Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
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:
|
| Arbitration Committee Proceedings | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Contents
- 1 Requests for arbitration
- 1.1 Wildland-urban interface relevant to Camp Fire
- 1.1.1 Involved parties
- 1.1.2 Statement by Granite07
- 1.1.3 Statement by the evil MONGO
- 1.1.4 Statement by Iridescent
- 1.1.5 Statement by SN54129
- 1.1.6 Statememnt by Beeblebrox
- 1.1.7 Statement by PeterTheFourth
- 1.1.8 Statement by power~enwiki
- 1.1.9 Statement by Nick
- 1.1.10 Statement by Beyond My Ken
- 1.1.11 Statement by {Non-party}
- 1.1.12 Wildland-urban interface relevant to Camp Fire: Clerk notes
- 1.1.13 Wildland-urban interface relevant to Camp Fire: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0>
- 1.1 Wildland-urban interface relevant to Camp Fire
- 2 Requests for clarification and amendment
- 2.1 Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles
- 2.1.1 Statement by Kingsindian
- 2.1.2 Statement by Icewhiz
- 2.1.3 Statement by Shrike
- 2.1.4 Statement by WarKosign
- 2.1.5 Statement by Sir Joseph
- 2.1.6 Statement by Black Kite
- 2.1.7 Statement by Huldra
- 2.1.8 Statement by Zero0000
- 2.1.9 Statement by Sandstein
- 2.1.10 Statement by Bellezzasolo
- 2.1.11 Statement by Number 57
- 2.1.12 Statement by Onceinawhile
- 2.1.13 Statement by Nableezy
- 2.1.14 Statement by EdJohnston
- 2.1.15 Statement by AGK
- 2.1.16 Statement by Seraphim System
- 2.1.17 Statement by WJBscribe
- 2.1.18 Statement by power~enwiki
- 2.1.19 Statement by JzG
- 2.1.20 Statement by Kingofaces43
- 2.1.21 Statement by Serialjoepsycho
- 2.1.22 Statement by Debresser
- 2.1.23 Statement by Awilley
- 2.1.24 Statement by JFG
- 2.1.25 Statement by Ivanvector
- 2.1.26 Statement by Galobtter
- 2.1.27 Statement by {other-editor}
- 2.1.28 Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes
- 2.1.29 Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion
- 2.1.30 Motion: Palestine-Israel articles
- 2.2 Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms
- 2.2.1 Statement by Petrarchan47
- 2.2.2 Statement by Drmies
- 2.2.3 Statement by AGK
- 2.2.4 Statement by Sandstein
- 2.2.5 Statement by Kingofaces43
- 2.2.6 Statement by WBG
- 2.2.7 Statement by SN54129
- 2.2.8 Statement by Tryptofish
- 2.2.9 Statement by {other-editor}
- 2.2.10 Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes
- 2.2.11 Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion
- 2.3 Clarification request: Magioladitis
- 2.1 Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles
- 3 Motions
- 4 Requests for enforcement
- 4.1 Calton
- 4.2 Debresser
- 4.3 Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Onceinawhile
- 4.3.1 Statement by Onceinawhile
- 4.3.2 Statement by AGK
- 4.3.3 Statement by involved editor Huldra
- 4.3.4 Statement by Debresser
- 4.3.5 Statement by Malik Shabazz
- 4.3.6 Statement by Zero0000
- 4.3.7 Statement by Kurtis
- 4.3.8 Statement by Kingsindian
- 4.3.9 Statement by (involved editor 2)
- 4.3.10 Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Onceinawhile
- 4.3.11 Statement by JFG
- 4.3.12 Result of the appeal by Onceinawhile
- 4.4 Rethinking consensus-required
- 4.5 Aj abdel
- 4.6 ජපස (jps) topic ban appeal
Requests for arbitration
| Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs".
Before requesting arbitration, read and familiarise yourself with the arbitration guide. Then follow the instructions below. You must not take more than one hour to complete these instructions; requests that are incomplete for more than an hour will be removed. If necessary, use your userspace to prepare your request. If you wish to request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. If you wish to clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To make an arbitration case request: This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Wildland-urban interface relevant to Camp Fire
Initiated by Granite07 (talk) at 19:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Granite07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Diff of notce on talk page, acknowledged and all parties are now here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Camp_Fire_(2018)
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Attempts at resolution through talk page have been unproductive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Camp_Fire_(2018)
Attempted to discuss in Talk Page, because this is an admin exceptional editor, I feel that it is appropriate to move to arbitration due to conflict of interest in an admin on near-admin interaction.
The admin editor is an excellent admin editor and I don't see why there is a dispute.
In my attempt to address their concerns they changed the topic and used procedural protocol to divert the topic.
I feel they are in good faith but I don't understand their intent.
Statement by Granite07
Please delay voting, I made a request for a clerk. Please wait until a clerk has responded--possibly this request should be moved to dispute resolution with a clerks help.
