EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →AE: Ask |
|||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
:::::::I am still waiting for a response from an admin. Also, I found out that an article I've created and contributed significant content to has been recently tagged by an editor I've an interaction ban with. This raises several questions: 1) did that editor violate an interaction ban with me? 2) despite being the primary contributor to the article, and despite nobody else apparently being willing to address the tag, am I allowed to comment on it on talk and/or remove it? 3) If I can comment on it on talk, would the other editor (with the i-ban on me) be able to reply? I will end by saying again that I'd prefer if i-bans were not preventing us from editing content; the point of the i-bans in the EE area was to prevent personal attacks and harassment through commenting on others, not any content issues. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk to me</font>]]</sub> 17:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::I am still waiting for a response from an admin. Also, I found out that an article I've created and contributed significant content to has been recently tagged by an editor I've an interaction ban with. This raises several questions: 1) did that editor violate an interaction ban with me? 2) despite being the primary contributor to the article, and despite nobody else apparently being willing to address the tag, am I allowed to comment on it on talk and/or remove it? 3) If I can comment on it on talk, would the other editor (with the i-ban on me) be able to reply? I will end by saying again that I'd prefer if i-bans were not preventing us from editing content; the point of the i-bans in the EE area was to prevent personal attacks and harassment through commenting on others, not any content issues. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk to me</font>]]</sub> 17:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Why not explain to an admin which article you want to edit. That admin can take whatever steps are needed to allow you to edit the article, so long as they are convinced you are not pursuing an edit war with the previous guy. There is also the option of explaining on the talk page what you want to do. Then somebody not under a restriction could choose to make the edit for you, if they are convinced it's an improvement. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 14:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
::::::::Why not explain to an admin which article you want to edit. That admin can take whatever steps are needed to allow you to edit the article, so long as they are convinced you are not pursuing an edit war with the previous guy. There is also the option of explaining on the talk page what you want to do. Then somebody not under a restriction could choose to make the edit for you, if they are convinced it's an improvement. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 14:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Explain to an admin where? So are you saying that one can tag and presumably edit an article somebody else under the interaction ban wrote, but then the other party cannot revert those edits? But they can discuss them on article's talk? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk to me</font>]]</sub> 16:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== EEML people and Russavia practice mutual surveillance == |
== EEML people and Russavia practice mutual surveillance == |
Revision as of 16:22, 31 August 2011
Archives
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
AfC submissions Random submission |
3+ months |
Notes
Notes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
PGP key |
---|
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) mQENBFDdJN0BCADjDFGKV41olt0YbRaxABn319KM8idSEt5KGMI5S7R1te5zlf24 QpHbMKJm46M1ZlvRsOtD7PRUOVXFSYE4jm7THfGJcqXjkdu7k6nbZxuKe3LDJdQv 9bc0zbUFO+gusmBR6xZMM2l0e23mRXKroB6KfawGq6o4OBPhqjx8u9TkxpwlIhCs aMe97XGQOoPf7h20K+vlekItzyx87/U7oIsKGBwSF4tHak/EjVu3hFbRcny9nUej nx1cBXm5X6yzWSybraujrglwISIog21evh1Jrw+i/xtYa6ZYqDKHPMp1+dHjPlNV AudIcjq97iiq6kYPtHcgzKMORB4T+R5gQXNhABEBAAG0MFRpbW90aGV1cyBDYW5l bnMgPHRpbW90aGV1cy5jYW5lbnMud3BAZ21haWwuY29tPokBOQQTAQIAIwUCUN0k 3QIbLwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEPoukYdWZeaKTZsH/jt3 W+xFPXlavHwA4kain3SXH9wrYCFHpnCCySWN3eN3BGaRf/TxwVsAxZocZ1P0U2H4 Il75FZ4TscdeqOha8ESbc79NAP/oTjRzqJNV/1ljsdHsaRSkc1Tfu4iTwWC3I2Hb Wj0FtLs08YdE94DhJGmSyZWb7p6nSTr22O0nH4dT4sM7HO/LsnDj44q2uSu2R950 VfP5S3XVOoijR5TP7QhkLZDTdb8b6HqRaWSoIsK70XBKk/voTAZe2bOCqrlUK59H O7tyHyoPK1Jcz2QmkFOmK/U5ot5m0S/GvhWvTLLmcAPIJO9/SqsJY8mX6ax09XxE QjAehIm5tOW00ukfkyu5AQ0EUN0k3QEIAOtGhpLp4zwGN0ZuSfA2TfDKq7qZB/Mp L9ZBzepRpKIPj4pcLdJNwQgYmb2XxElLWwOwsanN61yFZ2P3CUF89I5RgmzkyrSK nD4qgvMCKthLPI3FEnaXL+LR9br7VCeoYfjQdGrSsxOFtdfUQ0SsJCUvLduBblaA mEwOCarpG6cegl4Tbq0Fqg2lw8MZAQc7/nrZvpCkIk9ZYMYGFUaGW875xbCUt0T8 df6WG7KSWRrS2jy/2rgUmDNiyHI4LOUe5+8C6w0eOOLumKwdD3tXMtbuFNFluYzK 2nVIHrc3D2WmUnPd/ESed3ms4YCuGEGiybcKtyCILVhBOv2LGPLgKAsAEQEAAYkC PgQYAQIACQUCUN0k3QIbLgEpCRD6LpGHVmXmisBdIAQZAQIABgUCUN0k3QAKCRCU 2R0REJq2jqcNCADHnXpwpgbwGV+pd4tU05yHqMwIbyvXFlO/ScY9vKgtPlAU3Go+ wM3pEXeBUftCYzHraYOigc3GeZAM7QbQqyUMzWjrNDPb5/LWCiEvKoJu223+x432 E1kCmRqC8WEBj+Dz5dHUUd3EOfoE3pOjw+EXdgyMsj6HwxeygocTZvkcur9yLZhh mXYehcJVJXvjZDNdFnCv7lnXTM8McccsAOQj3uwVONabk92aQ8dZq7GXS0F2BE2t APz5NJ3Rz7jjnqI9YjTkuSKuNZGMeeQVuF7ae0ee97qZ4lVDHgR2ZlfxRzzO2kYp tIMv2QG0MB5cRLXKluJAIQ13qqAXqF/Aolc9vj4IAJY0PXpMKmsYheWGwuf3LYMb mT1C2zXal1t1A+p0KpMk7phQLSfjgHVUFzNIg245tQpHR9AORRGARggpjcfRJVb0 RZzYPvHFDZx+W+lannAKVCSEjlOywf6HOk4Wf80llpXyf6ahAUqypvOzOVV0y9QV myOQP36XL7IA7f1Eet/sgRMWQsQNxXCPGyv34/BOUiE8V5NBaYUMw9XYy6OOTfA7 /L5xAA5WPbBQe4KgfoCF/QWxJGbINtOf/guw3CKlRebqWdzmzADviIoCT6OImcrM RJHS+H7wL/fXRWGP9wOsqWclTtrP0QWRPEJpNK8RhWcYEOkIE0at8WzKSMtvfBc= =oCnW -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- |
AE
Hello TC. The case at WP:AE#Russavia is either a small matter of fixing a technical problem with the restriction, or a broad matter needing the sanctions extended. Would you have the time and willingness to brainstorm some solutions here on your talk page? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. So here are my current thoughts about this case:
