Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Use this page 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:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
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.

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/1/2
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: ARBPIA3	Motion	(orig. case)	14 March 2017
Clarification request: Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection	Motion	none	15 May 2017
Clarification request: Transcendental Meditation movement	none	(orig. case)	18 May 2017

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: ARBPIA3

Initiated by Zero0000 at 06:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 3 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:

• Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Zero0000

The motion passed on Dec 26, 2016 begins, with my sentence numbering added:

"(a) Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. (b) In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. (c) Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit."

Since the act of restoring a reverted edit will most commonly be a revert itself, it is unclear whether sentence (c) applies to it. The relevant (very common) scenario is like this:

(1) someone makes an edit

(2) a non-30/500 editor reverts it

(3) someone undoes action (2) without talk-page discussion.

I'm sure the community would consider action (3) to be law-abiding, but a literal reading of the motion does not support that assumption. The problem is that sentence (c) refers only to the revert limit and not to the requirement to get consensus. I suggest that sentence (c) be replaced by something like "Edits made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit and the requirement to obtain consensus."

Note that if sentence (c) is read as not applying to the need for consensus, then a non-30/500 editor can cause major disruption to article development by reverting legitimate editors, which is contrary to the purpose behind the introduction of the 30/500 restriction. Thanks. Zero^talk 06:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

About the need for consensus. I am writing with 15 years of experience in the IP area, 12 of them as administrator. I can tell you as a fact: this new rule as it is being interpreted will be a mill-stone around the neck of every good editor working in the IP area. Please don't get bogged down in discussing one particular incident; what is important is the future application of the rule.

There are two major problems that I'll spell out one at a time.

1. The rule massively increases the power of a revert in the hands of a disruptive editor. No obligation at all is placed on the reverter—not to explain the revert or even to take part in the "consensus forming" that is compulsory for everyone else. Disruptive reverters have never had such power before, and they will use it.

• This scenario will be common: (a) X inserts some new material, (b) Y reverts the insertion, (c) X writes a justification for the new material on the talk page, (d) silence. What can X do? If X waits for a while and then reinserts the new material, Y will drag X to AE for breaking the rule. Article improvement is now frozen by someone who didn't give a single word of explanation.
• This scenario will be common too: (a) X inserts some new material, (b) Y reverts the insertion, (c) X writes a justification for the new material on the talk page, (d) Y endlessly replies "I disagree" to everything X writes. In the past when X and Y were on equal footing after one day, there was motivation for them to find a compromise position, and this a very common way that minor disputes are settled in the IP area. With the new rule, Y has all the power and no motivation to compromise. Minor disputes will be harder to solve.
• This scenario will be even more common: (a) X inserts some new material, (b) Y reverts the insertion, (c) X writes a justification for the new material on the talk page, (d) a few of the usual suspects arrive and take predictable sides, but there is never general agreement that consensus has been reached. Everyone will be afraid to edit the text because someone will claim that consensus hadn't been reached and some admin at AE (alas) will agree with them. Article improvement is now frozen.
• There are only two ways to have a consensus that will definitely pass inspection at AE: unanimous agreement and an RfC closed as consensus. So why shouldn't we start an RfC whenever there is a disagreement? Because: in the IP area a large fraction of all edits are not to the liking of someone else. If we can't save RfCs for the important and long-running disputes, we will be starting one or two every day and soon our time will be totally consumed by RfCs instead of articles.
• This new super-charged revert is the perfect weapon for neutralising individual editors across multiple articles. That will happen too, and the first signs have appeared.
• The committee wanted to create an environment in which there is more discussion than now. That is a laudable objective but this rule won't help. The "discussions" created by this rule will have one side with the weight of Arbcom behind them and no reason to agree to anything. They can get their way merely by stonewalling, and that is exactly what will happen.

2. No time limit is specified for the need for consensus. A literal reading of the rule is that for each edit we have to search the article history, right back to article creation if necessary, to see if we are undoing a revert. Presumably nobody would be punished for undoing a five-year's old revert, but what about one year, one month, one week? It is a granted that admins at AE won't agree on what timeout is reasonable. Editors need to be able to tell with reasonable certainty whether they are acting within the rules, but the current wording does not enable that.

Nobody from the IP area asked for this rule. Since the very purpose of rules is to assist good-faith editors to write great articles, I put it to you that this rule is not a good one. Thank you for reading. Zero^talk 00:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: Noticeboards like RSN and NPOV often don't end with a clear consensus, and they hardly ever bring fresh editors to article talk pages. They usually just attract regulars who express completely predictable opinions. And who gets to decide when consensus has been reached? Editors who think that some admin will agree there was no consensus will take the opportunity to punish their opponents by taking them to AE. You know that because you already did it. Zero^talk 08:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Opabinia regalis: I don't know that anyone has read the "Editors are limited to one revert" in the first sentence as meaning anything except "Each editor is limited to one revert". It isn't the problem that caught Huldra. So if that's what you mean, I don't see how it would help. All good editors in the IP area love the 1RR rule. We also love the brilliant 50/300 rule, which has greatly reduced the labor of keeping good articles good. The problem is with the next sentence "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit" which is a disaster and nothing at all like what Huldra asked for. I've tried to explain why it is bad above. Some people around here have the idea that the IP area is rotten and needs to be fixed by wielding a big stick. The truth is that the area has never been better. The last thing we need is a rule that leaves good editors not knowing whether the edit they want to make will get them blocked or not. Please remove it. Zero^talk 08:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Opabinia regalis: Yes, you are correct that the sentence is similar to a comment Huldra made before, quite different from her initial request. I think her comment was a mistake, unusually for her, but I'm more concerned with what will work. The sentence means that one editor can bring editing to a halt without even giving a reason, then nobody else will know when editing can resume because the group will not agree on when consensus has been achieved. Zero^talk 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor BU Rob13: The fact that you think the rule worked in one case has no bearing on how it will "work" in general. Why not try to answer some of the objections? Zero^talk 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Your reply mostly consists of misrepresenting my, and others', position and I will only respond to one point: You claim: "you've also argued that admins can't exercise common sense (blocking someone for re-adding something that was reverted years ago)". My response: Nonsense. My objection is that admins will not agree where the boundary lies and we shouldn't have to wait until we are taken to AE before knowing if an edit will get us blocked or not. If I want to gamble, I prefer Las Vegas. Just add a time limit to that sentence and the problem is gone; easy. Zero^talk 00:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: I'm confused by the logic of your latest statement. If one "side" has all the numbers then surely that side has the upper hand in "consensus forming" and so would be advantaged by a rule that requires consensus. You yourself argued against holding an RfC on those grounds. Now you allege that the side with the numbers wants to remove the need for consensus as it is not to their advantage. Are you not trying to have it both ways? Zero^talk 01:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor WJBscribe: We editors in the IP area are not naughty children who need to be brought into line. Almost all of the regulars spend more time on the talk page than in article space already, whenever there is the slightest disagreement. A rule that demands the elusive state called "consensus" must be achieved before anyone can edit prevents reaching consensus by editing, which is provided by policy as the first way to achieve consensus. The result will not be more consensus, but more frozen articles. Zero^talk 09:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor BU Rob13: You can read El_C's statement to see that it has not worked without problem in the American politics area. And your claim that there has only been only incident in the ARBPIA only means that you only know of one. In fact, all over the area editors are unsure of when they are allowed to edit. Zero^talk 13:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The present proposal would remove the problematic aspects of the previous ruling. Even though it can be improved, I urge that it be passed like this with any finessing left to future cases. Regarding Seraphim System (talk · contribs)'s suggestion, I think that there should be a principle right across the project (not restricted to ARBPIA) that reverts made without a cogent explanation don't count towards consensus. This is almost stated at WP:CONSENSUS, but an arbcom ruling that gives it some teeth wouldn't go astray. Zero^talk 12:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

It's very clear the Committee intended for this whole motion not to apply to reverts related to the General Prohibition. All we need here is to amend the very end of that motion from "exempt from the revert limit" to "exempt from the provisions of this motion". That clears up the ambiguity. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Newyorkbrad, but let's fix the easy issue before dealing with the more complicated issue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Euryalus: Removing the sentence would definitely imply a warning is necessary, at least in my opinion. Perhaps replace the final sentence with "Administrators are encouraged, but not required, to give adequate warning to an editor before enforcing the remedy." ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• The new issues are editors who believe an editor should be able to make an edit, someone else reverts, and then a second editor comes along and strong-arms the first edit through without discussion. They wouldn't agree with that characterization, but it is what it is; reverting a revert without discussion is the start of an edit war. That's what a removal of "consensus required" or loosening to only apply to the original editor results in. The status quo can and should be maintained as discussion occurs on the talk page. Some have argued that compromise edits should be allowed, and they are! The particular situation that resulted in Huldra's block was a revert that was exactly the same as a previous edit which had itself been reverted. I see nothing to fix here. This restriction has worked quite successfully and been interpreted reasonably by admins in the American politics topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Zero0000: The objection is "We should be able to keep making reverts even after someone has objected without first gaining consensus." I wholeheartedly object to that entire premise. I see you've also argued that admins can't exercise common sense (blocking someone for re-adding something that was reverted years ago), but I disagree with that as well. I haven't read the extremely long sections here because I'm rather time-constrained this week, and I trust the Committee not to make an intentional decision to open up the topic area to limited amounts of edit warring. The fact that edit warring has decreased is a result of this remedy, not an indication the remedy serves no purpose. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Opabinia regalis: I believe you misunderstand Huldra's complaint. She wasn't blocked based on wikilawyering of that language. She was blocked due to this sentence: "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." She interpreted that sentence to mean that only the editor who originally made the edit is required to find consensus before restoring it, but that's plainly not what the language said. I should note that I was the one who suggested "consensus required", not Huldra; she just queried the issue of 1RR supporting new material over the status quo due to a technicality. She did not provide the solution, if I am recalling correctly. If that sentence were to go, that would mean that seven editors could come along and each make one revert back-and-forth until they exhausted their numbers. Only after that would things move to the talk page. That's an edit war, full stop. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Huldra: "Don't edit war" is not a revolution. Note that editors who revert a single time but are continuing a larger edit war are always doing something blockable based on admin discretion, as edit warring is against policy regardless of whether you break 3RR, 1RR, etc. You've said in the past that your main concern is that this stops you from making gradually different edits to find a compromise, which is typical in the I-P topic area. It does not. A different edit is not a revert. Restoring the same edit without substantial change is a revert. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Doug Weller: Editor A reverts. Editor B questions the revert on the talk page. Editors C and D both support Editor A's revert, but Editor A doesn't comment. Under your proposed motion, Editor B is free to revert anyway after 72 hours. If we're going this route, we should rework it to be that editors may revert after 72 hours if no editor supports the revert. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Doug Weller: Also "without penalty" needs wordsmithing. That seems to imply our typical blocking policy does not apply. "without penalty via this motion" or something like that would be better. I still don't think we really need a change, though. "Consensus required" has worked without issue in American politics for quite some time, and the only instance of it not working in ARBPIA is when an editor exactly duplicated another revert with zero discussion. Any way you shake it, that's exactly the sort of edit meant to be barred by this kind of restriction. The Committee has been hesitant to change something that "isn't broken" in the past (e.g. general prohibition), so why the sudden urge to change something that has never resulted in a block that would be considered improper even after the proposed change? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmborugh

I can't believe we are applying 30/500 to the whole subject of P/I (even though I believe I predicted wide application). The community was (rightly) very leery of permitting protection when it was introduced for pages with incessant vandalism. We now have four types of protection, and a similar number of move protections, plus cascading protection (and edit filters).

To add to this a "general prohibition" which is effectively another trap for the unwary seems a bad idea. May I suggest that while considering the specific point raised above it is worth considering if this can be simplified.

The section:

"but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."

could be replaced by

"but where that is not feasible, other measures may be used in the normal way to cope with disruption."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC).

Yes that's exactly my first point. The ECP was introduced as a one-off in response to GG (and was probably a bad idea then), and is now widespread and part of MediaWiki software.

Effectively it's another barrier to editing. Where ECP is applied to a page it is at least fair, in that it prevents editing neutrally.

The GP, enacted as a community enforced measure can (nay, must) result in uneven implementation, and wasted effort by good faith IP editors.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC).

Statement by WJBscribe

I agree with NYB that the final sentence of the motion should be deleted. However, if qualifying words are to be added to that sentence instead, may I suggest "in exceptional circumstances" rather than "on rare occasions". It isn't just an issue of frequency - the circumstances should be such that an administrator reasonably judges it appropriate to block without a warning. WJBscribe (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• While this provision is being discussed, and to avoid the need for repeated amendments, I wanted to draw the Committee's attention to a potential issue as to the meaning of "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Huldra. I understand this restriction to mean that every editor is prohibited from restoring a reverted edit until a consensus has been obtained, regardless of who made the edit and who reverted it. In other words, if editor 1 makes an edit and editor 2 reverts it, not only editor 1 but also editor 3 is prohibited from restoring the content. This seems to be: (1) the plain meaning of the words used and; (2) highly desirable if we are to stop "tag team" revert wars, in which editors on each side uses up their individual one revert for the day in sequence, which have become a regrettable consequence of the 1RR sanction.
  Some have suggested that in the sequence above, only editor 1 is prohibited from reverting without consensus, but editor 3 is free to do so provided that have not used up their one revert for the day. If that was the intended meaning, clarifying words may need to be added. WJBscribe (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Responding to Huldra's comment below, consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree. The AE sanction is not that you cannot restore a reverting edit until the person who reverted it agrees - it requires a consensus of all editors opining on the edit. If finding a consensus on the talkpage is difficult, the usual options apply to gaining additional input - WP:RFC, WP:3O, mediation etc. The objection to obtaining consensus shows that it has been far too long since proper consensus-building discussions have taken place in the IP area, and that there has been far too much reliance on the sort of "tag team" edit wars to which I refer above.
  As I have observed previously, it seems that Huldra (no doubt like others in the topic area) has become used to each side squaring off with their personal 1RR "entitlement". She therefore apparently only intended the 1RR sanction to be modified so as to remove a perceived first mover advantage (a balancing amendment if you will). Actually, I think ArbCom rightly had in mind breaking the ongoing edit war patterns and forcing editors to engage in proper consensus building discussion. I am struck that "where everything has to be agreed on at talk, before anyone can revert" is described as a "monster rule". The hyperbole aside, if it indeed reflects the attitude of most of those active in this topic area, I think it demonstrates how far their editing behaviour has departed from usual community norms. WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• @El C: If the revert isn't well reasoned, it should be fairly quick to establish a consensus to override it. I worry that a "well reasoned" requirement will spawn wikilawyering over whether the revert was well reasoned and/or was believed to be well reasoned. I'd be OK with saying that the revert needs to be made in good faith and/or that the reason for it should be explained, but think a "well reasoned" requirement would make the sanction unenforceable. WJBscribe (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• I am disappointed that, in discussing the difficulties in reaching a consensus, Huldra repeats the fallacy that consensus requires that "we all agree" (I have never said that) and then goes on to consider: "3 vs 1 on the talk page, is that consensus? 5 vs 1? 10 vs 1?" Apparently it is impossible to move away from an expectation that disagreements will be determined by the numbers on each side. Might I suggest reading Wikipedia:Consensus? It starts "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia" (my emphasis). If it has stopped being the case for the IP topic area, it is high time that changed. WJBscribe (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Opabinia regalis: I strongly believe that amendment would be a mistake. I urge you and your fellow Arbs not to adopt it. I don't understand why you think it would desirable to enable: (i) the original author to just wait 24hrs, then edit war, instead of discussing the controversial edit; and/or (ii) a third party to perform a drive-by revert instead of engaging in discussion. The rule as drafted is a good one - edits that prove controversial should be discussed before they're readded by anyone, so that WP:CONSENSUS (not strength of numbers and perseverance) determines the content that is ultimately adopted. WJBscribe (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

I've been pointing out lately that, like 0RR/1RR, we need something on the projectspace (also linked to the pagenotice) which is set up specifically for this 0RR-consensus rule, perhaps under WP:0RRC. Something that elaborates and clarifies it further, perhaps with examples. It just seems that only a sentence or so is too prone to confusion. Perhaps it's best that such a page is set up by the Committee or at least a Committee member, just so there's no misunderstandings for future editors about its meaning. El_C 02:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum—In regards to the rule itself: The revert in question has to be well-reasoned. Otherwise, we are risking virtually unexplained reverts grinding editing to a halt. El_C 09:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum2—Difficulties with the consensus rule on the 1932-IP front (Donald Trump example) has reached a point where an admin had to remove it from the article entirely (Russian interference example). So, the Committee should be aware that said confusion isn't limited to ARBPIA, but also extends into 1932-IP realm. El_C 01:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum2—All participants are waiting with baited breath for clarification about the consensus rule, weeks go by and... nothing. And now DGG says the Committee doesn't need to decide on it now. If not now, when? El_C 05:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

When I came to ARCA in December, I asked for That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period.

I thought I got that, but apparently I instead got a monster rule, where everything has to be agreed on at talk, before anyone can revert?

Eg. When User:Shrike inserts this, I can then remove it, go to the talk page and cry WP:UNDUE, …and then neither Shrike nor anyone else will be able to insert it again, as long as I’m protesting on the talk page? No-one of the regulars, AFAIK, in WP:ARBIPA has asked for such a rule! This does not help us who edit in the area, it only helps trigger happy admins. (95-99% of my edits are on articles under ARBIPA, this would make my work virtually impossible.)

I am notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration for more input from the regulars in the area.

Finally, I agree 100% more with User:Newyorkbrad about not "blocking without warning”. I have been blocked without warning twice, and it is by far the most disheartening experience I have had on Wikipedia. By far. And this is coming from a woman who has had more than a thousand death and rape threats on WP. (I believe admins can see some examples here and here) Seriously, I rather have another thousand death and rape threats, than another unwarned block. Huldra (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WJBscribe is absolutely correct here: "She therefore apparently only intended the 1RR sanction to be modified so as to remove a perceived first mover advantage," in fact, this is what I had thought I had got.

I stand by my claim, they way WJBscribe interpret this motion makes the whole area unworkable. Firstly: how to decide when consensus is achieved? From my understanding of WJBscribe above it is when all agree. This will, on some pages, never happen. For one thing, if you look at some of the most contested talk pages, you will see plenty of banned socks. Some of them easily gets over the 500/30 limits, (I think User:NoCal100 had over 30 K edits with his original account)...they get caught in the end, but they will use wikilawyering on talk pages forever, first. Look at Talk:Walid Khalidi, to see what I mean.

If there are 3 vs 1 on the talk page, is that consensus? 5 vs 1? 10 vs 1?

And it isn't that we don't use RfC, sure we do, but it is sometimes difficult to get results. I started one on Talk:Kfar Ahim on 11 January, it was closed (for the second time) on 22 March, and I have of course not edited anything which was up for this RfC in the period.

