Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Statement by John Carter: Statement by John Carter
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 458: Line 458:
::{{re|BU Rob13}}In case it's not clear, the above is really grasping at straws in an attempt to as open as humanly possible. I could have answered "No" to your question and even if you went through my contribs and found all of the above you probably would not disagree. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 06:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|BU Rob13}}In case it's not clear, the above is really grasping at straws in an attempt to as open as humanly possible. I could have answered "No" to your question and even if you went through my contribs and found all of the above you probably would not disagree. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 06:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


=== Statement by Username ===
=== Statement by John Carter ===
I would suggest the arbs review the material presented in the case. The fact that the requester indicated the subject Kenji Miyazawa could not have been something he clearly was because of the nationalist implication raises in my eyes serious questions regarding his competence to edit in this field which is much more contentious than Japanese poets.i wish I could find the exact time he stated he was the only one he could trust to edit the draft page for Kenji Miyazawa also raises questions regarding his ability to work in contentious topics. Unfortunately I haven't figured out how to copy addresses with the new machine here yet. I would also welcome input from the other parties to the original arbitration none of who seem to have been notified of this. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 22:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


=== Statement by Username ===
=== Statement by Username ===

Revision as of 22:22, 28 December 2017

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/6/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/5/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles Motion (orig. case) 1 December 2017
Clarification request: Discretionary Sanctions none none 21 December 2017
Amendment request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 none (orig. case) 27 December 2017
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 21 June 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles

Initiated by Huldra at 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Huldra

How is the above statement: "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" to be interpreted?

I have discussed it with User:Opabinia regalis and User:Callanecc at some length here.

There are presently 2 different interpretations, lets call them Version 1 and Version 2:

  • In Version 1: its original author may not restore it within 24 hours after their own edit
  • In Version 2: its original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other users edit

I can live with either version (both are an improvement on what we had), I just need to know which one is the correct interpretation. Huldra (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the example that User:SMcCandlish: as I wrote on the above discussion with Opabinia regalia and Callanecc: that is only if you revert late, after almost 24 hours. In effect, both Version 1 and Version 2 will, if there are only 2 editors involved, result that the new stuff is in the article about half the time, on average.
As I said, I can live with both versions, but if Version 2 is the valid version, then I think we would need the addition suggested by Callanecc.
The reason I would prefer version 1, is that that is a fixed edit to relate to. Take an example, under Version 2 :
  1. Editor A inserts material at 00:01, 1 Jan
  2. Editor B partly removes/change the material at 00:05, 1 Jan
  3. Editor C partly removes/change the material further, at 00:10, 1 Jan

...then what should editor A relate to: can A edit 24 hours after editor B’s edit, or is it 24 hours after editor C’s edit?

(In Version 1, it is easy: it is 24 hours after editor A’s first edit.)

I’m sorry to be so nitpicking here: but 12+ years in the I/P area has thought me that there is absolutely no issue so small that it cannot be quarrelled over, or get you reported, so this really needs to be clarified. Huldra (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok User:Callanecc, thank you for your reply.
(And yes, in RL editors will battle it out on talk pages, or in edit lines: none of us wants to waste time edit warring)
(But, I’m trying to figure exactly how the rules will be interpreted, knowing all too well that the threshold for being reported is rather ......low.)
However, keep in mind that if B, or C, removes as much as a single word from what A has added, it would be counted as a (partial) revert...this makes Version 2 sound more and more like the dreaded "consensus required", which wasn't wanted by the "regulars" in the I/P area. It also open up for personal interpretation: say, was this one word removal important enough for it to be counted as a partial revert? And if D, E and F messes around with the text that A added, A must wait until no-one change it for 24 hours? Oh horror.
I do not like rules which are open to a lot of interpretation! I like rules that are absolute clear, which each and every one of us has to follow. And, Version 1 is such a rule.... Just saying....Huldra (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I once said, a bit flippantly, that it is easy to avoid all edit wars: you could just forbid all editing. Which is the way we are going. With Version 1, we would always, sooner or later end up on the talk page: there is a limit to how much damage/disruption an editor can make, if they are only allowed one edit a day! My BIG problem with Version 2 is that it is unclear...if there are more than two editors: what will count as an revert, and what will not count as an revert? I expect lots of reports about this in the future....And a lot of waste of time. Sigh. Huldra (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newyorkbrad I tried to answer that above, and here: User_talk:Opabinia_regalis/Archive_15#that_pesky_I.2FP_area_again...

The short answer is: if you revert after almost 24 hours, yes, then the new stuff will stay in, most of the time.

If you revert immediately, then the new stuff will stay out, most of the time.

If, on average, a revert is done after 12 hours, then the new stuff will stay in half of the time. Actually, this is much the same both for Version 1, and Version 2. However, lots of complications might ensue with Version 2, if there are more than 2 editors, and/or partial reverts, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish ok, one ongoing example, at Mausoleum of Abu Huraira:

If I have understood correctly, according to Version 2, editor C (User:Shrike) has broken the rule? He has not broken the rule according to Version 1, AFAIK, Huldra (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I think Option 3 is a definite improvement to Option 2. Huldra (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Opabinia regalis yeah, the I/P area on the WP dramah boards is not my idea of fun.....(It's a thousand times more fun to actually write articles in the area...which is, thankfully, what I'm mostly doing.)
However, I do sincerely hope that you don't go back to the old 1RR, or 3RR system. Remember: all this started, because in the "old system", in a one to one editor "fight", the editor wanting to add something always won, as that first addition don't count towards RR.
I think all the 3 Versions suggested is an improvement to the old system, my preference would be:
  • Version 1
  • Version 3
  • Version 2
...in descending order. I can live will any version, but I really have to know which is valid, Huldra (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors here say they support Version 2, as that, they say, limit edit warring. BUT, recall, we didn't start this in order to "limit edit warring"...as there was no edit warring in the previous version (in a one to one editor "fight") ...as the editor wanting to add something always won. So the argument supporting Version 2 (instead of Version 1) because it "limit edit warring" is a bit of a Red herring, IMO, Huldra (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Firstly, to repeat, edit warring is not a great problem in the IP area, after 1RR was introduced years ago. The damage one can do with one edit a day is ...limited, to say the least.
Secondly, I still favour Version 1, for the clarity. Take an example, playing out just now, on Qusra article:
  • after a 5 day break, I add stuff in 3 edits, last 22:59, 26 December 2017‎
  • 04:41, 27 December 2017 another editor again removes some stuff...NOT any of the new stuff I added; in order to find out who added that stuff, you have to look through the edits for weeks back! (Ok, spoiler alert: I added it, about 3, or 4 weeks ago)
When can I reintroduce some of the stuff removed? Under Version 2, I have honestly no idea, is it 04:42, 28 December?? Under Version 1 know: it is 23:00, 27 December.
This is the problem with Version 2 in RL: typically editing goes back and forth like this..the sentence "of the first revert made to their edit" is bound to be contested, ie, I could revert at 23:00, 27 December, saying it was not the first revert....the first revert of some of this stuff was back some weeks ago, on 06:27, 3 December 2017.
This is why I like Version 1: it is "clean", and absolutely crystal clear what is meant. Huldra (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) editor Cullen328

I support Callanecc's interpretation that "the original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other user's revert." These restrictions are designed to encourage broader talk page discussion leading to consensus, and slowing down article space reversions serves that goal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

Only version 2 is logically feasible. Example of why: I make an edit at 00:01. No one notices it until 23:59, and they revert it. Two minutes later, at 00:02, more than 24 hours has passed under version 1, so I'd be free to re-revert. Not cool, and not the intent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian seems to be making a point that's not really on-point. Yes, this ArbCom language is an "extension of" 1RR (itself based on 3RR). However, that in and of itself means it is not the same as 1RR; otherwise the new wording would not exist, and the decision simply would have imposed the same 1RR rule we're used to. This is different: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours". There is no way to interpret that, that makes any sense, other than "within 24 hours of the revert by the other editor". This interpretation has no effect at all on "regular" 1RR or 3RR. Since the intent is to restrain editwarring, not to punish some particular editor in relation to some other particular editor, the further consistent interpretation is that if A puts material in, B reverts it, C restores it, D reverts it, neither A nor C can re-restore it for 24 hours after D's revert. Otherwise, people can just email-coordinate an unstoppable WP:TAGTEAM. C becomes a new "original author" from the point of their own re-insertion, but it doesn't just erase A's connection to the material.

