From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Capriaf

Appeal declined. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Appealing user 
Capriaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
48 hour block for violation of 1RR/consensus required on United States presidential election, 2020
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
I am notified. Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Capriaf

1RR/consensus required restriction on the page is meant to prevent vandalism. I was making a genuine edit and I was taking into consideration the sources that were recommended by the people who reverted my edits. They removed it and blocked me for 48 hours.

Copied from their talk page per email request. Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ks0stm

Original edit, revert one, DS notification, revert two. I am open to reconsidering the block if others think that it should be lifted due to the edit being improved with each re-addition and being subsequently accepted after the second revert; however, I think at face value it was a violation of the 1RR/consensus required restriction and that they should have taken to the talk page to discuss improvements to the edit, rather than re-instating the material and litigating over the sourcing via reverts. Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Capriaf

Result of the appeal by Capriaf

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • "1RR/consensus required restriction on the page is meant to prevent vandalism" is totally untrue; the sanctions are to prevent precisely the situation which appears to have arisen here. Capriaf was notified of the "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged" sanction, blanked them thus confirming they were aware of the notification, and immediately restored the disputed content; meanwhile, I'm noting a complete absence of Capriaf's name from Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. This is the system working exactly as intended, although iff Capriaf undertakes not to restore the disputed content without a consensus on the talkpage I wouldn't be averse to unblocking early. ‑ Iridescent 22:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline - Block looks consistent with the relevant DS to me, and isn't over the top in length. I believe it should stand. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ach, this is one of those edge cases. The user was clearly trying to improve the edit with the subsequent revert; yes, technically they were in violation but it appears they understand what the problem is - agree with Iridescent, if they agree not to restore the material then an unblock is fine and it appears that the blocking admin agrees. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Would decline. The block for 1RR was technically justified even if the editor might have had good intentions. Since the 48-hour block has expired, the appeal has no further urgency. I would close this as declined without waiting for any further negotiation either with the user or the blocking admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If there are no more comments, I am planning to close this as declined. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline. This was a valid block. It perhaps was on the severe side, but well within Ks0stm's discretion. WJBscribe (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Closing as declined. No admin believes that the block was in error, though at least one considers it severe. The two votes for conditional unblock are now moot since the block has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


User warned and is now aware of the exact wording of the sanction. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Oncenawhile

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 09:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :

Per notice on talk page: "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 21 March 2017 Restoring of reverted edit without a consensus on talk page.
  2. 19 Martch 2017 WP:CANVASS another user similar to his POV in middle of disagreement.

@Zero He has pinged me only becouse I reverted him.Its not like I was unaware of Oncenawhile edits--Shrike (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zero In two cases the map was removed.Hence it considered restoring a reverted edit.--Shrike (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Onceawhile I was reacted about your complain regarding Jordan/Saudia border.And I invited to change this on long-standing map.You still welcome to revert yourself and restore the original map.You had a plenty of time to self-revert.--Shrike (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:,@WJBscribe:,@El C: Huldra Has continued to edit war on the article [1].--Shrike (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 April 2016 [2]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  1. As far as I read the talk page [3] at the moment of the revert there was no consensus to remove the map once again after I restored it [4]
  2. The user pinged another user with similar POV When we started discuss the proper name of the article.Though he pinged it in another thread it was obvious that he will support Onceawhile POV and that what he did [5]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Oncenawhile

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

Statement by Oncenawhile

Until now I was not aware of this new "no rereverting without consensus" rule, which appears to have come in to force about three months ago. Noone ever notified me of it, and I didn't notice the amendment to the template (which I have myself been responsible for maintaining in the past), as I can't be expected to reread it every time I log in. There was also no update to the summary at WP:IPCOLL#ARBPIA or any other place which would have shown up on my watchlist. I haven't edited much since December (less than 200 edits in three months), and that time has been focused almost exclusively on (a) a silly argument with Drsmoo, and (b) an article which I am trying to bring to FA status. So I'm sorry I missed this new rule, but if I had my time again I don't know how I would have reasonably found out about it.

But even with that rule now in mind, I don't understand the merit of Shrike's complaint. I explained here why I pinged Makeandtoss, and I stand by it. When Shrike reverted my new map, I engaged in thoughtful discussion with Shrike, and other editors joined in. Even when I thought I had passed the normal 1RR time horizon, I continued to discuss, as I have no interest in conflict here. At no point did I add back my map, as it did not have consensus. But when I pointed out that the existing map was incorrect, Shrike said "you are welcome to change it". So I don't understand why we are here.

