Debresser
No apparent interest from any uninvolved admins in either actioning or dismissing this. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Debresser
Blocked for 2 weeks for 1RR violation previously
Debresser on the talk page wrote I reverted a few things. Not [t]he same thing twice. That is counted as one revert. However the two reverts listed above have an intervening edit (here), making those 2 reverts that do not count as "one revert" and a clear violation of the 1RR. He made the same argument on his talk page, despite having multiple users show it was a violation. Given Debresser declined to correct the issue and instead argued that there is no violation, I brought this here.
Beyond My Ken, you have cited no such thing, you have theorized based on a feeling. This is an utterly pointless distraction from a basic violation of the 1RR. I welcome somebody to actual look at that, and if you or anybody else would like to file a report against me where I can defend myself properly that would be just great. Completely ignoring the report however seems to be what you are going for here. nableezy - 03:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Um, there is an objective 1RR violation here, a violation that Debresser was informed of and then refused to rectify. And now says does not matter for reasons that escape my comprehension. Does that matter at all? Or are these bright line rules not something that counts here? nableezy - 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Shocking development, Debresser violates the 1RR again. Not entirely surprising as it does not seem to be enforced against him. But for the record: nableezy - 22:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DebresserStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DebresserI was surpised to see myself reported here, since I have explained the pertaining guideline both on the article talkpage and my user talkpage: An editor can make multiple reverts, just not of the same content, and that is not a WP:1RR violation. I have been there a few times over the last ten years. I remember once reporting somebody and having it explained to me, many years ago. An intervening edit does not make a difference in this respect. By the way, that specific intervening edit was made in the middle of my edits to another section, so I had technically no way of noticing it before pressing the "save" button. On a sidenote: I see no real reason to institute a "mutual report ban", so to speak. If a report is bogus, like this one, jus close it asap, and be done with it. If there were bad faith involved, I'd propose to use WP:BOOMERANG, but I generally do not suspect Nableezy of bad faith. Debresser (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC) @All those who say I misunderstand 1RR. It does not make a difference, because, as I explained already, the edit of the other editor was made between my previous of 01:09 and my next edit of 01:10, and since it was made to another section, there is technically no way I could have been aware of it. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by IcewhizDebresser's edits were nearly consecutive - his editing that day was all in a 6 minute window, 23:06-23:12, with an intervening edit by Al-Andalusi in 23:09 to a different paragraph, which could've quite possibly gone unnoticed in the space of consecutive edits. Furthermore, the second cited revert would quite possibly fall under WP:NOT3RR(7) as it makes the assertion that a BLP is a "Zionist historian" - this assertion is not supported by the cited journal article, is not the common way this BLP is described, and "Zionist" itself is used a pejorative by some.[1][2][3] Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
Statement by HuldraI would like to mention that Debresser was given plenty of opportunity to revert, but refused. (See his talk page.) And if Nableezy hadn't reported it, I would have. Compare the above report, on this page where Onceinawhile was reported by Shrike, without any warning first. Onceinawhile was given a 3 months topic ban (within 2 hours). Why should Debresser be treated differently? Huldra (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC) As for Icewhiz statement "Furthermore, the second cited revert would quite possibly fall under WP:NOT3RR(7) as it makes the assertion that a BLP is a "Zionist historian" - this assertion is not supported by the cited journal article, is not the common way this BLP is described, and "Zionist" itself is used a pejorative by some." ...let me remind you that the Benny Morris article state in the intro that Morris regards himself as a Zionist. It has done so at least since 2010 (I didn't check further)...and Icewhiz himself edited the article as late as August this year, without removing it. Huldra (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC) ....aaaaaand gone, Huldra (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphim SystemWith all due respect to BMK's views that
Statement by Zero0000Summary: Debresser breaks 1RR but denies it on the basis of an incorrect understanding of the rules. Icewhiz tries diversionary tactics, unsuccessfully. BMK wants to clamp down on reports of editors who violate 1RR and refuse to act on several warnings. Recommend: Minor penalty optional. Inform Debresser that his understanding of the rule is incorrect and warn of a more severe penalty if he re-offends. 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 GovindaharihariSupport banning User:Debresser and User:Nableezy they are both disruptive in this area. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianI'll first comment on the technical aspects, then make some general comments. Technically, this is clearly a 1RR violation. However, if you look at the edit times, all the edits are within a few minutes of each other, and Debresser probably simply didn't see the intervening edit here. I would AGF here and advocate for no sanctions. In general, Nableezy complains that Debresser might have initially been unaware that they committed a vioation, but their refusal to revert when it has been brought to them shows that they don't care. In general, I think it's wise for people to self-revert here. I would just point out the excellent essay WP:Editors have pride; people will not want to admit mistakes publicly, even if they privately resolve to not do the same thing in the future. Another broader comment: one of the purposes of 1RR is to slow down rapid-fire editing. People in this area used to (still sometimes do) engage in lots of rapid-fire reverts/edits with little care for consensus or BRD or talk page discussion. To some extent, this is fine (most consensus is achieved through editing, proper phrasing etc.), but doing so can also step on a lot of sensitive toes. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Debresser
|
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"
.[4][5] 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)
- In practice that is not really what happens though. Take everyone's favorite articles where consensus required kind of started from Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump, RFCs are not terribly common for how much happens with those articles. At this point most things that get challenged reach consensus before a RFC and everyone moves on. Which is pretty good considering how decisive those articles are. To the concern about not banning enough people, you should take a look at the piles of bodies from people topic banned in that area. Plenty of experienced editors have been shot down there. It has slowed in recent times because honestly there are not a ton of regulars left on those articles compared to just a couple of years ago. So far the only reason I am seeing in favor of changing is that it is arguably easier, which I am not convinced of yet, and that it is faster which again I am not sure is actually a good thing for the topics the provision is attached to. PackMecEng (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see how 30+ RFCs could ever be described as "not terribly common." There are RFCs there for "Include a link to Trump's Twitter account", "Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children", what to mention in the "Alma mater" infobox entry, and seven separate RFCs specifying exact wording of various parts of the article. This isn't reasonable, and it's a direct result of this policy. And my objection is not that it would be "faster" or "easier" without the restriction (although both those are true), my main objection is that the restriction functionally discourages compromise by giving objections so much weight. When there's a disagreement over what an article should say, the delicate balance between the two sides is what encourages them to compromise (because if they don't, a version they disagree with utterly and had no input into might end up as the consensus version.) Normal editing also discourages frivolous objections, because they can be quickly overruled if a bunch of people disagree with you and few (or no) people support you. Immediately setting all disputed edits on the road to an RFC encourages people to be liberal with their reverts and objections, and to drag their heels on any sort of compromise or to make extreme demands about what the ultimate text should read, because they know that many people won't have the stomach for a full RFC. This, in turn, contributes to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on affected articles, and drives off both new and established users who don't want to deal with the time-wasting process-cruft that results - in particular, given the draining nature of dealing with the molasses that the restriction tends to cause, only the most intransigent or tenacious of editors are likely to remain. --Aquillion (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- For that article, number of edits, contentious subject, and one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia yeah 30+ is not that much. Also frivolous objects are routinely ignored, if there is clear consensus the way you describe an RFC becomes disruptive and actionable in that regard. Which has happened a few times, so that is again in practice not an issue. Also your objections to the speed and easy of editing such a topic are also rather unfounded as again non-controversial things do tend to sail right though, even if challenged. I will agree with you that editor fall off on these kind of articles is an issue but I do not feel that this provision is the cause. It is just a draining subject in general that has seen many fall, willingly or otherwise, even before consensus required was a thing. PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I really don't think that is the result of the policy - it's Donald Trump, the reason for so much discussion and RfCs over anything isn't the restriction, but that Trump is extra controversial - and I have to agree with PackMecEng. All the RfCs have quite a bit of participants on both sides, and if the restriction wasn't there what would replace it would be edit warring. As I said above, if you want to edit the body of the article one can simply do so, and rarely get reverted or get frivolous objections (in my experience) even when making substantial changes. It is just that the smallest things in the lead or infobox get debated. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:41, 19 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 | ||||||
Fast BRD: Original editor discusses a reverted change on talk page, then partially reinstates the edit taking into account the objections of the reverting editor | ||||||
Slow BRD: Original editor discusses a reverted change on talk page, waits 24 hours, then partially reinstates the edit taking into account the objections of the reverting editor |