- My interpretation of interaction bans and revert restrictions is that they require a mens rea element: I want to see evidence that the editor in question intended the edit as a revert (for revert restrictions) or knew or should have known that the edit has something to do with the other side of the interaction ban. I think this is a good way to avoid penalizing good faith edits that accidentally got caught in the net by happenstance.
- In this case in particular, therefore, my view is that no violation occurred.
- However, this is not the first time we saw Russavia and Tammsalu at AE. Their last skirmish, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Russavia, was every bit as messed up as this one at present. What seems to me to be the case is that AE itself is being used as the battleground since they can't do it elsewhere. AGK's approach was to treat the filing of a report as an interaction ban violation itself, but that's not supported by current interaction ban policy and IMO not a good practice, since it would make interaction bans hard to enforce.
- Since the fuzzier line requiring intent hasn't been working in this particular case, my view is that we should switch to a stronger, strict liability, version that draws a brighter line. We may prohibit either from editing (1) any article which the other has edited within the past month and (2) any discussion in which the other has participated, with it being their responsibility to verify that the other editor hasn't edited the article/discussion. These are easily enforced bright lines. In conjunction, we may limit the enforcement requests to, say, a 200-word statement and a 200-word response, with no further participation by either party allowed after that.
- This would also clear up the "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" part. With respect, I do not think it covers content discussions. Since we have no way of drawing a meaningful line between different types of content discussions, this would leave an exception that in large part swallows the rule. Moreover, it's hard to enforce - at which point does a permitted content discussion becomes unacceptably personal? In the case of these two editors in particular, I'm quite unconvinced that allowing content discussions would be productive, either, given what they wrote in the AE thread. My reading is that it covers only things that are strictly necessary: clarification. amendment, and enforcement requests and appeals, and nothing more.
- T. Canens (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hence an AfD nomination by R. of an article created by M. [1] during the standing AE request was not a violation of the interaction ban? Biophys (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually it is: since Twinkle tells you who the page creator is, and WP:BEFORE also state that nominators should check the article history, R. at the very least should have known that M. created the page by the time the nomination was complete and therefore should have self-reverted that nomination. T. Canens (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hence an AfD nomination by R. of an article created by M. [1] during the standing AE request was not a violation of the interaction ban? Biophys (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it is not. Twinkle is a completely automated program once you hit submit. And nominating an article which is obviously not-notable for AfD is concentrating on the content, as per Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions. There is nothing stopping said editor from participating in the AfD, so long as they focus on the content, rather than commenting on editors. One will notice that I have only commented on content, nothing more, nothing less. Also, I need to add that your suggestion above is again not workable, and is something that I would actually ignore, given that it is essentially allowing editors to assume WP:OWN over an article, simply by editing it first, and ensuring that they make at least one edit per month, in order to block other editors from editing it. For example, I could be completely stopped from editing Estonia-Russia relations, simply by another editor making a single edit at the beginning of the month, and then making another edit just under a month later, and then making another edit just under a month later, and on and on it can go. It is essentially a topic ban, without evidence of wilful disruption on my part. Perhaps admins should be taking the words at the above link into their head; if edits are focussed on content, and are not disruptive, then they should be allowed. If edits are focussed on comments about editors, their motives, etc, etc then they are disruptive and should be sanctioned. Other than that, admins should be seeking clarification from the committee, because already there are too many conflicting opinions on what is and isn't a breach of the interaction ban. --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- See the image just above? During the AE I had a quick look at the editor's contributions and quite close to the top was the upload of an image to enwp. Upon looking at the image, I added {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} to the image as it is PD, and I then used CommonsHelper to make the move to Commons (so that other projects can also use the image), after doing the move, I then added {{Now Commons}} to the image page on enwp. I obviously knew who made the initial upload, and I wilfully moved the image to Commons. But according to your comments above, I would have breached my interaction ban. But only an idiot (in my mind) would say that this edit was disruptive and is worthy of sanctions. A technical breach of the interaction ban, but obviously not disruptive. What would you do as an admin if this was brought to you for enforcement? --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Twinkle tells you who the page author is when you nominate it for AfD. Once you knew or should have known that M. was the author, you should have self-reverted that nomination.