As relates to Drsmoo, I would like his comments to be investigated. They are wholly misrepresentative, have nothing to do with Shrike's AE, and are part of a long term campaign he is waging. In this thread I don't want to distract from Shrike's AE, but suffice to say that Drsmoo been attacking me for 18 months, following me round the encylopedia with filibustering and a string of ANI requests. This thread is a good example, and sets out some of my perspective on the matter. If any admin is willing to take on an assessment of the problems between me and Drsmoo, it would help me greatly as his behavior over a long period of time has been a constant source of problems for me.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the prompt to self-revert, which I have done. I have been reflecting on this new rule, which will take a bit of getting used to. The previous 1RR protocol has been in place for nine years(!) - this is quite a momentous shift. This new rule puts more focus than ever on the age-old question of "do I have consensus". If I had known, I probably would have asked Shrike explicitly "since you are now happy for me to change the map, do I have your agreement to remove the incorrect one until we agree on a replacement?".
On a related point, could I make a small suggestion on these ARBPIA rules. We could make a "cordiality amendment" which requires people to be given a reasonable chance to self revert before they are hauled to AE in cases of possible misunderstandings. I struggle to see how that would have anything but a positive impact on the editing environment. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

The claim of CANVASSing is ridiculous. Oncenawhile asked a resourceful editor a reasonable question about maps and sources before there was any discussion of maps or any edits involving maps to the article. The discussion which was actually in progress started with Oncenawhile pinging the complainant! Zerotalk 12:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the other charge, note that Once didn't actually restore a reverted edit. Once's original edit replaced one map A in the infobox by another map B. Shrike reverted the edit, putting map A back, then Once removed the map (leaving no maps). The result of Once's second edit is different from the result of the first. It is an important difference because (as you can see by reading Shrike's talk page comments) Shrike doesn't believe map B satisfies NPOV. If Once restored map B that would be a violation, but Once did not restore map B. So this does not match the letter of the rule. Admins can consider whether it matches the spirit; I'm dubious. Zerotalk 12:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

To El C: This new rule is creating more problems than it is solving. One big problem with it is that there is no time limit. Is it a violation to redo an edit that was reverted a year ago by an editor no longer around? Apparently it is, which is absurd. And who decides when consensus has been achieved? It is just begging people to bring cases here on the off-chance that admins agree with them on which way the consensus was. It's a cost-free way to get rid of editing opponents. Zerotalk 00:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Shrike thinks that everyone editing the article except Shrike is "edit-warring". Zerotalk 08:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Drsmoo

To start with, I'm not involved with this current dispute, but I am currently involved in a different dispute here involving both Oncenawhile and Shrike in which Oncenawhile continues to disregard consensus. This includes referring to my contributions as "bullshit", referring to another editor as "close minded" while calling Shrike "a fraud" who "should be ashamed." (Note that Oncenawhile struck this comment over a month later after he falsely claimed that Shrike was somehow on his side of the dispute). Despite consensus having been established months ago, including on the reliable sources noticeboard, and despite multiple editors excoriating him for his uncivil edits, Oncenawhile has continued to revert against consensus, waiting weeks between edits before popping up and reverting, in a way that appears to be designed to be as disruptive as possible. He stated in response to the clear consensus that "wikipedia is not about votes" and that he has no intention to abide by it. Even coming onto my talk page last night to state that he will continue until he gets an answer to his "challenge". Not to mention him coming onto my talk page to try to troll me by childishly comparing my edits to Milli Vanilli. He is a disruptive, uncivil editor who has no respect for Wikipedia or consensus-based editing. He tries to bully other users through personal attacks and disruptive editing and his behavior should not be tolerated. Drsmoo (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

