This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement



Contents

Calton

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

Request concerning Calton

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

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

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

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

Further notes:

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

 Done [1]

Discussion concerning Calton

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

Statement by Calton

Statement by Govindaharihari

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

Statement by power~enwiki

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

Statement by Legacypac

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

Statement by Adavidb

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Calton

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Calton is clearly aware of this filing [2], and has apparently chosen not to respond. It does look to me that both Calton and JFG ([3], [4]) violated 1RR and consensus required, and I would propose topic banning both from the Bannon article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • While I'd prefer to get a sanity check before proceeding here, if no other admins have any comments, I'll proceed as proposed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I interpreting the silence by other administrators as a collective shrug. Looking at the underlying content dispute (whether to link 2 articles in a See Also section) I can't help but add to that shrug myself. Looking at the article history it looks like there are 3 users who have technically violated the consensus required restriction (including Calton) and 2 users (Calton and JFG) who have technically violated 1RR with 23 hour reverts. I'm not familiar with Calton but I have observed JFG's editing in the American Politics topic area. My own perception of JFG is that while they typically take predictable positions on issues that divide editors favoring different points of view, they are also more likely to collaborate, compromise, and respect consensus than a lot of the other players in the topic area. I'm still not sure of the best way to handle this, but when I see the "consensus required" sanction being used as a revert rationale it makes me wonder if we need to rethink the sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur in the shrug. I normally expect the administrators who place page-level sanctions to enforce them. In this case, that would be Doug Weller, who created Template:Editnotices/Page/Steve Bannon. Sandstein 16:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's reasonable to expect Admins who place page-level sanctions to be the prime enforcer. Having said that, I've changed my mind about consensus required. @Awilley: if you have time could you remove that? If not, I'll try to find time but I'm pretty busy and the talk page header change looks complicated. That was Coffee's design. Edit summaries are easy. Maybe there's another TP header? I'll have a look. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @Doug Weller: I'll see what I can do. I've been thinking about trying to add options to the template so the admin placing the restriction can choose whether to do just 1RR or 1RR and consensus required. Also I just realized the template you used is a different template than the one I recently got consensus at AN to modify, and it affects another hundred or so different pages. Luckily it doesn't include the civility restriction, so I shouldn't need to go back to AN for a second consensus to make the changes necessary to bring some uniformity. ~Awilley (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @Doug Weller: I do think that it is reasonable to expect sanctioning admins to undertake any required enforcement work. Adding sanctions templates to an article generates enforcement work that other admins may not be willing to undertake – especially when, as in my case, I find the templated sanctions themselves somewhat questionable. Sandstein 15:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
            • I don't think that an ordinary DS with 1RR needs to be mainly enforced by whoever added it. I take your point about consensus required and Coffee, who created the template, used to keep track of consensus on talk pages, which frankly I think is too big a burden to expect anyone to do. However, the issue for Steve Bannon is now moot as both the edit summary and the talk page banner have had consensus required removed. @Awilley: I hope you haven't spent a lot of time on it, AGK did it for me. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pretty much in agreement with Seraphimblade, Awilley, and Doug. I see 1RR violations by both Calton and JFG. Both are pretty stale at this point, and it's hard to argue that a block would be anything but punitive in either case. That said, they're both experienced editors and they should both have known better. I'd favor a logged warning to each of them about the 1RR violations, and no further sanctions. I am disappointed in JFG; it's either strikingly clueless or actively hypocritical to report someone for a 1RR violation while simultaneously violating 1RR oneself, and insofar as trouts and warnings are handed out, I'd come down a little harder on him for that reason.

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

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

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

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

Debresser

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

Request concerning Debresser

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

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

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

Blocked for 2 weeks for 1RR violation previously

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified

Discussion concerning Debresser

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

Statement by Debresser

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

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

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

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

Statement by Icewhiz

Debresser's edits were nearly consecutive - his editing that day was all in a 6 minute window, 23:06-23:12, with an intervening edit by Al-Andalusi in 23:09 to a different paragraph, which could've quite possibly gone unnoticed in the space of consecutive edits. Furthermore, the second cited revert would quite possibly fall under WP:NOT3RR(7) as it makes the assertion that a BLP is a "Zionist historian" - this assertion is not supported by the cited journal article, is not the common way this BLP is described, and "Zionist" itself is used a pejorative by some.[5][6][7] Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Statement by Beyond My Ken

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

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

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

Statement by Huldra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Seraphim System

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

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

Statement by Zero0000

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

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

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

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

Statement by Govindaharihari

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

Statement by Kingsindian

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Debresser

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Onceinawhile

The topic ban is hereby lifted. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Onceinawhile (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
3 month topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, imposed [8], logged [9]
Administrator imposing the sanction 
AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

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

Statement by Onceinawhile

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

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

Since the sanction, a few things have become clear:

  • The closing admin’s sanction was shown to be unprecedented in its severity (of 8 previous “original author” cases, only 2 were sanctioned previously - but both with multiple other reverts) [10]; this was not disputed
  • The closing admin’s closing comment about the article being “in the throes of an edit war” at the time of my edit was shown to be incorrect [11]; this was not disputed
  • The “original author” rule itself was shown to have lost the consent of the community (see ongoing discussion at WP:ARCA)
  • That I had been unaware of the rule was acknowledged by the closing admin and confirmed subsequently by the nominator’s failed search to disprove my statement.[12]
  • The nominator’s subordinate claim of OR (re content dispute, but it goes to my reputation) was shown to have no substance, relating solely to whether the article title should be “short form” or “long form” (multiple threads here).

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

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

Statement by AGK

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by involved editor Huldra

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

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

Statement by Debresser

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

Statement by Malik Shabazz

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

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

Statement by Zero0000

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

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

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

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

Statement by Kurtis

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

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

Statement by Kingsindian

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

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

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

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Onceinawhile

Statement by JFG

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

Result of the appeal by Onceinawhile

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

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

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

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

Warkosign

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

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

Request concerning Warkosign

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

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

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

WP:A/I/PIA

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

Unknown

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

He was aware of the rule, as is evident here: [en.wikipedia.org]

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

I informed him on his talk page.


Discussion concerning Warkosign

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

Statement by WarKosign

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

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

Please review Gobulls's behavior. To me it seems that such an inexperienced editor is not supposed to be editing in the area at all due to 500/30: they have 610 edits, 87 of them on I/P articles and many of these made before they had 500 edits. They have battleground mentality, accusing users who happen to disagree with them of vandalism and sock puppetry, reporting first 1l2l3k and then me for bogus violations. The user repeatedly inserted ([13] [14] [15]) the same content despite several editors explaining on the talk page that it violates NPOV. WarKosign 10:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jonney2000

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

Statement by Icewhiz

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

Result concerning Warkosign

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by יניב הורון

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

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

Appealing user 
יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
3 week block for topic ban violation: [16]
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
[17]

Statement by יניב הורון

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

Statement by Black Kite

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

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by יניב הורון

Result of the appeal by יניב הורון

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

Rethinking consensus-required

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

All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collapsed (not closed) discussion about the proper venue
I think your ideas have merit, but wouldn't it be better to bring it up on the Village Pump, with notification on Centralized Discussions? Or is there some reason that I'm not seeing that AE is a better venue? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I agree, although Awilley does have merit - after all, AE contributors will have the most experience in this area. But I think we need ideas from the wider community, so would suggest moving this to WP:VPP. Bellezzasolo Discuss 22:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I posted here because 1: I'm interested in the insights of the people who have direct experience with consensus-required in American Politics articles, and 2: any change to consensus-required will require a consensus of administrators either here or at WP:AN. I hadn't even thought to post at VPP...I don't watch that, and I don't know who does. Perhaps a notification over there pointing to this discussion would do the trick. ~Awilley (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't monitor WP:VP regularly either, but I do go there when something of interest to me is listed at WP:Centralized discussion, so I think notifications at WP:VPP and "Centralized discussion" would be worthwhile.
Certainly, getting input from the admins at AE who have to deal with the 1RR issue is a good idea, but I'm vague on how one actually goes about changing the situation. My impression is that it would have to come from ArbCom as it's part of the Discretionary Sanctions regime that they created, but I could be wrong about that. Specifically, I'm unsure if the change must come from the Committee, or if the community can change how DS is handled. (I'm generally of the opinion that ArbCom serves the community, so I think the latter is possible, but the nature of Discretionary Sanctions as a creation of ArbCom confuses the issue for me.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
BMK, these sanctions were placed by individual administrators, not ArbCom. The modification process is outlined at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Modifications_by_administrators. Basically I need either consent from the admin who originally placed the sanctions (User:Coffee for many of these) or "affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA". Would you mind if I collapse this side discussion about venue so it doesn't distract from the main topic of this thread? ~Awilley (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
No problem from me in your collapse of this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I think this is a better venue to discuss this at than VP. At this point, I can't imagine that you would have any pushback if you were to simply replace Coffee's page restrictions as you see fit. He has been inactive for quite a while and is no longer an admin. - MrX 🖋 15:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I think you're right that I'd get very little pushback. But it would only take one person to take me to ArbCom and get me desysopped. ~Awilley (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried to re-think this in June at User:Power~enwiki/AE-DT and didn't get anywhere. Perhaps the comments there will be of some benefit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Return the pages to normal editing. Use 3RR vigorously like it should be and the edit warriors will eventually cease due to topic bans or blocks. I have no idea why admins have to keep fiddling around with rules and making up new ones when they don't even forcefully administer the ones we have site-wide with enough vigor. The biggest problem with the American Politics arena is not so much the incessant POV pushing by near single purpose accounts, its the fact that we are limited for references by the least worthy source of information, namely, the NEWS, which is increasingly partisan, unable to report objectively and lacks the ability to review a situation or event dispassionately through the prism of reflection and outside the fog of recentism.--MONGO (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This would be an improvement over the current consensus required restriction. It would make it far less likely that partisan sockpuppets and SPAs could lock down any progress on article improvement. I've have been very involved since the first case the resulted in American politics discretionary sanctions, and find that the consensus required restriction actually interferes with improving the encyclopedia. The only sight downside I see is that three rules would be slightly more complicated than one. That can be addressed by simply listing them in the form proposed above in the edit notice, on the talk page, and in a user talk page notice template. - MrX 🖋 15:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The goal would be to prevent constant article instability on very active and controversial articles, without completely stalling article improvement and development. I agree with above comments that the consensus required restriction freezes article development. The third suggested rule: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. would be an improvement. Seraphim System (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The end result is that you get articles bogged down with these one-sentence snippets that nobody is allowed to change This is exclusively a Donald Trump problem; as far as I know, no other article has an extensive list of consensuses for the lead (or even a list of consensuses in general is rare). If, say, "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false." is an issue, one can simply proposed a rewording, on the talk page and if it is an improvement, there'll be well enough editors supporting the change for a consensus within a few days - one nice thing about the article is that one doesn't have to wait weeks or use an RfC to get comments/feedback/consensus for changes. I have made >500 edits to Donald Trump including some reworking of the structure of the article etc and haven't felt overtly stifled by the restriction, which is largely only an issue if one is editing the lead.
What happens to portions of the lead that aren't locked down is that they constantly get churned - i.e, constant edits are made, that sometimes improve and sometimes worsen the sentences, and on the whole the lead doesn't improve because so many people want to edit it. Same thing would happen to the sentences that are locked down if they aren't locked down anymore; in addition, since these are by definition controversial sentences, you'd see constantly things like removing "false" or adding "lie" to that sentence, which is IMO combated well by that all caps and very clear message telling people not to modify that sentence without prior consensus. And on Donald Trump (though perhaps less on other articles), the consensus-required restriction has been extremely helpful and I would oppose replacing it with any of the options suggested above; it has led to a relative peace despite the controversy of the article, due to it in effect creating binding consensuses, and works well as the regular editors of the article don't WP:GAME the restrictions but follow the spirit of it.
Consensus-required is an issue on rapidly developing articles, or on less high profile articles, where it becomes very difficult to edit an article or to garner a consensus; IMO in those cases the consensus-required portion should simply be not used. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter, I agree that the situation at the Trump article is unusual, though I see it more as one of the worse datapoints on a larger spectrum of gridlock. Returning to the example of the false statements sentence, here's the most serious attempt I can remember to do something to it. link (TLDR: half the participants got hung up on free media coverage and both proposals were closed with no consensus to change anything.) I often worry that the sanctions and extra administrator attention has contributed to stagnation at the Trump article, with all but the most determined editors giving up and editing elsewhere. As a recent example, I've noticed that the article Matthew Whitaker (attorney) has gotten literally hundreds of edits in the past week, but according to the Trump article Jeff Sessions is still the attorney general.
In any case, thank you for the input. That's very helpful. ~Awilley (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Aj abdel

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

Request concerning Aj abdel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Bellezzasolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Aj abdel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#General Prohibition : All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 23:52, 13 November 2018 Changing "Palestinian Territory" to "Palestine"
  2. 23:55, 13 November 2018 Kerem Shalom border crossing. Refers to Israel as "The Occupying Power"
  3. 23:58, 13 November 2018 changes "Palestinian Territories" to "Occupied Palestine"
  4. 00:46, 16 November 2018 References 1948 War
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

N/A

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above, this diff]
  • Also was given a personal note by Shrike at the same time - here
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This editor has a clear POV on the conflict, and has continued to ignore the general prohibition, even after being notified of its existence.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

01:02, 16 November 2018


Discussion concerning Aj abdel

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

Statement by Aj abdel

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Aj abdel

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.