The wording could probably be clarified as "If an edit is reverted by another editor, the same editor may not restore it within 24 hours of that revert." That would cover every instance. E.g. to continue with the same example of rapid-fire editwarring: if E restores, F reverts, and G restores, G's restoration is an edit, and B, D, and F cannot revert it the same day. If H reverts, that's an edit, so A, C, E, and G cannot restore the same day. Easy-peasy. The problem here is the word "original", which implies only A is subject to the special 1RR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Kingsindian's response is "SMcCandlish claims that the intent was to stop edit-warring. No ...", followed by a lot of rationalization, I'm comfortable just stopping here, other than stating the obvious: Any system can be gamed with determination, but version 2 is much less gameable because it forces each party to wait a full day, and they'll eventually run out of tag-team partners.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "name me a person who edits regularly in the ARPIA area, and I'll find you an edit in their recent history which violates version 2" – That would likely be because it hasn't been the typical interpretation (and wouldn't be under "traditional" 1RR, though it arguably makes more sense in this application of the concept – thus this entire ARCA discussion). If it were already the common and certain interpretation, then people would avoid making edits that transgress it. Kind of a "Q.E.D.", really. As I said in a thread at my user talk page involving some of these peeps, no one cares about edits that may or may not have transgressed this principle, before it is certain that it is the principle, even as recently as one full day ago, because those edits are already stale in AE's eyes; sanctions that could be imposed are to be preventative, not punitive – if people aren't editingwarring pretty much right now, and clearly trying to game the special 1RR, then there's not any clear enforcement action to take, especially when ArbCom is still deliberating about which interpretation should really be employed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "If, as you agree, nobody actually follows version 2, and everyone follows version 1, then the clarification should ..." – The longer Arb comment I see down there disagrees. ArbCom isn't bureaucratically bound by what label a request has; the committee is here to do what makes the most sense for the project in the context. And various clarification requests have resulted in amendments (though ArbCom is officially not bound by precedent anyway). PS: I don't agree that no one follows version 2; I just take your word for it that many presently do not (otherwise this ARCA would not be open). I have been advising, when people ask me [I'm not sure why], that they should follow version 2 since it is clearly the safest bet in the interim, regardless what ArbCom might ultimately decide; it's not possible to be sanctioned for revert-warring less.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000's idea that version 2 could be use to permanently prevent someone from editing is implausible, since the editor wanting to game that way is subject to the same restriction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And (to followup to the followup) nothing in that scenario or any scenario we're contemplate has anything to do with self-reverts. If you make a series of tweaks to your own stuff, admins treat it as a single edit for determining xRR matters. No one is going to be fooled by patently silly attempts at system gaming. I think this is all a moot point, since some combination of versions 2–4 (if we call Callenecc's no. 4) is going to be the result.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seraphim Blade's "Version 3" works for me, too. I think that might assuage Kingsindian's concerns, while also addressing the GAMING scenario I outlined above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Callanecc's effective Version 4, "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit", seems good to me. It still resolves the gameability of Version 1, while being more restrictive than "traditional" 1RR, and apparently assuaging the concerns about Version 2 (even though I don't think those concerns are realistic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BU Rob13

Option 2 was definitely the intent. ~ Rob13Talk 15:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

May I remind people that this rule was simply a tweaking of the 1RR rule. In 1RR, a person is allowed to make 1 revert per day. This mechanism depends entirely on their edit time, not the other person's edit time. Therefore, version 1 is the only logically consistent and easily-understandable interpretation here. I have always interpreted the rule that way, and as far as I know, everyone else in this area has as well. To take one example of out hundreds, see this AE request, where the complainant, the defendant, and everybody else in the discussion works with version 1. Indeed, if version 2 was applicable, this revert would have been a 1RR violation. Please don't change the interpretation now. There is no evidence that version 1 is creating any problems: if it's not broke, don't fix it.

Btw, there is nothing unfair about version 1. It slows down the edit-war, just as version 2 does. In the hypothetical example floated above, the second person can make a revert of their own after 24 hours from their edit. May I remind people that most consensus in Wikipedia is achieved through editing: often what is needed is simply a rephrasing which everyone can live by. If version 1 is unfair, so is 3RR, which is policy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comments by Arbs are extremely weird. Everyone recognizes that version 1 is the current interpretation, used by all sides in the area. (Please find me a single case where version 2 was used.) Now, ArbCom wants to change the interpretation to version 2. Why? Who asked for it? Did anyone complain that the (tweaked) 1RR isn't working properly? What's the evidence for any such thing?

I remind ArbCom that the original amendment process just wanted you to tweak the standard 1RR a little bit to get rid of the "first mover" advantage. Initially you capriciously added the "consensus required" provision, which was only removed after lots of strife. Now you want to capriciously change the remedy again. If ArbCom failed to write the original remedy properly, fix your wording to match the practice, instead of trying to make everyone change their practice to match your wording. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: Are you seriously doubting that version 1 is the current practice? Please find me a single instance of anyone using version 2. Even the people who are commenting in this section (who work in ARBPIA) saying that they would like version 2, actually use version 1. I can easily prove this assertion if anyone cares.

Having established that version 1 is indeed the current practice, here's the point. Nobody asked ArbCom to change the practice from version 1 to version 2. Why would you do such a thing anyway? Where is the evidence that version 1 is not working, or that anyone has complained about it? Why are you insisting that everyone in this area change their practice to match the wording which ArbCom screwed up? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me come at this from another angle, since people are so enamored of the "logicality" of version 2. People who are arguing for version 2 haven't thought the thing through. Many reverts are partial. Let me give an example: Person X writes "A B C D", person Y changes it to "A B Q R" which is a partial revert. Person Z changes it to "A P Q S" which is another partial revert. This text is incorrect in some small way, so person X changes it to A P Q D". But this is another "revert" which "introduces material which X introduced initially". With version 1, all person X would have to check is that they make only one edit a day to the page. With version 2, the matter would be extremely complicated: they would have to check all intermediate edits which could theoretically have reverted any edit they made in the past and then wait 24 hours after that edit.

One surefire way to avoid this situation is to wait 24 hours after the last person's edit. But then some other editor can swoop in after 23 hours, so you may have to wait 24 more hours after that person's edit.

The whole thing is absurd. It beats me why people want to change a perfectly fine provision which was working without a hitch for the past several months. "Just because you can" is not a good enough reason. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: There is nothing in example 1 which involves spelling errors. And that is a simple example I coulhd construct in 2 minutes. I can think of many more elaborate ones. The point is the one I made in the last sentence of my comment: while making an edit, a person has to check each edit in the past 24 hours and compare it to all their own edits in the past, and check if any of them could be classified as a partial revert. In contrast, version 1 is clean and simple: if you only edit the page once a day, you can never run afoul of it.

As for your "gaming" comment, it is a guarantee that every rule in this area will be gamed, or to go one level deeper: people will accuse other people of gaming the remedy (see the AE request I linked above, for an example). The remedies should be simple and clear. Version 2 is neither. Btw, this was the problem with the "consensus required" provision as well: it was neither simple nor clear. Version 2 is just a wannabe "consensus required" remedy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how I respond to SMcCandlish's comment and Newyorkbrad's comment.

  1. I am sorry for banging on about this, but it is not a matter of what "I support". I claimed that version 1 is used by everyone in this area. I have yet to hear a single case where version 2 is used. Why on Earth would you change the remedy when there have been no complaints about it? Where is the evidence that version 1 is not working? You are asking everyone in this area to change their practice. Why? Just because you can?
  2. SMcCandlish claims that the intent was to stop edit-warring. No, the issue which the tweaking was supposed to address was a very simple and narrow one: editor A adds something, editor B reverts (using up their 1RR), then editor A reverts (using up their 1RR). And now editor A has a "first mover advantage". Please read the original request. A strengthening of the 1RR rule for articles under ARBPIA: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period. There were zero mentions of edit-warring or tag-teaming or all the other bogeys which are now being shoved into the discussion. If only ArbCom had simply done what had been asked of them, we wouldn't be here. ArbCom first screwed up by using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Then when after lots of strife, that "consensus required" provision was removed, ArbCom now wants to impose another capricious remedy. Because they don't carry any of the burden of their screw-ups. How about, the next time the remedy blows up in everyone's faces, instead of blocking the perpetrators, we block a member of ArbCom or the wise guys who propose these fancy schemes?
  3. SMcCandlish's proposed tweaking will not change anything in my argument. Indeed, their statement makes it completely clear that the "original edit" which is at issue can be indefinitely long back in the past. This is a recipe for disaster. Here's the thought process required for every edit: Whenever a person (editor A) makes a change (edit 1) to an article, they have to look at all the edits in the past 24 hours, check if edit 1 could be considered a revert of one of those edits (say edit 2); if yes, look at the entire history and see if any of their past edits (edit 3) were reverted by edit 2 and then check if edit 1 is reintroducing material from edit 3. There is a simple heuristic for avoiding these mental gymnastics: don't edit an article unless the last edit is 24 hours old. But this can be tricky because other people can edit in the meantime, which can push the "safe" time back indefinitely.
  4. Version 2 will not stop edit-warring or tag-teaming. All one has to do to edit-war is wait 24 hours after the last edit. If there are only 3 editors active on the article (2 vs 1), tag-teaming can go on indefinitely, same as version 1.