In response to Kingsindian's statement, these are diffs from months ago, but the dispute is ongoing as Oncenawhile has still refused to accept consensus (which was established in January). When Kingsindian says "a mostly civil and reasoned discussion" I'm assuming he means civil from most editors, except for Oncenawhile, who has literally personally attacked and/or cursed out everyone who's disagreed with him. Examples:
"In case English is not your first language"
"Since your comment contains no explanation, I will ignore it."
"If you answer with more general bullshit I will have no choice but to remove your sources."
"Shrike, you have exposed yourself as a fraud" "You should be ashamed."
"On your last question, perhaps you don't understand how scholarship works?"
"It is this closed-minded and defensive attitude which scholars like [[Oscar White Muscarella]] have been working hard to stamp out."
No other editor is responding uncivilly, it's simply Oncenawhile attacking everyone who disagrees with him.
With regard to the other claim, it was another editor involved in the Tel Dan Stele "dispute", No More Mr Nice Guy, who suggested that it be brought to AE here. "This is his regular MO. He will come back every few weeks threatening to make an edit he knows he has no consensus for. If by chance nobody pays attention and objects, he goes ahead and makes the edit, hoping again nobody will notice. Ping me if he does it here and I will provide you with several past examples for an AE report." I asked on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard "Is this a reliable source for the text?" and Itsmejudith responded "Yes this is a good source for the article". Oncenawhile then proceeded to blatantly lie on the DRN claiming that "the RSN thread only established the answer to a straw man question as to whether the citations were reliable or appropriate for the wider article" even though I clearly, directly, asked if the source was reliable "for the text" and received an affirmative answer. He also claimed that the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was "invalid" because he hadn't been notified, which makes no sense. Shrike wrote "I agree with other users on that matter Drsmoo provided reliable sources discussing the matter of article." Oncenawhile dismissed this writing "Shrike and Itsmejudith both referred only to the wider article in their comments" No More Mr Nice Guy wrote "I agree with Drsmoo that these sources are not only appropriate, but required per NPOV." Oncenawhile dismissed this by writing "NMMNG did not provide any specifics regarding what he was supporting." Despite Shrike, No More Mr Nice Guy, ItsmeJudith, and myself all being involved in the discussion and the consensus, when Oncenawhile went to Dispute Resolution, he only notified me. Afterwards, he made a second DRN post, this time, not notifying anyone. Obviously, both of those are in violation of the rules of DRN. The admin at the DRN suggested that Oncenawhile open an RFC, I suggested he reach out to the other editors for clarification, he has refused to do both. Consensus was established months ago and Oncenawhile has blatantly lied and refused to abide by it, coming on to my talk page and stating he will continue to revert "for as long as it takes to get a sensible answer to my challenge" without making any attempts to engage with other editors or to build a consensus. He literally counts votes, and then once the consensus goes against him just over a week later says "Wikipedia is not about votes". Oncenawhile acts like a bull in a china shop, completely disregarding consensus and putting his foot down regardless. Admins haven't done anything so he has continued with this behavior. This has been going on for years. Drsmoo (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

Firstly, this is a very borderline violation, even if there is a violation. Secondly, nobody forces anyone to block anyone; discretionary sanctions are discretionary for a reason. Thirdly, it is very easy to break rules in this area; 1RR is very easy to violate and this rule is even more easier to violate. At a minimum, the person who made the edit should be given the chance to self-revert. Why are admins getting involved at all here? Is there some massive disruption going on that needs to be addressed?

As for the rest of the comments, is one allowed to bring up diffs from months ago in an unrelated AE report? This is ridiculous. If you see the discussion at Talk:Tel_Dan_Stele#Only_four, you'll see a mostly civil and reasoned discussion, on which people disagree. I challenge anyone who has edited in any area on Wikipedia to find a long back-and-forth discussion without people displaying irritation and snide personal comments. I'll gladly give you examples of Arbs and admins behaving in this way or worse. You have to look at the whole discussion and see if people are trying to discuss the issues in a reasonable way, and in my opinion, they are doing so.

Most of these reports are really content disputes in disguise, where people try to get each other blocked for technical violations. If you want to look at the totality of evidence, then do so, but don't act like naive bureaucrats. Kingsindian   17:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a separate question. Was the rule actually violated? How was it violated? I see El_C's commment here, which seems extraordinary to me. A revert is usually considered to be reverting to some previous version of the article. In this case, the reversion was to a different version altogether. The map was added to the article 6 years ago!. Are we supposed to keep track of versions that far back?

Looks like we need to be proficient in something akin to Talmudic exegesis to not fall afoul of the rules here. Keep in mind that there was plenty of discussion on the talkpage during these edits. Why do admins need to get involved at all here? This sort of absurdity can be avoided if (a) people give others a chance to self-revert before bringing them here and (b) admins not be eager to block people for trivial violations which don't cause any disruption. Indeed, Shrike has warned me in the past for inadvertent 1RR violations which I was happy to self-revert. Kingsindian   19:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

What on Earth is going on? I don't understand why admins are being trigger-happy. This is not a game. Please spare a thought for the content, and not just Wikipedia's labyrinthine rules about conduct.

The map which was present in the article was WP:OR and has no source at all, some editor had made it up six years ago according to their own interpretation. As far as I know, nobody is defending the map, not even Shrike; the discussion is over which map to include. Almost anything is better than a map somebody just made up. May I remind everyone that WP:NOR is one of Wikipedia's core policies?