This chart raises the question of whether it is more important for page-level restrictions to prevent bad behavior or allow good behavior. My personal view is that editor-level sanctions should be our primary tool against bad behavior and page-wide restrictions should strike a balance between preventing bad behavior and allowing good behavior, in a way where the bad behavior is obvious to admins who can step in and deal with the bad at the editor-level. ~Awilley (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- One thing I want to emphasize is that all the "bad behavior" that the consensus required restriction is intended to address is easiest bad behavior for AE to handle. Edit warring in any form (whether slow or fast) is generally obvious, and if someone keeps doing it it's pretty easy to bring them to WP:AE just by putting together a big list of all their reverts - yes, it can occur in bursts during high-profile events when lots of new people are pulled to the article, but as long as administrators are strict and users are quick to bring obvious problems to WP:AE, it's not an intractable problem. Tenacious editing in other forms, on the other hand, is much much harder to prove, and therefore much more difficult to address via WP:AE. The consensus required restriction tries to "solve" a problem that we already have the tools for at the expense of making tenacious editing (and generally being intransigent and refusing to compromise) more rewarding. It hasn't solved the underlying problems, and in some respects it actually discourages compromise - what it's done is empowered editors who would otherwise be topic-banned for revert-warring if they behaved so obviously tenaciously through reverts by allowing them to instead revert everything they disagree with just once and then put up a solid wall of "nope" to all compromises on talk, relying on the fact that the restriction makes it very hard to demonstrate consensus against them and that people often won't have the stomach to go through a full WP:RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ජපස (i.e. jps) topic ban appeal
Article ban lifted per admin consensus below. --regentspark (comment) 18:18, 26 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 ජපස (i.e. jps)
Discussion concerning ජපස (i.e. jps)Statement by ජපස (i.e. jps)I am hereby appealing the topic ban JzG imposed 5 April 2018 here and am formally asking for it to be lifted. JzG has been asked multiple times to give terms for lifting the sanction or to lift the sanction, and he has not replied: [8],[9],[10],[11] No conditions have been placed by JzG for lifting the ban, but I can identify that in that time I have worked in similar areas to great effect: E.g.: And on other wikis, where I worked with the content in question without issue:
I pledge to continue to try to tone down my rhetoric. Thank you for your consideration: jps (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by RhododendritesOnly commenting here to point out what I noted on jps's talk page, pinging JzG, back when the topic ban was issued, and also receiving no response. There was an ANI thread about this matter here, which was closed without action. It was after that was closed, without any edits by jps on relevant topics (or, really, anything at all, as far as I can see), that the topic ban was issued without any additional context. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by JzGI am happy for others to decide this, I am not going to lift it because of jps' extensive history of problematic editing. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning ජපස (i.e. jps)
|
No consensus to reduce protection. In as much as any admin expressed an opinion, it was in favour of keeping ECP. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Religion in Israel
As suggested by User:Oshwah I am seeking another opinion regarding this page. My philosophy is that we should have as few pages as possible under ECP protection. While this page does mention the conflict, it is not about the conflict. I would love the page to be unprotected, and if there is vandalism or issues, we can always re-protect. 99% of the page is about religion in Israel, and the conflict makes a mention, but is not the subject of the article. Apologies if this should have been placed elsewhere. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Religion in IsraelStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Zero0000This is an article which has large sections that are outside ARBPIA but other sections which are clearly related to the conflict. Since protection of article sections is not yet available, keeping protection on the article seems the best option at the moment. Zerotalk 02:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by DebresserThe funny thing is that religion per se does not play a role in the IP-conflict. I was genuinely surprised when this article was tagged with the 30/500 protection. Debresser (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by HuldraThe statement "religion per se does not play a role in the IP-conflict" is rather hilarious....when, say, Muslim or Christian Palestinians are routinely denied entry to Israel, while Jewish people have an automatic right to citizenship. I cannot even understand how anyone can claim that religion does not have anything to do with the IP conflict. (But, then again, I remember back in the late 1960s (yeah, I'm old....), discussing with a Swiss man who assured me that Swiss women were not discriminated against, and that they absolutely didn't want the right to vote. (They first got that right in 1971)). Discrimination isn't felt by those who are not discriminated against.) Huldra (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Religion in Israel
|
The Rambling Man
Referred to WP:ARCA. Sandstein 14:47, 23 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 The Rambling Man
There was a recent ANI thread thread about TRM's hostility at DYK. There was obviously no consensus on topic banning him from DYK or ERRORS, but what the ANI filer perhaps didn't understand is that this should have been filed at AE because of the sanction. He's just been bashing people who frequent DYK on the talk page, usually complaining about errors in a way that's breaching his sanction. See these threads for the pattern:
Certainly he's finding errors, but he's doing it in the most abrasive way possible. And because his sanction isn't being enforced, he's pulling the rope as much as he's given it. So if it isn't being enforced, it should be repealed.
Discussion concerning The Rambling ManStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Rambling ManThe issues are all very specific and relate to the ongoing lamentable state of affairs at DYK where errors are frequently promoted to the main page. Sure I can use abrasive language, but that has nothing to do with these sanctions. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by DwellerExamining those diffs in turn:
--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Sandstein, I know I'm not impartial. That's why I'm not posting in the section that tells me not to. Your serial excessive line with TRM speaks volumes, as does your intransigence.--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC) @Alex Shih, I know the wording of the sanction is poor - it's a shame Arbcom didn't take my advice, but no matter how you cut it, here there are only examples of specific criticism and a mild incivility. No belittling, no harrassment, nothing you'd be bothered about from any other Wikipedian. This is not the behaviour Arbcom set out to prevent, but because of this succession of poorly worded sanctions, people feel free to drag TRM here periodically, so that Sandstein can say "block one month". Honestly, the harassment here is of TRM, which is ironic and ridiculous. --12:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by WBGPlease close this. Timewaste. ∯WBGconverse 09:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by GalobtterThere's no justifiable reason for Sandstein to recuse. That he interprets this remedy differently from other admins and is in the apparent minority on that is not a reason to recuse; cf this AE request or or this one it is hardly that he always calls for sanctions against TRM. That one disagrees with his viewpoint on whether to sanction does not make him involved. And the diffs above clearly violate both the spirit and the text of the restriction. The whole point of the restriction is that, as Opabinia regalis said in the ARCA that led to this remedy is that So that the individual comments are not block-able by themselves ("mildly uncivil") is irrelevant. Comments like If it is deemed that these comments don't violate the restriction, then this should be taken to WP:ARCA, as it is clear that the restriction is meant to curtail the behaviour described above. I don't know how much blocking The Rambling Man will help; I don't know if there are any good solutions to this (other than TRM doing some self-reflection and improving his behaviour); but that the restriction is violated and that TRM is continuing to be regularly unpleasant is clear. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Davey2010WBG has said everything that needs to be said, Literally nothing else to add. –Davey2010Talk 17:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Ritchie333Yesterday I got an off-wiki complaint about TRM. I dealt with it via email, and he resolved the issue quickly and easily. Notice how I didn't block anyone for a month. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93I've defended TRM here enough times, god knows. I do wish he would not say things like the comments posted above, and in general I do wish he'd stop making everything personal and stick to the content, which he's good at; most of the people targeted by his comments are not his enemies, and are actually trying to fix the things he is concerned about. If the other folks are able to persuade TRM to be more collegial, I'd be entirely happy with that outcome. If that's not happening, and the uninvolved admins (@Thryduulf, Sandstein, and Black Kite:) are unwilling to enforce this sanction (mind you, there have been fairly clear violations: in addition to the "I don't want to see you exercise your judgement again" comment linked above, there was Statement by SpartazBurn the witch! (Your definition of who the witch is might vary tbh) Spartaz Humbug! 14:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by SN54129I'm certainly sympathetic to the suggestion that Sandstein should post in this section (thus maintaining a semblance of impartiality), but I agree that, following WBG's suggestion, Sandstein might not have time to move before this is swiftly closed with no sanction. ——SerialNumber54129 14:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by UsernameResult concerning The Rambling Man
@Sandstein: can you re-close, incorporating my comments? If not, just revert this edit. Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
|
87.224.32.138
An IP that hasn’t edited in 3 days isn’t a candidate for an AE block. If they become actively disruptive, take this to ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 87.224.32.138
I am requesting an indefinite topic ban from Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, broadly construed, because of posting the same talk page thread over and over, without gaining consensus. The editor has been made aware of WP:REHASH on 14 November 2018. This has been going on for many months, and I don't believe that a different ban would remedy these long-term disruptive posts.
Discussion concerning 87.224.32.138Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 87.224.32.138Statement by (username)Result concerning 87.224.32.138
|
CaliSurferDude99
CaliSurferDude99 indefed by Courcelles. --regentspark (comment) 19:25, 26 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 CaliSurferDude99
None I'm aware of.
This editor seems to understand vandalism and consensus backwards. The onus is on them to obtain consensus for their content, but they call vandalism the reverts of their desired content by several other editors.
Notice placed.[24]
Discussion concerning CaliSurferDude99Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CaliSurferDude99Statement by (username)Result concerning CaliSurferDude99
|