This mindset that you can or should control editor behavior minutely must be jettisoned. We are not children to be disciplined by adults, especially when the adults in question can't even get their own act straight. Finally, let me plead for some perspective. What is the damage people are afraid of? How much damage can a person inflict if they're only allowed to make the edit once per day? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish did not address any of the points I made; and their new assertion, which they think is "obvious", is wrong again. Version 2 requires no more determination, thought or work than version 1 to game. Suppose there are two editors on the page. Each of them simply waits 24 hours to revert. Since the other person can't do anything within 24 hours anyway, each of them is safe in their practice.

Meanwhile, people are ignoring the really "obvious" thing here: the wider the restrictions and the more untested they are, the higher the potential for gaming. Indeed, if I was the type to make a malicious sockpuppet, I would do the following. First, I create a new account, get it to 30/500. I go to any of the pages and find an old dispute. Then I rephrase the text to take one side of the dispute (taking care to not explicitly mark it as a revert) and wait for someone to revert me. Voila! That person has "restored a reverted version within 24 hours". Rinse and repeat with another user. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Huldra's example, there was no violation of either version 1 or version 2 (because A and C are not the same person). But it simply shows that version 2 doesn't help against edit-warring or tag-teaming. Btw, I make a challenge here: name any person who edits regularly in the I/P area, and I'll find you a violation of version 2 in the recent history. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To eliminate a technical irrelevance in Sir Joseph's latest comment, please look at this edit (and the preceding and subsequent edits by other people), which clearly violates version 2 -- it removes "shifting" which was earlier removed and reverted. I mention this not to single out Sir Joseph, but to make the point that everyone in this area violates version 2 all the time. My standing offer remains: name me a person who edits regularly in the ARPIA area, and I'll find you an edit in their recent history which violates version 2. It's revealing that nobody here has taken me up on the challenge. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: This is a clarification request, not an amendment request. If, as you agree, nobody actually follows version 2, and everyone follows version 1, then the clarification should simply affirm the practice and avoid ambiguity. An amendment request would require, at a minimum, some argument or evidence that the current remedy isn't working and needs some change. QED, indeed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: At this point, I have to ask: is there any kind of evidence or logic which would change your mind? Or are you simply lawyering for some outcome which you have already decided? If it's the latter, why are we even arguing? You have the power to do whatever you want. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: Initially, you asked me to show that version 1 is current practice. I did. Newyorkbrad asked me to address SMcCandlish's points. I did. In total, I have written about 2000 words trying to argue against option 2 from all angles I can think of. My point is simple: what kind of evidence or logic are you looking for? If you won't change your mind no matter what you hear (as most people tend to do), then there's no point arguing. I'm sorry, I can't show that version 2 is responsible for Benghazi or hasn't released its tax returns yet. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about option 3 or whatever are all beside the point. What exactly is gained by all the rigmarole, except forcing everyone to learn new rules? In all this verbiage, nobody has given a single reason why version 1 should be changed at all. Nor is there any evidence that it isn't working as intended, or that there is any doubt about how it works. There was one point of ambiguity raised by one editor who doesn't even regularly edit in ARBPIA, which led to this clarification request. All ArbCom had to do was affirm the current practice and remove ambiguity. For some reason, people are loath to take this simple, commonsensical and completely logical step, but are floating all kinds of fancy schemes, including going back to original 1RR and creating some new "option 3".

Sometimes the status quo is good for a reason. See Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on proposal

Callanecc's "Callanecc version 2" does not help to fix any of the problems described in this edit (see point 3 1) and the scenario in this edit. The reason is simple: unlike 3RR, 1RR and the currently practiced by everybody version 1, "Callanecc version 2", can allow the original edit which was reverted to be indefinitely long in the past. Therefore, one must in theory (and sometimes in practice) check one's own entire edit history when making a revert: to check if the edit in question reverted one of your past edits.

This is not merely a theoretical issue: in this area, many things are litigated over and over again, by many different people. Thus an edit can be a revert of an edit long in the past. I'll give a simple example which happened right in the middle of this ARCA (I swear I did not set this up deliberately; I didn't even realize it till Icewhiz brought it up). Please read this talk page discussion. This state of affairs makes no sense, which is why everyone in this area, who don't agree on anything, instinctively and without communication, follow version 1 (it's a Schelling point).

Overall, as I point out repeatedly above, "Callanecc version 2" requires no more thought, determination or work to game or edit-war, as compared to version 1. There is no evidence that "Callanecc version 2" was the intent, or that version 1 is not working. Version 1 should not be changed, because it will require that everyone change their practice from a clearly working remedy to a clearly bad and untested remedy which requires more cognitive load by editors but brings no advantages. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz's comment misses my entire point (maybe I was unclear). Neither version 1 nor version 2 was violated in this case, so it cannot have anything to do with whether things "worked perfectly" or not. My point was the old issues get re-litigated all the time in this area. That's all.

Instead, consider a slightly tweaked alternative scenario: suppose, a year ago, I and some other editors got consensus that a paragraph belongs in the lead. Suppose I was part of that discussion and wrote the final version of the paragraph. One year hence, some editor with 22 edits comes along and removes the passage. I see the change on my watchlist and undo it. Then I have broken "Callanecc's version 2".

There are two points here:
  • First, I doubt any admin will sanction me here, because I have taken an extreme case to make my point. But the point is still that the rule was broken by me. The fact that admins will likely ignore silly rules is a good thing, but one shouldn't write silly rules in the first place.
  • I would likely talk with the person who I reverted on the talk page. That is fine, but it requires work and time; it doesn't come automatically. And it has nothing to do with the rule: it will happen because I know how Wikipedia works and how to discuss on the talk page, not because of some irrelevant rule. If I was the type of person who is disinclined to discuss with the editor (and want to avoid breaking the rule), I will just wait 24 hours to make my revert. The rule has nothing to do with my good faith or behavior at all; a point which I have been crying myself hoarse about.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

I think option-2 makes sense. Lets play this by a case scenario on case1 - suppose an edit is reverted 27 hours after it is inserted into the article - the original author is then free to immediately revert the revert - moving the article away from the status-quo? I don't think this is wise. The original author should back off, discuss, and if there is going to be a revert-war (not advisable for all involved!) - revert after 24 hours. If a 3rd editor comes along - he is free to re-revert if he sides with the author.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on proposal

Callanecc's version 2 is clearly superior. Counter should start from first revert (causing a 24 Hour discussion period or intervention by other editors) - and not from the original edit (which could be "sneaked in" - see below).

Regarding the recent example brought up by user:Kingsindian - it is a case where the rule worked perfectly. Kingsindian inserted a large chunk of text to the lead [1] This got reverted due to already in infobox. This is not a summary of section 3.3 (Casualties) - but rather a POVish fork relying on questionable sources.. We discussed (which is what should be done!) in the talk page over the course of half an hour - he saw some of my points (that what was added didn't match the body), I saw some of his points (that this was removed "sneaked out" in 2015 and no one noticed). I self-reverted - self-revert - will modify to match body. - and then made a series of edits to match the body, we discussed some of these edits, and I made a further edit based on Kingsindian's comments ‎Reverting the final paragraph of the lead: re - Add Protection Clusters figures for civilians.. Or in short - two editors coming to an agreement on the talk-page, in a contentious subject area, within 5 hours (2 hours (7:25-09:08) on the initial exchange, one followup to the followup edit was discussed in a laid back fashion as was finally resolved in another 3 (additional edit at 12:46)).

Now - lets imagine Kingsindian's original edit had "sneaked in" - and someone noticed it 48 hours later (just as the original removal in 2015 was sneaked out without anyone noticing). And for the sake of argument (of the original author clause) lets consider Kingsindian's original edit as an addition and not a revert (we could wikilawyer this at AE - but bringing back a paragraph from 20 months ago does seem like authorship and in any event this is an illustrative example):

  1. In the case of version #1, had I reverted him, he wouldn't have had to discuss with me (he would have - his conduct is generally exemplary - but not all editors are of the same cloth) - he could've reverted me right back (as 48 hours elapsed since his original authorship).
  2. In the case of version #2, he has to discuss for 24 hours before making any action. This fosters actual discussion - as the author instead of doing a "knee jerk counter revert" is forced to defend his work on the talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Version 2 makes the most sense and seems to be the only option for editing here. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add since Huldra mentioned it and Kingsindian did, or did and reverted, that the case in question might be used as a discussion as to which version is proper, but the article in question is not under ARBPIA sanctions, so if people are stated as violating 1RR, that might give people the impression that people in question did something wrong, when nobody in that article violated any sanction. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

Version 2 is the most reasonable. Version 1 is simply pedantic and can be used as a blunted weapon. Further I'm under the understanding in the case of a 3RR that consecutive edits by the same editor count as one edit. It would seem reasonable that the same logic should apply here. And in such a conflict ridden area of wikipedia its better not to give people a cannon to fire.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian, What you are talking about to me would fall under gaming the system in the event that it's reported as a violation of these sanctions. A minor change, a general maintenance post to fix grammar and such, is or least should be outside of the scope of these sanctions. At some point here someone has to call bullshit and say competence is required. Be that the admins that enforce this or ARBCOM right here and now. Someone chasing a ban of someone because they changed "Csll" to "call" and later also separately actually edits the article once shouldn't be allowed. This kind of thing shouldn't be seen the same as a bickering partisan who came into promote their end of this spectrum.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At some point you really have to draw a line in the sand. Consecutive edits aren't fundamentally different than one single edit. This is fairly normal behavior across wikipedia. Gaming is considered disruptive across wikipedia whether the article is under sanctions or not. Here you are being asked to make an ungameable system. You can't. If gaming would be an issue here with people reporting others for making consecutive edits then your actions would be more fruitful in taking on that gaming.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Number 57

Version 2 makes far more sense; version 1 potentially allows controversial material to be reverted back into an article almost immediately (if their original edit is reverted more than 24 hours after they made it) rather than making the editor adding it to take time out to reconsider the material; this also follows Wikipedia norms like WP:BRD. Number 57 22:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

I hope that everybody who supports Version 2 suffers from a painful itch from which there is no relief, just like the hell you will be creating in the arena of editing in a contentious area. What you're describing works fine if people are edit-warring over the inclusion or exclusion of the same bit of information; no editor who has already participated in the edit war may take part again within 24 hours of the last edit. It is absolutely unworkable in situations in which one editor edits another editor's contribution in a manner the first editor doesn't like, or in which three or more editors make their tweaks to a bit of contested text. What will it mean in those situations? We'll see you at WP:AE and find out. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphim System

I'm inclined to think that Option 2 sounds like a better idea, but that it is unworkable in cases where multiple editors edit. On normal articles, restoring to a past version would be considered one revert. But within the 24 hour rule, I would support an Option 3 , it should be within 24 hours of the first revert to the editor's work. This would address the concerns on both sides. Seraphim System (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc I think the question that has been raised by Icewhiz, Kingsindian and others is when you have more complex situations involving multiple editors. For example, let's say Editor A makes an edit. Editor B makes a partial revert. Then 3 hours later there is another partial revert, perhaps changing some language or individual words. Let's say you add "The sky is blue and it rained on Tuesday". The first editor removes "it rained on Tuesday", and the second editor changes it to "The sea is purple" - when would you be able to restore your original edit? It would become difficult for Editor A to keep track - since the discussion is open now, we should have a stable and clear understanding, not introduce further confusion. I think if version 1 is changed, it needs to be stated very clearly that the 24 hour period starts after the first revert.Seraphim System (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Let's have Option 2. It allows me to permanently prevent another editor from editing. All I have to do is revert them within 24 hours, then re-revert them (using different wording of the essentially the same content) every 24 hours. Eventually they will get tired of waiting and go away. Zerotalk 01:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Callanecc's suggestion "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." will prevent this and is acceptable as an alternative to Option 1. The plain Option 2, however, won't work; I won't repeat Kingsindian's proofs. Zerotalk 02:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Yes, of course that is what would happen eventually. However a rule that requires admins to monitor the situation and make frequent judgement calls in situations that are technically within the rule is a bad rule. As much as plausible we should write the rule so that obeying the rule is acceptable behavior and disobeying it is unacceptable behavior. I submit that both Option 1 and your revision of Option 2 come reasonably close to that, but the original Option 2 does not. Zerotalk 02:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: You wrote "Zero000's idea that version 2 could be use to permanently prevent someone from editing is implausible, since the editor wanting to game that way is subject to the same restriction", but this is not true since self-reverts are not counted as reverts at all. Zerotalk 03:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur in Kingsindian's belief that virtual all the editors in this area have always assumed that Option 1 is what the rule is. I was surprised when one (exactly one) editor interpreted it differently. I'll also point out that revert limits in the past, including the all-important 3RR rule, have involved the time between the reverts of one editor, not some complex calculation involving the edits of multiple edits. So without a doubt Option 1 is the clearest and least surprising option. I agree with Kingsindian's conclusion. Zerotalk 08:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Renamed to "Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles". Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My interpretation is version 2 - the original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other user's revert. The purpose of this part of the motion was to replace the requirement for consensus to be achieved by making editors wait before restoring their own edit after it had been reverted. This was so it would be more likely that the two users would discuss it and (probably more likely/hopeful) that other editors will be able to comment (or revert if the edit is inappropriate). I'm open to amending the restriction to "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the other user's revert." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Huldra: The first thing to consider is whether editor B or C actually "reverted" editor A's original edit. In that situation (depending on the their edit) both editor B and C have "reverted" so editor A cannot change it until 24 hours after editor C, and editor B can't change it until 24 hours after editor C's edit. Having said that, (depending on the edit) all of those editors would be very wise not to revert until after they've started a discussion on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's important to remember that just because an editor technically breaches the restriction does not mean that they will or should get blocked. There is a reason we don't have bots automatically blocking people who breach 1RR reason. We have human admins review the situation before issuing blocks to determine whether the editors involved are being disruptive or not. If the editors who are breaching the restriction are working constructively by modifying each other's edits then there isn't a need to block them. If, on the other hand, editors are reverting each others edits and are not working constructively then blocking them likely is the best way forward and that's where this restriction is useful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Seraphim System: Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment, that's exactly what version 2 already does. See User talk:Callanecc#Hi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Seraphim System. So turning that into language for a motion, how does this look: replace "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours with If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that instance Zero, assuming neither of you had made an attempt to discuss the issue, I can two edit warring blocks on the horizon. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My interpretation is also version 2, for the same reasons. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with version 2. With all the endless clarifications on this issue, one might reasonably dispute that version 2 is a good rule, but it's the one we have. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was trying to decide which of my neglected non-work-related responsibilities I should catch up on today, and for some reason I picked this one, and trying to read all this is sapping my will to live. I'm increasingly concerned that there is no "right" interpretation of the various forms this remedy has taken and we're all just playing Calvinball. I get the impression that most variations on "stronger-than-1RR" restrictions that have been tried have caused a disproportionate level of confusion (see also: "consensus required"). Everyone knows what 3RR is, and everyone knows what 3-2 is. Am I just being grumpy, or is there a case here for flushing the whole mess and going back to plain old 1RR? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Huldra: Ha, OK, I'd forgotten how we wandered off down this path in the first place, amid all the "Version 3.14159 is broken because it doesn't cover what should happen when someone edits on a leap second!" stuff ;) Backing up a bit, I like Callanecc's wording if indeed the best way to do this is something like version 2, but I'm becoming persuaded that the simplicity of version 1 is worth the occasional weird edge case along the lines of SMC's example. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keen on additional points of view from regular I/P editors, but for now, an unpopular contrary view from me: I prefer version 1 for the reasons outlined by Huldra and Kingsindian - it's simpler, it avoids disputes over partial reverts, or in circumstances where there are more than two editors, and it achieves the same basic outcome of slowing down edit wars. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My interpretation is version 2. Basically, "its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" from the time it was reverted. While I think both would significantly reduce edit warring, version 2 does more to foster discussion. It effectively removes a technicality that would make the restore time consistent across all applications. Either the sanction language could be updated or an example situation included in the documentation. Mkdw talk 14:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kingsindian: Which Arbitrators are recognizing version 1 as the current practice? "Everyone" seems fairly inaccurate against the comments from other Arbitrators; one in five gave a preference for version 1 but did not explicitly state that's the current practice. The four of five state they "interpret" the meaning as version 2 as the current meaning. I would rather match intent of the remedy than match current practice. The reason being is that current practice isn't always the best practice. Look at WP:CIVIL for example. Also, I view version 2 as already in place but needing clarification; and not a change. Mkdw talk 19:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all clarifications are not going to reflect the practices of some. There would be no point on requesting a clarification on something if the automatic expectation was that the outcome would always result in affirming the current practice; clarifications affirm the intent and purpose of the sanction/enforcement. Doing so otherwise would be a horrible practice. People would ignore sanctions/enforcements and then come to ARCA citing 'current practice' expecting the 'clarification' to endorse their actions, regardless of the actual intent and purpose. Mkdw talk 17:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kingsindian: The very nature of this discussion is to work out the fine details and nuance regarding some of our more complicated governing policies and rules. You've been one of the most vocal opponents of version 2, so I'm not sure why you're asking about the point of talking about it with you. If you feel the current discussion of 'current practice versus intent' is exhausted, then I tend to agree. There have been other substantive arguments for version 1, and I've been following them as well. I replied to specifically to you because you asked me a bunch of questions and you continuously bring up current practice in your lengthy section, as recently as yesterday. Mkdw talk 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To those supporting "version 1," how do you respond to SMcCandlish's point above? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 seems the more reasonable. It's the most direct way of doing what is intended: to wait 24 hoursbefore continuding the disagreement.. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles: Motion

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Version 1

The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of their own edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
Support
  1. Second choice. This version would help but I think version 2 would make the biggest difference in both preventing and slowing down the edit warring. In addition I think version 2 was the original intention. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I was originally on Team Version 2, but I've become convinced that the simplicity of version 1 is preferable. I think the focus on what "slows down the edit war" more is a bit off-point; it's more important to know when the clock started than to be slightly "slower". Anyone playing games with the details of timing should be called out for their manipulative behavior anyway. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The alternative is superior. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators
  • I'm undecided at this time. Frankly, there are good arguments presented above against both "option 1" and "option 2," and part of me wishes that we could find a better alternative altogether, although I understand that some of our best wikiminds have tried for years with no great success. Also, although it hasn't been part of this discussion, I don't really care for the last sentence (of either option), which I think may help lead to blocking of good-faith editors who aren't aware of all the details of the special editing rules for these pages or momentarily lose sight of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem then is not the rules, but unreasonable enforcement of the rules at AE. The procedures designed to give stability have protected unfairness. It is impossible to write rules that admins can misapply. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2

The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
Support
  1. First choice. Per my comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the purpose is to prevent edit warring, this is the correct time frame and much less susceptible to gaming. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators

Clarification request: Discretionary Sanctions

Initiated by Seraphim System at 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Seraphim System

Does the awareness requirement need to be fulfilled before discretionary sanctions are applied?

When User:EdJohnston sanctioned me for a 1RR article in a topic area I was new to WP:ARBAA2, I was very surprised. I had not known that it was a DS topic area. I only later found out about the awareness requirements. When I asked him about he said "I believe I have correctly described the current practice regarding 1RR violations." - I am requesting clarification.

Here is the link to my discussion with the EdJohnston: User_talk:EdJohnston#Edit_Warring_block

I am requesting clarification of the DS procedure. I understand that there is no requirement to warn of individual editing restrictions, but I had not received any notice of discretionary sanctions in the topic area. I am requesting clarification of the following: No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict.

My understanding is that awareness under the formal criteria is required for the topic area before any discretionary sanctions are applied, but that notice of the individual restrictions on specific articles is not required by the decision. If User:EdJohnston's reading is correct, then I believe the summary of the Arbitration Decision at Awareness and alerts should be modified so editors are aware of this. Seraphim System (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Without going into too much detail, there was no long-term edit warring, I restored an NPOV template that was properly justified and needed to be in the article. I added a refimprove template after my citation needed tags were removed. This is what is being called "long term edit warring". If the block was for "long term edit warring" that would be extraordinary and even less justifiable, but this would not be the place to discuss it.

I understood this as a hasty and passing remark by an admin, who was sanctioning for a clear 1RR violation, but EdJohnston can say more about it. EdJohnston clearly stated that there was a 1RR violation, I understood it to be a 1RR violation and he continues to defend it as a 1RR violation. I thought what happened here was a good faith mistake that needed clarification, so admins and editors would know what was expected in the future.

Long story short, it is especially important in difficult topic areas that blocks are preventative and not punitive. Part of that is editor's awareness of the discretionary sanctions, because intentionally violating 1RR is fairly construed as an intent to continue editing disruptively. If I had been aware of the restrictions, I would have certainly respected them. Admins should not unilaterally modify what has been decided by an Arbitration decision, since most editors will not be aware of their unilateral standards, as I was not in this case. Certainly, the decision as stated should say what it means, and the admins trusted with enforcing it should respect that. But before proposing any modification, I would like to see if there is community consensus about its meaning.Seraphim System (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: My argument is exactly as you said - 1RR is part of discretionary sanctions. See this for example: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#Wiking - formal notice is required for 1RR. Even in cases where there are informal warnings. It has been discussed by the community and amended to clarify that formal notice is required. Can you explain what kinds of cases you think the DS warning template is for? AFAIK, AE has declined to sanction in 1RR cases like this.

(Where is the 1RR restriction logged btw? I can't find it here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Armenia-Azerbaijan_2)

Seraphim System (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed has said he sanctioned for 1RR and has refused to even explain what "long term edit warring" is when I asked him under ADMINACCT so let's focus on 1RR - an editor didn't have notice, it wasn't logged as AE, and admins/arbs can't even agree on whether it is AE or not. What a mess for an editor to get caught up in. Please get this sorted out. A few points:

  • The practical distinction between general sanctions and discretionary sanctions is that the rules are different. You would not want to punish editors who generally follow the rules because they did not know different rules were in effect for a particular page, right? That is what the notice requirement protects editors from.
  • I see a lot of comments assuming that I deliberately violated a DS that I knew about, I did not. If you review the complaint at WP:ANS, I even comment on it the first time I see it and offer to self-revert if someone points out the edit. There was no prior discussion or anything, so please stop trying to pretend Ed's actions were routine here. To this day I don't understand how my edits were "long term edit warring" even though I asked for an explanation under ADMINACCT. Not following WP:BRD is not sanctionable. I understand that I violated 1RR, but I did not know the restriction was in effect on this article. These notice rules are in place to prevent abuses.
  • I have a different color scheme on my browser, and I think my font was mint green at the time. The box looks green, so probably I did not see the notice. There could be a million reasons why an editor would not see this. If you rely on the editing notices alone, experienced editors are the most likely to get caught up in it. (Bad for Wikipedia.) I already know the rules, so I don't read the fine print on every article and it is not reasonable to expect this. That is why the formal notice requirement is important. (Because in controversial areas like this where discussion sometimes breaks down, the community has put in place extra precautions and procedures in place to prevent abuses.)

I think it does create some unfairness in areas where an editor has previously been active, but the amendment is clear that currently informal notice is not sufficient. Judging from the comments, there may be some will for modification.Seraphim System (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: I didn't see it. Please compare it to the notices at ARBPIA with all the important stuff emphasized - I think there should be a template at the top of the talk page and the article page, and they should be in a consistent style. It doesn't benefit editors for the look/color of the templates to change from one conflict area to the other. All the DS notices should look the same. It is unhelpful when the same notices have different appearances on different articles. Experienced editors should not have to slow down to read different versions of the same notice they have read 50 times already. Most likely these issues have all come up in the past and ARBCOM decided that a formal warning for the topic area at a minimum was fair.Seraphim System (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to also add that it is frustrating to be accused of lying, for no reason. I have managed to go all this time without a single 1RR sanction in ARBPIA. Most of my edits are constructive, including maintenance, vandalism patrol, pending changes review, AFC backlog, GA reviews, as well as just regular content creation. A 48 hour block for these edits?: [3] [4] - even if I had known, I would not have thought it was a 1RR violation, because of the near unanimous consensus among admins at AE that editing long-standing content does not count as a revert.Seraphim System (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I can comment that I think even the topic area would be enough, but that it should be given before any DS are applied, including 1RR. The formal templates serve the purpose of making these types of problems less likely and keeping editors cool when working on difficult articles. Editors understandably get upset, some have quit, etc. When I know an area is under discretionary sanctions, I am more careful - I look around to see if there are templates or special notices, I edit more slowly. Generally, we want editors to slow down and edit more carefully in these topic areas, and the formal warnings topic area warnings are usually enough to achieve this. There are a lot of DS topic areas, I don't know all of them, and I don't want to live in fear that I may accidentally edit an article on GMO for example, and get hit with a DS with no warning and no discussion. I do think the font being larger, and the article restrictions being clearly stated, and the individual pages being more consistently templated in some of the less active areas would also help. But the warning comes first, editors should know they are editing in a topic area where pages may have special restrictions.Seraphim System (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Doug Weller: The block absolutely was not reasonable, and you almost lost an editor for it, but if I had been asking for you opinion on the block I would have filed a desysop request. There seems to be consensus that the current rules did require a formal warning for at least the topic area. It sounds like you support modifying the current warning system - I don't support it and that was not my intention filing this. I would only support making the protections for editors stronger, I do not support weakening them. I wanted clarification on the current system - it seems patently clear, as the discussion has turned to modifying the awareness requirement, instead of clarifying it, there was an awareness requirement and what Ed told me under ADMINACCT was incorrect.
  • If you have not please read my comment to User:BU Rob13 above on why the awareness requirement is important. No editor has asked for it to be modified and I don't think the proposal will receive community support. If a modification is going to be proposed, this should be discussed with the community in a formal proposal, not as a side matter in a clarification request.Seraphim System (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To summarize my position, I think that the current awareness requirement would have been enough to avoid the issue that arose in this case. I have never missed an editing notice when I have been aware of DS in a topic area. I don't think increased page-level notification is necessary and I am not asking for it. A topic area warning would have been sufficient to avoid this block. I'm not persuaded of the wisdom of trying to fix something that isn't broken. That wasn't my intent asking for clarification, I only want to know that I can rely on receiving proper notification of DS when I am editing in a new topic area, so I am aware that I should edit more cautiously if I edit about "Ancient Egyptian race controversy" or the "Shakespeare authorship question" for example. Seraphim System (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Most articles are under WP:3RR enforcement, but a few have been placed under WP:1RR as mentioned in the WP:Edit warring policy. This kind of a restriction is attached to a page and applies to all editors of the page. 1RR can be imposed either (a) directly by Arbcom as in WP:ARBPIA3, (b) by individual administrators under WP:AC/DS or (c) by the community as in WP:GS/ISIL. The type (b) restrictions are described in WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions. Under the argument of User:Seraphim System, nobody could be blocked for a 1RR violation for type (b) article restrictions unless they had previously been alerted to discretionary sanctions under whatever decision was used originally to place the 1RR on the page. I take it he assumes he is only under WP:3RR until he gets this notice. This is a novel idea but I'm pretty sure there is no written-down policy that backs it up. I have never alerted Seraphim System to the ARBAA2 decision and I also believe I've never imposed a discretionary sanction on him. I did issue a block per WP:AN3 for violation of the existing 1RR at Armenian Genocide that was imposed by User:Moreschi on 27 January, 2008, as well as for a pattern of long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Seraphim System's question about logging, here is where Moreschi logged the 2008 1RR on Armenian Genocide. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brustopher

Checking Seraphim System's block log, he was blocked for violating 1RR on the Armenian Genocide page. When somebody edits that page, the following attention grabbing and clearly visible notice appears: Template:Editnotices/Page/Armenian Genocide It is therefore close to impossible that anyone would be able to edit that page without realising it's covered by DS and 1RR. Failing to read such a massive attention grabbing notice would indicate competency issues. In my opinion the issue here is this: The Rules require that anyone hit by a DS sanction receive an individual notification beforehand. The rule exists for reasons of fairness. People shouldnt be sanctioned under rules they dont realise exist. But the above edit notice makes it practically impossible for a competent editor to be unaware that page sanctions exist. In such circumstances letting someone off the hook because they didn't receive a DS notice would be letting them off on a technicality. Brustopher (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by SMcCandlish

Yet another example of why DS is malfunctional. We were promised another review of DS and how it works/should work over two years ago (and haven't had one since 2013). This "notice" system is deeply broken. While I've recently commented [5] on the WP:GAMING problems inherent in it (people damned well aware of the DS and deeply involved in the topic can escape sanctions for gross disruption simply on the technicality of not having received a notice or their notice having expired), this request raises an equal-but-opposite concern, that gibberish notices someone assumes were understood or even seen may not be by editors new to the topic. This whole thing needs to be scrapped in favor of actual discretion: is the user someone who just now wandered into the topic and did a business-as-usual WP:BRD revert, or is this someone with a long pattern of being an asshat across a swath of related pages?

For an in-depth analysis of issues raised in the last DS review, see User:SMcCandlish/Discretionary sanctions/2013–2015 review. Over two years later, nothing has changed [except that section 12 in it (DS applied to policy formation) has been partially resolved by an ARCA enacted on 11 February 2017 [6] (permalink to full discussion) which made most of WP:ARBATC moot and unenforceable].

Statement by NeilN

Looking at the first two arb comments below, is there a reason why we're distinguishing between the processes of discretionary sanctions and general sanctions? WP:GS/SCW&ISIL reads "In addition a one revert rule, which does not require notice..." --NeilN talk to me 19:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a note to say that average inexperienced editor has no idea what is the difference between discretionary and general sanctions. I doubt most experienced editors do, either. If awareness of restrictions before sanctions are imposed is considered to be a "fairness" issue, I strongly suggest Arbcom/the community synchronize the requirements for both types of sanctions. --NeilN talk to me 22:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coffee

It is ArbCom policy that page restrictions do not require a talk-page warning, as the editnotice warning does the job. As these edits were not done on a mobile device, the user who opened this is fully aware of that. As can be verified by clicking edit on the article. I wouldn't think Arbitrators were unaware of this, considering they wrote it (sanctions.page) to state:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}).

If it has been found sufficient in all the previous ARCA's I can recall about this, I imagine Arbs wouldn't change this rule suddenly for administrators now. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: @Callanecc: I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, since you've already commented below (seemingly without the realization that ArbCom wrote the policy to be used exactly as Ed used it here). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: Then why was this not stipulated at the last ARCA I'm clearly referring to? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: Perhaps a motion to add something to the effect of "if an editnotice is used to alert editors of active page restrictions, and the editor has not been previously warned (in the required time frame), administrators should allow the editor at least 5-20 minutes [Committee should decide what time] to undo their offending edit(s) prior to being blocked or otherwise sanctioned" to the alerts section of WP:AC/DS? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: I rather like that one too... would definitely clear this up finally. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: I refuse to sanction editors who are shown to be using the mobile or visual editors (this is always tagged in the history). Can we not make this an official policy until the devs fix that issue with warnings? Something to the order of: "if the offending edit is tagged as a mobile or Visual edit, administrators should not block for more than 24 hours unless the editor's knowledge of the page restrictions is clearly established"? Or would it be better to wait on the developers to have the notice more prominent in those two GUIs? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My biggest concern obviously is that putting it into written form makes it rather easier to game the DS system. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will note I disagree with the use of green for any ArbCom editnotice. I was under the impression we could only use {{ds/editnotice}} anyways, is that not correct Doug Weller, Callanecc, Krakatoa Katie? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

First of all, until WP:AC/DS is changed, he had to be notified of the topic level sanctions before being sanctioned. Second of all, a talk page notice is definitely not enough, especially if not in standard color. They are there for lots of reasons - many BLP articles have notices that unsourced statements must be removed immediately etc, so I mostly ignore them. Third of all, any concerns about gaming can be resolved by quickly alerting users who edit the area. @Brustopher, editing Taylor Swift has a similar sort of notice, except it is for explaining BLP policy. I think a topic level notice should be enough to enforce page level restrictions, as it alerts that one must read edit notices in that area carefully. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding bot could place a notice on an editor's talk page after their first edit to a page under discretionary sanctions seems like a decent idea, if possible. My thinking is that the more alerts are placed, the more they become like they're supposed to be - neutral alerts, not alerts to be placed after a violation has occurred. This could be also manually done, using a script to see if someone has been alerted before and for what, so that people, when they notice someone doing a few edits in an area, can easily see if an alert is needed to be placed and do it. As an aside, definitely need to up the size of the "this does not mean anything bad" portion of the ds/alert template by like 5 times, otherwise there'll be loads of complaints if a bot is done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

While I don't know Seraphim specifically, it is absolutely possible to scroll right past a notice of discretionary sanctions on a project talk page and have no idea that it's there, especially if you were working on that talk page before it was placed and already in the habit of scrolling past the top to read new threads. This might be a separate problem, but even after reading the page on discretionary sanctions, it's still not clear what they are, how they work or what the editors are supposed to do about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

From a practical standpoint, AE actions are intended to stop longterm abuse. The project shouldn't collapse due to the time it takes for an AE warning. This isn't vandalism. Nor does it require immediate action. If it did, there are other rules in place to get immediate action. Secondly, if a warning achieves its goal of stopping long-term abuse, then it has done its job and is much preferred to arguing over a sanction and whether a notice was given. The rush to apply a sanction is misguided and a form of "gotcha" abuse when it's very clear that any AE sanction can afford to wait until individual notice is given. No admin should invoke an AE sanction without being able to provide a diff of the listed methods of notification listed in the standard AE/DS procedure (no, an article talk page banner is not one of the notifications allowed). There is much confusion about who can place talk page notices and what they mean. It is simply not sufficient or necessary to rely on them. Asking admins to provide the notification diff is part of the heavy lifting necessary to implement a virtually irreversible long-term sanction. If they can't or won't, then it's not worth invoking an AE sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#aware.aware lists the precise number of ways an editor can be informed of discretionary sanctions. An edit page notice is not one of the listed methods. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#aware.alert specifies the precise method to be used to alert an editor. isaacl (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slakr

I noticed some discussion below about wanting more input re: alerts and such (e.g., from @BU Rob13:). Typically I've interpreted ACDS and alerting, particularly when it comes to edit warring as it pops up on WP:AN3, as follows:

  • If a page already has an ACDS sanction attached to it (e.g., a standard 1RR), I look first to see if there's an edit notice to that effect. If it's only on the talk page or absent entirely, I assume (in absense of anything else) someone might not be aware of it, so if they breach it without any other form of notification or evidence of awareness of the sanction, I typically just add an edit notice myself, send any incidental {{Alert}}s, and wait to see what happens. If there already is an edit notice (and it's been there since whatever breach happened), I've assumed that's fair game for blocking anyone breaching it, regardless of whether they've ever received an Alert in the topic area—though I don't apply any additional editor-level sanctions. For example, if someone violates a 1RR page-level restriction and they clearly should have seen the edit notice but haven't otherwise gotten an ACDS alert, nothing other than a relatively short-term block might come of it, but they'll still get an {{Alert}} from me as part of the package in case they decide to continue the dispute on other subject-area articles.
  • If a person doesn't have an ACDS {{Alert}} in the past year and they're involved in an edit war (for example) on an ACDS-able page, regardless of whether the page has active sanctions or not, I typically add an {{Alert}} to the user and wait to see what happens. Therefore, if they edit war on a page that doesn't have an explicit ACDS restriction, is within the topic area, and they HAVE been Alerted, they might get a topic-wide 1RR restriction (but might not even get blocked).
  • Regardless of ACDS applicability, if someone's obviously edit warring despite usual, non-ACDS warnings, they get blocked regularly (as a non-AE action).

So the general idea is that edit notices and user-talk-page {{Alert}}s, if "not seen" by someone, are assume-bad-faith within their respective domains (i.e., edit notice for page-level sanctions and page-level enforcement of those sanctions; user Alert template for user-level sanctions/topic-wide sanctions applied to a user). Someone doesn't need both an edit notice on the page AND an alert; it's just too difficult, in my opinion, for people to "accidentally ignore" either the obvious "you have messages" or the "stop! there's an active sanction" edit notices, while it's entirely possible for someone who's even been Alerted to not see the talk-page notice of "hey, there are sanctions for the page attached to this talk page." Thus, a single-page-level sanction (and enforcement action taken in response) are presumed "notified," most reliably, through that page's edit notice, while broad, topic-wide, user-level sanctions (and actions taken in response) are presumed "notified," most reliably, through prior Alert templating and/or recent participation in AE-type discussions in the topic area.

Hopefully that helps? If I'm screwing it up, please let me know whatever you guys decide. :P

--slakr\ talk / 23:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Discretionary Sanctions: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Discretionary Sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Looking at your block log and the WP:AELOG, Ed's block wasn't an arbitration enforcement action enforcing 1RR but a normal admin block for edit warring. In fact in his comment on AN3 he says that you had engaged in long-term edit warring.

    Having said that, it's probably worth having a discussion on whether editors need to/should be individually notified about page-level sanctions before being sanctioned. If memory serves, I think (and this is testing my memory) that the original intention was that editors would not be sanctioned without previous notice.^ However, in practice, this hasn't been the case with admins sanctioning editors who breach page-level sanctions without prior notice (this is particularly the case for 1RR). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ In the original version (1) of the 'new' system, edit notices alone were going to be considered enough to make an editor sufficiently "aware" of page-level restrictions. However, in consultation discussions about it, this was rejected and removed in the second version of the draft (see (this summary). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of comments here about what decisions have been made in the past and contradictory decisions at that. I'd suggest to all those who are commenting that evidence of these past decisions (links) is needed, nor vague recollections. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 20:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NeilN: Regarding a difference between those specific general sanctions and discretionary sanctions in general. The SCW&ISIL general sanctions were modelled on WP:ARBPIA3 which specifically included language about 1RR applying and that, in that topic area, editors could be blocked for 1RR vios without prior notice. That is, in both circumstances, blocking without notice was specifically approved by the Committee or community. Another difference is that under the discretionary sanctions system an alert expires after a year, whereas with the SCW&ISIL general sanction the notification doesn't expire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coffee: Nothing in the bit of WP:AC/DS you quoted says that the requirements of the Awareness and alerts section does not apply to the enforcement of page-level restrictions. In fact, neither the section on individual sanctions nor the section on page-level restrictions state that an editor is required to be "aware" because the Awareness section says No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only that I didn't think of it then, I was actually looking at the 2013 review page earlier this year for something else so the memories of a previous discussion about edit notices it was relatively fresh. Looking back at threads on arbcom-l from the the AP2 ARCA it looks like the committee was discussing amending AC/DS to make it clear that editors could be sanctioned without being "aware" if there was an edit notice, but that either there wasn't enough of a consensus to do it, or that something else happened and we got distracted. Given the time of year, this might be a motion which the new ArbCom will need to consider. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anything so specific is going to work. I'm not a big fan of giving editors a specific time limit to do something, as it can com across as an aggressive ultimatum, plus we're volunteers and there's no deadline. Consider a situation where a user makes an edit which they didn't know was violating, goes to sleep, wakes up and goes to work, then logs in to find themselves blocked). Plus any sort of time limit (IMHO) pushes it a little towards punitive rather than preventative. I'm thinking more along the lines the following as a new paragraph in either the awareness or page restrictions sections (not sure which would be best yet, though I'm leaning towards §awareness:
Uninvolved administrators may use their discretion to issue #sanctions (such as blocks or page/topic bans) of no more than one week in duration to editors who breach page restrictions but are not #aware of discretionary sanctions as prescribed above if the page in question includes an edit notice, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), which specifies the page-level restriction in force. This does not prevent administrators using the full range of #Sanctions against editors who do meet the #awareness criteria.
It needs a little wordsmithing. Note that # = link to the section on ACDS. This way, we're giving admins an ability to enforce page-level restrictions without an individual editor needing to be have been alerted (or otherwise aware) but not allowing them to impose any sanction without the editor being properly made aware. Otherwise, we're effectively creating a loop hole where any discretionary sanction can be imposed on an editor without them meeting the awareness criteria as soon as they breach a page-level restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: There isn't really a problem with you commenting in this section. It's really only formal decisions (e.g. motions, declining request) where there's an issue.
    I'm a little conflicted on that, I think it's important for editors to be aware of restrictions before they are sanctioned. However, even if an editor recessive an alert it's still very likely that they won't be aware of specific page-level restrictions as the notice they receive on their talk page doesn't tell them that. So, given that, the only way to ensure that they are aware is to give them an alert and tell them about page-specific restrictions in place. That's not really a sustainable approach both in terms of logging and administrative hoops to jump through, but it is my preference from a editor point of view.
    From an administrator and as someone who was very active with AE my preference would be that if the article has an edit notice the editor can be sanctioned (regardless of whether they've received a notice). The problem with that approach is that it's easily missed using VisualEditor and edit notices don't appear at all in the mobile version.
    So, I'm still on the fence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add (re BU Rob13), my preference is that an editor would both be aware of the discretionary sanction in the topic area (through an alert or otherwise) and that the page in question had an edit notice (plus, given the technical limitations, weren't using a mobile device). That, to me, seems to be best way to ensure that an editor is aware of the restrictions which are in place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too cannot see how it is reasonable to apply page-level DS without individual warning. Our system for DS is sufficiently complicated that at the very least fairness require full notice. . DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
since I was asked for my general view. I personally consider the system of AE inherently unfair, unreasonable, and erratic. I have never participated in it as an admin, and I would advise other admins to use it only when there is no other solution. Unfortunately I cannot find an alternative, so all we can do is try to minimize harm. At least we can require explicit notice. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with DGG that the entire discretionary sanctions and general sanctions systems is a mess. We should take a hard look at their wording and implementation, because I believe it is inherently unfair to sanction an editor if that editor is unaware of a possible penalty. The burden is on us as administrators to make sure an editor is aware, as unwieldy and burdensome as that is, and we need to make it as simple as possible in order for the system to work. I'm no coder, and I don't know if this is possible, but maybe a bot could place a notice on an editor's talk page after their first edit to a page under discretionary sanctions. Or perhaps an 'are you sure?' box like the one that comes up when we try to give the DS alert on a user talk page.
In terms of the specifics here, Seraphim System made fifteen edits to the page in question in just over 48 hours. It strains credulity that he didn't see the 1RR edit notice with that many edits. I could possibly believe it if this were three edits, but fifteen? It's even got a hidden comment that appears directly under the places where he added his maintenance tags. Does he need bright flashing lights and sirens? Katietalk 11:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coffee: It is my understanding that the DS notice is required to be posted as it is in the template, and that color modification (or any modification other than the topic area) is not allowed. Katietalk 03:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The block seems reasonable. I see the problem with VE and mobile devices, but I still think that an edit notice should be sufficient. I'm sure we can improve the system but my experience is that DS in general is avoiding a lot of problems we'd have without the system. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the comment by Seraphim System about the color scheme perhaps it could have been missed, so I’ll have to reconsider my comment. Doug Weller talk 22:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we should consider Callanecc's suggested wording. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • [[User:Darkfrog24}} makes a good point. I try to always start a new section with a clear heading stating that DS has been applied. Maybe this should be required. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG and Callanecc: Could you clarify whether you think just notification of discretionary sanctions in the topic area is necessary before sanction or notification of the specific page-level sanctions on each individual page? How does this opinion interact with the prominent edit notices typically used on articles under sanction? Would a notification of topic area sanctions in addition to an edit notice about the page-level sanctions be considered sufficient notification? Note I'm asking about what you think should be, not what you think is current practice/policy. Opinions from any other editors would also be appreciated. ~ Rob13Talk 05:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a procedural note, the Committee has no authority to modify general sanctions, which derive solely from the community. If we decide to alter the awareness requirements for discretionary sanctions, the most we can do is encourage the community to adopt the same changes. Having said that, I think we need to seriously think about what the right standard of awareness is. Should an editor have to be actually aware of a page-level restriction to be sanctioned, or should they only need to have been in a position such that a reasonable editor of limited experience would be aware? For instance, if a particularly oblivious editor misses a massive edit notice with giant font saying "This article is under 1RR" (with appropriate wikilinks to explain), should they be sanctioned if they violate that restriction? As for the technical issues (mobile browsers, mostly), that is something we can presumably refer to the WMF to develop a fix. It would be technically doable to display edit notices in mobile browsers on a page prior to the edit window. ~ Rob13Talk 14:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's my take on current policy and practice, for what it's worth. WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts makes clear that at least a topic area-level notice must be issued before sanctioning under discretionary sanctions. A page restriction derived from discretionary sanctions can only be enforced via discretionary sanctions, so this same awareness requirement exists before sanctioning someone for violating a page restriction. Currently, there is no requirement (in policy or in practice) requiring an additional notice of a page restriction before sanctioning an editor for violating it. There's no policy requirement for edit notices, etc., but in practice, we do expect administrators to place them. The conversation on changes to this policy should probably take place at a different venue with community feedback. As for this particular block, Seraphim System hadn't been notified of discretionary sanctions in this topic area, so he should not have been sanctioned. ~ Rob13Talk 01:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it should be possible technically to place individual notices, there is no reason not to do so. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a legitimate doubt that an editor was aware that a restriction was in place, then better practice is to warn rather than block for a violation of that restriction—unless the edit was such as to be independently blockable in any case. We have had instances (I'm not opining on whether this is one) in which an editor was blocked and sincerely had no idea why; it is important that that should not happen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focusing for a second on the original question, are we all agreed that at a minimum an editor cannot be sanctioned under page restrictions deriving from discretionary sanctions unless they've met the awareness criteria for that DS topic area? ~ Rob13Talk 02:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 23:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88#Hijiri88:_Topic_ban_(I)


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • (Suspended for six months, at which point it will lapse)


Statement by Hijiri88

Sorry to bring this up in the "lame duck" session (I don't mind waiting until the new year before anyone notices this), but I would like to appeal my "Nichiren Buddhism" ban, similarly to how I appealed my "Japanese culture" ban in September.

I have no desire to specifically go back and edit the articles that were at the center of my dispute with Catflap08, most of which centered around 20th-century nationalistic Nichirenism and the poet Miyazawa Kenji, with Nichiren Buddhism actually being somewhat peripheral to most of my edits to the latter -- hence, presumably, why "and its adherents" was included in the wording of the ban. The reason I am appealing is that I don't want to look over my shoulder every time I edit an article on someone not specifically known for being an adherent of Nichiren Buddhism to see if they may have been associated with it. Some examples:

  • Our article on Oda Nobunaga doesn't appear to mention Nichiren Buddhism, and I had no idea he might be until just now, but the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article claims "宗門は法華宗を公称していた" ("He was formally considered an adherent of the Lotus Sect").
  • There is a lot of tabloid speculation on supposed affiliations of various celebrities and politicians with Soka Gakkai and other such religious groups (I'm not going to name them per WP:BLP, but one is my favourite actress, and neither English nor Japanese Wikipedia mention her religious affiliations, even though someone could probably dig sources on them up).
  • When I wrote the Unshō article, I spent about 30 minutes going down a rabbit hole to ensure that the Chōkyū-ji Temple he was associated with was not in the same sect (Nichiren) as a more famous modern Chōkyū-ji Temple. If it had turned out it was, I would have had to abandon the draft I was working on, wasting even more time, and time was something I did not want to waste last month (see here).

I'd be happy to see the ban suspended for six months, during which time it could be reinstated by any uninvolved admin, rather than an immediate full repeal, similar to the previous appeal.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I don't think so. The closest I can think of was when I reported another user for plagiarism in their articles on Indian and Indonesian topics, with the (openly disclosed) conflict of interest that if the plagiarized articles were disqualified from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month my own articles on mostly Japanese topics would win the top prize in that editathon. I also contributed to these three discussions about the use of IPA in Japanese articles, and an earlier, loosely related, discussion of IPA and kanji in the lead of our Kazuo Ishiguro article -- the latter's not really a part of "Japanese culture", but it's "related" enough that I probably would have stayed away from it before appealing my previous TBAN anyway, so including it here for full disclosure. And I removed some maintenance tags that had been erroneously placed on articles I had written.[7][8][9][10] Otherwise I've mostly been building my own articles, without much interaction at all with other editors, let alone "incidents" -- the nearest I can think of to a full-on dispute over a Japanese article I've been involved in was this, and that's reaching to even call it a dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 05:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
@BU Rob13:In case it's not clear, the above is really grasping at straws in an attempt to as open as humanly possible. I could have answered "No" to your question and even if you went through my contribs and found all of the above you probably would not disagree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

I would suggest the arbs review the material presented in the case. The fact that the requester indicated the subject Kenji Miyazawa could not have been something he clearly was because of the nationalist implication raises in my eyes serious questions regarding his competence to edit in this field which is much more contentious than Japanese poets.i wish I could find the exact time he stated he was the only one he could trust to edit the draft page for Kenji Miyazawa also raises questions regarding his ability to work in contentious topics. Unfortunately I haven't figured out how to copy addresses with the new machine here yet. I would also welcome input from the other parties to the original arbitration none of who seem to have been notified of this. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Username

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @Hijiri88: I'll do my own due diligence on this as well, but have you been involved in any incidents or conflicts related to "Japanese culture" since the lifting of that topic ban? ~ Rob13Talk 05:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • [11] This link, provided above by Hijiri as an example of a "conflict" (kind of) they were involved in related to "Japanese culture" after that topic ban was lifted, is a strong case for further rolling back of sanctions. That's just about the gold standard for talk page discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 06:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=817515713"