What was the need for WJBscribe to block Huldra in a hurry, without giving them the chance to even reply here? Even if one tries to apply the "rules", one can very well argue that there was a "consensus" that the original map is wrong, so there's arguably no violation at all. The whole matter is ridiculous. Kingsindian   12:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

The point raised by Oncernawhile about this new rule is worth examining. It effectively means the only rule in the I/P area is to have a majority of two editors, so that any third editor's work can be indefinitely blocked, unless she goes to some forum to get external neutral advice. I have done this several times recently, and was vindicated, despite the refusal of reverters to adopt any intellible form of consensual negotiation. The rule risks tranforming editing into a numbers game, nothing more, and is being applied increasingly recently.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Oncenawhile

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The provision-that-keeps-on-giving strikes again. Looks like it was violated, though. El_C 09:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Zero, what was restored without consensus as a result of the edit was, in effect, an infobox with no map. Subtle, I know. El_C 13:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am generally not a fan. But I have seen it result in a lot more discussion and a lot less edit warring, to be fair. El_C 00:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Kingsindian, the map was removed twice, so not so extraordinary. Just not immediately intuitive. El_C 16:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would block for 48 hours. This is a clear breach. Oncenawhile removed an image from the infobox that has been used in the article for a number of years, and replaced it with another image from the article. That action was reverted. The onus was on Oncenawhile to then engage in discussion. Instead he repeated the removal of the image from the infobox. Although he did not restore his preferred image, he still repeated a reverted action (removal of the longstanding image from the infobox) without consensus. Waiting for Oncenawhile to respond, but this looks like a clear breach. Edit warring over longstanding content of an article seems to me like exactly the sort of thing ArbCom had in mind these sanctions preventing. WJBscribe (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    Mmm, having considered Oncenawhile's response, it does seem plausible that the editor was aware that sanctions were in force but not about this particular sanction. That makes me hesitate about a block, because I generally don't think users should be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule. That said, Oncenawhile was aware that sanctions applied and that they might be updated. I don't think it's unreasonable to require editors to check whether sanctions have been modifed before they edit war - and I am disappointed to see that there still hasn't been a self-revert. WJBscribe (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    Noting the self-revert, I would now be minded to close this without action. I don't like the idea of blocking editors for breaching sanctions they didn't know were in place. WJBscribe (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    I have blocked Huldra (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for restoring the reverted content without consensus after Oncenawhile's self-revert. Huldra was definitely aware of the restriction, see User talk:Huldra#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles. WJBscribe (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with a block of 48 hours, and I'll make the block if no-one objects in the next 24 hours or so. I would also be inclined to warn the editor that he's rapidly heading toward a topic ban based on the diffs Drsmoo provided. In particular, calling another editor a "fraud" and "close minded" is unacceptable. ~ Rob13Talk 14:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Alright, no block needed, just a warning. As for the second half of what I said, Drsmoo's diffs speak for themselves. There are zero instances in which calling another editor a "fraud" or "close minded" is acceptable, and behavior continuing along those lines would likely lead to discretionary sanctions (up to a topic ban). Oncenawhile, you should take this under advisement. If you have evidence that Drsmoo has acted inappropriately, feel free to present that in another AE, but that doesn't excuse your own behavior. His reporting of diffs is not harassment or otherwise improper if he's reporting actual incivility in an appropriate venue, which he is. ~ Rob13Talk 17:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Huldra

Sufficient consensus to unblock per AGF. Note that is not a reflection on the validity of the block. More within. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)WJBscribe (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Blocked you from editing for 48 hours by WJBscribe for this edit to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank in which Huldra restored a reverted edit (the removal of a map from the article's infobox) without obtaining prior consensus. Huldra was specifically informed of the restriction on restoring reverted edits without consensus above, see User talk:Huldra#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Huldra