I repeat: nobody in this area has asked this rule, AFAIK. Should the views of us who actually write the articles count for anything? (But I’m waiting for more views of other "regulars" in the area) Huldra (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, if there is something I have learned during my 11+ years editing in the WP:ARBIPA area, is that there is nothing so small that it can't be argued about. I would so love that the strength of the argument, or strength of knowledge, (for lack of better description: English is not my native language) always won the day. That is not so in RL, and it is certainly not so IP topic area. I brought up 3 vs 1 on the talk page, is that consensus? 5 vs 1? 10 vs 1? ...because if this rule remains, there will be discussions about this. 100% guaranteed. AFAIK, I was the first, and so far only one, who has been blocked for violating this, yes, monster rule. It is my sincere hope that I will be the last. Huldra (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

When WJBscribe blocked me (btw, without discussing it at AE first), it was with the justification that I was aware of the restrictions, pointing specifically to User talk:Huldra#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles. I was actually delighted when I got that notification from User:L235! I even sent him a public thanks for it.

I don’t think WJBscribe knew that I had initiated that motion, but instead thought it was the normal “warning" about Discretionary sanctions?

I would therefor suggest that when people like User:L235, and others, report on the results from WP:ARCA to people who initiate motion, that they should start their report something like this: "As a result of your request at WP:ARCA at [link], the following motion has passed: etc.. Huldra (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• User:Opabinia regalis: Zero0000 is correct; it is that second sentence: In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit which is the problem. The description that Kingsindian gives of the IP area is, unfortunately, very correct, IMO. If anyone think that requiring "consensus" (however that is defined), will make us achieve consensus, is living in a fairy tale world where pigs can fly. The only thing that the "consensus" sentence will achieve is that the whole area will "freeze," as it is.
• Changing the first sentence to what Opabinia suggests, while removing that second sentence, would bring about the change I hoped to get in December Huldra (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• User:Opabinia regalis: You wrote on that last ARCA, (02:06, 28 November 2016) about the difference between: "one where each individual can revert only once, and one in which each edit can be reverted only once." Stupidly, I always assumed the first of those options, but what we got was the second option. If there is consensus for it, could we change it so that it is each individual who can only revert once? Huldra (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• User:BU Rob13 You write as if the situation in the IP area was terrible before this last amendment, but it wasn't. It was better than it has ever been, (Well, everything is relative, of course.) It was better in the sense that we could write articles, and not spend all our time arguing with socks. So I wasn't asking for a revolution, I was asking for a small adjustment. What I got was a revolution. Huldra (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, what about:

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The same editor cannot readd material which has been removed by another editor in any 24 hour period.

This might not be very elegant language, but it, hopefully, conveys the essential meaning: when one editor wants to add something, it does not take two editors to stop him/her, but only one. Huldra (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• • • User:Opabinia regalis: Your suggestion seems fine to me. (English isn't my native language, nor do I live in an English speaking country: my English can always be improved!) Huldra (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• @BU Rob13: @Doug Weller: Firstly, absolutely none of the editors in the IP-area had asked for this, before it was introduced, without editors (at least me!) knowing what it entailed. (That some of my regular opponents are so delighted to see me blocked, that they now, afterward, want to support this, does not change that fact.)
• And does it work? Look at the article Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. I was blocked for removing an OR map, and introducing another map. I was 100% confident about removing the OR map, however, I was fully ready to accept another map. But look, after more that 3 weeks…the same map is still in the article. One would have thought that if my edit was so disruptive that I needed to be blocked over it, that it would be easy to gain consensus to have it undone? Instead editors are now terrified to change anything without every Tom, Dick and Harry agreeing, as we know trigger-happy sheriffs are on the prowl. Do you really think that is an improvement?
• I think it is a great mistake to compare the IP area with American politics topic area. I took a look at some of the main articles there, they had thousands of editors “watching." While in the IP area, even a central article like the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank only has about 130 watchers. By far the majority of the articles I edit have less than 30 watchers. A "typical" disagreement is between just two editors…how do you decide that elusive "consensus", then? My idea was that in such a case, status quo won the day. If instead a "consensus" is what we will need, I see a huge increase in WP:RfC, WP:MC, etc. Huldra (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• User:DGG, I would implore you to consider the sentence proposed by User:Opabinia regalis. As it is now, discussion had simply stopped many places, this "consensus"-rule has basically stopped any development. Eg, the map which I was blocked for introducing into the article more than a month ago is still there....And User:Number 57: If I had known that the "consensus"-rule was in place after December, I would have brought you straight to WP:AE for the long list of reverts you did, after I had started a RfC on Talk:Kfar Ahim. As you know, I didn't. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc. The present situation simply gives admins too much power. (I have seen several cases of people reverting without consensus, but I simply refuse to report them to be sanctioned under a rule which I strongly disagree with), Huldra (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Any wording for this rule will favor one side or another. Our basic anti-edit war concept of 3RR, and the widespread practice of WP:BRD, will in any situation favor either the original wording or the change. In a 1RR situation, this will necessarily be increased. Every possible proposal here runs into the problem of special cases--there will always be times when it will lead to the wrong result. This may be my personal bias. but when no proposal really solves the problem, the best thing to do is to keep the status quo, because people have learned how to work with it. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:DGG, well, that is the thing, when we got the amendment in December 2016, we got an amendment none of the regulars in the IP area had asked for...and I, who had initiated the amendment, had no idea as to how it would be implemented.
• (And I really don't understand, editors like Number 57, who on one hand laments the fact that the 30/500 rule cements the current editors, (something I agree with him about), on the other hand he supports the December 2016 consensus rule, which cements it even more...? This simply does not make sense to me.)
• I reluctantly supported the 30/500 rule, as there are some rather nasty vandals out there, and they have thankfully mostly disappeared now. Things were mostly fine before December 2016! What the December 2016 rule did, was to give any admin, not King rights, but demigod rights to block anyone who does anything against that elusive "consensus". The result....as Oncenawhile notes: development has simply stopped on many articles. IMO: this is madness. Huldra (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a fundamental weakness with the whole discretionary sanction and AE processes. It would only work if all admins involving themselves in it are perfectly reasonable. We can realistically expect admins to be somewhat reasonable, but beyond that we're not going to get. I would suggest an alternative to the entire system if I could think of one that would be acceptable here; perhaps someone else will be able to. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:DGG, quite, but you could presently limit the Admins demigod rights, by working on the suggestion made by by Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2017. That way we would be back to the clear cut 1RR. We lived well with that, before December 2016. Huldra (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:Opabinia regalis: I would hope for Alt 2, but even a return to Alt 1 (that is, the situation before December 2016) would be preferable to the present situation. The Kosovo solution, suggested by Oncenawhile, sounds very much like Alt 1? Huldra (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Ok, folk, thanks for passing this latest resolution. I think this covers what I meant ...but I have been burnt so badly before, that I’m not betting my life on it! ;P

Statement by Number 57

My view, as both an admin and editor on the fringes of this topic area, is that the current interpretation that an edit has to achieve consensus before being reinstated is fair enough. This topic area was plagued by tag-team reverting and this has pretty much ended it. Allowing reverts after 24 hours just leads to longer-term revert wars rather than solving the problem.

I think the block Huldra received for the edit on Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was perfectly justified. Oncenawhile made an edit that was reverted by an editor who deemed it controversial. Huldra made no attempt to get consensus for this but instead simply reinstated Oncenawhile's edit. If this sort of thing is allowed, then we have no effective deterrent against tag teaming, which simply means the side with the most editors will 'win' every time, albeit over a period of days rather than hours. Number 57 13:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

In response to some of the subsequent comments since I made the statement above, I think it's worth making clear that those objecting to the requirement to achieve consensus are all from the 'side' with the most editors and which has lost the ability to tag team.

With regards to the 30/500 rule, it should probably also be pointed out that most of the editors in this sphere are long-term (around a decade) editors with a pretty clear bias. The introduction of the 30/500 rule has cemented one side's numerical superiority (and therefore dominance of the topic area) by effectively preventing any the entry of any new editors.

Unfortunately this numerical superiority also lends itself to the rules being set more and more in favour of that side, as in discussions like this, more editors will be able to show up with one viewpoint than the other (to date, this discussion has attracted five editors with a pro-Palestinian viewpoint and two with a pro-Israel viewpoint). Because arbitrators aren't able to identify which 'side' editors come from, the numerical weight of comments is seemingly taken at face value.

Realistically, the only way to solve the problem is to topic ban any editor who can be show to be involved in long-term one-sided editing. Number 57 12:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

I agree with what Number 57 said.And the proof that the rule is working is the fact that there is a discussion right now Talk:Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#Lead_map_-_consensus_to_remove.3F instead of edit wars.Its also clear that group of editors that holds small majority on certain POV will oppose the rule because for them its easier to win in the revert war then to discuss--Shrike (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Its clear to me that the onus to build consensus should be on editor that propose the change.--Shrike (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

{{PING|Zero0000}] There are additional ways to attract users except RFC.There are various noticeboard like RSN,NPOV and so on and there are also relevant project pages.There are no need to build unanimous agreement to reach consensus per WP:Consensus--Shrike (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: No decision is a decision too.--Shrike (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

I'll make three points, but first I'll set out the undisputed facts:

The map, which was added six years ago, had no source at all. Only one person (Shrike) supported the map (I don't know what their position is exactly), and at least four people were opposed to it. There was some discussion going on about which kind of map should be there instead. Huldra said clearly in the edit summary, and on the talkpage that she was removing the map because it was WP:OR.

Now the three points:

• WJBscribe seems to be unaware of the realities in this area: it is possible to predict the reaction of most people on a topic just by looking at their username. The position comes first, the justifications are an afterthought. This will not change until hell freezes over, the Sun absorbs the Earth or Israel/Palestine is solved, whichever comes first.
• WJBscribe does not seem to appreciate that their interpretation of the rule makes working in this area impossible. Unlike WP:1RR which is a bright-line rule (which works pretty well), "consensus" is a much more elusive beast. On Wikipedia consensus is primarily achieved through editing. It is not an accident that the first section in WP:Consensus is: achieving consensus through editing. Of course, discussion is good, and discussion did occur on the talkpage.
• WJBscribe blocked Huldra without warning and without giving her a chance to respond. Nobody has ever explained why this was necessary. The question is not whether what WJBscribe did was permitted, but whether it was wise. I appreciate the quandary of the admins that they need to stick to the letter of the rule in this politically fraught area, but this action wasn't wise.

I propose the following solution: remove the wording altogether. The reason is simple: the focus should be on disruption. A person who repeatedly adds material without consensus is engaging in edit warring. We already have rules against edit warring; why do we need a separate ham-fisted rule which doesn't work? I concur with people above that nobody from ARBPIA asked for this rule; why is it being imposed?

Additionally, I would add a sentence to the remedy: people should extend the basic courtesy of asking people for an explanation, or asking them to self-revert, before bringing them to WP:AE or blocking them. This is already WP:ARBPIA practice; I have been warned a few times in the past because I had broken WP:1RR inadvertently, I always self-revert, even if I think I'm right. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A simple point regarding the statements by Number 57 and WJBscribe. I don't know where this "tag-teaming" issue suddenly came up, and why it is being mixed up with the remedy. Neither the decision in the original ARBPIA3 case, nor the motion which changed the 1RR rule, says anything about "tag-teaming" or "drive-by reverts". Nor has anyone given any evidence that "tag-teaming" in this area is any worse than other areas of Wikipedia. The wording should be changed on those grounds alone. The most one can argue is that this measure, which was introduced for some totally unrelated reason, has the salutary effect of preventing tag-teaming. So let me address the latter point directly.

Does "tag-teaming" go on in this area? Of course, but no worse than it goes on everywhere else on Wikipedia. There's nothing special about this area, except that opinions tend to be much more polarized, because of the subject matter. In many cases here, people edit similar articles and have sharply opposed views on matters. Charges of "tag-teaming" can be easily flung in such cases. This problem has no solution (unless someone wants to try to solve I/P in the real world - full support to you in that case), and it is indistinguishable from any other area involving politics or religion on Wikipedia.

Lastly, I want to second Zero's point that we're not children here. Rules against edit-warring already exist, and discretionary sanctions cover cases of bad-faith reverting and refusal to discuss on the talkpage. It's all very well to talk about "numbers don't make consensus", but "strength of argument" is not a workable criterion (who evaluates the "strength of argument" anyway?). In many cases, consensus is genuinely unclear. (I note that nobody has even pretended to offer a defence of the original map here , because it pure WP:OR). I reiterate what I said above; a rule like 1RR works because it is a bright-line rule (relatively speaking). "Consensus" is not a bright line rule, and most of the consensus on Wikipedia is achieved through editing and compromise phrasings. Everyone involved in this area is an experienced person with thousands of edits to their name. They should work things among themselves like adults, not run to mommy to file frivolous cases.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talk • contribs) 10:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me first deal with the point which DGG made a day or so ago, then move on to the general point. Firstly, the rule is not "pro-Israel" or "anti-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" or whatever. I don't like these terms at all, but I'll use them anyway. For instance, there was recent WP:AE request against E.M.Gregory (who is nominally "pro-Israel") by a person who doesn't work in the WP:ARBPIA area at all (Fram). I saw EMG break the rule in other cases as well, but didn't bother to report them (see Talk:Jewish Voice for Peace for an example) because I think this rule is silly. It's just that some people are more litigious than others. This kind of thing ought to put to rest any speculation that this is some sort of partisan maneuvering for advantage.

Let me now come to the main point. The problem is not, as DGG seems to believe, unreasonable admins enforcing the policy; the problem is reasonable admins enforcing unreasonable policy. DGG has also misread Opabinia regalis's comment made on April 7th. The latter is, as far as I can see, agreeing with Huldra that the original wording tweak was supposed to be just that: a tweak. It was not meant to be some sort of new policy (which nobody asked for, by the way). All people are asking for is for the committee to fix the mess created (inadvertently or not) by a freak wording change. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Rules against WP:Edit warring still exist, just as they did before the earlier remedy passed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

Number57’s impression that ‘This topic area was plagued by tag-team reverting and this has pretty much ended it.’ I could give, as someone stalked and reverted with persistence by several editors, a dozen examples just from pages I edit over recent months which contradict this (I too can get things wrong, certainly, but so often, with the same unconstructive reverters?). Zero‘s point captures the core of the issue, though his use of the future tense overlooks the fact that what he foresees is already in place:The rule massively increases the power of a revert in the hands of a disruptive editor. No obligation at all is placed on the reverter—not to explain the revert or even to take part in the "consensus forming" that is compulsory for everyone else. Disruptive reverters have never had such power before, and they will use it. This is seconded by both El C’s comment, ‘The revert in question has to be well-reasoned. Otherwise, we are risking virtually unexplained reverts grinding editing to a halt,’ and Opabinia regalis’s regarding a change to ‘each editor’ is one step in the right direction. The problem is not as clear as the initial suggestions made out. Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussing abstractly misses the gritty details of actual editing practice and therefore the precise issues whose abuses we are designing policy measures to avoid or reduce.

In several recent cases, all neutral observers agreed that there was no RS issue at all, and that the BLP es, was unfocused since the facts cited (and reverted out) had absolutely no negative implication. It has often been determined that Mondoweiss can be used as a source for specific material, (see User:Rhoark). At Al-Dawayima massacre long-standing material, an innocuous link to the only available English translation of the Hebrew text used in the article, was removed as WP:Undue. An edit war took place, with all sorts of policies cited vaguely to keep it out, so I took it to RSN here. The advice given was that a link to that translation violated no policy cited by the reverters. I notified the page I would restore it, but the editors persisted in saying there was no talk page consensus, (which apparently overrides a board consensus?). It was however duly restored by Huldra.(March 5)

11 days later, confident the principle re Mondoweiss was fresh in all minds, at Michael Sfard I added completely innocuous neutral data for it from ther same source to a biography of an Israeli human rights lawyer here and here. It was reverted out as not compliant with WP:BLP:. I took it to the RSN board. The advice was the same. The advice said there was no WP:BLP abuse, so the original reverter came up with a WP:SPS statement. The revert was then restored. There was no noticeable talk page justification by the reverter. The reverter ignored what the RSN board had suggested and kept finding some vague policy tag to justify his removalist practice.

Now this is not the place to discuss the merits of those examples, but they are typical of time-wasting, of reverting with any number of unfocused policy excuses, and making even very simple obviously neutral additions extremely difficult.

A simple way round this kind of editing abuse is to maintain the severity of the rule, but require of the I/P qualified reverter to notify the page before any I/P revert, and, once the revert is then done, to explain precisely what the edit summary means specifically. I.e. if you write WP:RS/WP:BLP, WP:Undue you must clarify why that policy was stated, referring to its specific content. In the case of Sfard, the obligation should have been to explain why noting that his grandparents survived the holocaust, etc., violated the provisions of BLP (As the deleter must have known, hundreds of wiki Israeli/Jewish bios note such facts for their subjects). In other words, if we have this revert right, it must oblige us, when using it, to do some actual work, at least for a few minutes. Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

All good editors in the IP area love the 1RR rule. We also love the brilliant 50/300 rule

I confirm Zero's remarks. Thanks to successive admin regulative ameliorations, it's become, no longer, as often viewed, 'toxic' but fairly amenable to good editing, save for the peculiar twist in reading given to the 1 revert (for all) then no change unless 'consensus' is achieved (between 2 or 3 editors). The 500/30 rule greatly reduced sockpuppetry and the refinement of the rule of I revert rule helped stop some abuse by long-term editors generally. But it can, as some have suggested, be gamed, by using spurious edit summaries that look like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT pretext. The more you guys limit our freedom to game the system, by making us work harder, the better. The only real problem here is potential abuse among long-term editors, who may feel entitled to revert out of dislike of the other editor, or the introduced content. And that is why it should be clarified that exercising this right demands that the reverter give an accurate explanation, referred to the relevant policy texts, on the talk page expanding his edit summary when reverting. Some fine-tuning must clarify that this is not an invitation to contrarian omnipotence, of the kind implicit in that reading which implies:'I can revert anything, and then it cannot be restored unless the other person gets permission on the talk page.'WarKoSign has some useful suggestions also in that regard.Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jonney2000 please refrain from hyperbole. I use 1% of what I read from those sources (Mondoweiss) and RSN over the last few years has found nothing problematical in my use of it.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Could we have at least an explicit clarification on the perception that on any I/P article if any editor makes a revert, on whatever grounds, no other wikipedian can change it until some consensus is achieved to do so? This is the way this rule is being applied, with it being argued, against the policy rule 'one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period,' that any one revert cannot be challenged because to do so putatively violates DS, and it is investing editors who spend much time just reverting an awesome omnipotence. I thought the intent was each editor was under a one revert restriction, meaning if the revert was badly motivated or meaningless policywise, another could intervene and restore it, As we have it being used, any one editor assumes a dynamic authority over everyone else. This is an open invitation for mischief, such as cancelling undoubtedly focused and well sources relevant information added to a page, instead of moving it elsewhere. Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Oncenawhile

The current status of the ARBPIA rule is a significant impediment to progress in the relevant articles. The idea that an editor can swoop in, revert, and then disappear - leaving behind in their wake a stonewall for the other editor - is clearly unacceptable. It makes the status quo unassailable in too many cases, as it is too easily gamed, because there are simply not enough people willing to mediate these kind of disputes as neutral third parties. The previous situation was better, but was also being gamed by 1RR tag-teamers as we have previously discussed. The key here is that reverters / supporters of the status-quo must have the same burden to contribute to substantial discussion as those supporting change. The goal must be to force opposing sides to discuss with each other, in order to reach a reasoned compromise.

To improve this I am inclined to agree with the direction of Nishidani's comment above. I propose that we add text along the lines of:

• A revert can be reverted if it is not accompanied by a talk page explanation which progresses any discussion. Should a reverting editor not take an active part in subsequent attempt to form consensus for or against the proposed change, after [72 hours] their revert can be reverted without penalty.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of how this is being manipulated, at an article I have been working to bring to Featured Article status. The opposing editor boasts that he has no need to attempt to discuss at all. He explains that he will never engage one-on-one to resolve disagreements, and implies that this has worked well for him because other editors rarely turn up. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Those are false statements made in bad faith. I'd be happy to expand in the unlikely event anyone is interested. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: to comment on two of your comments:

• "Any wording for this rule will favor one side or another."

I strongly disagree with this premise, and no evidence has been provided to support what is an extraordinary claim. The proposed changes are not about favoring pro-Israeli editors or vice versa, it is about favoring good editors over "ninjas", "tag teamers", "filibusterers" etc.

• "... keep the status quo, because people have learned how to work with it."

This is exactly the point - the current set of rules are only four months old and dozens of us editors have NOT learned how to work with it. In my experience alone, numerous discussions have stopped on pages I have been working on because the "reverting editor" no longer has any incentive to enter discussion. It has made the Ninja-reverter all powerful. It is stopping these Israel-Palestine articles across Wikipedia from improving, despite constant improvement through discussion being Wikipedia's raison d'etre.

The current situation is a travesty, bureaucracy gone mad. DGG, with respect, the views in your last post can only mean you are not fully aware of the issues we are complaining about. Perhaps the problem is that because this ARCA request started on one topic and evolved into another, so this thread has simply become too confusing. Maybe we would be better off starting again with a new and focused ARCA request.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

When I referred to one side or another, I did not mean one side of the current subject dispute, but more generally those seeking to change text in whatever direction from whatever topic. Each side is normally quite sure the other is the one being obstructive. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Worth considering the restriction wording at Talk:Kosovo: "All editors on this article are subject to 1RR per day and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page" Oncenawhile (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by WarKosign

As I wrote in ARBPIA3 evidence, I consider tag-team edit warring the main problem of the area, so enforcing discussion before restoring a revert is a great improvement. WP:BRD is an important editing tool which in my opinion should have been an official policy. Some editors wrote that the need to achieve consensus disrupts the editing. Let's consider a few scenarios:

1.

• A made a good-faith edit
• B made a good faith revert with a comment explaining the reason
• possible outcome - A agreed (good outcome, consensus achieved quickly)
• alternatively, A or someone else opened a discussion on the talk page.
• possible outcome - the subject is of interest to many editors and there is a lively discussion that reaches some consensus. Good outcome.
• possible outcome - Neither B nor anyone else responses to A's talk page post (bad outcome, this situation should be addressed)

2.

• A made a good faith edit
• B made a bad-faith revert without a proper explanation (this should be addressed)
• A or someone else opened a discussion
• possible outcome - there is a discussion and a consensus is achieved
• possible outcome - there is no active discussion. Same bad outcome as in #1, needs to be addressed.

3.

• A made a bad faith edit
• B reverted
• Before this rule - A or A's supporters would keep re-instating the bad faith edit indefinitely, potentially as they drag the talk page discussion indefinitely. If no consensus is reached they may claim that since this is the long-standing stable version it is the one that should stay. Extremely bad outcome of bad faith editing against the consensus that is now made impossible.
• With this rule, same as in #1 and #2 - some consensus is reached

To sum up, I see no serious drawback to the requirement to achieve consensus before restoring a revert, except two which can be resolved by the following amendments:

1. The revert has to have a comment clearly explaining which policy the original edit allegedly violates. If it's too complicated to explain in the comment, the reverter has to begin a talk page discussion and to mention it in the comment.
2. If there is no response to A's attempt to discuss for some time (say, 72 hours), A may re-try the edit and it may not be reverted without responding to A's attempt to communicate.

As always someone might attempt to game the rules, and this is where the AE would need to be involved. “WarKosign” 08:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 08:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Huldra's last proposal ("same editor") defeats the purpose - the problem is tag-teaming editors introducing modifications against consensus, and this proposal allows it. “WarKosign” 07:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I think your scenario is mixed up. Before editor A could revert, some editor X made an edit. Then A reverted this edit, B who supports X's edit questions the revert on the talk page. C and D support A, neither X nor B respond - the article remains in its original state and there is silent consensus to keep it this way. Alternatively, if we assume that A reverts some old-standing content it's not actually a revert but rather a new edit. B disagrees and revert's A's edit, stating the reasons on the talk page. C and D support A; there is apparent consensus against B's opinion so A's edit is re-instated and B is not free to revert it. “WarKosign” 07:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Jonney2000

I don’t know about this purposed rule per say, I think it will always come down to a numbers game, but an issue brought up by another editor needs to be addressed. Which is Mondoweiss and similar publications on both sides. One side has pushed for Mondoweiss to be included as a post facto reliable source. They have done this by preferring to source content from Mondoweiss at every opportunity. When it is readily available in other places.

Some stuff published on Mondoweiss maybe reliable for Wiki if the author is a reliable source. Just the same as if the author had posted on his own blog. But much of Mondoweiss is just random activists with no credibility at risk. Since they have no skin in the game in terms of their reputations and no guarantee of fact checking; it is a very problematic situation.

At the same time pro-Israel think tanks like Middle East Forum are removed on sight. Despite many articles being published by credible academics in those places. The partisanship and accompanying hypocrisy is very troubling.

It is always easier to add material to Wiki then remove it. I would like to see more focus on what are acceptable sources and less on editors voting their opinions. Otherwise Wiki is in danger of ending up a blog.Jonney2000 (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think that even with some of the problems of the new rule, it does seem to be working. There are far fewer issues and far fewer disputes. I don't think Huldra's suggestion would work in this case. If we restrict the DS to only that editor, that doesn't stop another editor from reinserting. What should be done is a re-education of how to gain consensus. If the talk page discussion is not helping, then we need to follow DR, either contact DR, or RFC, or 3rd Party. There are plenty of outside help when the main interlocutors don't seem to be getting anywhere. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis I am opposed to your proposed sentence. It will not solve anything but again bring the IP area into a numbers game. If I add something and person X reverts, I can't revert back, but person Y can. That will leave us back to edit warring. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I think your proposal (minus the grammar issues, :) ) is a good start. I could live with that and I think it would cut down on some issues. It clarifies what is needed and what needs to be done, without resorting to any proposal that would encourage numbers game. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

How does the new ruling solve anything? It removes the whole requirement for consensus. What will end up happening is that editors will just wait 24 hours and revert. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davidbena

The problem that I have with the new edict of 26 December 2016 in the general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles is the stipulation that reads: "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." Question: Is this to imply that all new edits made since 26 December 2016 in Palestine-Israel articles can be deleted by editors, and they can challenge the editors who put them there in the first place, without the first editors restoring their edits until a new consensus has been reached? If so, you open the door for "abusive editing," that is to say, the new guidelines allow editors to freely delete areas in articles based on their sole judgment and conviction and which edits had earlier been agreed upon by consensus, and that such changes will remain in force until such a time that a new consensus can be reached. As you see, this can be problematic. Second Question: Do the new guidelines also apply to reverts made in articles where a consensus had already been reached before 26 December 2016, or do they only apply to reverts made after 26 December 2016, or to both? To avoid future problems arising from this new edict, can I make this one suggestion, namely, that the new guidelines in Palestine-Israel articles be amended to read with this addition: "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense, or where abuses arise over reverts made in an article where a consensus had already been reached before or after the edict of 26 December 2016 took effect, such editors make themselves liable to disciplinary actions, including blocking." (This, in my opinion, will lend some disambiguity to the new edict).Davidbena (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphim System

I think including something like this In addition, editors who make a revert are expected to accompany their revert with a talk page explanation explaining their revert. would also be helpful. There should be some element of genuine discussion, the issue with the original wording being that it allowed editors to hide behind the consensus rule to avoid discussion. They would simply revert and then not reply to any talk page discussions once their preferred version was protected under the rule. Right now, this sounds to me like the 1RR rule restated. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA3: Clerk notes

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

• Noting that as there are currently only 11 active arbitrators, six is a majority. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA3: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Agree with BU Rob13, this seems resolvable with amendment of the final clause to read "exempt from the provisions of this motion." Other views welcome, but this seems a legitimate issue with a fairly simple fix. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yep, agreed. Finally, an easy PIA ARCA! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Rich Farmbrough: I'm starting to think we need better documentation of the history of 30/500, because this keeps coming up in PIA-related ARCAs. The "general prohibition" is not new to this current motion. It was enacted as a remedy of the WP:ARBPIA3 case decision in November 2015, following occasional successful use of a similar remedy as an AE action in gamergate-related articles. The "extended-confirmed" user group and corresponding protection level were introduced in April 2016, and would most likely never have existed if not for the need for a technical means to enforce the PIA3 decision. All of the other policy development related to its use came after its introduction for arbitration enforcement. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In catching up with the new material about the "consensus required" section, I'm surprised at the commentary about the "new rule" that "nobody asked for". As far as I'm concerned, there are only varying interpretations of a three-month-old rule that someone did ask for, and it seems fairly clear from reading the comments in context that the intention was more or less to agree with Huldra's request and apply a fix for the "status quo asymmetry" issue she described. You might think I have some degree of expertise in the author's intentions, given that I proposed the text of the December 2016 motion, but you'd be wrong! I'd forgotten that was me till just now ;) I think some of the discussion about the dangers of "slow-motion" edit wars are missing part of the point, that edit wars are tempting in part because they're so much faster than discussing things. Slowing it down puts discussion on a more similar timescale and gives it a chance to interrupt the cycle. More to the point, the interpretation of the December 2016 motion under which Huldra was blocked does exactly the opposite of what she asked for by artificially inflating the influence of a single editor. Does "each editor is required...." (suggested waaay down below) sound right? That may not be perfect, but it is much better than endless arguments over what exactly constitutes a "well-reasoned" revert and what is "consensus" to unrevert. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Zero0000 and Huldra: Well, the idea was to remove the interpretation that a single revert by a single editor disqualified everyone else from reverting. Huldra's suggestion from the previous ARCA was to borrow the American politics language: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). Which isn't particularly different from the disputed sentence editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @Huldra: That's what I was trying to do :) Apparently it's hard to write something that everyone interprets that way without knowing the history. Suggestions from all welcome, I'm traveling at the moment so the problem may be in my brain.... Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
        • OK, a derivative of Huldra's version: Each editor is limited to one revert per page per day 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. Second sentence reworded a bit because beginning it with "the same editor..." seems confusing to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry all, it's been awhile since this thread had much activity. That's partly my fault - last time I suggested someone start a new ARCA request for an issue related to an existing one, the response was "but that's just extra bureaucracy!" so this time I suggested just using the existing request, and the result is extra confusion and delay instead. But mostly I think it's because we haven't had any brilliant ideas for solving this particular problem. I think at this point we should consider the "consensus required" concept to be a failed experiment and do one of two things:
    1. Restore the pre-December 2016 status quo of 1RR. This has the disadvantages Huldra outlined in that request - namely, that there is a structural bias in favor of the reverter such that two editors are needed to maintain the status quo of a given passage - but has the advantage of being fairly simple to understand and administrate. Everyone knows what 3RR is; the rule applicable to this topic area is just 3RR-2.
    2. Replace the current rule with something like my suggestion above. This (I think) fixes the maintenance issue, but at the cost of greater complexity. The rules applicable to this topic area have become very complex and legalistic, are difficult for editors new to the area to remember, and are not intuitive for administrators to apply. Adding more special rules for this topic could exacerbate that problem.
  • I'm leaning toward option 2, given that we were convinced in December that plain 1RR was causing problems, but would like to see more feedback on that before proposing a motion, because we've already had enough problems with unclear or ambiguous wording. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yea! How unusual. Let's do it. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Motion: ARBPIA

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:

Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, including (in exceptional circumstances) on a first offense.

Support

Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Temporarily striking while we figure out the new issues.

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

   Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

4. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm opposed to the last sentence, for the reasons discussed here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

   On reflection, having considered the example linked to by NYB. Support the general point of the clarification and would support absent the last sentence which implies that blocking without warning is more commonplace than I think the motion intended it to be. There's circumstances where it's necessary, but they're a minority. Apologies all for this change of heart. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)On amended wording above.

Abstain

1. I would be in the support camp if the words "(in exceptional circumstances)" were removed, but after reflection I'm not so unhappy with it as currently written that I want to oppose and hold up the works over it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

OK, slightly less simple than I thought ;) After confusing myself looking for the original motion text, I finally clued in that this is actually pertaining to WP:ARBPIA (ie, the original case), not WP:ARBPIA3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: perhaps we can do both at once, if there's interest. Reword the clause per your suggestion, and also remove the last sentence in the same motion. Will see what others think. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Would removing the last sentence give the impression blocking without warning is forbidden? Doug Weller talk 11:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest there are circumstances where it is justified, either we could remove the last sentence and leave it to admin discretion, or add a qualifier like on rare occasions. I'm just not keen on implying blocks without warning should be a standard response, as that probably wasn't the intent of the original motion but could be interpreted this way on a strict reading of the above. Other views welcome, as always. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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." (The only exception would be if for edit(s) so bad that they would have been blockable on any article, independent of the special Israel/Palestine rules.) On the other hand, I'm not looking to invite wikilawyering along the lines of "I wasn't specifically warned today about these edits." I expect there is general language about the expectation of warnings from other DS contexts that could be used. But as currently written, my concern about our being perceived as authorizing the sort of out-of-left-field-to-the-editor block that raised a concern last summer is a serious one. We don't want—I certainly don't want—to see blocking of good-faith, unsuspecting editors for inadvertent violations. @Opabinia regalis: as the proposer of the motion (and who was also active in the discussion last year). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree that that sentence is a problem, and just didn't think to take this opportunity to address it. On the other hand, it's been part of this remedy for a long time. (Either I need more coffee, or I can't work out the sequence of amendments listed on the WP:ARBPIA page to find where the text originated. The first version of the general 1RR text links to what appears to be a later amendment, where the term "first offense" isn't used.) I'm the last one to go all WP:BURO, but for some reason PIA-related sanctions in general seem to be particularly attractive for proposed changes that are only indirectly related to the original reason for the ARCA request. This request seemed to involve a very minor change and has attracted very little comment, and I think if we're going to make a different and larger change it should get a little more community exposure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I realized a few hours after I voted that that sentence might be an artifact, in part because it didn't sound like something you'd write. But as the restrictions draw tighter and tighter, it becomes all the more important to encourage everyone to deal with inadvertent, isolated violations in a sensible way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, I would probably not have proposed that myself ;) The only change here is removing the struck-out text and replacing it with the underlined text.

Digging back through the history, we seem to have done a lousy record-keeping job in this particular case, but the earliest version I found including that clause was added here in November 2010, apparently following this discussion, in which consensus was formed to apply a 1RR remedy with text copied from what was then in use for The Troubles, which ultimately traces back to the result of this 2008 AE filing about sanctions in the 2007 Troubles case. Given the length of the breadcrumb trail, I'm surprised the "blocked without warning" problem detailed in that ARCA hasn't come up more often. I don't see any other currently active sanctions that use this wording, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. But I still am concerned that removing it would give the impression Admins cannot block without warning. I'm happy with adding a qualifier such as Euryalus has suggested. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made an edit to the motion per this discussion. Please feel free to revert if this is not a preferred set of words. Pinging those who voted, so they can review or re-amend. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC) @Doug Weller, Opabinia regalis, Newyorkbrad, Ks0stm, Kirill Lokshin, and Callanecc:

I feel like the way it is now it may be wiki-lawyered into "I was warned, and I committed my first offense, but the circumstances weren't exceptional, so I shouldn't have been blocked". I think I would prefer just go with something like "including on a first offense, provided the user has been made aware of the 1RR restriction" or similar. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Ks0stm, your wording is different, and by my reading really would require a warning before a block. (I'm sure we can all think of edits so bad that requiring a warning first would be pointless.) I don't really buy the argument that removing the sentence would be a decision-by-implication that warnings are now required, but since the idea is apparently out there, I think Euryalus' wording is fine. My main interest in making this change is that we publicize it well, because it seems that this has been technically permitted for a long time and we don't really have a good handle on whether the circumstances of that previous ARCA were unusual or whether this happens a lot but just doesn't end up on our radar. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I proposed my wording because I don't like the possible interpretation of the current wording that editors may only be blocked the first time they violate the 1RR restriction under exceptional circumstances, and I would be fine with the current wording if "(in exceptional circumstances)" were dropped. Still, the more I think about it the more I don't see how any second or third revert can be so egregious that a block for violating the 1RR restriction is necessary without the user having been warned of the 1RR, especially as upon a fourth revert it's classic 3RR territory anyway. Plus I don't feel like it would be a onerous task to notify an editor of 1RR after a 1st-3rd revert before blocking; if they revert again after that notification, you block them under the 1RR, and if they stop reverting after the notification, then the warning worked and no blocking is needed in the first place. If they've already reverted more than three times, you can already block them under 3RR without regard to the 1RR. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis and Ks0stm: what about if after "on a first offense" we add "after a notification of this provision" or something similar?Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems like we need to figure out what exactly we're trying to do before distilling it into a single sentence. I understood the original goal to be establishing that blocking without warning is permitted but should occur only under exceptional circumstances. @Callanecc and Ks0stm: both of your proposed wordings seem to mean instead that blocking without warning is not permitted, period. I prefer the former, though I'd expect most of those "exceptional" cases would involve edits that were sanctionable for other reasons anyway. We shouldn't produce a result that appears to limit admins' discretion more than in any other area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis and Callanecc: After some reflection, the warning issue I feel is resolved to my satisfaction already by the striking of "without warning". I'd be perfectly happy with this motion if the words "(in exceptional circumstances)" were removed, per my arguments that I feel like it could lead to wikilawyering, but I'm not so opposed to the motion as it is now that I feel the need to oppose outright. I'll abstain for now, and support if "(in exceptional circumstances)" is removed. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think that as long as we're here, we might as well also deal with the "consensus"/1RR issue that was raised at AE recently, and that has been referred to in the most recent comments above. (I was wrong... there's no such thing as a simple PIA related request :) To my view it is fairly clear that if the person who requested the last "clarification", and who left that ARCA believing her request had been fulfilled, now gets blocked for allegedly violating that same rule, the fault is in the rule. Changing "editors are limited to one revert...." to "each editor..." - the plain meaning of the corresponding 3RR rule, and obviously what Huldra thought it meant - would resolve the ambiguity. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Motion: ARBPIA Consensus required

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:

In addition, editors who make a revert are expected to accompany their revert with a talk page explanation explaining their revert. Should a reverting editor not take an active part in subsequent attempt to form consensus for or against the proposed change, after 72 hours their revert can be reverted without penalty. Reverts without a talk page explanation can be reverted after two hours. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit the provisions of this motion. The normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, including (in exceptional circumstances) on a first offense.

Support

1. as proposer. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

I'm quite happy to have this tweaked, but I think we need something better than the current situation. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thanks for the suggestions. So far none of my colleagues have commented so I'll wait to see what they think. I've had complaints about it in relation to American politics by the way. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I confess that I keep losing the thread on this ARCA since the second issue arose a couple of weeks ago, so maybe I'm missing something here. But I'm still confused why we're doing things that are significant changes from (what was thought to be) the status quo. In December, Huldra requested a fairly subtle change to the existing 1RR restriction that would have the effect of making it easier to maintain the status quo after a disputed edit to an article. We more or less agreed with the principle but failed at writing text that was reliably interpreted that way. Three months passed without any apparent issue, after which an admin made the disputed block that exposed the differences of interpretation in the December text. Why are we now considering endorsing that interpretation - which brings with it a much larger change to the editing dynamics in the area - as opposed to modifying the text to better reflect the goals put forth in December? There is no evidence of a new problem in need of a solution, only evidence of an ineffective attempt at solving the old problem. I am less persuaded by the various hypothetical situations being tossed around than I am by comments from editors with long histories of non-disruptive participation in the topic area. Somewhere in this wall of text is my response to the "slow motion tag team edit war" hypothesis - slow things down enough, and discussion happens on the same timescale as reversions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I also do not see why we need to do this now. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Motion: ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:

Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. 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. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Enacted - Miniapolis 23:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. This is my "option 2" from my comment above, and I think more closely reflects the original intention of the December 2016 modification. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
2. A reasonable way to deal with this, at least for the time being. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
3. I think we can see if this will resolve the outstanding issues. Fortunately and unfortunately, we always have the option to revisit the issue if it needs to go further. Mkdw ^talk 00:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Worth a shot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Yes, this is worth trying and better than what we had. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
6. kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
7. Per Mkdw. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
8. It's not a secret at this point that I think the rule-sets in this and a couple of other topic areas may have become too complicated to readily understand and follow. A very experienced editor recently described me as possibly "the anthropomorphic personification of Wikipedia's bureaucracy"; if I can't figure out what all the rules are, what hope do others have? But until others start arguing otherwise, I will accept the consensus that a specialized, complex set of rules is needed in this topic-area and that the proposed edit is an improvement of those rules. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
9. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

"Finally, an easy PIA ARCA!" --myself, nearly two months ago. Facepalm Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Made some edits - it's been so long I forgot to include the original motion. Also edited "per day" to "per 24 hours" for consistency, though I better not see anybody trying to hang their argument on that. Pinging DGG. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the change is fine with me. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection

Initiated by BU Rob13 at 03:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Arbitration_motions_regarding_extended_confirmed_protection

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

• BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by BU Rob13

Way back when extended-confirmed protection (ECP) was first created, the Committee developed a motion about how extendedconfirmed as a user right interacts with discretionary sanctions and other specific remedies. Among this motion was a prohibition on individual administrators removing "extendedconfirmed" either as a discretionary sanction or to avoid an arbitration enforcement procedure. At the time, this prevented 100% of unilateral removals of the "extendedconfirmed" flag, as ECP was only allowed in areas defined by the Committee.

Since then, the community has developed its own protection policy for applying ECP, but no policy is in place about adding or removing the "extendedconfirmed" flag. I had assumed the original motion prevented administrators from unilaterally removing the flag, since even removals unrelated to sanctioned areas would have unintended consequences on an editor's ability to edit those areas. Xaosflux pointed out to me that this isn't necessarily the case. I'd like to clarify this. Did the Committee intend for this motion to prevent administrators from unilaterally removing the extendedconfirmed flag in all cases? If no, are such removals acceptable in the absence of any community policy to the contrary / do they fall under admin discretion? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: The original motion by the Committee is linked above as the case/decision affected by this ARCA. The original RfC to allow admins to apply ECP to combat disruption occurred here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Opabinia regalis: I'll preface this question by saying I'm undecided on this issue, so this is rhetorical, not my viewpoint. Vigilant Admin revokes Disruptive Editor's extendedconfirmed flag because they disruptively edited through ECP (e.g. edit-warring through ECP, etc). Disruptive Editor happens to participate in the Israeli-Palestinean conflict topic area in a constructive manner. Almost all IP conflict pages are under ECP solely because of the ArbCom motion requiring that all editors in that topic area have 500 edits and 30 days on-site. What happens now? Disruptive Editor is functionally topic banned from the IP conflict topic area under the existing ArbCom remedy and its current method of implementation. The only possible method to address this would be to remove ECP from any articles Disruptive Editor wants to edit in the IP conflict topic area and handle enforcement via blocks, but that is inconsistent with the current guidance at WP:ARBPIA3#500/30.

  Basically, I see this as under ArbCom's purview because it either turns an existing ArbCom remedy into a de facto topic ban on certain editors or affects enforcement of the remedy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• If the Committee doesn't see this as within its scope, I'm perfectly fine with that, but we still need to know what happens in the situation I outlined above. Does an editor whose extendedconfirmed flag was removed for reasons unrelated to arb enforcement become pseudo-topic banned from the IP conflict topic area, for instance, under current ArbCom remedies? If the answer is yes, that's fine, but it needs to be clear. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Alright, Opabinia regalis. If that's the answer, I'm fine with that. It probably means WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 can/should be re-written to ban editors without the extendedconfirmed flag from editing in the topic area, since that is simpler and more accurate. Future remedies restricting editing in such a way should also use such language. (And to be clear to other Committee members, I'm not and have never asked the Committee to control extended-confirmed protection itself outside arbitration areas - not sure why some people are commenting about controlling ECP. This is about the flag itself, which affects arb matters no matter why it's removed).
• @Mkdw: That's conflating the extendedconfirmed flag with extendedconfirmed protection (ECP). They are different. The Committee should absolutely not interfere with community based extendedconfirmed protection. No-one is arguing that. It's more questionable whether the Committee can/should interfere with removing the "extendedconfirmed" flag, which is currently used as the basis of arbitration remedies. I can certainly understand why arbitrators would say the extendedconfirmed flag is outside their jurisdiction - that is one reasonable view. That's very different from saying community-based extendedconfirmed protection is outside their jurisdiction, which is the only reasonable view on that separate issue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux

My understanding is that only alterations of this user permission related to arbitration remedies are under the control of the arbitration committee - and that any other use is up to the community. Even directly related to use against sanctioned articles, administrative removal of this access has occurred, following community discussion, in instances where the prerequisites have been "gamed" (not as a discretionary sanction). My suggestion would be that the community should further discuss the revocation guidelines and process regarding this access group and document the administrator expectations. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mz7

I'm inclined to agree with the arbitrators so far and say that the Committee cannot restrict revocations of the extendedconfirmed right outside of arbitration enforcement.

With that being said, I am not sure I like the idea of removing the flag as an enforcement measure for either community policy or arbitration. The extended confirmed flag was not intended to be a "special" user right, such as rollback, for example. If rollback is abused, the natural response is to simply revoke the rollback right. However, I see extended confirmed differently: revoking it as an enforcement measure is beyond the role that the community had originally envisioned for it, which is merely a technical checkbox that ticks for editors that have made 500 edits with 30 days account registration.

If an editor is truly editing disruptively (e.g. violating a topic ban, edit warring), we would use a block to prevent and deter further disruption. Revoking extended confirmed to respond to disruptive editing strikes me as a kind of "partial" or "lesser" block, which, as far as my knowledge goes, is unprecedented. Despite the absence of community policy regarding this, I would strongly advise administrators to wait until the community has discussed whether this kind of enforcement measure is acceptable before unilaterally applying it. I don't see it as part of admin discretion. Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox

All other user rights that can be granted by a single admin can also be revoked by a single admin. This is as it should be and I believe we are in the realm of unintended consequences here. I believe the committee should act to clarify that its past standing on this issue either now invalid or only applies to arbitration enforcement actions. Again, I don't believe this was the intent but the committee appears to have created policy by fiat, which is not how it works. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection: Clerk notes

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

Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection: Arbitrator views and discussion

