No action. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:46, 15 October 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 Soibangla
Discussion concerning SoibanglaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SoibanglaI am beginning my statement now, but it is not yet complete, I will provide notice when it is Accusation: "Adds an excessive amount of non-neutral material to the lead of Donald Trump" It was one paragraph, three sentences, supported by three reliable sources. If there had been a consensus reached that the lede had been somehow "locked down," I was not aware of it. The added paragraph was certainly relevant to Trump's BLP, whereas the two subsequent paragraphs, which had evidently reached consensus before this apparent "lock down," are more suitable for the Trump presidency article, not his BLP. Accusation: "Poor referencing style (linking to a Tweet about a WSJ story)" The WSJ uses a paywall for most stories, so linking directly to WSJ will not allow users to check the ref. However, WSJ chooses to bypass their paywall when they tweet an article, so I linked to those WSJ tweets so users can access the whole thing. This is just the way WSJ chooses to make their content available, I am doing nothing devious. Accusation: "Adding suspicious denials to the lead section of George Soros while an RFC on the inclusion of that material was ongoing" There was nothing suspicious about it, nor was it a denial. Another user had unilaterally declared that consensus had been reached, made an edit reflecting that perceived consensus, and then I made a subsequent edit that complied with that perceived consensus. Accusation: "edits at QAnon, Hillary Clinton email controversy, and Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination are all vaguely concerning, though I have no specific diffs to call out" "vaguely concerning" but "I have no specific diffs to call out"? What does that mean, exactly? I have contributed an enormous amount of high-quality edits to WP and I find the call for me to be topic banned from American Politics to be outrageously egregious. I will have more to say, pressed for time right now. soibangla ( talk) 00:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by BullRangiferThis is an absurd filing. Lesser methods of DR should be used, and differences of opinion and complaints about a sourcing style don't belong here. Soibangla does much excellent work. I think you should reserve drastic measures like this for genuinely tendentious editors. Occasional mistakes are par for the course for any editor, even the best. We deal with them on the talk pages. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 02:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by MelanieNI am WP:INVOLVED in this situation. I was the one who removed Soibangla's full-paragraph addition to the lede in the Donald Trump article, and when I took it to the talk page, I said I thought that adding it without discussing it first was "highly inappropriate". In no way did I mean that to indicate any sort of violation of the DS. Soibangla made a bold edit, it was challenged, they have not restored it - where is the violation? I am hopeful that Power~enwiki will withdraw this referral, as is being suggested at the talk page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by DaveThis board should be a last resort not the first!, DR or ANI is thataway →. – Davey2010 Talk 01:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Soibangla
|
Debresser formally warned. AGK ■ 17:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Opening statement by AGKI am raising this topic separately to request views from colleagues about the use of enforcement processes by Debresser.
I am concerned in general at an increasing use of AE for reprisal – and, in this case, at a scattergun or careless approach to enforcement requests. AGK ■ 21:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Debresser
Question@Kurtis Is this sequence of edits the kind of report that would be too broadly interpreting WP:ARBPIA3? Or is that reserved for "sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring" only? Debresser ( talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @Roland What is disruptive about this section? It needs to be clear if Kurtis proposes reporting a straightforward WP:ARBPIA3 violation is acceptable, and wants a restriction only regarding reporting "sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring" (since that is obviously more prone to interpretation)? That is apart from the question if other admins will endorse his proposal. Debresser ( talk) 17:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @Roland And let's be honest, if this is indeed, as I think, a straightforward violation, then it will be very interesting to see if admins will have the moral integrity to act on it. Based on my experience with some of the admins here, I have my doubts. Debresser ( talk) 17:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @Nableezy In reply to this edit: October 22 18:50 - October 22 09:16 = 09:34 < 24h. QED. Debresser ( talk) 17:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @Nableezy In reply to these edits: You are right. Debresser ( talk) 21:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Kurtis
Statement by Huldra
Statement by Sir JosephThis page is not the right place for this discussion. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by SerialjoepsychoThese sanctions are set up as a destructive way to end disruption that has not been reasonably taken care of by other means. When sanctions are placed the situation is generally, "enough is enough". If this is becoming a game that is in itself highly disruptive. Everyone here is a volunteer, from editor to admin but we don't have a shortage of editors. The opinion however has been bumped around a time or two that we have a shortage of admins. Admins time aside we also don't want to run off good editors. If -insert any editors name- is coming here for retaliation or any nonsense then the appropriate action should be taken, what ever that may be. A warning, the stated purpose of this noticeboard, or some punitive action. Case by case due to the facts of the situation. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 07:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by RolandRSurely Debresser's latest comments above
[1]
[2]
[3] are Statement by Icewhiz@ RolandR: - Debresser isn't under any topic ban, you should strike your assertion. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by NableezyUhh, Debresser, you claim the revert you made was undoing a "straightforward WP:ARBPIA3 violation". That kind of demonstrates the point that you have no idea what an ARBPIA3 violation is, the edit you reverted was emphatically not a revert. You just did a blanket revert without even a semblance of an explanation, and have as of yet declined to even pretend to justify it anywhere. You seem incapable of actually identifying what a revert is, in addition to the problem of understanding exactly how long 24 hours is. nableezy - 17:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved admins
|
Blocked for a week. Sandstein 11:21, 22 October 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 13zmz13
I (and another editor) have tried to make 13zmz13 understand that they shouldn't edit the IP articles (see here), alas they seem to think that rules are only for lesser mortals than themselves. Huldra ( talk) 20:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 13zmz13Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 13zmz13I have yet to receive even one iota of evidence that suggests Shurat HaDin is "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"... 13zmz13 ( talk) 07:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Shrike
Statement by RolandR
Statement by Zero0000This article is about an Israeli organization that fights "Israel's enemies" (mostly Arabs and Iranians) by means of law suits. Of the law suits prominent enough for their own article sections, approximately 75% directly concern the Arab-Israeli conflict. So the claim by 13zmz13 that it doesn't know the article is "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" is absolutely unbelievable. Even the specific section edited by 13zmz13 (most recently with an additional revert after this case was filed, also violating 1RR) concerns a law suit against "Palestinian solidarity activists". Please give this contempt for the truth the reception it deserves. Zero talk 10:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 13zmz13
|
Science Ape is indefinitely topic banned from Elizabeth Warren for bludgeoning and unpleasantness on article talk and edit warring at the article. The user may appeal the ban no more frequently than every six months. (by User:Bishonen) |
---|
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 ScienceApe
These personal attacks by itself show this editor needs a break from Elizabeth Warren (or a block) at the very least, but he has also engaged in edit warring (4 [6] [7] [8] [9] reverts in 30 hours), where he cried "synthesis" despite being explained how the source supports the sentence, and his conduct at the section shows self-evidently poor behaviour and ignoring what the sources are saying or people's responses. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ScienceApeStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ScienceApeStatement by (username)Result concerning ScienceApe
|
Onceinawhile topic banned, 3 months. AGK ■ 21:58, 2 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 Onceinawhile
@ Power~enwiki: Because only they broken the provision its his revert that violated our polices and started the edit war.Had he waited 24H and discuss this wouldn't happened -- Shrike ( talk) 20:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
[12] -- Shrike ( talk) 20:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Discussion concerning OnceinawhileStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by OnceinawhileI was not aware of the change in the rules. The banner was changed in a subtle but important way in May this year, ostensibly to clarify that the 24-hour rule for new edits applies from the point of the revert, not from the point of the original edit. I now see the change at ARBPIA took place even earlier than this, but it was not put on the banner until May this year. No-one ever notified me of these changes to ARBPIA, and I don't have the banner on my watchlist. I am not sure how I am supposed to keep up with these changes, but I apologize for not doing so. If I had been informed of the rule, I would have immediately self-reverted. I would like to make a show of good faith now, but I am not sure how I can. The only evidence I can offer is that that revert was my last edit to the page, and I did not participate in the ensuing edit war. I made 20 edits to the talk page instead. As to powerenwiki's comments, the nominator's subsequent participation in what had by then become a classic edit war puzzled me, because he and I had reasonably constructive set of discussions during the prior week on the article talk page, with no suggestion that he objected to the 5,622 bytes of information now in question, and also because he made no subsequent talk page contribution to justify his change of heart. Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by power~enwikiI see at least 6 different editors edit-warring over this change. Why is this the only editor that should be subject to Discretionary Sanctions? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Onceinawhile
|
No action taken. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 16:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Malik Shabazz
This complaint is about the 7 November edits - the October diffs are possibly stale and are are not as clear cut, however they were added to show a possible pattern.
Discussion concerning Malik ShabazzStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Malik ShabazzDespite Icewhiz's assertions, every mention of the state of Israel is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If Sandstein had intended to ban me from anything related to Israel, I think he would have said so. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 12:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by NableezyI very much disagree with the notion that removing an ARBPIA template from a page where it does not belong and was added without discussion by an involved editor in the topic area is covered here. If an uninvolved admin decides that a biblical concept is part of a conflict that began in the last hundred years or so then they can do it, but that is not what happened here. The second diff is wholly unrelated, neo-Nazis in the United States not exactly being a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. nableezy - 16:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by WarKosignWhile Sandstein is correct in noting that "it is conceivable that there is non-Arab antisemitic anti-Zionism", the edit in question was removing reference to this article, which discusses anti-Semitism in regard to I-P conflict. Moreover, the user was banned from editing "anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", and while anti-Semitism can be practiced by anyone, it is very much related to the conflict. “ WarKosign ” 12:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Malik Shabazz
|
There is no indication that 1l2l3k was made aware of discretionary sanctions prior to the violations. By being the subject of an AE request, 1l2l3k is, going forward, considered aware and advised to comply with any discretionary sanctions in place. If anyone believes that sanctions against the filer are warranted, this should be the subject of a separate request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 1l2l3k
User:1l2l3k
Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit.
The user is well-aware. The page is in the middle of an edit war and one user has been suspended for it already.
I don't understand how to request it. This is my first time, and I would like some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobulls ( talk • contribs) (I've moved this post here from the admin section where it was misplaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC))
I have notified him on his talk page. Discussion concerning 1l2l3kStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 1l2l3kMy two reverts were done at a distance of 4 days, not 24 hours. The first one was on 2 November and the second one on 6 November. Still, I self reverted, after seeing this report, for the sake of the peace among wikipedians who are discussing in the talk page, in order to promote a better working environment, and also since the reporting party is so upset about my revert. Further, when a discussion is ongoing, the reporting party should refrain from making edits, that's why I did my second revert (4 days after the first one). Also, I don't see any diffs above in his report to be able to say anything else. I'll get back to this report when the diffs are clearer as to what exactly I did wrong. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 17:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by IcewhizNot a violation - 1l2l3k didn't originally author anything - he reverted on 2 November, and again on 6 November - and regardless self reverted. In addition, one should note that filer has engaged in personal attacks and casting aspersions - on the Wikiproject Palestine page - 16:38, 6 November 2018, had edited in violation of the general prohibition on 18:03, 23 October 2018 (becoming extended confirmed due to subsequent editing on unrelated topics), and has also played loose with 1RR - performing reverts 24 hours + 13 minutes apart - 15:59, 5 November 2018, 16:12, 6 November 2018. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Shrike
Result concerning 1l2l3k
|
Not actionable (deficient request). Sandstein 13:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Warkosign
Unknown
He was aware of the rule, as is evident here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=867566165
I informed him on his talk page.
Discussion concerning WarkosignStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WarKosignGobulls did not specify what my supposed violation is, so I can't respond to that. This is the second time in less than a week the user fills a garbled enforcement request against an editor that happens to disagree with them. As with 1l2l3k above there doesn't seem to be any real violation. The user misinformed you that they notified me about this request: the user wrote on my talk page that they might report me, but not that they actually did. I was surprised to find my name here after responding to the message on my talk page. Please review Gobulls's behavior. To me it seems that such an inexperienced editor is not supposed to be editing in the area at all due to 500/30: they have 610 edits, 87 of them on I/P articles and many of these made before they had 500 edits. They have battleground mentality, accusing users who happen to disagree with them of vandalism and sock puppetry, reporting first 1l2l3k and then me for bogus violations. The user repeatedly inserted ( [19] [20] [21]) the same content despite several editors explaining on the talk page that it violates NPOV. “ WarKosign ” 10:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Jonney2000Someone should warn Gobulls ( talk · contribs) about making inaccurate complaints. Jonney2000 ( talk) 08:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by IcewhizDiff #2 in Gobulls's report is misleading, as Gobulls's "original revert" was on 15:57, 10 November 2018. Gobulls reverted the content a second time on 17:32, 11 November 2018 - which is misleadingly labelled as the "original revert". Icewhiz ( talk) 13:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Warkosign
|
Unblocked with the agreement of the blocking admin. Sandstein 18:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by יניב הורוןI made a mistake. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development is related to my topic ban. However, I didn't realize the article was under ARBPIA because it isn't extended-confirmed protected (that's why the IP that I reverted could make such an edit in the first place), there was no template and I was making a small edit about US definition of the organization. If you give me the chance, I'll never edit in that article again, not to mention I'll be extra careful in other unprotected articles. I apologize. יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Black Kite
Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by יניב הורוןResult of the appeal by יניב הורון
|
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 ( | 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? Zero talk 02:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC) To editor 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. Zero talk 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
|
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)
Done [29] 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
|
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
|
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:
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:
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)
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 end result is that you get articles bogged down with these one-sentence snippets that nobody is allowed to changeThis 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.
but according to the Trump article Jeff Sessions is still the attorney generalThat 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)
"four to six weeks as longstanding". [33] [34] 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)
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 | (requires original editor to participate on talk) | (requires original editor to participate 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)
No apparent interest from any uninvolved admins in either actioning or dismissing this. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:54, 22 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 Debresser
Blocked for 2 weeks for 1RR violation previously
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.
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)
Discussion concerning DebresserStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DebresserI 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 IcewhizDebresser'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. [35] [36] [37] Icewhiz ( talk) 17:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
Statement by HuldraI 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)
Statement by Seraphim SystemWith all due respect to BMK's views that
Statement by Zero0000Summary: 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. Zero talk 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. Zero talk 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. Zero talk 14:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by GovindaharihariSupport banning User:Debresser and User:Nableezy they are both disruptive in this area. Govindaharihari ( talk) 01:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianI'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
|