Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

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

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

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

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • 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.

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

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:

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: ARBPIA3	Motion	(orig. case)	14 March 2017
Clarification request: American_politics_2	none	(orig. case)	21 March 2017
Amendment request: OccultZone and others	none	(orig. case)	24 March 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Number 57

My view 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)

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)

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)

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)

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, and the editor must take an active part in subsequent attempt to form consensus for or against the proposed change.

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

Here is a perfect example of how this is being manipulated. The opposing editor boasts that he has no need to attempt to discuss at all. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:38, 25 March 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.

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)
• Yea! How unusual. Let's do it. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Motion: ARBPIA

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

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Euryalus (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
4. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

5. 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)

---

Clarification request: American_politics_2

Initiated by ResultingConstant at 15:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

American_politics_2 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:

• ResultingConstant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by ResultingConstant

Does the WP:ARBAPDS DS covering "post-1932 politics of the US" cover only narrowly "politics" (eg, politicians, laws, elections, etc) or more broadly, all events/movements which had political impact (for example, gun violence, race relations, LGBT issues, etc)

Specifically, I am raising this clarification request, because I just gave a DS alert to someone regarding Emmett Till, regarding an ongoing RFC and an ongoing (mostly acceptable) dispute/debate regarding the lead. But after giving the alert, I realized it is ambiguous as to if the Till article would actually be subject to the AP DS or not.

I can see strong arguments in either direction, certainly many of the "broad" topics had very great impacts on politics and had very obvious political linkages, but a broad interpretation risks putting basically all of US history, culture, current events etc under DS, as almost everything had some political impacts.

Per the "Collect" case, it would seem there is some precedent for the "broad" interpretation : Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others This case is focused on a broad topic and will examine allegations of misconduct within the American Politics topic, which – for the purposes of this case – also includes the Tea Party Movement topic and any United States-related overlaps with the Gun Control topic.

I am not linking the target of the alert here, because I don't consider them a "party" to an issue as of yet, as I am just asking for clarification, but if I need to link them, please let me know ResultingConstant (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: Personally, I would be exceptionally surprised to find breitbart not covered by DS, as they are a media outlet which so heavily political in coverage (and the meta-coverage aimed back at it). But such an example doesn't really go towards answering the crux of my clarification request I think ResultingConstant (talk) 02:10, 22 March 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.

American_politics_2: Clerk notes

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

American_politics_2: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Personally I've always taken "all pages related to" to mean "broadly construed", and thus emcompassing articles that are superficially only tangentially related to US politics, such as Breitbart News. I would welcome hearing the input of my colleagues as to just how broadly construed was intended here, however. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  @ResultingConstant: Probably not, but my initial comment was just me thinking aloud here, so to speak, based upon my relatively limited experiences so far with the APDS, which have been nearly entirely related to the United States elections, 2016. I'll come to more direct, firm conclusions addressing your request once I've heard what some of my fellow arbitrators and other members of the community have to say, because, as I said, I welcome their input. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  @ResultingConstant:, Ks0stm placed the AmPol ds notice on Breitbart News on December 4th last year. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• This question is harder than it sounds! I have a really hard time conceiving of the Emmett Till article as not in the category of "pages related to US politics", and yet a lot of related or comparable subjects that seem at least as connected to US politics do not currently have an APDS banner, giving the impression that "yes" answer to this question would significantly broaden the scope in practice. Am I right on that? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• On pages that aren't entirely about American politics (or other subjects subject to DS), haven't we distinguished in the past between edits that relate to the subject under dispute, versus other edits? I think we have expressed caution in the past about overbroad interpretations of DS scopes that would cover half of the encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: OccultZone and others

Initiated by OccultZone at 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

OccultZone and others arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others#OccultZone: banned

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

• OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others#OccultZone: banned

• Unban

Statement by Worm That Turned

I'm no longer nearly as active as I used to be, but I did notice this request. I've looked back at the past case and refreshed my memory - and on the whole, I would like to see OccultZone unbanned. He was a highly prolific editor who added significantly to Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, he didn't know where to let things go and move on - the term "obsession" used by OccultZone above does indeed summarise my view of his behaviour. He's had a significant period to break that obsession, and if indeed he has been off-wiki for that period - I absolutely support a return to editing.

My only suggestion would be to put some sort of prohibition about adminshopping, and maybe a couple of other restrictions against some of the other areas highlighted in the arbcom case. These should be time limited, to help OccultZone ease back into editing. That said, I would support his return with or without restriction. Worm^TT(talk) 10:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

OccultZone and others: Clerk notes

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

---