• @BU Rob13: Could you please give us links to the policy pages and other discussions you are referencing? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Newyorkbrad:, these are the motions from immediately after last year's rollout of the extendedconfirmed user group and protection level. (According to the history and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions, they were archived to the talk pages of the affected policies, but the links no longer work because the talk pages themselves have been archived; the protection policy one is here and the user right one is here.) Grnklaagheq!%$@# why do we do this, in the alternate universe where I'm Queen of Wikipedia, all arb business gets its own subpage in arbspace so it's actually searchable and doesn't have linkrot grumble mutter everybody get off my lawn.
  @BU Rob13:, your interpretation is how I originally wanted to do it last year (in fact, I wanted to make it technically irrevocable to remove the temptation), but after discussion the conclusion was that arbcom could only regulate admins' discretion to revoke the user right on matters directly under our scope, i.e. AE/DS matters. If an admin wanted to remove the user right due to disruption on pages that are ECP'd for other reasons, it would be up to the community to decide if that's acceptable. Personally, I think that's an undesirable inconsistency likely to lead to confusion (as this request shows). On the other hand, I feel less strongly about revoking EC now that we've had some experience with the system. On the third hand, I'm not sure that my change of view is actually well-informed or if it's just creeping complacency. The proliferation of user rights, and thus of opportunities for admins to try to "pull rank", doesn't seem to have slowed down any. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • BU Rob13 The argument I made last year (which I'm no longer so convinced of) is that ECP would never have come into existence as an option without the 30/500 remedy from the PIA3 case. There was never a community consensus for a new protection level; it was pulled out of someone's ass as an ad-hoc gamergate AE action and worked well enough that it was scaled up the next time a remedy was needed for a topic area beset with persistent, disruptive, and frequently offensive socking. Since the availability of ECP is 100% a consequence of an arbcom decision, that means that a) its general use is arguably still "our problem", and b) the part where arbcom makes policy even though it's not technically supposed to already happened when the PIA3 remedy was passed.
    As for your specific case, I think it's the same as any other user right - if you're disruptive using it for one thing, and you can't/won't stop the disruptive behavior, then you risk losing the ability to contribute even in other areas where you're not disruptive. We don't talk about a "topic ban on templates" if someone edits templates productively but loses their TE right because they edit-warred to put pictures of squabbling children in the ANI editnotice. Just kidding, actually I'd give that person a barnstar ;) Of course I hope that we see a great deal of caution from admins looking to remove the right for any reason other than gross abuse (500 sandbox edits repeatedly posting "I like pie" and so on), because the ability to unilaterally tell another editor "you're not good enough to sit at the big-boy table" has a high potential for toxic effects. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think it's appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to dictate how ECP is applied (or removed) outside of arbitration remedies. As I see it, we only have the authority to impose the limits we imposed in that remedy when they are a part of a set of restrictions created for a particular arbitration case. Applied more broadly, this would be a case of the Arbitration Committee dictating policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• I think we can provide clarification on ECP in regards to ArbCom remedies and sanction areas only, and I'm inclined to agree with Xaosflux that the community must decide how they'd like to handle it in all other situations. Mkdw ^talk 03:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: The main question in your initial statement was:

Did the Committee intend for this motion to prevent administrators from unilaterally removing the extendedconfirmed flag in all cases?

I don't think anyone thought you were asking the Committee to control areas outside arbitration areas, but it's a point of clarity needed to answer your question which asks about "all cases" (including outside arbitration areas). We're saying it's not and why (being it's outside our authority on the matter). Mkdw ^talk 21:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I've been talking broadly about ECP meaning to include XCON, which I could have been more specific or accurate about, because my point is that anything outside an ArbCom area relating to ECP including how the user right is managed should be in the hands of the community. It's for the community to decide, in those cases, whether it's managed at the discretion of administrators or not, and not something ArbCom can answer or motion into existence. The best I think this ARCA could do is highlight that gap and the community could seek to put something in place. That's why I've put an emphasis about jurisdiction. If that makes sense. Mkdw ^talk 03:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that in regard to ECP we do not have the authority to control it outside Arbitration remedies that include it. In all other cases it is up to the community. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13:, I don't interpret the motion as preventing " 100% of unilateral removals of the "extendedconfirmed" flag". If we meant it that way we would have worded it that way. We gave. as you point out, two instances of when it couldn't be removed, "as a discretionary sanction" and "as a means of bypassing arbitration enforcement procedures". I don't read that as forbidding an Administrator from removing ECP from someone whose only edits are sandbox edits. At least for me, one of the reasons for 500 edits is to aid new users in understanding our policies and procedures and to interact with other editors, and 500 sandbox or other trivial edits don't do that. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Transcendental Meditation movement

Initiated by Manul at 17:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Transcendental Meditation movement 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:

• Manul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Littleolive oil
• diff of notification TimidGuy
• diff of notification MastCell
• diff of notification SlimVirgin
• diff of notification NuclearWarfare

Statement by Manul

For the sake of focus and clarity, evidence and details have been deferred to the next section.

In the final decision it says,

Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies.

In my understanding, the decision is rightly addressing one of the underlying causes for the contentiousness surrounding TM articles: the presence of editors with a conflict of interest. The above text was meant to foster a better editing environment and, in the long run, improve the encyclopedia.

The intervening years since the arbitration case have not gone well in this regard. Two COI editors who were once sanctioned with a combined 1RR restriction went on to collaborate on the article of a prominent TM leader, bringing it to GA status. Upon reassessment, however, the article was found to be grossly imbalanced, with one GA reviewer calling it "a skillfully written piece of propaganda".

One of these editors has ignored requests to follow WP:COI, and the other has rebuffed such requests. The latter editor received two further sanctions, each being a topic ban from TM for tendentious editing. This editor continues to show an inability to recognize when Wikipedia is being used to host TM propaganda. The editor also lashes out harshly at those who bring up the conflict of interest. Administrator MastCell said to this editor: you and other affiliated accounts flout both site guidelines and common-sense prohibitions on COI editing, and then question not only the arguments but the very humanity of anyone who tries to hold you accountable.

In the above quote from the final decision, if the committee affirms that the meaning of "should" is the non-optional sense of "should", then such problems may largely disappear. It seems to me that this was the intent. There is much work ahead in bringing some balance to TM articles, and having this clarification will help to improve the encyclopedia.

Details

• TimidGuy (talk · contribs) has declared a conflict of interest[1] but has ignored requests to follow WP:COI.[2][3]

• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) (hereafter referred to as Olive) has a conflict of interest.[4] That deleted link points to Olive's own statement and does not give any identifying information. I have assured Olive that I respect her privacy and that following WP:COI is compatible with maintaining her privacy.[5] The link was supplied by then-arbitrator NuclearWarfare inside this AE request.

• MastCell says that Olive has a conflict of interest. Please read his comment on the matter[6] which includes the above quote from him.

• After bringing up the Olive's COI I have been on the receiving end of her attacks. It does feel like, in MastCell's words, that she questions my very humanity. For details please see my message to her.[7] Note that, even after my plea for decency, she continued assuming bad faith and continued down the road of conspiracy, still not looking at the AE request and still imagining that I obtained the deleted link by some nefarious means.[8]

• Olive has been sanctioned three times in the area of Transcendental Meditation.[9][10][11] The first was an editing restriction that she shared with Timid Guy. The second and third were topic bans for tendentious editing.

• For more context, please see my message to her[12] in which I thoroughly explained the issue, demonstrating that she can't recognize, or seems indifferent to, TM propaganda in Wikipedia articles. This also covers the above-mentioned case of a GA reviewer calling the TM article "a skillfully written piece of propaganda".

• Despite having written what she did on her user page[13] (in the AE case NuclearWarfare mentioned how non-admins may obtain the text; I will not repeat it here), Olive says, perplexingly, that she does not have a conflict of interest. And by using phrases such as "despite arbitrations"[14] and "the arbs knew"[15] she appears to intimate that the committee concluded that she does not have a conflict of interest. That is, it would appear her argument is that she doesn't have a conflict of interest because the arbitration decision doesn't contain a statement to the effect of "Olive has a conflict of interest". On the other hand, I read the COI section of the final decision as referring to Olive and others.

• In another twist, SlimVirgin has accused NuclearWarfare of outing Olive in 2013 by supplying the deleted link.[16] Outing is perhaps the most serious charge one editor can make against another. I believe it is wrong for SlimVirgin to make this accusation toward NuclearWarfare and, by extension, toward me. Although she did clarify that she was not fingering me directly,[17] the implication remains.

Questions for the committee

• Does this text in the final decision

  Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies.

  mean that following WP:COI is merely recommended for editors with a conflict of interest -- that they are ultimately free to ignore WP:COI? Or is this a non-optional "should"?

• Given Olive's own statement[18] in conjunction with her previous sanctions and behavior discussed above, does Olive have a conflict of interest? And regardless, is she perceived (per the wording of the decision) as having a conflict of interest?

• Did NuclearWarfare, an arbitrator at the time, out Olive in September 2013 by offering a link that (1) is not publicly visible (deleted); (2) does not contain any identifying information; and (3) was written by Olive herself on her user page?

Preemptive answers to expected questions for me

• Q: Aren't you harassing Olive by trying to out her?

A: Absolutely not. I have made clear to Olive that I respect her privacy and that following WP:COI does not require revealing any personal information at all.[19] I have not asked Olive for any personal information, and such information is not the least bit necessary.

• Q: Why haven't you taken this to Arbitration Enforcement?
• A: Indeed there is ample evidence (including recent hounding[20] -- she never edited that page before) for an AE case. However the last AE case went very poorly, with the submitter being railroaded on the false claim that he was trying to out Olive. He ultimately left Wikipedia largely as a result of this, it seems. Any future AE case would greatly depend upon the committee's answers to the above questions, so this ARCA needs to come first. Otherwise I would expect the pattern of the last case to be repeated.

• Q: Isn't this ARCA just a ploy to impose your own POV on TM articles?

A: My POV, if you can call it that, is merely that policies and guidelines should be followed. The current state of TM articles is quite unfortunate. When I look at a random TM article problems jump out immediately. See for instance [21]. To someone familiar with the topic, it is hard to miss that the Transcendental Meditation technique article is scrubbed of "embarrassing" aspects such as claims that advanced practitioners can levitate or turn invisible.

• Q: So why don't you just fix the TM articles, then?
• A: Indeed I have delved into editing TM articles, and I was stunned at the level of disruption I encountered there. I would like editing in this area to approach something resembling normalcy, and I believe this ARCA is a step in that direction.

Postscript

As I have done in the past, I would like to bring special attention to these words at the top of WP:COI: That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity. Manul ~ talk 17:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

Transcendental Meditation movement: Clerk notes

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

Transcendental Meditation movement: Arbitrator views and discussion

• @Manul: This is a very thorough discussion of the history, but on a quick look, many of your diffs and links refer to events from 2013. The only recent material I see is a short discussion from February and one revert at WP:PAG yesterday, which I gather is what prompted this request, but I don't see the connection between participating in a discussion about the text of a policy page and all this old stuff. Could you please briefly (very briefly!) summarize what the current issue is, with recent diffs? Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

---