Sorry, there is a typo, it is MONGO not MANGO. I corrected with an edit above.
I understand that this request is early. However the situation is unique. MONGO is an admin. If you look at the Talk Page you can see the path of the current discussion.
It is up to you as admin how you want to proceed. I am depending on your discretion and I respect your decision.
Note--sorry for my mistake in responding to posts at those posts, I will comment here.
Issue: Edits by myself and Mongo to Camp Fire (2018) regarding Wildland-urban Interface were in conflict. These are: A) cited content, B) content edited by multiple editors (additive and subtracting edits), C) edits over several days. MONGO removed the entire section as a 'Platform,' which is not a recognized Wikipedia reason to remove content. When invited to discuss in the Talk Page MONGO turned to protocol arguments subsequent to the edits in question and focused on mistakes in how the request to talk was made. I feel MONGO is acting in good faith and reached out for a third party.
Question: Can cited and relevant content be removed without comment or an invite to discuss? (Adding in case this question isn't clear as the ask here).
Please review Talk Page discussion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Camp_Fire_(2018)#Wildland–urban%20interface
Please see example diffs to additive and subtractive good faith edits to that content by numerous editors over several days--MONGO in good faith and without significant comment removed this content which is cited content from sources, such as the LA Times
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/869357577
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/869305449
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/869310002
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/869291741
There is an ongoing though mostly irrelevant issue about my change from anon edits to named account edits. Unrelated to the issue of this arbitration the Camp Fire page had vandalism and as a result was locked. As a result, I was forced to login to continue as a named account. This diff is the vandalism in question and is unrelated to the topic here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/869446965
UPDATES:
- @Iridescent: Thank you -- I have been editing that page for several days as anon. There was a vandalism block (unrelated to this issue -- I posted a diff of that documented vandalism that was the issue), therefore I had to use a named account I rarely use to request Mongo go to the Talk Page to discuss before continued edits. We had trouble communicating so I requested arbitration before feeling get hurt. So far all good. Granite07 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox:MONGO has been notified (and is here in arb.) and a diff is now poseted, sorry for the delay Granite07 (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox: Got it--arbitration is different from a decade ago, rightGranite07 (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @MONGO: Yes, but emotions are fine. Thank you for your concern. Granite07 (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth:Their [MONGO's] contribution to Wikipedia is exceptional. I have a great amount of respect for their work. Granite07 (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- MONGO has continued edits despite this arbitaration request which should freeze edits while we find a consensus. The most recent edit is to add a see also link to the Wildland-Urban interface page. However, the removed content was specific to the Wildland-Urban interface discussion relevant to the Camp Fire. The content could be edited with MONGOS excellent editing collaboration (I think there is a list that they want removed which is fine) but a whole removal of the content is not resolved by a see also link to a generic discussion.
- @Mkdw: Fully understand, I explained in the request that there is a large imbalance in influence and knowledge of the editors. Further, the Camp Fire (2018) is quickly evolving as an unprecedented event--I have had the preceding steps to arbitration take up to a month to work through. In this situation, arbitration can be requested after a Talk Page discussion is unproductive. Granite07 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: Sorry that you saw my outreach for assistance as disruptive. I felt that I had been told here to reach out to those resources due to this otherwise being a premature request to arbitration. Granite07 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Mkdw: Are you directing me to request support in Consensus? Granite07 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please be aware that several editors more or less have posted on my talk page demanding that I remove this arbitration request. I appreciate the advice of admins here but I feel it is hugely inappropriate that I have been pressured by editors. None of these editors were editing the section inquestion nor participated in the TalkPage discussion until after I made this arbitaration request. In my decade on Wikipedia, I have never seen this before. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Granite07#/talk/49
- Thank you to the admins, I appreciate that the arbitration process is available. I feel that that has been a fair process and I am happy with the process today. This is an important part component of editing and Wikipedia. Like I said at the start, I respect and accept the discretion of the admin in this process. Regardless the the outcome--I would like my question heard by arbitration-- I thank you for the opportunity to ask.
