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 · filter log · block user · block log) 00:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT 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
- 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. - 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)
- 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 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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).
- @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.
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 · filter log · block user · block log) 16:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 23:09, 7 November 2018 Straight revert of this
- 23:12, 7 November 2018 partial revert of this
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Blocked for 2 weeks for 1RR violation previously
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 07:57, 17 July 2017 by GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 4 October 2018.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Debresser on the talk page wrote I reverted a few things. Not [t]he same thing twice. That is counted as one revert. However the two reverts listed above have an intervening edit (here), making those 2 reverts that do not count as "one revert" and a clear violation of the 1RR. He made the same argument on his talk page, despite having multiple users show it was a violation. Given Debresser declined to correct the issue and instead argued that there is no violation, I brought this here.
- Even if one were to accept the (absurd) notion that calling Benny Morris a Zionist is a BLP violation, the exception only allows for removing the BLP violation. Debresser's second edit did much more than that. There is no, afaik, exception for "nearly consecutive edits". Icewhiz's dissembling below is utterly irrelevant. Once Debresser was notified of the 1RR violation he chose not to correct it but argue it away on both his talk page and the article talk page. So even if the intervening edit were "unnoticed" he surely noticed it when he was directed to it. nableezy - 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Um Beyond My Ken, a sanction would generally require more than a feeling that something is getting old. This is a black and white 1RR violation. You want that ignored because you dont like the filing editor? Any comment on the substance of the issue? nableezy - 20:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well if there is no substance to your view besides a feeling I am not sure it needs much of a response. For the record, I have yet to make a single edit to Efraim Karsh in this dispute, so the argument that my editing is what brought me here is apparently also based on nothing more than a feeling. nableezy - 21:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: on what basis? Can you point to any frivolous request I have made here? The idea that there should be a sanction for reporting actionable misconduct strikes me as capricious and having no basis in our policies. nableezy - 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: with all due respect, I do exactly that, all the time. The reason I did not discuss this with Debresser is because several other editors had attempted to do so, and Debresser refused to self-revert. And below again argues that his 2 reverts are not a violation of the 1RR rule. When somebody is given the opportunity to correct an issue and refuses to do so your position is that he should not be reported? Then why have a 1RR? This is entering bizarro-world. This is a basic report, there are 2 reverts and a user who refuses to abide by a topic-wide prohibition. If yall would do something about editors who act like the rules dont apply to them I would not be here that often. nableezy - 03:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, you have cited no such thing, you have theorized based on a feeling. This is an utterly pointless distraction from a basic violation of the 1RR. I welcome somebody to actual look at that, and if you or anybody else would like to file a report against me where I can defend myself properly that would be just great. Completely ignoring the report however seems to be what you are going for here. nableezy - 03:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Um, there is an objective 1RR violation here, a violation that Debresser was informed of and then refused to rectify. And now says does not matter for reasons that escape my comprehension. Does that matter at all? Or are these bright line rules not something that counts here? nableezy - 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Shocking development, Debresser violates the 1RR again. Not entirely surprising as it does not seem to be enforced against him. But for the record:
nableezy - 22:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Debresser
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Debresser
I was surpised to see myself reported here, since I have explained the pertaining guideline both on the article talkpage and my user talkpage:
An editor can make multiple reverts, just not of the same content, and that is not a WP:1RR violation. I have been there a few times over the last ten years. I remember once reporting somebody and having it explained to me, many years ago. An intervening edit does not make a difference in this respect. By the way, that specific intervening edit was made in the middle of my edits to another section, so I had technically no way of noticing it before pressing the "save" button.
On a sidenote: I see no real reason to institute a "mutual report ban", so to speak. If a report is bogus, like this one, jus close it asap, and be done with it. If there were bad faith involved, I'd propose to use WP:BOOMERANG, but I generally do not suspect Nableezy of bad faith. Debresser (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@All those who say I misunderstand 1RR. It does not make a difference, because, as I explained already, the edit of the other editor was made between my previous of 01:09 and my next edit of 01:10, and since it was made to another section, there is technically no way I could have been aware of it. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Icewhiz
Debresser's edits were nearly consecutive - his editing that day was all in a 6 minute window, 23:06-23:12, with an intervening edit by Al-Andalusi in 23:09 to a different paragraph, which could've quite possibly gone unnoticed in the space of consecutive edits. Furthermore, the second cited revert would quite possibly fall under WP:NOT3RR(7) as it makes the assertion that a BLP is a "Zionist historian" - this assertion is not supported by the cited journal article, is not the common way this BLP is described, and "Zionist" itself is used a pejorative by some.[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)
|
Statement by Huldra
I would like to mention that Debresser was given plenty of opportunity to revert, but refused. (See his talk page.)
And if Nableezy hadn't reported it, I would have.
Compare the above report, on this page where Onceinawhile was reported by Shrike, without any warning first. Onceinawhile was given a 3 months topic ban (within 2 hours). Why should Debresser be treated differently? Huldra (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
As for Icewhiz statement "Furthermore, the second cited revert would quite possibly fall under WP:NOT3RR(7) as it makes the assertion that a BLP is a "Zionist historian" - this assertion is not supported by the cited journal article, is not the common way this BLP is described, and "Zionist" itself is used a pejorative by some."
...let me remind you that the Benny Morris article state in the intro that Morris regards himself as a Zionist. It has done so at least since 2010 (I didn't check further)...and Icewhiz himself edited the article as late as August this year, without removing it. Huldra (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
....aaaaaand gone, Huldra (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Icewhiz: Of course WP isn't a RS; but my point was that an assertions which has been in the lead of the Benny Morris article at least since 2010, hardly can be considered "a redline BLP vio".
- Beyond My Ken: your statement "the vast majority of editors have never filed an AE report, and have never been the subject of an AE report" might be true in general, but it certainly isn't true for anyone editing in the ARBPIA waters. Virtually all of us appear here at regular intervals; that goes with the territory. Btw, other regulars, say Shrike, has a higher percentage of his edits to the "Dramah" boards than Nableezy. (I just checked: "gut feeling" isn't enough in ARBPIA), Huldra (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- User:Beyond My Ken look at their contributions; the answer is yes (pr percentage). And I would think it terrible if anyone would be sanctions just because they have a high number of edits to AE or ANI: what should matter its the number of spurious reports, ie. reports which goes nowhere (except wasting peoples time).
- User:Thryduulf To repeat: Debresser was given a chance to revert, but refused. BUT: a lot of reports are made without "the accused" being given a single chance to revert. The case with Onceinawhile (on the top of this page, appeal just after this case) is one such case: Onceinawhile was brought here (by Shrike) ...then topic banned for 3 months (after less than 2 hours by AGK). Needless to say this has created a lot of bad blood. Don't expect that people after that will sit idly by when Shrike, or any of his friends (like Debresser) break the rules, Huldra (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Icewhiz: Shrike just filed a report on a "good faith" mistake made by Onceinawhile, and was "rewarded" with having Once topic banned for 3 months by User:AGK. When Shrike ..or Debresser goes straight to AE or ANI to file reports over "good faith" mistakes, then don't for a moment expect that I, or others, wont start doing the same. Huldra (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphim System
With all due respect to BMK's views that the vast majority of editors have have never filed an AE report, and have never been the subject of an AE report.
That simply isn't true for editors who are active in the conflict area. If someone reverts your work, and there is a 1RR restriction on the article, you could be sanctioned for reverting back. If you ask them to self-revert and they don't, you are supposed to report it. Most of the time the report is enough to prompt a self-revert, but they may not do it until the report is filed. Admins here have consistently asked us to file the reports and not to revert back and risk sanction ourselves. Topic banning AE reports from both parties would be like lifting the 1RR restriction for those two parties. Seraphim System (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm very concerned that Debresser does not seem to understand the 1RR policy. Based on his comments it seems we can expect further similar violations:
An editor can make multiple reverts, just not of the same content, and that is not a WP:1RR violation.
This is not one if the difficult to understand parts of the policy:whether involving the same or different material
and if other editors as you to self-revert, you should. This is a rule that every editor in the topic area is expected to follow. His comments here are sufficient evidence that nableezy made the right call kicking this up to AE. Seraphim System (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)- I think it's clear at this point that there are no admins willing to take action, but I think the closing admin needs to make it clear for Debresser and everyone else editing in the area whether there has been a violation here and whether Debresser should not make further 1RR violations (which he has done while this complaint was open). Seraphim System (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000
Summary: Debresser breaks 1RR but denies it on the basis of an incorrect understanding of the rules. Icewhiz tries diversionary tactics, unsuccessfully. BMK wants to clamp down on reports of editors who violate 1RR and refuse to act on several warnings.
Recommend: Minor penalty optional. Inform Debresser that his understanding of the rule is incorrect and warn of a more severe penalty if he re-offends. Zerotalk 03:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
BMK's proposal is completely bizarre. If nobody is allowed to make reports here, we might as well just close down this noticeboard and undo all the ArbCom motions it is supposed to enforce. I remember very well what the I-P area was like back then; I wonder if BMK does. Zerotalk 06:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
BMK, Debresser objectively broke 1RR and refused to self-revert despite two different editors asking him to. Bringing him here after that is not disruptive. It is how the system is supposed to work. Shooting the messenger would not be an improvement. Zerotalk 14:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Govindaharihari
Support banning User:Debresser and User:Nableezy they are both disruptive in this area. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Kingsindian
I'll first comment on the technical aspects, then make some general comments.
Technically, this is clearly a 1RR violation. However, if you look at the edit times, all the edits are within a few minutes of each other, and Debresser probably simply didn't see the intervening edit here. I would AGF here and advocate for no sanctions.
In general, Nableezy complains that Debresser might have initially been unaware that they committed a vioation, but their refusal to revert when it has been brought to them shows that they don't care. In general, I think it's wise for people to self-revert here. I would just point out the excellent essay WP:Editors have pride; people will not want to admit mistakes publicly, even if they privately resolve to not do the same thing in the future.
Another broader comment: one of the purposes of 1RR is to slow down rapid-fire editing. People in this area used to (still sometimes do) engage in lots of rapid-fire reverts/edits with little care for consensus or BRD or talk page discussion. To some extent, this is fine (most consensus is achieved through editing, proper phrasing etc.), but doing so can also step on a lot of sensitive toes. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Debresser
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I haven't examined the diffs in question, so no opinion on the merits of this filing, but I'm certainly tempted by Beyond My Ken's idea of a three-way mutual iban that explicitly includes a prohibition on any of them filing an AE request against any of the other two. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a sanction for reporting actionable content. It's a sanction for seeing every little thing that puts a toe on and possibly over the line and jumping straight to an AE filing. Other people exercise judgement, talk to the editor concerned and only file when actually needed. These editors will be perfectly capable of reporting any misconduct by the other parties, just as they will be perfectly capable of reporting any misconduct of yours they would have reported. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Onceinawhile
The topic ban is hereby lifted. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by OnceinawhileI broke then ”original author“ rule a week ago, having not previously been aware of it. I made just one edit to the article that day (a revert); my previous edit had been four days prior. I pled guilty and apologized. I was hit with a very severe sanction. A topic ban impacts me severely. I have great interest in the area, and my contributions are always constructive. I created the only Israeli-Palestinian conflict-related FA in the last 8 years, the only GA in 2018, and five of the last 10 DYKs. I am passionate about collaboration between the two “sides” - see WP:IPCOLL which I rewrote a few years ago. I operate only by consensus and 1RR (as I had previously understood it). Since the sanction, a few things have become clear:
I appeal to admins to reconsider. I believe a warning would have been more appropriate.
Statement by AGKOnceinawhile (OIAW) does not dispute that they reverted another editor at Enclave law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to restore back text that was deleted and disputed. OIAW also does not dispute that the revert was a breach of the Arab–Israeli conflict § Reverting general restriction. I accepted the explanation, at the time of the enforcement request, that OIAW was truly unaware of the restriction. However, I would not choose to take enforcement action principally because an editor refused to apologise. Conversely, apologising is not a 'get out of jail free card' that negates the need for an administrator to look at disruption in the article being reported for enforcement. The enforcement action taken was to exclude OIAW for 3 months (90 days) from the affected topic area. In the days after the original enforcement request, I spent some time at my user talk page discussing with OIAW why they reverted the editor. I am not sure the discussion will be immediately helpful to any colleagues reviewing this appeal. There was more than a touch of wikilawyering, particularly around the 'awareness' aspect. I cannot see that during the enforcement request, in their appeal to me directly, or indeed in this new appeal that OIAW recognises jumping to a revert is the type of conduct that tends to disrupt articles such as these. At the time of applying the sanction, I also considered that the affected article – and topic area – is 'live' and suffering from poor standards of editorial quality. Recently, the topic has been at this noticeboard frequently. Perhaps you will agree that this action was commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, that I respond[ed] flexibly and proportionately, and that the decision was within the bounds of administrator discretion (WP:AC/P#Enforcement). Note that the underlying remedy is the subject of some ongoing discussion at WP:ARCA as to its fitness for purpose. AGK ■ 22:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by involved editor HuldraPlease end this topic ban now. Just read the "Debresser" section above this, to see how much "bad blood" this sanction (And Sandsteins on Nishidani) has created. Admins are supposed to "put out flames", not throwing petrol on the fire, Huldra (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by DebresserThe violation was real. The editor should have been aware of it. IMHO these two simple points means that there is no grounds for removing the sanction altogether. It was overly harsh, though, and I wouldn't mind if it were shortened to a week or two weeks. In the future, admins should take care to sanction all violations more or less to the same degree, allowing for slight variations based on circumstances that may be grounds for leniency or harshness. Debresser (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Malik ShabazzBelow, Black Kite wrote:
Statement by Zero0000The sanction against Once was a good example of bad judgement. Frankly I was shocked when it happened, and less than impressed by AGK's attempt to justify the unjustifiable. For a long time it has been a convention between the regular editors of inviting each other to self-revert when they make a mistake. None of us want to break the rules on purpose but all of us can forget previous edits, miscalculate the time, or fail to understand the rules in the same way that others do. Here and here are two examples where Shrike (who reported Once without a warning) benefited from this convention. There is no doubt whatever that Once would have immediately self-reverted if the rule breach was brought to his attention. Shrike knew that 100%. I find it hard to recall more than one or two editors in the past decade who worked as hard as Once at getting the facts right by meticulous source collection and collation. If you want to see how valuable he is, look at Balfour Declaration, which Once brought to FA status largely by himself despite it being a subject fraught with controversy. With a little work it could be published in an academic journal. As proof of the respect I hold for him, I spent hours visiting a library across town to obtain obscure sources that he wanted to check. But one revert against a rule he was unfamiliar with and he's gone for 3 months. This is supposed to be to the benefit of the encyclopedia? Zerotalk 02:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC) To editor WJBscribe:: Your understanding of Once's "foot soldier" comment is erroneous. Description of the I-P area as a battleground is unfortunately a correct description and every regular editor is in the trenches by that metaphor. Once did not create this situation and does not approve it. The distinction that Once makes, which you ignore, is between those for whom the aim of the battle is to write good articles despite the toxic atmosphere, and those for whom the battle consists of obstruction, destruction and pov-pushing. Once places himself in the first camp, which is where every editor in the area should be, but for some reason you think that is a bad thing. In fact he is one of those regular editors most clearly in the first camp. Zerotalk 06:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by KurtisI strongly support lifting this topic ban. A few days ago, I left a message on Onceinawhile's talk page encouraging him to appeal his sanction, offering my own opinion that he does have a case to plead. This is someone who has done great work for Israel-Palestine articles; even a cursory review of his talk page should demonstrate this. The one revert he made might technically have been a violation, but it is offset by otherwise highly productive and collaborative editing on his part. I'm prepared to accept Onceinawhile's explanation that he was unaware of the restrictions until the AE report in which he was sanctioned. Sandstein hit the nail on the head. Topic bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. The only thing we're preventing by banning him from his area of expertise for three months is the creation of high quality content in one of the most contentious parts of Wikipedia, which makes it counterproductive and useless. Kurtis (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianI will simply copy-paste what I wrote on AGK's talkpage. The only small tweak is that currently there's an ARCA request about this stupid rule which would probably avoid these kinds of situations in the future.
Incidentally, WJBScribe's comments make no sense to me. It's not an admin's job to look out for what will benefit Onceinawhile ("I'm only punishing you for your own good" is really lame, by the way). It's their job to look out for what happens on Wikipedia. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by OnceinawhileStatement by JFGThis looks like an excessive sanction and I endorse the appeal, fully concurring with statements by Kingsindian and Sandstein. Remember that sanctions are supposed to prevent further disruption, not punish editors and taint their record for minor or unwitting violations. — JFG talk 07:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Onceinawhile
|
Rethinking consensus-required
As most of you know there are many (~150ish?) American Politics articles under a discretionary sanction known as "Consensus-required". The restriction typically reads,
All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged.
The original motivation of this restriction was for it to be a "correction" for 1RR: to prevent situations where the following occurs:
- A drive-by editor adds contentious content to an article
- A regular editor trying to maintain a neutral article reverts, using up their 1RR
- The drive-by editor reverts the content back into the article, using their 1RR and leaving the article in a non-consensus state
User:Coffee, who I believe came up with the restriction, explained the above in this 2016 ArbCom clarification request (see Coffee's first indented reply beginning "Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Callanecc: The whole point of this restriction..." I recommend reading the entire paragraph.
Over the past 2 years the consensus-required restriction has mostly succeeded in eliminating the scenario above, along with the added benefit of stamping out a lot of tag-team edit warring. It has required some administrator discretion along the way, such as deciding how long material must be in an article before removing it counts as a bold edit (in which the removal of text could be reverted) instead of a revert (where a talkpage consensus would be required to restore a deletion). User:NeilN, I think, used a couple of months or so, depending on the article, and other admins have kind of followed suit.
However the restriction has also brought some unintended side effects. The biggest one is that it allows a single editor or minority of editors to dramatically slow down article development and filibuster changes they don't like. You end up with situations like this:
- Editor A adds some new information to an article
- Editor B doesn't like that information, so they revert, invoking a "challenge" in the edit summary
- For the next couple of weeks nobody is allowed to add anything like the original edit to the article while the tribes of A and B argue and vote on the talk page
- Eventually, often after pages of discussion and voting, an RfC perhaps, and a close which is also argued about, the sentence that Editor A wrote two weeks ago is placed into the article "by consensus".
- Unless the person who closed the RfC had the foresight to explicitly state otherwise, the wording of the sentence is locked, and changes to the wording of that sentence require a new talkpage consensus to overturn the old one.
The end result is that you get articles bogged down with these one-sentence snippets that nobody is allowed to change. Take for example the 3rd paragraph of the Donald Trump article beginning "Trump entered..." That paragraph is the product of thousands of man-hours and yet it's still got jarring juxtapositions like "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false."
that nobody is allowed to fix because even minor rephrasing can't be done without explicit consensus. (You can see which sentences you're not allowed to touch by clicking "edit" and reading the hidden text.)
Getting back to the point, I would like to ask the AE community to think about something that could replace our consensus-required restriction: something that would still mitigate the first-mover advantage of 1RR and encourage talkpage consensus building, but that would also allow for swifter article development with less gridlock. I'll list a couple ideas I've thought of already:
Name | Rule | Comments |
---|---|---|
1RR for bold edits | If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must wait 24 hours (from the time you made the edit) before reinstating your edit. | This restriction only eliminates the first-mover advantage of 1RR. |
Enforced WP:BRD | If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must substantively discuss the issue on the article talk page before reinstating your edit. | This doesn't eliminate the first-mover advantage, but slows things down by forcing the original editor to participate in talk page discussion. |
Enforced WP:BRD alternative #1 | If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time you made the edit) before reinstating your edit. | A combination of the first two rules. While this is the most stringent restriction, it is still lighter than consensus-required. |
Enforced WP:BRD alternative #2 | If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page or wait 24 hours (from the time you made the edit) before reinstating your edit. | A combination of the first two rules with an OR instead of AND. This is the least restrictive rule. |
Also note that none of the above prevents tag-team edit warring. That is a problem, but I think it may be outweighed by the fact that one of the more rapid forms of article development involves partial reverts in which editors progressively tweak an addition, taking into account concerns expressed in edit summaries, until they arrive at something that everybody can live with. That kind of editing is the way much of Wikipedia works, and is currently disallowed by the consensus-required rule. ~Awilley (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Collapsed (not closed) discussion about the proper venue
|
---|
|
I tried to re-think this in June at User:Power~enwiki/AE-DT and didn't get anywhere. Perhaps the comments there will be of some benefit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Return the pages to normal editing. Use 3RR vigorously like it should be and the edit warriors will eventually cease due to topic bans or blocks. I have no idea why admins have to keep fiddling around with rules and making up new ones when they don't even forcefully administer the ones we have site-wide with enough vigor.
The biggest problem with the American Politics arena is not so much the incessant POV pushing by near single purpose accounts, its the fact that we are limited for references by the least worthy source of information, namely, the NEWS, which is increasingly partisan, unable to report objectively and lacks the ability to review a situation or event dispassionately through the prism of reflection and outside the fog of recentism.--MONGO (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC) - This would be an improvement over the current consensus required restriction. It would make it far less likely that partisan sockpuppets and SPAs could lock down any progress on article improvement. I've have been very involved since the first case the resulted in American politics discretionary sanctions, and find that the consensus required restriction actually interferes with improving the encyclopedia. The only sight downside I see is that three rules would be slightly more complicated than one. That can be addressed by simply listing them in the form proposed above in the edit notice, on the talk page, and in a user talk page notice template. - MrX 🖋 15:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- The goal would be to prevent constant article instability on very active and controversial articles, without completely stalling article improvement and development. I agree with above comments that the consensus required restriction freezes article development. The third suggested rule:
If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.
would be an improvement. Seraphim System (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- The goal would be to prevent constant article instability on very active and controversial articles, without completely stalling article improvement and development. I agree with above comments that the consensus required restriction freezes article development. The third suggested rule:
The end result is that you get articles bogged down with these one-sentence snippets that nobody is allowed to change
This is exclusively a Donald Trump problem; as far as I know, no other article has an extensive list of consensuses for the lead (or even a list of consensuses in general is rare). If, say,"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false."
is an issue, one can simply proposed a rewording, on the talk page and if it is an improvement, there'll be well enough editors supporting the change for a consensus within a few days - one nice thing about the article is that one doesn't have to wait weeks or use an RfC to get comments/feedback/consensus for changes. I have made >500 edits to Donald Trump including some reworking of the structure of the article etc and haven't felt overtly stifled by the restriction, which is largely only an issue if one is editing the lead.
- What happens to portions of the lead that aren't locked down is that they constantly get churned - i.e, constant edits are made, that sometimes improve and sometimes worsen the sentences, and on the whole the lead doesn't improve because so many people want to edit it. Same thing would happen to the sentences that are locked down if they aren't locked down anymore; in addition, since these are by definition controversial sentences, you'd see constantly things like removing "false" or adding "lie" to that sentence, which is IMO combated well by that all caps and very clear message telling people not to modify that sentence without prior consensus. And on Donald Trump (though perhaps less on other articles), the consensus-required restriction has been extremely helpful and I would oppose replacing it with any of the options suggested above; it has led to a relative peace despite the controversy of the article, due to it in effect creating binding consensuses, and works well as the regular editors of the article don't WP:GAME the restrictions but follow the spirit of it.
- Consensus-required is an issue on rapidly developing articles, or on less high profile articles, where it becomes very difficult to edit an article or to garner a consensus; IMO in those cases the consensus-required portion should simply be not used. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Galobtter, I agree that the situation at the Trump article is unusual, though I see it more as one of the worse datapoints on a larger spectrum of gridlock. Returning to the example of the false statements sentence, here's the most serious attempt I can remember to do something to it. link (TLDR: half the participants got hung up on free media coverage and both proposals were closed with no consensus to change anything.) I often worry that the sanctions and extra administrator attention has contributed to stagnation at the Trump article, with all but the most determined editors giving up and editing elsewhere. As a recent example, I've noticed that the article Matthew Whitaker (attorney) has gotten literally hundreds of edits in the past week, but according to the Trump article Jeff Sessions is still the attorney general.
- In any case, thank you for the input. That's very helpful. ~Awilley (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- That proposal failed because it was a more of a major reworking rather than a minor copy editing (and that change would be reverted if editors were allowed to directly edit the page).
but according to the Trump article Jeff Sessions is still the attorney general
That is I think due to the extended confirmed protection rather than the the consensus-required restriction; lot of small updates like that are done by non-extended confirmed editors/or at-least those non-extended confirmed editors draw attention to areas that are in the news/need updates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- That proposal failed because it was a more of a major reworking rather than a minor copy editing (and that change would be reverted if editors were allowed to directly edit the page).
- I guess the part I am missing is the why. Yes it slows article development in favor of establishing consensus and promoting stability, which I would think is a good thing. But I am not sure replacing one, by this point well understood, standard with three new ones that almost do the same thing as helpful. A common theme with the majority of the articles under consensus required is the rush to insert everyday news into articles before weight can be determined. Also almost all the articles under the restriction are contentious topics usually with a BLP component thrown in for good measure. So slowing down flurries of edits is generally helpful to avoid recent news and it gives a chance for everyone to talk it over and come to an agreement on the article talk page.
- That is not to say there are not issues with consensus required. From what I have seen there are two main problems. One is enforcement, while admins are not required to do anything really, with this provision I have seen many specifically states they do not want to enforce it. I am not seeing anything in the new provisions that would help that issue. Second is what is long standing? NeilN has given his personal opinion on the matter stating
"four to six weeks as longstanding"
.[13][14] Which I think is an acceptable standard that could be codified into the requirement. I think if those two issues could be fixed with consensus required it would be an even more helpful provision. PackMecEng (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)- The one place where I think a consensus required restriction might be an improvement is on BLPs. I think there were good reasons to put the restriction in place, but it should have been applied to BLP instead of American Politics. Seraphim System (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- One issue is that it encourages people to resort to "process-heavy" consensus-resolution methods, especially an WP:RFC, because they're reluctant to just rely on talk-page consensus. Those methods are meant to be last resorts - they take time, consume energy, are somewhat impenetrable to new users, and lead to pages covered in excessive layers of RFCs and other policy-cruft. Sometimes an RFC is necessary, yes, but most of the time it's possible to reach consensus via discussion, even on contentious pages. And this leads to the bigger problem - the consensus-required restriction encourages people to be intractable, and especially to deny a developing consensus even when it's obvious, insisting on an RFC to prolong the process of adding something they don't want in an article (and in hopes that people will go away.) All edits, remember, require consensus - the restriction does nothing unusual in that respect. All edits are presumed to enjoy consensus until someone objects, and the restriction doesn't even change that (since you still need a revert to invoke it.) What the restriction functionally does is cripple all consensus-building short of an WP:RFC, because people are terrified to say "well, I see a rough consensus here even if you disagree" (and if they do, whoever they disagree with can just go "nu-uh, time for an RFC!") Resolving controversial edits requires putting pressure on everyone involved to reach a consensus; people participate, even if they feel very strongly against what's being proposed, because if they don't then discussion might reach a consensus on something they dislike without any of their input at all, encouraging them to try and find a mutually-agreeable compromise. "Consensus-required" removes much of the pressure from people who want to keep changes out of the article (because they know it will be very hard to demonstrate consensus against them with anything short of a full WP:RFC, which can take a month), and therefore encourages people to drag their heels and refuse to compromise, paradoxically discouraging the very consensus-building it was intended to encourage. We cannot run an WP:RFC for every single edit that anyone objects to - that's unproductive and only serves to entrench disagreements. --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- An RFC is always an option regardless of this provision. If someone wants to be a stickler on an article that is not covered by consensus required they can revert, start a RFC, and essentially freeze that change until the RFC is finished. Also if someone is consistently doing something like that they tend to get topic banned these days for tendentious editing. Finally is an RFC on a contentious topic really a bad thing? What is wrong with wider community input. PackMecEng (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Occasional RFCs on a contentious topic are not a bad thing. Having an RFC for every significant change is a bad thing because it vastly increases the required effort for working on the article, because it discourages compromise and negotiation in favor of WP:BATTLEGROUND "we have more people, so we're doing it our way" thinking, because it leads to large numbers of WP:RFC results that slow down editing and discourage new users, and so on. An RFC is a last resort, to be invoked when other resolution methods have failed and the topic has had extensive discussion. Additionally, while it is notionally possible to ban someone for tendentious editing, in practice an experienced editor can come up with some reasonable-sounding objection to almost any edit; and it's entirely possible that they legitimately think what they say and are not intentionally being tendentious - they just object to every single edit people make that goes against their views on the topic, and the current way consensus-required is interpreted turns those objections into "if you want to do anything here, you need an RFC." The problem isn't that users have gotten worse (and we don't want to ban all of them), the problem is that this restriction discourages people from yielding on anything short of a clear-cut RFC when they feel strongly about anything, because they know that as long as they hold their ground on any point it's extremely difficult and time-consuming to establish a consensus against them. Before this restriction, people would be encouraged to participate meaningfully in discussions and compromise out of concern that a consensus would be reached without them if they didn't. Now, they're encouraged to revert liberally, drag their heels and view it as a prelude to an inevitable RFC. Basically - it's important that it be possible to reach a consensus through talking. Not just through the more formal structure of RFCs. Even (especially!) on controversial subjects. (And, beyond that, while you say editors who are intransigent can be banned for tenacious editing - people who edit war, which is the problem this restriction was trying to fix, can also be banned; and they can be banned much, much more easily, since edit-warring is usually obvious even if they manage to skirt the red-line revert limits.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Thank you for your input. Based on your experience with consensus-required in AP articles, would you be willing to let me know which (if any) of the four options in the table above you think would make a good replacement for the consensus-required restriction? What do you think would be the effect on day-to-day editing? ~Awilley (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I prefer "Enforced WP:BRD", although 3 is probably "safest" in that it accompanies that with a clear-cut red line rule that would back that up. But the basic goal should be to try and get everyone to the negotiating table, so to speak, discouraging edit-wars. I don't feel that Consensus Required is actually helping, though - we've navigated plenty of controversial topics without it in the past. So I would even take removing it and replacing it with nothing over the current situation. Consensus is always required, after all; the practical effect of the restriction is "informal consensus doesn't count" (or rarely ever counts, or, at least, users are afraid to act on it), which makes consensus-building harder, not easier. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Here's another way of thinking about the above options in terms of how they prevent bad behavior and allow good behavior. In the truth table below you can see that the options that restrict the most bad behaviors also restrict the most good behaviors (the normal dispute resolution that we see elsewhere on the encyclopedia).
No restriction (just vanilla 1RR) | 1RR for bold edits | Enforced BRD | Enforced BRD and 1RR for bold edits | Enforced BRD or 1RR for bold edits | Consensus-required | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Prevents Bad Behavior | 1 of 8 | 3 of 8 | 4 of 8 | 5 of 8 | 2 of 8 | 7 of 8 |
1RR exploit: Original editor immediately reverts a Bold change back into the article | ||||||
Gaming BRD: Original editor leaves a note on the talk page and immediately reverts a Bold change back into the article | ||||||
Gaming 1RR: Original editor waits a day and then reverts a Bold change back into the article. | ||||||
Gaming 1RR and BRD: Original editor leaves a note on the talk page, waits a day, then reverts a Bold change back into the article against objections on the talk page | ||||||
Gaming consensus-required: Reverting editor slows down normal article development by "challenging" bold edits and stonewalling on talk page to force extended discussions | ||||||
Slow edit war (2 editors): Editors repeatedly revert a recent change in and out of the article every 24 hours without participating on talk | (requires original editor to participate on talk) | (requires original editor to participate on talk) | ||||
Slow edit war (2 editors) with talk: Editors repeatedly revert a recent change in and out of the article every 24 hours while participating on talk | ||||||
Tag-team edit war (many editors): Different editors repeatedly revert a recent change in and out of the article | ||||||
Allows Good Behavior (normal dispute resolution) | 4 of 4 | 2 of 4 | 2 of 4 | 1 of 4 | 3 of 4 | 0 of 4 |
Immediate partial revert: Original editor immediately reinstates an edit taking into account the objections of the reverting editor (dispute resolution via edit summary) | ||||||
Delayed partial revert: Original editor waits 24 hrs, then reinstates a change that takes into account the objections of the reverting editor | ||||||
Normal BRD: Original editor discusses a reverted change on talk page, then partially reinstates the edit taking into account the objections of the reverting editor | ||||||
Slow BRD: Original editor discusses a reverted change on talk page, waits 24 hours, then partially reinstates the edit taking into account the objections of the reverting editor |
This chart raises the question of whether it is more important for page-level restrictions to prevent bad behavior or allow good behavior. My personal view is that editor-level sanctions should be our primary tool against bad behavior and page-wide restrictions should strike a balance between preventing bad behavior and allowing good behavior, in a way where the bad behavior is obvious to admins who can step in and deal with the bad at the editor-level. ~Awilley (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Aj abdel
Blocked for a week. Sandstein 21:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Aj abdel
Before warning:
After warning:
N/A
This editor has a clear POV on the conflict, and has continued to ignore the general prohibition, even after being notified of its existence.
Discussion concerning Aj abdelStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Aj abdelStatement by (username)Result concerning Aj abdel
|