  • Whaw. User:WJBscribe: Yes, I was definitely aware of the editing restriction, I requested it! But it was put in place because if *one* newish editor made changes to an article, then it took *two* editors to return to status quo. It was never meant to keep everything in status quo until everyone agreed!! If this is the interpretation, then we can just shut down, as there will never be agreement about everything in the IP area. If you look at the talk page, you will see many editors from all sides discussing. To be blocked for 1 edit is a new interpretation, something I definitely was not aware of. Huldra (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have read "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit" meaning that the *same* editor cannot restore one of his own reverted edits......but I never took it to mean that anyone else could not restore it either!! ......and I don't think anyone else in the area have interpreted them like that, either (nobody reported me..) Huldra (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, I have participated on the talk pages for ages, besides the one edit WJBscribe links to on 21 March, also 20 March, 19 March, 19 March etc.
  • And I repeat, I have not understood User talk:Huldra#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles to mean that no one could reinsert an edit before everyone agreed. If this is what it means, then I got a lot more than I asked for, back in December: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period. Huldra (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:WJBscribe: You wrote, about Oncenawhile: "That makes me hesitate about a block, because I generally don't think users should be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule". Well, I had no idea that I was violating a rule. And to repeat: I thought I knew that I had asked for it! Huldra (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, if the December 2016 amendment is the way WJBscribe has interpreted it, it in effect puts all articles under ARBPIA in 0RR. And that has never been discussed (And I, for one would be against it, as it wouldn't be workable). And that was definitely not what I meant should happen, when I asked for 1RR to be strengthen! Huldra (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:BU Rob13: it might be that my reading of the remedy was skewed by the fact that I know intimately what triggered the December 2017 amendment, namely me asking for "That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period." I never dreamed it could, in effect, mean 0RR. (And that is something I would greatly object to. I know far to well how difficult it is to agree to what is "consensus" in the IP area, and would strongly object to such a remedy.) I asked for, (and thought I got) that status quo should get the advantage in a dispute between two editors. In this case, however, there were many editors involved. To decide what is "consensus" in such a case can, in my experience, be nearly impossible to determine. Huldra (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Shrike: I have always self reverted if I have become aware of doing something wrong! But that is the problem here, I’m not sure I did! *If* the admins agree that I did, then I will 1: self revert, 2: go straight to WP:ARCA to get this rule changed. (Btw, reverting will bring back an WP:OR map, which nobody is for?) Huldra (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:BU Rob13: I started a RfC Talk:Kfar Ahim on 12 January, it was closed, for the second time, today. After 11+ years in this area, I know there is absolutely no problem too small not to be quarrelled over. Normally it works out somehow.....everyone keeps to 1 edit a day, + lots of discussion on the talk pages. AFAIK, nobody of "the regulars" in the IP area has asked for a rule the way WJBscribe has interpreted them, which basically takes away that one edit a day. And I mean what I said above: I will go straight to WP:ARCA to try to get it changed, if that is the correct interpretation. Huldra (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:WJBscribe, no, it isn't that I think a consensus is always impossible to reach. But Nishidani puts the point quite clearly; a single editor can always claim there is no consensus (And in the IP area Murphys law rule: what can go wrong, will go wrong.) That you do not follow what you yourself state, namely "hesitate about a block, because I generally don't think users should be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule" is bad enough, but what I did is worse: When I went to WP:ARCA in December, it was to get a minor adjustment to the 1RR rule (And I think I speak for most of the "regulars" in the IP area, when I say that 1RR has generally been good). BUT: instead of a minor adjustment, I apparently got a monster rule, enabling me to be blocked, without notice, and without me knowingly making a mistake! Pinging the arb.commers who voted for this, to see if this is what they meant: Opabinia regalis Doug Weller DGG Callanecc Kirill Lokshin GorillaWarfare DeltaQuad Huldra (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:El_C, User:Opabinia regalis, as I said above, I have always worked within the rules, and always self reverted when I was told I was wrong. This time I was blocked without any warning, by an admin who has earlier stated that he "hesitate about a block, because I generally don't think users should be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule" .....alas, that was a courtesy apparently not extended to me, only to Onceinawhile. That none of you other admins have the guts to unmake an injustice make me not wanting to be a part of this place. Huldra (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:El C, I don't blame you, I know that the penalty for weel-warring is mostly instant desysop. The one I blame is User:WJBscribe, who blocked me without any warning, and without me knowingly breaking any rule. I have always tried to follow the rules scrupulously, but it is rather difficult to follow rules you do not know exists! I see User:Newyorkbrad, writes here "In my view, "blocking without warning" should never take place in the sense of "the editor was blocked even though he or she didn't know he or she was doing anything wrong, and would have stopped immediately had he or she been told."" ...but that is exactly how I was blocked, and is still blocked! But apparently this is totally acceptable behaviour from WJBscribe? And I am absolutely not "wedded to the idea of everyone having their 1RR per day ", but as I have said, I would go straight to WP:ARCA to modify this monster rule, if 0RR is in fact correct interpretation. I addition to the examples mention by Oncenawhile, I can mention Palestine Liberation Organization, where there was also a bit of a scuffle among "the usual suspects", and none of us waited for a "consensus" on the talk page. Huldra (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

The relevant edits to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank were as follows:

  1. A map was removed from the infobox and replaced with a different map by Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) [7]
  2. That edit was reverted by Shrike (talk · contribs) [8]
  3. Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) once again removed the map (but did not replace it) [9]
  4. Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) self-reverted after being reported to WP:AE for restoring a reverted edit without consensus [10]
  5. Huldra (talk · contribs) repeated the replacement of the map [11]
  6. Huldra (talk · contribs) then posted on the talkpage: "To have an OR map, done by a WP editor in the lead is outrageous. I have reintroduced the official map [Oncenawhile] inserted" [12]

Huldra (talk · contribs) was aware that the topic area was subject to the following AE sanction: "Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." She restored a reverted edit, and then expressly acknowledged having done so on the talkpage. I note that in her appeal, Huldra suggests that her edit not violate the AE sanction because she did not restore her own edit. That is not required by the AE sanction as I read it. The onus is on those who wish to restore an edit that has proved controversial - because it has been reverted - to establish consensus. Huldra did not engage in talkpage discussions to establish a consensus either for the replacement of the map or, in the meantime, that there should be no image in the infobox pending resolution of the dispute. Such a discussion had in fact been commenced, see Talk:Jordanian occupation of the West Bank#Lead map - consensus to remove?. Instead she dived straight in and continued to edit war by substituting her preferred map to the infobox. I believe this is exactly the sort of behaviour the AE sanction is aimed at preventing - edit warring without prior attempts at seeking consensus - and that the block is proportionate to the severity of the breach. WJBscribe (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Noting in response to Huldra's comments that I do not think her position is the same as Oncenawhile's, for whom I recommended a warning instead of block. Oncenawhile was unaware that reverting without consensus was prohibited. Huldra was aware of the applicable AE sanction. She apparently thought that what she was doing didn't fall within the AE sanction. That is something different. Where one is aware of an AE sanction, care should be taken not breach it. Huldra knowingly dived into an edit war in a topic area subject to sanctions in relation to reverting without prior consensus. She did so at her own risk. That she thought that her edit was technical permissible is not a good excuse IMO. WJBscribe (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I would have no objection to an early unblock if the concerns raised by BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) in relation to future conduct are satisfactorily addressed. WJBscribe (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: I don't think those concerns have been addressed. Her recent response to you shows that Huldra is still be focused on her belief that she should have been told her edit breached the sanctions before being blocked, and that I treated her and Oncenawhile inconsistently, rather than addressing whether she will now approach edit wars differently in future. IMO what's lacking before there can be an early unblock is (per BU Rob13) "an understanding of the proper way to handle a slow-moving dispute in the future." She still appears to be wedded to the idea of everyone having their 1RR per day. WJBscribe (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: I'm not asking anyone to jump through hoops. "...they said they'll abide by the rule (albeit challenge it at ARCA), and that should be good enough." Fair enough, I won't object to you unblocking if that's the case, but when has Huldra said she'll abide by the rule? WJBscribe (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: I read what you've quoted as referring to the past, not the future. If you think that's a commitment to abide by this AE sanction in the future so be it, but I think that's a pretty generous interpretation of her words. WJBscribe (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike (involved editor 1)

For me interpretation was clear no one can restore a reverted edit till consensus is reached.Also it clearly says editors so it doesn't mean one editor.But if its not clear to Huldra she can ask after her block expires at WP:ARCA--Shrike (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually it was me who reported you [13]--Shrike (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Huldra Are you willing to self-revert if you get unblocked?--Shrike (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Huldra The is map is not OR at all but that beyond the point.There is seems to be agreement that you did broke provision.The only question is that you was not aware if this is the case I support you unblock if you willing to self revert Shrike (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I object misrepresentation of my position I think the old map is good and until something better is found it should stay.Another thing I don't understand why @Zero0000, El C, Nishidani, and Sir Joseph: commenting as uninvolved editors the convention as far as I know was if the editor is active in topic area there are involved.--Shrike (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC) @El C: It seems that she is not willing to self-revert I think this should be condition to any unblock.--Shrike (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Oncenawhle (involved editor 2)

We really need to apply this consistently if we are going to apply it. For example, a few weeks ago at UN Watch, this happened:

  • 22 February 2017 (9 edits) Drmies makes a variety of edits
  • 04:56, 23 February 2017 IP partial revert (Try to gain consensus in the talk page before deleting such a massive amount of content. Some of this information is important and supported by secondary sources.)
  • 04:58, 23 February 2017 Nableezy reverts per ARBPIA3
  • 12:40, 23 February 2017 Shrike reverts Nableezy to restore the IP's version

Is this a breach? There was no attempt to discuss, unlike at the article which is subject to this AE. It's all very confusing to me.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday, Sir Joseph wrote "it is very clear that the ruling is that consensus is required by any editor before reinstating a reverted edit". Yet just one week ago, this happened at Ahlam Tamimi:

  • 16:03, 15 March 2017‎ Sean.hoyland reverted an IP per ARBPIA3
  • 16:07-16:09, 15 March 2017‎ Sir Joseph reverted Sean hoyland
  • 16:14, 15 March 2017‎ Sean.hoyland partially reverted Sir Joseph
  • 16:22-16:35 15 March 2017‎ Sir Joseph reverted many of the same points again

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

BU Rob13 says that a successful appeal requires evidence of consensus and it's very clear the revert after multiple other editors reverted was a continuation of an edit war. The latter statement is incorrect; only Shrike had reverted the map (one person is not "multiple editors"). Oncenawhile only "self-reverted", not "reverted"; it's clear that they are opposed to the map. As for "evidence of consensus", nobody except Shrike is arguing in favour of the map (it's not clear to me what Shrike's position is; nobody has given a source for the map so far). Thus, a good case could be made that the edit is not a violation at all.

Speaking more broadly, the block by WJBscribe is not correct for several reasons. Firstly, to insist that a map without a source be kept in the article based on some interpretation of rules about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin is ridiculous. I remind people that WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN are core policies of Wikipedia.

Next, what was the need to act hurriedly, without even giving the party a chance to respond? And why was Huldra not given a chance to self-revert? What was the need for admins to act here, anyway? This kind of enforcement will make working in this area nigh impossible. WJBscribe seems to not appreciate this point at all. The provision was not meant to shut down all editing of the article till everyone agrees. In that case, we might as well wait for hell to freeze over.

Lastly, see Oncenawhile's comment about Shrike's editing on another article (the IP in question is a sock of AndresHerutJaim). This is not to demand that one of Shrike or Drmies be blocked; I would like nobody to be blocked. It's to say that these remedies need to be applied with common sense and people be extended the basic courtesies (like allowing them to self-revert, or discuss with them first) before hauling them here, and admins not be trigger-happy. In the past, I have seen admins use full-protection to force discussion on the talk page. That would have been much preferable to this kind of enforcement. Kingsindian   22:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

(I apologise for incorrectly putting this first into the "uninvolved" section. Although I have not edited the article in question for 5 months, I have written to the talk page recently.)

I find this all quite confusing. It is very clear that Huldra requested a particular rule modification to favor the status quo in a revert contest, but got something different without realising it. That by itself should be enough for the block to be replaced by a discussion. I also took the word "editors" as applying to the person whose edit was reverted and not everyone. The way this is turning out, editing in the area will become impossible. Anyone can revert without giving a reason then reply "I disagree" to every counterargument. Also, I don't see a good argument from the blocking admin that consensus hadn't been achieved. Shrike was the only dissenter, versus Oncenawhile and Huldra and (to some extent, though I didn't make strong statements) myself. Moreover, Shrike has agreed that the map can be improved and we are working towards that. Better consensus than that is rare in the IP area. Zerotalk 23:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

To be precise, there are two fatal deficiencies in the new rule that must be addressed to arbcom.

  1. It allows a malicious reverter to effectively stop article improvement by making regular reverts without even providing a reason. The onus for gaining a consensus is then put on the reverted, who have to start a talk page discussion even if the revert is completely unexplained and ridiculous. This is not a boundary case; it will happen for sure and it will be used to target individuals as well as articles.
  2. There is no time limit specified for when the revert was. So, in principle, before making any edit editors must examine the article history right back to article creation to see if they are repeating a previously reverted edit, and then the entire talk page history to see whether a consensus (whatever that is) was achieved in the interim. This is absurd.

Zerotalk 00:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There is something else I want to say. I've been working in the IP area of Wikipedia for more than 15 years, which I'm sure is longer than anyone else. I have never seen any editor produce such a huge amount of well-written and well-sourced copy as Huldra has. It is quite distressing to see one of the project's best editors sanctioned because she misunderstood the arbcom ruling that she herself requested. What are we coming to? Zerotalk 00:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Huldra

It is very clear that the ruling is that consensus is required by any editor before reinstating a reverted edit. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

'no one can restore a reverted edit till consensus is reached.' (Shrike)

Read that way this gives an enormous preponderance of power to any one editor (contrarian or not) to remove anything at all he or she might object to, on whatever grounds, whether the policy given is cogent or erratic. At Archaeology of Israel which is not under the ARBPIA ruling, one editor is constantly reverting 2 others because, I assume, he believes that 'his initial revert means no one else can restore it unless a discussion is opened up on the talk page, where his consensus is required. The original intent was not to license trigger-happy reverters, surely?Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Huldra