Comments from MONGO's section
Comments from Iridescent's section
Statement by the evil MONGO
Ugh. I've even been trying to decide if some of the material should be included [1]. Editor claims they lost their home to the wildfire and has been making concerted efforts to add a discussion about the Wildland-urban interface issues. They may not be aware of all the ways we go about things on Wikipedia. Their edit history shows edits to Concow, California some years back and that area was devastated by the fire so emotions are high.--MONGO (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Iridescent
User:Granite07, you have a grand total of one edit to the page in question. You've been on Wikipedia for ten years; you must know that running to Arbcom the moment someone disagrees with you isn't going to end well. Please consider withdrawing this. ‑ Iridescent 19:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SN54129
Could @Granite07: also clarify who the User:MANGO is? ——SerialNumber54129 19:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's MONGO. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @JzG: Well, duhh. Clearly it is :) And the penny recently dropped for them too. I do, however, think it's incumbent on any filer here to at least get the names of the principals (supposedly) involved correct if they wish their plaint to have the slightest chance of being taken seriously... ——SerialNumber54129 19:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Granite07: MONGO is not—although doubtless should be—an admin. ——SerialNumber54129 20:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statememnt by Beeblebrox
This is more directed at the filing user than the committee since the outcome is so obvious: please just withdraw this now. It is grossly premature to the extent that the chance of the committee accepting is basically none, but people will keep coming in and piling on more and more statements, and the committee will have to vote on whether or not to accept it, and then they won't and you'll be back where you are right now, so it's be great if you'd just see that this isn't ripe for arbitration and withdraw the request now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- You've also failed to notify MONGO of this or to provide the required diff of you doing so , so this will be auto-rejected just for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Another little detail is that you aren't supposed to post in other user's sections as you have been. It's right in the great big edit notice you should be seeing when editing this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe a better use of your time would be giving the slightest indication of what the problem is here and why arbcom should be adressing it, as you've utterly failed to even attempt to do so so far. Arbcom is not an investigative body, you need to show them the problem preferably using WP:DIFFs or at the very least links to sections of the relvant pages. Not that any of that matters as again, there is no chance of this case being accepted and you should just withdraw it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Another little detail is that you aren't supposed to post in other user's sections as you have been. It's right in the great big edit notice you should be seeing when editing this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by PeterTheFourth
Small correction, Granite07 - MONGO is not an admin. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by power~enwiki
Granite07 (talk · contribs)'s behavior is becoming disruptive, I note this diff requesting "Urgent" help in this case at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance. They've also requested a WP:3O, which technically isn't applicable but is reasonable behavior. If this user refuses to listen to many editors (including myself) telling them their behavior is counter-productive and continue to make out-of-process requests on many pages, a block will be necessary. Per WP:BOOMERANG, they can be blocked for their actions here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Nick
Block Granite07 indefinitely for disruptive editing and for lacking competency, discuss the issue thoroughly on their talk page, unblock when competency is again demonstrated and sufficient assurances are given that disruption will cease. Nick (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
Obviously not going to be accepted; Granite, you really should just withdraw this request. On the other hand, the suggestion of a block is pretty over the top (and not appropriate for this forum) for what is basically bureaucratic messiness and bad judgment. The OP's comments on the talk page are a tiny bit IDHT, but not all that much, and they're not really disruptive in any way that I can see. The editing to the article is edit-warrish, if we really want to go out of our way to issue a block, but I don't think it's worthwhile to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 18 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.
Wildland-urban interface relevant to Camp Fire: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Recuse per clerks-l --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)- Actually provided @MONGO: and Granite07 don't mind me contributing to this case as a clerk despite having relatives and friends directly effected by this fire I'll try to clean this case request up. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Wildland-urban interface relevant to Camp Fire: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- Procedural decline as premature. Arbitration is a venue of last resort and no other forms of dispute resolution have been attempted. Mkdw talk 21:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Granite07: Please take the time to read the guide to arbitration. A talk page discussion is not sufficient to demonstrate that you have exhausted all other forms of dispute resolution and nor demonstrates that the community has been unable to resolve the issue. Furthermore, an arbitration request does not automatically mean all involved editors are prohibited from editing the topic area or article at the centre of the dispute. The arbitration committee does not rule on matters of content. Further to, the arbitration process would almost certainly be subject to abuse by meritless requests being filed against editors in order to temporarily ban them from editing. Our rules around edit warring and conduct still apply and I recommend you attempt one of the many other alternatives to arbitration. Mkdw talk 21:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Consensus is the fastest way to resolve the issue. Impatience for the other dispute resolution processes does not invalid their absolute requirement to be eligible for arbitration. Additionally, the arbitration process typically takes even longer than one month from request to conclusion, so I think you would be disappointed if your goal is expediency. Lastly, I carefully said, "one" of the many alternatives to arbitration. Not all of them all at once, which is prohibited under WP:FORUMSHOP. Mkdw talk 22:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page: |
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles
Initiated by Kingsindian at 13:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Kingsindian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- 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:
- A makes an edit (addition or removal) at time T1.
- B reverts the edit (completely or partially) at time T2.
- 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:
- The rule leads to absurdities. I predicted these absurdities and nobody listened to me.
- 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.
- 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.
Elaboration
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:
- 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.
- 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?
- Editor A makes a change at time T1.
- Editor B reverts it at time T2.
- 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:
- All the action takes place within a 24-hour time period. [Since T1 < T2 < T3, and (T3 - T1) < 24 hours].
- 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 [2].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 [3]. 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 time...so 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)
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, "..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"? 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Current state or "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 | |
| 1RR for Bold edits or "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 Enforced BRD and 1RR for Bold edits | 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 Galobtter
I don't think the essentially "be nice" motion below will help. Has an "Administrators are encouraged" or "editors are cautioned" motion ever helped? And certainly not in WP:ARBPIA, arguably the most controversial DS area. IMO, the rule is confusing simply because of the "original author" stuff creating confusion - if you restore a year later an addition made by someone else, are you prevented by this restriction to immediately revert a revert made to your edit?
Instead, use 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.
, as proposed by Awilley above. As far as I can see, this is far clearer, and ameliorates the main issues brought forth by Kingsindian regarding absurdities, as it make sures that you can't get sanctioned if you make only one edit a day, and makes it so that T1 is limited to 24 hours. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 15 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)
- 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
Support
- 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)
- I’m willing to give this a shot. Katietalk 21:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think this is the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with trying his. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Let's try it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I am willing to give this a try, but if it does not work out, I would like to try a modified version of Number 57's proposal which had quite a bit of support from the community and committee. Mkdw talk 18:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for taking a long time to get to this thread; I've been telling myself it has to be top of the wiki to-do list for days. Considering the complexity of other rules in the area, I think "plain" 1RR has a lot of advantages. I'm with Mkdw in that we should give this a try, but have a plan for other alternatives in mind should problems turn up again. Thanks to Awilley for compiling a handy table of options for reference. (I'm partial to "enforced BRD" myself.) I agree with NYB's point in principle, but would also prefer to change just one thing at a time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
- 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)
Abstain
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. [4] ~ 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)
- @Newyorkbrad: Do you think something like the requirement for DS notices for this 1RR would help resolve this issue? Mkdw talk 05:41, 17 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)
- 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)
Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms
Initiated by Petrarchan47 at 07:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Petrarchan47
I am appealing this action by Drmies: [9]
Background:
- The majority of the community weighed in on my side. [11]
- KingofAces43 contacted two administrators about this case:
Drmies had no authority to reopen the case according to policy. violating WP:ADMINACCT Dismissing an enforcement request
In this 2015 case the Committee unanimously agreed "once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened". Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate)
Drmies was informed of the violation and said, "There is nothing wrong with reopening a thread; if one admin can close it, surely another can reopen it, especially if a third admin thinks there's something to the request". [17]
(The "third admin" was AGK who weighed in after the case was closed [18], and after Drmies reopened it, banned me indefinitely from all GMO-related pages. [19])
- @Serial Number 54129: I have struck mention of WP:ADMINACCT as unnecessary. petrarchan47คุก 17:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Drmies
Statement by AGK
Statement by Sandstein
I agree with Winged Blades of Godric below that the grounds given for this appeal are invalid. But I certainly don't join Winged Blades of Godric's personal attacks on the appellant, which, having been made in an arbitration forum, should result in appropriate action from arbitrators or clerks. Sandstein 12:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Kingofaces43
I'm not really sure what's intended here. Petrachan47 was topic-banned from GMOs by AGK through discretionary sanctions. How the AE ended up being closed doesn't affect that topic ban or any sort of appeal. Topic-banned editors cannot bring up the subject material, admin board discussions, etc. of their ban unless it's directly relevant to an appeal, so I'm not sure why Petrarchan is trying to bring this up as opposed to someone else who isn't topic-banned if this is meant as a more meta-AE clarification rather than their own ban. I don't see any mention of a topic-ban appeal, and even if there was, none of what's posted here so far would address anything relevant towards an appeal, such as addressing the long-term behavior issues they were banned for in the first place we'd expect of an actual appeal. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by WBG
He had raised the same point at Sandstein's t/p, a month back, where Sandstein pointed him to the same and he replied No worries, thanks for responding
.∯WBGconverse 08:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
There would be some minimal merit, if he had chosen this venue to criticize AGK's final decision and/or the quantum of the sanction but here we have something about Drmies' actions as perceived violations of ADMINACCT and previous ArbCom decisions.
FWIW, I pretty much concur with Tryptofish's comemnts at the original ARE-thread and think that the awarded sanction easily passes the rational basis review.∯WBGconverse 09:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SN54129
- I'd disagree with User:Sandstein's analysis that
fucking incompetent
rises to the level of a personal attack; it merely recasts WP:CIR slightly more robustly (possibly, on refelection, slightly overly robustly, as although the question of competence is fundamental, it can also be an extremely sensitive one). - @Petrarchan47: Wot's ADMINACCT got to do with it? ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Tryptofish
I've been mentioned, and I've been involved in this since the original case, so I will briefly say that there are insufficient grounds for any action here. The claim that the majority of the community were on her side is a stretch, and the rest sounds to me like wikilawyering about how an AE thread was closed. The bottom line is that the enactment of AE sanctions was in conformance with policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- I've removed some statements made by WBG at the direction of a member of the arbitration committee. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Recuse. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Clarification request: Magioladitis
Initiated by Magioladitis at 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Magioladitis arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Magioladitis 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Magioladitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Magioladitis
- Am I allowed to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Should_BAG_members_have_an_activity_requirement??
- Am I allowed to do this task Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Change_coming_to_how_certain_templates_will_appear_on_the_mobile_web?
The first one is in the talk page of the bot policy.
The second one is a case of a series of edits that affect or may affect the visual output in the future and in some cases only in specific devices e.g. mobile phones.
-- Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
In the second one, we have the following: Is there really a discussion that community should consider of whether to make these changes or not? Is the discussion of whether we should be making edits in advance to avoid breaking things in the future? If there is no subject of discussion on whether we should make these changes, then is there a consensus to make these edits? If yes, I am allowed to make these edits manually? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
So, in the first one, I can participate in discussions about Bot policy as long at I do not mention COSMETICBOT or as long as noone in the discussion mentions it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
Unless I've missed something, neither requested action seems to be forbidden by either the Magioladitis or Magioladitis2 cases. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Username
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Magioladitis: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- I've done some formatting fixes. Cameron11598 18:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Magioladitis: Arbitrator views and discussion
- As I understand it, Magioladitis, you would not be prohibited from participating in either discussion provided you do not discuss or participate in portions of the discussion that would violate your sanctions. For example in the BAG RFC, the principle discuss is clearly outside your sanctions, however, Headbomb has mentioned COSMETICBOT. You should not participate in that portion of the discussion. Mkdw talk 18:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Mkdw - as long as the comments themselves aren't about COSMETICBOT, there's no reason you couldn't participate in those discussions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Recuse. ~ Rob13Talk 21:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that you are not restricted from participating in the BAG discussion, as long as you avoid COSMETICBOT. As for the VP discussion, Magioladitis, are you asking if you can participate in the discussion, or actually make edits to make the visual changes when the discussion has finished? Everyone is responding to that one as though you are asking if you can participate in the discussion, but your actual wording is "Am I allowed to do this task". 00:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Motions
This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. However, you may make comments on this motion in the section titled "Community discussion".
|
Requests for enforcement
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
| Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests. If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.(Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete request may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a discretionary sanction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Calton
| Collective shrug ~Awilley (talk) 22:10, 18 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. Request concerning Calton
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.
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.
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:
@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)
@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)
Discussion concerning CaltonStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CaltonStatement by GovindaharihariTopic 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~enwikiI'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 LegacypacCalton 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 AdavidbDespite 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
|
Debresser
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
- 23:09, 7 November 2018 Straight revert of this
- 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)
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 07:57, 17 July 2017 by GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 4 October 2018.
- 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)
Shocking development, Debresser violates the 1RR again. Not entirely surprising as it does not seem to be enforced against him. But for the record:
nableezy - 22:00, 16 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.[24][25][26] 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)
|
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)- I think it's clear at this point that there are no admins willing to take action, but I think the closing admin needs to make it clear for Debresser and everyone else editing in the area whether there has been a violation here and whether Debresser should not make further 1RR violations (which he has done while this complaint was open). Seraphim System (talk) 05:23, 18 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
| The topic ban is hereby lifted. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:03, 15 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).
Statement by OnceinawhileI 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:
I appeal to admins to reconsider. I believe a warning would have been more appropriate.
Statement by AGKOnceinawhile (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 HuldraPlease 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 DebresserThe 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 ShabazzBelow, Black Kite wrote:
Statement by Zero0000The 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 KurtisI 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 KingsindianI 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.
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 OnceinawhileStatement by JFGThis 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
|
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:
- A drive-by editor adds contentious content to an article
- A regular editor trying to maintain a neutral article reverts, using up their 1RR
- 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:
- Editor A adds some new information to an article
- Editor B doesn't like that information, so they revert, invoking a "challenge" in the edit summary
- 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
- 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".
- 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. |
| Enforced WP:BRD alternative #1 | If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time you made the edit) 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. |
| Enforced WP:BRD alternative #2 | If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page or wait 24 hours (from the time you made the edit) before reinstating your edit. | A combination of the first two rules with an OR instead of AND. This is the least restrictive rule. |
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)
| Collapsed (not closed) discussion about the proper venue |
|---|
|
I tried to re-think this in June at User:Power~enwiki/AE-DT and didn't get anywhere. Perhaps the comments there will be of some benefit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Return the pages to normal editing. Use 3RR vigorously like it should be and the edit warriors will eventually cease due to topic bans or blocks. I have no idea why admins have to keep fiddling around with rules and making up new ones when they don't even forcefully administer the ones we have site-wide with enough vigor.
The biggest problem with the American Politics arena is not so much the incessant POV pushing by near single purpose accounts, its the fact that we are limited for references by the least worthy source of information, namely, the NEWS, which is increasingly partisan, unable to report objectively and lacks the ability to review a situation or event dispassionately through the prism of reflection and outside the fog of recentism.--MONGO (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC) - This would be an improvement over the current consensus required restriction. It would make it far less likely that partisan sockpuppets and SPAs could lock down any progress on article improvement. I've have been very involved since the first case the resulted in American politics discretionary sanctions, and find that the consensus required restriction actually interferes with improving the encyclopedia. The only sight downside I see is that three rules would be slightly more complicated than one. That can be addressed by simply listing them in the form proposed above in the edit notice, on the talk page, and in a user talk page notice template. - MrX 🖋 15:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- The goal would be to prevent constant article instability on very active and controversial articles, without completely stalling article improvement and development. I agree with above comments that the consensus required restriction freezes article development. The third suggested rule:
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.
would be an improvement. Seraphim System (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- The goal would be to prevent constant article instability on very active and controversial articles, without completely stalling article improvement and development. I agree with above comments that the consensus required restriction freezes article development. The third suggested rule:
The end result is that you get articles bogged down with these one-sentence snippets that nobody is allowed to change
This is exclusively a Donald Trump problem; as far as I know, no other article has an extensive list of consensuses for the lead (or even a list of consensuses in general is rare). If, say,"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false."
is an issue, one can simply proposed a rewording, on the talk page and if it is an improvement, there'll be well enough editors supporting the change for a consensus within a few days - one nice thing about the article is that one doesn't have to wait weeks or use an RfC to get comments/feedback/consensus for changes. I have made >500 edits to Donald Trump including some reworking of the structure of the article etc and haven't felt overtly stifled by the restriction, which is largely only an issue if one is editing the lead.
- What happens to portions of the lead that aren't locked down is that they constantly get churned - i.e, constant edits are made, that sometimes improve and sometimes worsen the sentences, and on the whole the lead doesn't improve because so many people want to edit it. Same thing would happen to the sentences that are locked down if they aren't locked down anymore; in addition, since these are by definition controversial sentences, you'd see constantly things like removing "false" or adding "lie" to that sentence, which is IMO combated well by that all caps and very clear message telling people not to modify that sentence without prior consensus. And on Donald Trump (though perhaps less on other articles), the consensus-required restriction has been extremely helpful and I would oppose replacing it with any of the options suggested above; it has led to a relative peace despite the controversy of the article, due to it in effect creating binding consensuses, and works well as the regular editors of the article don't WP:GAME the restrictions but follow the spirit of it.
- Consensus-required is an issue on rapidly developing articles, or on less high profile articles, where it becomes very difficult to edit an article or to garner a consensus; IMO in those cases the consensus-required portion should simply be not used. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Galobtter, I agree that the situation at the Trump article is unusual, though I see it more as one of the worse datapoints on a larger spectrum of gridlock. Returning to the example of the false statements sentence, here's the most serious attempt I can remember to do something to it. link (TLDR: half the participants got hung up on free media coverage and both proposals were closed with no consensus to change anything.) I often worry that the sanctions and extra administrator attention has contributed to stagnation at the Trump article, with all but the most determined editors giving up and editing elsewhere. As a recent example, I've noticed that the article Matthew Whitaker (attorney) has gotten literally hundreds of edits in the past week, but according to the Trump article Jeff Sessions is still the attorney general.
- In any case, thank you for the input. That's very helpful. ~Awilley (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- That proposal failed because it was a more of a major reworking rather than a minor copy editing (and that change would be reverted if editors were allowed to directly edit the page).
but according to the Trump article Jeff Sessions is still the attorney general
That is I think due to the extended confirmed protection rather than the the consensus-required restriction; lot of small updates like that are done by non-extended confirmed editors/or at-least those non-extended confirmed editors draw attention to areas that are in the news/need updates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- That proposal failed because it was a more of a major reworking rather than a minor copy editing (and that change would be reverted if editors were allowed to directly edit the page).
- I guess the part I am missing is the why. Yes it slows article development in favor of establishing consensus and promoting stability, which I would think is a good thing. But I am not sure replacing one, by this point well understood, standard with three new ones that almost do the same thing as helpful. A common theme with the majority of the articles under consensus required is the rush to insert everyday news into articles before weight can be determined. Also almost all the articles under the restriction are contentious topics usually with a BLP component thrown in for good measure. So slowing down flurries of edits is generally helpful to avoid recent news and it gives a chance for everyone to talk it over and come to an agreement on the article talk page.
- That is not to say there are not issues with consensus required. From what I have seen there are two main problems. One is enforcement, while admins are not required to do anything really, with this provision I have seen many specifically states they do not want to enforce it. I am not seeing anything in the new provisions that would help that issue. Second is what is long standing? NeilN has given his personal opinion on the matter stating
"four to six weeks as longstanding"
.[32][33] Which I think is an acceptable standard that could be codified into the requirement. I think if those two issues could be fixed with consensus required it would be an even more helpful provision. PackMecEng (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)- The one place where I think a consensus required restriction might be an improvement is on BLPs. I think there were good reasons to put the restriction in place, but it should have been applied to BLP instead of American Politics. Seraphim System (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- One issue is that it encourages people to resort to "process-heavy" consensus-resolution methods, especially an WP:RFC, because they're reluctant to just rely on talk-page consensus. Those methods are meant to be last resorts - they take time, consume energy, are somewhat impenetrable to new users, and lead to pages covered in excessive layers of RFCs and other policy-cruft. Sometimes an RFC is necessary, yes, but most of the time it's possible to reach consensus via discussion, even on contentious pages. And this leads to the bigger problem - the consensus-required restriction encourages people to be intractable, and especially to deny a developing consensus even when it's obvious, insisting on an RFC to prolong the process of adding something they don't want in an article (and in hopes that people will go away.) All edits, remember, require consensus - the restriction does nothing unusual in that respect. All edits are presumed to enjoy consensus until someone objects, and the restriction doesn't even change that (since you still need a revert to invoke it.) What the restriction functionally does is cripple all consensus-building short of an WP:RFC, because people are terrified to say "well, I see a rough consensus here even if you disagree" (and if they do, whoever they disagree with can just go "nu-uh, time for an RFC!") Resolving controversial edits requires putting pressure on everyone involved to reach a consensus; people participate, even if they feel very strongly against what's being proposed, because if they don't then discussion might reach a consensus on something they dislike without any of their input at all, encouraging them to try and find a mutually-agreeable compromise. "Consensus-required" removes much of the pressure from people who want to keep changes out of the article (because they know it will be very hard to demonstrate consensus against them with anything short of a full WP:RFC, which can take a month), and therefore encourages people to drag their heels and refuse to compromise, paradoxically discouraging the very consensus-building it was intended to encourage. We cannot run an WP:RFC for every single edit that anyone objects to - that's unproductive and only serves to entrench disagreements. --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- An RFC is always an option regardless of this provision. If someone wants to be a stickler on an article that is not covered by consensus required they can revert, start a RFC, and essentially freeze that change until the RFC is finished. Also if someone is consistently doing something like that they tend to get topic banned these days for tendentious editing. Finally is an RFC on a contentious topic really a bad thing? What is wrong with wider community input. PackMecEng (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Occasional RFCs on a contentious topic are not a bad thing. Having an RFC for every significant change is a bad thing because it vastly increases the required effort for working on the article, because it discourages compromise and negotiation in favor of WP:BATTLEGROUND "we have more people, so we're doing it our way" thinking, because it leads to large numbers of WP:RFC results that slow down editing and discourage new users, and so on. An RFC is a last resort, to be invoked when other resolution methods have failed and the topic has had extensive discussion. Additionally, while it is notionally possible to ban someone for tendentious editing, in practice an experienced editor can come up with some reasonable-sounding objection to almost any edit; and it's entirely possible that they legitimately think what they say and are not intentionally being tendentious - they just object to every single edit people make that goes against their views on the topic, and the current way consensus-required is interpreted turns those objections into "if you want to do anything here, you need an RFC." The problem isn't that users have gotten worse (and we don't want to ban all of them), the problem is that this restriction discourages people from yielding on anything short of a clear-cut RFC when they feel strongly about anything, because they know that as long as they hold their ground on any point it's extremely difficult and time-consuming to establish a consensus against them. Before this restriction, people would be encouraged to participate meaningfully in discussions and compromise out of concern that a consensus would be reached without them if they didn't. Now, they're encouraged to revert liberally, drag their heels and view it as a prelude to an inevitable RFC. Basically - it's important that it be possible to reach a consensus through talking. Not just through the more formal structure of RFCs. Even (especially!) on controversial subjects. (And, beyond that, while you say editors who are intransigent can be banned for tenacious editing - people who edit war, which is the problem this restriction was trying to fix, can also be banned; and they can be banned much, much more easily, since edit-warring is usually obvious even if they manage to skirt the red-line revert limits.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- In practice that is not really what happens though. Take everyone's favorite articles where consensus required kind of started from Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump, RFCs are not terribly common for how much happens with those articles. At this point most things that get challenged reach consensus before a RFC and everyone moves on. Which is pretty good considering how decisive those articles are. To the concern about not banning enough people, you should take a look at the piles of bodies from people topic banned in that area. Plenty of experienced editors have been shot down there. It has slowed in recent times because honestly there are not a ton of regulars left on those articles compared to just a couple of years ago. So far the only reason I am seeing in favor of changing is that it is arguably easier, which I am not convinced of yet, and that it is faster which again I am not sure is actually a good thing for the topics the provision is attached to. PackMecEng (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Thank you for your input. Based on your experience with consensus-required in AP articles, would you be willing to let me know which (if any) of the four options in the table above you think would make a good replacement for the consensus-required restriction? What do you think would be the effect on day-to-day editing? ~Awilley (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I prefer "Enforced WP:BRD", although 3 is probably "safest" in that it accompanies that with a clear-cut red line rule that would back that up. But the basic goal should be to try and get everyone to the negotiating table, so to speak, discouraging edit-wars. I don't feel that Consensus Required is actually helping, though - we've navigated plenty of controversial topics without it in the past. So I would even take removing it and replacing it with nothing over the current situation. Consensus is always required, after all; the practical effect of the restriction is "informal consensus doesn't count" (or rarely ever counts, or, at least, users are afraid to act on it), which makes consensus-building harder, not easier. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Here's another way of thinking about the above options in terms of how they prevent bad behavior and allow good behavior. In the truth table below you can see that the options that restrict the most bad behaviors also restrict the most good behaviors (the normal dispute resolution that we see elsewhere on the encyclopedia).
| No restriction (just vanilla 1RR) | 1RR for bold edits | Enforced BRD | Enforced BRD and 1RR for bold edits | Enforced BRD or 1RR for bold edits | Consensus-required | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prevents Bad Behavior | 1 of 8 | 3 of 8 | 4 of 8 | 5 of 8 | 2 of 8 | 7 of 8 |
| 1RR exploit: Original editor immediately reverts a Bold change back into the article | ||||||
| Gaming BRD: Original editor leaves a note on the talk page and immediately reverts a Bold change back into the article | ||||||
| Gaming 1RR: Original editor waits a day and then reverts a Bold change back into the article. | ||||||
| Gaming 1RR and BRD: Original editor leaves a note on the talk page, waits a day, then reverts a Bold change back into the article against objections on the talk page | ||||||
| Gaming consensus-required: Reverting editor slows down normal article development by "challenging" bold edits and stonewalling on talk page to force extended discussions | ||||||
| Slow edit war (2 editors): Editors repeatedly revert a recent change in and out of the article every 24 hours without participating on talk | ||||||
| Slow edit war (2 editors) with talk: Editors repeatedly revert a recent change in and out of the article every 24 hours while participating on talk | ||||||
| Tag-team edit war (many editors): Different editors repeatedly revert a recent change in and out of the article | ||||||
| Allows Good Behavior (normal dispute resolution) | 4 of 4 | 2 of 4 | 2 of 4 | 1 of 4 | 3 of 4 | 0 of 4 |
| Immediate partial revert: Original editor immediately reinstates an edit taking into account the objections of the reverting editor (dispute resolution via edit summary) | ||||||
| Delayed partial revert: Original editor waits 24 hrs, then reinstates a change that takes into account the objections of the reverting editor | ||||||
| Fast BRD: Original editor discusses a reverted change on talk page, then partially reinstates the edit taking into account the objections of the reverting editor | ||||||
| Slow BRD: Original editor discusses a reverted change on talk page, waits 24 hours, then partially reinstates the edit taking into account the objections of the reverting editor |
This chart raises the question of whether it is more important for page-level restrictions to prevent bad behavior or allow good behavior. My personal view is that editor-level sanctions should be our primary tool against bad behavior and page-wide restrictions should strike a balance between preventing bad behavior and allowing good behavior, in a way where the bad behavior is obvious to admins who can step in and deal with the bad at the editor-level. ~Awilley (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Aj abdel
| Blocked for a week. Sandstein 21:57, 18 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. Request concerning Aj abdel
Before warning:
After warning:
N/A
This editor has a clear POV on the conflict, and has continued to ignore the general prohibition, even after being notified of its existence.
Discussion concerning Aj abdelStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Aj abdelStatement by (username)Result concerning Aj abdel
|
ජපස (jps) topic ban appeal
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 ජපස (jps)
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- User topic ban under imposition of discretionary sanctions listed here
- [34]:
- Notification of the administrator who imposed sanctions
Discussion concerning ජපස (jps)
Statement by ජපස (jos)
I am hereby appealing the topic ban JzG imposed 5 April 2018 here and am formally asking for it to be lifted. JzG has been asked multiple times to give terms for lifting the sanction or to lift the sanction, and he has not replied: [36],[37],[38],[39]
No conditions have been placed by JzG for lifting the ban, but I can identify that in that time I have worked in similar areas to great effect: E.g.:
And on other wikis, where I worked with the content in question without issue:
- [43].
I pledge to continue to try to tone down my rhetoric. Thank you for your consideration: jps (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Rhododendrites
Only commenting here to point out what I noted on jps's talk page, pinging JzG, back when the topic ban was issued, and also receiving no response.
There was an ANI thread about this matter here, which was closed without action. It was after that was closed, without any edits by jps on relevant topics (or, really, anything at all, as far as I can see), that the topic ban was issued without any additional context. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
I am happy for others to decide this, I am not going to lift it because of jps' extensive history of problematic editing. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning ජපස
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.