This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 100 | ← | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | → | Archive 110 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would it be a topic ban violation if an editor topic banned from "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan" edits Regional power with the purpose to debate the status of India or Pakistan?
The description of India and Pakistan in the context of regional power heavily focuses on conflicts between India and Pakistan. Reliable sources largely emphasize on conflicts between two countries in this subject when they discuss their " power". Some more factors including "regional power" that falls within the India-Pakistan conflict area are mentioned by this reliable source.
Historically we have considered subjects like Khalistan movement, Insurgency in Balochistan to be a violation of this particular topic ban since these subjects are also tied up with conflicts between India and Pakistan.
Even if an editor edits such subjects without actually making mention of India-Pakistan conflict, then still it could be still considered a topic ban violation because India-Pakistan conflict is among the major factor involved and ultimately the coverage of India-Pakistan conflict is significantly affected. Orientls ( talk)
I am generally suspicious of these generic "I won't tell you who I'm asking about" questions. ArbCom should decline to answer without background info. Doing it this way denies the targets of the filing the opportunity to comment. If ArbCom doesn't decline, someone should notify all the editors in the linked enforcement log addition. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Ivanvector at 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I am seeking clarification on whether the article on the geographical feature Siachen Glacier is covered by the scope of the aforementioned sanction in its entirety because it contains a section describing the Siachen conflict (actually two sections) which itself is a dispute between India and Pakistan. This is in response to DBigXray posting a note ( [2]) to SheriffIsInTown that their semi-automated filling of a reference within the description of the conflict ( [3]) was a violation of their topic ban, which they acknowledged and self-reverted ( [4]). While nobody here disagrees that this specific edit was strictly a topic ban violation, I've been challenged on my interpretation ( [5]) that hypothetical constructive edits to the significant portions of the article which do not concern the conflict would not violate this sanction, and so I am seeking clarification on that point.
I'd also like to point out that I restored the ref-fill edit as it was clearly constructive. I was then referred to the " banned means banned" section of the banning policy, which does not state that edits made in violation of a ban must be reverted; on the contrary it states that "obviously helpful changes ... can be allowed to stand". And I'd also like to draw the reviewers' attention to an essentially concurrent discussion ( [6]) in which another editor was sanctioned for attempted frivolous enforcement of this same decision. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Although, I am thankful that DBigXray's message on my user talk allowed me to remediate the blunder I made in form of an inadvertent violation of my ban, I am bit disappointed in the choice of language in their message. There is quite a bit of assumption of bad faith in their comment when they put it like "I saw that you are still editing Siachen Glacier", it conveys as if I was a long term habitual editor of that article and I am still continuing to edit that article in defiance of my ban but in reality that was my first ever edit on that article. I never ever edited that article in good ole days of freedom to edit any article on Wikipedia then why I would knowingly and willfully violate my topic ban just to fill a reference so assuming good faith, the message could have better read as "I see that you might have inadvertently violated your topic ban in this edit, please be careful in future as your ban is broadly construed and it does not matter whether you are fixing a reference or adding content about actual conflict." No matter the disagreements or different backgrounds, why cannot we give space to our fellow editors by assuming good faith towards them when we have a choice between both (good or bad). While we are here and being thankful to the admins to give me a leeway, my question to them and more specifically to ARBCOM members is that would not it be a good idea to exclude purely technical edits such as the one I made out of the scope of such topic bans. I am unable to see what could be the risk of such edits spiraling the conflict out of hands or starting an edit-war or battleground editing pattern which could be risks when an edit is truly content related. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that in this case, the entire article is subject to ARBCOM rulings. It's clear from looking at it that the conflict is more than a mere mention in this article.
Before I looked at the article I was expecting to opine that the parts of the article related to the geographical/geological/environmental/etc aspects of the glacier would be fine to edit. However, after having read the article it seems that everything is intimately tied up with the conflict, or its origins, history or effects. I would recommend topic banned users give this article a miss in its entirety.
Ivanvector is correct though regarding reinstating the self-reverted edit. WP:PROXYING is the relevant policy here - "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." [emphasis in original]. The edit in question was clearly productive, and there is no suggestion that it was performed at the direction of anyone else. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not have an affinity for boundary-testing-experiments but IMO, if Sheriff can manage to edit the article excluding anything tangential to the conflict, there's no problem.
The entire second paragraph of lead, etymology-section and drainage-section ought not be any related to the conflict.
I would advise against the seemingly-innocent section of Environmental issues courtesy that they are caused by the presence of forces et al, which links up to the conflict.
The rest of the sections are a clear-red-zone.
I concur with Ivan's restoration and commend him for rising above petty process-wonkery. Whilst I agree that this particular edit violated Sheriff's T-Ban, I don't have any idea as to why DBigXray asked for a revert; a plain note of caution would have been sufficient. ∯WBG converse 16:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the current action taken by Ivanvector and believe that this was a constructive edit. IMO, as long as we are here, there is an issue with this topic ban from the point of view of it's scope. Just to be clear I am not arguing for or against the ban or trying to dig into the reasons behind it. My intention here is to clearly list what is allowed and what is not allowed under this topic-ban, for the sake of the editors who are under the ban and other editors who edit in the general area. When the ban was crafted there was some degree of ambiguity to it (not certain if that was deliberate or not) which has led different administrators to derive different interpretations from it and impose it per their view. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to maybe make a small list of gray areas to remove procedural overhead of people reporting each other and leading to more discussions. I would present two scenarios which happened recently because of the aforementioned ambiguity. There was a WP:ANI discussion about an editor who was involved in the area and some editors who participated in the discussion were briefly banned since this was considered a violation of their topic ban. Another scenario which is currently playing out on another talk page discussion where there was a discussion about inclusion/exclusion of countries (along with India and Pakistan). I don't have a strong opinion in either of these cases or other gray areas but feel listing no-go zones and okay zones might be easier for all of us. Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 21:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Shrike at 13:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
In my view the only requirement to enforce the 500/30 remedy is notification via Template:Ds/alert. In recently closed WP:AE request [7].Admin AGK commented that user didn't received any clear warning so the AE action could not be taken in this regard.If the ARBCOM agree with AGK then I ask what kind of wording is required and add this as standardized template if not then clarify and amend the decision that the only requirement is notification about discretionary sanctions in the area.-- Shrike ( talk) 13:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd like some clarification here, seeing that I posted "Please note, that until you are
WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, you are not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages (see
WP:ARBPIAINTRO) - you can post talk page comments, but not edit the article themselves.
[8] specifically due to the 500/30 restriction and Wickey's prior edits - but this got dismissed at AE as a "helpful postscript"
. Now this was framed politely (and not - "if you continue editing ARBPIA articles, I will take you to AE and try to get you banned") - but I did specifically say Wickey was not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages. Are we not supposed to be polite? When posting this, I was suspicious this was Wickey-nl (and was considering a SPI filing), however I was framing this (per
WP:AGF) in the manner I would approach any new user.
Icewhiz (
talk) 14:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The committee reviewed and replaced the prior generation of standard discretionary sanctions in its 2013–14 term. I think we easily forget how troublesome the concept of "awareness" became in the community. At the time, we frequently heard from editors who – out of the blue – received sizable sanctions without having been formally made aware that standard discretionary sanctions were in effect. Obviously, a page notice on every affected article and talk page was impractical. We therefore adopted {{ alert}} (and its ancillary systems, {{ Z33}} and Filter 602).
The committee has adopted language ( WP:ARBPIA3#500/30) that the general restriction should be enforced, preferably, using extended-confirmed protection – or using reverts, warnings, blocks, etc.
In this matter, petitioner requested enforcement of the 30/500 general restriction – an entirely different remedy to discretionary sanctions. The enforcement requested was not to revert the respondent's edits or warn them about the general restriction. The enforcement requested was a heftier sanction (for anyone can revert). I denied that request. I am rarely minded to decline enforcement where there has been a breach.
The petitioner complained to me that the separate DS alert, served on the editor in summer 2018, included a warning that the 30/500 restriction was ineffect. However, the alert template links to many pages about discretionary sanctions; none discuss the general restriction. There was indeed a single sentence appended to the alert, but it read to me like a string of alphabet soup attempting to warn about one remedy in the same breath as another. The explanation was inadequate for a remedy that the committee, by its own language, thinks ought to be enforced by technical means. Respondent's edits were to pages that lacked the standard talk banner or editnotice.
For these reasons, I denied the request to hand down a more rigorous sanction. I do not think we need the general restriction modified or a new template created. I do suggest editors like petitioner use the existing language to begin warning (clearly) and reverting at the first opportunity rather than requesting enforcement at the second. AGK ■ 17:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, observers of the IP area will know that I don't often agree with Shrike and Icewhiz (and that is putting it diplomatically), but here I agree with them: with this alert on 15 July 2018, I would have considered Wickey warned, Huldra ( talk) 23:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I am also of the opinion that the warning was adequate. If the committee concludes that there was something inadequate about it, please spell out what the problem was so that we can issue better warnings in the future. Zero talk 09:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Guy Macon at 03:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
This involves the Parapsychology page. Morgan Leigh ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) quoted an arbcom case from 2007 [17] that says
"there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way" [18]
This conflicts with the lead of Parapsychology, which says
"It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists".
The discussion at Talk:Parapsychology seems relevant.
Please clarify: is there an arbcom ruling that mandates calling parapsychology a scientific discipline as opposed to pseudoscience? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
In the arbitrator views and discussion section, Rob13 correctly pointed out that "the Arbitration Committee does not rule on content". Apparently, Morgan Leigh did not get the message, because he wrote "Wikipedia has already ruled that..." [20], quoting the Findings of Fact section of a 2007 arbcom request for arbitration.
In more recent arbcom cases, the findings of facts always focus on user behavior, but it seems that things were a bit different in 2007, and the case (request, really -- that's something else that was done differently back then) has multiple findings of facts that really do look a lot like the Arbitration Committee ruling on content. In my considered opinion, a simple clarification saying that ancient arbcom requests that appear to rule on content should not be used the way Morgan Leigh used this one would clarify the situation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a Request for comment underway on the talk page regarding this issue.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Parapsychology#RfC:_Should_reliable_sources_that_defend_parapsychology_be_excluded_altogether? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Users left feedback they they didn't think the the RfC was neutral or specific enough. I have closed it and opened a new one here Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The focus of this dispute is about reliable sources. I have added reliable sources that defend parapsychology. Some of these sources are from the very same journals and academic publishers, and in once case from the exact same book, as sources that are in the article at present being used to criticise. Other editors are arguing that reliable sources cannot be used if they are written by parapsychologist because parapsychology is "plainly false", "we don't use poor sources like those you suggest, to falsely contradict good sources", and that my sources contained "stupid reasoning that only appeals to gullible simpletons who swallow any reasoning that points in the direction they like".
The article presently says that "It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists". I am trying to add cited sources that defend parapsychology to add balance. There are presently nineteen sources in the lede alone that criticize parapsychology and none that defend it. I tried to add one and it was reverted with the edit summary "reverted fringe pov". So I provided more and they were all reverted with a claim that it was "massive undue weight on a minority view".
Some examples of things I cited:
Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. American Psychologist, 73(5), pp 663-677. "Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses."
Braude, S.E., (2007), The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations, University of Chicago Press - "But in fact, those who sarcastically dismiss parapsychology typically know little. They haven’t carefully studied the data or issues for themselves."
However other editors are constantly removing them contenting that these sources cannot be cited at all on account of them being written by parapsychologists. So I added this source, which is by a critic of parapsychology:
Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Roediger III, Henry L.; Halpern, Diane F., Critical Thinking in Psychology, Cambridge University Press, p. 292, ISBN 0-521-60834-1, OCLC 69423179, "throughout the more than a century and a half of psychical research and parapsychology, informed criticism has been scarce. Critics have focused on a few select examples, usually the weakest cases; have misrepresented the evidence and the claims; and have been polemical."
But it was removed with a comment that said I was "cherry picking" quotes.
For a full list of other sources cited and removed please see the RfC. Thank you. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I took this issue to the NPOV noticeboard and notified all editors involved. I have only just learned, from Guy Macron's statement here, that this issue was taken to the fringe theories noticeboard by Simonm223, who did not notify me. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Some of the language in this 11 year-old case has apparently been misinterpreted to suggest Arbcom has ruled on a content issue. Suggest a clarification if needed, then close. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
At this moment I have nothing to add to this discussion. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Um, actually that arbitration case does exist: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know I did not bring up anything to do with Paranormal at the Fringe noticeboard. I brought up issues related to Parapsychology at the Fringe noticeboard. And while I'm rather exasperated by Morgan Leigh's conduct there, and did eventually suggest this as a venue for their tendentious editing at Parapsychology I didn't have the time or energy to post to Arb/E and as such didn't notify them as I didn't take an action on it. I don't believe you are required to notify a user to a discussion involving their edits on a wikiproject page which is not used for the issuing of any sanctions. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom does not make binding content decisions. It is also quite possible for both statements - that there is a discipline of studying it, and that psi itself is pseudoscience - to be simultaneously true. As the historical proponents of psi (Puthoff, for example) have retired, so study has focused more on the cognitive biases that cause people to believe in it, and the people working on the basis that it's real have become increasingly isolated. We're now in a situation where much of the argumentation for psi in the literature is motivated reasoning by people whose ideas have also been rejected. Guy ( Help!) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Amorymeltzer at 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Who can unprotect Great Famine (Ireland)?
This is a little weird and more than a little old, but this query started when I saw a
request at RFUP by
Deacon Vorbis that
Great Famine (Ireland) be unprotected. He noted that the earliest protection log there is
Tiptoety unprotecting the page, seeing no reason in the log, then reprotecting Per ArbCom mentorship
. In fact, the original protection log is under
The Great Hunger, where the page was indefinitely protected linking to
this message on the talkpage explaining the reasons.
In short, GIF remedy 1.1 put the page under the mentorship of three to five editors for at least one year in September 2007, and established a triumvirate in October 2007 ( talkpage notice). The mentors then put the page under indefinite semiprotection (as noted above) June 2008 (specifically Angusmclellan).
I have been unable to determine what, if anything, happened to the mentorship group, in particular how it was ended. I think it safe to assume it has ended; only Angusmclellan has been recently active, but as a former mentor I would assume they don't have any extra authority. Regardless, it is unclear to me who can undo a former and temporary group's indefinite actions: does it revert to the Committee or the Community? ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Note:
~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
If I tried to cut through the bureaucracy and simply unprotected the page, would anyone attempt to have me sanctioned? Although maybe ArbCom is bored these days, and we should give them a chance to do something and make them pass a motion... -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I realize I'm curtailing the fun, but I've unprotected, mainly per Brad. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC).
Occasionally Arbcom gets in the mood of tidying up old decisions. Let's hope they will conserve their energy and let this one sink back into obscurity without a new omnibus motion. There is one tiny issue as to whether the Famine page might fall under WP:TROUBLES, by current standards. If that question needs to be reviewed, my guess is that WP:AE may be sufficient, at least as a first step. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Kingsindian at 13:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
[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.
The rule, stated precisely, is supposed to handle the following situation:
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.
I will first enumerate the reasons, then go into details:
What's the solution? Go back to 1RR with no frills. The crying need is for a clear, simple bright line rule, which everybody understands, is proven to work, and most importantly: something ArbCom cannot screw up.
To illustrate the absurdities I'll take two recent AE cases, one from "each side" of the ARBPIA spectrum (just so tiresome arguments about partisan motives can be put to rest).
This AE case. The case is a violation because of the following argument: Person A is GHcool, Person B is Veritycheck. T1 is 20:22, 7 September. T2 is 19:48, 20 September. T3 is 22:44, 20 September.
This AE case. The case is a violation becaue of the following argument: Person A is Onceinawhile, Person B is Icewhiz. T1 is 27 October, T2 is 2 November, T3 is 2 November.
Two absurdities in these cases are worth highlighting:
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 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.
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.
ArbCom, please clean up the mess you've made. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
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?
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:
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)
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)
The intent of this rule is to avoid the following situation (which was allowed, and regularly happened under regular 1RR):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.)
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)
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. Zero talk 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? Zero talk 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. Zero talk 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. Zero talk 01:35, 8 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. Zero talk 12:25, 9 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. Zero talk 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. Zero talk 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. Zero talk 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. Zero talk 04:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 5 7 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)Editors may not re-revert a revert of their edit for at least 24 hours from the initial revert of their edit.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) is amended to read:
Further, the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) is amended to include the following remedies:
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offensewithout 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)
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. [24] ~ Rob13 Talk 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
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)
I am asking the following: Do you think that these annouchments have automatically a consensus of implementation or not? If not I would like to participate in the discussion. If yes I would like to start editing right away. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
PMC check my last comment above. It's not clear to me if these requests my WMF have consensus in the community. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Doug Weller ask permission to edit template namespace. The request in Village Pump says "We ask for your help in updating any templates that don't look correct." -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
RickinBaltimore i.e. I can comment in the bot policy page when it comes to other matters. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 20:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
RickinBaltimore Bots? I am not allowed to say that we need a bot to fix those? How I am supposed to file a bot request then? I am allowed to apply for BRFA's as far as I undertsand. Or not? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Hijiri88 at 12:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
(This is a drastically trimmed version, without extraneous diffs/permalinks/elaboration. I didn't think it was necessary to present multiple reasons other than "I don't want this anymore" when I first came here. Please see
here for the earlier text, which including multiple replies to WTT went well over 1000 words.)
I want this IBAN removed for the following reasons:
For the above reasons, I would very much like this IBAN removed, or at least amended in such a manner as to address the above issues.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Withdrawn Okay, I know when to admit defeat. Maybe I'll take the blatant IBAN violations in TH1980's statement below to AE (including a fairly explicit admission to having followed my edits quite closely for the two years since being told not to last time I took him to AE). Or maybe ANI, since the TBAN violations (which are almost as blatant) can't be handled on AE. I'm not sure if I'm allowed report TBAN violations in cases like this: I know if they weren't also IBAN violations I couldn't, but in this case I would be reporting them as IBAN violations first, and mentioning as an aside that they are also TBAN violations. I'm also not sure if it's technically acceptable to report ArbCom remedy violations on ANI rather than AE; Catflap's ;ast logged-in TBAN-violations were, but that might have been an anomaly. Anyway, I'll have to figure out these issues (someone explicitly telling me would be nice) before moving forward. But I really can't see anyone telling me I am required to continue to put up with this.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 12:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd prefer that my IBAN with Hijiri88 not be lifted. Just checking the diffs that were presented in the original Arbcom case, there are dozens of instances of Hijiri88 making false and harassing statements against me. (For example, [26]). There were also a lot of cases of Hijiri88 stalking me to articles that he had never edited before, just to revert reliably sourced and accurate information I had added. (For example, [27]). If Hijiri88 doesn't intend on continuing to engage in harassment or stalking, as he claims above, then there's really no reason to lift the IBAN.
Even in the text above, Hijiri88 is engaging in mischaracterization. As he points out, I did accidentally mention his name once, but I deleted that post within minutes, well before the AE case even opened. Hijiri88 left out the fact that in the same AE case, he was discovered to have mentioned me by name as well, in clear violation of the IBAN, and, in contrast, he did not delete these posts until after the AE case. He also claims that he amended a passage in the article about Korean influence on Japanese culture to better reflect the source, but that isn't true, since my passage was a direct, word-for-word quote from the original source. When I later expanded the article, I merely incidentally changed the direct quote to a paraphrase of the original, and that, of course, related to an edit Hijiri88 made long before the IBAN was imposed.
I suspect that lifting this IBAN could cause considerable disruption in the Wikipedia community. In the Arbcom case, Hijiri88 and Catflap08 received a mutual IBAN, which has now been lifted. However, if you look at Hijiri88's recent posts, he wastes an inordinate amount of Wikipedia community time calling Catflap08 " a NOTHERE troll, a tendentious POV-pusher, or too incompetent to read sources and accurately summarize what they say", posting a false claim on Catflap08's talk page that Catflap08 was blocked for harassing him (though a quick look at Catflap08's block record shows that that is clearly NOT the reason why he was blocked), ranting about Catflap08 at the administrator's noticeboard [28] [29], and mentioning Catflap08 in other contexts. [30] In other words, lifting an IBAN between Hijiri88 and another user is something we can't do lightly, as Hijiri88 uses that as an excuse to engage in a really egregious level of grave dancing. It would save the Wikipedia community's time if he remained unable to make similar harassing statements against me.
In general, I don't think Arbcom's enforcement of its decision has been very good. For example, Arbcom imposed a one-revert rule restriction on Hijiri88 as part of its original decision, but Hijiri88 doesn't appear to have ever truly abided by it. He simply asked other users to make the extra reverts for him. [31] [32] [33]
I would like my IBAN to be preserved, and I hope that it will actually be enforced, unlike so much else of the original Arbcom case. TH1980 ( talk) 23:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It would actually be useful if an Arb did answer Hijiri's revised question before this is closed. If they do, it might be useful to point out the hypocrisy of Hijiri's complaining the other editor has violated the i-ban in this request, when Hijiri has been doing the same thing (for one example, criticizing the quality of the other editor's edit). Hijiri should note that an admin might very well close such an AE request by unilaterally (no consensus required at AE) blocking him, so ANI (where consensus is required) would be safer for him. But at some point, I assume a critical mass of people are going to notice that Hijiri gets involved in conflict All. The. Time. It's his primary activity here. Who knows, perhaps the coming ANI thread will be the place where this happens. An Arb might be able to save him from himself by pointing this out here, before the thread is closed as withdrawn. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 15:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Petrarchan47 at 07:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I am appealing this action by Drmies: [38]
Background:
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". [46]
(The "third admin" was AGK who weighed in after the case was closed [47], and after Drmies reopened it, banned me indefinitely from all GMO-related pages. [48])
Dismissed requests may not be reopened. However, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee
Note: There has been considerable activity in my case over the last 24 hours. I would appreciate if you wait to close this case until I have responded further. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I really don't have much to say. This is an attempt to get something undone by way of a technicality, that some procedure was not followed or was broken--it seems to me that there is already broad agreement that this simply doesn't apply. For starters, there's Sandstein's "This does not prevent you from taking action if, unlike me, you believe it is warranted." More importantly, in my opinion, is the suggestion that everything is covered, or should be covered, by procedure. BTW, I think the community should be pleased that admins are willing to disagree and to consider and reconsider matters, and that more admins are willing to step up to the plate: all of us are making a small number of admins, including Sandstein, pull all the weight at AE. Drmies ( talk) 18:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
First, linking to instants in the discussion gives an incomplete picture. Here is the full enforcement thread.
Appellant argues that per this principle in a case decision, enforcement requests are carved in stone if an administrator {{ hat}}s it. Such a rule would be finicky, even for Wikipedia arbitration. Mercifully, decision principles are not binding. The actual rule is that requests are dismissed with a consensus of uninvolved administrators.
When the request was first closed, 1 administrator supported acting and 1 did not. Consensus: absent. Once a consensus emerged, 2 administrators favoured action and 1 was ambivalent. Consensus: existed. I think what happened between times is irrelevant. AGK ■ 20:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
.
∯WBG
converse 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. ∯WBG converse 09:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
fucking incompetentrises 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).
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)
Doug Weller, Newyorkbrad, Mkdw, Worm That Turned, Callanecc, PMC
Herein the confusion lies, and I request that the arbs please explain how they or any other admin can overrule the following Arbitration decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement#Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate)Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate)
We are dealing with a rather important decision that was made by ArbCom and I see no justification for changing that decision. Are you now saying that Sandstein did not dismiss an enforcement request because what I read was that, technically, he did dismiss it when he specifically stated that he did not agree the evidence was convincing and closed the case which is an administrative action. He also stated that the "reported diffs are confrontative, but they are mostly about content, not other users. Because no admin has taken action so far, and the thread is being used for what look like pointless recriminations, which I do not intend to read, I'm closing the thread now." That action was technically an administrative action of closing the case. I am excluding the ping to Drmies because anything stated after the decision to close is in opposition to the ArbCom ruling. We cannot keep pulling these stunts - and yes, that's what I believe has happened here and it has a chilling effect. For one thing, it is not fair to the accused to be endlessly drug through the mud only to survive and have another admin with a different POV drop the blade on the guillotine. That's as close to double indemnity as it gets and it's just plain wrong. When an admin has used their discretionary judgment based on the merits of a case and what other admins apparently have agreed to by their silence, and the finding of fact is that no action should be taken - well, that is the close; i.e. the dismissal of the case and as such no other admin can reopen it regardless of what the closing admin stated after his closing argument. Where does it say that an admin may close a case but allow others to take whatever action they deem appropriate when it involves DS?? Such an action is completely opposite of the ArbCom decision. I'm asking the arbs I've pinged to please show me the exact ruling that allows such a close to be overturned once it has been formally closed as no action. This case was not heard at AN/I or AN - it was heard at AE which to me means the decisions made by ArbCom should prevail. Atsme ✍🏻 📧 01:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
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.
Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment- Sandstein exercised his judgment to dismiss the thread while explicitly carving out an opening for Drmies to exercise his judgment if he disagreed with Sandstein's. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 100 | ← | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | → | Archive 110 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would it be a topic ban violation if an editor topic banned from "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan" edits Regional power with the purpose to debate the status of India or Pakistan?
The description of India and Pakistan in the context of regional power heavily focuses on conflicts between India and Pakistan. Reliable sources largely emphasize on conflicts between two countries in this subject when they discuss their " power". Some more factors including "regional power" that falls within the India-Pakistan conflict area are mentioned by this reliable source.
Historically we have considered subjects like Khalistan movement, Insurgency in Balochistan to be a violation of this particular topic ban since these subjects are also tied up with conflicts between India and Pakistan.
Even if an editor edits such subjects without actually making mention of India-Pakistan conflict, then still it could be still considered a topic ban violation because India-Pakistan conflict is among the major factor involved and ultimately the coverage of India-Pakistan conflict is significantly affected. Orientls ( talk)
I am generally suspicious of these generic "I won't tell you who I'm asking about" questions. ArbCom should decline to answer without background info. Doing it this way denies the targets of the filing the opportunity to comment. If ArbCom doesn't decline, someone should notify all the editors in the linked enforcement log addition. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Ivanvector at 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I am seeking clarification on whether the article on the geographical feature Siachen Glacier is covered by the scope of the aforementioned sanction in its entirety because it contains a section describing the Siachen conflict (actually two sections) which itself is a dispute between India and Pakistan. This is in response to DBigXray posting a note ( [2]) to SheriffIsInTown that their semi-automated filling of a reference within the description of the conflict ( [3]) was a violation of their topic ban, which they acknowledged and self-reverted ( [4]). While nobody here disagrees that this specific edit was strictly a topic ban violation, I've been challenged on my interpretation ( [5]) that hypothetical constructive edits to the significant portions of the article which do not concern the conflict would not violate this sanction, and so I am seeking clarification on that point.
I'd also like to point out that I restored the ref-fill edit as it was clearly constructive. I was then referred to the " banned means banned" section of the banning policy, which does not state that edits made in violation of a ban must be reverted; on the contrary it states that "obviously helpful changes ... can be allowed to stand". And I'd also like to draw the reviewers' attention to an essentially concurrent discussion ( [6]) in which another editor was sanctioned for attempted frivolous enforcement of this same decision. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Although, I am thankful that DBigXray's message on my user talk allowed me to remediate the blunder I made in form of an inadvertent violation of my ban, I am bit disappointed in the choice of language in their message. There is quite a bit of assumption of bad faith in their comment when they put it like "I saw that you are still editing Siachen Glacier", it conveys as if I was a long term habitual editor of that article and I am still continuing to edit that article in defiance of my ban but in reality that was my first ever edit on that article. I never ever edited that article in good ole days of freedom to edit any article on Wikipedia then why I would knowingly and willfully violate my topic ban just to fill a reference so assuming good faith, the message could have better read as "I see that you might have inadvertently violated your topic ban in this edit, please be careful in future as your ban is broadly construed and it does not matter whether you are fixing a reference or adding content about actual conflict." No matter the disagreements or different backgrounds, why cannot we give space to our fellow editors by assuming good faith towards them when we have a choice between both (good or bad). While we are here and being thankful to the admins to give me a leeway, my question to them and more specifically to ARBCOM members is that would not it be a good idea to exclude purely technical edits such as the one I made out of the scope of such topic bans. I am unable to see what could be the risk of such edits spiraling the conflict out of hands or starting an edit-war or battleground editing pattern which could be risks when an edit is truly content related. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that in this case, the entire article is subject to ARBCOM rulings. It's clear from looking at it that the conflict is more than a mere mention in this article.
Before I looked at the article I was expecting to opine that the parts of the article related to the geographical/geological/environmental/etc aspects of the glacier would be fine to edit. However, after having read the article it seems that everything is intimately tied up with the conflict, or its origins, history or effects. I would recommend topic banned users give this article a miss in its entirety.
Ivanvector is correct though regarding reinstating the self-reverted edit. WP:PROXYING is the relevant policy here - "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." [emphasis in original]. The edit in question was clearly productive, and there is no suggestion that it was performed at the direction of anyone else. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not have an affinity for boundary-testing-experiments but IMO, if Sheriff can manage to edit the article excluding anything tangential to the conflict, there's no problem.
The entire second paragraph of lead, etymology-section and drainage-section ought not be any related to the conflict.
I would advise against the seemingly-innocent section of Environmental issues courtesy that they are caused by the presence of forces et al, which links up to the conflict.
The rest of the sections are a clear-red-zone.
I concur with Ivan's restoration and commend him for rising above petty process-wonkery. Whilst I agree that this particular edit violated Sheriff's T-Ban, I don't have any idea as to why DBigXray asked for a revert; a plain note of caution would have been sufficient. ∯WBG converse 16:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the current action taken by Ivanvector and believe that this was a constructive edit. IMO, as long as we are here, there is an issue with this topic ban from the point of view of it's scope. Just to be clear I am not arguing for or against the ban or trying to dig into the reasons behind it. My intention here is to clearly list what is allowed and what is not allowed under this topic-ban, for the sake of the editors who are under the ban and other editors who edit in the general area. When the ban was crafted there was some degree of ambiguity to it (not certain if that was deliberate or not) which has led different administrators to derive different interpretations from it and impose it per their view. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to maybe make a small list of gray areas to remove procedural overhead of people reporting each other and leading to more discussions. I would present two scenarios which happened recently because of the aforementioned ambiguity. There was a WP:ANI discussion about an editor who was involved in the area and some editors who participated in the discussion were briefly banned since this was considered a violation of their topic ban. Another scenario which is currently playing out on another talk page discussion where there was a discussion about inclusion/exclusion of countries (along with India and Pakistan). I don't have a strong opinion in either of these cases or other gray areas but feel listing no-go zones and okay zones might be easier for all of us. Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 21:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Shrike at 13:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
In my view the only requirement to enforce the 500/30 remedy is notification via Template:Ds/alert. In recently closed WP:AE request [7].Admin AGK commented that user didn't received any clear warning so the AE action could not be taken in this regard.If the ARBCOM agree with AGK then I ask what kind of wording is required and add this as standardized template if not then clarify and amend the decision that the only requirement is notification about discretionary sanctions in the area.-- Shrike ( talk) 13:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd like some clarification here, seeing that I posted "Please note, that until you are
WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, you are not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages (see
WP:ARBPIAINTRO) - you can post talk page comments, but not edit the article themselves.
[8] specifically due to the 500/30 restriction and Wickey's prior edits - but this got dismissed at AE as a "helpful postscript"
. Now this was framed politely (and not - "if you continue editing ARBPIA articles, I will take you to AE and try to get you banned") - but I did specifically say Wickey was not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages. Are we not supposed to be polite? When posting this, I was suspicious this was Wickey-nl (and was considering a SPI filing), however I was framing this (per
WP:AGF) in the manner I would approach any new user.
Icewhiz (
talk) 14:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The committee reviewed and replaced the prior generation of standard discretionary sanctions in its 2013–14 term. I think we easily forget how troublesome the concept of "awareness" became in the community. At the time, we frequently heard from editors who – out of the blue – received sizable sanctions without having been formally made aware that standard discretionary sanctions were in effect. Obviously, a page notice on every affected article and talk page was impractical. We therefore adopted {{ alert}} (and its ancillary systems, {{ Z33}} and Filter 602).
The committee has adopted language ( WP:ARBPIA3#500/30) that the general restriction should be enforced, preferably, using extended-confirmed protection – or using reverts, warnings, blocks, etc.
In this matter, petitioner requested enforcement of the 30/500 general restriction – an entirely different remedy to discretionary sanctions. The enforcement requested was not to revert the respondent's edits or warn them about the general restriction. The enforcement requested was a heftier sanction (for anyone can revert). I denied that request. I am rarely minded to decline enforcement where there has been a breach.
The petitioner complained to me that the separate DS alert, served on the editor in summer 2018, included a warning that the 30/500 restriction was ineffect. However, the alert template links to many pages about discretionary sanctions; none discuss the general restriction. There was indeed a single sentence appended to the alert, but it read to me like a string of alphabet soup attempting to warn about one remedy in the same breath as another. The explanation was inadequate for a remedy that the committee, by its own language, thinks ought to be enforced by technical means. Respondent's edits were to pages that lacked the standard talk banner or editnotice.
For these reasons, I denied the request to hand down a more rigorous sanction. I do not think we need the general restriction modified or a new template created. I do suggest editors like petitioner use the existing language to begin warning (clearly) and reverting at the first opportunity rather than requesting enforcement at the second. AGK ■ 17:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, observers of the IP area will know that I don't often agree with Shrike and Icewhiz (and that is putting it diplomatically), but here I agree with them: with this alert on 15 July 2018, I would have considered Wickey warned, Huldra ( talk) 23:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I am also of the opinion that the warning was adequate. If the committee concludes that there was something inadequate about it, please spell out what the problem was so that we can issue better warnings in the future. Zero talk 09:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Guy Macon at 03:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
This involves the Parapsychology page. Morgan Leigh ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) quoted an arbcom case from 2007 [17] that says
"there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way" [18]
This conflicts with the lead of Parapsychology, which says
"It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists".
The discussion at Talk:Parapsychology seems relevant.
Please clarify: is there an arbcom ruling that mandates calling parapsychology a scientific discipline as opposed to pseudoscience? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
In the arbitrator views and discussion section, Rob13 correctly pointed out that "the Arbitration Committee does not rule on content". Apparently, Morgan Leigh did not get the message, because he wrote "Wikipedia has already ruled that..." [20], quoting the Findings of Fact section of a 2007 arbcom request for arbitration.
In more recent arbcom cases, the findings of facts always focus on user behavior, but it seems that things were a bit different in 2007, and the case (request, really -- that's something else that was done differently back then) has multiple findings of facts that really do look a lot like the Arbitration Committee ruling on content. In my considered opinion, a simple clarification saying that ancient arbcom requests that appear to rule on content should not be used the way Morgan Leigh used this one would clarify the situation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a Request for comment underway on the talk page regarding this issue.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Parapsychology#RfC:_Should_reliable_sources_that_defend_parapsychology_be_excluded_altogether? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Users left feedback they they didn't think the the RfC was neutral or specific enough. I have closed it and opened a new one here Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The focus of this dispute is about reliable sources. I have added reliable sources that defend parapsychology. Some of these sources are from the very same journals and academic publishers, and in once case from the exact same book, as sources that are in the article at present being used to criticise. Other editors are arguing that reliable sources cannot be used if they are written by parapsychologist because parapsychology is "plainly false", "we don't use poor sources like those you suggest, to falsely contradict good sources", and that my sources contained "stupid reasoning that only appeals to gullible simpletons who swallow any reasoning that points in the direction they like".
The article presently says that "It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists". I am trying to add cited sources that defend parapsychology to add balance. There are presently nineteen sources in the lede alone that criticize parapsychology and none that defend it. I tried to add one and it was reverted with the edit summary "reverted fringe pov". So I provided more and they were all reverted with a claim that it was "massive undue weight on a minority view".
Some examples of things I cited:
Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. American Psychologist, 73(5), pp 663-677. "Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses."
Braude, S.E., (2007), The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations, University of Chicago Press - "But in fact, those who sarcastically dismiss parapsychology typically know little. They haven’t carefully studied the data or issues for themselves."
However other editors are constantly removing them contenting that these sources cannot be cited at all on account of them being written by parapsychologists. So I added this source, which is by a critic of parapsychology:
Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Roediger III, Henry L.; Halpern, Diane F., Critical Thinking in Psychology, Cambridge University Press, p. 292, ISBN 0-521-60834-1, OCLC 69423179, "throughout the more than a century and a half of psychical research and parapsychology, informed criticism has been scarce. Critics have focused on a few select examples, usually the weakest cases; have misrepresented the evidence and the claims; and have been polemical."
But it was removed with a comment that said I was "cherry picking" quotes.
For a full list of other sources cited and removed please see the RfC. Thank you. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I took this issue to the NPOV noticeboard and notified all editors involved. I have only just learned, from Guy Macron's statement here, that this issue was taken to the fringe theories noticeboard by Simonm223, who did not notify me. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Some of the language in this 11 year-old case has apparently been misinterpreted to suggest Arbcom has ruled on a content issue. Suggest a clarification if needed, then close. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
At this moment I have nothing to add to this discussion. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Um, actually that arbitration case does exist: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know I did not bring up anything to do with Paranormal at the Fringe noticeboard. I brought up issues related to Parapsychology at the Fringe noticeboard. And while I'm rather exasperated by Morgan Leigh's conduct there, and did eventually suggest this as a venue for their tendentious editing at Parapsychology I didn't have the time or energy to post to Arb/E and as such didn't notify them as I didn't take an action on it. I don't believe you are required to notify a user to a discussion involving their edits on a wikiproject page which is not used for the issuing of any sanctions. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom does not make binding content decisions. It is also quite possible for both statements - that there is a discipline of studying it, and that psi itself is pseudoscience - to be simultaneously true. As the historical proponents of psi (Puthoff, for example) have retired, so study has focused more on the cognitive biases that cause people to believe in it, and the people working on the basis that it's real have become increasingly isolated. We're now in a situation where much of the argumentation for psi in the literature is motivated reasoning by people whose ideas have also been rejected. Guy ( Help!) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Amorymeltzer at 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Who can unprotect Great Famine (Ireland)?
This is a little weird and more than a little old, but this query started when I saw a
request at RFUP by
Deacon Vorbis that
Great Famine (Ireland) be unprotected. He noted that the earliest protection log there is
Tiptoety unprotecting the page, seeing no reason in the log, then reprotecting Per ArbCom mentorship
. In fact, the original protection log is under
The Great Hunger, where the page was indefinitely protected linking to
this message on the talkpage explaining the reasons.
In short, GIF remedy 1.1 put the page under the mentorship of three to five editors for at least one year in September 2007, and established a triumvirate in October 2007 ( talkpage notice). The mentors then put the page under indefinite semiprotection (as noted above) June 2008 (specifically Angusmclellan).
I have been unable to determine what, if anything, happened to the mentorship group, in particular how it was ended. I think it safe to assume it has ended; only Angusmclellan has been recently active, but as a former mentor I would assume they don't have any extra authority. Regardless, it is unclear to me who can undo a former and temporary group's indefinite actions: does it revert to the Committee or the Community? ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Note:
~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
If I tried to cut through the bureaucracy and simply unprotected the page, would anyone attempt to have me sanctioned? Although maybe ArbCom is bored these days, and we should give them a chance to do something and make them pass a motion... -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I realize I'm curtailing the fun, but I've unprotected, mainly per Brad. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC).
Occasionally Arbcom gets in the mood of tidying up old decisions. Let's hope they will conserve their energy and let this one sink back into obscurity without a new omnibus motion. There is one tiny issue as to whether the Famine page might fall under WP:TROUBLES, by current standards. If that question needs to be reviewed, my guess is that WP:AE may be sufficient, at least as a first step. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Kingsindian at 13:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
[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.
The rule, stated precisely, is supposed to handle the following situation:
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.
I will first enumerate the reasons, then go into details:
What's the solution? Go back to 1RR with no frills. The crying need is for a clear, simple bright line rule, which everybody understands, is proven to work, and most importantly: something ArbCom cannot screw up.
To illustrate the absurdities I'll take two recent AE cases, one from "each side" of the ARBPIA spectrum (just so tiresome arguments about partisan motives can be put to rest).
This AE case. The case is a violation because of the following argument: Person A is GHcool, Person B is Veritycheck. T1 is 20:22, 7 September. T2 is 19:48, 20 September. T3 is 22:44, 20 September.
This AE case. The case is a violation becaue of the following argument: Person A is Onceinawhile, Person B is Icewhiz. T1 is 27 October, T2 is 2 November, T3 is 2 November.
Two absurdities in these cases are worth highlighting:
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 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.
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.
ArbCom, please clean up the mess you've made. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
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?
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:
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)
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)
The intent of this rule is to avoid the following situation (which was allowed, and regularly happened under regular 1RR):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.)
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)
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. Zero talk 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? Zero talk 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. Zero talk 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. Zero talk 01:35, 8 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. Zero talk 12:25, 9 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. Zero talk 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. Zero talk 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. Zero talk 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. Zero talk 04:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 5 7 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)Editors may not re-revert a revert of their edit for at least 24 hours from the initial revert of their edit.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) is amended to read:
Further, the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) is amended to include the following remedies:
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offensewithout 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)
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. [24] ~ Rob13 Talk 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
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)
I am asking the following: Do you think that these annouchments have automatically a consensus of implementation or not? If not I would like to participate in the discussion. If yes I would like to start editing right away. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
PMC check my last comment above. It's not clear to me if these requests my WMF have consensus in the community. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Doug Weller ask permission to edit template namespace. The request in Village Pump says "We ask for your help in updating any templates that don't look correct." -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
RickinBaltimore i.e. I can comment in the bot policy page when it comes to other matters. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 20:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
RickinBaltimore Bots? I am not allowed to say that we need a bot to fix those? How I am supposed to file a bot request then? I am allowed to apply for BRFA's as far as I undertsand. Or not? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Hijiri88 at 12:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
(This is a drastically trimmed version, without extraneous diffs/permalinks/elaboration. I didn't think it was necessary to present multiple reasons other than "I don't want this anymore" when I first came here. Please see
here for the earlier text, which including multiple replies to WTT went well over 1000 words.)
I want this IBAN removed for the following reasons:
For the above reasons, I would very much like this IBAN removed, or at least amended in such a manner as to address the above issues.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Withdrawn Okay, I know when to admit defeat. Maybe I'll take the blatant IBAN violations in TH1980's statement below to AE (including a fairly explicit admission to having followed my edits quite closely for the two years since being told not to last time I took him to AE). Or maybe ANI, since the TBAN violations (which are almost as blatant) can't be handled on AE. I'm not sure if I'm allowed report TBAN violations in cases like this: I know if they weren't also IBAN violations I couldn't, but in this case I would be reporting them as IBAN violations first, and mentioning as an aside that they are also TBAN violations. I'm also not sure if it's technically acceptable to report ArbCom remedy violations on ANI rather than AE; Catflap's ;ast logged-in TBAN-violations were, but that might have been an anomaly. Anyway, I'll have to figure out these issues (someone explicitly telling me would be nice) before moving forward. But I really can't see anyone telling me I am required to continue to put up with this.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 12:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd prefer that my IBAN with Hijiri88 not be lifted. Just checking the diffs that were presented in the original Arbcom case, there are dozens of instances of Hijiri88 making false and harassing statements against me. (For example, [26]). There were also a lot of cases of Hijiri88 stalking me to articles that he had never edited before, just to revert reliably sourced and accurate information I had added. (For example, [27]). If Hijiri88 doesn't intend on continuing to engage in harassment or stalking, as he claims above, then there's really no reason to lift the IBAN.
Even in the text above, Hijiri88 is engaging in mischaracterization. As he points out, I did accidentally mention his name once, but I deleted that post within minutes, well before the AE case even opened. Hijiri88 left out the fact that in the same AE case, he was discovered to have mentioned me by name as well, in clear violation of the IBAN, and, in contrast, he did not delete these posts until after the AE case. He also claims that he amended a passage in the article about Korean influence on Japanese culture to better reflect the source, but that isn't true, since my passage was a direct, word-for-word quote from the original source. When I later expanded the article, I merely incidentally changed the direct quote to a paraphrase of the original, and that, of course, related to an edit Hijiri88 made long before the IBAN was imposed.
I suspect that lifting this IBAN could cause considerable disruption in the Wikipedia community. In the Arbcom case, Hijiri88 and Catflap08 received a mutual IBAN, which has now been lifted. However, if you look at Hijiri88's recent posts, he wastes an inordinate amount of Wikipedia community time calling Catflap08 " a NOTHERE troll, a tendentious POV-pusher, or too incompetent to read sources and accurately summarize what they say", posting a false claim on Catflap08's talk page that Catflap08 was blocked for harassing him (though a quick look at Catflap08's block record shows that that is clearly NOT the reason why he was blocked), ranting about Catflap08 at the administrator's noticeboard [28] [29], and mentioning Catflap08 in other contexts. [30] In other words, lifting an IBAN between Hijiri88 and another user is something we can't do lightly, as Hijiri88 uses that as an excuse to engage in a really egregious level of grave dancing. It would save the Wikipedia community's time if he remained unable to make similar harassing statements against me.
In general, I don't think Arbcom's enforcement of its decision has been very good. For example, Arbcom imposed a one-revert rule restriction on Hijiri88 as part of its original decision, but Hijiri88 doesn't appear to have ever truly abided by it. He simply asked other users to make the extra reverts for him. [31] [32] [33]
I would like my IBAN to be preserved, and I hope that it will actually be enforced, unlike so much else of the original Arbcom case. TH1980 ( talk) 23:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It would actually be useful if an Arb did answer Hijiri's revised question before this is closed. If they do, it might be useful to point out the hypocrisy of Hijiri's complaining the other editor has violated the i-ban in this request, when Hijiri has been doing the same thing (for one example, criticizing the quality of the other editor's edit). Hijiri should note that an admin might very well close such an AE request by unilaterally (no consensus required at AE) blocking him, so ANI (where consensus is required) would be safer for him. But at some point, I assume a critical mass of people are going to notice that Hijiri gets involved in conflict All. The. Time. It's his primary activity here. Who knows, perhaps the coming ANI thread will be the place where this happens. An Arb might be able to save him from himself by pointing this out here, before the thread is closed as withdrawn. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 15:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Petrarchan47 at 07:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I am appealing this action by Drmies: [38]
Background:
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". [46]
(The "third admin" was AGK who weighed in after the case was closed [47], and after Drmies reopened it, banned me indefinitely from all GMO-related pages. [48])
Dismissed requests may not be reopened. However, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee
Note: There has been considerable activity in my case over the last 24 hours. I would appreciate if you wait to close this case until I have responded further. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I really don't have much to say. This is an attempt to get something undone by way of a technicality, that some procedure was not followed or was broken--it seems to me that there is already broad agreement that this simply doesn't apply. For starters, there's Sandstein's "This does not prevent you from taking action if, unlike me, you believe it is warranted." More importantly, in my opinion, is the suggestion that everything is covered, or should be covered, by procedure. BTW, I think the community should be pleased that admins are willing to disagree and to consider and reconsider matters, and that more admins are willing to step up to the plate: all of us are making a small number of admins, including Sandstein, pull all the weight at AE. Drmies ( talk) 18:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
First, linking to instants in the discussion gives an incomplete picture. Here is the full enforcement thread.
Appellant argues that per this principle in a case decision, enforcement requests are carved in stone if an administrator {{ hat}}s it. Such a rule would be finicky, even for Wikipedia arbitration. Mercifully, decision principles are not binding. The actual rule is that requests are dismissed with a consensus of uninvolved administrators.
When the request was first closed, 1 administrator supported acting and 1 did not. Consensus: absent. Once a consensus emerged, 2 administrators favoured action and 1 was ambivalent. Consensus: existed. I think what happened between times is irrelevant. AGK ■ 20:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
.
∯WBG
converse 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. ∯WBG converse 09:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
fucking incompetentrises 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).
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)
Doug Weller, Newyorkbrad, Mkdw, Worm That Turned, Callanecc, PMC
Herein the confusion lies, and I request that the arbs please explain how they or any other admin can overrule the following Arbitration decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement#Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate)Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate)
We are dealing with a rather important decision that was made by ArbCom and I see no justification for changing that decision. Are you now saying that Sandstein did not dismiss an enforcement request because what I read was that, technically, he did dismiss it when he specifically stated that he did not agree the evidence was convincing and closed the case which is an administrative action. He also stated that the "reported diffs are confrontative, but they are mostly about content, not other users. Because no admin has taken action so far, and the thread is being used for what look like pointless recriminations, which I do not intend to read, I'm closing the thread now." That action was technically an administrative action of closing the case. I am excluding the ping to Drmies because anything stated after the decision to close is in opposition to the ArbCom ruling. We cannot keep pulling these stunts - and yes, that's what I believe has happened here and it has a chilling effect. For one thing, it is not fair to the accused to be endlessly drug through the mud only to survive and have another admin with a different POV drop the blade on the guillotine. That's as close to double indemnity as it gets and it's just plain wrong. When an admin has used their discretionary judgment based on the merits of a case and what other admins apparently have agreed to by their silence, and the finding of fact is that no action should be taken - well, that is the close; i.e. the dismissal of the case and as such no other admin can reopen it regardless of what the closing admin stated after his closing argument. Where does it say that an admin may close a case but allow others to take whatever action they deem appropriate when it involves DS?? Such an action is completely opposite of the ArbCom decision. I'm asking the arbs I've pinged to please show me the exact ruling that allows such a close to be overturned once it has been formally closed as no action. This case was not heard at AN/I or AN - it was heard at AE which to me means the decisions made by ArbCom should prevail. Atsme ✍🏻 📧 01:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
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.
Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment- Sandstein exercised his judgment to dismiss the thread while explicitly carving out an opening for Drmies to exercise his judgment if he disagreed with Sandstein's. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)