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Huldra That remedy doesn't require that everyone agrees. It does require that there is consensus for your edit. The remedy says nothing about this only applying to those who originally reverted; the goal is to stop all edit wars, not just edit wars engaged by one editor. I don't think this remedy is particularly open for misinterpretation, and the blocking administrator was definitely acting reasonably in blocking here. A successful appeal will need to include at least one of the following: evidence of consensus, evidence you weren't reasonably aware of this remedy, or sufficient explanation to convince uninvolved administrators that the block is no longer preventative. Moreover, I'd like to hear what you thought the use of this edit was. Regardless of remedies, it's very clear the revert after multiple other editors reverted was a continuation of an edit war. Edit warring is restricted entirely, not just when you pass 1RR. ~ Rob13Talk 17:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Huldra: I wholeheartedly reject the "hard to get consensus" defense for a slow moving edit war. Start an RfC, wait for it to be closed, then act (or don't!) on the result. An experienced closer such as myself or any number of other admins or experienced non-admins can be trusted to cut through the discussion and make an appropriate determination. If consensus for a change can't be reached, we default to the status quo in most cases or the version with least potential to harm for potential BLP violations. This applies in all topic areas; slow moving edit wars are never okay. I guess the most pertinent question here is whether you'll repeat this if unblocked, but ideally an unblock will also be preceded by an understanding of the proper way to handle a slow-moving dispute in the future. ~ Rob13Talk 18:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think there was a genuine misunderstanding here that isn't likely to be repeated again. I, myself, am leaning toward unblocking due to that. Unless there are objections. El_C 17:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I also ought to note that, for someone as intensely involved in ARBPIA articles for so many years, she has maintained a rather clean block log throughout the years. El_C 17:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Earlier today, WJBscribe advanced a fair point about the provision's use in preventing edit wars due to 1RR tag-teaming. I would like to note, for the record, that despite my public objection to the rule as counterintuitive, in this case, it may have indeed stopped just such an edit war in its track. And that's always worthwhile. El_C 17:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The provision does need to have its own projectspace page so it can be further clarified. Reverts do need to be well-argued for it to apply, I would challenge. El_C 00:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm just about ready to unblock early (there seems to be consensus for this), unless there are no further objections. El_C 19:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • WJBscribe, I think it's unnecessary for the user to go through hoops—they said they'll abide by the rule (albeit challenge it at ARCA), and that should be good enough. The User views this as a form of 0RR and they are not wrong about that. But they are allowed to disagree with the rule—their unblock should not be contingent on them reciting conduct that takes it on. Agreeing to abide by the rule so long as it remains in effect should be good enough. El_C 22:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "I have always worked within the rules, and always self reverted when I was told I was wrong." [and] I have always tried to follow the rules scrupulously, but it is rather difficult to follow rules you do not know exists!" Unless there are no further objections, I'll be unblocking in the next hour. El_C 23:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • How is it generous? I asked the user what they would do now and they say they always abide by the rules. You think that changes now? Because it's in the past-tense? You want the user to just plainly say I will follow the rule, and I don't think it's necessary, I think that it is implied. El_C 23:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • FWIW this part of the sanction appears totally counter-intuitive to me. It is effectively stopping development of any articles under ARBPIA because as soon as anyone edits, they can be reverted for no reason whatsoever with the expectation that a talk-page consensus should then occur. I do realise that this is effectively following WP:BRD but I would expect that the initial reverting editor give a very good reason for reverting, which at the moment is not happening. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It was introduced because of the frequent issue of tag-teaming in this topic area, which meant that whichever side had the greater number of editors would always be able to 'win' the battle to get material included by being able to outrevert the other side. Number 57 23:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that 2 days is a reasonable length for an infraction that was technically committed, but given the mitigating factors I think unblocking early would be a good idea. I also firmly believe that uninvolved admins need to do a thorough examination of this restriction, and whether it is helping or hindering the development of the topic area. If it is unduly restricting legitimate edits, it may be advisable to ask ARCA to come up with something more fine tuned. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've closed the thread, and wanted to give additional reasons as to why.

  • There is no consensus that the block was invalid.
  • To the extent that it was discussed, there is moderate consensus that the remedy may need further clarification at ARCA.
  • Most contributors support an early unblock, largely on the strength of AGF. Other contributors would join this opinion if they had reasonable assurance that Huldra agreed not to do it again, at least until/if the matter is clarified at ARCA.
  • Huldra disputes the validity of the block, but has highlighted her record of self-reverting and abiding by these remedies, and has committed to taking the matter to ARCA for clarification. Opinions vary on whether these commitments are sufficient. However a reading of this discussion and of policies like AGF indicate a consensus for giving her the benefit of the doubt.
  • On this basis, and noting the preponderance of views from contributors, there seems an active consensus that - again without disputing the validity of the block itself - a slightly early unblock is low-risk and permissible under AGF. On which basis I've gone ahead and lifted it. As always, happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA