Callanecc

Sanction

Hey Callanec. A while back you imposed this sanction on me [1]. It’s been almost a year and a half. I was wondering you’d be willing to vacate it. I know I can appeal it via WP:AE but the first step - and your instruction in the sanction notice - state to ask the imposing admin directly. So I’m asking.

There was an instance early on, right after the sanction was initially imposed, where I was accused of violating it (more than a year ago). I tried to follow the instructions and struck/removed etc. and no violation was found. Pretty much since then (more than a year) I have not run into any problems with it nor has anyone accused or implied I have violated it. Admittedly, I don’t see the sanction as particularly onerous or unfair (in some sense it reflects “best practice” in editing and discussing) and I intend to keep following it regardless as it’s just good advice, but I don’t really want it hanging over my head. Let me know if you’re willing to consider it. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 20:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Volunteer Marek: I'm happy to accept your appeal and vacate the sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Volunteer Marek 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed decision in the Venezuelan politics case posted

The proposed decision in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Zionism

Please remove the protection. If you want to help block the disruptive editors, please do, but indef full protection an article does nothing to help stop disruption and is itself purely disruptive to the editing process. Levivich (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

My intent isn't for it to be indef full protection but I can't put a time-limited protection on it without the article automatically reverting to unprotection. The intent is that it's for around a week (if that much is required) to force discussion and a consensus. If after a week when it goes back to ECP there is still edit warring individual or other page-level sanctions can be used. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "force" discussion and a consensus exactly? There is already discussion happening on the talk page, and no edit warring in almost a week. (Not every revert is an edit war.) There is also already consensus, at least about some things--a product of the lengthy discussions on the talk page. (Also, one cannot "force" a consensus.) All the full protection is going to do is put a hard stop on the discussion and consensus building until the protection is lifted. Levivich (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You can't edit war if you can't edit the page, the only way to get your preferred version is through discussion to build consensus. This is what full protection is regularly used to do in multi-party edit wars. I can't see how protecting a page where there is an ongoing multi-party edit war could put a hard stop on discussion. It only allows editors to discuss, come to a consensus and request a change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Years ago I wrote this joke, it's about this exact situation:

A Wikipedian and a vandal are stranded on a deserted island. On the first day, the Wikipedian builds a raft, but that night, the vandal destroys it. The second day, the Wikipedian lets the vandal know that one or more of his contributions to the raft did not appear constructive, and rebuilds the raft. Again, the vandal destroys it. The third day, the Wikipedian asks the vandal to please refrain from making unconstructive changes to the raft, and rebuilds the raft. The vandal destroys it. The fourth day, the Wikipedian tells the vandal that if he destroys the raft again, he may not be allowed to participate in the building of the raft. The Wikipedian rebuilds the raft and the vandal destroys it once more. On the fifth day, an admin finally arrives with the navy, announces that nobody can build a raft until everyone on the island agrees about whether or not a raft should be built, and sails off.

There are three groups of participating editors: (1) those who are not edit warring and are discussing -- they're fine, we don't have to worry about them; (2) those who are edit warring and are discussing -- they're already discussing; (3) those who are edit warring and not discussing -- three checkuser blocked so far, and the rest, we don't want them (or most of them) to join the discussion. I can't speak for other editors, but I'm not going to try and gain consensus with a vandal, or a POV pusher, or a UPE, or someone with an undisclosed COI, or various other types of bad-faith actors.

Full protection, for a limited time, works when good faith editors are edit warring and not discussing, in order to get them over to the talk page. That is not the case here, as can be seen from the talk page, which has been full of discussion alongside the edit warring, which itself isn't really edit warring so much as vandalism and blatant POV pushing by a small group of editors (some of them now checkuser blocked) being reverted by other editors (and not by another group, but by a wide variety of other editors). This problem is not limited to the Zionism article, it is limited to a small group of editors, and thus it is not the kind of disruption that can be cured by page-level sanctions.

As to why indefinite full protection would put a hard stop to discussion and consensus building until the protection is lifted, for the same reason that the Wikipedian in my joke is not going to try and come to consensus with the vandal about whether or not a raft should be built. Levivich (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)