A ban applies to all edits that fall within its terms, good or bad. When there is an interaction ban, it means that (1) the totality of the interaction, in aggregate, has been disruptive and (2) it is not worth the scarce resources to try to separate the good interactions, if any, from the bad ones. Therefore, the two of you should stay away from each other, period. No exceptions. No looking through each other's contributions. WP:DIGWUREN#At wit's end was four years ago, and, well, if we have to use apparently Draconian measures to maintain some semblance of order in this topic area, so be it. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- That section is in relation to site bans, which I am not under. I am under an interaction ban, for which the relevant page is Wikipedia:IBAN#Interaction_ban. Nowhere does it state that I can't edit the same article, nor does it say that I can't upload an image to Commons, nor does it say that I can't nominate an article which an editor started 2 years ago and last edited 2 years ago for AfD, when it is clear that I am concentrating on content only. --Russavia Let's dialogue 12:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Twinkle tells you who the page author is when you nominate it for AfD. Once you knew or should have known that M. was the author, you should have self-reverted that nomination.
Timotheus, generally speaking I would have thought the test of whether a revert was intentional or accidental is whether or not the editor acknowledges it was a mistake when their attention is brought to it and self-reverts the revert. As for your view that "AE itself is being used as the battleground", look at it from my perspective, I'm minding my own business editing an article and I get unexpectedly reverted, what do I do? If you re-examine the AE report you will see that I was requesting a revert, not a block or ban, so where was the battleground? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- A self-revert, in many cases, is persuasive evidence of a lack of intent, but the whole thing ultimately requires evaluating the totality of circumstances and cannot be reduced to a few hard and fast rules (just look at the attempts to define exactly what a "revert" is at WT:3RR; these are usually shot down, for good reasons). For instance, deleting something added by another editor 3 years and 500 edits ago is normally not considered a revert barring strong evidence of intent, even if there is no self-revert. Perhaps your original intent in filing the AE request was indeed benign - but the fact is that the two times it came to AE it inevitably ended up as the two of you sniping at each other about everything under the sun. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you re-read my contributions to the AE case I don't believe there was any sniping on my part. I know how to conduct my self with the necessary level of decorum, as Shell Kinney appreciated in my conduct in the original WP:ARBRB case[2]. My first bulleted response was directed to Petri Krohn, the second bulleted resposnse was directed to EdJohnston's suggestion of an RFC, the third bulleted response was a request to Ed to extend the scope of his suggest and the final bulleted point was an affirmation of my preparedness to give Ed's proposal a go despite the negative view of others and the extra evidence of further iBan breaches such as the AfD nomination. So I am wondering what aspect of my presentation was seen as sniping on my part? I am always open to constructive feedback. Cheers. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion focuses on the AFD nomination but that's not all that happened here. Since I also have a mutual interaction ban with Russavia I want to have the following clarified: is showing up on an article that was recently created by an editor I have an interaction ban and slapping it up with multiple nasty looking tags an interaction violation or is it simply a good faithed "focusing on content"? What if this is done shortly after the creator of that article filed an AE report on me? Is it reasonable to think that this tag-slapping was done "on accident" in innocent good faith, rather than as a retaliation? I'm asking because I can certainly think of several of Russvia's articles that need some serious work, which I have left alone up to now, but apparently if this kind of behavior does not breach the interaction ban, I take it it would be fine for me to commence work on these, right? Or are the interaction ban lines drawn clearer? This is an honest question, though admittedly I'm also asking it to cover my ass, just in case someone tries to file an AE report on me in the future. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Arbcom likes article improvement. Go and look at WP:EEML and search for 'Modified by open motion.' Notice that special approval was given to Radeksz, Piotrus and Martintg to improve specific articles. Martintg was allowed to improve references on all the articles listed here. Why doesn't somebody who is still suffering restrictions choose some articles they would like to improve and make a similar proposal? The admins who work at AE might be able to suggest how this plan could be put into effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- The only remaining restrictions from that case (and related ones) are the mutual interaction bans - the ones under discussion here - which, up until recently, have been working just fine to prevent battleground behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wait a second. Is somebody saying that if I edit an article that was edited previously by somebody I have a half-forgotten interaction ban from two years ago, or if that editor edits my article, this violates an interaction ban and makes one of us sanctionable?? Are you saying that in other words I need to review the history of each page I edit to make sure it has not been edited in the past by that editor?? I've always thought that the interaction bans mean talk page discussion with or about the other editor, and have nothing to do with content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think in these kind of cases, the key is whether the edits are made in "innocent" good faith or not. If A has an interaction ban with B, and A makes a revert of an edit that B made, say, two years ago, obviously that could've been an accident. Three things though:
- 1) If A all of sudden makes a series of reverts of B's edits from two (or whatever) years ago (recall that in this topic area, editors appear to have a very long memory), then obviously something else is going on, and that isn't "innocent good faith" edits but rather straight up gaming of the interaction ban,
- 2) if the reverts are made out of A's usual topic area but in one that B frequently edits, this also suggests an attempt is being made to revive old battlegrounds,
- 3) if it is pointed out to A that what s/he actually did is revert B, and A refuses to self-revert, then that also suggests that A is playing around, rather than acting in good faith.
