said that what gave me pause were words you had recently written and in response I have been accused of acting outrageously, misrepresenting you and casting aspersions. All for daring to react to your own words. If your intention had been to convince me that the impression I formed of you from your words on AGK's talkpage was mistaken, you couldn't really have gone about it in a worse way.
That said, I note that I am in minority of respondents to this appeal and other clearly see things differently. If no one else opposes it, I will not stand in the way of the sanctions being lifted. WJBscribe (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I would grant the appeal, but not for the reasons invoked above, which are unconvincing.

    Yes, AE sanctions vary wildly between users and admins, but that is a feature, not a bug, of a sanctions system explicitly relying on the discretion of individual admins. There can be no expectation of consistency or equal treatment in such a system. Yes, the ARBPIA 1RR and similar rules are overly complicated and badly understood and are not based on community consensus, but that does not matter because they have been imposed by ArbCom and are therefore binding, the end. If you don't like all this, and there are perhaps good reasons not to like it, then complain to ArbCom or elect different arbitrators.

    No, my reason for granting the appeal is this: in my view, sanctions must as a minimum pass a rational basis test, i.e., they must be at least of a nature to reduce actual disruption and misconduct in the topic area. In my view, this topic ban fails that requirement. The reason for the ban was that AGK believed that the article at issue was "in the throes of an edit war", and that "Onceinawhile contributed to disruption of this article when they reverted." On appeal, Onceinawhile contends that there was not actually an edit war, and AGK does not contest this assertion or address the issue. I'll therefore have to proceed on the assumption that Onceinawhile did not in fact participate in an edit war. That being so, no factual basis for the sanction remains, and it is therefore not likely to be useful to prevent future misconduct. Sandstein 20:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • After careful consideration, I would grant the appeal because it does not serve a preventative purpose or, in the alternative, that it no longer serves a preventative purpose after the elapsed time on the topic ban. The nature of the violation does not indicate to me that Onceinawhile is a net negative in the topic area. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • If there is no objection, I will lift the topic ban in about a day based on the consensus of uninvolved administrators here. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


Not actionable (deficient request). Sandstein 13:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Warkosign

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Gobulls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 01:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#WP:A/I/PIA :


Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. November 11, 2018 violating revert (in my opinion, from my understanding of the situation)
  2. November 11, 2018 original revert
  3. November 10, 2018 original author
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

He was aware of the rule, as is evident here:

  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
  • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

I informed him on his talk page.

Discussion concerning Warkosign

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by WarKosign

Gobulls did not specify what my supposed violation is, so I can't respond to that.

This is the second time in less than a week the user fills a garbled enforcement request against an editor that happens to disagree with them. As with 1l2l3k above there doesn't seem to be any real violation. The user misinformed you that they notified me about this request: the user wrote on my talk page that they might report me, but not that they actually did. I was surprised to find my name here after responding to the message on my talk page.

Please review Gobulls's behavior. To me it seems that such an inexperienced editor is not supposed to be editing in the area at all due to 500/30: they have 610 edits, 87 of them on I/P articles and many of these made before they had 500 edits. They have battleground mentality, accusing users who happen to disagree with them of vandalism and sock puppetry, reporting first 1l2l3k and then me for bogus violations. The user repeatedly inserted ([39] [40] [41]) the same content despite several editors explaining on the talk page that it violates NPOV. WarKosign 10:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jonney2000

Someone should warn Gobulls (talk · contribs) about making inaccurate complaints.Jonney2000 (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

Diff #2 in Gobulls's report is misleading, as Gobulls's "original revert" was on 15:57, 10 November 2018. Gobulls reverted the content a second time on 17:32, 11 November 2018 - which is misleadingly labelled as the "original revert".Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Warkosign

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I am closing this as not actionable because the request is too confused for me to make out which specific remedy has allegedly been violated, and why. Sandstein 13:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by יניב הורון

Unblocked with the agreement of the blocking admin. Sandstein 18:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
3 week block for topic ban violation: [42]
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by יניב הורון

I made a mistake. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development is related to my topic ban. However, I didn't realize the article was under ARBPIA because it isn't extended-confirmed protected (that's why the IP that I reverted could make such an edit in the first place), there was no template and I was making a small edit about US definition of the organization. If you give me the chance, I'll never edit in that article again, not to mention I'll be extra careful in other unprotected articles. I apologize. יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

  • I don't have a problem with the block being reduced to time served as long as Yaniv is more careful in the future. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by יניב הורון

Result of the appeal by יניב הורון

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Unblocked per Back Kite. Sandstein 18:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Rethinking consensus-required

As most of you know there are many (~150ish?) American Politics articles under a discretionary sanction known as "Consensus-required". The restriction typically reads,

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.

The original motivation of this restriction was for it to be a "correction" for 1RR: to prevent situations where the following occurs:

  1. A drive-by editor adds contentious content to an article
  2. A regular editor trying to maintain a neutral article reverts, using up their 1RR
  3. The drive-by editor reverts the content back into the article, using their 1RR and leaving the article in a non-consensus state

User:Coffee, who I believe came up with the restriction, explained the above in this 2016 ArbCom clarification request (see Coffee's first indented reply beginning "Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Callanecc: The whole point of this restriction..." I recommend reading the entire paragraph.

Over the past 2 years the consensus-required restriction has mostly succeeded in eliminating the scenario above, along with the added benefit of stamping out a lot of tag-team edit warring. It has required some administrator discretion along the way, such as deciding how long material must be in an article before removing it counts as a bold edit (in which the removal of text could be reverted) instead of a revert (where a talkpage consensus would be required to restore a deletion). User:NeilN, I think, used a couple of months or so, depending on the article, and other admins have kind of followed suit.

However the restriction has also brought some unintended side effects. The biggest one is that it allows a single editor or minority of editors to dramatically slow down article development and filibuster changes they don't like. You end up with situations like this:

  1. Editor A adds some new information to an article
  2. Editor B doesn't like that information, so they revert, invoking a "challenge" in the edit summary
  3. For the next couple of weeks nobody is allowed to add anything like the original edit to the article while the tribes of A and B argue and vote on the talk page
  4. Eventually, often after pages of discussion and voting, an RfC perhaps, and a close which is also argued about, the sentence that Editor A wrote two weeks ago is placed into the article "by consensus".
  5. Unless the person who closed the RfC had the foresight to explicitly state otherwise, the wording of the sentence is locked, and changes to the wording of that sentence require a new talkpage consensus to overturn the old one.

The end result is that you get articles bogged down with these one-sentence snippets that nobody is allowed to change. Take for example the 3rd paragraph of the Donald Trump article beginning "Trump entered..." That paragraph is the product of thousands of man-hours and yet it's still got jarring juxtapositions like "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false." that nobody is allowed to fix because even minor rephrasing can't be done without explicit consensus. (You can see which sentences you're not allowed to touch by clicking "edit" and reading the hidden text.)

Getting back to the point, I would like to ask the AE community to think about something that could replace our consensus-required restriction: something that would still mitigate the first-mover advantage of 1RR and encourage talkpage consensus building, but that would also allow for swifter article development with less gridlock. I'll list a couple ideas I've thought of already:

Name Rule Comments
1RR for bold edits If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must wait 24 hours (from the time you made the edit) before reinstating your edit. This restriction only eliminates the first-mover advantage of 1RR.
Enforced WP:BRD If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must substantively discuss the issue on the article talk page before reinstating your edit. This doesn't eliminate the first-mover advantage, but slows things down by forcing the original editor to participate in talk page discussion.
1RR for bold edits and enforced WP:BRD If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. A combination of the first two rules. While this is the most stringent restriction, it is still lighter than consensus-required.

Also note that none of the above prevents tag-team edit warring. That is a problem, but I think it may be outweighed by the fact that one of the more rapid forms of article development involves partial reverts in which editors progressively tweak an addition, taking into account concerns expressed in edit summaries, until they arrive at something that everybody can live with. That kind of editing is the way much of Wikipedia works, and is currently disallowed by the consensus-required rule. ~Awilley (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think your ideas have merit, but wouldn't it be better to bring it up on the Village Pump, with notification on Centralized Discussions? Or is there some reason that I'm not seeing that AE is a better venue? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I agree, although Awilley does have merit - after all, AE contributors will have the most experience in this area. But I think we need ideas from the wider community, so would suggest moving this to WP:VPP. Bellezzasolo Discuss 22:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)