- So based on that, the way I would interpret these kind of situations is: Is there evidence that A is engaging in a series of anachronistic reverts, which would actually fall under WP:STALKING, even without an interaction ban (the existence of which only compounds the transgression), or can it be plausibly seen that A made these reverts on accident?
- (edit conflict): I've always thought that the interaction bans mean talk page discussion with or about the other editor, and have nothing to do with content - I very strongly disagree. You can't separate "content" from talk page discussions - especially since Wikipedia guidelines require editors to discuss potentially controversial content changes on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I follow that, but your interpretation assumes that the people looking at the situation are thinking about a bigger picture, rather than looking for an excuse to drop a hammer on some potential troublemakers (like, let's say, anybody ever associated with a certain four letter case). I'd very much like to see if your interpretation is supported by an AE regular/admin, because so far, some of what has been written in the pages here suggests to me that I could be suddenly blocked for making some random edit to an article where a person with an interaction ban on me corrected a typo 10 years ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- In the case you describe, you would simply have to self-revert the edit (and assuming that this is an isolated incident not part of series of reverts). An accident is an accident and I think everyone can appreciate the fact that they will happen, but the problem is that some editors may try to revive old battlegrounds by reverting very old edits and then claiming innocence (hell, they might even make a few innocent typo-correction type edits to buttress that appearance). Generally "accidents" don't happen in a series, that's why they're called "accidents" - if it's a series, then that's called a "pattern".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- So now, can I make a comment here (related to content, of course, nothing personal), or would it be a no-no due to the presence of certain editors with an interaction ban? If the answer would be no, it seems ridiculous to me that the bans encourage a weird "marking" attitude - I was here first, editor X now cannot touch this article, ha! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am still waiting for a response from an admin. Also, I found out that an article I've created and contributed significant content to has been recently tagged by an editor I've an interaction ban with. This raises several questions: 1) did that editor violate an interaction ban with me? 2) despite being the primary contributor to the article, and despite nobody else apparently being willing to address the tag, am I allowed to comment on it on talk and/or remove it? 3) If I can comment on it on talk, would the other editor (with the i-ban on me) be able to reply? I will end by saying again that I'd prefer if i-bans were not preventing us from editing content; the point of the i-bans in the EE area was to prevent personal attacks and harassment through commenting on others, not any content issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why not explain to an admin which article you want to edit. That admin can take whatever steps are needed to allow you to edit the article, so long as they are convinced you are not pursuing an edit war with the previous guy. There is also the option of explaining on the talk page what you want to do. Then somebody not under a restriction could choose to make the edit for you, if they are convinced it's an improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Explain to an admin where? So are you saying that one can tag and presumably edit an article somebody else under the interaction ban wrote, but then the other party cannot revert those edits? But they can discuss them on article's talk? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why not explain to an admin which article you want to edit. That admin can take whatever steps are needed to allow you to edit the article, so long as they are convinced you are not pursuing an edit war with the previous guy. There is also the option of explaining on the talk page what you want to do. Then somebody not under a restriction could choose to make the edit for you, if they are convinced it's an improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am still waiting for a response from an admin. Also, I found out that an article I've created and contributed significant content to has been recently tagged by an editor I've an interaction ban with. This raises several questions: 1) did that editor violate an interaction ban with me? 2) despite being the primary contributor to the article, and despite nobody else apparently being willing to address the tag, am I allowed to comment on it on talk and/or remove it? 3) If I can comment on it on talk, would the other editor (with the i-ban on me) be able to reply? I will end by saying again that I'd prefer if i-bans were not preventing us from editing content; the point of the i-bans in the EE area was to prevent personal attacks and harassment through commenting on others, not any content issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- So now, can I make a comment here (related to content, of course, nothing personal), or would it be a no-no due to the presence of certain editors with an interaction ban? If the answer would be no, it seems ridiculous to me that the bans encourage a weird "marking" attitude - I was here first, editor X now cannot touch this article, ha! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- In the case you describe, you would simply have to self-revert the edit (and assuming that this is an isolated incident not part of series of reverts). An accident is an accident and I think everyone can appreciate the fact that they will happen, but the problem is that some editors may try to revive old battlegrounds by reverting very old edits and then claiming innocence (hell, they might even make a few innocent typo-correction type edits to buttress that appearance). Generally "accidents" don't happen in a series, that's why they're called "accidents" - if it's a series, then that's called a "pattern".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I follow that, but your interpretation assumes that the people looking at the situation are thinking about a bigger picture, rather than looking for an excuse to drop a hammer on some potential troublemakers (like, let's say, anybody ever associated with a certain four letter case). I'd very much like to see if your interpretation is supported by an AE regular/admin, because so far, some of what has been written in the pages here suggests to me that I could be suddenly blocked for making some random edit to an article where a person with an interaction ban on me corrected a typo 10 years ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict): I've always thought that the interaction bans mean talk page discussion with or about the other editor, and have nothing to do with content - I very strongly disagree. You can't separate "content" from talk page discussions - especially since Wikipedia guidelines require editors to discuss potentially controversial content changes on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
EEML people and Russavia practice mutual surveillance
"It is not too difficult to get to the arbcom page which is linked in my previous post and see that one of the main purposes of the Eastern European mailing list members was to pester HW007 and Russavia and provoke them." —Statement by User:FeelSunny on 18:05 18 November 2009, in Archive50 of AE
Assuming this is correct, you can understand why Arbcom would want to be somewhat even-handed in handing out sanctions between Russavia and his opponents. We like it when the EEML people improve articles, and we like it when Russavia improves articles. (Russavia has over 70,000 edits). I see no benefit in Russavia and the EEML people continuing to practice surveillance on each other. It seems to me that's one of the reasons we see so many AE complaints in which Russavia or one of the others is a participant. In particular, they watch each other on articles regarding Estonian politics.
Interaction bans are one method of stopping the mutual-watching behavior, but they are not completely successful. We get complaints of violations here in which we are regaled with all the details of the misbehavior of the other side, which the interaction ban prevents them from presenting elsewhere. I don't have an immediate solution to present, but (at the risk of abusing your talk page) I'll list all the cases I found of AE complaints involving Russavia since Feb 2010. See the collapsed section below.
List of AE disputes between Russavia and EEML people since Feb, 2010 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
15 March 2010 Russavia filed a giant AE complaint against Biophys under DIGWUREN, complaining of edit warring, POV pushing, and editing on behalf of the banned user HanzoHattori. This AE complaint got converted into WP:ARBRB. 13 May 2010 FPS blocked Vecrumba 3 weeks for violating his interaction ban with Russavia on an evidence page of the ARBRB case: [3] - from the EEML log 27 June 2010 Sandstein blocked Russavia 48 hours for violating his interaction ban with Colchicum. [4] - from the ARBRB log 8 August 2010 Radek filed a complaint against Russavia regarding interaction ban with EEML editors, on London Victory Celebrations of 1946. The result was that Radeksz was blocked 72 hours, while Russavia and all editors with Eastern-Europe-related sanctions were banned from the article. [5] 22 August 2010 Colchicum filed a complaint against Russavia for violating his interaction ban with Biophys. The complaint became stale and no admin action was taken. [6] 12 June 2011 AGK blocked Russavia 5 days for reverting an edit by Sander Säde at Russophobia [7] - from the ARBRB log 6 July 2011 Russavia and Tammsalu were each blocked 24 hours for violating the EEML interaction ban. [8] 24 August 2011 Tammsalu reported Russavia for breaking their interaction ban at Karen Drambjan. [9]. Closed with no action on the assumption that Russavia was not aware he was reverting Tammsalu. |
Ugh. I was thinking about saying something about how the area would be so much cleaner and happier, if all sides just pretended the other side did not exist... but I'm not sure that this is actually possible... SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like SirFozzie was hoping to put a stop to the mutual-watching behavior when he voted to accept WP:ARBRB as a case. — EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, the above "accusations" of myself surveilling other editors would be a great basis on which to write a John le Carre novel, however, the reality is quite different. My directorate is tasked only with content creation, whilst surveillance is handled by a different directorate altogether, and there is no interaction between directorates; they each operate independently of one another. Is it really that difficult to believe that I might edit an article which was in the news at the time? Is it really that difficult to believe that I might edit an article on one of the most contentious issues in Russia's foreign relations? Of course not. It isn't all cloak and daggers ya know, at least not from where I am sitting. --Russavia Let's dialogue 07:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Ed, I need to set the record straight. You quote FeelSunny: "main purposes of the Eastern European mailing list members was to pester HW007 and …" and make the assumption that he is correct. Well he isn't. The EEML had nothing to do what so ever with HW007's topic ban which was caused by disruption in South Ossetia topics, read the statement by the sanctioning admin FPaS[10] in the AE case where you quote FeelSunny. As far as I recall he didn't even rate a mention on the EE mail-list. The EEML has been accused of many things, but it is rather a cheap shot by someone sanctioned for disruption to blame the EEML for provoking them in order to gain some mitigation. There were some 18 or so members of the EEML, all are individuals with minds of their own, just because one of them may have a dispute with someone on the article Albania does not mean it has anything to do with me or any other former member of the EEML.
In regard to your conclusion of mutual surveillance, in your list of AE disputes Colchicum is listed twice, but he was never a member of the EEML. The other cases resulted not from surveillance but direct "stepping on toes".
If you look at the dates of the AE disputes they tend to be clustered between long periods of peace followed by a short period of disputes, which indicates this isn't a constant surveillance thing. What I think is at play, based on my first hand observation, is this: Editors tend to have their core areas of interest and focus on those areas during the peaceful period. But then, don't know why, but perhaps it the warm summer nights (AE disputes seem to occur in the June-August period) leads them to get into this combative mood where they feel compelled to cross into the core interest area of their perceived opponents for a bit of pot stirring. No doubt during these short intense periods there is surveillance going on, but it is the exception rather than the rule in the perspective of the whole year. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Strict liability interaction bans
Tim, now that I've seen your proposed result for WP:AE#Vecrumba, I wonder if this might not be a chance to impose your new type of interaction ban between Vecrumba and Russavia. The existing interaction ban is from Arbcom, and we don't have authority to modify that. So this would be an additional restriction, but following the 'strict' IBAN would automatically take care of observing the original one. Here is an expanded form of what you proposed for strict-liability IBANs:
If A and B are under a strict-liability IBAN, then:
- A and B must not edit articles edited by the other person in the last month.
- A must not enter any discussion in which B has participated and vice versa. This does not prevent each of them from discussing some content issue on their own talk page, without mentioning the other party or their views.
- A must not file AfDs against articles originated by B and vice versa (This follows from the rule against participating in the same discussion).
- A must not make comments about groups of people that appear to include B and vice versa, on any page of Wikipedia
- A may not file AE requests against B except to clarify issues about the interaction ban itself. Any such request allows for a 200-word statement from each party. Other than that, A and B must never participate in the same AE request.
- A must take no part in the handling or licensing of B's image uploads and vice versa.
- If a certain interaction ban is producing too many AE complaints, the admins may consider imposing topic bans on the parties. These would exclude them for working on the same material. Such bans could be worked out based on their respective plans for content development.
(Note that WP:ARBRB made a stab at separating the warring groups from each other using targeted topic bans. Biophys was restricted from articles on the former Soviet Union, for example). — EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- (Sorry to butt in...) #5 is unclear as to what "any such request" means. Is it only AE requests against A or B by third parties? Also, don't you want to also stop A and B filing complaints against each other at AN/I etc? Zerotalk 13:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how workable this is, as it is open to gaming and either party can effectively lock out the other party permanently by doing a small edit every month. How about using the existing mechanism that is in place. Rather than agonise over whether a revert was intentional or not, treat it as a bright line 0-revert rule, if they do not self-revert immediately when they are made aware of it, block. They will soon be more careful later and that is what we all want, isn't it? There has been enough AE reports now to have a fair idea of what is permissable, why throw all that out and replace with a new set of rules where there will be uncertainty and people are bound to test the boundaries all over again. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Given the history of gaming the system by various groups of editors, does one really think that such bans wouldn't be gamed in a flash? I have already given an example of how #1 can be gamed. #5 also goes against a recent Arbcom clarification...apparently editors are allowed to bring things for enforcement...if one wants clarification they go to the committee, not to AE. If one wants to report a breach of a sanction and enforcement, they then go to AE. #6 is absolutely laughable, and is something that I would ignore outright. Yes, I would ignore it. #7 is absolutely ridiculous and is open to gaming. Take for example, the only reason we are now at this point is because Vecrumba engaged in personal attacks against myself (not the first time) and I have reported it. Hence, it is myself who gets to be made look disruptive, when that couldn't be further from the truth. People aren't topic banned from areas because of AE reports, but because Arbcom found them to be disruptive in the area over a long period of time, given the evidence. --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Any bright-line rule is by definition gameable. This is why 3RR isn't the only case of edit warring, for instance. The idea is to forcibly achieve complete physical separation of the two, when milder measures have failed to work. Moreover, if any type of gaming behavior is observed, then the perpetrator will likely be rewarded with an indefinite forced break from the topic.
- On the specifics, #6 is an natural extension of #1. More generally, #1 should apply to all non-discussion pages, while #2 apply to all discussions, regardless of location. #3 also needs tightening and expansion. Perhaps #1 should include pages created by the other party at any time, along with pages that have been edited by the other party within the past month, and #3 should cover any process particularly affecting, and any discussion substantially relating to, pages covered by #1 (borrowed from WP:ARBCC). #5 is a necessary condition, it seems, given what AE threads tend to become. (And whatever arbcom intended by its own restrictions does not limit admin discretion to impose fresh sanctions if the arbcom ones failed to solve the problem, as is the case here.) As to #7, we can deal with it when the time comes, though since there should be little room for borderline cases it should be quite straightforward. Filing baseless complaints will lead to a topic ban; persistent noncompliance will result in the same. We should also make it clear that it is the responsibility of the editor to verify that they are not violating the ban before making the edit, and that the normal allowances for self-reverts etc. do not apply - i.e., if there is a violation, there will be a block, period. With a little bit of tightening, I think this is worth trying. Given Russavia's own admission that he's going through Tammsalu's contribs - which is pretty much the opposite of what is expected for interaction-banned users - this seems quite needed. T. Canens (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say that I was going thru Tammsalu's contribs. Only after his filing of the latest AE request by Tammsalu did I have a quick look at the contribs, only in order to see if this editor had posted anything anywhere else in relation to the report. I then saw that they had uploaded an image under PD rules, which I then transferred to Commons. Please tell me, where is the disruption here? Truth is, there isn't. I am not going to allow this harrassment by these EEML members to continue against me, and I am sure as hell not going to allow admins ignore the facts yet again...it happened last time, it ain't gonna happen again. Also Canens, please tell me where in the above section on your talk page I am able to comment, because I am all but locked out of that conversation due to the appearance of the rest of the EEML peanut gallery. --Russavia Let's dialogue 12:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- And to prove another point to you, I did go thru some image uploads of different editors, and the image shown here was uploaded by one of the EEML members, but it was only present on enwp. I copied it to Commons, and then proceeded to place the photo on ALL of the other language articles on which the image is now present. Going by your own "strict" ban, an editor could bring this transfer to AE for enforcement, and I would be blocked for breaking an interaction ban, even though I am clearly bettering the entire project by making this image available for all language Wikipedias to use. Please tell me where is the disruption there? I am truly trying to understand what I think is a very warped POV on your part in relation to this. And it is why I have said I would ignore it if implemented. --Russavia Let's dialogue 12:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Russavia, as to whether you're allowed to comment here in this thread, I would say so, because all parties may care about how interaction bans work in the future and this thread is a good-faith exception. Your mention of the image uploads suggests you are still fighting to let content work take precedence over the interaction ban. You're swimming against the tide here. By deciding to place the bans Arbcom has already made a decision on this matter. They have decided that some increment of good content is not worth the disruption. If you see an image issue that needs fixing and you are not allowed to do it directly, make a proposal to some admin as to what should be done. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, unfortunately, your proposal is also against the interaction ban. Going by your own strict proposal, an editor is not allowed to comment on anything in relation to another editor, even for the purposes of legit dispute resolution. So my bringing up to an admin that an image needs to be moved (or deleted) is breaking the ban as well. I prefer to operate by the words of Carcaroth at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions:
- Russavia, as to whether you're allowed to comment here in this thread, I would say so, because all parties may care about how interaction bans work in the future and this thread is a good-faith exception. Your mention of the image uploads suggests you are still fighting to let content work take precedence over the interaction ban. You're swimming against the tide here. By deciding to place the bans Arbcom has already made a decision on this matter. They have decided that some increment of good content is not worth the disruption. If you see an image issue that needs fixing and you are not allowed to do it directly, make a proposal to some admin as to what should be done. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You could restrict yourself to commenting on content and not the contributors. And before you or anyone else gets upset, that applies to more than just you. It should apply to everyone, and it is one of the ways to deal with the fractured relationships and loss of trust in this area. Refocus on the content.
I have already stated on the record that I am happy for editors to interact with me, in any way, shape or form, so long as those interactions are focussed on content. Personal attacks I will not stand for, as it has nothing to do with content, but is an outright attack on myself. But discussions on content are fine by me. How about other editors? Are they of the same opinion?
Also, refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive65#Russavia where FPaS states:
As a matter of principle, in an issue like a no-interaction ban, I'd go by the principle of nemo iudex sine actore: sanctions are warranted only if the person who the sanction was supposedly meant to protect has actually complained, or at least there is indication they felt offended/annoyed or whatever.
Sandstein, everyone's favourite AE admin lol states:
I agree with that, and I normally also do not sanction interaction ban violations that are not disruptive and that nobody complains about.
Does that mean that I should now wait for AE to filed about my image edits. Are they objectively disruptive? Of course not, as I am focussed on content only.
I suggest that Ed and Canens obtain opinions of the committee themselves on this, as there is cleary many varying points of view in relation to these interaction bans. --Russavia Let's dialogue 13:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- The admins at AE have the authority to make a stronger interaction ban if the one that is currently in place (from Arbcom) is not sufficient. Maybe infractions that bother nobody would be winked at but here you are again at AE, so something is not working. Perhaps you can find a way to target your editing so you will get into fewer conflicts with the former EEML people. They are unlikely to fight you on aviation articles, for instance. If your top priority is Estonian politics I don't see a peaceful future. If you were working on different articles from the EEML people there would be much less chance of personal attacks or editing disputes. Your recital of mantras like focussed on content only is not preventing new complaints from being filed at AE, and these filings are not always the fault of other people. Five out of the last eight AE disputes involving you ended up with sanctions against you (see the above list). Several different admins closed these cases. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, I am back here at AE why? Because another editor has engaged in yet another personal attack on myself (and have outright lied about it). It is not my fault that other editors are not able to only focus on content. I edit Wikipedia in such a way that I only concentrate on content, if other editors are unable to do so, then this should not be held against me. I don't only have an interest in aviation, and to suggest that I stay away from other articles is essentially handing editors ownership of articles, and this goes directly with Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination. The reason for the personal attacks on myself in the past (and certainly in the present) was part of the harrassment on myself in order to have me sanctioned and/or driven away from editing. And here we are now, whereby I am focussed on content, and others are engaging in personal attacks, and it is I who two admins are all but suggesting essentially be topic banned from areas within my editing interest. 5 of the last 8 AE disputes may have ended up with sanctions against me, but there are also incidents whereby other editors have engaged in personal attacks on myself which I have not brought to AE, and there is also the example of Miacek and myself, whereby we are able to interact because we are first and foremost concentrated on content. It is wrong of you to suggest that I stay away from articles so that others don't engage in personal attacks on myself. You should instead be reminding them of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc, etc and suggest that they concentrate on content only. Again, I have made it clear I am happy to interact with anyone, so long as content is the only thing being discussed. Why not ask the same question of other editors, and then we can see truly where the problem lay, and then we can go from there. --Russavia Let's dialogue 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you relentlessly return to the kind of article where you get into conflicts with EEML editors, that is a comment on both you and them, and it doesn't speak well for either party. Arbcom said to you in big letters, 'AVOID THE EEML PEOPLE' but you are not listening. You and Miacek is a good precedent, and nothing prevents you from arriving at truces with individuals if you can do so again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't need to arrive at truces with anyone, as I am not at "war" with any editor. I have already stated, and I am now sounding like a broken record, that I am willing to collaborate with any editor, and discuss anything with any editor, so long as everything is about the content. Also, to say that I am relentlessly returning to the same type of article, is a misnomer...I have edited articles in the standard course of editing. I can not, and will not, allow editors to assume ownership of articles, nor be handed same ownership, based upon a belief that WP is a battleground, when it is not. --Russavia Let's dialogue 17:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Editors who work in troubled areas sometimes use their personal diplomatic skills to stay out of trouble. It sounds like we can't count on any diplomacy from you. Admins may have to resort to targeted topic bans to keep you and the EEML people away from each other. We may have to divide up Estonia. If you can make any positive proposals, I would be very interested. Please don't keep repeating how willing you are to collaborate when your rhetoric is so warlike. GIve us a specific proposal that shows you are willing to collaborate. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- You need to WP:AGF that what I say what I mean and I mean what I say. My only rhetoric is aimed directly at your ridiculous proposals, not against other editors, nor anything to do with the content-driven areas of WP. And you have no grounds to topic ban me from any area; the topic ban would be based upon what exactly? I have already given you a proposal; I am willing to collaborate and discuss anything with any editor on WP, so long as any discussion is focused on content, and only on content. I am not going to stay away from articles which are in the news, nor am I going to stay away from articles which have anything to do with Russia, Russians or how Russia relates to the outside world. And I'll be damned if I am going to allow you, or any other admin, to hand ownership of articles to editors, when numerous Arbcom members have stated that this is not what they intended when they passed numerous remedies. It would be going against everything that the Committee themselves have written. It seems we are now going to have to seek clarification on the issues you have raised with the Committee directly.
- Editors who work in troubled areas sometimes use their personal diplomatic skills to stay out of trouble. It sounds like we can't count on any diplomacy from you. Admins may have to resort to targeted topic bans to keep you and the EEML people away from each other. We may have to divide up Estonia. If you can make any positive proposals, I would be very interested. Please don't keep repeating how willing you are to collaborate when your rhetoric is so warlike. GIve us a specific proposal that shows you are willing to collaborate. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't need to arrive at truces with anyone, as I am not at "war" with any editor. I have already stated, and I am now sounding like a broken record, that I am willing to collaborate with any editor, and discuss anything with any editor, so long as everything is about the content. Also, to say that I am relentlessly returning to the same type of article, is a misnomer...I have edited articles in the standard course of editing. I can not, and will not, allow editors to assume ownership of articles, nor be handed same ownership, based upon a belief that WP is a battleground, when it is not. --Russavia Let's dialogue 17:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you relentlessly return to the kind of article where you get into conflicts with EEML editors, that is a comment on both you and them, and it doesn't speak well for either party. Arbcom said to you in big letters, 'AVOID THE EEML PEOPLE' but you are not listening. You and Miacek is a good precedent, and nothing prevents you from arriving at truces with individuals if you can do so again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, I am back here at AE why? Because another editor has engaged in yet another personal attack on myself (and have outright lied about it). It is not my fault that other editors are not able to only focus on content. I edit Wikipedia in such a way that I only concentrate on content, if other editors are unable to do so, then this should not be held against me. I don't only have an interest in aviation, and to suggest that I stay away from other articles is essentially handing editors ownership of articles, and this goes directly with Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination. The reason for the personal attacks on myself in the past (and certainly in the present) was part of the harrassment on myself in order to have me sanctioned and/or driven away from editing. And here we are now, whereby I am focussed on content, and others are engaging in personal attacks, and it is I who two admins are all but suggesting essentially be topic banned from areas within my editing interest. 5 of the last 8 AE disputes may have ended up with sanctions against me, but there are also incidents whereby other editors have engaged in personal attacks on myself which I have not brought to AE, and there is also the example of Miacek and myself, whereby we are able to interact because we are first and foremost concentrated on content. It is wrong of you to suggest that I stay away from articles so that others don't engage in personal attacks on myself. You should instead be reminding them of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc, etc and suggest that they concentrate on content only. Again, I have made it clear I am happy to interact with anyone, so long as content is the only thing being discussed. Why not ask the same question of other editors, and then we can see truly where the problem lay, and then we can go from there. --Russavia Let's dialogue 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- As to your plan to divide up Estonia, what did you have in mind? Russian-speaking areas are handed to Russia and Estonian-majority areas are left to form a rump state. This plan could be frought with danger, but perhaps it may finally put an end to the endless disputes. The only big problem I see is that I don't think the Estonian nationalists in the real world would take heed of a pact between Russavia and EdJohnston to divide up their state, especially seeing it has been independent within the current borders now for 20 years. But if this is something you would really like to pursue, contact me and we can negotiate this in secret. Shit, did I just have deja vu? --Russavia Let's dialogue 19:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't intend to use email, but you can leave a note on my talk page if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- As to your plan to divide up Estonia, what did you have in mind? Russian-speaking areas are handed to Russia and Estonian-majority areas are left to form a rump state. This plan could be frought with danger, but perhaps it may finally put an end to the endless disputes. The only big problem I see is that I don't think the Estonian nationalists in the real world would take heed of a pact between Russavia and EdJohnston to divide up their state, especially seeing it has been independent within the current borders now for 20 years. But if this is something you would really like to pursue, contact me and we can negotiate this in secret. Shit, did I just have deja vu? --Russavia Let's dialogue 19:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
(←) I give up. I propose that we just throw this over to arbcom, for them to make good on their promises in ARBRB. I just can't see anything good out of this. T. Canens (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Don't give up yet! Russavia and I are having a discussion on his talk page. If there is no other way to avoid the collisions it is worth considering targeted topic bans. The problem is well-defined, AE has enough authority, and it's only a question of what solution is best. I don't believe that short-term blocks have helped very much but bans or voluntary agreements should be considered. The articles involved in the disputes (from the collapse box above) are:
- — EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Canens, don't give up, there needs to be discussion, myself and Ed are discussing on my talk page, or hope that we still will be. I would ask that you await my response in the next 24 hours and go from there. --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re: Topic ban
the talkback template doesn't work so, Hello, T. Canens. You have new messages at Someone35's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
topic banned for no reason?
see this please, I still didn't fully understand why I was banned for 3 months without a warning and without editing any page that's not a talk page or my userpage. I removed that sentence you were complaining about in the moment I saw that Nableezy complained about it-- Someone35 (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 August 2011
- News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results
- Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety
- Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four existing cases
- Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment