Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Additional opening statements

Statement by Sm8900

Hi. this is Sm8900. I would like to add my input. i have contributed to discussions in these articles. sorry , but i do somewhat question the need for this arbitration. this request makes no specific statements as to what actually needs to be done or addressed. it's my understanding that Arbcom proceedings exist mainly to sanction other users. I have a concern about the wholesale nature of this proceeding. I would like to see more details about what needs to be addressed here.

I am concerned that starting a case like this might actually create greater conflict than the discussions which it would supposedly address. Sorry, I disagree with statements in the request; I feel that this community has been manifestly able to frequently have positive discussions. There are some articles (and some editors, according to some allegations here), where that has not been the case, but I feel that those articles and those editors can and should be addressed individually, not wholesale in a manner which invites the most minute problems and individual flaws to end up taking up most of the time and energy. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)..

Reply to PR

(please note, everyone; we are permitted to make customary subheadings like this for readability within our OWN text sections here. )

Hi PR. sorry if my text was incovenient. everything is fine with me in regard to this case, so please feel free to remove my comments if you wish. thanks very much for the helpful sentiment which you expressed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone wishes to discuss this case informally, they may do so by going to this page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

General comment.

I am greatly disturbed by the tone which is already emerging here. Since no specific article is the focus here, editors are already piling on allegations and counter-allegations of various misconduct. this is sort of inevitable, since ArbCom does not address content disputes, and can only address user conduct.

i would suggest that a slightly better route might be to focus on disputed articles and on questionable editors individually, on a case by case basis. It is possible to start Arbcom cases for individual editors, as you may know. I truly don't have anyone particular in mind here. My only point is that if some here do feel that certain editors need attention, there are ways to do that, in a manner which would keep the focus much more steady, and would not result in a whole slew of counter-allegations to confuse the matter.

Going on this current route will only lead us into fuirther acrimony, and furthermore we may also find that nobody ends up with a useful resolution, because everybody is so involved in making allegations and counter-allegations. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that the case is open, I am glad to see the inclusion of comments by those who are involved, and also of those who simply wished to comment. Hopefully, we can gradually move towards some positive resolution of some of these issues. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

I strongly encourage the committee to review editing patterns across a broad spectrum of articles here. We have factionalized editing occurring, and also individually problematic editors from both factions. I haven't been interested enough, nor willing enough to suffer the inevitable personal attacks consequent upon acting, to take a wholistic view and determine which editors Wikipedia would be better off without, if any, nor what other solutions would work. I believe there is a pattern of "edit war, page protected, change page to war over, don't discuss the original edit war" occurring. Some of this is a natural consequence of attending to a watchlist, some seems to reflect users who don't want to collaborate and/or create a NPOV article. As an example of the sorts of problems that are encountered routinely consider the following sets of protections on Nov 29 and Dec 5.

At the time I made the comments here, the named parties ended with Chesdovi

November 29, 2007

• Israeli-Palestinian conflict protected due to edit warring involving Pedro Gonnet and Jaakobou of the named parties, as well as others. Discussion on talk page.
• List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada protected [1] due to move and edit warring involving Tiamut, Eleland and Jaakobou of the named parties, as well as others. Discussion attempted by Tiamut, without reply by other participants.

December 5, 2007

• Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt protected due to move warring involving Pedro Gonnet and Jaakobou of the named parties. Pedro raised discussion on Jaakobou's talk page, later copied to article talk page.
• Saeb Erekat protected due to edit warring by Eleland and Jaakobou. No discussion until Dec. 9, when both discussed it. GRBerry 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kendrick7

I don't edit in this topic area as much as I used to; I hardly recognize the names of half the listed parties. But, I agree with Sm8900 that this could quickly devolve into a witch hunt which won't be good for anyone involved.

Insomuch as I can answer Kirill's question, the situation in Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more or less the same as every other part of the Wikipedia trying to cover an ongoing civil war. There is always a slow influx of zealous new editors on both sides, and either they learn the ropes in a few months or they don't. If they remain problematic -- and I admit to cringing a little when I saw Jaakobou had installed Twinkle -- then an RFC is a better first step. Meanwhile, occasionally an article gets enough neutral editors going on it at once, as I recall occurring lately with Palestinian exodus for example, and the quality of the category does slowly improve.

Update: Ah, I am now caught up per the AN/I thread and User:Jaakobou#Detwinkled. Glad I wasn't the only one cringing.

Reply to Eleland: The thinking is correct as there are two sides to this little chess game, and instead of an RFC on the behavior of particular editors individually, bringing this to ArbCom puts all the pieces into play. The AN/I thread comments regarding WP:KETTLE forebode the likely attempt by one side to sacrifice one editor in exchange for an editor of greater value on the other side.

Reply to ThuranX: Yes, I also don't understand why you'd be a party here; Ryan seems to have listed just a lot of people who commented in the AN/I.

Reply to Durova: I concur that other dispute resolution would be a better first step; the examples Ryan give above are either rather ancient or ongoing or not even dispute resolution per se. P.S. You shouldn't get upset at G-Dett's little poke in your belly -- it just wouldn't be a cabal without you!

Statement by MastCell

This probably ought to go to ArbCom since there are real problems here, and no admin who values his residual sanity would get involved in trying to resolve them given the prevailing atmosphere and history. The only suggestion I have is that, if this goes to Arbitration, an uninvolved party (clerk or Arbitrator) seriously needs to ride shotgun over the Workshop and discussion pages to prevent them from turning into yet another front on the WP:BATTLEfield. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tariqabjotu

I also strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to examine this case. Resolving this issue, or at least issuing remedies related to it, would go a long way to defusing the minefield that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles and Middle East articles in general. I have not assessed the full situation, but every time my actions intersect with these articles, I see what appears to be an attitude a lá "I'm right, everyone else is wrong; thus, my edit-warring is okay (or actually not edit-warring at all) and everyone else is a disruptive POV warrior". Not good, to say the least. -- tariqabjotu 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I know I'm being pedantic here, but can we please reorder the entities in the name of this case, from "Palestine-Israel conflict" to "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", if/when it gets opened? The latter arrangement seems more customary both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and the former sounds awkward. -- tariqabjotu 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. I don't believe ThuranX (talk · contribs) and Chesdovi (talk · contribs) should be involved in this case. I'm also unsure about the involvement of G-Dett (talk · contribs), Itzse (talk · contribs), Suladna (talk · contribs), and Tewfik (talk · contribs). -- tariqabjotu 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that this is an RfArb on just the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles. Please be cautious about adding new editors; ensure that their involvement is specifically in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles and not primarily in regard to disruption on other Middle Eastern articles (or elsewhere). Also, I do not believe every single person that has edited an article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs to be dragged into this arbitration case. Please use some discretion. -- tariqabjotu 12:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

Jaakobou has undertaken mentorship with me. This mentorship regards Wikipedia policies only, not the related content dispute. He tells me he wishes to pursue other dispute resolution at this time. Arbitration in general is a last resort, and I ask in good faith for the other parties to consider whether a brokered solution would be feasible.

I am neutral regarding the underlying conflict and, I hope, sufficiently respectful of both sides. About two years ago I started a short article on a Judaism-related topic and at present I'm doing a little bit of editing that relates to uncontroversial parts of Palestinian social history. Durova^Charge! 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, please strikethrough that insinuation regaring me. It's very bad faith and treads on the margins of a personal attack. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, Durova! I'm not sure how the wires got crossed, but...that was a straight suggestion, not a sarcastic insinuation. Sure, we've clashed briefly a couple of times, but I regard you as very even-handed on ME pages and related issues. There was a mediation way back about whether Wikipedia should report with a straight face something that Juan Cole said about himself in wry self-deprecation, and two partisan editors were locked in what appeared to be mortal combat, and if I remember right you were stern and effective. I was trying to think who would be a good foil to HG on my proposed 'cabal', someone who could be bad cop if necessary but had no ideological dog in the fight, and I thought of you.--G-Dett (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I misunderstood. Please bear in mind that pretty much everyone in this dispute understands the content side in much greater depth than I do. So while I'd gladly interact with anyone as a neutral party regarding wiki policies and practices, I'm also reticent to scale up my involvement more than it already is. I'm posting here to affirm that Jaakobou is taking proactive steps and endeavoring to adapt to site standards. Durova^Charge! 05:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ChrisO

I strongly support this request for arbitration. I only rarely edit Middle Eastern-related articles, for exactly the reasons that MastCell alludes to in his statement above. However, I've kept an eye on a number of editors and articles for some time, and I can confirm that there is indeed a serious and systematic problem in this topic area. I'd like to offer a few observations for the arbitrators:

• The class of affected articles is potentially very large - essentially all Middle Eastern articles, plus those on Jewish and Muslim-related topics, though I should emphasize that the number of articles being disputed at any one time is much more limited.

• The problem has its roots in the behaviour of a relatively small number of editors whose primary interest is in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Action against some of these editors (which will likely require topic or site bans) will help in part, but the topic areas are also likely to need placing under article probation (cf. Macedonia, Armenia-Azerbaijan). I suggest that parties should look to Wikipedia:General sanctions for relevant precedent in proposing remedies. A number of editors have been involved in straightforward violations of editing and conduct policies - for instance, episodes such as Jaakobou's recent edit warring to re-insert properly removed BLP violations, abuse of editing tools and other willful policy violations that led to this arbitration request in the first place. Such misconduct is relatively easy to identify and should result in those responsible being sanctioned.

• The harder question is what to do about the underlying problem in this topic area - the existence of blocs of partisan editors who use Wikipedia as a battlefield to campaign for their causes. The problem with Middle Eastern articles isn't only a matter of misconduct by individual editors; it has its roots in mutual hostilities that exist off-wiki and have been transported here en masse. The result is a poisonous atmosphere characterised by antagonism, aggressive behaviour and mutual distrust. There needs to be a change in editing culture on these articles, not just conduct. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(Added) In reply to Quadell's query about Jayjg being added as a party, I believe Cla68 is alluding to this accidental e-mail from Jayjg to the WikiEN-l mailing list in which he invites a number of "allies" (namely User:Avraham, User:Beit Or, User:Humus sapiens and User:PinchasC) to "watch my back" as he makes controversial edits to Messianic Judaism. It's hard evidence of exactly the kind of cliqueish behaviour that I mentioned above and it's arguably a violation of WP:CANVASS. It certainly isn't good practice to try to stitch up an article by recruiting a team of ideological allies using back channels and inviting them to fight over an article; it's particularly depressing that experienced editors (two of them administrators!) should have sunk to this. I'm sure this sort of thing is going on on both sides, but it's something that should be strongly discouraged given the amount of disruption that it causes. Other subscribers to WikiEN-l certainly weren't impressed by Jayjg's inadvertent disclosure, and I hope it's properly reviewed by the Arbitration Committee. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved CarolMooreDC

While happily I'm not named above! - and this is NOT my primary area of editing interest (except last couple days!) - I have observed the problems on some of the pages mentioned above, as well as on Carlos Latuff (where there is an absurd on going editing war I don't much get involved in); on Samson Option (where any attempt to mention the controversial things said about the Samson Option by Israel leaders and supporters was repeatedly deleted, no matter how well sourced, even when placed in a "controversies" section); and on Jewish Lobby (refusal to allow there to be ANY mention of NON-antisemitic use of the phrase Jewish Lobby, even though many prominent uses of the phrase are by Jews and/or mainstream publications and/or are NOT antisemitic).

Having just started intensely editing in last 6-8 months, I confess I have sometimes lost my temper and ranted and even made a couple personal attacks, but I'm learning how to use to the process instead! :-) Yes, it has taken me longer than it should to really read and re-read and understand the Wiki Pillars, but the more I understand them, the more outraged I become at the behavior of these editors. See my most recent complaining entry attempting to get NPOV version of page. At the end of it I list multiple violations of WP:NPOV from the tutorial.

Besides whatever steps Arbitrators might take, I really think wikipedia needs a neutral AND courageous Ombudsman just for the Israel-Palestine and related issues to keep people in line with the wikipedia process.

An additional idea: I noticed that Wikipedia:Naming_convention has manuals of styles for several nations. Maybe there should be a "Israel-Palestine" manual of style, or maybe one on Arab/Muslim/Jewish issues, to set up some guidelines -though there'd be a massive debate on creating that!

Also, I agree that User_talk:Jayjg should be added to the list of problematic editors on this topic. Carol Moore 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Statement by RomaC

I am relieved to see that this issue is being addressed. I was happily contributing in many areas of Wiki until I tried to edit a picture caption at Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict and came across a stubbornly persistent Jaakabou. I am currently working to add recently-released casualty figures to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict article, and again I see what seems a coordinated effort by some editors to control content, with open talk about "sides," referring not to the subjects of the article, but to the editors themselves. This is a serious threat to Wiki. I would suggest interested parties also consider looking at some of the activity in our little edit war, I know Timeshifter for one has already studied the problem and made an interesting exposition on his user page. Good luck! RomaC (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by CasualObserver'48

Sigh of relief, I am happy, ecstatic, naively optimistic and very much appreciate the decision to accept. You will need the wisdom of Solomon and I wish you luck. It is long overdue; much longer that I have been around Wikipedia or on the Internet (Sept07). That said, I have already been labled as being on one of the ‘sides’, but only on the talkpages, not on edits (largely because I’m still learning to Be Bold. My POV is Pro-MidEast Peace, although a good friend of mine termed it the ultimate oxymoron, and even I consider that it is pushing the limits of the Serenity Prayer. I look at the I-P conflict situation from a civil/human rights perspective and, therefore my bias tends to be pro-Palestinian, but my support for Israel is based on, well, Biblical proportions. The admins will decide what they decide and I hope to be helpful along the way, but that is well over my head. Most of the heavily involved users with whom I am familiar are included above, although I could name a few more, if asked.

As pointed out in other’s statements above, I too feel that a broad range of topics with content disputes should be included and an ombudsman might be helpfull. I also believe for Wikipedia to gain more credibility, the systematic bias with respect to this subject must be addressed. More critically for Wikipedia viability is to address the issues noted here and to that I’ll add CAMERA and it’s multitude of talk-alikes, Hasbara and, for those computer literate types Megaphone. The import of these on NPOV should not be discounted. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) So, why is it Red?

Statement by uninvited Number 57

I would also strongly urge the arbitration committee to look at this case. As possibly the largest single contributor to articles on Israeli politics, I have come across almost all the editors listed in this case (hence listing myself as uninvited rather than uninvolved), and I am thoroughly sick of the endless disputes which a number of them create and prolong. Unfortunately for the project, whenever an edit by at least five of the editors listed above comes up on any of the 500+ articles on my watchlist, I know that in the vast majority of cases (for two of the editors the figure is 100%) that edit will not conform to WP:NPOV.

Unfortunately my past attempts to diffuse situations and correct POV have led to me being labelled as a POV pusher by both sides, but particularly by the pro-Israelis (possibly because I tend to stick to articles on domestic Israeli topics rather than Israeli-Palestinian ones, and pro-Palestinian editors are not common in that sphere). This has meant that despite being well-placed to do so, I am now effectively hamstrung from carrying out administrative actions against the numerous violations of policy carried out by many of the editors listed above. I hope that a thorough investigation may allow me more room to take prompt action against both sides in the future.

In addition, I would also support adding User:GHcool and User:Beit Or to this case, as they are both involved in reverting on some of the articles listed above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by 6SJ7

I have to agree with Sm8900's "General Comment." There may be something for the ArbComm to accept in Ryan's initial "example", in which he specifies what a few specific editors did in a few specific articles. After that, Ryan identifies a few other articles, but with no specifics about what events concerning those articles might require arbitration. And in the comments of some subsequent editors, this potential arbitration case has taken on a life of its own. It would not be a particularly happy life, either for the parties, potential parties, the arbitrators or anyone else. If the committee accepts this case without specifically limiting what the case is about, the case is potentially going to be about every dispute that has occurred among dozens of editors on dozens of articles. I wouldn't be surprised if 150 or more editors are "named" before this is all over. And how far back does this go? All Israel- or Palestinian-related articles (and antisemitism-related articles? and other religion-related articles?) for the past six months? A year? Three years? Five years? And what kind of disputes are we talking about? I have already seen mentions of articles that would involve the ArbComm in content disputes, but I know that the ArbComm does not accept those. I hope that the arbitrators, if they accept this case, will tell the rest of us what it is about. Otherwise, this is going to become one big, ugly, nasty, confused and contentious scene, and it isn't going to produce anything good for anyone. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved EconomicsGuy

General comment. Now that the case has been accepted I urge the arbitrators to look for a broad solution to this. AN/I threads like this will keep appearing if ArbCom does not come up with some sort of centralized solution to these disputes. The number of articles and the number of participants in these disputes would otherwise make it very difficult for the arbitrators and those enforcing the remedies to keep this from reappearing here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by univolved Cla68

I added Jayjg to the case because of this thread [2] on WP:ANI. I believe that more evidence of problematic behavior by Jayjg can probably be presented on the evidence page once the case formally opens. If Jayjg is still on the ArbCom mailing list, I formally request that he be removed, at least until this case closes. Cla68 (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to requests for evidence of involvement by Jayjg in specific Palestine-Israel articles, here's a recent RfC that he participated in: [3]. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Quadell

I don't understand why Cla68 added Jayjg to the case above. The thread he quotes above regards Jayjg's comment to Wayne, which Wayne regarded as a personal attack. (I don't see why that was ever on AN/I, actually, since it didn't involve Jayjg's admin abilities and was not requesting admin abilities be used to resolve it -- it just looks like a general complaint filed in an inappropriate place.) Jayjg's comment to Wayne doesn't involve the issues of "ownership", etc., in the description of this case. I don't think it's appropriate for him to be included as a party. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I also note that the comment in question was on the Khazars talk page, unrelated to this RfAr, and Wayne and Jayjg to not appear to have ever had a content dispute related to Israel/Palestine articles. Can anyone just add anyone's name to these things, based on unrelated allegations? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Chris O's statement, that e-mail also did not have anything to do with the articles in question, on Israel/Palestine relations -- it was about Messianic Judaism, which has exactly nothing to do with the case. This really appears to be a situation where some people think "If it has to do with Judaism and it's controversial, then Jayjg must be involved!", and all kinds of old and unrelated grudges are coming to the surface. This isn't an RfAr on improper posts to Wiki-l, nor is it an RfAr on alleged personal attacks on the Khazars talk page. It's about ownership issues in "Palestine-Israel articles", and I still can't see why Jayjg's name was drug into this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove Jayjg's name. Several people have indicated that they want his name on it, but no one has given any reason why his name should be listed among those who have recently had ownership issues with Israel/Palestine articles. I invite anyone to provide evidence of involvement in this if I've overlooked anything. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And regarding Nishidani's evidence below, you do realize that was 6 months ago, right? Is that the most recent evidence of Jayjg's questionable activities regarding this RfAr? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg withdrew for several months just after the incident I mentioned, and therefore the point you make is irrelevant, since he is now back on board. I have quite a number of examples I could adduce for the preceding period to underline a pattern of irresponsibly partisan abuse from someone who had formerly been elected to an administrative role requiring, certainly in this area, rigorous and austere neutrality. Had he not been an administrator I wouldn't have worried or raised the issue, since the behaviour I objected to is par for the course among the lower denizens of Wikidom Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Nishidani

I have withdrawn from editing, tired of the futility of trying to get attested and verifiable book sources in, and internet propaganda sources out in many articles. But, since I note User:Jaakobou has named me as a contentious editor, I should like at least to jot down this one point. In my experience, User:Jayjg, whose inclusion here many editors wonder about, certainly has edited frequently in an incomprehensible, and, in my view censorious fashion, riding shotgun to keep disagreeable information off many pages because he deems it personally unwelcome. As just one example of his ignoring Wiki editing norms concerning sources in order to wikilawyer an item of information or a respectable author I could cite for example the following edit exchange with myself, [4].

The reason given was ‘remove claim attributed to an unknown and possibly non-existent rabbi'’

The quote came from an eminent authority on the region, Professor Ian Lustick. Lustick’s source was in turn the New York Times. Thus it was doubly grounded in reliable sources. Jayjg has enough experience to know that information must be grounded in verifiable and reliable sources, yet he challenged the use of this information because he doubted its truth (which is not at issue). In the subsequent exchange on the talk page [5], (Talk:Baruch Goldstein. See the present talk sect.5 'fingernail speech'), he endeavoured apparently to get me to engage in a violation of WP:OR, by trying to lure me to verify the truth of Lustik's remark.

That said, I do not think the issue is primarily one of putting up individual editors to intense scrutiny, to weed out malefactors. Given the structural problem, even the best can find themselves dragged into violations of rules, out of sheer exasperation with patent abuses of the rules by editors cunning enough to avoid, themselves, a technical breach. And in any case, a person by person examination of the record would lead to a Kafkian or Borgesian archive of unmanageable intricacy. The articles in this area perfectly fit the cruxes (cruces) outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The contentiousness in good part arises from the anomalousness of articles dealing predominantly with Palestinians (almost invariably entwined with Israel as occupying power). The history of the Palestinians is being written with hardly any Palestinians on board (User:Tiamut is a notable exception), by (a) complete outsiders (Westerners) who, for a variety of distinct motives, take on the task of representing a 'Palestinian perspective' as that is available in books and reliable sources, and (2) by Jewish/Israeli editors who are either present in the area or deeply committed to the country. Both are potentially defective sources, in that the Westerners who stand in as locum tenentes for the missing Palestinian voices, often have no intimate personal grounding in the area, and lack as often or not familiarity with the appropriate languages(User:RolandR provides an exception), and the Jewish/Israeli editors, some living in the West Bank, can often confuse their task with a national mission to define the people their nation has effectively colonized (after 1967), and over which Israel exercises a preponderance of legal, military, economic and, in a discursive sense, cultural power. User:Chesdovi 's home page is all for national liberation movements everywhere, for example, but in the relevant window on Palestinians, they alone effectively do not exist, since he locates their homeland in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

There is, in addition, a general Western cognitive bias against Palestinians and Arabs, one that has deep historical roots, and which is complicated by the intense politics concerning terrorism, identified in the public mind with Islam, over the past decades. A lesser one, often suspected as motivating some 'pro-Palestinian' editors, is anti-semitism. Personally I have not encountered editors whose work lends itself to this suspicion, but then again, I have relatively little experience. I judge this to be a concern among 'adversaries' because more than twice my work here has be hinted as implying such a bias, and the innuendo is often encountered.

Several practical measures can be taken, with, I suggest a series of experiments. Here are two suggestions of many that come to mind. (a) Competitive page writing in which editors from both 'sides' (not always a valid marker, since many of us get on well with posters on the other 'side') take on an article, and compete to produce a GA/FA standard according to strict Wiki rules, while the original page is locked. The natural consequence will be to eliminate edit-wars between opposed groups, since say one page on Palestine will be done exclusively by Jewish/Israeli editors, the other page by 'pro-Palestinian' editors, in which the conflicts will be respectively inframural. The psychological logic of such testing would be, I should think, one that presses each group to modify internally its own natural biases, reduce ideological antagonism, and strive harder towards both neutrality and excellence in order to impress neutral arbitrators called in, at the end of the experiment, to cast a vote as to which article best fits Wiki's quality standards. (b) have a rule obliging patent and consistent violators or edit-warriors to justify their continued presence on the encyclopedia by creating, within a month or two, an article dealing exclusively and neutrally, with some event, figure or episode in the history or culture of either Israel (in the case of a 'pro-Palestinian' editor) or Palestine (in the case of a 'pro-Israeli' editor'.

Excuse my longueur. Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

I generally have tried to stay away from Wikipedia articles about Palestine and Israel — despite my life-long personal interest in the subject — because of the venomous atmosphere that surrounds them. Like several others, I strongly recommend the addition of Jayjg to the involved parties: As a member of the Wikipedia community who has been entrusted with considerable authority, Jayjg should be setting a positive example; instead, he usually pours gasoline on the fire. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nagle

There's been some minor trouble over at Jewish Lobby from some of the same parties named in this arbitration, but it hasn't yet risen to the level of needing ArbCom attention. There have been some sizable deletions by Armon (talk · contribs), but they're usually follow-ups of similar actions by Jayjg (talk · contribs).

It's worth noting that during Jayjg (talk · contribs)'s first arbitration of 2007 (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid) when he left Wikipedia without explanation for some months, these issues seemed to quiet down. ArbCom noted this in closing that arbitration.

Incidentally, if Jayjg (talk · contribs) is still on the ArbCom internal mailing list, ArbCom might want to consider removing him during this arbitration. --John Nagle (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

Unless the arbs revert themselves, do not add this user to the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Any future reverts of a sitting arb will result in a one month block, [6]. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently some think my stmt above was directed at John Nagle, but it wasn't. It was prompted by 128.122.253.196 reverting Morven, here and future such attempts to reinsert Jayjg as a party. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification request

Is there any chance the wording of the "discretionary sanctions" remedy could be tweaked to allow uninvolved admins to place a specific article (or closely related set of articles, if necessary), on article probation? I believe this would help, given the current thread at WP:AE and attendant squabbling at Jewish lobby. I suppose you could argue that article probation here might be redundant (seeing as all Arab-Israeli articles are kind of on article probation anyway) but it helps as a solution on especially problematic articles - the tag at the top lets people know there is a long-term issue. Furthermore, it means the article as a whole can be monitored and you don't have to pick through contributions elsewhere if deciding when to topic-ban. Best, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is necessary Moreschi. If there's problematic editing on the page, article ban the participants on the page who are taking part in the problematic behaviour. If there's problems on numerous pages with certain editors, topic ban them. If they carry on editing these pages then should be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The sanctions are so broadly written that I think they allow for pretty much everything. I will probably place all editors on Jewish Lobby on 1RR per week for that article pending an attempt to more deeply analyze the problem. The sanctions are written against "any editor" not "any article," but articles don't write themselves, and I'm pretty sure that "any editor" includes "all editors of article X". Thatcher 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was trying to say. The ability to place a specific article on 1RR (and put in extra sanctions against uncooperative editing etc) is what's needed in some cases, because some articles are so darn controversial it's just natural to edit-war (the poor darlings can't help themselves). But Thatcher's work-around is rather neat, and will serve equally well. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}

Tariqabjotu has brought to my attention, in connection with a different matter altogether, an apparent edit war involving the same editors at New antisemitism. It's evidently escalated well beyond the issues at Jewish lobby, to the point of the article having being protected. I'm not involved in any way with either article and not really up to date on what has been going on, but m

aybe one of you guys could take a look. Now my request for clarification: would such an article be covered by this arbitration in the first place? I'm not certain how broadly the link with the Palestine-Israeli conflict is going to be interpreted, though looking at the article's content it does seem to be indirectly related to that conflict (which is mentioned at various points). Does an article have to be about Palestine-Israel, or is it sufficient that it should have some sort of non-trivial link to the conflict? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." In my view a broad interpretation does include New antisemitism. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is plenty wide to cover about anything, clearly the intent of the ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The remedies were deliberately wide, to indicate in a way, simply, that we feel that

1. Administrators on this area may need to use their judgement and adminship to bring the edit war (and warriors, and some editors who need to modify their conduct) back within acceptable limits, and
2. The edit war has exhausted patience, and we are therefore now inclined to give uninvolved administrators wide ranging scope to achieve that end (as described in the decision).

Note that a stricter application of "drawing a line on unproductive behavior" is not the same as "anything an admin does will be okay". However a user who cannot or will not take note of the need to edit productively and appropriately in their conduct ("WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT"), has now basically got only two choices in this arena: voluntarily do not edit there, or be prevented from editing in an unhelpful manner, by admin action. What counts as "unproductive" or "inappropriate" is pretty much "any action that contradicts high quality collaborative creation of a neutral encyclopedia article for readers".

Bottom line: the encyclopedic community is not expected to endorse some areas being a perrenial edit war, for any reason, and the belief that somehow they should, is misplaced. Disputes are fine provided they are carried out appropriately, which includes non-disruption, listening to uninvolved administrators, and editors actively and genuinely working to achieve resolution via NPOV.

An approximate summary of my own personal thoughts. If in doubt the remedy wording overrides any comment I might make. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for these very informative comments. I hope one of the clerks will archive this thread somewhere (maybe on the arbitration page?). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, main case talk page, after it's stale for a couple more days (in case any other Arbs wish to comment) Thatcher 00:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(If it's ok to comment. Aside for broad interpretation, which is fine by me, another method is to search for terms like "Israel" and "Palestin"* on the Talk page. By this means, I suspect that uninvolved admins would find that Jewish lobby is within the topic area. My 2 cents. See also the (unofficial) list of disputed articles being developed here. Thanks.) HG | Talk 19:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am posting again a comment that was arbitrarily deleted by RolandR. -> In case anyone wonders how uninvolved administrators are to be recognized, it's actually pretty easy. They ride flying pigs which are both kosher and halal. Administrators riding kosher flying pigs have a sound grasp the issues at stake here, are willing to engage constructively in a vicious confrontation, shutting up people on both sides of a desperate struggle, while staying uninvolved. They have an uncle who died in Auschwitz, a brother who lost his legs in a bombing in Jerusalem and a little sister who was blown to pieces in Qana. They can convincingly explain the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters, murders and extra-judicial killings, victims and losers. L'omo del batocio (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am raising an issue that I consider both extremely relevant and unresolved. I regard bitter irony as a legitimate and effective rethorical tool. L'omo del batocio (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: A new Sanctions template has been developed which could tag articles and notify users about possible sanctions. //FYI, without opinion about tagging, HG | Talk 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for appeal: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

• ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Julia1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Southkept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Statement by ChrisO

I wish to appeal a page ban applied by Elonka after I removed an obvious copyright, BLP and NPOV violation from an article. The background is as follows:

• Muhammad al-Durrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) concerns a controversy that is currently the subject of libel litigation in France as well as an off-wiki campaign that accuses several individuals of criminal and professional misconduct. Personal abuse like this and death threats have been directed against some of those involved. I have monitored the article for BLP reasons since April 2007.[7]

• A number of previously uninvolved editors have recently been editing the article. Some of the editing and talk page contributions have been very problematic. The article was fully protected for a time and two new editors, Julia1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have been the subject of action by Moreschi [8] and MZMcBride [9] respectively.

• On 10 June, Elonka stepped in to mediate, impose editing restrictions and lift protection. [10] I fully accept that I overstepped the restrictions on a couple of occasions through sheer frustration, as noted by Elonka.[11],[12],[13].

• On 13 June, Julia1987 posted unsourced allegations on the article talk page that an individual mentioned in the article was a drug dealer who had been attacked by a drug gang.[14] WP:BLP requires the removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" from talk pages and articles. I therefore redacted them and asked Julia1987 not to post unsourced allegations in future.[15]

• On 14 June, Julia1987 made a series of edits in which she deleted some sourced material and added essentially the same allegations, this time sourced to this pirate web video, undated, unsourced, translated by an unknown individual, on a video sharing website. Julia1987's edits stated the allegations as proven facts.[16]

• WP:BLP requires that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that ... relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability". WP:COPY requires that "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". Elonka's own restrictions state that "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." [17]

• I therefore removed Julia1987's problematic additions and restored the deleted material.[18] In hindsight my edit summary was poorly written and did not make sufficiently clear that the removed material was a BLP and copyright violation. As WP:BLP mandates that "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" (by extension the same would apply to a 0RR regime), I did not consider this to be a revert. I did not revert to a previous version, as I retained Julia1987's and another editor's non-problematic additions. (See User talk:Elonka#Sequence of edits).

• I was shocked and surprised to find on 15 June that Elonka had banned me for one week from the article's talk page and thirty days from the article itself.[19] Elonka has since restricted Julia1987 for deleting sourced content in the same series of edits as the BLP/copyright violation [20].

• I have since unsuccessfully sought to resolve this with Elonka on her talk page. Elonka has argued that my edit was an impermissible reversion and constituted "edit-warring", but has not acknowledged any of the NPOV, BLP or copyright issues that I have raised.[21] Wikipedia's BLP and copyright rules cannot be overridden by an individual admin's restrictions, and an admin-imposed 0RR cannot supersede the long-standing rule that the removal of BLP violations is not counted towards reversions. Elonka's action has the unfortunate effect of penalising a good-faith effort to remove material that indisputably violates BLP, COPY and NPOV. This risks sending a message to editors that BLP doesn't matter and attempts to uphold it will be penalised.

I would therefore be grateful for outside views on this matter. Please note that I fully support Elonka's mediation efforts; this unfortunate misunderstanding should not be taken as criticism of the rest of her work on the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Elonka's comment below, I couldn't source Julia1987's allegations to anything other than the pirate video, an unusable source which had to be removed. BLP requires us to reliably source statements about living people ("Be very firm about the use of high quality references"). It wasn't possible to remove the unusable source while leaving in place an unsupported, potentially libelous claim - that would have been a BLP violation in my part. The only recourse was to remove the claim and the unusable source. I'm also not sitting this out because of the unresolved BLP issue and the chilling effect Elonka's action is likely to have on any future efforts to ensure that BLP is followed. We need a clear statement on whether or not editing restrictions can override BLP and copyright enforcement. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion over which edit prompted the page-ban. Elonka page-banned me for making this edit. The BLP violation I removed was this bit (the bolded text is that which was added by User:Julia1987, unbolded article text is previously existing material which I didn't remove)):

Muhammad's father claim he was severely wounded in the same incident and was treated in hospital in Jordan for multiple bullet wounds.<ref name="Tierney">Tierney, Michael. ''Glasgow Herald'', August 23, 2003</ref> However, scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes. <ref> Ch. 10, April 29, 2008 [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x594x0_jamal-aldurrah-scars-from-the-past_news]</ref>"

This makes the father out to be a liar, it states a purely anecdotal claim made by an interviewee in the report as fact, no other reliable source that I know of has made that claim, it's sourced to a Youtube-style video hosting site (ergo, a probable copyvio), and the reliability of the source was essentially unknowable since at the time I knew of no original copy of the video. The source was unusable and the information in it uncorroborated. It would be appreciated if arbitrators could address whether this is a BLP and probable copyright violation and if so, whether removing it was reasonable. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Eternalsleeper

I've been watching these discussions from afar, as I'm way too busy with RL to contribute to Wikipedia on a solid base. Elonka has been reasonable and helpful in moving the page forward, though it would be even more helpful if people stopped making sarcastic and pejorative comments on the talk page, directly and indirectly calling each other's position into ideological questioning. I haven't been following up on the page with enough persistence to make any further comment but I felt a vote of confidence in Elonka's efforts was due. Eternalsleeper (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

Personally I think that ChrisO is wasting his time here, but this appeal might actually benefit from an ArbCom review, as a few editors have been sharply critical of the conditions for editing that I placed on this article. So I wouldn't mind hearing from ArbCom as to whether or not I have been working in accordance with the Discretionary Sanctions that they envisioned in January. To describe the situation in a nutshell: ChrisO, an admin who was participating as an involved editor, was edit-warring at the Muhammad al-Durrah article, which is within the scope of the Palestine-Israel articles ArbCom discretionary sanctions, and had been in a state of dispute for quite awhile. I, as an uninvolved admin (and member of the ArbCom-appointed Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars), decided to take a look at the situation, and chose to place a civility and 0RR (no revert) restriction on the article. Most editors complied, but ChrisO kept reverting. Since he's an admin, I tried to give him lots of leeway, but it's obvious that he felt that the restrictions were for other people, and not for him, and he kept on with warring and incivility, such as referring to loony conspiracy theories. So I gave him a steadily increasing set of cautions.[22][23] [24][25][26] [27][28] After his second revert,[29][30] I told him clearly that if he did one more, he risked being put on tighter restrictions.[31] The next day, he reverted again,[32] with a misleading edit summary of "blatant POV pushing" (his edit summary didn't describe it as a revert, but it was clear that he had cleanly wiped out 8 intervening edits, back to his own last version.[33]) I then put him on (what I felt was) a mild ban of avoiding the talkpage for one week, and avoiding edits to the article for one month.[34] He immediately started wikilawyering with multiple messages to my talkpage about why he was allowed to revert,[35] and then he came up with this after-the-fact "BLP" angle,[36] saying that it excuses his total revert. I disagree. The case is pretty simple as far as I'm concerned, and has nothing to do with BLP. ChrisO was edit-warring, he was told to stop, he didn't, I put a brief page ban on him.

I would also like to point out that when I first learned of the situation, the article was already protected, the talkpage was in the middle of a severe dispute, and ChrisO was begging for an uninvolved administrator to help out. When I offered my assistance, he said it would be appreciated.[37] I am proud to say that since I placed my conditions on the article on June 10, the article has become much more stable, with some very constructive conversations going on at the talkpage. And all of this was accomplished with no blocks and no page protection. Instead, three editors (two new editors, and ChrisO) were placed on temporary bans (see our admin log), and everyone else is back to work. I acted in the best interest of the project, and got rapid control of a situation that was in near chaos, with only very minor course corrections on my part. I wish that ChrisO could recognize that my system works. That he is continuing to escalate and is now trying to spin this as a BLP issue, is disappointing. There were many ways that he could have edited the article to remove anything that he found problematic, by changing the text rather than just reverting. It is also disappointing that he's going to the trouble of filing what will probably be a lengthy appeal, which will probably take weeks to resolve. I had pointed out to him that an easier route would be to simply avoid the talkpage for the rest of the week (until June 22), and then if he resumed participation in a civil and constructive manner, that I would consider lifting the article editing ban early, rather than requiring that he sit out the full 30 days. I've already done this with one of the other editors, Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), who had been banned for 90 days. We instructed him to work on other articles for awhile, and he did, so we lifted his talkpage ban to allow him to resume discussions. But evidently ChrisO would rather stir things up here at ArbCom for a few weeks, rather than just waiting until the weekend to participate at talk, so here we are. --Elonka 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Just a brief comment here. Elonka's system is interesting, and is in fact similar to what I have advocated elsewhere. I'm glad to see that some of these (rather obvious) ideas are at least being put into practice. I am concerned though that sometimes it can end up looking like some individuals (in this case Elonka) are the gatekeepers for the article. To avoid this, I suggest a system of rotation, whereby the uninvolved admins move on to different areas and different articles every few months. This will ensure things do not go stale, that grudges do not fester and build up, and that the admins involved get a fresh look on different articles rather than deal with the same things over and over again (ie. avoid burn out). This would also address the perennial question of whether admins are truly uninvolved and committed. If the admins in question are uninvolved, then they will not mind moving on a different article every few months. Possibly all this has been suggested elsewhere. If not, please do pass it on to whatever board is considering these things this month. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Canadian Monkey

Elonka has done a commendable job of stepping into a controversial article and, through the imposition of strict editing conditions, eliminated edit warring while allowing for continuous improvement of the article. As she notes, ChrisO was given plenty of warning about his behavior, and much more leeway was given to him (presumably because of his status as an admin) than to other editors, who were subjected to similar sanctions for behavior that was, in my opinion, much less disruptive than ChrisO’s. He has clearly edit warred on the page, and reverted on multiple occasions, despite being notified of both the 0RR restrictions and the general ArbCom decision related to I-P articles.

The "BLP" issue is a Red herring. As Elonka notes, ChrisO came up with the "BLP" angle [38] after the fact, and used it as an excuse for a revert that encompassed much more than any potential BLP issues. I’d like to highlight he fact that this is apparently a common modus operandi with ChrisO. On May 23rd, he was reported for a 3RR violation by an uninvolved editor on the same article (prior to the recent restrictions and Elonka’s involvement). He did not claim he was reverting BLP issues in any of his 5 reverts, 3 of which consisted of removing "Category:Violence in media", which is clearly pure edit warring over a content issue that has nothing to do with BLP. But once the 3RR report was filed, he suddenly came up with the "BLP" angle, to excuse his behavior ex post facto, and without pointing to any actual BLP issues that his reverts were aimed at.

His behavior on this article has been problematic from the get go. He has abused his admin privileges by posting warning notifications on the Talk pages of all those who opposed him, even though he was an involved admin. This behavior was found problematic by several uninvolved admins ([39], [40],[41]) and he was told it was improper (though not sanctioned for it).

Unable to get consensus for his views on the Talk page of the article, he has engaged in egregious forum shopping, seeking to get his opponents banned or otherwise sanctioned and his own actions vindicated, on no fewer than 6 different venues: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. In fact, this most recent appeal follows on the heels of yet another appeal, his 7th (!!) this time here, after he had been told by the responding admin that “I would tread on the cautious side and say that if it's not obvious, then note it to someone else and let others do it, if 0RR applies to one of the editors involved.”

Given this extremely disruptive behavior, the length of time it has been going on, and the fact that similar behavior has been exhibited on other articles as well (see this, for example, where he has blocked an editor with whom he has an active content dispute) – I think that ChrisO got off extremely lightly (a 30 day ban from a single article), and that a more appropriate sanction would be a topic ban, from all I-P related articles, for a substantially longer time period.

Statement by Tarc

I find it rather hard to believe that, in the name of "mediation", one administrator can simply ignore policy and guidelines on NPOV and BLP and such. All edits and/or reverts are not created equal; if someone edits in violation of Wikipedia policy, to sanction someone else for addressing and removing such violations is a serious error in judgment. Mediating in this or any I-P related article is a thankless task that few if any have the time, patience, or willingness to undertake, and Elonka should be commended for taking a stab at a difficult task. But a bit more flexibility is called for here, and a hard "no reverts ever" is simply bad practice and completely unworkable.

Statement by JGGardiner

Like everyone else, I have to say that Elonka has done a wonderful job on the talk page. This was definitely a mop and bucket job. I can see how the editing conditions may seem a little draconian but the alternatives are worse.

When I first read Chris' statement I thought it did raise an interesting policy question: can editing restrictions override our policy restrictions. But, having looked everything over once again, I'm not sure that there is an actual policy difference here. Elonka's conditions seem to have exclusions that go far beyond just BLP: "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." Chris’ initial arguments seem to be that his edit was within the limits of Elonka’s restrictions. I think this is just a simple disagreement over the nature of Chris' particular edit.

Chris does acknowledge that he did not adequately construct his summary. If he did alter content beyond what was necessary to satisfy BLP concerns, it is easy to see why Elonka would have felt this was a reversion in violation of the editing conditions.

I am sympathetic to Chris’ feelings. I think that his general concern was having the article within policy. But I think that an admin in Elonka’s position would have had to have given Chris the benefit of the doubt to think that his edit was not a reversion. And at that point nobody on the talk page deserved such a benefit. --JGGardiner (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kelly

I fully endorse Elonka's actions - as someone who tried to make a foray into this article as an uninvolved party, I can testify that a firm hand is needed in handling this article. ChrisO's behavior has been problematic at times, as Elonka states (particularly his continual use of derogatory terms like "conspiracy theories" to describe other viewpoints; I believe this provokes other editors into inappropriate actions). This is not to say that the editing of his "opponents" has not also been problematic. But, as an experienced user, ChrisO should know better. Frankly, I'm impressed with how Elonka has handled the situation, and feel this approach should be used with other contentious articles. No ArbCom action needed here. Kelly ^hi! 14:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Further comment on ban of User:Tundrabuggy

Based on the user's comments below, I guess I would ask why Tundrabuggy's sanction was so much more severe than ChrisO's, for what seems to be a much lighter offense. If anything, Tundrabuggy should have gotten more leniency than ChrisO, given that Tundrabuggy is relatively new and ChrisO is, and has been, well aware of editing practices here. Kelly ^hi! 02:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

This seems to be about the imposition of a fairly routine discretionary sanction as provided for by the remedies in the case in question. If someone thinks an administrator erred in imposing such a sanction, their first avenue of redress is surely to seek input from other administrators, say by raising the matter at WP:AN/I and establishing a consensus that the application of the sanction should be reversed. I don't think the Arbitration Committee's input is needed unless the community is unable to resolve the matter, or clarification of the remedy is needed. Neither appears to be the case here. The Committee will waste a lot of time if they're to agree to provide "first instance" review of every discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator. I think other avenues of redress should be explored first. WjBscribe 15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale

I think the problematic part is the fact that some people would read the original wording as only sanctioning AFTER warning, and not to start with blanket 0RR. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tundrabuggy

As a new user I started my account 28th May and the first article I edited was Muhammad al-Durrah. On June 2, the first external contribution to my talk page was the notification posted by ChrisO [48] without comment or discussion, and logged here: [49]. Until "tidied up" by Moreschi [50] later, the edit read: "notified of the case in relation to single-purpose account editing and promotion of personal views and original research"

Since then I've had a quick lesson in navigating, editing, rules and general "culture" of WP. I believed my half-dozen edits on the article were fair and neutral.

With the recent court decision, the release of the raw footage, and the latest articles, the equation has changed such that to continue to insist that that the opposing viewpoint is "fringe" or "conspiracy theory" becomes not only insulting, but rather a barrier to productive editing. Thus I tried to use neutral terms such as "was reported." This edit, however, became proof of being a 9/11-style thruthers [51], a sentiment endorsed by Moreschi, at the FTN with this highly POV edit [52]. The following day Moreschi goes to the Admin Noticeboard asking for an uninvolved admin to ban me and Julia1987. [53]

Later (ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008)labels other editors: Canadian Monkey, Gilabrand, & Leifern "... to put it bluntly the SPAs and conspiracy theory advocates are not listening and are attempting to edit-war their view into the article. There is some very blatant soapboxing..."

Elonka stepped in and volunteered to mediate. She was accepted by all including ChrisO. As part of her ongoing mediation, she lifted protection on the article in exchange for some simple edit restrictions.

On June 10th I made the first single-word edit on the newly unprotected article -- "reported" -- and was surprised by a 90 day edit-ban on both article and talk page by previously uninvolved admin MZMcBride[54] Elonka asks for reconsideration: [55] and suggesting the ban is excessive, explains her rationale: [56]

I didn't challenge my ban until discovering ChrisO had received a much lighter restriction despite numerous warnings. Indeed, one might suppose he could have been expected, as an administrator and experienced editor, to have required fewer warnings, to have been held to a higher standard than I.

MZMcBride said of my ban of three months: "There truly isn't any need for this level of discussion for something so minor." [57]

If three months is acceptable for one party in a mediated dispute, how is a week and one month from the article so egregious? I believe that ChrisO abused his administrative powers to shoe-horn his POV into this article, and is now trying to break an agreed-upon mediation. He should accept the mediator's decision(s) in good spirit, and abide by them. To me the terms seem generous, and I think he could use his time to consider his own behavior in regard to this article, rather than trying to find fault in the behavior of others. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the issue of what ChrisO refers to as "ongoing litigation" in his statement. There is currently no ongoing litigation. Until and unless France 2 takes this to the Supreme Court, the issue has been decided. On the point of BLP, the latest court decision says of the main figure in this controversy (Charles Enderlin) that in his position "he inevitably and knowingly exposes himself to more careful scrutiny," and that he "admitted that the film, ... perhaps did not correspond to his commentary" "and the statements procured by the cameraman ... cannot be found truly credible neither in their presentation nor in their substance..." and in regard to the wounds of the father: "the lack of probative value of the photographs of Jamal AL DURA’s wounds." Thus the court has made their statement [58]and to reiterate the substance of the investigations that the court decision used to determine its verdict would not seem to me to be in violation of WP:BLP. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Julia1987

Prior to the ban ChrisO violated 3RR but escaped a block for technical reasons (report filed too late). He intimidated other editors using his admin "rank". His contribution page (prior to the ban) almost all his 500 edits are in one article. (or this request for arbitration plus related talk page - arguing about the ban) [59] --Julia1987 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Messedrocker

I do not know the background, but let's assume for the sake for the argument that the editing sanctions were rightfully applied. If a removal is done per BLP, and it is recognized as such by the mediator and others, then it is a granted exception to the editorial ban. This has to be a very cut-and-dry case, though, where it is unambiguously in compliance with the ArbCom statement which goes along the lines of "BLP must be enforced at all costs". Otherwise, it is a breach of the ban and should be reverted.

I have no problem with banned ones requesting others to make edits, BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT the proxy editor must acknowledge that they have passed the request through their own judgment and they are willing to be responsible for their edits. That way, it is like proxy editing, but with the benefit of a human filter to prevent bad stuff from going through.

If the editing ban was wrongfully placed, then that's for the ArbCom to deal with.

MessedRocker (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott

I half expected to see this request when I commented on the issue a little bit ago. I'm not sure on the specifics, but I will say that a blanket no-revert rule on an article, applied to all editors, isn't wise. Sometimes someone will make an edit with no redeeming qualities at all, negatively effecting the article, but without it being vandalism (or a BLP issue). My suggestion to Elonka was to make this restriction more.. restricted. Apply it to certain editors, certain texts, or something that wouldn't debilitate one of our most basic cleanup functions.

This may or may not be an issue yet, and this may or may not apply to ChrisO, but that's my two cents. -- Ned Scott 08:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I find myself agreeing with a number of people here:
  • Firstly, I agree with WJBscribe's comment. The original decision included this remedy, on appeals of discretionary sanctions, providing that appeals could be made to the sanctioning administrator, the relevant admin noticeboard (presently arbitration enforcement) or to the Committee. While the remedy didn't spell it out explicitly, the usual understanding is that one would start with the individual administrator, and then proceed "up" the chain of review from there, with review by the Committee being the last step, if others have not produced a resolution.
  • Secondly, I agree with the substance of what Elonka has said. From what I have seen this does not appear to be a BLP situation, but one of simple edit-warring. Reverting simply so your preferred version can stand (here, with an edit summary of "please let this stand for more than half an hour, OK?") is textbook edit-warring. Policy and practice grant much leeway to people to deal with BLP problems, but they have to have a sound basis for exercising such leeway, and they have to communicate that they think there's a BLP issue when they take action so that other editors understand what they're doing.
  • Thirdly, I agree with Carcharoth's view. Speaking generally, in these types of situations, the appearance of non-involvement is often as important as actual non-involvement. Perhaps, in the light of the increased number of discretionary sanctions remedies the Committee has passed over the last year, it would be worth setting aside a page somewhere to discuss discretionary sanction "best practice": what has worked, what hasn't worked, and so forth.

--bainer (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are several matters in this clarification: compatibility of 0RR with the case sanction (was Elonka within her rights?) and balancing of that sanction with BLP (if imposed, would 0RR preclude BLP reversion?). A question also exists, per ChrisO's statement, whether the specific item in question is in fact a BLP violation. Quick answers (detail below):

1. Yes, 0RR is an appropriate choice available to an uninvolved administrator, within the sanctions provided. Elonka has correctly understood both the purpose of the discretion given, and the extent of the tools made available for that purpose, and has applied them following appropriate prior warnings, and with care.
2. BLP (if a genuine case) would have a very high priority indeed and would override xRR.

   There is a caveat (because BLP is sometimes pushed or gamed for POV removal purposes). The caveat is, a user who claims "BLP-vio!" to do this, takes the chance they could be deemed edit warring unless the case is obvious. "Exceptional claims" (which include the claim "we have to ignore sanctions and restrictions, delete this now, and discuss later") should be accompanied by a good description of the reason that anyone can follow, and by willingness to discuss collaboratively after removal. Where it may not be clear to others, a good talk page description should usually be provided and ideally posted within moments of the edit and noted in the edit summary, so that the two will be seen together by other editors, and so it doesn't get mistaken for edit warring.

3. The revert by ChrisO does include material that was a clear violation of BLP (negative and unsourced/poorly sourced content). It also included reverting a number of edits that by themselves were not BLP violating, but taken together had a very one-sided negative effect that possibly did meet BLP criteria. (See below: "detail".) I'm willing to accept ChrisO's statement that despite describing it as "POV", this was what made him revert (WP:AGF). A person reverting others' work should be very careful at the best of times not to do so unnecessarily nor to revert valid material (WP:REVERT). This goes double when 0RR is in operation and also when a prior history of warnings for editing conduct has taken place. ChrisO had previously been warned about editing conduct on the article. He then posted a revert of multiple edits to the introduction, with an edit summary "blatant POV-pushing". Some of the reverted material should have been reverted (but on well-explained grounds), some should have been discussed but not reverted -- and a good explanation at that exact time of revert above all should have been given. Especially given the circumstances, he should have made exceptional efforts to be clear. ChrisO did not communicate and the result was a foregone conclusion.
4. Last, as bainer says (citing WJBScribe), this should probably not be brought here first. This dispute is probably not an RFAR matter (at this time). But now it's here, so be it.

I hope Elonka and ChrisO will talk and sort matters out, having seen first-hand the consequences of this communication issue. It's easy to learn from and both are good editors capable of insight. I note the sanction Elonka chose is reasonable and not excessive, and that Elonka carefully distinguishes talk page and article in her judgement of the handling. Bans and the like are preventative, and ChrisO sounds like he may have done mostly the right thing this case, but with poor and misleading communication, even though in prior instances he was breaching good practice and needed warning. I urge both to re-affirm that they are working together, and to collaborate better, which would make the sanction perhaps less necessary to uphold. But the bottom line is, I feel it's best to leave the final decision in Elonka's hands to decide (she's admining on this dispute area, and is doing it well). My own feeling is that if appropriate and if she feels ChrisO may have now learned from this about the importance of good communication in sensitive, already-restricted areas, she might feel like giving a second chance.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

More detail.

More detail on the actual points raised: Compatibility of 0RR with the general sanction - The remedy is extremely broad (including "restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary...".) 0RR is a restriction that would apply only to existing or new editors on the article. The aim of an ultra-broad remedy is to get the article back on track however is necessary almost, and to deal with a range of behaviors that need strong action. If an uninvolved administrator feels 0RR/1RR may resolve problems (for example by compelling discussion of all points that become visibly disputed) then that may well be exactly whats needed. If not, we'll find out. Default = trust. If anyone feels that 0RR is a bad idea, it can be appealled (via Elonka as imposing administrator, WP:AE, or the Committee). But so far as I am aware, no claim is made that imposing 0RR per se is a bad admin judgement, or harms the article. Arbitration remedies like this get given only because nothing less seems powerful enough to work, and (provided it is fairly used) to support a strong hand which may actually be what is needed for admins to do their job managing conduct on an article, without being stonewalled. BLP vs. sanctions - A genuinely harmful BLP issue must take priority over most other editorial concerns. If there were a genuine issue with poorly sourced or unsourced material, and it was in a biographical article or shaded negatively towards a living person, I would expect it to be removed. Caveat - I would not expect it edit warred over or gamed. Was the reverted material (despite its revert as "POV") really a genuine BLP violation? - Unequivocably yes, but capable of correction. This is exactly the kind of thing BLP policy was set up to deal with quickly and override other concerns on. Let's look at the case. A living person, the joint subject of an article, has a part of the article saying that medically and factually, an Israeli doctor has examined his scars and they are not bullet scars as he claims ("scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes"). The article is citing this as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Its effect is to discredit the subject of the article. We need a high quality and reliable source to support a claim that roughly speaking this is either 1/ considered the case by the medical world ("they are axe scars"), or 2/ backed by reliable sources ("source X opined that they are axe scars"). We have neither. A google search shows nothing except blogs. There is apparently not one reliable source in Google News. The actual article statement is backed up by a source of no merit whatsoever (a video purporting to be an Israeli TV recording), but no evidence backing this exists in any reliable source I can find. We have no real evidence it was "channel 10" or any Israeli TV channel (much less a reputable one), what its provenance and reliability are. There is a channel ident on the video, but that doesnt matter - I (or any video editing hack) could fake that. A website saying "I am official" doesnt make it official. A video saying "I am channel 10" doesnt make it channel 10. We need a reliable source - ie, provenance - not just a source that claims to be reliable. The doctor and hospital are named, and a statement that "In an anonymous video, Doctor X of hospital Y stated that he identified them as surgical scars from an operation he had performed in 1994" would be better. The translation issue is not a problem (we can check it, like any other non-English source.) But note - we still have no reliable source that this is a doctor, or the doctor, or that there was a surgery case as described, or that the interview is of a reliable nature and not tampered, no confirmation that the claims in the video are endorsed by any reliable source, not one reliable independent source refers to any of this at all... all we have is one anonymous video of a person who says they were a doctor in the 1990s holding up an X ray and making a claim. On this basis the introduction states the subject has been in effect, proven untruthful. We need a higher quality source to support such a statement. That is precisely what BLP is for. Dead end. Other edits reverted were POV. Whether or not serious doubt exists (it may well), these edits placed this doubt in Wikipedia's voice, and implied a negative slant to the bio throughout much of its introduction. Likely ChrisO's version is better in that it cites facts and statements, more neutrally and with less opinioning. In general with one exception NPOV issues do not by themselves reach the standard needed for summary deletion/reversion per BLP, when 0RR is in operation. The exception is when the overall effect is BLP breaching. Here it may well have been, since the introduction had been generally negatively shaded in tone against the subject by these edits. To sum up, ChrisO has admitted that he was at fault for stepping over previous restrictions. But in removing this item, and persisting, he's on target and has got BLP right, and given it the priority it needs. I put the issue down to communication and forethought rather than anything else, with good points coming out of it to go forward. ChrisO especially could have notified it better, and explained it more on the talk page. It wasn't well explained and was in a contentious area. An exceptional issue may need exceptional communication. Editing a contentious area with poor communication following on from prior breach of restriction is a risky proposition. In their intentions and the aim of their actions, both were impeccable - Elonka managing the dispute, ChrisO spotting the genuine serious BLP issue and persisting with removing it. The communication and understanding failed. Above average care, and above average communication, are needed on more sensitive contended areas... a person who doesnt, will often have a problem as a result. ChrisO didn't communicate. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, especially FT2's expression of hope that Elonka & ChrisO can resolve; in light of this consensus in the those of the Committee who have posted, I think we should remove this request. James F. (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Ban violation

User talk:MeteorMaker has been banned from 'removing citations to reliable sources' in the Israel/Palestine topic area - and he subsequently violated that ban with this edit. NoCal100 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

should be called "Israel-Palestine" not "Palestine-Israel"

because almost no one calls it "Palestine-Israel," except the most leftist groups, even most of them call it "Israel-Palestine," tho "Israel-Palestinian" is optimal.Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Modification to notification template

I've modified a line in the notification template that said:

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here

which I've changed to:

This notification has been logged here.

I'm not sure why that language was in the template in the first place; the case remedies say merely that "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." They don't specify that only an admin can do this. That approach would, in any case, be inconsistent with current practice - the three general sanctions regimes currently in force (Climate change, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama) all permit anyone to notify anyone else, although of course only admins can impose sanctions. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I support this change. As noted, the language in the template was stricter than the ARBPIA decision itself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The WP:ARBPIA page was protected for a few months in 2008, and the wording dates from then. PhilKnight (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Am I right in presuming that the conditions which prompted that wording no longer apply? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the dispute was settled in 2008. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Given that, do you have any comments on the modification? From what you say I would guess it effectively takes the template back to the way it was when the ARBPIA remedies were first agreed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clearer, I support the change. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

AFTER you removed that language back in 2008, another admin restored it , stating it was standard practice for sanction regimes. It does not appear to be related to the edit war on the WP:ARBPIA page you describe. Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont support the change. One of two things should happen, either any user who makes any edit in the topic area is given the notice or uninvolved admins should give the notice as needed. In my opinion it is unhelpful to have an involved editor, likely an editor with whom the person being notified is engaged in a dispute with, give these "notices". nableezy - 22:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. I don't think this would be helpful, it would increase the drama, and would be likely to result in further edit-warring and reprisals. RolandR (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy & RonaldR. Looking at the way ChrisO has been using these notices to selectively warn those opposed to his viewpoint, it is obvious how this will turn into another weapon in the I/P arena. Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom warnings should be handed out by uninvolved admins only, precisely to avoid situations where non-admins are using warnings to intimidate opponents in a dispute. And even in the case of an admin giving a warning, it should still be an uninvolved admin. If someone's involved in a dispute, be they admin or non-admin, they should not be handing out formal (logged) warnings. --Elonka 03:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the notice should be issued by someone uninvolved. Where we differ is that I'm ok with an uninvolved editor giving the warning. PhilKnight (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with an editor (involved or uninvolved) reminding someone about the possibility of ArbCom sanctions. Informal warnings are fine, and quite common. When it comes to making a formal warning though, which is made with the the {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} template, and logged to a case page, it should be done by an admin, because:

• To many editors, seeing their name in a formal "notifications" list, has a similar weight to an actual sanction, which is why an administrator should do it.
• Keeping the option admin-only provides an additional tool for administrators who are managing a dispute. In many cases, I've helped stabilize a dispute by advising editors that if they continued with disruptive behavior, they might receiving a formal warning. This alone was often enough to get them to change their behavior. If we allow any user to issue the warning, it removes that tool from the administrator's toolbox.
• Consistency. The ARBPIA case is an old one, so the wording wasn't entirely standardized yet, but in most cases of this type since then, it's routine that formal notifications are to be made only by administrators.

I'm pretty sure there was also an ANI thread about this at some point, though I don't remember the exact title at the moment. It would probably make sense to find it and get it diffed to the template somewhere though. --Elonka 14:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy that involved editors have absolutely no right to deliver this notification. I'm not sure about the proposal for an automatic message to anyone who edits an article, because it might scare away editors who are new to the area. I also completely agree with Elonka that this cannot be used as a tool to intimidate other editors, something that was done yesterday. That is completely unacceptable, and contrary to the spirit of ARBPIA in general. The requirement for an uninvolved admin to delivery the notification solves this problem. The fact that not only non-admins, but editors involved in extreme edit wars and even former admins who have lost their title, are giving out this template to people who they disagree with, is highly highly troubling. Equally troubling is the fact that non-admins are pretending to be admins by taking admin actions such as unilaterally editing the ARBPIA template and logging notifications to the list. To top it all off, current admins who are friends with these editors are protecting them and blocking other users who notice the abuse and point it out. Does anyone see the problem in this picture? Breein1007 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the template to the "administrator" wording, as there does not appear to be consensus here for a change. If there is strong feeling that the template should be changed, I would recommend seeking wider input, such as to start a thread at WP:AE or WP:AN to get more opinions. --Elonka 04:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Since that wording has no basis in the Arbitration Committee's ruling, I can't see that it has any effect. Editors can't alter arbitration remedies by fiat. If you want to change the template I suggest that you get the consent of the Arbitration Committee. I've seen no evidence that you have it, either now or back in 2008 when you originally changed the template. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And even with this discussion ongoing, the template is still being used by editors in dispute as a form of intimidation. I am going to be bringing this to a noticeboard soon, because enough is enough. Breein1007 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I, as usual, agree with Nableezy. The use of the template by an heavily involved de-sysoped non-admin might be one arrow in a quiver of hostile acts employed by the non-admin to raise the level of hostility. Curiously, I recently disagreed with ChrisO (the nom here) in a talk page discussion. I have no recollection of dealing with him before, in my 40,000+ edits. Yet he in short order both: a) (coincidentally) appeared at the most recent AfD at which I had just !voted, !voting against me; and b) tagged my page with the above tag. It seems IMHO the nom is just the sort of non-admin that the rule is properly meant to protect against. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • After investigation, I cannot see sufficient reason for an official warning towards Epeefleche, especially as it was logged by an editor, ChrisO (talk · contribs) who is actively involved in the dispute, and who has a long history of disruption in this topic area (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 for further details). I have removed the warning.[60] To be clear: Editors who are involved in a dispute are welcome to remind other editors about the possibility of arbitration sanctions. But when it comes to making actual logged entries to the arbitration case page, please leave that to uninvolved administrators, thanks. --Elonka 20:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I logged Epeefleche solely as a means of notifying him about the restrictions in this topic area. Elonka is, not for the first time, assuming bad faith. I have asked her to recuse herself from this issue given that she is too involved to act, or to be seen to act, neutrally. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I started off by assuming good faith, despite the fact that Chris's notice to me had followed my disagreeing with him (and despite the fact that I couldn't figure out what I had done, other than disagree with him, to trigger his leaving the template message for me). And despite the fact that he left me a note with profanity in it (which he kindly subsequently excised). I thought Chris might just be a friendly gnomish fellow, out to help those editors w/42,000 edits under their belt to know what the rules are. Unfortunately, I then found it peculiar that Chris also followed his disagreement with me in short order by (coincidentally) appearing at the most recent AfD at which I had just !voted, and !voted against me (while personally attacking my particular !vote at the AfD). That was especially peculiar, given that I can't recall us ever being at an AfD together before. The combination (disagreement, profanity, template warning, !AfD attack) served to move him in my book into the "quacks like a duck" category. AgF is a rebutable presumption. Editors such as Chris can refute the presumption by their actions. Now that I see Chris has also been cited four times by the arbitrators for disruptive editing, and de-sysoped as a result, I get the full picture. It would be nice if this particular arrow were taken out of Chris's harassment quiver.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As only uninvolved admins may act on discretionary sanctions after warning, it follows that they should be the one giving such warnings. The template is for convenience and should not be used as a bludgeon against editors whom someone is in conflict with. Shell ^babelfish 23:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of ArbCom Enforcement in regard to the Israel-Palestine articles

There' a discussion regarding ArbCom Enforcement in regard to the Israel-Palestine articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. The discussion is considering a number of options concerning how to deal with the apparent deterioration of editing of this topic. PhilKnight (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Palestine-Israel articles

Initiated by Cptnono (talk) at 08:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cptnono

1/rr was just rolled out across the topic. It has already proven to not mean much but the main reason I am bringing this up here is because editors do not know where to take requests for enforcement. There will be violations even though we all wish they didn't come up. Does it come to AE or the edit warring noticeboard?

Statement by George

I think that edit warring noticeboard is more adept at handling simpler, first-time infractions of the 1RR sanction, while more problematic, long term, serial sanction violators should be referred to AE. Just my two cents. ← George ^talk 08:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I have 3 cents and it says that AE is superior since it is focused on topic areas of heightened conflicts and should receive faster and stronger results :) I can see problems with both since the edit warring noticeboard is more likely to be ignored but AE is more drama. Edit warring board might also have admins fresh to the topic area (which could be a good thing) but they are less informed on problem editors (although AE has not taken care of problem editors). I don't think it matters too much but it needs to be efficient so whatever makes most sense for the guys looking at the issue is a good thing.Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have a problem if other editors want to go to AE first, but I think we should be free to go to either (though not both for the same incident, which would be forum shopping). AE is about as focused as a wrecking ball operated by a drunk... it may swing this way today and knock everyone out, or it might miss the building entirely. Keeps life exciting, at least. :) ← George ^talk 08:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not using a wrecking ball today!Cptnono (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Requests to enforce the 1RR itself can be taken to AN3. If you ask for action to be taken under the discretionary sanctions provision (i.e., beyond a simple 1RR block), take it to AE. T. Canens (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, TC. That is one admin. We don't need a dozen or anything but if we have a few say how they prefer it then others can take it from there. It isn't like we need a set rule or anything but being able to say a simple "hey it would be best if you went that direction" might be nice.10:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

• If you take a look at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142 you will see some cases of Arbcom sanctions being handled at AN3, in a workmanlike fashion. Violations of 1RR are well within the abilities of AN3. Here are three examples:

Some 3RR cases from October 2010 involving Arbcom sanctions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142#User:Sulmues reported by User:Athenean (Result: 2 weeks/1RR 6 months) 16 October, 2010 User was cited for long-term edit warring on articles subject to WP:ARBMAC2. Blocked two weeks, put under 1RR per the discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142#User:Hammer of Habsburg reported by User:Taivo (Result:48 hours ) User:Hammer of Habsburg reported by User:Taivo (Result:48 hours ) 19 October 2010 Violation of a 1RR restriction imposed under WP:ARBMAC Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142#User:Prunesqualer reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: No violation) 20 October 2010 Claimed violation of a 1RR restriction imposed under WP:ARBPIA. The admin did not judge that it was a violation of 1RR; closed as No Violation. (Eventuallly he got blocked anyway for 24 hours, not sure where it was discussed).

-- EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I think the views above are reasonable; I have no objection to simple xRR enforcement being handled at AN/3RR if the enforcing administrators find that to be a more suitable venue. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Recused on this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• The comments pretty much have it here - simple revert warring enforcement can be handled at 3RR but anything complex should be handled at AE. Shell ^babelfish 04:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Generally agree with my colleagues.. my first thought is that AE should be the first place of business, but anywhere that gets a cross-section of aministrator attention is fine by me. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• I also agree that AN/3RR is an appropriate venue for simple edit-warring. They're geared up to handling this kind of thing swiftly and effectively. More complex stuff should go to AE.  Roger ^talk 11:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My opinion on the decision

I feel that the decision made will benefit Wikpedians evertywhere.

GrammarSpellingWatch (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong secton

Resolved

 – by this edit AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This was added to the 2010 section:[61] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User:Prunesqualer's topic ban

Initiated by Cptnono (talk) at 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

• Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Prunesqualer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guinsberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Cptnono

Prunesqualer is indeffed from the topic area.[62] Another user and I have a disagreement at Racism in Israel. I "warned" him (he had been warned about his conduct before) on his talk page. In hindsite, I should have been nicer and made it sound less scary. But the point of this request for clarification is that Prunesqualler decided to chime in.[63] Is he allowed to comment in a discussion about the I-P/I-A topic area?

Also, I would be worried about the potential hounding of him following my "career with interest" but he is not prohibited from checking me out. I believe he he is prohibited from joining in discussion, though. If an admin would clarify that an indef does not need to be forever it would be helpful too. If Prunesqualer would stop going out of his way to make attacks and proved his editing could be a benefit to the project then he could request to come back.

On a side note, Guinsberg and I have not gotten off on the right foot. I am tempted to request counseling in a separate request but would like to stop rocking the boat now. It would be appreciated if an admin could formally notify him of the arbitration case and give him advise in a friendlier fashion than I am capable of. Edits of concern include this pointy bombardment of the article with fact templates when there are sources provided for some of the lines.[64]Cptnono (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC) (this has now been done by an admin, although it has not been logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of notifications

Note that this request for clarification is on if the talk page comment is under the scope of the topic ban. If Prunesqualer wants to open a case against me they will have to get unbanned and make it at AE. Also note that those quotes were already handled at AE so they are now stale. If Prunesqualer wants to get unbanned the appropriate venue is not here but through the normal appeals process.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking for "action". I am asking for clarification. Can Prunesqualer contribute to a discussion that is about the conflict area or not?Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the reason I ask is because the policy WP:BAN is clear that the edit can be reverted. I also want to make sure that Prunesqualer does not continue to chime in on such discussion until an appeal is accepted. It is not much to ask and it is backed by policy. Unfortunately, both editors have refused to follow policy and allow the edit to be removed (I actually struck it out instead of reverting to be a little more open)Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Prunesqualer continues to violate his topic ban. No other editor has been allowed to edit in a discussion based on the conflict area they were banned from. This request was a formality. Can an admin advise Prunsesqualer to stop commenting on discussions that originated in the topic area. He is not commenting based on anything else. It is only the I-P/I-A topic areas that we have been involved in and he even mentions them in his initial comment. Can an admin take care of this or do I need to jump through more hoops? If he gets blocked then he cannot edit anywhere so that is my next option.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is still unresolved. Although I am happy to see this dropped sooner than later, some clarification is still needed.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop dodging th quesiton admins. Xeno: Can he edit or not? I am not going to open an AE just to see it devovle into garbage. I want something clarified and that is the point of this board. Either you can do it or you should not comment here ever again since you have proven that you are not interested. Can he edit or not in a discussion about a topic area. Yes or no. I ti s an easy question. I get the reluctance but go ahead and answer.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Prunesqualer

I realise that the following is almost certainly not being presented in the correct form, or forum. However I can only hope that interested parties will sympathise with the following: I am doing little harm here, and that: one should not have to be a Wiki-Lawyer in order to contribute to Wiki.

I believe my contributions, before my indefinite topic ban, were "a benefit to the project".

Re. my ban (to which Cptnono has linked/referred) I can now see that I committed naive breaches of Wiki editing rules. In the case of my first ban I didn’t even know what 3RR meant (I realise ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence, I'm just pointing out where I stood as an inexperienced editor). I noted during my resulting 21 October 2010, 24 hour, editing "block" that Wiki software made it impossible to edit. I made the following wrong assumption: that when I was allowed by the software to edit the Gaza war article before my longer ban on that page had run it's time I must have been forgiven or had slipped through the net (accepting the second possibility was not a noble thing to consider acting on, I admit) . This excuse may seem a little lame but I would add that if you follow the "Gaza War" discussion page at that time, you will find a fair bit of acceptance for the edits I proposed, even from previous opponents (this added to the "green light" feeling I had about making the edits). I realise now that that is not how Wiki works. For these relatively harmless mistakes I received an indefinite ban on editing IP/IA articles.

By contrast here are some Cptnono Wiki quotes:

"Call it Palestinians getting screwed with giant dildos as far as I am concerned"

"If you fuck with the mainspace I am going to fuck with you"

"How many separate articles do we need on the Palestinians being sad?"

"So you have enough time to write an AE but it took you this long to comment? Prick."

Action taken for the previous comments "blocked 3 hours for incivility"

Frankly, I admit, that since these events my attitudes and actions have reflected more than a touch of bitterness towards Cptnono. I believe Cptnono is more biased in IP/AP outlook than I am. I see no good reason beyond his (admittedly) superior Wiki-lawyering skills, as to why- he should be allowed to edit on IP/AP articles, and not I. PS I would be very happy to discuss the issue of subjectivity, which is so central to these matters (and all human affairs), with any interested party.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer (talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Shucks another of my fiendish schemes, to undermine Wikipedia, and to subvert truth, has been thwarted. It's fortunate, for you pesky good guys, that the Guardians of integrity (Wiki admin) are so clear sighted and unbiased. I will now retire to my up-lit livid green laboratory, and munch on some babies, whilst Cptnono shines a beacon of truth for the free world. Prunesqualer (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Guinsberg

I'm not a great connaisseur of wikipedia's protocol. Even though I am aware that user Prunesqualer has been banned from contributing to Israeli/Palestinian articles, I can't understand the basis for Cptnono's complaint against him. User P. was not contributing to an Israeli/Palestinian article: he was using my Talk Page to warn me about the rather sly argument style Cptnono adopts on discussions about that topic - that is, user Prunesqualer wasn't even actually discussing Israeli/Palestinian politics, the only subject he has been forbidden to contribute to on Wikipedia. From what I can see in Cptnono's conduct, he has a very provocative communication style. He frequently accuses me of being disruptive and threatens to file a complaint against me for doing exactly what he's done before - even on instances where he recognizes I was right in acting in such a way. That he decided to pick on user Prunesqualer even though it is very hard to see what he has done wrong in communicating with me, only goes to confirm the pattern argumentative behavior. Plus, what he says about me - that I have been warned by an adm on my editions - is not true. Guinsberg (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Prunesqualer has just one edit in the entire past month, and I do not feel impelled to take any action on this request. If Prunesqualer wishes to seek a lifting or modification of his topic-ban in the future, the appropriate venue in the first instance would be a request either to the administrator who imposed the topic-ban or to the AE board. Any such request would benefit from evidence of appropriate, collegial editing in other topic areas. I can't evaluate the quotes for Cptnono without diffs or links, but needless to say, if they are authentic, then this type of approach would best be avoided, no matter how stressful the editing environment in this topic-area may ofttimes be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Prunesqualer, stay off Cptnono's talkpage. Of all the places you could post on the entire wiki, that is one of the least appropriate. Cptnono, you still haven't answered whether the quotations attributed above to you are accurate. If they are, clean up your act. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed with Brad. I don't see any reason to take action here. SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• "This request was a formality" → If you feel that the user has violated restrictions and arbitration enforcement is required, you should file at WP:AE, not at clarification. –xeno^talk 15:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  The topic ban is "over the entire area of conflict" [65]. Yes: the edit [66], being made in direct relation to the area of conflict, violated the restriction. –xeno^talk 12:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Concur, nothing for us to do here. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with my fellow arbitrators - there isn't anything for us to do here. If there are further infractions of the topic ban, they should be handled at WP:AE. Similarly, an appeal of this ban should be heard at WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Request: Amnesty in Middle East editing area

Initiated by Ravpapa (talk) at 04:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Cases affected

• Gilabrand
• Nishidani
• Possibly others

Statement by Ravpapa

This rather unusual case is a proposal for a general amnesty of Wikipedia users who have been blocked or topic banned from articles dealing with the Israel-Arab dispute. The proposal is the result of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Taking stock and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Amnesty for topic banned and blocked users. It is our belief that an amnesty could alleviate tensions in the project, improve the editing environment and improve the quality of the articles.

In those discussions, editors looked at some of the measures implemented to improve the quality of editing on the project. On the one hand, we felt that centralized discussions had helped to resolve numerous editing conflicts over general issues (such as the way to treat settlements in articles) and that the 1RR restriction had added to the stability of articles and succeeded in moving disputes from the article to the talk page.

On the other hand, we felt that vigorous enforcement by Arbcom has done little to reduce the level of conflict on disputed articles. We feel that an amnesty of banned or blocked users would not increase conflict, and, on the contrary, would improve the overall atmosphere and restore a number of productive editors to the project.

We suggest that the conditions for amnesty should be:

• the candidates have made substantive contributions to articles (and not just talk page contributions).
• They are not single purpose editors, but have contributed in a number of topic areas.

In our discussion, two editors came immediately to mind: User:Gilabrand and User:Nishidani. I am certain that there are other editors that also meet these criteria.

This amnesty proposal is supported by editors from both sides of the conflict. It should be clear that granting amnesty does not suggest that administrators condone the acts for which the editors were blocked, but only that they believe that these editors' commitment to improving the Wikipedia will override any recidivist tendencies they may have.

In addition to myself, User:Nableezy and User:CarolMooreDC support this proposal.

Statement by Nableezy

Unsubstantiated accusations about ignoring topic bans or "problematic behavior" aside, the topic area needs knowledgeable editors. Both Gila and Nishidani have a lot to offer, more than most. Gila's only real problem here has been ignoring a topic ban/block. If she were to commit to not doing so in the future I see no reason why she should stay blocked. As for Nishidani, there are very few editors here that have the patience or skills to do such in-depth research using the best sources. The topic area has not improved as a result of the WB/JS case, and I honestly cannot tell why after 2 parties of that case were discovered to be socks ArbCom has not simply vacated the case. As it stands right now, the only editors that are not editing in the topic area as a result of the case are Nishidani, G-Dett, MeteroMaker and Pedrito. Jay had his ban rescinded following an appeal, which is great, but NoCal/Canadian Monkey have never left us (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NoCal100). So the net result of that case is that one of the more prolific sockpupeteers on WP was able to instigate edit-wars with several users, using several user names, and succeed in the aim of having them topic-banned. Should the editors not have reverted as much? Sure. But you cannot look at what happened without keeping the fact of Isarig's multiple personalities wreaking havoc across the topic area coloring your view.

This is not a "general amnesty", there are two users listed for consideration. Ravpapa, with good intentions no doubt, may have made this a bit more complicated by suggesting conditions that would apply to others. Id prefer to talk about just those two users as those are ones that a. show an interest in improving the articles, and b. know what they are talking about.

If you wish to increase the quality of the articles in the topic area there is no reason to not lift these users sanctions.

Statement by JoshuaZ

As proposed this seems like a bad idea. Each editor is a unique case. Some have been better than others about keeping in line with the sanctions than others. Some have been more productive in other areas than others. And there may be other considerations. I would rather have each editor considered individually with each editor in question making a case for the removal of their sanctions. Since there are now only five editors who are relevant this should not be that much more work. But a blanket pardon in this context seems like a recipe for disaster and is also unfair to the editors who have toed the lines and worked hard to rehabilitate themselves. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved Rocksanddirt

Amnesty no. individual topic ban reviews yes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Amendment 2

The topic ban on Nishidani is rescinded. The indefinite block of Gilabrand is lifted, subject to her agreeing to use one account and not editing as an IP.

Statement by Nableezy (2)

I doubt a general amnesty will go through, but I think ArbCom should consider these two specific cases. Gilabrand has, for many years now, made important contributions to a wide range of articles, both within the topic area and outside of it. Her refusal to abide by her topic ban was frustrating, and the disingenuous nature of her response to being caught pretty much red-handed socking did her no favors, but her block does nothing but punish Wikipedia. Nishidani is, in my opinion of course, one of the most thoughtful and well read editors that was willing to spend any time at all in this time suck we call the ARBPIA topic area. Both of those editors have much to offer, and Wikipedia loses by restricting their accounts. We need editors like these. The bans have not done anything to make the topic area better in any way. Instead, the same fights with lower quality arguments are being played out over and over. This is repeated from above, but if you wish to increase the quality of the articles in the topic area there is no reason to not lift these sanctions. By keeping them in place you damage Wikipedia. By that I mean the articles, not some imaginary harmony among users, you know, what is supposed to count here.

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement from Cptnono

Nishidani has ignored his topic ban multiple times. The topic area is cooling down a bit. The last thing we need is another editor who repeatedly asserts a battlefield mentality. He has not shown any remorse for his actions and letting him off the hook simply because the ban was some time ago is silly. If anything he has only served a couple months if you count the most recent breech. Will only serve to add fuel to the fire. When the editor actually fesses up to what he did wrong then it should be entertained until then we are simply cycling in another problematic editor to fill the shoes of another banned one.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement from Michael C. Price

I find it alarming that Nishidani is specifically named ready for the amnesty. I second all the points that Cptnono makes, and add that Nishidani's problematic behaviour (which almost defies description, it is so egregious) extends to many other areas of the project. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Since evidence has been asked for, here's a sample:

• [[67]] “I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”
• [[68] – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."
• [[69]] "There's edit-warring and edit-whoring, and you practice both."

Has he really reformed?-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael, if you were replying to my comment, what I actually asked for substantiation for was the assertion that Nishidani breached his sanction on multiple occasions. The block logs indicate that that can be nothing but a personal opinion and, as a personal opinion, of no worth or significance.     ←   ZScarpia   23:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for it. And it wasn't my opinion. It was the administrators'. But it was way more than a couple months now that I look at it again so that was my bad (I guess time flies). Unfortunately, in those 10 months there were problems in other topic areas (I don;t know the details) and now he has retired. So why are we having this conversation if he doesn't wish to volunteer here? Very little activity on the account since this.Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you substantiate your allegation: yes or no?     ←   ZScarpia   17:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See the edit-summary of why here. My retirement has nothing to do with my wishes, but a perception that editors with a real commitment to the encyclopedia are being systematically picked off, and that further work outside the area of my permaban (which I have quietly followed for 2 years), were this state of affairs to persist, was inappropriate.

Work here is voluntary. One reads extensively, and takes time to transfer one's acquired knowledge to topics for the benefit of a global readership. This means that if, while working on any article you come across information that makes the side you are identified as favouring look bad, this, for example, you don't hesitate an instant to include it, but put it in, because it is relevant and strongly attested in RS. You do not calculate the advantages of withholding it, or smile as you quietly ignore the unpalatable fact. It means that if you see news describing some desperate injustice visited on a people for whose historical condition you have some sympathy, you don't just rush to plunk it in to make the other side look bad. You examine the whole history and background, and, if you find out far more information concerning the glories of its Jewish past in RS than you find about the woes of its native peoples, as I did at Susya, you write up that research comprehensively, and add it, even if in doing so you, as an editor, know that the article will risk looking like a cultural justification for the side opposed to the local people whose plight worries you.

That incident played a key role in my permaban, one admin told me. I had written the history of the synagogue, and silence prevailed. I then added a few sad notes on the history of eviction and expropriation, and all sorts of objections flew my way, esp. from a notorious sock-team. Admins do not evaluate the overall picture; they have no hands-on intuitions about socking games yet to be uncovered; they examine the only behavioural evidence that counts, whether an editor is complying or not with that terse, rule-focused urbanity all are asked to acculturate themselves to ideally. The system is the way wiki works, and has its logic and advantages, though its underside is that it tutors the malicious to be twee as they pettifog, and run around with a smiley syntax, while wreaking havoc on RS by endlessly polite equivocation.

In a stray remark, I failed the test, and I cannot complain that I was asked to pay the penalty for that lapse. They were perfectly right technically. I would be insincere were I to hide the feeling that contextually, to deny a builder permission to finish the roof, after he has erected singlehandedly a substantial piece of form-work and bricked it in, on the grounds that he kicked some dust off the scaffolding that got into the eyes of a few bystanders who strongly objected to the makeshift loo in the backyard, was to ignore the big picture. It is certainly true that, given the intensive boredom editing difficult articles (I like difficult stuff) demands of editors, that one occasionally lapses into smart cracks to relieve one's exasperation. Of several hundred pages of extensive explanations I have had to write over 5 years to justify edits that seem obvious before fellow-editors who cannot see it, several lines are flagrantly flippant or acerbically venomous. If the patience of Job or sainthood is required under the Nacht and Nebel of obfuscation, I'm not your man for all wiki seasons. But I can trudge through the bleakest of wintry landscapes, and plant a fruitful crop once the sun shines.

To return to the point of my retirement. It struck me that, under present circumstances, I was being asked, as a donor with a comfortable income of knowledge, to contribute my tithe exclusively to wealthy causes (untroubled articles) while abstaining from donations of intellectual capital to the poor (i.e., articles in an area that is widely thought of by authoritative admins even as a 'time-suck', a 'crapfest', i.e., wikipedia's I/P ghetto where Dante's: lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate evinces the abiding truth). Superlatively good editors there, rigorous, precise, if they are on the wrong side can get subjected to a minuteness of surveillance and pettifogging complaint of an order few would put up with. I think this true of recent circumstances regarding one of the proposers. I retired because I think the 'behavioural' criteria used to evaluate people here is unfocused, or rather, it all boils down, 'faute de mieux, to scrutinizing p's and q's, and evaluating endless whingeing over technical cavils, while the essential behavioural evidence about an editor, his or her track record of dedication to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, article building and above all, respect for whatever quality sources say irrespective of what POV they appear to support, is ignored.

I only noticed that this was being discussed two days ago. I haven't commented till now because I thought anything I might say will only be jumped on as infringing my permaban. Perhaps it does. Still, since I have been described as consistently evincing behaviour so egregiously outrageous as to defy description, I really can't let that pass. l'd like to express here my appreciation of the expression of confidence in my bona fides by the two proposers, with whom, for the record, I have not discussed the present suggestion. I won't certainly be around for the summer, since work offline engages me. I don't think I should venture to say more than what I have said above. I am constitutionally incapable of trying to claw back a right I have lost by pleading at the bar. I leave it to others to review or reject the proposal. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This does sound compelling. But I disagree that you were asked, as a donor with a comfortable income of knowledge, to contribute my tithe exclusively to wealthy causes (untroubled articles). No there are a huge number of equally contentious topic areas outside of I/A, from Kosovo to Climate Change, from Mass Killings by Communist Regimes to Evolution. Try Cold Fusion. Also, I have no interest in exploring your history, but it is not easy to earn a permaban by a slip of the tongue. But I AGF and would support your unban. I think your statement satisfies my criterion below. But it seems arbs are not enthusiastic, to put it mildly. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite acute in picking a hole in the analogy, Boris! Still the metaphor translates the following section of the relevant decision.

'The Committee will . . look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews.'

The Arbcom decision asked that those who wished to be pardoned participate in producing featured content articles. It is not particularly difficult to do this actually, if you choose to write up articles on topics that are devoid of controversy. But (a) it is almost impossible to fulfil that remit if you go to 'equally contentious topic areas'. Those areas you name are strewn with the corpses of defunct editors, some quite brilliant. I don't go to articles because they are contentious. YHWH forbid. (b) I go to articles about which, outside of my professional interests, I have some reasonable knowledge, and where I can be assured that I won't step on the minefield of my own prejudices or ignorance. Your premise assumes I like contention. I hate it. I must admit I have not fulfilled that remit, however. My participation in the Shakespeare Authorship Question, which passed FA, and the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates page, which got a DYK, had nothing to do with purposive work to redeem my fallen fortunes. I stumbled on them, and on several articles (Franz Baermann Steiner etc.,) I wrote up, with a little help from friends, by chance. Here and, in life, if people have a poor opinion of me, I just can't work myself up to try and persuade them differently. They're entitled to that view, their view may indeed be grounded in evidence they think decisive and incontrovertible by their lights, and were I to be upset, and struggle to improve my 'public' image, I'd only feel that I must, unconsciously, be suffering from a guilt complex, or be motivated by some obscure narcissistic wish to win the esteem of my fellows. Thanks anyway for the AGF. Best Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders, I stand by my description of Nishidani's behaviour. And as usual he protests his innocence. As Boris says, "it is not easy to earn a permaban by a slip of the tongue". Indeed. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

Cptnono and Michael C. Price have stated that Nishidani has ignored his topic ban multiple times. Given Nishidani's block log and the ARBPIA log of blocks and bans, I doubt that they can substantiate their claim. Given the ARBPIA log of blocks and bans and Cptnono's own block log, perhaps Cptnono in particular should be being a little less condemnatory.     ←   ZScarpia   16:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Thryduulf

I don't work in this area, and don't recall interacting with any of the named users, but the thought of a general amnesty scares me. The ending of topic bans and other restrictions should be considered on an individual basis taking into account the reasons it was imposed, when it was imposed, what they have been doing since the imposition, etc.

I equally don't think that a meta request like this is the right way to go about examining the merits of removing restrictions on specific editors in several different cases. It is of necessity either going to be an unwieldy list of sections containing comments for and against ending restrictions on several users; or it's going to be a complete mess with little structure making it very difficult to determine which comments are about which people. Chances are there will be few commenters who hold the same opinion about everyone discussed, and it would not surprise me if one or more arbitrators felt the need to recuse with regards to one or more of the people being discussed, but I would be quite surprised if any felt the need to recuse for all cases under discussion.

In short, I just can't see this working. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"General amnesty" is, I agree, not the right term. The idea is that only editors who meet the two criteria above - (1) have made substantive contributions and not just argued, and (2) have edited in a variety of topic areas - would be eligible for the amnesty. The criteria must be clear and objective, otherwise, as you say, we may find an Australian prison ship on our shores.

As I mentioned above, fears that the return of these editors could heat up the topic area are not shared by the editors who participated in the discussion. Our feeling is, on the contrary, bans and blocks have not contributed to improving the editing environment. This step, an act of trust and good faith, could, on the contrary, make things better rather than worse.

Also, this is not an irreversible act. If these guys act up again, they're out. So the risk is negligible. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG

I like the spirit of this proposal but I think the two conditions are not enough. Additional conditions are needed, in particular admission/remorse concerning past transgressions for which they were sanctioned. If an editor thinks he/she has done nothing wrong, then it is obvious they will do so again (they have done nothing wrong!). Basically if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have a regular appeal, not amnesty.

Statement by CarolMooredc

I have been generally suspicious of some of these bans, though reading the above does make the reasoning more clear. I basically agree with BorisG. The one time I got blocked after getting angry at harassment and attacking another editor, I felt very righteous and it took some real prodding to make me see for myself that the specific attack I made was just a variation on the ones that others have used against me. So when I understood that, I did feel remorse and learned better not to make that mistake again. So if a person keeps making the same mistake, they haven't "gotten it" yet. Maybe they just have to keep communicating with a sympathetic editor who can explain it again and again til they get it and then can have block/ban lifted. Also, if they keep slipping, they can always be reblocked as a "time out" for a week or two until they realize they went too far. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ynhockey

I am strongly against the proposal in its current form. The I–P area has the same problems today as it ever had, but each time one of the problematic editors is banned, the area becomes much nicer to edit, and gives good editors more time to concentrate on contributing content, instead of arguing. I think we should be lenient with editors who actually contribute to the encyclopedia, even if they make serious mistakes, but most of the editors permanently banned in I–P were banned after not one but a large number of serious mistakes. Most of them (except one editor whose ban was already lifted) have not shown that they can contribute constructively to the encyclopedia post-ban. Making small contributions here and there as some have is just not enough to justify bringing back more major problems to I–P. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another statement by Ravpapa

Okay, you have convinced me. I agree with Nableezy: let's limit this to Gilabrand and Nishidani. Do I need to open two new motions for this, or can we continue to discuss them together here? Because, in my mind, they are related - both outstanding editors, on opposite sides of the dispute, and their return is supported by editors from both sides. It would only do the project good. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen

I would support the lifting of the restriction on Nishidani. His three edits that have been picked out above are all over a year old. Nishidani has made thousands of edits in the interim. So, if he has a continuing pattern of problematic behaviour, it should be possible to find more recent issues. Also the three edits were brought to Arbcom's attention during the SAQ case in which Arbcom chose to act against the fringe theorists with whom Nishidani was in disagreement and not against Nishidani.

I don't know the context of the issues with Gila. My presence on Wikipedia dropped in the latter part of last year and has only picked up somewhat recently and I think I must have missed the drama around this. I know she was on the "other side" of the I/P business from me but she had not stuck in my mind as someone particularly problematic. I notice she has been indef blocked only recently for socking. If the problematic behaviour has been through the socks, I don't see what Wikipedia gains through the blocking of the main account. She is fairly prolific and if she has not recently been problematic with the main account then this seems to be a use of blocking as punishment rather than as a means of protecting Wikipedia. Maybe someone who has looked at things more recently could explain the logic of the block.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• First thought is that a general amnesty is not workable, that there's "too many and too much" to consider. SirFozzie (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with SirFozzie - I'd prefer to consider each case on its merits. Suggest putting in separate requests for the editors and include links to collaborative editing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• The two "sides" aren't the only victims of the acrimony in this area; the ability of casual editors to visit these topics has been damaged by the polarization here, and I'd need to see a widespread groundswell of support from uninvolved administrators who've had to deal with these conflicts to even consider such a motion. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm with Jclemens on this one - while it has been stressful for those involved, it's also had a significant impact on this topic as a whole. I would prefer to consider each case on it's own merits. Shell ^babelfish 01:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Concur pretty much with Jclemens. Risker (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Gilabrand

Permanent Link: [70]

Motion

The arbitration enforcement block placed on Gilabrand (talk · contribs) related to the Palestine-Israel articles case is provisionally suspended as of 25 August or the passage of this motion, whichever is the latter. Gilabrand is reminded that articles in the area of conflict remain the subject of discretionary sanctions, and are currently subject to a 1RR restriction. Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly.

For this motion, there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 is a majority.

Support

1. (happy with 1RR addition above) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
3. Although significant concerns linger regarding Gilabrand's compliance with discretionary sanctions, I am willing to cautiously support in light of the supportive submissions made to this amendment request. –xeno^talk 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
4. I've copyedited the motion to include a mention of the 1RR restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
6. Support, with the 1RR. — Coren ^(talk) 14:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
7. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Proposal to amend sanctions

A motion has been proposed that would amend a sanctions remedy in this case. It would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. NW (Talk) 20:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification requested on ARBPIA 1RR restriction

The restriction is worded thusly: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty." I've just unblocked a user who was blocked for violating these sanctions. Their argument was that they received a big fat notice on their talk page that contained this wording from the decision, and that they therefore believed they could revert IP users without penalty. I assumed the notice was misrepresenting the decision, but that is in fact exactly what it says. I'm a bit confused by this, it seems to suggest that any and all IP edits on articles covered by this sanction can be treated as vandalism. Am I missing something here? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If this is the intention, that any edit by an IP to any of these articles can be reverted on sight and they are not subject to the 1RR restriction, shouldn't we just semi-protect the whole lot of them? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I happened to have Beeblebrox's talk page on my watch list. I think the intended meaning of "without penalty" was "not subject to this (1RR) restriction". The wording should probably be changed to avoid misunderstanding and/or wikilawyering in the future. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Could we broaden this to 1RRs generally? If I'm talking out of my arse here (wrt the WP:TROUBLES arbitration case), I'd appreciate being told so (and why). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think some better wording is in order, for example: "Reversions of clear vandalism, or reversions of edits by anonymous IP editors, are not subject to the 1R Restriction. "--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by EdJohnston

It seems harmless to make the change in wording recommended by Sphilbrick, but I don't think it is necessary. The {{ARBPIA}} template already reads like this:

"Certain edits may be reverted without penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors, and edits which are clearly vandalism."

I find it hard to tell the difference between that and Sphilbrick's version:

"Reversions of clear vandalism, or reversions of edits by anonymous IP editors, are not subject to the 1R Restriction."

It goes without saying that IP edits should only be reverted for a good reason and that the WP:EW policy still applies. For background, the exemption that allows reverting IP edits seems to come from a proposal by T. Canens in November 2010, which got included in the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. From there it made its way into the wording of the {{ARBPIA}} template, and then got added as a community supplement to the WP:ARBPIA decision. The sentence in WP:ARBPIA was tweaked by PhilKnight in January 2011 to agree with the language in the {{ARBPIA}} template. 1RR rules which exempt IP edits are not common, and it is logical that they might create some confusion. The special 1RR rules that exempt IP edits still appear to serve a purpose in the most contentious areas. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should go without saying that "IP edits should only be reverted for a good reason" but I think the issue arose because someone read "Certain edits may be reverted without penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors..." and thought it meant, literally, that IP edits could be reverted without penalty, instead of "Certain edits may be reverted without [incurring a 1RR] penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors..."

My proposed edit makes explicit, what was implicitly true, but missed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I also support the point made by AGK; the proposed edit is not a change to the restriction, but a wording change to make clear the original intention, which is unchanged.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

On a purely cosmetic point, in the motion below saying "reverts of edits made by IP editors that are not clear vandalism" are still covered by edit-warring policy is a tad redundant. Edit-warring policy also provides an explicit exemption for reverting vandalism. Rather, I think after noting reverts of IP editors are not subject to 1RR the subsequent statement need only say that the usual edit-warring policy still applies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass

The 1RR exemption for IPs was intended as a discouragement to sockpuppetry. I am concerned that making reverts of IPs "subject to the usual rules on edit warring" will expose established accounts to the fiat of admins who not infrequently decide to hand out bans in contentious topic areas for perceived "edit warring" even when 3RR has not been violated. This is likely to make it difficult for established accounts to discourage sockpuppetry as intended as they will have to be looking over their own shoulder when reverting IPs. I suggest therefore that the phrase "subject to 3RR" be substituted for "subject to the usual rules on edit warring". This should help ensure that established editors retain a useful advantage over IPs without being accused of edit warring when doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, and given Elen's comments below, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be simpler just to make reverts of IPs literally without penalty, ie they can be reverted as often as necessary. It would strongly discourage sockpuppetry but wouldn't completely prevent IPs from adding useful content, as semi-protection would do. Gatoclass (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Moved from WP:ACN as this is the right venue. Courcelles 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the way the remedy is worded, the 1RR does not apply to reverting IP's, but usual rules on edit warring and 3RR do. Courcelles 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I"m not saying this is right, I'm still thinking on that one, just expressing that how I read the current remedy.(And I'd hope and expect people are not using this language to revert IP edits without good reason.) Courcelles 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I also agree with the proposed copyedit. Courcelles 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Courcelles, reverting IPs is still subject to 3RR, and for that matter our usual rules on edit warring. I'm ok with the change suggested by Sphilbrick, which could, as HJMitchell suggests, be extended to The Troubles as well. PhilKnight (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Sphilbrick's proposed copyedit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• I interpret the current wording to have the same meaning as that of Sphilbrick's proposed change. However, I can see why there can be a different interpretation of the current wording, and to resolve the discrepancy I propose we copy-edit the sanction wording as recommended (unless there are objections in the next few days). If there is a pending enforcement request that relates to this sanction, I recommend it be placed on hold, but in any event it must be dismissed: an ex post facto application of the sanction would be unfair. AGK [•] 15:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• I was recused on the underlying case so have no vote here, but agree that as a matter of general principle and as part of our goal of standardizing remedies to the extent possible, the remedy here should be copyedited, and/or updated to reflect current practice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• I also agree with Sphilbrick's proposed tweak. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion

• Enacted at 18:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• The text in WP:ARBPIA section "Further remedies" is modified from "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" to "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." As identical text is used in an active sanction related to The Troubles case, the same substitution of wording shall be made there.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.

Support

1. Feel free to copyedit, but this has been sitting here too long for a mainly cosmetic change. Courcelles 20:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
3. (We may require some notifications about the amendment to The Troubles sanction - for example on the talk pages of popular, related articles - if our foresighted change is not to take the editors completely by surprise.) AGK [•] 23:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Works for me. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
8. I've historically recused on most parts of the Palestine-Israel case, but this motion pertains equally to The Troubles where I am active, and its really just a copyediting clarification (that has already passed anyway), so I will go ahead and vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
9. Support in principle but I wonder whether this could not be more simply, clearly and emphatically expressed as "Unless the reversion is solely to remove clear vandalism, all reversions are subject to the One Revert Restriction". (Sorry to be a Johnny-come-lately on this.) I'll circulate this on the list and see if there's any traction,  Roger Davies ^talk 16:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

   As I explained on-list, that would change the substantive issues of the sanction, which this motion explicitly does not do. That kind of change would require a fresh motion, as it would make reverting IP edits count in the 1RR, which they do not do at present. Courcelles 18:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

   Indeed. Thanks for clarifying it though, absent context, we're still left with an ambiguity in the first sentence (which Phil's "made" doesn't really fix). Sorry to suggest a recast but it's probably clearer to separate the vandalism and the IP edits entirely, as two sentences, thus: "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." And the "of whatever origin" is probably unnecessary.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

   Good idea, so copyedited. Anyone, feel free to revert if you disagree. Courcelles 20:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The only reason this is in there is the fear that five IP editors are actually just one editor. If they were five editors, then there would be no reason to assume that. But whenever you put "IP editor" and "vandal" in the same sentence, the community comes away with the impression that IP editors are all vandals and can be reverted on sight. I would prefer something like the wording below, and will propose it as an alternative if there is any traction

In an area subject to IRR restrictions -

• Editors are restricted to making one revert only per day - this applies to all accounts and IP addresses of that editor
• There are no restrictions on the number of times vandalism may be reverted
• Any IP editor is restricted to IRR in the same way as other editors
• Where multiple IPs edit the article in a similar manner, they can be treated as if they are all one person and, if they persist in making the same edits or reversions, then other editors may revert them without penalty.

Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Abstain;

Comments

Note to Clerk: Even though the motion as proposed is passing, please don't close this just yet, given the discussion of possible copyedits or alternatives. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: WP:ARBPIA

Initiated by Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} at 10:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Seb az86556

This request for clarification is rather short and straightforward; a discussion about whether or not Jesus is part of the Palestinian people has spilled over to the page about Jesus. For future reference and to avoid misunderstandings: Is discussing and editing "Jesus as a Palestinian" within the scope of the case? Should it be? Thank you.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I would say yes, because the only reason to make this kind of edit is to push one side of the Israeli/Palestinian argument. It's not a term of scholarship. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• The dispute centres around whether Jesus of Nazareth was peregre (from abroad, an administrative term about Roman citizenship). I would therefore say that, unless the dimensions of the dispute change to be related to Arab/Israel, discretionary sanctions will not apply. The situation would also change if contributors who are active on "ARBPIA articles" become involved. However, for now I am inclined to say the dispute is not subject to arbitration enforcement. AGK [•] 01:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• The nationality of Jesus is a pertinent and appropriate discussion, and there are sources which describe Jesus as a Palestinian Jew. When sources say "Jesus was a Palestinian Jew", are they meaning "Jesus was a Jew and was one of the Palestinian people", or are they meaning "Jesus was a Jew who lived in Palestine"? Some scholarly research into the matter to present an understanding to the general reader would be helpful. Suppressing appropriate discussion of this matter, or engaging in edit warring would not be appropriate, and as the issues relate to WP:ARBPIA, then the sanctions from that could be applied to ensure that an open and neutral approach to the matter is allowed to unfold. I note that the editor who prompted this clarification request, has already been blocked under the WP:ARBPIA sanctions for edit warring, so it may be that this clarification is no longer needed. That use of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions seems appropriate as it appears that the user was using the debate around this "Jesus was a Palestinian Jew" question in order to make a political point. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Per SilkTork. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Ankh.Morpork at 21:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

• AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by AnkhMorpork

After a spate of edit-warring at Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) in which material was repeatedly added and removed on WP:OR grounds, Timotheus Canens unilaterally imposed these restrictions to address this.

• The restrictions - They include: No editor may add or readd any alleged instance of a conspiracy theory, unless such addition or readdition has been proposed on this talk page at least 48 hours in advance, and either no objection was made to adding or readding the content or an uninvolved administrator determines that there is a consensus to add or readd the content."

• Problem 1 - The restrictions have been applied to all editors adding any content. This will have the effect of precluding good-faith article expansion. Instead, the restrictions could have been targeted at adding material previously contested which would achieve the same result but would not have such wide-felt repercussions on acceptable contributions, now onerously circumscribed.
• Problem 2 - The restrictions have been unequally applied and this will affect the balance of the article. Although stymieing any expansion of the article, no restraints have been placed on editors that wish to remove long-standing material from the article. Any editor can now remove all the material from the article, citing spurious policy grounds (so no vandalism defense), and nobody will be able to reinsert it.
• Problem 3 - Imposing article restrictions is the purview of Arbcom. T Canens stated that he was imposing these "under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions".

These discretionary sanctions explicitly state: "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area." T Canens has extended the ambit of user sanctions to include article restrictions. That the sanctions apply to user misconduct is readily apparent when reading Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions.

He referred to this request for clarification as a precedent. In that instance, no 1rr applied to the Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles and Arbcom clarified that 1rr could be applied. In this case, all I-P related articles were already under 1rr restrictions, and the slanted, stringent restrictions imposed are wholly unprecedented.

Moreover, these restrictions were unilaterally imposed by T Canens without any previous admin discussion or consensus regarding them.

• Conclusion - I request that these restrictions are tightened to remedy imbalances and allow for article expansion, and that T Canen's authority to make such restrictions is examined. Ankh.Morpork 21:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@AGK - There is one more thing to consider. T Canens imposed these restrictions in response to this AN3 report detailing a 1rr violation. Can you comment whether you consider these restrictions an equitable remedy.

More importantly, would you consider either extending these restrictions to cover existing content or minimizing them to allow the addition of previously undisputed content?

• Case study for problem 2 - Since the restrictions were imposed on the Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) article, Dlv999 has proceeded to remove an entire section that had been in the article for a long time. He did do without any discussion the talk page. The section removed had previously been discussed by various editors in this and this thread. Dlv999 had previously contributed to the very section that he has now unilaterally removed. This exemplifies how the current restrictions are being gamed and the need for discussion has been obviated for anyone seeking to remove content. Ankh.Morpork 21:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Can I suggest that since the Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) article is clearly in violation of at least the spirit of WP:ARBPIA rulings in that it is nothing more than a collection of anecdotes cobbled together to 'make Arabs look stupid', WP:IAR is invoked, the article is summarily deleted and salted, and the warring parties get back to arguing about something a little less infantile than this petty little propaganda piece... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fluffernutter

I'm not involved in I/P or AE in general, but I saw this go by earlier today and attempted to clarify this matter a bit to Ankh on T. Canens's talk. My explanation doesn't seem to have done the job. To my linked explanation, I'll just add that the description provided for Arbcom's standard discretionary sanctions appears to be deliberately broad, encompassing things like revert restrictions, topic bans, mandated external review (which is very similar to what T.C. has imposed wrt Ankh's "Problem 1"), as well as "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". We're not intended to be bound strictly by exactly what words are used in the DS decription, because the DS description provides the, er, discretionary area of "any other measures." This means that opposing these sanctions on the basis of "restrictions can only be on people, not articles" is missing the point. Admin judgment is deferred to, within reasonable limits, in placing these measures, and there's nothing in what T. Canens has done here that looks particularly unacceptable (though I will admit to having had to read the restrictions twice to parse exactly who was being restricted from what). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Honestly, I think the restriction is a bit too restrictive under the circumstances. The problem was with material being added that did not make any claim of the accusations being conspiracy theories. I think the requirement for discussion of any addition is restricting all editors and all content work for something that is a little more focused. At issue is specifically whether the additions involved conspiracy theories as no reliable sources provided used that description in any sense. Should reliable sources clearly cover a relevant incident as a conspiracy theory then I fail to see why discussion would be necessary on whether to include it in the article. If the material undeniably fits then requiring discussion is little more than bureaucratic regulation for its own sake.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• @ Activism1234 The term "myth" does not inherently imply a conspiracy theory. In the instance you mention, it was basically a fisherman's tale about reckless and negligent Israeli conduct on the seas.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion as I feel Tim's concerns point to this being about the overall content of the article and incredibly restrictive sanctions are not the best way to resolve that problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Activism1234

IP 24.177.121.137 commented below that he/she disagrees, which is fine. But the IP is also encouraging people to ignore all rules and simply ignore the restrictions T. Canens has imposed, because they feel it fits ignore all rules. I don't think this is acceptable behavior, and find this problematic. --Activism1234 01:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• @ Andy the Grump The article was previously nominated for deletion, and passed with flying colors, along with many admins agreeing it should be kept. It is false to assume that the point is to "make Arabs look stupid." I don't think either of us are mind-readers, and it wouldn't be right to characterize some of the neutral admins and editors on that AfD as voting for an article to "make Arabs look stupid." The article already survived an AfD - consensus has been established that it should be kept, and the article shouldn't simply be deleted. --Activism1234 21:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• @ The Devil's Advocate One of the sources described it as a myth. Is the exact wording "conspiracy theory" needed in the reference? --Activism1234 23:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that reply. I'm not sure whether I agree, but I'd say that's more of a content-dispute and not relevant here. I appreciate the response. --Activism1234 01:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TC

Fluffernutter's comment on my talk page captured my thoughts quite well - in fact, probably better than I could say. I just want to add a few points:

• The ease to remove existing material is by design; given the longstanding partisan battles on this article I have very little confidence in the quality of any content in that page. If someone misuses this ability, an editor-based restriction may well be appropriate.
• I actually noticed this issue via an ANI thread. In particular, JN466's comment is what really got my attention, and I set out to create a set of restrictions that, in my view, would address the problem. After I finished imposing and logging the restrictions, I looked at the AN3 thread and determined that, given the lack of an edit notice and the nature of the edits at issue, as well as the restrictions I just imposed, it was not advisable to take further action on the AN3 thread.
• As to article-based restrictions, they have been employed in a number of WP:ARBAA2 and WP:ARBEE cases. T. Canens (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user

I think the restriction imposed is too broad and unfair. I also don't think that the discretionary sanctions provision of WP:ARBPIA authorize it. The language at WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions authorizes imposition of sanctions by uninvolved admins against users after an initial warning. There was no warning, the restrictions don't apply to "users" but to everyone, and the administrator imposing sanctions wasn't sufficiently uninvolved. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

A quick look at the article's editing history is all that's needed to see what's going on here. Basically, two editors have been trying to use that article as a coatrack to hang out as many looney, animal-related incidents as possible. I think T. Canens could just as easily have topic-banned the two editors primarily responsible instead of giving them playground rules. At least, he is giving the topic some adult supervision, which was obviously necessary. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098

This article has been a hotbed of propagandist efforts and poor sourcing. See the 2011 DYK for example: dyk that "... that Saudi Arabian officials detained a vulture (example pictured) and accused it of spying for Israel?" Editing restrictions on this article appear warranted. Also, one has to wonder if the Noleander RFAR may be of some relevance to certain editors involved in that article and similar ones. It's interesting that Apes and pigs in Islam also passed AfD with "flying colors" but was boldly moved out of article space by one admin and then deleted. (As an side, I'm thinking of a DYKing "... Ronald Reagan was an important champion of Idiot America". Easily referenced from the press: [71].) Tijfo098 (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dlv999

Just a quick response to Ankhmorpork's accusations against me. I am not trying to game the system. The article came under my radar because of the current AFD Discussion. Many arguments for deletion are that a lot of the content is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACKING, some of the arguments to keep the article accept that some of the material does not meet Wikipedia standards, but maintain that this is not grounds for deleting the entire article.

My aim was simply to remove the material that does not meet Wikipedia standards, I think it will be easier then for the community to decide whether the remaining material that is well sourced warrants an article or not. The basic rationale for deleting the content is here[72] if anyone is interested. I will be happy to explain and discuss further should anyone query the edit on the article's talk page.

Of course Ankhmorpork is responsible for adding a significant amount of the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH material to the article, so it is understandable that he may not appreciate the kind of restrictions on adding such material that has been suggested. Dlv999 (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from The Blade of the Northern Lights

I'm one of the other regular AE admins, and the only reason there's an appeal of Timotheus Canens' actions here is because he beat me to it. The last thing we need in this area is people using these articles to soapbox about whatever conspiracy theory strikes their fancy, and this is as good a way to handle it as any. I don't really care whether or not this solution is in The Book^TM, it's already proven its worth in putting a stop to what was going on there before it, and I see no reason to remove it if it's working. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• All editors are reminded to edit only in their own sections. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Well, the labeled "problem 3" is not a problem at all. Admins have always and authority to issue special rules in discretionary sanctions to make articles work, a long-standing precedent has been imposing 1RR under their authority. The restrictions imposed here look reasonable to me, and we aren't going to direct an article deletion. Courcelles 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• The restrictions T. Canens applied are complex but sound. In response to the complainant's three arguments: 1) suggested edits simply now require additional scrutiny; they are not discouraged nor prevented. 2) If the new restrictions are inadequate, I suggest you ask an enforcing administrator to extend them. I agree that existing content is not restricted, but I can't say whether that was an obvious omission or by design. 3) Plainly, these restrictions are authorised by standard discretionary sanctions (they regulate user conduct, not article content), and T. Canens acted sensibly and within the limits of the remedy. If there is nothing else to consider, I would dismiss this complaint. AGK [•] 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting more statements. I'm sure there are plenty of other observers who can comment on how things have been applied in this case, vs. other discretionary sanction areas. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have no issues with T. Canens' actions here, which are well within the range of discretionary sanctions. The objective is to stop the disruption, and this seems to have a reasonable chance of doing so. Risker (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Per all of the above; I see no particular issue with the remedies as issued. If there is concern that these restrictions could be wikilawyered into introducing bias into the article, that should be raised at AE, with evidence to support the concerns if possible. I see no need for the Committee to intervene at this time. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • @AnkhMorpork: Even so, AE is that way. Administrators are empowered to handle this on their own, so there's little need for us to do anything in this regard. In the meantime, since you appear to believe that section should not have been deleted, I'd suggest starting that 48-hour discussion to get it re-added. There does not appear to be a consensus amongst the committee that the sanctions as they stand merit revocation, and since an administrator applied them in the first place there's no reason to believe they couldn't be extended by an administrator in the manner you're requesting. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• I essentially agree with my colleagues; although the restrictions are slightly complex, they are well within the acceptable bounds of discretionary sanctions. Obviously these restrictions are innovative, and it may well be prudent to evaluate their effectiveness in due course, however I suggest this request Request for Clarification can be closed without action. PhilKnight (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• While I essentially agree with my colleagues that T. Canens was acting in good faith and is to applauded for looking for solutions beyond locking down an article or blocking users, I also share AnkhMorpork's concern that general editing restrictions are being applied to all users without there being a discussion first. The reason I share this concern is that I have noted a tendency for editors to apply commented out/hidden restrictions in articles (such as <!--DON'T CHANGE THIS WITHOUT DISCUSSION -->), or to impose restrictions in editnotices, and now we are moving toward making such informal restrictions acceptable at ArbCom level which would encourage their use at a lower level. While I am not against imposing such general editing restrictions where needed, I do feel that it would be worth looking into formalising the process so that an open discussion is included so that there is both clear consensus on using such restrictions, and a time limit on their use. As the Foundation is concerned to encourage more readers to get involved in editing Wikipedia, it would be appropriate to first consider a solution which is less restrictive of the general reader. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Zoological conspiracy theories (Israel related)

Initiated by Tijfo098 (talk) at 19:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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

• Tijfo098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [73]
• Marokwitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [74]
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [75]
• AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [76]
• Dlv999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [77]
• No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [78]
• Jethro B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), already participating
• Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [79]
• Brewcrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), already participating
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [80]
• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [81]
• Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), presumably watching this; she just blocked Bali ultimate.

Statement by Tijfo098

I simply submit to you that the creative restrictions imposed are not working as expected, but are simply gamed to arbitrarily remove content from that page, cf. WP:AE#Dlv999. I request that the imbalance be addressed by a similar restriction on removing content without consensus. This has been done before, for example at Mass killings under Communist regimes. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@KC & TC. If they are working as intended and you saw no gaming from the deletionists, then why is Dream Focus not blocked for this and his open defiance [82] of ArbCom sanctions? TC, you have made promises to met "longish blocks" to editors under your creative restrictions [83], which clearly indicate that you approve of Dvl999's actions. Please explain why you think his deletion was appropriate. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: I see that TC has tweaked the wording on the restrictions in the meantime. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I was also considering reporting to AE the insertion of some original research in the article [84] [85] [86] and direct accusation against two editors of being on a mission "to spread hate" [87], but given that the two admins always ruling over this appear to share that viewpoint, I won't bother with AE anymore. And if T. Canens wants that article deleted on such grounds, he should do it himself. It's not unheard of [88]. Oh, and Elen of the Roads should be immediately ejected from ArbCom. She's definitely up to no good; see [89] [90]. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jethro B: My last sentence was a pun on Wikipedia's own conspiracy theory involving User:!!. There's no chance anyone on ArbCom would take that as anything but a joke. I hope. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope this meets AGK's approval. Oh, and enjoy the new article: Persecution by Muslims. Muslims == KKK?? [91] [92]; Muslims == Nazis? [93] Tijfo098 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by AnkhMorpork

This echoes my previous concerns regarding these novel restrictions and their susceptibilty to abuse - which took all of two days to manifest itself. I support the need to reevaluate the efficacy of these restricitons and to consider extending them to equally cover existing content in this article. Currently, they simultaneously preclude good-faith additions and improvements, yet allow unilateral content removal by individual editors that totally eschew any attempt at collaborative discussion seeing as the need for it has now been obviated. While the restrictions were well-intentioned, they are proving wholly inadequate. Ankh.Morpork 19:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Brewcrewer

I concur with the proposal -- to add to the restriction to anyone removing sourced material or at least to exclude from the restrictions any sourced content that was already in the article before the restrictions took place (grandfather in). The current rules leave the article open to gaming. Anyone can remove material with some vague edit summary and then demand another consensus for its inclusion, which will have to be approved by an uninvolved administrator that will have to be tracked down somehow. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement AndyTheGrump

I agree that the restrictions imposed by are not working - but not for the reasons given above. They have simply been ignored, whether wilfully, or by accident, and material has been added without consensus to an article which has widely been seen (at for example the recent AfD discussions [94]) as burdened with WP:OR, poor sourcing, and significant POV-driven editing. Frankly, at this point I can see no hope for any consensus-based solutions short of topic-banning the more overt POV-pushers, and fully protecting the article. Loosening restrictions to encourage more edit-warring makes no sense whatsoever. This is a contentious subject, for which much source material seems intended to cast people in a negative light, and as such it seems entirely reasonable that the burden of proof should be on those wishing to add material to our article - as is normal Wikipedia policy. The restrictions are in fact little more than WP:BRD extended and formalised in such a way as to prevent further questionable editing of a contentious article. What is necessary is that they be enforced, and that the article be made to conform to WP:NPOV standards - and if it cannot (which seems entirely possible, given the subject matter), regardless of (rather equivocal) AfD decisions, Wikipedia may have to do without it entirely. That is probably outside the remit of this discussion, however... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by KillerChihuahua

I am completely uninvolved. The only way I have even touched this is to comment in the Uninvolved admins section on an AE request regarding this. That said, in the very short time that case has been open it has become clear that loosening restrictions is not in the best interest of this article. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jethro B

One of the main issues with the restrictions is that it allows editors to get away with violating 1RR as long as they're removing "original research." By this, editors are gaming it, so that if RS wrote about how aliens invaded Palestinian farms and destroyed the crops as requested by Israel, it'd be removed as "Source doesn't say it's conspiracy, so how is the connection made that it's a conspiracy?" Or if the reference writes that a "myth circulated" about it, it'd get removed as "source doesn't write it's a conspiracy, only a myth" (this actually happened). In other cases, you have editors who will remove sections and violate 1RR in doing so, knowing that despite the 1RR violation, it will allow for the content to be simply removed without discusion, and any attempts to reinsert it will require a discussion, which that editor will just object and thus not allow for consensus.

There have been cases where sections have been removed that even uninvolved editors disagree with removing. There wasn't any discussion to remove it. But once removed, no matter what the reason, it's very tough to get it back in - because a lengthy discussion with consensus is needed, and that consensus will just be broken by one editor who opposes putting it in. So what we're getting here are bogus excuses to remove content that even uninvolved editors disagree with, all in "compliance" with the restrictions.

I think they should definitely be changed. I really don't see how this article can be that much more special and contentious than some other I-P articles here. The normal rules in ARBPIA should suffice here, and they've been working up until two weeks ago, when the restrictions were made in response to a report filed because an editor violated 1RR. --Jethro B 20:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv99 - with respect to Tijfo, as far as I'm aware he wasn't involved in the previous Arbcom clarification/amendment thread here, and opened up this one recently as a result of the AE thread. In addition, although not commenting on admin bias at ArbCom, the admin who blocked Bali was not an admin this AE thread or the ArbCom clarification thread here, so I don't think that'd count as rejecting proof of bias, if bias does exist here. --Jethro B 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv99 - thanks, didn't notice that, although in both cases it's been opened by 2 different editors in response to two different stimuli, both of which I feel are legitimate. However, you should be aware that this thread isn't meant to sanction you, which is the AE thread, but rather as an offshoot of the AE thread to discuss the restrictions as a whole. --Jethro B 16:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@AKG - Really? Let's forget the glaring issues with Bali's version... He tried to insert it into the article once. He got reverted. Rather than discuss it and try to get it inserted, what does he do? He waits a few days, maybe the editors will go away, and then inserts it again. He doesn't explain in his edit summary "Reinserting content that was reverted a few days ago," giving people like me the impression this is completely new. If your edits are reverted, how can you just come in a few days later and expect to put it back in without a discussion? Then we have some glaring issues with it. Firstly, the attempt to minimize the conspiracy as very brief and quick, along with WP:OR (exactly what the restrictions are meant to eliminate), weasel wording, and a POV editorial bias. In short, if Bali felt his edit was the best version, he should've participated in the WP:BRD process. Not "bold, revert, revert a few days later" process. --Jethro B 00:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo - I don't see the connection between some article called Persecution of Muslims and this article. I've never edited that article or its AfD, and others involved in this dispute haven't either. There aren't restrictions on that article like there are here. In short, it's not relevant here, unless it's a cunning attempt to get some editors here to vote on its AfD, but I know you to be a better editor than that so I'm really perplexed at the reason for mentioning it. --Jethro B 21:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TC

As far as I can see, the restrictions appear to be working as intended. Neither our resident puppy nor I have seen any actionable gaming. Some people may not like how they are designed to operate; that does not mean that they are broken. As to the "Mass killings restriction", it was the consensus among AE admins, when it was last discussed in this lengthy AE thread, that it is not a particularly useful restriction in many cases.

In imposing the restrictions, I have already considered and rejected the possibility of "grandfathering in" existing material. Given the lengthy partisan wrangling over this article, I had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material. I opted for the present approach of permitting easy removal of existing material, which will still preserve uncontroversial instances, rather than a significantly more aggressive approach seen in this BLPSE action.

I also don't see why this couldn't have been handled at the currently open AE thread. This is striking me more and more like running to the other parent when AE admins don't see any gaming, especially since the last arbcom thread on these very restrictions was closed less than a week ago. I respectfully request that the committee close this one speedily. AE simply can't properly operate if the restrictions applied are brought to the committee, and the admin who imposed them forced to defend them, every few days. T. Canens (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A note that I've seen what AnkhMorpork posted below, and will not be dignifying it with a response unless the committee requests. T. Canens (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to T Canens

The primary purpose of discretionary editing restrictions on an article is to to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment in contentious areas prone to misconduct. When this has been created, Wikipedia assumes that editorial discussions and the ensuing consensus will adequately govern the nature of an article; this is a fundamental policy - that all editors can contribute equally to the make-up of an article, that there exists a clear separation of powers between the executive (admins) and the legislature (editors). Admins should facilitate discussion and not attempt to foist their views on others.

That being said, you have twice explained that your restrictions were predicated on your personal views regarding the subject. The imposition of the restrictions should not determined by whether you "had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material." Yet, you unilaterally imposed unique restriction designed to promote your particular point of view in a content dispute without deigning to seek admin consensus for this measure. In the words of Silktork: "I also share AnkhMorpork's concern that general editing restrictions are being applied to all users without there being a discussion first." Why are you of the view that your view is of pre-eminent importance that you, by yourself, can seek to forcefully alter the shape of this article through use of administrative privilege? I remind you of discretionary sanction guidance: you are expected to balance the provision of "responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground". I submit that the you have restricted good-faith improvement entirely and compounded this by allowing for pernicious abuse of the restrictions, to the extent that exasperated editors that have never previously participated in these discussions or topics are imploring for an alteration or arbitration enforcement.

As to your comment that this was recently discussed, I would assume that you are cognisant with what PhilKnight said: "Obviously these restrictions are innovative, and it may well be prudent to evaluate their effectiveness in due course". Well the answer to that is obviously they're pathetically useless and when you have editors returning from 6 month sabbaticals, two days after your restrictions, to remove vast sections with nary a talk page comment, I am surprised that you see this in any other way. Or then again, based on your above predilections, perhaps not. Ankh.Morpork 13:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, do you feel that the previous discussion at Arbcom in which I questioned the efficacy of your novel restrictions and their susceptibility to gaming, coupled with your personal declaration that " I had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material", might affect your objectivity in assessing at AE whether content removal games your restrictions that you previously vouched for? Ankh.Morpork 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dlv999

Seems like WP:FORUMSHOPING to me. The issue was already raised at the previous request for clarification last week. [95] The editor was told that any evidence of gaming should be presented to AE. [96] An AE case was filed [97] - the two uninvolved admins who have commented so far have not seen evidence of gaming or actionable behavior in the diffs provided. And now we are back here with the same issue being raised again. Are we just going to keep going round in circles with this until the editors get their own way? Dlv999 (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo098 Regarding the most recent diffs you have presented: The editor in question has already been given a week block so I don't really think this is a credible case of Admin bias as you are suggesting. Dlv999 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jethro B, Tijfo098 was in fact a party to the previous Arbcom clarification/amendment discussion last week [98]. With the greatest respect, if you do not know what the facts are I'm not sure why you feel the need to make such a comment. Dlv999 (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NMMNG

@AGK Are you serious? Bali's edit was 80% editorial and consisted mainly of his interpretation of the sources. Moreover, he did not seek consensus for it on the talk page per the additional sanctions being discussed here, but chose to edit war his preferred version into the article. He could have just removed any problematic text which would then have needed to gain consensus to be put back in the article.

Nobody needs to "bait" Bali for him to lash out, he does that regularly and frequently. In fact, if you look at some of the edit summaries he used, he "lashed out" against living people who have wikipedia articles as well. I wonder what they did to bait him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Cla68

This would be a good opportunity for ArbCom/WP's administration to show that WP:NPOV in an enforceable policy. Look at the article's edit history, look at the article's talk page, note which editors are tring to use it to disparage Arab/Palestinian culture and/or politics, make a decision, then act on that decision. Now's a good time. Cla68 (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by 108.60.151.4 - Agree with NMMNG

I do not care if Bali Ultimate's edits improved the article or worsen it, but AGK's comments demonstrate his extreme immaturity. An arbitrator must conduct arbitrations in an impartial manner. An arbitrator should avoid any conduct that might give the appearance of partiality towards any party. AGK writes: "Somebody needs to bring to AE the editors who reverted Bali ultimate's edits about the Shark attacks section." and then "(As an arbitrator, I'm unable to be involved in the enforcement process, or I would hand out AE blocks myself.)"? What kind of arbitrator AGK is?

Bali Ultimate, you say you are a named professional except you behave as a named idiot. Named professionals come to Wikipedia to write articles and not to be ""meanie" on talk pages." Now you are blocked, and when the block expires you'd come back with your tail between your legs or else. It is the only thing you've achieved so far. — 108.60.151.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:18, 6 October 2012‎ (UTC).

I.P., you have stated only that you object to my comment, but not why. You must therefore forgive me if I pay little heed to your statement, but I do ask for your clarification. You state unilaterally that my comments demonstrated "extreme immaturity" and suggested they had "the appearance of partiality". On your former statement, I am sure you are aware (as a regular contributor) that baseless, ad hominem remarks like that are unacceptable on Wikipedia. I am particularly at a loss to see how those remarks demonstrated immaturity. On your latter statement, I think you misunderstand the role of an arbitrator: we do not exist to "judge" cases, nor to "protect and serve" and uphold the rigid public image that goes with such missions, but to solve editorial disputes. If to do so I must succinctly state I think an editor needs to be referred to AE for sanctioning, then I will do precisely that. The role of arbitrator is made up largely of an ability and willingness to speak about the proverbial elephant in the room; you subscribe to a woefully flawed vision if you conflate that ability with "partiality". AGK [•] 19:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012 regarding AGK comment

I concurr with Bali Ultimate answer on this talk page : "AGK, you have just illustrated the dysfunction of the website's approach, and why it fails so badly in these areas. Someone like me, a named [person], will be easily blocked for being a "meanie" on talk pages. People who skew content in service of a cause (frequently one, as in this case, that seeks to advance its agenda by dehumanizing a whole culture) are left to merrily go about their business on the articles (the stuff the general public sees) so long as they are "civil." Please also note that this is going on in a great many more articles, most of them of far more importance and general interest, than the one I tried to make a point of fixing.Dan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)"

I fully agree with this analysis and it is proved by what is written just here above : "I do not care if Bali Ultimate's edits improved the article or worsen it (...)."

The 1st pillar of wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedy. 2nd and 3rd pillars remind the quality standards should be high. The 4th pillar that requires politeness and civility is very important but it is used in this area of articles to canevass their development. One way or the other, external observers (Arbcom members, uninvolved sysops) should analyse the context of the conflicts based on this problematic. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Wnt

I request that all of T. Canens' September 2012 edicts be suspended from this page. In contradiction to the Talk Page notice, I see nothing here or here calling for prior restraint on edits. Eventually I tracked down the history to [99] in which the policy is unilaterally decreed, and editors either vehemently disagree with it or go off on tangents. This directly contradicts Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions which says "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;" more to the point, it is not a sanction against "any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." To the contrary, it includes a sanction against even a completely naive and good faith editor who, coming to the article page, and not seeing any special edit notice, adds a story that seems relevant in his consideration. The talk page notice explicitly says that "Editors who violate the above restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

I should also point out that the scope of this article is very arbitrary. Of all the animal conspiracy theories in the world, we've singled out those about Israel for a special article based on one or two articles connecting them. More plausible allegations have been made, for example, about the U.S. airdropping thrips on Cuba. A reorganization, e.g. by species, is very much appropriate, which to me suggests that either these special restrictions should be eliminated, or eventually they will spread to infect articles even less related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, let alone to the original editors in the arbitration case.

The mere fact that some editors have had an interpersonal squabble based on their opinions in the Israel-Palestinian conflict does not mean that new editors a random article about allegations about Israelis in Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be subjected to unreasonable sanctions!

I should add that I am curious how many other articles have been subjected to such unusual sanctions as this one. I should point out that there is a risk that, if a lot of Israel-related topics are treated to sanctions that affect even new good-faith editors, Wikipedia itself may become the object of a Zionist conspiracy theory. Wnt (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Elen of the Roads

I'm only involved in that I blocked Bali Ultimate for a week for hate-speech, having previously warned him for using similar language in a different area. Several parties including another arbitrator have suggested that 'the other side' are successfully gaming the restrictions, cannot be brought to AE etc. Is this the case? If so, this ought to be addressed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I've asked the clerks to archive this request. AGK [•] 12:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have already opined on Bali ultimate's talk page about the recent edit war in the "Shark attacks" section of this article:

  Somebody needs to bring to AE the editors who reverted Bali ultimate's edits about the Shark attacks section. While I do not condone BU's comments on the article talk page, his edits neutralised some glaring problems with the POV in the Shark attacks section. The POV of that section was totally skewed, whereas Bali's re-write restored some balance and reason—and made it clear how laughable the "sharks" theory really is. This is a classic case of POV-pushers baiting somebody like BU into verbally lashing out.

  To me, the problem is that edits to this article are being policed only for decorum, and that obvious POV-pushing is being disregarded. I therefore advise the enforcement team to examine complaints about this article in more detail, and to look at the substance of incidents and edits. Rarely is only one side to blame, and sometimes editors lose their head for reasons which are actually valid. AGK [•] 22:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with PhilKnight and SilkTork, though I echo my call that more rigorous enforcement of POV-pushing as well as merely un-collegial conduct needs to be made in this topic area. AGK [•] 19:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is a request regarding Timotheus Canens posting these restrictions on the Israel-related animal conspiracy theories article, which was recently discussed and archived on 26 Sept as being acceptable. I am not comfortable with general editing restrictions being applied to articles without there being some form of discussion and consensus sought first; but as these restrictions have been discussed, and there is a consensus for them, then a reasonable amount of time must be given to see how they work, and for any problems to be worked through via discussion on the article talkpage or on AE. It's perhaps too soon to be bringing this back to ArbCom. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Given that TC has recently modified these sanctions, I think we should allow some time before determining their effectiveness. PhilKnight (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• I see no reason to modify the tweaked sanctions, but they have got to be enforced. This article is a train-wreck, and if people are not following them, block them. If that doesn't solve it, full protect it and force folks to use the talk page. Courcelles 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Let's give the tweaked sanctions a chance for a bit. However, I do echo AGK's concerns about the blatant civil POV-pushing on this article, and its appearance to be a coatrack. Administrators at AE may want to take that into consideration as well. Risker (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is an archived request for arbitration.

Jerusalem

Initiated by tariqabjotu at 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Alertboatbanking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dailycare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hertz1888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pluto2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tritomex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ZScarpia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Alertboatbanking: 01:44, December 17
• BritishWatcher: 20:14, December 16
• Cptnono: 20:15, December 16
• Dailycare: 20:16, December 16
• Hertz1888: 20:16, December 16
• Nableezy: 20:17, December 16
• Nishidani: 20:17, December 16
• No More Mr Nice Guy: 20:18, December 16
• Pluto2012: 20:18, December 16
• Sean.hoyland: 20:19, December 16
• Tritomex: 20:19, December 16
• ZScarpia: 20:19, December 16

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Jerusalem/capital: Numerous threads (taken from Talk:Jerusalem and Talk:Israel) since October 2003

  Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2010#On the Table: Source of current phrasing in Israel lead, January-February 2010

  Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2010#Compromise on the first sentence: Source of current phrasing in Jerusalem lead, October 2010

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of Israel: May-July 2008
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel (deleted): Rejected January 2010
• Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 17, Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 18, Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 19, and Talk:Jerusalem: Latest threads on this issue, mostly since August 2012
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jerusalem: Rejected December 2012

Statement by Tariqabjotu

Withdrawing. -- tariqabjotu 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Jerusalem article has a problem. For nine years, discussions have raged on the talk page regarding the point in the lead that the city is the capital of Israel and, to a lesser extent, that it's the capital of the State of Palestine. Around April 2007, just before the article achieved FA status (yes, I know, unbelievable), it was decided that the point would be settled by inserting a footnote explaining the controversy. In October 2010, a (further?) compromise was struck that called for noting immediately after the contested point that Jerusalem's status as capital is not widely recognized. While that seemed to maintain calm for the better part of both 2011 and 2012, over the past few months, the issue has been rekindled with a fire and desperation like never before. While there have been more than ninety threads on this matter, at least four RfCs, and at least two attempts at mediation (both rejected, including one rejected just this month), we have been left with zero ends in sight. The impetus for this mediation is less a direct accusation of misconduct by some of my adversaries, but more a request to consider the accusations made by them. Over the past few weeks, there have been an increasing number of accusations from them that some people are "blocking" any sort of resolution (e.g. [100], [101], [102], [103]). There have been claims that those supporting the current wording are just pushing the Israeli POV (e.g. [104], [105], [106]). These accusations have been countered by allegations that some are pushing the Palestinian POV, reminding them the current formulation is the result of the October 2010 discussion (in which some of the current proponents of change were actually participants). Unsurprisingly, this has fostered an environment in which the improbable has been rendered impossible. Several people from both sides (myself included) have said that even attempting to discuss this matter with one or more adversaries is a waste of time. A few editors have stated that there are no policy-based arguments for maintaining the current wording, with one saying he has "consensus by default" because of that. In recent days, it seems like there has been focus on a particular wording that mentions, but distinguishes between, Israeli and Palestinian claims, but some are still arguing that's not far enough. Throughout, there have been threats of bringing people to WP:AE or WP:RfC/U or ArbCom for the alleged "blocking" and accusations of ownership. So I'm calling the bluff, requesting that these accusations (and any other issues) be considered. Unaddressed, any sort of resolution is impossible, as it is impossible to discuss with people who believe your every word is in bad faith and intended to push a point of view. Further, I personally -- and I'm sure I'm not alone in this -- am worried that if a compromise is struck again, there is no guarantee, without a third-party observer, that the editors involved in this discussion will drop it for good. I'm not confident an arbitration case will end this matter either, and I'm sure this time of the year and the ArbCom calendar is not ideal, but we need to try and I urge the Arbitration Committee to consider this case. -- tariqabjotu 20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC) P.S. I didn't know where precisely to stop with naming parties. I tried to only list people that were recently active in this dispute so as not to unnecessarily drag people in, but people who would like to be apart of this could presumably add themselves. -- tariqabjotu 20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC) In response to Hersfold's questions: It was intentional to not make any accusations; I (and others who support the current wording) am more the target of accusations than one making them. However, some of their statements, in the course of making their accusations, suggest a battleground stance, with labels such as "hasbarists", "racist", and "hatikvah brigade" (to say nothing of the standard "Israeli POV-pushers") have been thrown around recently. A second notable issue is that Dailycare is now arguing against the current wording, saying that cannot have consensus because it's not supported by policy-based reasons -- despite agreeing to it two years ago. There are probably several relevant policies that come into this dispute (like WP:UNDUE, which can be cited from a few angles), but these are less conduct issues and more content issues. I don't edit in other parts of this conflict, and only recently (in October) returned to this article after a two-year hiatus. So, I don't know. Perhaps. Someone even suggested to meet that that might be a good/better course of action. But, I'm not convinced an admin would have the courage to act on accusations that aren't very concrete. I'm not sure what you mean by "in which members of the entire community participated". Are you suggesting some sort of RfC that actively attracts members from outside the Israeli-Palestinian topic area? Or is this nothing beyond a normal RfC? If you were thinking of the latter, neither an August 2009 RfC nor a January 2010 RfC, both of which suggested no change (n.b. those were even before the October 2010 change), put this matter to rest. Some pointers that would clear the air. Do the user conduct issues have weight? Is there "blocking"? Are some people breaking a compromise? What does a compromise mean? I understand ArbCom doesn't rule on content, but I would hope that you could rule on the framework that would allow this dispute to be resolved. Maybe you'll even come up with something innovative. -- tariqabjotu 03:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC) In response to the suggestion by one of the ArbCom members, I'm perfectly happy with a binding mediation (or RfC), but as you see, voluntary mediation didn't work and I don't think mediation could be made involuntary otherwise. -- tariqabjotu 13:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC) One more revision to my answer to Question 1 comes by looking at the recent edit history. A formulation that was never discussed was just put into the article (and reverted back in after it was reverted out). Other than that, I can't imagine needing to elaborate further; the tone and contents of some of the statements here speak for themselves... as I expected and intended. -- tariqabjotu 18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Once again regarding the binding RfC: If you all are going to leave this with suggesting a binding RfC, can one of you at least provide the framework for it? Perhaps a small group of administrators could be charged with unanimously agreeing on its conclusion and paying attention to it to some extent? Perhaps you could dictate where and how the RfC is advertised (if at all) to gain a broad section of the community? Binding RfCs don't generally come organically (especially as very little is truly "binding" around here) and, as you've seen, seemingly permanent resolutions have not really held. -- tariqabjotu 04:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't give a shit anymore. When whatever process or medium is set up to resolve this issue once and for all, feel free to ping me and I will provide my input as appropriate. But, until then, I have no interest in the proceedings here and on the talk page. No one is going to change his or her mind. Some people are going to hold fast to their positions that their opponents are guilty of blocking or filibustering or violating some policy. Some people are going to continually misstate their opponents' positions. Some people are going to continue to respond to straw-man arguments, and insist that the straw-man arguments be defended. I did not sign up for Wikipedia to be subjected to such abuse and stress, and it is a colossal waste of time, especially at this time of year, to be dodging that while discussing some text that has no importance or consequences on Wikipedia, let alone in the real world, with people who care so much more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And without any third-party observation or intervention, this will continue.

MedCom rejected this issue. ArbCom has rejected it. Some aren't even sure this needs some direction. I'm sorry, but if that's the way the Wikipedia community feels about this, if a hundred threads over nine years, with the current talk page containing more than 500KB of heated text from at least a dozen editors, only necessitate rejection, the weakest of imperatives, and the suggestion from an elected member of the most powerful committee on Wikipedia that this matter might have been brought to its attention "earlier than necessary", well, forgive me for ever giving a shit. -- tariqabjotu 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dailycare

I support this request for arbitration. We've been to formal mediation twice (or, more exactly, twice the formal mediation didn't go ahead due to incomplete assent). Overall editors have been discussing the issue for years with RFCs and threads. Progress in content has been glacial to put it gently, there may be significant WP:Stonewalling behaviour involved, and frustration has manifested as uncivility in the long discussions. This does, of course, relate to a significant real-life controversy that arouses strong passions so this shouldn't be surprising. --Dailycare (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some examples of behavioral problems: 1, 2, 3 and 1, 2, 3. The latter edits were made by an editor who is an administrator of the project, unless I'm mistaken. (Further examples are easy to find).

2) The same issue is present in the Israel article with regard to the same statement.

3) I don't know. AE may be an option, although here we have several involved editors.

4) An RFC would fail if the same group of editors can "just say no" to prevent an outcome as are saying no currently to prevent an outcome. If this possibility is somehow controlled, an RFC might work.

5) An ideal outcome could be that a clearer vision is communicated with regard to civility and stonewalling. --Dailycare (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

One way to make any binding RFC more useful could be to limit the number of responses to three per editor. Each editor could then lay out his case in these three edits, and the closing admins could then assess the relative merits of the arguments to assess whether the proposal on the table has consensus, giving each argument weight according to its merits, rather than counting votes (WP:RFC says this). In this sense if editors just show up to say no, they couldn't force a "no consensus" result. The edits could even be done in rounds, so that each editor can contribute one comment in "round one", which is then followed by "round two" and "round three". This may in fact sound a bit like mediation. --Dailycare (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope the 'withdrawing' of the filing party doesn't affect the rfc plan. There is clearly need to move this issue forward, we've had a few normal rfcs already. Dailycare (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Alertboatbanking

As I stated in my previous comments I favor no particular final solution because it will never happen. The unreliability and poor quality of articles on the Arab-israeli conflict will be a permanent feature of wikipedia for decades to come. As long as prominent notices alert the reader to the manipulations of the more active/effective side (currently Israeli nationalists) little more can be done.

Ravpapa nicely states it as "[failure means] there are some topics about which we cannot write objectively" This I think is absolutely correct and I believe the failure is inevitable.

The bad acting partisans are intelligent calculating and don't give a hoot about wikipedia and are acting based on nationalistic motivations. So the realistic energy-optimal strategy towards them is not confrontation or arbitration but containment. Anyone who thinks the interests of their precious nation is more important than wikipedia should be barred from editing it. In lieu of that poor quality tagged dispute ridden articles will have to do.Alertboatbanking (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

I dont honestly see what an ArbCom case would do to resolve this issue. There hasnt been any edit-warring, or at least nothing on the scale as to require a case to resolve, and while the talk page may be a bit uncomfortable it hasnt reached a point that the standard discretionary sanctions couldnt deal with. If this were to be accepted as a case, the outcome would likely follow the pattern of you banning anybody who knows anything about the dispute, resulting in a new group of partisans arguing on an even lower level. The Wikipedia way, tried and true. nableezy - 05:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, that last comment is patently untrue. The formulation was discussed, the exact sentences and sequences were brought to the talk page yesterday, however you refused to answer any questions, repeatedly. Instead you only said that it would be reverted without once providing a cause. You cannot refuse to discuss the content and then complain that it was never discussed. What is this, kindergarten? No I wont play soccer. No I wont play basketball. I wont talk about what game to play. Teacher! They're playing football without me!!!! nableezy - 19:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Binding mediation would be a good idea. I dont think an RFC would be a good idea for this, its too involved an issue for *Support. nableezy - 07:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please listen to Steven. And would a "no consensus" RFC be binding for three years as well? Binding mediation would be an exponentially better method to resolve this dispute. RFCs in this topic area rarely get meaningful uninvolved comments. nableezy - 19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont know if any of the arbs are reading this or not, or anything else, but in the hopes that you are could I ask that you play this out and answer a few questions? What brief, neutral statement could possibly exist that would summarize this dispute? What do you think the chances of an RFC getting significant uninvolved input in this topic area? What do you think the chances are that this ends in anything other than a "no consensus" result? Is a "no consensus" result binding for 3 years? If so, does that mean that the current wording is enshrined for 3 years? If not, where would we be other than right back here? How would the RFC question be formulated? Why not binding mediation instead of a binding RFC? nableezy - 21:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012

I wrote on the Talk page that I would ask the ArbCom to study the issue if we could not find a way to move forward on the article. Tariqjabotku did it before.

The referees asked the right questions :

• Sort of dispute is exactly where WP:YESPOV, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail. (Jclemens)
  • That's my mind and indeed the situation is contested except that I personnaly cannot believe any more in the good faith of some other editors. If we would apply the rules of NPoV quietly (ie just referring to what reliable sources state) that would be easy to solve.
• "why mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute ?" (AGK) :
  • I arrived lately in the discussion but per my understanding, mediators refused to take the mediation in charge.
• "What specific allegations of misconduct are you making?"
  • There are personnal attacks but that is not a problem
  • A side is WP:GAMING the system in refusing any evolution of a pov-ed sentence based on the fact it has been in the article for months. I assume the other think that we are biaised (?).
• "Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?"
  • There are problems on all articles relatived to the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• "#Is there some reason why existing discretionary sanctions will not suffice to resolve this dispute?"
  • I don't think sanctionning anybody could solve anything. WP:GAMING or WP:WIKILAWYERING cannot be solved by any "discretionary sanction".
• Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?
  • I think that a part of the problem is that too many people intervene. No discussion can evolve because it goes in all directions and people do not answer to others'arguments and everything turns around.
• "If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case?"
  • I would propose the following to the ArbCom. Don't analyse the past but let's see the good will of contributors to solve this "under the eyes of the ArbComs". Let's create a page of discussion where a few contributors will intervene and let's see how it moves forward. If we don't succeed in solving the issue, the Arbcom will be able to say who is working in the global spirit of our wikipedia rules and who does not and it will be able to take a decision based on concrete facts. Doing so, we move forward, we don't need to dig the history of the articles and the discussions to prove this one or that one is the bad guy. We could even find a solution by ourselves because everybody knows that the Arbcom will just look at us. That is also a good opportunity to synthetize all arguments and refresh the discussions. And all in all, it is the more constructive.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • Request to the arbitrators : 2 At least 3 arbitrators suggest a '(binding) RfC' closed by a designed independant editor/admin. This was tried in the past and suggested that 3 admins close such RfC. But the contributors could never be found. Given they are not involved and it seems there is a a least consensus to refer to ArbCom, could the arbitrators suggest/chose 3 editors that would close the case ? I am confident that this would help.
      Anyway, I still think a 'binding mediation' eg by the same 3 could be much more efficient. If this mediation could be done on a dedicated page to which we could refer in case of failure, that would even be better. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Question to the arbitrators : I may be right or I may be wrong in considering that contributors refuse to move forward constructively and WP:GAME the system. We can comply to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF strictly but then nothing will evolve and this talk page will remain a WP:BATTLEFIELD (or a multi-players on-line game, whichever is the less childish). According to your point of view, how can we manage this contracdiction ? What community's principles give an answer to such a situation ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I agree with much of what Pluto2012 has said. The content issue is embarrassingly simple to resolve in principal because it is about correcting a basic error. Many sources have already solved it in ways that comply with our policies. All that is required is for editors to follow the sources and comply with our policies and guidelines. It should be easy but it has not been possible, largely it seems because the information in the sources gets convolved with editor's personal opinions on the real world issues. If the only thing that came out of this was that it stopped editors from writing their personal opinions/personal analyses based on what they think they know about the real world issue without "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions" (to quote the discretionary sanctions) or what they think about other editors, it would be a huge leap forward. It's difficult to convey how low the signal to noise ratio is on that discussion page or how rarely people actually survey and look at how sources handle the contested status of Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators asked for an example of behavioral issues. Here is one that just happened. It's typical, so I'm by no means singling out this particular editor.

• "Oppose this wording. "claims" again this goes back to the suggestions we add proclaimed capital. If we are going to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.." etc. see diff. Why is it problematic ? It ignores countless sources that present Israel's claim that Jerusalem (complete and united) is their capital as a claim, rather than presenting it as a statement of fact. The statement is predicated on the editor's personal view that it is a fact that "Jerusalem is israel's dejure and defacto capital", and it is that belief, not the data in the sources, that is used to make content decisions. Also, no one wants "to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". The issue is, as always, presenting a disputed claim as a unattributed statement of fact using Wikipedia's narrative voice. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you NMMNG, that is another example of a behavioral issue, misrepresentation, NMMNG saying that I am "pretending the people they disagree with do not base their views on reliable sources, which is patently false and obviously dismissive." Of course I know what the sources say because I'm one of the people there who actually does what they are supposed to do, surveys them and cites them in discussions. Of course I know that there are sources that say Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Of course NMMNG knows that I know this because I have explicitly acknowledged it on several occasions and I have told him many times that there is diversity in the sources and that we have to deal with the mess. And NMMNG should know by now that I never pretend about anything. There is no possible justification for this kind of misrepresentation, no one should have to deal with it. It needs to stop. Is the example I gave above dismissive of the views expressed by the editor in the diff ? I hope so. I'm not interested in what editors think is true, I'm only interested in what the sources say and how we can deal with that data. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Some comments on mediation - According to Wikipedia:DR#Last_resort:_Mediation, binding mediation is about "reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone". I don't think anyone should be concerned whether I, as a party to the mediation, find a solution acceptable. The objective should be to reach an agreement that maximizes compliance with policies and guidelines whether I or anyone else likes it or not. It should be possible to demonstrate that it is a near-optimal solution based on evidence in the sources, not the happiness of the participants. Having watched this issue for years, it seems to me that it is not possible for some editors to agree to a solution that does not include the unattributed statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". No amount of evidence in the form of sources that present the information in ways other than a statement fact will persuade these editors that the inconsistency matters and is a policy violation. It's therefore not possible to reach "an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone" that also maximizes compliance with policies and guidelines at the moment. They are mutually exclusive and will remain so unless the behavioral issues are fixed and editors are forced to follow the rules. I can see mediation working if it had zero tolerance for various behaviors such as voicing a personal opinion on an issue rather than citing a source/repeatedly making demonstrably false statements/using original research/arguing from first principals etc and the editor was immediately removed from the mediation process. At the moment there is zero cost for behavior that disrupts the process of finding a solution that complies with policy. Until that changes so that this is only about the sources, the policies and the guidelines, I don't think mediation can resolve it. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Casliber, you said "reports of transgressions should be brought to Arbitration Enforcement". I see this kind of comment quite often but do you have any evidence based reason to believe that AE can handle it ? I don't. I've been editing in the ARBPIA topic area for years. I don't know how many AE reports I've watched but it goes back to at least Archive34 and AE is currently on Archive127. What I haven't seen is evidence that complicated issues covered by ARBPIA like persistently biased editing, anything that could involve large amounts of evidence, can be handled at AE. AE hasn't dealt with issues like that for ARBPIA. It has been used to deal with technical violations/edit warring and editors who make patently disruptive edits in the topic area. If AE could deal with (and editors could be bothered to file reports about) the longer term more fuzzy behavioral issues, I don't think we would be here today. The only people who could survive in the topic area would be those who follow the rules and edit neutrally. I would like to see AE become a venue that could deal with these kind of issues but that would probably involve filing test cases (and a lot of drama). Sean.hoyland - talk 20:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

I concur with Pluto's suggestions and Sean.Hoyland's follow up remarks, though I think Nableezy has made the right technical call, unfortunately, because it's realistic enough to appreciate that there is no clear behavioural issue in the extensive discussions that would call for the kind of corrective punishment Tariq's outline seems to suggest. Arbcom's remit is not to fix impossibly compromised pages.

Writing that recent discussions have been 'rekindled with a fire and desperation like never before', is hyperbole, and would appear hysterical were it not from the fact that that is not Tariq's style. Very level headed people (not myself) have honestly tried to work out a compromise and met a stone wall, but manners (AGF compliancy) have been almost impeccable. Just for the record, the humongous threads may be summed up in a thumbail form (Wikipedia#Jerusalem-lead for dummies), which you can without offense take as a time-saving device to avoid reading those massive archives.

There are two deeply problematical assertions in the lead, problematical because the form they take, is, per sources, self-contradictory, and represent poor compromises because of their clumsiness, which confuses two POVs with two facts, while pretending their is no POV problem.

A. 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.'

Put the sentence in propositional form, and you immediately see the problem.

• (a) Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
• (b) Jerusalem is not (recognized as) the capital of Israel.

• (a) is Israel’s POV (b) is the POV of virtually all other states.

B. '(Jerusalem) is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included.

Put the sentence in propositional form, and you immediately see the problem.

• (a) Jerusalem is Israel’s largest city
• (b) Jerusalem is not Israel’s largest city (since the assertion includes East Jerusalem which in international law is outside of the state of Israel).

• (a) is the Israeli POV (b) is the non-Israeli POV.

In both these sentences, (a) an ostensibly factual proposition is asserted, and (b) then challenged as not true. The Israel POV is first asserted as a fact, and then denied as a fact.

Those who are unhappy at the way WP:NPOV appears to be deftly sidestepped here have endeavoured over several years to find a more balanced formula, in which the clash here between truth propositions that contradict each other would be replaced with a perspectival phrasing that clarifies neutrally the competing claims. The issue is resolvable by using the word 'claim' for both parties in (A). (B) should not be in the lead since it is based on a highly dubious if. Every suggestion that tries to address this has failed, in the face of a resolute preference for the text more or less as it stands, which, some argue, privileges the Israeli POV by prioritizing its basic claims as facts (is).Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• '(Jerusalem) is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included.

Per WP:NPOV,'(Jerusalem) would be Israel's largest city in both population and area, were East Jerusalem to become part of the state of Israel.' is the only way that sentence could be redeemed, since it is an (improbable) hypothetical astutely rephrased as a combination of a factitious 'fact' and an improbable conditional outrider, since the resident Palestinian majority of the East Jerusalem population refused Israeli citizenship. Of course, as such it has no place in the lead, nor in the text, being a conjectural speculation.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

This request is an exact mirror of the problems on the article talk page.

• We have Dailycare, who agreed to the current wording as a compromise only to come back later, challenge it, POV tag it, change it while declaring he has "consensus by default" because whoever doesn't agree with him is part of the "hatikva brigade" and their views are not valid. Now he pretends the behavioral issue is with Tariq responding to his being a DICK and not with him being a dick in the first place.
• Pluto accuses whoever disagrees with him of gaming the system, as if having an opinion and stating it is some kind of sneaky underhanded attempt to play wikipedia's rules in order to corrupt it.
• Alertboatbanking, a pretty obvious sock which the resident "sockslayers" don't care about because he supports the result they want.
• Sean and Nishidani pretending the people they disagree with do not base their views on reliable sources, which is patently false and obviously dismissive.
• I assume ZScarpia will be here shortly to try to chill his opponents with threats, and we'll have a perfect microcosm. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by BritishWatcher

I am not convinced that Arbitration on this matter is the right way forward although i agree with a lot of what Tariqabjotu has said. There are three primary problems at present it seems to me and as Arbcom does not usually rule on content matters only one aspect of the situation might be resolved with arbitration and not the wider problem. Firstly we have in recent months seen a number of attempts to change the article, some of which have not been specific proposals, merely the fact some editors believe the current article introduction is wrong. There have been clear opposition to proposals and more editors times seem to support the current wording than any change, let alone a specific change.

Those of us supporting the status quo (which was based on the compromise agreed around two years ago) have on a number of occasions been accused of breaking the rules or doing something wrong, merely for supporting the status quo. So one thing Arbcom could probably help with is reinforcing the fact people are free to support the status quo, and that a change should only take place if there is a consensus. Not a change imposed by a minority of editors seeking to push aside objections.

The other two problems are content issues. The current wording is neutral and balanced. It states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but that this is not internationally recognised. That is accurate and balanced, and was a significant change prior to two years ago when the introduction did not mention at all the international community view in the first sentence, because it is handled in detail in another paragraph of the introduction.

Certain editors are insistent that the article introduction be changed to treat Palestine and Israels current situation in regards Jerusalem as entirely equal. That is not the case, and if we tried to treat them as equal it would be giving clear undue weight to the Palestinian POV. Jerusalem is the defacto, and dejure capital of Israel, rightly or wrongly that is indisputably the situation, although the future status of the city is certainly part of the dispute and that is already explained in the introduction.

Yet a few editors are demanding the introduction say Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and Palestine. When I challenged one of the editors demanding the change to provide sources for this claim saying it would help justify the proposal [107], they initially said they would [108], then when I asked for specific reliable sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine [109] (which is what they have been demanded be added to the article).. the editor in question all but admits there are not the sources to back up such a statement. [110]. Not only did they never provide the sources requested, none of the other editors demanding change stepped in to provide sources either.

So theres no case based on Wikipedia policies, and no case based on sources for the change they propose. Also there is a third problem that is often overlooked. If we are to change the article to pretend that Jerusalem is not the defacto and dejure capital of Israel (and in Israel), then many other things about the article have to change too. For example at present the infobox shows the Israeli flag of Jerusalem, Israeli emblem for Jerusalem, the mayor of Jerusalem. These would all have to be changed along with huge amounts of the article if the small number of editors got their way and had the article act as though Jerusalem is not the capital and a city in Israel. Also none of those demanding change have produced evidence that a country cannot decide its own capital, or that a capital is dependent on international recognition. The international community officially do not recognise Jerusalem as the capital (something that is made clear) but there are numerous sources showing that Jerusalem does serve as Israels capital. Some countries do not recognise the fact the state of Israel even exists, we do not seek to say it may not exist in the first article of the Israel article.

So again, im not convinced arbitration is the right way forward, but if there was a ruling that editors are entitled to oppose proposals and support the status quo, it would at least help bring to an end some of the dismissive tones by those demanding the change, as though we have no right to take the positions we do.

Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ravpapa

There is so little one can add to a discussion so prolix! But I feel two things must be said:

First, editors and arbitrators who are looking for a permanent solution to this problem should be disabused: there is no permanent solution, because the situation is not permanent. The political forces affecting Jerusalem's status are constantly changing, and the article should reflect that. What we decide (or, more likely, don't decide) today will not be right tomorrow.

Second, arbitrator SirFozzie has suggested "binding arbitration" as a solution. I would strongly support such an approach if one existed. But, as far as I know, there is no such thing as binding arbitration (am I wrong?). The latest attempt at arbitration failed because not all the parties agreed to participate. Which is why, I believe, Tariq chose this forum to move toward a solution.

Nishidani and others are right that this case is outside the formal purview of the arbitration committee. I would suggest, however, that this is a time for you to take a bold step, live by the spirit of the fifth pillar, ignore all rules, and accept this case. To do otherwise would be to admit that the Wikipedia way has failed: that there are some topics about which we cannot write objectively, and that there are content disputes so intractable that the collaborative editing approach is doomed to failure. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Heim

Arbs who are suggesting a binding RFC or mediation, are you going to make a motion mandating one? If not, I can't see how this is going to happen. Number one, there's no guarantee the parties will make an agreement to such a method, and number two, without ArbCom's stamp, there's no guarantee the result of such a process would be honoured. The naming of Macedonia-related articles was dealt with by an RFC mandated by the committee itself and has as such been clearly enforceable. Leaving it to the community to sort it out without ArbCom's authority tends to lead to more and more discussion with no results. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork, yes, it is absolutely true that the community can call RFCs on its own. What it cannot do is make them binding. You ask for people to agree that the result will be binding. That will not happen willingly in heated national/ethnic disputes like this one, it simply will not. Notice we've already had participants who disagree with doing so at all. It's true that it's theoretically possible for the community to force people to abide by the result through extensive policing; in practice, the community has practically never had the patience or collective attention span (and collective attention span is a really hard thing to achieve in any case) to police it well enough. Coming from the perspective of an AE admin, I would generally be unwilling to enforce in cases like this without AE rules to back me up. So if you're convinced we don't need a binding RFC at all, fine, but please don't go down this road of "we don't need a motion, the community can do it itself". That position is not grounded in the reality of what Wikipedia is like. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

I've been thinking about the same thing for days, and Heimstern beat me to it. What makes the binding RFC binding is ArbCom's say-so. Otherwise, one of the parties won't agree to it just as they wouldn't agree to the mediation, and the whole thing will be a wash. You need at least a motion for it. --Rschen7754 08:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork nooooo. Having been in a similar boat many years ago, a binding RFC is what is needed, and is what the committee can do here. Otherwise, there is nothing binding about the RFC if parties do not agree to it. But why would I think that they wouldn't agree to it? Because they didn't agree to mediation, for the exact same reason: what if they lose? Then they have to forfeit the right to argue endlessly and continue disrupting the subject area in the process, while trying to get what they want. --Rschen7754 20:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Zhang

The issue at hand is no doubt a complex one which has been an issue almost since the inception of Wikipedia. Some community members and arbitrators have suggested a method of binding content resolution for this dispute (which sounds very familiar), however I note that preference seems to be leaning towards holding a binding RFC as opposed to some other form of binding resolution (like mediation). If I could offer my thoughts on the matter, binding RFCs have been used now and then on Wikipedia, with varying results. Some have success and bring peace, others are hopeless failures. Sometimes this is because the issue is so bitter that reconcilliation between editors is impossible, and the period in which an RFCs result is binding serves only as a brief ceasefire in a bitter war. In other situations (like the Abortion RFC), the structure of the discussion/vote is the cause of downfall. I would suggest mediation to be the better alternative, under the guidance of an experienced mediator. I am quite surprised that the Mediation Committee rejected a request for mediation when fourteen out of the sixteen listed participants who commented on the case (out of a total nineteen) accepted the request (and the requirements of acceptance was changed earlier this year to not require unanimous acceptance), but nevertheless, what's done is done.

I agree with what Nableezy said about a binding RFC being a bad idea. This situation seems to be too entrenched for anything except a split vote to occur, with minimal community input due to the contentious nature of the dispute, ending with a result of no consensus. Binding mediation has no real precedent that I know of, but it may be what's needed. For what it's worth, I'd be happy to mediate such a dispute - I think I'd be able enough to do so. But it all comes down to what's best for the dispute. I'd suggest mediation, failing that, a salted earth remedy like the Scientology case may be required. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• @ArbCom, my experience with the I/P articles is that people are reluctant to get involved because of the environment that exists in the topic area. The other thing I note is that the arbitration motion directs the community to set up the process, which in the past has had varying results. An RFC format is too free-form for a dispute of this nature. I think that mediation should be used to develop alternate proposed lede sections, like in the verifiability mediation, then followed by an RFC that is binding. It would create a more productive discussion. Please consider. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• @ArbCom, I'm aware that ArbCom cannot order mediation. They can, however, encourage for such a thing to take place (this was done in Prem Rawat 2. I also point out that in the Abortion case, the case closed at the end of November 2011, but wasn't opened until the end of February, after being set up by yours truly. The wording of the proposed motion below asks the community to set up and hold an RFC on the issue. But given the nature of the dispute, I have to wonder whether anyone would be willing to do so. I am not asking ArbCom to order mediation, but if the only option is a bad one (and I rarely talk out against ArbCom, but I only do so in this instance because I feel that throwing this dispute into an RFC in the deep end would be a bad idea) - then it should be passed back to the community. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by cptnono

The talk page has obviously failed. Editors are filibustering to the point that it is almost as disruptive as edit warring and it appears that no one wants to budge out of fear of hurting their cause. As mentioned on the talk page, a request for mediation with certain parties not invited could be a solution. For example: I don't want to spend hours discussing the issue. Nableezy not being invited would also be beneficial (he declined mediation but kept on arguing on the talk page) while others could also take a step back and let those without such passion hammer it out in a more structured, concise, cooler, and objective manner. An RfC might be fine but a select group of editors already involved might fix this in mediation. Conversely, people are going to argue over this issue no matter what the wording is so maybe the status quo is perfectly fine. The article might actually be sufficient as is and the issue is primarily talk page behavior instead of how the article currently comes across to the reader. I lean towards the former since there is nothing that cannot be improved.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Irrelevant to this case request. --Lord Roem (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The problem is obviously one of excess demand. This suggests that filing and commenting on Malleus related cases is simply too cheap. What we need is an entrance fee. Every time someone feels the need to file such a case they need to cough up, say, 70$ (I dunno, give it to the Wikimedia Foundation, or better yet, some charity). Every time someone feels like they must comment on the case, it's 10 smackeroos. If you wanna translate this into Wikipdia-costs, then make it an automatic week long block for filing a case, and a day block for commenting. Standard procedure, no stigma, you just got to lay off for awhile. That way, if there's a truly serious problem which really is deserving of a case, the person or persons concerned will be perfectly willing to cough up the cash, forkout the funds, bankroll the blocks. If it's the standard frivolous bullshit, they'll think twice about it.VolunteerMarek 20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

I'm in the camp which views the current wording as a prolonged case of prima facie point-of-view pushing. Since about 2007, I've participated in a couple of the futile, labyrinthine and archive-spanning attempts to change it by means of talkpage discussion.

That the current wording violates Wikipedia's neutrality principle has been shown (and ignored) time after time in the nine years that the current wording has stood.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

• "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."
• "Avoid stating opinions as facts."

Further Clauses ...

"Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

Some history: after the 1967 War, the UN passed a series of resolutions stating that any current or past unilateral Israeli attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, East and West, were invalid, including Israel's Basic Law of 1980 which declared Jerusalem its capital.

Example UN resolution text ...

As one example, see Resolution 478 of 1980: "[the UN Security Council] determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent 'basic law' on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith." As another example, see Resolution 267 of 1969: "that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status." (see article Positions on Jerusalem)

Example repercussions od UN resolutions ...

Accordingly, the UK government, for example, takes the position that: "... no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem. The UK believes that the city's status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned." One recent demonstration of the disputed status of Jerusalem was at the London Olympics, where the BBC listed Jerusalem as the seat of government, rather than capital, of Israel (and East Jerusalem as the intended seat of government of Palestine). Another concerned a complaint made to the UK Press Complaints Commission about The Guardian stating that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. The Commission ruled that there had been no breach of its code (The Guardian subsequently updated its style guide so that it no longer calls Tel Aviv Israel´s capital, instaed just stating that Jerusalem should not be referred to as the capital of Israel).

Given the above, I cannot see how "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not a seriously contested assertion and that making it in the Lead of the article does not, therefore, breach the neutrality policy. In fact, the first sentence in the Lead doesn't even properly summarise the body of the article.

In line with the neutrality policy, editors have been asked to modify the Lead so that it either states something that it is not disputed, such as that Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel or that it is the capital under Israeli law, or that it represents the claim that Jerusalem is the capital as the Israeli point of view. Nobody is particularly exercised over the form of words used, so long as the neutrality policy is adhered to. However, ignoring the Wikipedia definition of what a fact is, it is an article of faith with editors taking the Israeli view that it is a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Therefore, what looks as though it should be a trivial matter to fix, has taken on the dimensions of an ideological struggle. To support their position, editors taking the Israeli view have advanced identical, partisan arguments to those advancing the Israeli position outside Wikipedia, ignoring the counter-arguments and falsifying the position of what is commonly referred to as the international community. A set of double standards has been applied in order to minimise, or avoid, mentioning the Palestinian position on Jerusalem in the Lead.

(more to follow)     ←   ZScarpia   12:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC) (hats placed in text -- 12:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC))

Perhaps two discussions should be held, one on how to observe the neutrality policy and one on the actual wording, with the former being the more necessary. Some previous discussions have ended with a show of hands on who thinks that it´s a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, subverting the principle that, in Wikipedia, facts are based on sources, not editors's opinions. A bit of regard for policies would be nice. On the question of whether there have been any behavioural issues, I'd say, definitely yes, nine years worth.     ←   ZScarpia   13:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by formerip

Noting the suggestion that RfC closers should be appointed in advance. I don't strongly mind if this happens, but in past successful binding RfCs (e.g. VnT, Muhammad), these details have been left to disputants and have not been imposed by anyone. Editors have put out their own "adverts" for closers, held their own auditions and applied for mediation in the normal way (e.g. to formulate an RfC question). I don't think there would be any clear benefit to ArbCom assuming this role. The risk, on the other hand, is that disputants may decide not to respect the outcome, on the grounds that ArbCom chose badly. For the Muhammad RfC, the in-advance/when-the-time-comes issue was decided (by disputants) in favour of the former, so that editors would not be able to bypass the RfC and instead appeal directly to the closers. The decision here might be different, but I think it should not be a matter for ArbCom. Formerip (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Sent by me to the clerks' mailing list, a moment ago: "Dear clerks, You will notice that it is now mathematically impossible for the Jerusalem RFAR to be accepted. However, an arbcom-l thread regarding this case request is pending, and we are waiting to hear back from one arbitrator on a particular point of discussion. Therefore, please do NOT archive this case request until further notice. I've copied this instruction to the on-site clerk notes section." AGK [•] 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tritomex

I wish to point out, that the initial question of this subject was the both part of this sentence. Those two parts namely "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "although not internationally recognized as such" were equally but separately viewed as they are already balanced. Numerous sources are relating to this subject, without mentioning international dispute in the lead. F.x CIA fact book [111] National Geography and [112] and [113] Index mundi [114] even in sports and entertainment [115] etc. So if this sources without any dispute point out that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, our lead is at least already balanced with the negation of this claim through "international community" --Tritomex (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

We need better management of case requests. Something is very wrong when an experienced administrator has an expletive-containing hissy fit after the arbitration committee refuses to take a case related to an intractable dispute. Would you all please stop abdicating your responsibilities: you Tariq, and you The Committee. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/3)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting statements, though I see the argument that a case would be useful here. Courcelles 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a good point below -- is there enough misconduct to justify the time spent on a case, or can we get to the point quicker, and where a case would surely end up, by ordering a binding RFC by motion as we have done in cases with similar problems in the past? (Abortion, Ireland, Muhammad Images, etc.) Courcelles 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Decline as a full case, though I support a motion ordering a binding RFC, and agree a motion is necessary to actually make it binding. Courcelles 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements, but I'll note that this sort of dispute is exactly where WP:YESPOV, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm OK with a binding RfC, if that's the direction we want to go. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• I also await statements, but I note the apparent failure of community-bred compromise to hold for any great length of time, and I consider that failure to indicate that an arbitration case may be necessary. The failure of previous attempts at mediation is particularly concerning, and I welcome comment regarding why mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute. AGK [•] 01:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• On reflection, existing conduct issues can be dealt with under the discretionary sanctions provision of WP:ARBPIA. As a result, only a content dispute is left, which this committee can merely pass back to the community. Decline because, sadly, we can do no more good to this dispute. AGK [•] 23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just to make it clear up front, the Committee will not rule on the content-based part of the dispute (although I don't think the filer expects that); we will only review the allegations of misconduct. I'm also going to wait on more statements, but I do have a few questions for those posting statements to provide input on:
  1. What specific allegations of misconduct are you making? Tariq's initial statement mentions a number of different accusations made by a number of people towards a number of people, but doesn't seem to make any claims of his own. Dailycare's also alleges misconduct, but not by any specific user, and seems to focus more on content besides.
  2. Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?
  3. Is there some reason why existing discretionary sanctions will not suffice to resolve this dispute?
  4. Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?
  5. If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • • Decline as a primarily content-based dispute. I would also suggest a binding RFC to resolve this matter. If it can be demonstrated that there is misconduct preventing discussion beyond the issue of the introduction to Jerusalem I may reconsider (and I would again ask for answers to the questions above, which most people seem to be ignoring), but I'm gathering from the statements so far that this is not the case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline As this case stands, I would suggest binding mediation or binding RfC, I'm not seeing enough "misconduct" to warrant a lengthy arbitration case hearing. SirFozzie (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like the parties to answer whether they think a binding RfC would be a good venue to attempt a more enforced compromise. As mentioned in the statements, this is a relatively "simple" question in terms of the actual content that is the source of the dispute--and ArbCom wouldn't and couldn't be saying what version is correct or proper, so it would be a lot of time and energy that might be better spent at RfC rather than ArbCom. Alternatively, I'd like to see all parties provide more examples of serious behavioral problems. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline as this is a content dispute (which is now spilling out onto this case request), and such a dispute is best sorted via a RfC where it is agreed at the start that it will be closed by a named independent admin, and that the outcome will be binding on all users, and can only be changed by a further RfC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline reports of transgressions should be brought to Arbitration Enforcement. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. Risker (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding Jerusalem

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion.

Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. Adopted from the Muhammad images case. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
2. With two caveats, as there is no decision in the usual sense, the disc. sanctions should refer back to the I/P case; and 2) we should likely decide who the closers are going to be now so they can guide and supervise the RFC instead of being thrown a megabyte of text in a couple months. Courcelles 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
4. SirFozzie (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Seems like the best way forward. Per Courcelles, we do need to decide on admins now rather than at the end, however I have no idea what mechanism we wish to use. To we open the floor to volunteers? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Also agree that we should call for volunteers now. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Worth trying. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Yes, worth trying. I've made a small copy-edit, echoing Courcelles above. That is changing "under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision" to "under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area". Please revert if you disagree with this change,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
9. With the understanding that (unlike for the binding RFC in Muhammad images) we will appoint "supervising administrators" for the discussion soon after the implementation of this motion, not immediately before a decision about the result of the discussion is to be made. AGK [•] 21:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   In reply to the suggestion that we order mediation or binding mediation: I have deep reservations about the "binding mediation" system, which has never helped to resolve a dispute, and I am opposed to compelling the Mediation Committee to mediate a dispute that they have already decided would not benefit from their services. AGK [•] 20:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

10. I've given this a lot of thought, and I think this is the best solution. Ideally, mediation would have netted a good result, but I hold out little hope of successful mediation given the entrenched positions involved; further, I think it is far outside of our scope to pressure MedCom to accept a case they've already declined. Risker (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
11. Fair enough. Kirill ^[talk] 00:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The community should not be asked or directed by ArbCom - particularly in regard to content matters. The community are quite capable of opening a RfC by themselves. I have already offered to assist in closing an RfC as an independent admin, but I feel it would be inappropriate for me to do so if it were an ArbCom directed RfC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

   If they're able to open an RFC by themselves... why are they here instead? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

   I can't speak for the person who opened this case request, though I have noticed that sometimes people request ArbCom assistance earlier than unnecessary. As the community develops dispute resolution procedures which are open to all and can be managed in the open, collegiate manner which epitomizes Wikipedia, so the need diminishes to have a restricted and exclusive system such as ArbCom. I wish to encourage that, and in general I feel that the current Committee has also supported that view. Where the community can set up an RfC themselves I find it inappropriate for the Committee to set up a formal motion asking them to do that. More appropriate for us to simply reject this request with a note that the people involved can set up a RfC - which is what we normally do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Recuse

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Other

Arbitrator comments

I'll note that I originally opposed the wording that passed in the Muhammad Images case, and while I'm not repudiating my oppose in that case, and some of my objections to the wording apply equally well to this case, I'm also mindful that the wording and the ensuing process was accepted by the committee and the community, and thus prefer to repeat what has worked, rather than try and invent a substantially new remedy. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For Heim: The community have already set up provision for ensuring that a consensus decision is enforced without having to resort to ArbCom. An uninvolved admin can block a user who consistently and disruptively refuses to comply with a clear consensus decision or who disrupts a valid consensus seeking process. There is no need for either ArbCom or AE admins to get involved. As Wikipedia develops so we are ensuring that various forms of disruption can be dealt with. Wikipedia does have problems with content disputes, but as a community we are working on ways that we can directly solve them. I don't feel that having ArbCom - which is a last resort mechanism - stepping in at this stage is sending out the right message to support and encourage the community to continue working on solving content disputes. The Committee could have allowed the community the opportunity to resolve this - so far there have been talkpage discussions, and two failed attempt at mediation (which requires all parties to agree - something that is not always possible), but there has been no RfC. In a case like this where there is no user misconduct, and insufficient attempt to engage the Wikipedia community in resolving the issue has been made, coming to ArbCom is not appropriate. It's worth revisiting Wikipedia:Consensus to see the suggestions that are made, which have not been explored in this case, and to note that ArbCom is seen as the last resort. And so that it is clear that I am not shifting responsibility elsewhere, I had offered to assist in a RfC two days before this motion was proposed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Motion: Jerusalem discussion appointments

Proposed:

1) On 27 December 2012, the Arbitration Committee asked the community to hold a discussion concerning the Jerusalem article. The committee also resolved to appoint three uninvolved, experienced editors to decide the result of that request for comment (the "Closers").

• In addition to the three Closers, the committee also appoints at this time a fourth editor as Moderator of the discussion.
• The Moderator will be responsible for assisting the community as it sets up the discussion, supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant.
• To enable him to perform these duties, the Moderator may close sub-sections or sub-pages of the discussion pages, and when doing so may direct discussion towards other sections or points.
• The three closers are responsible for determining the result of the community's discussion upon its conclusion.
• The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect. The clause that the result of this structured discussion will be binding for three years also remains in effect.

We appoint the following three editors to close the discussion:

1. Keilana (talk · contribs)
2. RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
3. Pgallert (talk · contribs)

We appoint Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) as the discussion moderator.

Our sincerest thanks go to these four editors, for accepting these appointments and for assisting the community in conducting and closing this discussion. We suggest that this discussion be publicised at appropriate community venues, and we invite experienced, uninvolved editors to assist with creating the discussion pages.

Enacted - (X! · talk)  · @231  ·  04:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Proposed, with the following obiter dicta: (1) We approached the appointees through e-mail, to give them the opportunity to quietly decline to become involved in a project concerning such a contentious topic. (2) The appointees were simply editors that we arbitrators knew to be suitable for the roles to which we are appointing them. At another time, we might have held a call for interested editors to volunteer. However, for my part, I thought that arranging these appointments as speedily as possible was better, and that holding another round of "appointments" (preceded by the ArbCom Elections and succeeded in a short time from now by AUSC and CU/OS appointments) would induce election fatigue in the community. My thanks go again to the four editors above for agreeing to assist with this discussion. Community comment on this motion is most welcome, in the section below. AGK [•] 13:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
2. As an addendum to AGK's post: if anyone wants to volunteer to be involved in helping out with a similar discussion in the future, let us know and we will add your name to a list to consider for the future. NW (Talk) 13:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 13:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
7. I've recused on some aspects of the underlying dispute, but I don't think there's any problem with my supporting this procedural/personnel motion to move the process forward. As a heads up to everyone, when this process ends I'm likely to ask whether it was effective, and should be considered as a model for future, similar disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
8. Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
10. Worm^TT(talk) 08:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
11. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
12. Kirill ^[talk] 12:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
13. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

Community comments concerning motion

• Good choices. NE Ent 14:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that it looks like you've made a good choice, and thank you to the four editors from me too. I would also like to thank AGK for the detailing of the reasoning behind the chosen course of action - here's hoping that it prevents drama! Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• This looks like a good way to implement the earlier motion. We've in the meanwhile had some discussions on talk:Jerusalem on which question to put to the RFC and we've made some progress toward that. Appointing a moderator to assist in the set-up sounds like a very good idea. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Mr. Stradivarius is excellent with these sorts of discussions, I am sure he will do a great job. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is very promising. I love the moderator idea. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Socks

Do y'all deal with obvious socks? The problem, naturally, is that there's no way yet to know whose it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

comment on rfc process and arbcomm

Hi there, all. this is just a suggestion. In the future, I think that any time that Arbcomm launches a process to discuss an RFC, they should ask the moderator to provide a set of the possible wordings or options which may be offered in the future RFC.

Then participants in the process for designing that RFC should be given the chance to say whether they are for or against each of those options, and why.

if we permit all discussion participants to offer their own options and to argue over that, then the process can become quickly derailed, and we may never get around to the RFC itself which was the reason for convening that process in the first place. just a thought. hope you don't mind. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification (April 2013)

Original location

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is the page which is the subject of this proceeding: Talk:Jerusalem/2013_RfC_discussion.

Initiated by Steve, Sm8900 (talk) at 02:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• sm8900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [116]
• Pgallert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [117]
• RegentsPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [118]
• Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [119]
• Ravpapa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [120]
• Evanh2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [121]
• Dailycare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [122]
• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [123]
• FormerIP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [124]
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [125]
• Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [126]
• Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [127]
• ClaudeReigns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [128]
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [129]
• Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [130]
• Mor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [131]
• Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [132]
• Hertz1888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [133]
• BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [134]
• Dlv999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [135]
• ZScarpia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [136]
• Ezzex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [137]

Notes by Sm8900 in regards to intent of process

Suggestion on process

I am reposting a note which I posted elsewhere, with a suggestion on how perhaps we could improve this processs. this suggestion was sort of my reason for posting this whole thing in the first place. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Hi there, all. this is just a suggestion. In the future, I think that any time that Arbcomm launches a process to discuss an RFC, then Arbcom or the moderator of the process should provide a set of the possible wordings or options which may be offered in the future RFC.

Then participants in the process for designing that RFC should be given the chance to say whether they are for or against each of those options, and why.

if we permit all discussion participants to offer their own options and to argue over that, then the process can become quickly derailed, and we may never get around to the RFC itself which was the reason for convening that process in the first place. just a thought. hope you don't mind. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Note on reason for process

by the way, one reason I made this a request for clarification is that I left notes on the personal talk pages for several arbitrators. However, I did not receive a reply,. So, based on the fact that I did not receive any reply at all, even when i tried to conduct this discussion on an informal basis with individual members of Arbcomm, I felt that it was advisable to post this. I appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Salvio

I would like to thank Salvio for his note, and would like to reply. Salvio, I will try to be equally frank. In my opinion, I think this process really started out with some good intentions. but I think the results are not what Arbcomm had hoped for, since their goal was to provide a process which would make the design process for an RFC more easier. I know it is not Arbcomm's intent to inflict counter-productive processes on Wikipedia, and they intended to make things more better for our editing community. in my opinion the the resulting process is very much counter to what Arbcomm intended or desired. I don't think the design process for an RFC should take so long that actually launching the RFC itself becomes an afterthought, or is even made to seem relatively unimportant due to the length of this design process. my point is, Arbcomm itself should be notified if a process which it mandated turns out to not have achieved the desired result, and in fact ends up being just as laborious as the conventional process which it was meant to replace.

I do appreciate all the hard work which Arbcomm does, and all the multiple benefits which it provides to the Wikipedia community. I hope it will be possible for Arbcomm to have a full discussion of this item, to discuss both the intent of this process, and the actual course it took, and to also lay out some clear and specific guidelines on how the process should be designed in the future, and what guidelines Arbcomm should define for itself for any similar process which it may mandate in the future. if this came up now, then it could possibly come up again. so I appreciate any progress which we as a community might be able to forge together. I appreciate your help and input. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note on intent of process

By the way, one more note in regards to what Arbcomm should do. in my opinion, of course Arbcomm should intervene if possible to do so. the whole point of Arbcomm mandating a process, imo, is so that they will intervene when necessary at various intervals, in order to maintain that process and to keep it viable. I really see no reason for Arbcomm to be hands-off if it mandates a process, and then that process does not show some viable progress. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Original statement by Sm8900

I would like to request a clarification of the RFC process for Jerusalem article, which Arbcomm mandated, in regards to the points raised and queries in the following note on an Arbcomm talk page.

1. note: Arbitration/Requests#Mandated Jerusalem discussion appears to be a bureaucratic morass. (Permanent link.)
2. I would also like to suggest a solution and remedy for the problems discussed in this note. I have made these suggestions at the following talk page section: ARBPIA#comment_on_rfc_process_and_arbcomm.
3. The page which is referred to is located at: Talk:Jerusalem/2013_RfC_discussion.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Note by sm8900

I would like to thank Arbcomm for replying to this. please note that my motion on this item is not necessarily a point of contention with any other editor who is part of this, but is rather a suggestion on the nature of this process itself. thanks very much. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note in reply to moderator of process

I would like to reply and say that I do appreciate all the hard work which the moderator has put into helping this process to develop. I don't think it is any fault of the moderator that this has taken so long. I think that the structure of this process was flawed from the beginning. in the future, I feel that Arbcomm should be the one to provide the possible options to be used in a future RFC. then, as part of the design process for the RFC, all participants should simply comment on the possible options which Arbcomm has provided. I feel that this might allow the process to go much more smoothly. --Sm8900 (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tariqabjotu

I'm not sure what exactly the "clarification" needed is, but, yes, this process is taking forever. I don't know what the problem is. A desire to get every minutae related to this RfC nailed down? Lack of participation (from those commenting or the mediator)? Excessive arguing over minor points?

That being said, while this process has taken a long time already, I feel the RfC discussion is close to its conclusion. On Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, Looie496 said there are four steps left in the discussion before the RfC commences. However, that's not true; there are only two. One of them has been going on for more than a month now, so hopefully that should be drawing to its final conclusion (provided the moderator doesn't insist on several more questions). The last step is the finalization of implementation, which I imagine is just discussion of how the RfC will be advertised. The last two steps Looie referenced are the launch of the RfC and the analysis and implementation of the results -- i.e. the RfC itself.

I'm not a fan of this current drawn-out process, and I feel a small team of reasonable editors (maybe ArbCom itself?) could have come up with an RfC with a similar format months ago. But now that we've gone down this road, we might as well see it to its end -- although perhaps with a greater understanding from all parties involved that we need to speed this up. Many people, myself included, are becoming fatigued and losing interest in this whole thing. -- tariqabjotu 02:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mr. Stradivarius

For those unfamiliar with the background, I'm the moderator of the RfC discussion. I'm a little surprised to see this clarification request, as I think this could have been sorted out on my talk page without involvement from the committee. Sm8900 did leave a note on my talk page a few days ago, but we didn't discuss the issue of the basic structure of the RfC discussion, which seems to be what this request is about.

Having said that, I do agree with him, with Tariqabjotu, and with Looie496, about the fact that this process has been taking too long. This is mostly the result of my decisions on how to structure the process, and I'm sorry for any unnecessary work or discussion that this has caused. It wasn't my intention to make the discussion last as long as this, and I might have been able to avoid this state of affairs with more foresight.

To add to this, there has been discontent among the participants at the latest stage of the proceedings. I made the mistake of posting what turned out to be very contentious questions for the participants to answer, right before I went travelling for a few days (on April 11). I wanted to post the questions before I left, as otherwise the process would have basically been stalled until I got back. However, this backfired, and resulted in a series of acrimonious exchanges which I wasn't able to moderate effectively due to my limited internet access. I think it is the negativity in this latest round of discussions that has led to the fatigue that Tariqabjotu mentions.

However, as Tariqabjotu also mentions above, this process is actually fairly near to completion, and I don't think there would be any benefit to radically changing its format at this stage. There are certainly lessons to be learned from this experience for the next time ArbCom tries something similar, and I myself have many things to reflect upon. What the actual process needs now, though, is for me to summarise the consensus from the latest discussions and to assemble a draft of the RfC text, not for there to be a change of procedure or of personnel. After the participants see an actual draft of the RfC, with any luck the fatigue should disappear. I have set aside today to do this, so you can expect to see some results later on. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496

In response to Salvio, let me note that this request is here because Carcharoth said it should be -- the issue was originally raised on the ArbCom talk page. In my view, the most important aspect of this is that ArbCom really needs to be conscious of how far off track the process has gone, otherwise similar things are likely to happen again. This is a remedy that did not work properly. Can the concept be modified to make it workable, or should remedies of this sort simply be avoided?

It would also be helpful, for the current case, to have the moderator set a more or less definite target date for when the RfC should go live. Looie496 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dailycare

I agree with the editors above in that the process, while long, is quite close to completion and in that regard prospects are bright. Mr. Stradivarius has been doing an admirable job in guiding the discussion toward the eventual goal of starting the RFC. I don't see why we shouldn't just finish the planning according to the agreed plan. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

hmmm, I do hear your points. I would like to thank Dailycare for his reply here, as a fellow participant. thanks.--Sm8900 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

• Taking care of the notifications now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've notified the moderator, closers and all users listed as participants. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Thank-you for the request for clarification. Before this goes any further, we need to make sure that all those who need to be aware of this request have been notified and added to the notification section above. Could you or a clerk please do that. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Steve, frankly, I don't understand what you expect us to do here. It appears you're trying to provide us with feedback as to how the process we set up can be improved (and what its major flaws were): don't get me wrong, that's always welcome and, as far as I'm concerned, your suggestions will certainly be taken into account, should we do something like this again, but that's not something that requires a clarification or amendment request. If, on the other hand, you're asking the Committee to intervene, then my personal take is that we should not interfere now that the process is nearing completion... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Can the concept be modified to make it workable [...]? Hopefully, yes: this process was fairly new and there are still kinks to iron out, obviously. That's why feedback from the various participants and from the mediator is much appreciated. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• My views align fairly closely with Salvio's on this one.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• In general, I'm disinclined to intervene in processes like this unless it has gone badly off the rails; micromanaging by committee is one sure way to make the process fail. In this particular case, while perhaps some things could have been done differently, I see no cause for us to intervene now, especially at this late juncture. My suggestion is that everyone do their best to get the process to completion, after which we could assess its effectiveness, and decide on what should be improved next time around. T. Canens (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with T. Canens. I directed Steve here because he appeared to be lost and posting on the wrong pages. Possibly I should have directed him to the moderator, but I think this clarification has been a useful reminder of this process that the committee mandated, a need to be aware of it, and to support it through to its conclusion, and then review it after that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification and amendment - Syrian civil war articles (June 2013)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Greyshark09 (talk) at 17:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Case affected

Emesik and Sopher99 block on 28 April ([138]); Sopher99 block on July 10.([139])

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 1
2. Finding 2
3. Remedy 3

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Greyshark09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• FutureTrillionaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marianian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• FunkMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pug6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ItsZippy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

FutureTrillionaire notified here. Marianian notified here. Jake Wartenberg notified here. FunkMonk notified here; Pug6666 notified here; ItsZippy notified here.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Amendment

• Currently, the article Syrian civil war is under the arbitration remedies of ARBPIA, despite that the Syrian conflict has no direct affiliation with the general Arab-Israeli conflict. The ARBPIA was enforced by administrator User:Jake Wartenberg on March 2013 [140] in order to control constant edit-warring on the Syrian civil war page with the most suitable tool, chosen by him to be ARBPIA. Jake was later requested to amend the issue of enforcing ARBPIA on Syrian civil war and using instead a new 1RR took for the Syrian civil war articles, answering that Arbcom is the correct target for such request [141].
• A new arbitration 1RR tool is proposed to be created to deal with Syrian civil war articles in order reduce edit-warring, and stabilize a large number of pages, to keep order and refrain from confusion because of current use of ARBPIA for the Syrian civil war article (ARBPIA to be replaced with Syrian civil war 1RR restriction).

Statement by Greyshark09

The ARBPIA 1RR restriction was enforced in Syrian civil war article in order to prevent constant edit-warring. The 1RR restriction was made by admin Jake Wartenberg on March 24, 2013, as an answer to editors' request to limit edit-warring on that page (request[142] and enforcement[143]). The enforcement of ARBPIA was made simply because it is the most convenient 1RR tool available and not because of an affiliation with the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, there might be a serious flaw in using the "Arab-Israeli arbitration enforcement" tool on Syrian civil war articles: first of all Israeli involvement is so far very limited in that conflict and hence Israel is not present in the infobox yet; secondly, even if considering Israeli involvement, the context is clearly not a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict (conflict between Israel and Arab League), but actually part of the Israel-Iran proxy conflict (Iran is not an Arab country and of course is not part of the Arab League). Considering that Syria is suspended from the Arab League (see [144]), thus the "Arab-Israeli arbitration enforcement" on Syrian conflict is irrelevant. I suggest creating a new arbitration tool named "Syrian conflict arbitration enforcement" for 1RR enforcing on Syrian civil war related articles instead of ARBPIA to resolve this issue.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Basically, your understanding of the presented case is in line with my attempt to present it. Let's see additional opinions on the case.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Marianian: You should reread my proposal - the request is to remove the ARBPIA tool (because it has nothing to do with Syrian civil war) and implement a different 1RR sanction tool - proposed to be 1RR for Syrian civil war articles. Alternative solutions were also proposed by administrators.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire: I would like to bring to your attention that in addition to Syrian civil war article and Syrian civil war infobox template, there is also a constant edit-warring on articles Syria, Syrian civil war spillover into Lebanon, Siege of Homs, etc.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by FutureTrillionaire

As an editor who has made many edits to Syria-related articles (although I've recently been less active), I can safely say that the Syrian civil war is definitely not an Arab-Israeli conflict and should not be restricted by ARBPIA. However, the main Syrian civil war infobox often does suffer from edit wars. An 1RR restriction might be helpful there, but the Syrian civil war battle articles usually don't experience edit-wars, and therefore a 1RR restriction for those articles is unnecessary, maybe even inappropriate. I support restrictions for the infobox template, but do not support restrictions for the main article or related articles.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Marianian

I have only got involved in the Syria article alone to try to resolve the infobox issue where international events at the time could pose a conflict of interest into how the country's infobox was presented.

Although the RfC initially went towards a neutral solution where the government would be in separate infoboxes preferable at the politics and government section, the ultimate consensus was keep the status quo for now, for which I respect.

However, my talk page and user page was subject to personal attacks on 25 April 2013 (see this and this). This resulted in me posting a complaint about their actions, yet a user known as Eliastoma (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) tried to silence me on that, resulting in a another complaint to an administrator. Further investigation resulted in the said account blocked on suspicion of sockpuppetry.

My last recent edit to Syria was to remind users that the consensus was the status quo.

Therefore I could support a new Syrian conflict arbitration enforcement tool with tougher measures against personal attacks. Even where my experience has been completely independent of the Israel question, it seems that the civil war needs its own taskforce to deal with the present issues, although I tried my best to respect WP:NPOV. --Marianian^(talk) 01:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Question to Greyshark09

I am not sure if it is okay to have sub-headers under my space for asking questions, but I was wondering how it would be possible to have an article under two Arbcom cases? --Marianian^(talk) 07:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jake Wartenberg

My involvement in this issue began in late March when I responded to a protection request that was made as the result of an edit war over whether Israel should be considered involved in the conflict. It seemed initially as if I had been able to broker a compromise between some of the editors involved, but the situation quickly deteriorated after I lifted the protection. I read through the talk page archives and found that this was a dispute between entrenched editors that had been going on for months with little progress, despite extensive DR. ARBPIA reads, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." In light of this, there seemed to me little question that the sanctions were applicable. This is the first and only time I have worked in AE. I apologize if my actions have not embodied the same finesse that might be expected of an administrator more experienced in this area. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by FunkMonk

Will cool the many hot-heads down, and force them to use the talk-page, which is a good thing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Pug6666

I agree with the statement that Greyshark09 made. I support putting 1RR the article. However it must be labeled appropriately. Labeling the Syrian civil war as part of the Israeli-Arab conflict without reliable sources calling it part of said conflict could be seen as POV pushing. So we could make the category Syrian Civil war protection as a temporary category and clearly state that fact. I hope I am not posting too late if so I apologize. Pug6666 19:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ItsZippy

I have no strong opinion, really - I'm not incredibly involved in this dispute. I did block a user recently for a 1RR violation, as a result of the 1RR restriction on the page. The block itself was slightly contentious, and I asked for other admins to review it at AN, though I don't think the main points of contention would not really be resolved by an ArbCom motion either way. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes

Israel as a state is already directly involved in the conflict, as clear from the text of article, for example here, airstrikes by Israeli aviation and a lot more [145]. Therefore, I think this particular article falls under ARBPIA. There is no need in any clarification, amendment, new case or ANI/AN discussion. This can be decided by admins on AE if anyone files a complaint.My very best wishes (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

In'm not involved in anything Syrian Civil War-related, although I have long experience in dealing with ARBPIA-related AE requests. In my view, this civil war is at most partially and indirectly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. As such, I think that the civil war as a whole is outside the scope of that conflict, and consequently outside the scope of the case's remedies, except as concerns edits that relate to Israel's involvement in the civil war. In addition, as I've said elsewhere, I have concerns that WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction is not enforceable as written, because it was voted on by the Committee only indirectly in the context of a motion amending it, and, if it is considered a discretionary sanction by an administrator, it would need to be the subject of individual prior warnings per WP:AC/DS#Warnings.

Because arbitration is the last resort of dispute resolution, if I were on the Committee, I'd request more specific evidence that community- or admin-level dispute resolution efforts or tools have failed to effectively prevent continued edit-warring before considerint imposing any arbitral sanctions. Such evidence has not been presented here. I therefore recommend that administrators first make use of normal anti-editwarring measures such as warnings, protections or blocks, or ask for a community sanction at WP:AN, before asking the Committee to impose sanctions.  Sandstein  04:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Lothar von RIchthofen

It should be made known that the Syrian civil war topic area suffers from a fairly high level of sockpuppetry, both account- and IP-based. ArbCom member User:Salvio giuliano can well attest to this. Any 1RR restriction should explicitly take this into account with a clear exemption for the reversion of sock-edits. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Thryduulf

I have only taken a cursory look at the article but it seems that 1RR is generally working there (and the statements by users here suggest likewise). If this is so, then I don't think that a community sanction authorising discretionary sanctions (or just 1RR restrictions) at the discretion of uninvolved administrators for all articles (and templates, etc) related to the Syrian Civil War would be hard to come by. However, ArbCom sanctions normally supercede community ones, and there is the potential for wikilawyering during a period until the community sanction is passed. As such I'd say that an arbcom motion retroactively authorising the existing sanctions and authorising their continuance until such time as the community reaches a consensus about whether to authorise sanctions or not. Although I don't think it likely, the community could decide not to authorise them, and at the same time it allows the status quo to remain in the event of no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Courcelles: re "are to be treated as if they were a valid implementation of arbitration enforcement.". My reading of the intention here is that they should should be treated as if this motion was in place when they were issued. It makes no judgment on whether they are/were correct or not, other than there was a valid authority to place restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare: "All sanctions made pursuant to the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} prior to the passage of this motion are to be relogged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.". I don't think you mean all sanctions, as that would include those not relevant to Syria. "All sanctions related to the Syrian Civil War made..." is what I I think you want. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Your motion looks good to me, but you might want to be explicit that a community consensus at AN/I can in this case supercede the ArbCom resolution, as they usually can't. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The phrasing of the discretionary sanctions regime from ARBPIA is as follows:

“ All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. ”

Looking over the article and talk page, it is clear that Israeli involvement in this inter-Arab conflict is of significant editorial interest, which reflects the interest shown by reliable sources. ARBPIA doesn't pertain solely to Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, but even if it did the PFLP-GC (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command) are involved in the conflict and have threatened to attack the Golan Heights currently occupied by Israel. Since the discretionary sanctions apply to "related articles, broadly interpreted" I would say this falls roughly within the lines given all these facts. From my reading, however, this is strictly a question of the 1RR restriction on the article as any edits relating to Israeli involvement would be normally covered by the discretionary sanctions anyway. The general 1RR restriction actually has similar wording as the discretionary sanctions saying:

“ All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. ”

The bolded wording would clearly accommodate the position that the article falls under the 1RR restriction. My impression would be that sanctions wouldn't apply to every article regarding the Syrian civil war, just those where Israeli involvement would be a significant point of interest.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Bbb23

I am posting at this point only to respond to NW's comment. It's hard enough for admins to decide whether a particular article belongs under sanctions. Now, you're saying that we have to parse the actual circumstances to see if the violation occurred in a part of the article that relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That's like putting sections of articles under sanctions. I see that as a practical nightmare. Also, although you recommend NYB's option #3, you appear to ignore NYB's first #3 (" no one so far seems to disagree that having the article under DS (in particular, a 1RR) is a good idea"), a statement rather than an option, and seems to contradict your view as how to apply the sanctions to this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

NW, thank you for your response, but I still want to return to practical considerations as to what we should do in the meantime before you folk actually make a decision. The article and the related template {{Syrian civil war infobox}} still have notices that sanctions are in effect. They also have edit notices that pop up if an editor edits either page. I think it's safe to assume that some editors, both admins and non-admins, aren't aware of this request here. What happens during the pendency of this request if an editor violates 1RR? One possible solution is to remove the edit notices (they are not required anyway - they just help to give notice), to leave the talk page notices on the talk pages, but add a notice that links to this request for clarification. It's not ideal as it has a certain schizoid quality to it, but I'm struggling to think of what's fair, yet at the same time not prejudge the outcome of this request.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

NW, I hate to be a pest (it's one of my many annoying flaws). Your advice makes sense to me except for two issues. First, if I remove the notice and edit notices, I think it would be better to post a message on the talk page warning editors not to construe the removal as a license to battle. To make it more visible, I'd like to put it into the header (I assume that can be done - I'm not experienced with editing talk page headers). Second, although it's true that a breach of WP:3RR is not required to block someone for edit warring, one rarely blocks an editor who reverts twice unless there's some additional factor, e.g., a recent history of edit warring in the article. And just because I can't resist, you might wish to fix your inadvertent and entertaining typo ("I think the former might be latter and preferred here"). :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Greyshark09

It is my understanding that motion proposal shall result in retroactive change of ARBPIA sanctions to be moved to appropriate Syrian civil war sanctions log and the ARBPIA sanction (considered to be inappropriate by most) be replaced with a temporal tool, specific for Syrian civil war article to extend for three months. In my opinion, it would be a reasonable (though temporal) solution for the issue. However i should ask to clarify whether template:Syrian civil war infobox (which is also a big source of edit-warring) shall also be included in this proposed change.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the irrelevant question, i now see that the 3 month restriction is to be be applied to all Syrian civil war topic articles.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I remind all users commenting that you must only edit your own section. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Let's see if we have consensus on what the issue is, before we try to figure out the resolution to it. If the filing party is correct, the basics seem to be this: (1) there have been editing problems on Syrian Civil War, (2) an administrator started using discretionary sanctions on the article based on the Palestine-Israel case, (3) no one so far seems to disagree that having the article under DS (in particular, a 1RR) is a good idea, but (4) people have noticed the obvious fact that the Syrian Civil War is primarily an inter-Arab conflict rather than an Israeli-Palestinian one. Procedurally, we can't really say we are "clarifying" the Palestine-Israel case by expanding it to a subject that is neither Israeli nor Palestinian, and I'm not sure that are our doing so would fall comfortably within the scope of an "amendment" either. So I guess the procedural choices would be (1) to open a case (which might be overkill), (2) to adopt a motion in lieu of a case (which is do-able but only if the facts aren't in dispute), or (3) to recommend that the parties take this to AN and try to get a community sanction adopted there. Awaiting further statements to see if my understanding of the issue is correct and from there to recommend a solution. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Recommend NYB's option 3 here. The automatic 1RR block is not enforceable as an AE action when it comes to this article, except when the content clearly relates to Israel in some fashion (Golan Heights skirmishes, or something related to conflict motivations). NW (Talk) 12:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Bbb23:: I do not disagree that having this article be under 1RR / discretionary sanctions is ultimately a good thing for the editing atmosphere. However, my opinion is Jake had no authority to implement them under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions authorization. I know it is not the best thing in the world to do it this way, but it is in my view the only thing that ArbCom has authorized. Some examples:

  We use the phrase "broadly construed" a lot in our decisions. If the Syrian civil war would count under this, so too would the Egyptian revolution, the Gulf War and the US-Iran naval tensions. With all three of those topics, there are situations where the Arab-Israeli [or I guess more broadly Middle Eastern-Israeli] sanctions would apply: upheaval in the Egypt-Gaza region, the decision by Saddam to fire Scud missiles at Israel, and I'm sure the occasional presence of the IDF navy operating alongside the Fifth Fleet respectively. But for those three larger topics to qualify for discretionary sanctions, ArbCom would have had to have passed a motion putting all of MENA under discretionary sanctions, which it has not.

  What I would not be opposed to (and indeed, which I might propose if it sounds good to everyone) would be a motion implementing 1RR / discretionary sanctions for one month with respect to the Syrian civil war. This should give enough time for the community to authorize sanctions of its own if it wishes; should it not, that's its own prerogative and the matter can be brought back to ArbCom when there is a genuine "serious conduct [dispute] the community has been unable to resolve" (WP:ARBPOL). NW (Talk) 20:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: That hypothetical editor can be blocked for edit warring separately from the blanket 1RR prohibition, and I would encourage that any blocks in the next week be given on a simple edit warring rationale instead of a 1RR violation rationale. Reviewing sysops are always at liberty to apply more stringent standards to enforcing the edit warring policy than the 3RR standard, whether on this or any other topic. I would remove the talk page banner and edit notice for now.

  For a more permanent solution, I think there are two routes we can take. One would be what I suggested earlier. Another would be to simply pass a motion adopting discretionary sanctions for the Syrian civil war topic area. I think the former latter might be better and preferred here; it is pretty clear that the article is a long-term minefield. The fact that the (wrong) implementation of discretionary sanctions and 1RR calmed down the topic area is almost evidence in and of itself that Arbitration enforcement was if not necessary, highly helpful, in helping calm down the topic area. NW (Talk) 22:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: Don't worry about being a pest :) I wouldn't bother making any changes now. It's OK if the warnings are a little out of date if the ultimate intention is the same one. Hopefully the motion that I have proposed below will pass quickly enough and satisfy everyone's concerns. NW (Talk) 23:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• @Lothar von Richthofen:: 1RR has an automatic exemption for sockpuppetry, BLP, copyright, illegal content (WP:NOT3RR). There's no need to mention it specifically here. NW (Talk) 21:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think there exists a real risk of tying ourselves up in procedural knots here, when we seem to have broad agreement that the underlying idea -- imposing a 1RR over the Syrian civil war -- is not a bad idea. Rather I make the issue more that the ARBPIA remedy doesn't quite fit. I agree with NYB that a case is overkill, but that looking for a community sanction to fit this will either succeed, and split enforcement between AE and a community noticeboard, or fail to come to any consensus and end up right back here. So I guess my current preference is for some sort of motion to resolve this. Courcelles 19:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

These motions did not pass

Motion 1: Syrian civil war In March 2013, Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. The Syrian civil war is a broad-ranging conflict, but any connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict comes largely from Israel's geographic proximity to Syria and not any significant involvement of Israel in the article. While content that involves Israel in the Syrian civil war topic area does fall under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, the overall topic area does not. However, the revert restriction and the presence of discretionary sanctions has been helpful in calming the editing atmosphere. Accordingly: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Syrian civil war topic area, broadly construed, for three months. Notifications and sanctions made pursuant to this remedy are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. A one revert per editor per article per day restriction is established for the Syrian civil war topic area, broadly construed, for three months. Should the community authorize a form of general sanctions for the topic area that is broadly similar to this motion, the first two provisions will automatically terminate. All sanctions relating to the Syrian civil war made pursuant to the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} prior to the passage of this motion are to be relogged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. Support Proposed. Equal choice to 3. NW (Talk) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC) I don't wish to quibble over wording or procedure. NW's proposed motion works well enough - ArbCom temporarily take over Jake Wartenberg's fix until the community decide a more permanent fix is needed (or not, as the case may be). It appears the path of least disruption. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC) All three of the motions are reasonable solutions that strike me as likely to lead to more-or-less the same place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Oppose Extending ARBPIA in this way is unnecessary, though I agree legitimising Jake's sanctions is the right thing to do. AGK [•] 20:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I am quite familiar with this entire topic area and I agree that it definitely needs to be placed under DS (it doesn't really matter if we end up being the ones who authorise them or the community do it in our stead) and the sanctions already imposed so far need to be grandfathered, but I don't see why we should choose a three months' limit, thereby forcing either the community or arbcom to revote on this same issue. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Neutral Comments Leaning toward support, but will allow another day or so for community comments before voting, and may propose a couple of copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC) "are to be treated as if they were a valid implementation of arbitration enforcement" Well, not really. We're waiving the question of jurisdiction as it regards ARBPIA, not declaring anything valid in all respects... Courcelles 04:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC) NYB, I would appreciate any copyedits you care to make. Courcelles, I just looked over all of the sanctions issued since March and it doesn't appear that any active ones were issue in relation to the Syrian civil war. I'm just going to drop the clause. NW (Talk) 12:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Salvio, if the community decides not to authorize general sanctions in this three month window, I am going to take that as conclusive evidence that they do not feel that sanctions are required for the topic area and would not vote to renew it then. I am not entirely in favor of Newyorkbrad's proposal because of the lack of a sunset provision: it seems off to implement discretionary sanctions indefinitely without a serious evaluation of whether that is 100% appropriate long term for the topic area, as we would do with a case or a better argued case request. NW (Talk) 15:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Motion 2: Syrian civil war In March 2013, an administrator notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. Concern has been raised that the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war might fall within that topic. Nonetheless, there appears to be a widespread view that placing these restrictions on the Syrian Civil War topic area has been helpful to the editing environment and that they should remain in effect. No one has requested that the Arbitration Committee open a full case to consider the issue. Accordingly, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Syrian civil war topic area, broadly construed. In addition, a one revert per editor per article per day restriction is established for the Syrian civil war topic area, broadly construed. Any editor who believes the discretionary sanctions relating to the Syrian Civil War or the 1RR limitation should be lifted or modified may request a change either on the Administrators' Noticeboard or by a Request for Amendment to this Committee. However, we recommend that editors wait for a reasonable amount of time before making any such requests for amendment. Notifications and sanctions made pursuant to this motion are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. All sanctions relating to the Syrian civil war made pursuant to the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} prior to the passage of this motion are to be relogged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. Support: Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I could support this in light of the community input above as well as the proviso that the community could supersede this motion if it wished. That being said, I understand that the approach here would be a departure from the norm and why my colleagues might not want to go in this direction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Oppose: I think a temporary out of process fix for an exceptional situation is one thing, but this makes it permanent, and appears to be straying too far from our remit. ArbCom is the last resort for tricky situations the community can't resolve. The community can deal with this in three months if needed, and it doesn't appear to be a decision that would be difficult to make. If it were, we would require a case rather than a motion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I'm inclined to agree with Silk here. While I doubt the Syrian Civil War will resolve itself in three months and peace will descend upon the Middle East, it still seems far outside our scope and powers to indefinitely extend such a restriction without a full case and the FoFs that come with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC) NW (Talk) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC) For the same reason I opposed the motion above, we (the committee) should for many reasons not be thrusting discretionary sanctions on this new topic area unless we have no other choice. AGK [•] 21:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Abstain: Comments: Proposed for discussion. I realize that as with NuclearWarfare's motion, this would be a departure from standard procedures, but it may be the most efficient way of proceeding. Among the differences from NW's original formulation is that I've dropped the three-month sunset, but made it clear how editors may seek to change the sanctions regime if that becomes appropriate. Further honing is welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Motion 3: Syrian Civil War

The 24 hour wait period before this motion can be enacted has started with Worm That Turned's support vote. This motion will be enacted after 04:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC).

In March 2013, an administrator notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. A request for clarification or amendment has now been filed raising the issue of whether the topic-area of the Syrian Civil War falls within the scope of the Arab-Israeli topic-area for purposes of arbitration enforcement.

The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic.

However, the administrator action extending discretionary sanctions and the 1RR limitation to Syrian Civil War was taken in good faith. Several editors have commented that the restrictions have been helpful to the editing environment and that they should remain in effect. No one has requested that the Arbitration Committee open a full case to consider the issue.

Accordingly, the existing sanctions and restrictions applied to Syrian Civil War and related articles will continue in effect for a period not to exceed 30 days. During that period, a discussion should be opened on the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN) to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. If a consensus is not reached during the community discussion, any editor may file a request for arbitration. In the interim, any notifications and sanctions are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.

Support:

1. Equal choice to 1. NW (Talk) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
2. This seems like a sensible and reasonable solution. Only choice. AGK [•] 21:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
4. First and only choice. T. Canens (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Only choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

   For completeness, I've added "In the interim, any notifications and sanctions are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log" as a logging mechanism is absent in this motion though present in the others. Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

7. Worm^TT(talk) 04:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Barely. I don't think 30 days is long enough to solve anything at all. Courcelles 14:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

   I think it should be more than sufficient for an AN discussion to resolve whether discretionary sanctions and/or 1RR should stay in place on this article. I agree 30 days won't be sufficient to resolve all editing disputes on the article, especially since the article concerns an ongoing event, but it doesn't have to be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

10. Risker (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Inadequate solution. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• Proposed for discussion. This is the other way of handling the issue that has attracted any support, so I'm posting it as an alternative for voting. In this case I think all roads lead to roughly the same place, so we probably ought to just vote to select from among the alternatives. I will vote in the next day or so after reviewing any further input from the parties or others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• There really is no significant difference between this and motion 1. I am happy to support it. NW (Talk) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quailfier?

Roger Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I don't know if this falls within scope of this page. I don't know if I am posting in the right place. The article, talk page, and BLPN seem to indicate it warrants posting here though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

IP area still being swamped by socks

We seriously need a change in ARBPIA rules as they are not only doing nothing to stop socks but are also enabling them by disabling fine editors. As it stands WP:ARE and WP:SPI are ineffective against editors using swarms of throw-away accounts. I and many others desire a change with the focus being on "new" accounts editing in the IP area.

I suggest we begin a formal discussion on the matter where editors may propose and discuss ideas on curbing socks in the IP area with minimal damage to honest new accounts and IPs. If someone with more wiki-bureaucratic knowledge could start such discussions and post notices to the relavent boards that would be great. Sepsis II (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

A good start would be for you to come clean about your own previous accounts. See [146], [147], [148], [149]Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this page under WP:ARBPIA?

About Template:Largest Israeli cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Yesterday I asked semi-protection against drip-drip editing by IPs [150]. Protection was added by Callanecc [151].

In my request I cited that the page was under the workings of WP:ARBPIA. And in their editsummary, the protecting editor used that statement as an argument. I made this statement because of the template's content (esp. Jerusalem). However, I just discovered that its talkpage does not have the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} warning.

My first question is to add the warning to the template, and so make my assumption/statement correct, albeit afterwards. Or, of course, this could be denied and we should somehow cleanup my by then wrong assumption (reassess the protection setting).

My second question is a parallel one, about List of Israeli cities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In preparing this post, I discovered that the similar page List of Israeli cities has no ARBPIA warning either. The page currently also lists cities in the West Bank (like Ariel, itself with WP:ARBPIA warning), and so this page also could be under WP:ARBPIA, needing the warning. In fact this page even more so, because it explicitly addresses West Bank locations. So I propose adding the ARBPIA warning to its talkpage (or decide not to). -DePiep (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The absence of the warning template doesn't imply that the article isn't under discretionary sanctions, only that the template hasn't been added. It normally isn't added to pages where there hasn't (or where there isn't likely to be) an issue, especially when only part of that page would be covered by the discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

OK then. Case closed. I just wanted to be on the safe side. -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Notifications

Why does the list of DS warning notices end abruptly in April 2014? Does it mean that notices are no longer given? Or are they logged on a different page now? 24.188.185.162 (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Because, as advised at the top of the notifications section, "On 3 May 2014 Arbcom established a new method of notifying for discretionary sanctions which is explained at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. All notices given prior to the May 2014 cutover date will expire on 3 May 2015. New notices are to be given using {{Ds/alert}} and they expire one year after they are given. No new notices should be logged here." RolandR (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the area of nuclear proliferation in Iran be included?

I was surprised to learn the area of nuclear proliferation in Iran was not included under WP:ARBPIA. I often see the same sorts of Islamophobic and POV-pushing editing in this area as in other WP:ARBPIA areas. What is the reason for not including it? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason is quite simple - WB:ARBPIA is not intended to counter Islamophonia, even assuming, ad argumentum, that the desire to curb Iran's nuclear program is an example of Islamophobia, but to address behavioral issues by editors involved in editing article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All Rows4 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing Islamophobic about the subject of nuclear proliferation in Iran. The problem is the subject attracts many Islamophobic editors, and without a 1RR, it is hard to keep an Islamophobic bias out of the articles. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Who are these Islamophobic editors you speak of @Gouncbeatduke:? Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Jeppiz at 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel_articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Area_of_conflict

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Area_of_conflict

• Extending ARBPIA to cover Jews and Palestinians

Statement by Jeppiz

I believe neither Jews nor Palestinians to be covered by WP:ARBPIA, and I'd suggest that amending this situation may benefit the project and discourage much edit warring. Having watched both articles for a long time, I notice that Jews (and to some extent Palestinians) see quite intense disputes. As the edit history of Jews show, there have already been over 20 reverts in November alone. Below user:Debresser asks for examples, so a short non-exhaustive list from the last days [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157]. These disputes are never about Jewish culture in 17th century Poland or Palestinian culture in 17th century Palestine, but very often about the origins of both peoples, along the lines of "who was there first", "do modern Jews descent from ancient Jews", "are modern Palestinians the descendants of ancient Jews" etc. These questions are directly linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict, as both sides try to up their own claim to the land by invoking history. Furthermore, the most active editors engaged in these disputes are almost always the same few editors engaged in other ARBPIA-covered articles about the conflict. As the disputes at Jews and Palestinians are directly linked to the area covered by WP:ARBPIA, and see much more conflict than many articles currently covered, I suggest ARBPIA be extended to these two articles. It would benefit everybody involved, except a handful of people who frequently revert, and would benefit the whole project.
No individual user is concerned, so I have not named anyone, but I will post a short information notice at the talk pages of both Jews and Palestinians.

Statement by Debresser

The nominator of this amendment first proposed this at Jews, claiming that discussions about the origins of Jews should be subject to the 1RR rule, because often the issue is raised in connection with the IP-conflict. I will comment only on the merits, or more precisely the lack thereof, of this proposal in regard to the Jews article.I have no clear opinion regarding the Palestinians article, although I think that the issue is much stronger on that article than it is on the Jews article.

I think the claim of the nominator, which is not backed up by any links to discussions either on Wikipedia or outside of it, is incorrect. In addition, I think that the proposed measure is not proportionate, even if the claim were correct. Ergo I feel strongly that the proposed 1RR restriction should not be considered. My arguments are as follows.

1. I have not often seen discussions about the origins of the Jewish people in connection with the IP-conflict, neither on Wikipedia nor in the real world. I am not saying it never happens, but not as often as the nominator makes it seem (without giving even one example).
2. The cases in which the origins of the Jews are discussed without connection to the IP-conflict are many times more numerous than the cases in which such discussion is related to the IP-conflict. It would therefore not be fair to put all discussions regarding the origins of the Jews under a restriction that applies only to a minority of the cases.
3. The article Jews is so much more than just the question of the origins of the Jews, that it would be completely disproportionate the put the whole article under a 1RR restriction because of that.

Statement by Musashiaharon

I agree with Debresser that putting Jews under 1RR is disproportionate.

In addition to Debresser's points, I'd like to add that overall the discussion seems pretty civil to me, and I see no reason to stop WP:AGF, certainly not to the point of imposing 1RR. I don't think the intensity and nature of the discussion merits it. Jeppiz himself links to my only counter-revert, where I specifically note that the discussion had a three-day gap of silence in it after I requested an explanation of a previous revert. My request was answered soon afterwards. 1RR is unnecessary.

Statement by Nishidani

I don't think the article Jews should be placed under ARBPIA IR restrictions, while I think this should apply to Palestinians. I gave my reasons here. That said, Jeppiz does have a serious point however. It is absolutely impossible to discuss Jewish origins on Wikipedia in a rational, rigorously high RS source based manner. One is just over-ruled, as are the relevant sources and the reason is that the definition is perceived by a majority of editors as one which must contain a political statement about Israel and the Law of Return, meaning that whatever sources say to the contrary, the definition of a Jew must state that (s)he comes from ancestors who lived in Palestine, which is total nonsense.. But this, which relates to one or two sentences in the lead, should not translate into making the whole article, which has nothing to do with the I/P conflict, lie under an ARBPIA sanction. Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Yossiea

I think the question ultimately on the table is whether or not any article with the word Jew, Israel, Palestine, etc. is subject to arbitration. I think it's a far stretch to include Jew within the scope of ARBPIA. I haven't seen any solid evidence of major edit warring or even minor edit warring to warrant inclusion. It should be a last resort to include articles within a sanctionable area, and we should be working to remove articles, not add them.

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

I'm not really seeing any common sense reason, or for that matter any other reason to do this other than as an attempt to chill speech. Ending major disruption is generally the only reason to even consider it. The diffs provided, I'm not sure if they even show minor disruption. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I just wanted to add an additional comment, especially regarding my below request. If this is a request to have Jew be placed under sanctions, then how did any article get placed under sanctions? The template should make mention of a discussion where it was voted on. It is quite possible that somebody just decided that sanctions apply to my article below, or to some other article Jew included and just puts in the sanction template and then that article is now under sanctions. There ought to be a safeguard in place to prevent that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:55, 26 November 2015 (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.

Palestine-Israel_articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel_articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Decline Excessive--and inadequate to deal with the key stated problem on the origin of Jews, which could be fought equally well on other pages. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. There are two separate topics here, "origin of Jews" and "origin of Palestinians", neither of which are not part of the Arab-Israel dispute, and which form only small parts of the noted articles so extending the existing discretionary sanctions in this manner is a poor fit. With no evidence that prior dispute resolution has been sought, let alone tried and failed, I don't see this as something that Arbcom should be involved with at this stage. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Decline - too soon to consider. Doug Weller (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Decline per Thryduulf, noting I was inactive on ArbPIA3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (January 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 19:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Articles part of the ARBPIA arena

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Articles part of the ARBPIA arena

• Removal of Haredim and Zionism

Statement by Sir Joseph

The article Haredim and Zionism has nothing to do with the ARBPIA arena, or if it does 5%, and it should be removed to clean up those areas under ARBPIA sanctionable spaces. This article used to be edited heavily back in the early 2000's and had some disputes involving some sockpuppets but the article and disputes if any in general do not involve Israel-Palestine and just involve intra-Jewish halacha response to Israel as a Jewish State.

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

This article seems fairly stable. It doesn't seem to be much of a focus of the Israel and Palestine partisan divide that causes so much disruption on Wikipedia. Removing the cumbersome discretionary sanctions such as 1RR doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request. If an issue later arises it can always be put back under these sanctions. You can leave it to administrator discretion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I do understand your position here Amanda. However, Since everyone's here, you could review whether to whitelist this article and also offer the clarification that AE is to be used for the whitelisting of articles. From your comments it does seem as if we are breaking new ground on how an article should be reviewed for if it falls under a certain set of sanctions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

ARBPIA is broadly construed. Haredim groups that support the PLO and Hamas, zionism. There's not an actual question of why this was put under Arbpia honestly.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, There's not some secret committee that puts articles under sanctions. By the actions of arbcom articles are put under sanctions. ARBPIA for instance use language like "broadly construed". This is every article on wikipedia and every new article created that relates in anyway to the Arab and Israeli conflict. This is whether they are marked or not on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

And if you feel an article falls under ARBPIA and someone has violated it AE would be the appropriate location to take it to. ARBCOM members could we trouble you to link the template to make other editors aware of ARBPIA?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, do I think it's ripe for abuse? No. Save for 1RR Sanctions are not placed without prior warning with ARBPIA. Regardless of whether a page is marked or not you can be sanctioned after being warned. In the event that an article is not actually under sanctions you can make that clear at AE or any time after being banned. This article only mentions Zionism but also supporters of Hamas and the PLO. There's not actually an argument that you can make that this is not a part of Arbpia. It has already been dcided what is a part of ARBPIA. Anything that is a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. Your making an appeal to fear that the system can be gamed. Your alternative could be gamed as well. Gaming the sanctions is a can lead to discretionary sanctions. Instead of hypothetical show where this actually happening so that something can be done.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If someone was not warned about 1RR they could be blocked for 1rr. Where is this article that was put up by sock?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So again it's all about a hypothetical but not an issue that is actually happening? If a page does not have this warning on it but it is an ARBPIA article and you have already been warned ARBPIA you can receive discretionary sanctions. If a page is not ARBPIA and it has this warning on it and you receive discretionary sanctions you can use that in your defense. If this actually becomes an issue ARBCOM should do something about it and that's if giving sanctions to those gaming the system doesn't fix it. As far as I can tell this hasn't actually been an issue. When there are actually issues on wikipedia the unpaid volunteer editors of ARBCOM do not need to waste their time on hypothetical issues that others bring to them. The possible negative hypotheticals that could be brought to them are to numerous to calculate. In short, unless it's actually broke they don't need to fix it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

From what you understand? I don't have any further comment here. This is to painful.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional Statement by Sir Joseph

I just want to add one more thing, something similar to what I wrote on the Jew case above. How do I know that the ARBPIA template was even added correctly to this article? For all I know some admin assumed it to be in the same sphere as Israel-Palestine and just copy-pasted it. Looking at the original ARBPIA articles, I could not find this article listed. I do think it would be a good idea that when articles are added/deleted/amended/etc. a record is kept, so that when a template is put on the page, we know where to look to find out why, and we can see the reasoning behind it. It could very well be that there was a discussion about this page years back in some archive long gone, but that's neither here nor there (but it is somewhere), but I do ask you to consider that in the future for all ARBCOM cases, when you add articles, to please maintain or track on the talk page of the article the date of the discussion. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment after reading Amanda's comment, does being included in the Wikiproject Israel automatically put you under this AE? That doesn't make any sense. I know of tons of articles that are under Wikiproject Israel not under sanctions so I still don't know how this article got placed under sanctions and that's why there should be somewhere it is discussed before something so drastic as placing an article on restrictions occurs. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't necessarily want a whitelist, I would like to know how this article got included, and how other articles get included and do all project articles get included automatically. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted an IP edit to Yom Ha'atzmaut because I assumed that would be under sanctions. I was surprised to find no such template, so my question still stands. How do articles get put under sanctions? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Pluto2012, looking at the article, and the history while it may be a contentious area, it is not something as serious as the IP area and my question still remains, why is this article in the IP sanctions automatically? There has to be a process in place, not every article in WIKIPROJECT:ISRAEL is subject to IP sanctions. This article, for example is stable enough and contrary to Pluto2012's assertions, any conflicts in edits is handled on the talk page. The last edit war on that article was in 2006 if my memory serves me. Putting a disputed tag on an article doesn't mean I think it belongs in the IP area, it just means a fact in the article is under dispute. As for Zero's statement that because it has the word Zionism it must be under IP sanctions, that is also not true. This is not necessarily dealing with the IP conflict. This is dealing with internal Jewish religious issues and how to deal with Zionism. That doesn't bring it to the level of the IP conflict and again, look at the edit history. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, and if we can just paste a template on a talk page, don't you think that would be ripe for abuse? If I decide that a page is subject to ARBPIA, then I post it to a talk page then I take you to AE and you're blocked for violating something you never even knew was part of ARBPIA. ARBCOM won't investigate who put the template. The template is on the page. What about removing from the page? My statement still stands. There ought to be a process, in all ARBCOM cases where pages are marked with a template. Who decided that this page is subject to ARBPIA? Maybe it wasn't ARBCOM, I couldn't find the diff. I found lots of WIKIPROJECT:ISRAEL articles not under ARBPIA, should I just tag them with the template? I think that's a terrible idea. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, I just found an article that had a template placed on it by a sock blocked user. If someone were warned for 1rr on that article, they would be blocked because nobody would've known that the template didn't being.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Har Nof had a template put in June by a sock. I found it because I was wondering why it was there. That article has nothing to do with the IP conflict, broadly construed, and indeed, I found that it was just placed there. I removed it, but in this case the article is not heavily edited so it was simple to do. What happens in an article that is edited? After a few weeks or months, that template becomes fact and it becomes a sanctionable article even though it has nothing to do with ARBCOM area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can gather, the sock put the template on and then brought someone to AN and the user got blocked for violating ARBPIA, so it's not hypothetical. We have a user putting on a template and an admin blocking based on that template. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you're complaining about, EdJohnston blocked a user based on a sock's placement of a template that didn't belong. The sock was in an edit war, placed the template and then reported the other user. He knew how to game the system. I don't know how you can't see that as a problem when there is no official record when articles are placed under sanctions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not every mention of Jerusalem means that the article is under ARBPIA. I don't think EdJohnston was correct when he blocked that user, and he even said that all ARBCOM said with regards to Jerusalem was arbitrated the lead to the article. We should not be having secret articles subject to restrictions. There ought to be a process to how articles get placed under sanctions and "broadly construed" does not mean just mentioning the word "Israel." That is pretty ludicrous. Regardless, you can't have a system where people get sanctioned for something as "broadly construed." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

But having an entire article placed under restrictions because of that is ludicrous. We are discussing Israel, does that mean that AE is now under 1RR? Certain topics are contentious and need 1RR. But most topics don't need 1RR and if something discusses it tangentially, then I don't think it should change the entire article. And if you look at ARBCOM, you'll see how often they have things brought because of "broadly construed." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012

This articles deals with a very contentious topic in the I-P conflict, which is the anti-zionism of some Jewish communities. Some of them, the Naturei Karta are well-known and even used in the propaganda war between Israel and its ennemies and opponents (eg Iran). Sir Joseph himself added a tag several weeks ago stating the article was disputed. I think it should remain the ARPBIA list. There is no added value to remove this and at the contrary it could be used a a pretext of edit war. Any improvement can be discussed on the talk page. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

An article about Zionism is an article about the I-P conflict. I think the argument to the contrary is simply mistaken. Zero^talk 12:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

@Sir Joseph:, you have your facts slightly wrong regarding NoCal100's typically hypocritical behavior on behalf of the State of Israel using his All Rows4 sock account. He warned the user on 1 June 2015 here, reported him the same day here, and placed the ARBPIA template on the talk page on 3 June 2015 here as a result of comments at the 3RR report. The edit warring was covered by 1RR, regardless of the presence or absence of the ARBPIA template, because it was about the status of Jerusalem i.e. whether Wikipedia can use its neutral narrative voice to refer to places in West Jerusalem as being in Israel. Yes, the sock successfully gamed the system, as has happened countless times (even the ARBPIA discussions are contaminated by evidence presented by socks), but it wasn't dependent on the presence or absence of the ARBPIA template or the notion of the article being a member of a set of 'ARBPIA articles'. It's because, in practice, 1RR has been enforced at the content level, even if it is just one word or sentence that is interpreted as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, despite the ARBPIA restrictions talking about things at the article level. Since the 500 edit/30 day restriction is currently being enforced by editors rather than by software, perhaps that restriction will also be enforced at the content level rather than the article level in practice. Sean.hoyland – talk 17:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

But you can and do have a system where people are sanctioned for something as "broadly construed". You can and do have a system where an edit war over a sentence that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, like the status of Jerusalem, is treated as being within scope of ARBPIA regardless of the article in which the edit war takes place. That seems better to me because it means that the restrictions can be enforced at a finer scale than the article unit. It's often not possible to decide whether something is an 'ARBPIA article' in a repeatable way, but it's very often possible to decide that specific content in an article, and editor actions related to that content, are within scope of ARBPIA. It's usually obvious. Admins, unlike bots so far at least, can usually recognize when something, a sentence, a paragraph, a section, an edit war, is within scope of the ARBPIA restrictions. I agree that not every mention of Jerusalem means that the article is under ARBPIA. If editors could simply refer to Jerusalem as Jerusalem throughout Wikipedia these issues would never occur. But if an article says "Jerusalem, Israel" for example and an editor thinks that violates policy, everything that follows from that point will be within scope of ARBPIA and admins are likely to treat it as such. Ed blocked the editor for an ARBPIA 1RR violation. It wouldn't make sense to have a situation where similar edit wars, over the status of Jerusalem for example, something that is clearly within scope of ARBPIA, were treated differently because they took place in different articles. Sean.hoyland – talk 18:30, 21 December 2015 (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.

Palestine-Israel_articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel_articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Looking t the article, I don't see how editing it would affect the actual problem area. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC) .
• I'm inclined to agree with Serialjoepsycho 2 that there seems little chance of a problem occurring if we restore the normal editing environment to this article. If problems do occur then I'm happy for the restrictions to be reimposed by an uninvolved admin following a request at ANI or AE. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• I'm no expert on what is or isn't part of this, but I do see where people could see it, but again, it doesn't seem to be an issue. As for whitelisting, I'd rather find a more broad approach so we aren't hearing ARCA after ARCA of please uninclude x article. I dug, and their seems to be no context to the addition. Maybe this is a good job for AE to use discretion on removing the topic areas? (Only throwing a suggestion) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Decline and kick to AE to use their best judgment. I do not like the idea of a white list at all --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Decline Doug Weller (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Decline contentious area and greenlighting 3RR would send a bad signal that that behaviour is somehow ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Decline. The article contains substantial content that's explicitly relevant to the ARBPIA area of conflict (e.g. Haredim and Zionism#Concern in Palestine, Haredim and Zionism#Groups which do not recognize Israel), and I see no reason why it should be treated differently from any other article subject to these sanctions. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Decline the article in question is, and should be covered by the ARBPIA restrictions. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• We would likely need to do this by motion since it's our sanction. However I see no need to do this for this article so decline. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Decline. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (1RR) (January 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by NE Ent at 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Information about amendment request

• Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

Statement by NE Ent

The 1RR rule prohibits editors from reverting non-IPs more than once a day and no newbie rule says low edit registered editors can be reverted, so when Huldra reverted new editor Terrible towel7 per the no newbie rule Ks0stm blocked her per the 1RR rule. Please fix the 1RR rule, and then get a clerk to change the wording on {{ARBPIA}} so this doesn't happen again. NE Ent 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment on motion

The long standing WP:BOLD pillar explicitly states "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia." (emphasis original). A remedy that a good faith editor "may be blocked without warning" is, I believe, unprecedented in arbcom proceedings, and in any event, an incredibly bad idea. NE Ent 14:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Corrected. Nonetheless, remains incredibly bad idea. The editing atmosphere is, of course, an artifact on longstanding real-world animosity between Palestine and Israel and not a reason to comprise Wikipedia principles. It costs very little to require an editor receive a 1RR warning before using administrator tools. NE Ent 17:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ks0stm

Fixing this would be helpful. At first I assumed based on {{ARBPIA}} that the 1RR restriction did not include an exception for non-IP new users, but apparently the restriction against new editors says that it can be enforced through reverts? It's quite confusing the way it's set up right now. Either way, I've unblocked since I now assume that the intent was for such reverts to not be subject to 1RR. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, if it turns out these two restrictions do conflict and Huldra's reverts indeed were not supposed to be subject to the 1RR restriction, I would like permission to RevDel the block out of Huldra's block log, per WP:CRD. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@When Other Legends Are Forgotten: 1. Replies in your own section, please. 2. I may have a relatively low edit count compared to some other editors/admins, but I am by no means "inexperienced" or "bullied". I explained my rationale at ANI, but for reference: "I unblocked because the restriction against new users, which can be enforced "by reverts", was enacted after the 1RR restriction. I therefore think it a more reasonable assumption that the new user restriction supersedes the 1RR restriction." Still, the restrictions do seem to conflict each other, and it is something I would welcome clarification from ArbCom on. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I would welcome hearing the committee's thoughts on 3RR's applications to this, but again, I assume "by reverts" to give license to surpass 3RR the same as for vandalism. I could be mistaken on this, however. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: The part I quote is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#General Prohibition. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, then. We'll see. I still feel like I made the right call to unblock, whether or not my call to block was correct. The waters are too muddy on this for me to feel comfortable leaving that block in place, which I hope is an understandable position. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

ARBPIA only applies to 1RR, but as I understand it, "regular" WIKIPEDIA policy applies to everything else, such as 3RR, which she did violate. The user should have been reported to 3RR or EDITWAR and have been sorted out. Once the revert goes past 3RR, doesn't that mean everyone is in violation of WIKI policy? As I understand it, from 1-3 revert, there is a free pass on reverting an excluded user, once three reverts , then that user should be reported to AIV or the like. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments moved to #Statement by When Other Legends Are Forgotten

Right, I meant that after 3 reverts, Huldra should not have reverted and should have reported the other user. Both users should have been blocked at this point for 3RR violations. As for your point, I agree. Reading Dan Murphy's comment and others, it is no wonder why certain areas are not welcome anymore. The fact of the matter is that she violated 3RR. That is out of ARBPIA. She was blocked and she should not have been unblocked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Ks0stm Here's the text from the ARBPIA ruling: "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." The link to that includes 3RR, which would presume to go along with what I wrote above, that 1-3 reverts is disregarded for IP users, after 3RR you need to follow general Wikipedia guidelines. It has always been assumed that general Wiki policies apply above those of ARBPIA. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• @Ks0stm The case itself, and the template itself still have the wording that general Wikipedia policies apply. Furthermore, can ARBCOM violate Wikipedia policies when Wiki is more stringent? It's one thing for ARBCOM to prohibit 1RR, since Wikipedia allows 1RR, but Wikipedia does not allow 3RR. There is a procedure in place for 3RR and that is reporting to the admins. In this case, I believe that from 1-3 reverts is free, but after 3, the user should be reported either to admins or to AE, but you still can't revert more than 3 times since Wikipedia does not allow it. Regardless, I don't think you should have unblocked before you had a consensus. At the very least the clear evidence of the template is that 3RR is not to be violated. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• I think giving users carte blanche is a real bad idea, least of which is that 24/7 reverts won't solve anything if the user will not be reported to AE. At a certain point enough is enough and the reverting has to stop and general guidelines come into play. I think this is just more trouble than it's worth. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• No matter what happens, at the very least, the template needs to be modified so that editors and admins have clarity on what the new rules are. As it is now, IIRC, the template is not clear at all and is the reason why we're in this mess. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• If we're going to request revdel of wrong blocks, I want my 1RR block from Feb 2014 done as well. If you look at the logs, I was not given any notice of 1RR or DS. The DS notice I was given on my talk page (Archive 2) was given the same time as my 24 hour block. That means that Callanec gave me an illegal block, I would like that cleared from my Wiki record. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

Due to Arbpia3, Terrible towel7, with less than 500 edits is under ORR. They inserted their own original research, interpreting the meaning of a primary source and effectively created a BLP violation. Huldra was neither in violation of 1RR, 3RR, 6RR, or 20RR, due to the BLP exemption. Terrible Towel was in violation due to their first single edit. The edit warring that followed is enough not to consider any leeway in whether or not they were aware of ARBPIA3 in the first place as they went well beyond a 3RR violation. I hope in the future Huldra will go to the edit war noticeboard instead of continuing on with such an edit warrior but they did nothing wrong. It would probably help to clarify what procedure to take when an ip editor or other user under 500 contributions makes an edit. Are they exempt from revert rules?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

When Other Legends Are Forgotten, please save the wikilawyering. Ex post facto? [158] Is this not the first revert by them? While they say BOP-violation, this is clearly a typographic error and they meant BLP violation. How ever there's no need to take my word for that, why don't we just ask if there's any question to this. Your quoting policy but you make no actual argument as to why this would be exempt under the BLP. Terrible towel did use a primary source. They themselves interpreted it's meaning, which is original research. There's really no question here if this was a BLP violation or not, you have not found a loophole in the part of the policy you quote. Material challenged or likely to be challanged and all that jazz is what this comes down to. The primary source used and the users original research do not meet wikipedias standards of verification. They made the position first that it was a blp violation and later that it was vandalism. It probably had something to do with the wp:pointyness of the users few attempts to discuss it with huldra [159]. I'm not sure your part in this. From my perspective as a neutral observer you seem to have an axe to grind with Huldra. I'd caution you if that is the case, standing before arbcom is probably not the best choices of locations.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I note your hesitation on the revdel and as I understand from your choice of words you feel as if such a revdel will sully the record of Ks0stm. I'm guessing a paper trail is left behind with revdel? I also note that it is Ks0stm that suggested the revdel. If there is a paper trail can it read that this was a good faith block and they had asked for the revdel personally? Or anything to the effect that leaves it clear that this block was not of any impropriety on the part of them?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by When Other Legends Are Forgotten

She WAS reported for 3RR, and initially blocked for that – correctly. Then we had her usual supporters bully and mislead an inexperienced admin into unblocking her. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved from #Statement by Sir Joseph, When Other Legends Are Forgotten please comment only in your section. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ks0stm:, the newer restriction adds newbie editors to the same category as IP editors, and puts both into a 0RR restriction, which means they can be reverted without violating 1RR. But it does not mean (at least not as worded in the ARBCOM decision) that they can be reverted without limitation. In fact , the wording of the original decision strongly suggests that this is NOT the case, since that decision said that while IPs can be reverted without violating 1RR, they are still subject to regular edit warring rules like 3RR.

@Serialjoepsycho: "BLP" is not some magic pixie dust whose invocation grants you immunity. The BLP exemption makes it clear that "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.". It really strains credulity to suggest that quoting a person verbatim would be a BLP violation. regardless, this smacks of ex-post facto rationalization. When Huldra made this report – [160] – she was claiming "vandalism " (which it is of course NOT). On Terrible Towel's page, she was invoking the WP:PIA3 restriction.

@Guerillero: - you state that "The GP already allows for users to revert edits made by IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure an unlimited number of times. " - but it seems administrators don't currently see it this way (see my recent exchange with User:Bbb23 here. It would be good to have explicit language that says this, or alternatively, replace the current proposed language that says " Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this limit." (which could be construed to en exemption from 1RR, only) with the following: " Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this limit and the 3RR limit" . When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: - if the intention is, as Guerillero states above, to allow for an unlimited number of reverts of edits made by IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure ', then adding the text "standard exemptions to 3RR apply" makes is worse, not better, since this means 3RR is still in force with its standard exemptions. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Note: When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of NoCal100. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon

Wow. What a mess. Huldra was doing the right thing, enforcing Arbcom sanctions and protecting an article. That's quite clear, under the provisions of the "GP", and the partisan wikilawyering about 3RR is irrelevant and unseemly.
Ks0stm thought they were doing the right thing, but the Arbcom sanctions were confusing. Once they realised this, they continued to try to do the right thing by unblocking and coming here, asking Arbcom to help fix it.
Let's hope Arbcom can continue the theme, by doing the right thing themselves: fixing the confusing sanctions, and allowing the unnecessary block notations to be deleted from the record of a 10 year user with a clean block log. Of note is that Huldra does valuable, important work in this difficult, fraught area, where many would not be willing to, so that clean block log is both highly commendable and very important to them – allowing the notations to stand would surely hinder their valuable work, as opponents abuse their existence "in battle". Begoon ^talk 07:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thryduulf, you say "Ks0stm's block was though made in good faith and they should not be sanctioned for it, and for the same reason I'm initially reluctant to revdel the entry in the block log" – I agree that the block was a good faith error, caused by confusing ARBPIA/ARBPIA3 wording, and that sanctioning Ks0stm would be ludicrous. I don't think anyone has suggested that.
I don't, however see how the "same reason" makes you reluctant to remove this error from Huldra's block log, particularly given their 10 year clean block log, editing in a troublesome area, where any entry in a block log is likely to be used as a "cudgel" against them in inevitable encounters with tendentious editors. In fact, I'm sorry, I can't parse that "same reason" logic at all. Apologies if I'm being dumb...
It does concern me greatly that an editor doing good work in a difficult area should be left with a stained record, through no fault of their own, when the remedy is simple, and obvious. We should be thanking and encouraging work like this – not potentially hindering or discouraging it. Begoon ^talk 10:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

To the arbitrators basically saying "we never revision deleted a block log before, so we don't think we should now", that says a couple of things to me.

• Firstly, you have not considered the particular circumstances here: unclear arbcom restrictions caused an admin to err, and a good-faith user to be penalised for nothing. It's an arbcom error – who else should correct it?
• Secondly, I don't think you were elected to duck difficult issues and cling to some nebulous "precedent", rather to resolve them, and this obvious resolution is in your gift, and requested by both the blocking admin and the blocked user.
• Finally, you don't seem to have understood the particular issues this will cause for this editor in the area they edit (I do hope they continue to do so, after this, but could not fault them for reconsidering...).
  They have tried to explain the difficulties this will cause them. Do you find their concerns invalid?

To the arbitrator who has opined that they have no issue with this simple, obvious remedy – thank you, not for the first time. Begoon ^talk 00:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

This is a rather simple request. The General Prohibition WP:ARBPIA3 remedy obviously supersedes all other remedies. It explicitly states that the remedy may be enforced by reverts. One only needs to update the text of ARBPIA template to match it. Guerillero's proposed text seems ok to me. For Huldra, in the future, you may want to use the magic word "WP:ARBPIA3" in your edit summaries, to instantly get a "win" (example of me doing it is here, and WOLAF here). The wikilawyering by WOLAF, arguing that Huldra should be reblocked, is truly disgusting; I will not comment on it any further. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero and Salvio giuliano: May I suggest that the template have a wording which suggests that the editor (who is reverting the IP/editors with less than 30/500), link to WP:ARBPIA3 in the edit summary? It is a non-binding, simple suggestion that would save a lot of trouble, and makes it clear to the IP/editor as to why they are being reverted. This would both avoid WP:BITE to genuine newbies and give a clear direction to trolls/socks that they are wasting their time, as well as a pointer to uninvolved admins like Ks0stm who don't know about this. (See my examples above). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero: To clarify, I am simply suggesting that the remedy include the wording in addition to the fixing of the wording you mentioned before. That would just serve as a public service announcement, kind of like warning signs on cigarette packs. Of course the wording of the template needs to be fixed, I am all in favour of that. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I myself have a clean block log, and I kind of understand Huldra's point. I have never been harassed like she has, so I will defer to their judgement about whether it will be used in the future. If ArbCom is concerned that this will set a precedent, I don't see any grounds for this. This is a very unusual situation concerning a very unusual remedy concerning a very toxic area. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

For the record: I do not want any sanctions against Ks0stm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ...we all do mistakes, and he did unblock me very soon afterwards, and apologised. Also, for the record, I *did* report the "new" editor to the vandal board. (If anyone checks, you will see that what they tried to add to the article was not actually supported by the sources. So IMO it was both a BLP-violation, in addition to ARBPIA3 violation.)

However, I would *really* like to see my block-log wiped clean. User:Thryduulf: I think the gloating here would be very disheartening to any editor. Please rev-del my block-log....and then we can all move along, Huldra (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: The block has been, and will be used against me, again. Guaranteed. (I edit in a .....rough neighbourhood… there are always plenty of new editors like “When Other Legends Are Forgotten” around.)

Does not this come under Non-contentious housekeeping? I know one thing: If this block-log stands it will make me deeply regret that I removed the BLP-violations, like I did. And also I will never remove BLP-violations again, when I risk filling up my block-history. It is as simple as that. I repeat; this is all very disheartening. Huldra (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Kingsindian: when using TW, (which I mostly used for revering the BLP, as it is quick), then we don´t get an opportunity to have an edit-line. I did try (and thought I had) said it was a BLP-violation in the first revert.

User:DGG : I don´t understand you. If the discussion here ends with concluding that the block can be rev-delled, and it is, well then, wonderful! That the discussion remains open here, does not worry me.

And that several of you have had, and live quite easily with wrong blocks is a bit different from my situation. None of you edit in the IP area. To be blunt: I don´t think you know what it is like. I know admins and arb.commers can be harassed and threatened, but I have been more or less systematically targeted for 5 years now, from Grawp, his copy-cats, and, if I can judge from their political views: Kahane supporters. (Typically people who admire people like Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir: not nice people.) So I get this if I comment on AN/I, or this, this or this during normal editing. You can wade through my log-page, if you like. Again: this will be used against me, again. Guaranteed. Please do not make my editing-life more difficult than it already is. Huldra (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by LjL

Some people above say that WP:3RR restrictions still applied, but this seems like a clear case where they don't per WP:3RRBLP, and Huldra did in fact mention she was reverting a BLP ("bop") violation in her first revert's summary. Furthermore, she stated she was under the (most probably correct) impression that the editor she was reverting was a WP:SOCK of a blocked editor, which is of course another exception to 3RR.

Therefore, given there was in fact no misbehavior at all on Huldra's part, I not only support the unblock, but I second the request (which actually comes from the admin who originally blocked her) to strike the block from her otherwise 10-year clean block log. LjL (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf and Seraphimblade: I might misunderstand something, but why do you seem to think that a revdel of the block would reflect badly on the blocking admin (any more than a note would, anyway)? Having two blocks in the block logs, even if one of them serves as a clarification of the previous one, is surely not the same in the eyes of the editor mistakenly blocked as having a genuinely clean block log – which she deserves, as I think we agree she has done nothing wrong (by the way, I think she did report the matter to a board, possibly WP:AIV, so she did her "duty" in that respect, too, though I don't have a diff and you should ask her about that). LjL (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Slakr

As a heads up, at one of my usual haunts, WP:AN3, I was already assuming 1RR/3RR exceptions for reverting 30/500s in response to this remedy, as this seems self-evident and logical given a lack of active technical enforcement alternatives (e.g., no edit filter or new usergroup+page-protection option). As such, I had already made changes to {{Editnotice IP 1RR}} toward the beginning of this month with that assumption in mind so that it also reflected that it's an exception to 1RR to enforce the remedy. I only stumbled upon this now, but given the input here, I'm assuming that's what everyone's agreeing with anyway, but should Arbcom believe differently, feel free to either ping me to update it or obviously just update it with whatever wording's appropriate. :P --slakr^\ talk / 00:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

The proposal by Guerillero is ambiguous and I'm not even sure what it is supposed to mean. The premise "When not impeding the enforcement of the General Prohibition" lexically appears to refer to the actions of the editors who are limited, but I expect it is intended to refer to the actions of an enforcing administrator. Who exactly is impeding what, exactly? Please rewrite it more clearly. Zero^talk 08:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero:'s proposed amendment of the 1RR rule massively widens the existing rule. The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction previous version of the rule says "any article", not "any page". Please be sure that you are really voting for what you think you are voting for. Zero^talk 08:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Iselilja

The blocking incident here was obviously an accident waiting to happen. It's very problematic to revert IPs/New users without linking to the General Prohibition in the edit summary and also inform the user on their talk page about the rule. It is natural that good-faith editors otherwise will be confused and feel mistreated; and may try to reinsert what they believe is an adequate edit to the encyclopedia and the result will be an edit-war requring blocks. Of importance is also that a "new user" in English Wikipedia can be a well-established user at a project in another language which don't have these rules; and for such users it will be upsetting to be reverted without explanation and then end up blocked if they reinsert a fully valid edit. Otherwise, I think the blocking of Huldra reflects the problem of many administrators on Wikipedia blocking serious users for a simple (perceived) mistake without warning them and giving them a chance to explain themselves first. Iselilja (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector

I know this request is basically completed, I just want to jump in here and say this is exactly what I said would happen if the (what we're now calling the "no newbies rule") were to be enforced by reverts and not by a technical restriction. This revision isn't going to fix that problem. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2016 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles (1RR): Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles (1RR): Arbitrator views and discussion

• There are two questions here: how do past cases interact with previous cases and how far can one go when enforcing our new General Prohibition. I am going to tackle each one individually.

  From everything that I have seen as an arb and as a clerk, newer arbcom decisions overrule older decisions when they conflict (lex posterior derogat priori for you legal nerds). Normally this involves striking text that conflicts. However, the 1RR as it stands is such a convoluted mess that this is impossible. If we were going to reform it, which I think we should, the remedy should be no more than a few lines. Something like When not impeding the enforcement of the General Prohibition, editors are limited to one revert per page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict per day. Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. sounds the best to me.

  As for how to enforce the new GP, I think, as the drafter who voted against it, that This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters. pretty much gives any use a unlimited authority to revert someone who is violating it. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I have no issue with a rev delete --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @Kingsindian: While that is a quick fix, and a decent one, I once spent a month working for a retired diesel mechanic who had a classic Western Pennsylvania last name. He always liked reminding me and the other guys who I worked with that he didn't care if we messed up. What he cared about was that we didn't "pass the buck" and owned up to our mistakes. I think that arbcom needs to adopt the same philosophy. Quick fixes pass the buck onto the AE admins to effectively rewrite our remedies, in an unwritten fashion, so that they work together. We can fix this quagmire, why shouldn't we? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• My take on this is is that if someone is enforcing the general prohibition then 1RR does not apply. If the edit being reverted would be considered good or potentially good if it was made by someone who was not a new user then 3RR does apply. In this case the edit was original research and possibly a BLP violation, so there was no possibility of it being accepted regardless of who made it and so I see it as exempt from the 3RR too. However whenever anyone finds themselves getting close to or exceeding 3 reverts they absolutely report the matter at ANI or the edit warring noticeboard so that other editors can verify their interpretion and block as necessary. I also support Guerillero's suggestion of allowing new users to be blocked if violate the 1RR even for a first offence. Ks0stm's block was though made in good faith and they should not be sanctioned for it, and for the same reason I'm initially reluctant to revdel the entry in the block log (I am open to having my mind changed about this however) but I have no problem with a very short clarification block if Huldra desires. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Seraphimblade regarding the revdel – it's not about reflecting badly on anyone. WP:REVDEL#Log redation states "Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the move and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper." This block was not "grossly improper" and there is nothing libellous or offensive in the summary, meaning there is no need to hide that this good faith mistake was made. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• For the purpose of applying 3RR (and, obviously, 1RR as well), reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users does not count as a revert. Huldra's actions were not in violation of the restriction and the editor should not have been blocked. We should amend the restriction so that it doesn't create similar problems in future and here's my proposal: clear vandalism of whatever origin and edits made by IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• I wouldn't support revision deleting block log entries except in the exceptionally rare case that the block log message contained private or sensitive information. If a block was mistaken, a notation to that regard will serve. Other than that, I think it's been pretty well said by my colleagues above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @LjL: I didn't say anything about "reflecting badly on the blocking admin", and it has nothing to do with that. The presumption is always in favor of transparency and not hiding things that happened just because they were in error. I see no reason here to deviate from that. Huldra's block log is clean as things stand right now; the blocking admin unblocked with a clear statement that the block was erroneous and should not have been placed to start with. There's no need, from there, to hide the fact that it ever happened at all, or really to take any other action whatever. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Guerillero's suggested modification of the remedy. But the usual course for mistaken blocks is a clarifying entry on the log, and it is sufficient in this case. If we revdel it, everything here would still remain, so I do not see what the revdel would accomplish. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• I think it makes sense to add an exemption to the 1RR remedy that allows people to revert editors who are not allowed to be editing. I also agree that any action against Ks0stm would be unnecessary, as it quite clearly was a good-faith attempt to enforce a remedy. I'm not terribly keen to revision-delete Huldra's block log—we have been asked to hide block log entries for unjustified blocks in the past, and I don't believe we've ever granted them. Block logs are simply logs of past blocks, warranted and otherwise; they are not meant to be some sort of badge of honor, nor are they meant to be an at-a-glance record of a user's behavior. I don't have a clean block log simply because of my own error a few years ago, but I don't think it's ever once been used against me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed/ We do need to add such an exemption. How about Salvio's "l: clear vandalism of whatever origin and edits made by IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure may be reverted without restriction."? Doug Weller (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Doug. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Block logs are not revision deleted as a rule, one reason is a revision deleted block log doesn't inherently mean that the block was incorrect. I was once blocked incorrectly, and now the blocker and I both sit on the arbitration committee. So that's something. I like Guerillo's rewrite, but per Doug's comment about clarity of text I would suggest: Editors are limited to one revert per page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict per day. Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. This limitation does not apply when an editor is enforcing the General Prohibition --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Iselilja, the use of a descriptive edit summary has long been best practice across all wikimedia projects, and I would encourage anyone reverting as per an ArbCom ruling to explain that in their summaries (at a minimum). Edit summaries are also a poor form of communication, and not everyone checks them (although I would hope an experienced user from another project would after finding they were reverted). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)*
• NE Ent See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction where "without warning" was originally used for this set of articles. You might not like it but I don't think removing this now would improve the editing atmosphere. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• I know how much Huldra has done for the project and how much she sacrifices for it, but on the matter of the log I find myself swayed by Thryduulf's "there is no need to hide that this good faith mistake was made". Please consider it a battle scar you can wear with pride. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• On the block log thing, I've been vacillating between 'block logs are just records of button-clicks and not lists of demerits, and we shouldn't be further reinforcing the already-too-common latter view' and 'a person who has put a lot of work into a difficult topic area wants a mistake fixed and I'd feel like a bureaucratic jerk to say no'. I lean toward the second view, but consensus seems to be for the first, in which case I'm awfully tempted to go block myself. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 1RR

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Proposed:

(1) The General 1RR restriction that is part of the Palestine-Israel articles case is rescinded including all modifications of the remedy.

(2) In its place, the following remedy is enacted: 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. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this limit. 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 --Mdann52 (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. It has the same outcome as Salvio's but doesn't try to salvage the christmas tree bill that is the current 1RR and uses less words. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

   Swapped in Kirill's wording --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

2. With Kirill's wording. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

   And as amended. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

3. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
4. With Kirill's wording. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
5. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
6. as amended. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
7. Yes. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

At the moment as I don't understand how Salvio's suggestion of "clear vandalism of whatever origin and edits made by IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure may be reverted without restriction." is covered by this. It appears to contradict it. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Abstention struck after support vote. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The GP already allows for users to revert edits made by IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure an unlimited number of times. If you want to throw in an explicit exemption for vandalism, I think one is implicitly included,I would have no issues --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero: We've been criticised for our use of language. Can you suggest something better than "while not impeding the enfocement of the..."? Doug Weller talk 11:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero and Doug Weller: I would suggest "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. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this limit. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense." Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Guerillero, Kirill Lokshin, and Kelapstick: I still think we need to exempt reverting "obvious vandalism". Someone's going to come back here and ask about it sooner or later. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Guerillero, Kirill Lokshin, Kelapstick, and Doug Weller: Furthermore I have added our standard exemptions phrase as we've added it to every nth motion from here to Gamergate. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (February 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Debresser at 20:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [161]

Statement by Debresser

Is the topicban for Chesdovi (talk · contribs) on ARBPIA articles that was decided upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106#Chesdovi still in force?

---

Then can any of you please explain to me why he created an article like Palestinian wine, which gave rise to much ARBPIA-related controversy? Debresser (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Chesdovi

Statement by Darkfrog24

I see that there was an appeal of a topic-ban-related block in 2012.[162] Though the initial topic ban was for one year [163], it was later changed to indefinite. I checked the user's talk page archives and I don't see any notice of a subsequent appeal of the topic ban, successful or otherwise, though I guess Chesdovi could have removed it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Chesdovi's most recent edit to Palestinian wine is here. The article itself doesn't seem to contain any allusions to the Israel-Arab conflict, though it does mention kosher wine and Jewish wineries. If there's something in here that violates the topic ban, you could file a complaint at AE and provide diffs to the ARBPIA-related controversy in question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2016 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Yes. The topic ban was extended to indefinite, and they do not seem to have tried to appeal it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. In which case this can be closed I suspect, unless Chesdovi wants to make a case for lifting the ban. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• As above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• yup --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: WP:ARBPIA3 (December 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Huldra at 23:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 1RR restriction

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

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

Information about amendment request

• General 1RR restriction

• A strengthening of the 1RR rule for articles under ARBPIA: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period.

Statement by Huldra

In the Azzam Pasha quotation, Editor1 makes an addition, Editor2 removes it, Editor1 then makes the very same addition a few hours later (which Editor3 removes), and Editor1 argues they did not break 1RR as "the first edit was an edit, not a revert".

• If Editor1 is correct, then I would like the 1RR rule amended, so that such disruptive behaviour is disallowed.
• (If Editor1 is wrong, and they did indeed break the 1RR, then I withdraw this request)

I have edited as if that 2nd addition was a violation, but then I have possibly been too "conservative". (But I edit virtually only articles under ARBPIA sanctions, so better safe than sorry..)

I agree completely with User:BU Rob13: If Editor1 view is correct, then "Deference is automatically given to the position that is not the status quo, contrary to all our usual processes." I would like to add: "...and contrary to common sense."

It seems to me that people here agree that this *is* a problem, but that we cannot amend it without amending the 1RR rule for everybody. (Which seems to be a large task?)

But if we added a sentence to the ARBPIA3, like the one in Template:2016 US Election AE: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."

…then Editor1 could not have made that 2nd addition: problem solved.

What I find untenable is the present situation, where if one editor want to change anything, then it takes two editors to keep the status quo. To me, this is counterintuitive, Huldra (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72 - 2

I believe that the issue raised is not only limited to ARBPIA3, but is more generally applicable. I respectfully invite the committee to make general comment on "first mover advantage" in revert wars (described more fully at WP:WINWAR#Intermediate tactics and gambits), particularly as applied to contentious topic spaces; and on if & how this should be addressed. I also respectfully invite the committee to examine the impact & effectiveness of the combination "1RR/consensus" restrictions applied to multiple articles in the ARBAP2 topic space. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

This is definitely a "bug" when it comes to all types of revert rules. Deference is automatically given to the position that is not the status quo, contrary to all our usual processes. The solution is to accompany all 1RR restrictions with the "Consensus required" restriction, as noted by Doug below. This has worked well on certain American politics articles this past election cycle, and it wholly addresses the issue here. This should be looked at in a context beyond just ARBPIA3. A motion amending all previous cases that currently have active 1RR restrictions to include the "Consensus required" restriction would be ideal. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Opabinia regalis: It's an issue every time 1RR is applied for a new change. While editors may not have brought it here before, that doesn't mean the issue hasn't been encountered. ARCA isn't exactly the most welcoming or well-known venue when one encounters an issue. It would be akin to past motions made to update old cases to use standard discretionary sanctions, etc. Given that this would be a potentially large undertaking and that this would be a perfect opportunity to see if some old active restrictions are still necessary, I'd recommend leaving this decision to the incoming Arbitration Committee in 2017. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• @EdJohnston: Personally, I think the "consensus required" restriction is still a bright-line. It's essentially a modification to 1RR. It states that if you make an edit and it is reverted, you must get consensus before re-adding it. Could you clarify what you see as the difference between pairing that with regular 1RR and adding a 1RR exemption that states original edits count toward the rule? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Providing the wording of the "consensus required" restriction for reference, as listed at Talk:Hillary Clinton: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Note that it applies only to editors reinstating an edit that moved away from the status quo after it was reverted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

Changing the definition of the 1RR rule could have wide-ranging effects. User:GorillaWarfare has recommended a community discussion. Another option is to encourage the admins who issue page-level restrictions under discretionary sanctions to try out different restrictions and see what the results are. Note that the proposed improvements to the 1RR rule by User:Huldra (above) and the one described by User:BU Rob13 to add 'consensus required' are quite different. While Huldra's rule is simple enough to be automated, BU Rob13's rule that requires consensus could make deciding a 1RR complaint more of a judgment call. Thanks to Template:2016 US Election AE we are gradually accumulating some experience with the 'discussion required' rule, the one favored by Doug Weller and BU Rob13 though some analysis would be required to see what the actual effects are. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

The proposal makes sense, since the status quo should get the advantage in a dispute between two editors. However, I'll mention one thing about the wording that doesn't seem to have been noted: it would allow one editor to do multiple reverts in the same article within 24 hours provided they were to different parts of the article. So this proposed wording is in one way less restrictive than before. However, on balance it would still be an improvement. Zero^talk 12:08, 1 December 2016 (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.

WP:ARBPIA3: Clerk notes

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

WP:ARBPIA3: Arbitrator views and discussion

• This seems reasonable, although if a broader change is going to be made to WP:1RR that should be a community discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• I may be exposing my ignorance here, but I interpret "1RR" as "Editor 1" here does - have (some) people in the area been treating it differently? The proposed change seems reasonable, except that we then end up with two subtly different types of restriction in effect in different areas: one where each individual can revert only once, and one in which each edit can be reverted only once. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Huldra: Thanks for the clarification. @BU Rob13: That would sort out the consistency issue, at the cost of introducing a change in a lot of areas where one isn't expected, for the sake of fixing something that hasn't been brought to us as a problem in those areas. I'll have to look later at where else 1RR is in use as an arb remedy at the moment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Kinda spitballing here, but how about a formulation along the lines of "WP:BRD is required in this topic area"? That has the benefit of stopping one step earlier than 1RR - Editor1 would be obliged to give up or start a discussion, rather than restoring the material - and uses an already-common editing pattern, which avoids the confusion of slightly differing 1RR variants floating around. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• What OR said. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Sanctions are meant to prevent disruption and edit wars so I can see the concern. I think normally we do interpret 1RR as Editor 1 does, although I'd like to see a community discussion on that. One way to deal with the problem now would be to add the bit about "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." although that's not problem free. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• As the person who did the leg work for last years trim of DS, putting together the research to to omnibus motions is tiring --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• We definitely need a community RfC before we can go changing the definition of 1RR. I also took a brief look at what 1RR restrictions were enforced this past year, and it seems that all would have either benefited or had no affect from the consensus required bit. In 6 areas, there could be an argument that 1RR should be rescinded with only one enforcement. Considering the use of 1RR DS enforcement is low outside AmPol & Macedonia (India Pakistan and PIA lagging a little further behind), I think a case by case application of it would be better than trying to omnibus, and remember this for future decisions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice research, that is definitely not the pattern I was expecting to find! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• I have never been happy with 1RR (or 3RR) because no matter how one specifies the details, it will give one side or another an automatic advantage. They are both the typical sort of WP rough-and-ready rules that only have the virtue of being a standard, abandoning than any attempt to meet the circumstances. A plain reliance on WP:BRD is probably wiser.It's no fairer, but it's simpler. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Doug mentions the "Consensus required"--from what I have seen, this is already accepted practice. (I've not looked much at the ARBPIA3 articles, but I've seen this argument used in American Politics articles.) Such practice, I am all for, but I'm (always) concerned about overregulating. That's not to say I don't think that there's nothing to this request. On other hand, sure it is true that in this situation it takes two editors to undo one controversial edits, but in these areas which are by definition contentious there's typically more than two editors duking it out. In this particular case, that's what seems to have happened, and subsequent talk page discussion did not lead to an edit or other war--so while the 1R requirement led to the sketched situation, where it takes two to undo a controversial edit by one, isn't that (roughly speaking) not what happens anyway? A consensus is formed because the two reverted the one and talk page discussion didn't change that situation? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2016 (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. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

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

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
3. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
5. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
7. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (July 2017)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by GoldenRing at 09:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

• General 1RR restriction motion For the Committee - Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by GoldenRing

I recently took arbitration enforcement action pursuant to the ARBPIA case. Part of my reasoning was that the user has violated 1RR on a page (Acid throwing) which I think is reasonably construed as related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially since the dispute related to parts of that page specifically about Israel, Palestine and attacks on Jews by Palestinians. Several experienced editors have opined that this was wrong because there was no notification on the page that it was subject to 1RR and no 1RR restriction was logged at WP:DSLOG.

The current text of the relevant sanction reads:

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 provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

That seems to me clear that any page reasonably construed to be related to the conflict is subject to 1RR regardless of editnotices, talk page notices and the like, and that any editor who has been correctly notified of the ARBPIA restrictions is expected to abide by 1RR there. Editnotices and talk page notices may be applied, but they act as a reminder and are not required for 1RR to be enforced.

The 1RR violation was only a small part of the decision to impose a topic ban in this case and I'm not here to ask whether the sanction was correct (though of course the user in question can appeal it if he wishes; he has indicated he will not). But as I'm fairly new to this business, and several editors who generally know better than me have disagreed with my interpretation, I'd like the committee to clarify one way or the other: Is 1RR enforceable on any page related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, or does a page restriction need to be enacted and logged as WP:DSLOG first?

Pinging User:NeilN, User:Kingsindian, User:Zero0000 and User:Capitals00 here. They're not parties as such but they've opined on this one way or the other. I've chosen not to name the sanctioned user here as I'm not asking for review of the sanction imposed as such; if I've erred, perhaps the clerks would let me know and I'll rectify it. Also note that some have opined that me closing the request only a few hours after it was opened, before the accused responded, was out of process; I'm confident that this was well within AE practice, but if arbs feel differently then we may as well cover that here as well.

@NeilN: You quote, "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log." But these are not page restrictions applied by an administrator, they are applied directly as a remedy by the committee. You pointed to elsewhere WP:DSLOG where I would expect to see such restrictions being placed - but I don't. Not in the PIA area. I see plenty of editors being sanctioned for 1RR violations on pages that are not mentioned in the log. Am I missing something? GoldenRing (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I'm confused. Are we looking at the same thing? I don't see any "Imposed 1RR on article X" or similar in that log (the PIA section). I see one notice of someone applying a 1RR editnotice and that's it. GoldenRing (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID

The editor has been notified in the last 12 months that discretionary sanctions are in effect for the *topic* of the IP conflict. So the fact that a specific article does not have a reminder (talkpage notice etc) does not matter, since the editor is well aware when they make edits (or edit-wars) anywhere in the IP area, they can potentially be sanctioned. The only credible defense would be if the editing was unrelated to the IP conflict. Its also procedurely silly to require any page that may have a section related to the IP conflict even if the rest of the article is unrelated - to have a DS warning and be logged. Thats why the DS are in place for the *topic* and not individual pages. So while this article might not already have a specific 1rr attached to it as a result of a previous administrator applying a discretionary sanction, its well within any administrator's rights to topic ban a serial edit-warrior in the IP area from the topic when they start editing problematically in a section that is IP related. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Capitals00

AC/DS applies wherever the topic is being mentioned on any article or space of this Wikipedia. Entire Israel-Palestine is treated as 1RR so if there is a separate section for West Bank and Gaza Strip on Acid throwing, the section comes under DS of Israel-Palestine. The editor was also notified of 1RR violation which he totally rejected,[164] and made a total of 4 reverts. Such disruption contributed to topic ban. Its that simple. Capitals00 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

The particular event that led to this question is not a worthy topic for ArbCom, but the general issue that GoldenRing raises can benefit from a clarification to remove existing confusion among both administrators and regular editors. So I hope we can focus on the general question.

On source of confusion is the recent decision on logging sanctions, which some people have taken to mean that ARBPIA restrictions like 1RR don't apply to a page until that is logged at WP:DSLOG. That interpretation would immediately remove ARBPIA protection from the majority of the 5,000 or so A-I articles and I find it hard to believe that it is the intention of ArbCom to do that. Please disagree if I'm wrong.

So, please clarify that the ARBPIA sanctions apply automatically to all pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict without the need for a tag or an administrative decision. Or, if that's not case, explain what is. Thanks.

NeilN points to a related problem of articles that contain a small amount of A-I-related text but are mostly not about the A-I dispute. Not long ago there was big fight and AE case over a very long article with a single Palestine-related sentence. Such cases are a problem only if a too-legalistic approach is taken. Many times I have seen sensible administrators applying ARBPIA to editors warring over the A-I parts of an article and allowing editors of the unrelated parts to work in peace. Editors who want to war over A-I text know exactly what they are doing and should be subject to ARBPIA no matter where the text is. Conversely, there is an editor (Gilabrand) who is topic-banned from A-I but edits in unarguably A-I articles every day without molestation precisely because she avoids the parts about the A-I conflict. Nobody minds. So it isn't really a problem if handled by the spirit of the rules, but I'm aware that it can be problematic shoehorning all this into the technical wording of the rules.

Zero^talk 14:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor NeilN: The rule is clear and prescriptive: "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited..." It doesn't say that an administrator has to decide to apply it first. It also doesn't say that E-C protection is "mandated" but only that it is a "preferred" way to enforce the 500/30 rule. Tons of editors have been sanctioned for violating 1RR on I-P articles that are not E-C protected. Finally, it is simply not true that "Palestine-Israel articles are typically put under 500/30-protect"; actually the great majority are not and nearly always E-C protection is only applied when it becomes necessary for enforcing the IP+500/30 rule. Post-finally, as GoldenRing noted, there no logs at WP:DSLOG of admins applying ARBPIA to articles but only logs of admins 500/30-protecting articles. Zero^talk 14:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC) @NeilN: I read the ARCA case you referenced and what I see there is a discussion of how ArbCom's rule should be enforced, plus the degree to which admins are required to enforce it. Nobody there, including you, suggested that the rule didn't apply to an article at all, no matter how obviously the article was about the Israel-Palestine conflict, until some admin decided to enforce it. I work in the I-P area every day and stand by my statistical statements. Zero^talk 15:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

My only comment was in regard to the 3RR restriction on the page. The article in question: Acid throwing has, largely, nothing to do with Israel-Palestine. IMO, most of the edits have nothing to do with Israel-Palestine; they are mostly internal to Palestinian politics, but some of them are about Israel. But let's leave that aside.

The talk page of the article does not have a 1RR tag. None of the "belligerents" in this case treated the article as falling under 1RR. I can point out that Capitals00 themselves broke 1RR on the page (1st diff 29 May - reverting this edit, 2nd diff 30 May), indicating that they were themselves not treating the page as bound by 1RR. There was a request on the edit-warring noticeboard by one of the other parties in the dispute, which only talked about 3RR violation (there was no violation, and the request was declined). These things could have been brought up if the request had been kept open more than three hours, and/or the "accused" had been given a chance to reply, but apparently this step was not deemed necessary.

Now, I know that rules don't matter much on Wikipedia: the aim is simply to get your opponent on one pretext or another. There are so many rules that it's easy to find one to match the crime. Also, the discretionary sanctions system gives admins wide powers to act as they wish. And, to be fair, the way Al-Andalusi was behaving, they were going to be sanctioned soon one way or another. However, to repeat, my comment was not about discretionary sanctions in general. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN

Page restrictions need to be logged per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Arbitration_motion_regarding_the_logging_of_sanctions: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log." There is no exception for ARBPIA articles. It is folly to expect editors to guess if an admin has placed a non-obviously-related article under a restriction. With no page talk notice, no edit notice, and no logging, how many of you would expect Acid throwing to be under WP:1RR? Extrapolate that to any well-meaning editor working on the Medical section of the article. The restriction reads, "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page..." It does not specify the revert has to be ARBPIA-related. There's enough editing traps in this area - let's at least make sure these traps are clearly marked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: The remedy is applied by admins to appropriate articles. And Palestine-Israel articles are typically put under 500/30-protect (also mandated by Arbcom). Plenty of log entries here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Palestine-Israel_articles --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• @Zero0000: Arbcom has pretty much tied our hands with WP:ARBPIA2. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_3_.282.29_.28March_2017.29. The meaningless "where not feasible" clause remained. "...nearly always E-C protection is only applied when it becomes necessary for enforcing the IP+500/30 rule" is also not correct in my experience. EC protection is often used preventatively on articles falling under ARBPIA2. Lastly, the motion I pointed to was enacted on March 26, 2017. It's relatively new so it may not be generally followed yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

Arbcom should consider this clarification request carefully because it has implications across the project. Generally, admins assume that any page that can be reasonably construed as belonging to the sanctioned topic is automatically restricted, and that action can be taken against an offending editor if they have been warned about the sanctions in the past 12 months. It is unreasonable to expect that every page in the sanctioned area be logged (there may be hundreds, perhaps thousands of them). If we were to follow a log first policy we're going to get bogged down with logs of unwieldy length and "cat and mouse" games with editors who flit from page to page while the logging trails slowly behind. Requiring that each and every page in a sanctioned area be specifically logged is impractical, will defeat the purpose of the sanctions (which was, presumably, to minimize disruption), and will exponentially increase the burden on individual administrators. Imo, in the case at hand, the questions that should be asked addressed are: whether the acid throwing article could be reasonably construed to belonging to the sanctioned area, whether the editor was given adequate notice and whether, perhaps, a warning first approach would perhaps have been kinder. --regentspark (comment) 17:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

Thank you for pinging me to this, NeilN. With respect (and a hint of amusement, since we seem to always disagree at ARCA), I think you're badly misinterpreting this. The 1RR is not applied as an arbitration enforcement action, and therefore it does not need to be logged. Following your logic, we'd need to log each ArbCom remedy (even blocks or bans placed by the Committee!) before enacting them, which just isn't the intended or usual practice. The AE log is a log of arbitration enforcement actions authorized by the Committee but carried out at the discretion of individual administrators. In this case, the 1RR is part of a remedy to a broad class of articles. No individual admin is applying or can rescind it. Arbitration enforcement actions occur when admins push a button to enforce a remedy (including the edit button, when placing a topic ban, etc). That's why we log page protections; it's a button pushed by an administrator to enforce the remedy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I just want to make sure the outcome here is clear. If the question is "Should administrators have to log remedies placed directly by ArbCom before enforcing them?", then the answer is "No, in all cases", right? (Ignoring possible exceptions if logging is explicitly required in a remedy.) I have a feeling this will pop up a month or year down the road in another topic area if that isn't stated clearly and generally beyond just the bounds of this topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by jd2718

GoldenRing closed the request with sanctions, less than four hours after the request was made. I am concerned (1) that Al-Andalusi did not have an opportunity to respond. I lurk at Arbitration Enforcement, and do not recall seeing sanctions imposed so swiftly. Whether or not an editor responds, they are usually (always? almost always?) accorded reasonable and sufficient time to do so. I am further concerned (2) that there was no comment by an uninvolved administrator, and no attempt to reach consensus among uninvolved administrators. With other requests I've seen an admin claim that the request was clearly valid, and that the sanction that should be imposed is X, and then wait for others to agree or disagree. It's a process that works, and that generates a certain amount of respect, even when individual editors disagree with the outcome. It feels like a different process from what occurred. Jd2718 (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

GoldenRing's closure was here. There is a comment (above) that GoldenRing should not have closed the AE so quickly (less than four hours elapsed) and that Al-Andalusi didn't have time to respond. The logical action on this request by the Committee would be to take no action, but suggest that Al-Andalusi follow the usual steps of WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. For example, he could open his own {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} at AE. The question of Al-Andalusi's conduct doesn't depend crucially on whether a 1RR existed on the I/P material at Acid throwing. I am in agreement with User:Doug Weller's comment below. My opinion is that the scope of the ARBPIA restrictions is already sufficiently clear and there is no big weakness in the system that Arbcom ought to be addressing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 15 June 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.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

• Recuse For the obvious reason. GoldenRing (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• I've slightly reformatted this title. For the Committee - Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• So far as I'm aware, it has never been the intention that every PIA related page should be individually logged as being subject to the relevant restrictions. (Or indeed, that any topic area's pages should be.) I understand Neil's point about communication, but realistically, a log that consists of a list of page titles sitting in an obscure corner of the arbitration pages is not practical for that purpose anyway. I am starting to suspect that the unending stream of clarification requests on the exact boundaries of these remedies, and the mechanics of enforcing those boundaries, is evidence that the whole thing needs to be redesigned - but since I don't have the time to even think about it, I should probably just keep my mouth shut ;) I'm not in favor of a strict requirement for AE requests to stay open for a particular length of time or until the subject responds, though I think it's wise to wait if something is ambiguous and not urgent. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13: That's correct. Though I always feel like the Peter Principle in action when asked about the details of AE/DS procedures ;) It'd be good to see one of our more procedure-oriented arbs comment before we close this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, what OR says. Is someone were to point out that all these regulations and notifications and logs and logs of notifications and notifications of logs are byzantine and cumbersome and apt to be gamed, I'd "yes" that too. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think we should attempt the Herculean task of trying to log the pages and I'm pretty sure it would make enforcing the system worse. As for the system itself, sure it might be gamed at times and it creaks and it's all a bit Rube Goldberg machine, but it seems to work most of the time. The main complaint I get is problems with finding the templates. Doug Weller talk 04:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Mkdw, I think we are all agreeing with BU Rob13? Doug Weller talk 15:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with OR and Doug on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• I don't have much to add on this issue but I tend to agree with BU Rob13's opinion on this matter. Mkdw ^talk 19:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Or, both that the whole system needs to be redesigned, and that I have no idea how to redesign it. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nazi Germany

Hi there, could there be an enforcement of this extended to Nazi Germany or any related articles related to it? Just wondering. Wrestlingring (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (January 2018)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Huldra

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the example that User:SMcCandlish: as I wrote on the above discussion with Opabinia regalia and Callanecc: that is only if you revert late, after almost 24 hours. In effect, both Version 1 and Version 2 will, if there are only 2 editors involved, result that the new stuff is in the article about half the time, on average.

As I said, I can live with both versions, but if Version 2 is the valid version, then I think we would need the addition suggested by Callanecc.

The reason I would prefer version 1, is that that is a fixed edit to relate to. Take an example, under Version 2 :

1. Editor A inserts material at 00:01, 1 Jan
2. Editor B partly removes/change the material at 00:05, 1 Jan
3. Editor C partly removes/change the material further, at 00:10, 1 Jan

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

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

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

Ok User:Callanecc, thank you for your reply.

(And yes, in RL editors will battle it out on talk pages, or in edit lines: none of us wants to waste time edit warring)

(But, I’m trying to figure exactly how the rules will be interpreted, knowing all too well that the threshold for being reported is rather ......low.)

However, keep in mind that if B, or C, removes as much as a single word from what A has added, it would be counted as a (partial) revert...this makes Version 2 sound more and more like the dreaded "consensus required", which wasn't wanted by the "regulars" in the I/P area. It also open up for personal interpretation: say, was this one word removal important enough for it to be counted as a partial revert? And if D, E and F messes around with the text that A added, A must wait until no-one change it for 24 hours? Oh horror.

I do not like rules which are open to a lot of interpretation! I like rules that are absolute clear, which each and every one of us has to follow. And, Version 1 is such a rule.... Just saying....Huldra (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I once said, a bit flippantly, that it is easy to avoid all edit wars: you could just forbid all editing. Which is the way we are going. With Version 1, we would always, sooner or later end up on the talk page: there is a limit to how much damage/disruption an editor can make, if they are only allowed one edit a day! My BIG problem with Version 2 is that it is unclear...if there are more than two editors: what will count as an revert, and what will not count as an revert? I expect lots of reports about this in the future....And a lot of waste of time. Sigh. Huldra (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• 16:01, 8 December 2017 editor A adds label
• 17:54, 8 December 2017 editor B removes label
• 17:59, 8 December 2017 editor C re add same label.

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

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

User:Opabinia regalis yeah, the I/P area on the WP dramah boards is not my idea of fun.....(It's a thousand times more fun to actually write articles in the area...which is, thankfully, what I'm mostly doing.)

However, I do sincerely hope that you don't go back to the old 1RR, or 3RR system. Remember: all this started, because in the "old system", in a one to one editor "fight", the editor wanting to add something always won, as that first addition don't count towards RR.

I think all the 3 Versions suggested is an improvement to the old system, my preference would be:

• Version 1
• Version 3
• Version 2

...in descending order. I can live will any version, but I really have to know which is valid, Huldra (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Several editors here say they support Version 2, as that, they say, limit edit warring. BUT, recall, we didn't start this in order to "limit edit warring"...as there was no edit warring in the previous version (in a one to one editor "fight") ...as the editor wanting to add something always won. So the argument supporting Version 2 (instead of Version 1) because it "limit edit warring" is a bit of a Red herring, IMO, Huldra (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, to repeat, edit warring is not a great problem in the IP area, after 1RR was introduced years ago. The damage one can do with one edit a day is ...limited, to say the least.

Secondly, I still favour Version 1, for the clarity. Take an example, playing out just now, on Qusra article:

• after a 5 day break, I add stuff in 3 edits, last 22:59, 26 December 2017‎
• 04:41, 27 December 2017 another editor again removes some stuff...NOT any of the new stuff I added; in order to find out who added that stuff, you have to look through the edits for weeks back! (Ok, spoiler alert: I added it, about 3, or 4 weeks ago)

When can I reintroduce some of the stuff removed? Under Version 2, I have honestly no idea, is it 04:42, 28 December?? Under Version 1 know: it is 23:00, 27 December.

This is the problem with Version 2 in RL: typically editing goes back and forth like this..the sentence "of the first revert made to their edit" is bound to be contested, ie, I could revert at 23:00, 27 December, saying it was not the first revert....the first revert of some of this stuff was back some weeks ago, on 06:27, 3 December 2017.

This is why I like Version 1: it is "clean", and absolutely crystal clear what is meant. Huldra (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if some of you, that is, those of you who voted for Version 2, answered the above question. When could I safely have reintroduced stuff removed from Qusra, under Version 2? I simply do not know. Huldra (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:KrakatoaKatie could you please tell me under Version 2: when would I have been able to reinsert some of the stuff in the above example? (Without breaking the rules, that is.) Was it 04:42, 28 December, or 23:00, 27 December? Im not trying to be difficult her, but I honestly have no idea, (I have twice been blocked, without any warning, for something I had no clue that I had done anything wrong. I do not want it to be a third time. It was the two most disheartening experiences I have had on Wikipedia, far worse than having user names like this, or the zillion nastiness here. So yeah, I am going to nag about this until I get a clear answer.) Huldra (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) editor Cullen328

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

Statement by SMcCandlish

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

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

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

Given that Kingsindian's response is "SMcCandlish claims that the intent was to stop edit-warring. No ...", followed by a lot of rationalization, I'm comfortable just stopping here, other than stating the obvious: Any system can be gamed with determination, but version 2 is much less gameable because it forces each party to wait a full day, and they'll eventually run out of tag-team partners.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: "name me a person who edits regularly in the ARPIA area, and I'll find you an edit in their recent history which violates version 2" – That would likely be because it hasn't been the typical interpretation (and wouldn't be under "traditional" 1RR, though it arguably makes more sense in this application of the concept – thus this entire ARCA discussion). If it were already the common and certain interpretation, then people would avoid making edits that transgress it. Kind of a "Q.E.D.", really. As I said in a thread at my user talk page involving some of these peeps, no one cares about edits that may or may not have transgressed this principle, before it is certain that it is the principle, even as recently as one full day ago, because those edits are already stale in AE's eyes; sanctions that could be imposed are to be preventative, not punitive – if people aren't editingwarring pretty much right now, and clearly trying to game the special 1RR, then there's not any clear enforcement action to take, especially when ArbCom is still deliberating about which interpretation should really be employed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Zero0000's idea that version 2 could be use to permanently prevent someone from editing is implausible, since the editor wanting to game that way is subject to the same restriction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
And (to followup to the followup) nothing in that scenario or any scenario we're contemplate has anything to do with self-reverts. If you make a series of tweaks to your own stuff, admins treat it as a single edit for determining xRR matters. No one is going to be fooled by patently silly attempts at system gaming. I think this is all a moot point, since some combination of versions 2–4 (if we call Callenecc's no. 4) is going to be the result.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Seraphim Blade's "Version 3" works for me, too. I think that might assuage Kingsindian's concerns, while also addressing the GAMING scenario I outlined above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Callanecc's effective Version 4, "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit", seems good to me. It still resolves the gameability of Version 1, while being more restrictive than "traditional" 1RR, and apparently assuaging the concerns about Version 2 (even though I don't think those concerns are realistic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

Option 2 was definitely the intent. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Huldra's example, there was no violation of either version 1 or version 2 (because A and C are not the same person). But it simply shows that version 2 doesn't help against edit-warring or tag-teaming. Btw, I make a challenge here: name any person who edits regularly in the I/P area, and I'll find you a violation of version 2 in the recent history. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

To eliminate a technical irrelevance in Sir Joseph's latest comment, please look at this edit (and the preceding and subsequent edits by other people), which clearly violates version 2 -- it removes "shifting" which was earlier removed and reverted. I mention this not to single out Sir Joseph, but to make the point that everyone in this area violates version 2 all the time. My standing offer remains: name me a person who edits regularly in the ARPIA area, and I'll find you an edit in their recent history which violates version 2. It's revealing that nobody here has taken me up on the challenge. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: This is a clarification request, not an amendment request. If, as you agree, nobody actually follows version 2, and everyone follows version 1, then the clarification should simply affirm the practice and avoid ambiguity. An amendment request would require, at a minimum, some argument or evidence that the current remedy isn't working and needs some change. QED, indeed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comment on proposal

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

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

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

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

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

There are two points here:

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

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

Newyorkbrad says that both version 1 and version 2 have good arguments. I don't believe that there's really any good argument for #2 but let's concede this point for the sake of argument. There is a crucial difference between #1 and #2: #1 is the accepted interpretation by every single editor in this area. Therefore, changing to version 2 will force everyone to change their practice. And for what? As I have showed multiple times above, version #2 requires no more effort, thought, bad faith, or determination to circumvent. Indeed, it is an open invitation for people (including trolls and socks) to dredge up past conflicts to get people sanctioned. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

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

Comment on proposal

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

Regarding the recent example brought up by user:Kingsindian - it is a case where the rule worked perfectly. Kingsindian inserted a large chunk of text to the lead [165] This got reverted due to already in infobox. This is not a summary of section 3.3 (Casualties) - but rather a POVish fork relying on questionable sources.. We discussed (which is what should be done!) in the talk page over the course of half an hour - he saw some of my points (that what was added didn't match the body), I saw some of his points (that this was removed "sneaked out" in 2015 and no one noticed). I self-reverted - self-revert - will modify to match body. - and then made a series of edits to match the body, we discussed some of these edits, and I made a further edit based on Kingsindian's comments ‎Reverting the final paragraph of the lead: re - Add Protection Clusters figures for civilians.. Or in short - two editors coming to an agreement on the talk-page, in a contentious subject area, within 5 hours (2 hours (7:25-09:08) on the initial exchange, one followup to the followup edit was discussed in a laid back fashion as was finally resolved in another 3 (additional edit at 12:46)).

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

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

Statement by Sir Joseph

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

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

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

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

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

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

Statement by Number 57

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

Statement by Malik Shabazz

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

Statement by Seraphim System

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

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

• Callanecc Yes that is what I had in mind. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

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

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

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

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

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

The irreparable vagueness of Version 2. What is "the first revert made to their edit"? Suppose (1) editor A adds something, (2) editor B removes it, (3) editor A adds it again, (4) editor B removes it again. Is editor A allowed to edit the material 24 hours after edit 2 (the first revert of A's insertion of this material), or 24 hours after edit 4 (the first revert of edit 3)? The confusion gets worse if the edits are not so clear-cut as this but overlap only partially, or if edit (3) adds material that can argued as equivalent but isn't the same. These are not artificial scenarios but just everyday editing. As it stands, Version 2 is an open invitation for wikilawyers to take their editing opponents to AE in the hope that some admin will agree with their interpretation, and sometimes that tactic will work. In contrast, what is allowed under Version 1 will be clear to almost everyone in most practical situations. Zero^talk 01:23, 3 January 2018 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

• Renamed to "Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles". Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• My interpretation is version 2 - the original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other user's revert. The purpose of this part of the motion was to replace the requirement for consensus to be achieved by making editors wait before restoring their own edit after it had been reverted. This was so it would be more likely that the two users would discuss it and (probably more likely/hopeful) that other editors will be able to comment (or revert if the edit is inappropriate). I'm open to amending the restriction to "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the other user's revert." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Huldra: The first thing to consider is whether editor B or C actually "reverted" editor A's original edit. In that situation (depending on the their edit) both editor B and C have "reverted" so editor A cannot change it until 24 hours after editor C, and editor B can't change it until 24 hours after editor C's edit. Having said that, (depending on the edit) all of those editors would be very wise not to revert until after they've started a discussion on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it's important to remember that just because an editor technically breaches the restriction does not mean that they will or should get blocked. There is a reason we don't have bots automatically blocking people who breach 1RR reason. We have human admins review the situation before issuing blocks to determine whether the editors involved are being disruptive or not. If the editors who are breaching the restriction are working constructively by modifying each other's edits then there isn't a need to block them. If, on the other hand, editors are reverting each others edits and are not working constructively then blocking them likely is the best way forward and that's where this restriction is useful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Seraphim System: Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment, that's exactly what version 2 already does. See User talk:Callanecc#Hi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks Seraphim System. So turning that into language for a motion, how does this look: replace "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours with If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
      • In that instance Zero, assuming neither of you had made an attempt to discuss the issue, I can two edit warring blocks on the horizon. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• My interpretation is also version 2, for the same reasons. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with version 2. With all the endless clarifications on this issue, one might reasonably dispute that version 2 is a good rule, but it's the one we have. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I was trying to decide which of my neglected non-work-related responsibilities I should catch up on today, and for some reason I picked this one, and trying to read all this is sapping my will to live. I'm increasingly concerned that there is no "right" interpretation of the various forms this remedy has taken and we're all just playing Calvinball. I get the impression that most variations on "stronger-than-1RR" restrictions that have been tried have caused a disproportionate level of confusion (see also: "consensus required"). Everyone knows what 3RR is, and everyone knows what 3-2 is. Am I just being grumpy, or is there a case here for flushing the whole mess and going back to plain old 1RR? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Huldra: Ha, OK, I'd forgotten how we wandered off down this path in the first place, amid all the "Version 3.14159 is broken because it doesn't cover what should happen when someone edits on a leap second!" stuff ;) Backing up a bit, I like Callanecc's wording if indeed the best way to do this is something like version 2, but I'm becoming persuaded that the simplicity of version 1 is worth the occasional weird edge case along the lines of SMC's example. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keen on additional points of view from regular I/P editors, but for now, an unpopular contrary view from me: I prefer version 1 for the reasons outlined by Huldra and Kingsindian - it's simpler, it avoids disputes over partial reverts, or in circumstances where there are more than two editors, and it achieves the same basic outcome of slowing down edit wars. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• My interpretation is version 2. Basically, "its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" from the time it was reverted. While I think both would significantly reduce edit warring, version 2 does more to foster discussion. It effectively removes a technicality that would make the restore time consistent across all applications. Either the sanction language could be updated or an example situation included in the documentation. Mkdw ^talk 14:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Kingsindian: Which Arbitrators are recognizing version 1 as the current practice? "Everyone" seems fairly inaccurate against the comments from other Arbitrators; one in five gave a preference for version 1 but did not explicitly state that's the current practice. The four of five state they "interpret" the meaning as version 2 as the current meaning. I would rather match intent of the remedy than match current practice. The reason being is that current practice isn't always the best practice. Look at WP:CIVIL for example. Also, I view version 2 as already in place but needing clarification; and not a change. Mkdw ^talk 19:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Not all clarifications are not going to reflect the practices of some. There would be no point on requesting a clarification on something if the automatic expectation was that the outcome would always result in affirming the current practice; clarifications affirm the intent and purpose of the sanction/enforcement. Doing so otherwise would be a horrible practice. People would ignore sanctions/enforcements and then come to ARCA citing 'current practice' expecting the 'clarification' to endorse their actions, regardless of the actual intent and purpose. Mkdw ^talk 17:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Kingsindian: The very nature of this discussion is to work out the fine details and nuance regarding some of our more complicated governing policies and rules. You've been one of the most vocal opponents of version 2, so I'm not sure why you're asking about the point of talking about it with you. If you feel the current discussion of 'current practice versus intent' is exhausted, then I tend to agree. There have been other substantive arguments for version 1, and I've been following them as well. I replied to specifically to you because you asked me a bunch of questions and you continuously bring up current practice in your lengthy section, as recently as yesterday. Mkdw ^talk 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• To those supporting "version 1," how do you respond to SMcCandlish's point above? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 seems the more reasonable. It's the most direct way of doing what is intended: to wait 24 hoursbefore continuding the disagreement.. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Huldra: No problem. In this specific example, at Qusra, the material which was removed was not added in the previous 24 hours. Therefore, in both versions of the proposed motion, you can revert right away once. The burden is then on Icewhiz; in version 1, he can revert within 24 hours of his own edit, and in version 2, he has to wait 24 hours after your edit. If that's not clear, let me know and I'll try again. :-) Katie^talk 00:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles: Motion

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

Majority reference

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

Version 1

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

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of their own edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Support

1. Second choice. This version would help but I think version 2 would make the biggest difference in both preventing and slowing down the edit warring. In addition I think version 2 was the original intention. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
3. I was originally on Team Version 2, but I've become convinced that the simplicity of version 1 is preferable. I think the focus on what "slows down the edit war" more is a bit off-point; it's more important to know when the clock started than to be slightly "slower". Anyone playing games with the details of timing should be called out for their manipulative behavior anyway. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
4. First choice. Version 2 was the original intent, but this avoids certain issues unique to version 2. In particular, what happens if someone removes a piece of information two months after it was added? Is that a revert? That's a question that editors regularly argue over with 1RR/3RR, so if we can avoid it here, let's do so. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Second choice. Katie^talk 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The alternative is superior. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

• I'm undecided at this time. Frankly, there are good arguments presented above against both "option 1" and "option 2," and part of me wishes that we could find a better alternative altogether, although I understand that some of our best wikiminds have tried for years with no great success. Also, although it hasn't been part of this discussion, I don't really care for the last sentence (of either option), which I think may help lead to blocking of good-faith editors who aren't aware of all the details of the special editing rules for these pages or momentarily lose sight of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem then is not the rules, but unreasonable enforcement of the rules at AE. The procedures designed to give stability have protected unfairness. It is impossible to write rules that admins can misapply. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Version 2

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

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. First choice. Per my comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
2. If the purpose is to prevent edit warring, this is the correct time frame and much less susceptible to gaming. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

   Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC) term expired--Kostas20142 (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

4. Second choice. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. First choice, as it stretches out the time frame. Katie^talk 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Alex Shih (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
7. The ARCA requested a clarification on the intent and I think version 2 was clearly it. The issue of sorting out partial reverts will be challenging, but something I would hope could be done on a case-by-case basis and within the confines of good taste and good judgement. I trust the community and administrators to take these two things into account when applying an action. It is after all why we have people reviewing these things and not robots automatically blocking editors who violate a strict set of perimeters. Mkdw ^talk 03:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
8. First choice. Both are gameable, but I think this one is less so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

• @Alex Shih, Ks0stm, Mkdw, Premeditated Chaos, Worm That Turned, and RickinBaltimore: Pinging arbitrators listed as active but not yet commenting here: we're a couple of votes short on either option, it'd be good to wrap this up in the next few days. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Le Trio Joubran#Need Edits

I have the page on my watchlist and I noticed this request. I am not sure how to proceed. Do we have any policies for this case? (Posting it here since it is highly relevant for ARBPIA and likely to be noticed; the page has been ec protected for quite some time.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Scope

A recent dispute at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party has led to a claim that this is covered under this AR, can an article about a UK political party be reasonably construed as being part of Palestine-Israel articles AR?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Interested to know this too. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally UK politics are not ARBPIA related - however when the article features (as of this timestamp) Israel/i 115 times, zionist/zionism 47 times, Palestine/Palestinian 42 times - and when elements in said political party claim they are not antisemitic but merely anti-Israeli/Zionist - it is not such an odd claim to make.... But lets see how others weigh in (if at all) - you might want to ask on ARCA as a more proper venue.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (October 2018)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Shrike at 13:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Shrike

In my view the only requirement to enforce the 500/30 remedy is notification via Template:Ds/alert. In recently closed WP:AE request [166].Admin AGK commented that user didn't received any clear warning so the AE action could not be taken in this regard.If the ARBCOM agree with AGK then I ask what kind of wording is required and add this as standardized template if not then clarify and amend the decision that the only requirement is notification about discretionary sanctions in the area.--Shrike (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:But to enforce the General prohibition admin must take discretionary sanction So someone could be topic banned without even receiving an alert? --Shrike (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I prefer that it would be clearly described as AGK noted we don't expect the new users to read all the walls of texts and follow all the links.--Shrike (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

I'd like some clarification here, seeing that I posted "Please note, that until you are WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, you are not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages (see WP:ARBPIAINTRO) - you can post talk page comments, but not edit the article themselves.[167] specifically due to the 500/30 restriction and Wickey's prior edits - but this got dismissed at AE as a "helpful postscript". Now this was framed politely (and not - "if you continue editing ARBPIA articles, I will take you to AE and try to get you banned") - but I did specifically say Wickey was not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages. Are we not supposed to be polite? When posting this, I was suspicious this was Wickey-nl (and was considering a SPI filing), however I was framing this (per WP:AGF) in the manner I would approach any new user. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As a side note - given that the DS regime applies to many different topics, and often without an special restrictions - it would be nice if the standard ds/alert template (for a-i) would include a link to WP:ARBPIAINTRO as well as clearly specifying the 1RR and 500/30 restrictions which apply project wide (without a need for specific page logging) and are additional to the usual DS rules.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

The committee reviewed and replaced the prior generation of standard discretionary sanctions in its 2013–14 term. I think we easily forget how troublesome the concept of "awareness" became in the community. At the time, we frequently heard from editors who – out of the blue – received sizable sanctions without having been formally made aware that standard discretionary sanctions were in effect. Obviously, a page notice on every affected article and talk page was impractical. We therefore adopted {{alert}} (and its ancillary systems, {{Z33}} and Filter 602).

The committee has adopted language (WP:ARBPIA3#500/30) that the general restriction should be enforced, preferably, using extended-confirmed protection – or using reverts, warnings, blocks, etc.

In this matter, petitioner requested enforcement of the 30/500 general restriction – an entirely different remedy to discretionary sanctions. The enforcement requested was not to revert the respondent's edits or warn them about the general restriction. The enforcement requested was a heftier sanction (for anyone can revert). I denied that request. I am rarely minded to decline enforcement where there has been a breach.

The petitioner complained to me that the separate DS alert, served on the editor in summer 2018, included a warning that the 30/500 restriction was ineffect. However, the alert template links to many pages about discretionary sanctions; none discuss the general restriction. There was indeed a single sentence appended to the alert, but it read to me like a string of alphabet soup attempting to warn about one remedy in the same breath as another. The explanation was inadequate for a remedy that the committee, by its own language, thinks ought to be enforced by technical means. Respondent's edits were to pages that lacked the standard talk banner or editnotice.

For these reasons, I denied the request to hand down a more rigorous sanction. I do not think we need the general restriction modified or a new template created. I do suggest editors like petitioner use the existing language to begin warning (clearly) and reverting at the first opportunity rather than requesting enforcement at the second. AGK ■ 17:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: There is not really such a question here. Awareness (in the technical sense) is a precondition of DS but not of the General Prohibition. This thread is about whether enforcing the given complaint, other than by reverting, would have been proportionate. Some editors of the topic area think so; I was unconvinced that the Prohibition had been made clear. AGK ■ 17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

Well, observers of the IP area will know that I don't often agree with Shrike and Icewhiz (and that is putting it diplomatically), but here I agree with them: with this alert on 15 July 2018, I would have considered Wickey warned, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

I am also of the opinion that the warning was adequate. If the committee concludes that there was something inadequate about it, please spell out what the problem was so that we can issue better warnings in the future. Zero^talk 09:57, 16 October 2018 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm very much of the opinion that editors should be aware of restrictions before being sanctioned by them, however, I see in this case that the individual was made aware of ARBPIA in July, with a specific extra comment highlighting the 500/30 restriction. Since the template which was left has a clear link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, which also goes into depth of the 500/30 restriction, I'm interested to know what more AGK would be looking for? Worm^TT(talk) 13:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Having read AGK's explanation, I'm happy things proceeded properly - within the bounds of admin discretion and all that. I'm not sure if there's discussion at cross purposes, or just simple misunderstandings, but I believe the alert was sufficient in this case for "awareness". I do also agree that it's generally enforced by extended confirmed protection (for preference) and simple reversion where not, so a heavier sanction would need a more in depth breach, and would therefore be expected to have more "awareness", through warnings and the like. Worm^TT(talk) 20:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have the same concerns as Worm, just tacking on the fact that there was a link to WP:ARBPIAINTRO which clarifies all possible restrictions and also provides a link for the case. I fail to see how with both of these, it invalidates the warning for the purposes of that enforcement. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• To be clear i'm not looking to question any potential outcome as that's not what this ARCA asks of us, but simply the question of if the warning was sufficient to satisfy awareness. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• To answer the original question, the awareness requirements for discretionary sanctions do not apply here, because this is not a discretionary sanction. There are no similar requirements related to this remedy, but administrators are certainly within their discretion to issue a warning instead of a block if they feel the editor was not aware of the remedy they violated. I will note that AGK declining to enforce this remedy in this circumstance doesn't mean another admin cannot. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Shrike: Incorrect. Actions to enforce arbitration remedies are "arbitration enforcement actions", not discretionary sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• The 500/30 part of ARBPIA is an arbitration remedy, not a discretionary sanction, and I can see no requirement of awareness there. Admins are authorized to issue discretionary sanctions, but those potential remedies are separate from the 500/30 prohibition. Awareness is a requirement for DS, as we clarified earlier this year. An admin can issue a warning or decline to block at their discretion, including if they feel an editor was not sufficiently aware. Katie^talk 07:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Firstly, I don't see that any action is needed in response to this request as declining to take action in favour of a warning is well-within admin discretion (and is one of the things they should consider).
  As the General Prohibition (AKA 500/30) is not a discretionary sanction, or the system of discretionary sanctions, the awareness requirements of discretionary sanctions do not apply. However, administrators should use their discretion to determine what the most appropriate response is to breaches of the General Prohibition. Generally this would be page protection, reverts and notification of the 500/30 requirement. If editors continue to breach the General Prohibition (and, likely, that page protection isn't a viable option) then administrators may decide that further arbitration enforcement action is required. For the general prohibition the only other enforcement option open to admins, according the remedy and case, is a block initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Note that a block under the General Prohibition is not a discretionary sanction but an arbitration enforcement action. Having said that, assuming an editor is "aware" of discretionary sanctions, a discretionary sanction may be issued (such as a topic/page ban) to enforce conduct requirements (including the General Prohibition and 1RR) in the topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• As this isn't a DS we all agree that a warning is not formally required. I agree with what Callanecc has said above, but I do think that there is one thing we could do to improve how we handle the 500/30 remedy. When I give DS alerts in this area I often had a note about 500.30, but this would be better dealt with by either a link in alert or having the remedy clearly described in the alert. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Not much to add here except that I agree with Callanecc's position on the matter. Mkdw ^talk 20:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (November 2018)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Kingsindian at 13:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Link to remedy

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Link to remedy

• Propose that this remedy be replaced by a simple 1RR rule.

Statement by Kingsindian

[I will quote real people throughout in this ARCA request -- this is not to fault them, but simply to show that the problems I'm talking about are all real.]

This ARCA request is about this "modified 1RR" rule instituted by ArbCom in January 2018. I will first state what the rule means (because absolutely nobody understands it); give multiple reasons as to why it is, to put it bluntly, stupid; and then show a way forward.

What the rule says

The rule, stated precisely, is supposed to handle the following situation:

1. A makes an edit (addition or removal) at time T1.
2. B reverts the edit (completely or partially) at time T2.
3. C re-does the edit (addition / removal, completely / partially) at time T3.

If A and C are the same person and (T3 - T2) < 24 hours, then A has committed a violation.

Note that T1 is irrelevant for breaking the rule, but it is necessary to check if A and C are the same person.

Why the rule is stupid, and how to fix it

I will first enumerate the reasons, then go into details:

1. The rule leads to absurdities. I predicted these absurdities and nobody listened to me.
2. Absolutely nobody understands the rule, even those who strenuously argued for it, the admins who implement it or the editors in this area in general.
3. Absolutely nobody asked for this rule. ArbCom imposed this monstrosity capriciously.

What's the solution? Go back to 1RR with no frills. The crying need is for a clear, simple bright line rule, which everybody understands, is proven to work, and most importantly: something ArbCom cannot screw up.

Elaboration

To illustrate the absurdities I'll take two recent AE cases, one from "each side" of the ARBPIA spectrum (just so tiresome arguments about partisan motives can be put to rest).

This AE case. The case is a violation because of the following argument: Person A is GHcool, Person B is Veritycheck. T1 is 20:22, 7 September. T2 is 19:48, 20 September. T3 is 22:44, 20 September.

This AE case. The case is a violation becaue of the following argument: Person A is Onceinawhile, Person B is Icewhiz. T1 is 27 October, T2 is 2 November, T3 is 2 November.

Two absurdities in these cases are worth highlighting:

1. An editor can break this "modified 1RR" even if their edit is the first one this day, week, month or year. In the older rule, if you edited the page once a day, you're guaranteed not to break 1RR (which is how it should be). To prove that it is not just me who finds this situation absurd, here is a comment from Shrike which makes the same point.
2. T1 can be indefinitely back in the past. Or, to put it another way, the starting point ("original edit") for the violation can be anywhere in the edit history. This is illustrated by the first AE request I linked above. T1 in this case was about 12 days before the actual violation. Some people believe that T1 was actually a year before the actual violation (hopefully, I don't need to elaborate on why this is absurd). In the second AE case, T1 was about 5 days before the violation. Where do you draw the line? Is two days ok? How about a week? 10 days? 20 days?

I predicted these absurdities when I urged ArbCom not to impose this stupid rule. At that time, I proposed (somewhat tongue-in-cheek): let's block a member of ArbCom when I am inevitably proved right. Which one of you wants to volunteer?

Coming back to the rule, absolutely nobody understands it. The first AE case should give plenty of evidence on the score. Some admins at AE, like Sandstein, have stated explicitly that they don't understand the rule and they cannot enforce it.

Finally, as I showed in my arguments at the time, absolutely nobody asked for this rule, and nobody followed this rule before ArbCom decided to capriciously institute it.

The rule targets a non-issue

The issue which the "tweak" was supposed to fix was a "loophole" in which an initial addition of text is not considered a "revert". Namely: A adds some text, B reverts, then A can immediately re-revert. Thus, A has the initial advantage in this edit war.

But notice: this advantage lasts for 24 hours at most. After that time period, A and B are on equal terms. Indeed, since WP:ONUS and rules against edit-warring exist, A is actually at a big disadvantage. After the third or fourth revert, A is gonna get blocked without the need for any fancy rules.

What is to be done?

Let's go back to the beginning. The purpose of the 1RR rule was to tweak the 3RR rule. The rule slows down edit wars and tries to encourage discussion on the page. That's all it does. It is not a panacea, and endless tweaking to handle every instance of bad behaviour should not be a goal (unattainable, at any rate). By all accounts, the institution of 1RR in this area succeeded on its own terms. So let's bring it back again.

1RR is a completely fair and completely transparent rule. 1RR is fair because everyone get a "token" every day, which they can spend for a revert. It is transparent because whether you violate it or not depends exclusively on your own actions, not anybody else's actions. All you need is to check your own 24-hour editing history. You don't need to pore over the edit history of the page, and if you edit a page once a day, you are guaranteed to be within 1RR. (Hopefully you also spend some time editing the talk page).

Also, consider the way watchlists work on Wikipedia. Let's take the case of person A who edits Wikipedia every day for an hour before bedtime. They makes some edit on a page on their watchlist. Five days later, while they're sleeping or working, some editor removes text from the page. Editor A logs in, checks their watchlist, reverts the edit, and BAM!, they're hammered by this stupid rule. To avoid running afoul of this rule, they would have to wait till the next day before reverting, which is not how watchlists work. 1RR makes perfect sense in this scenario, but the stupid rule doesn't.

Please fix your mess

ArbCom, please clean up the mess you've made. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Warkosign's comment and clearing up some historical amnesia

As I have said above, I prefer a plain 1RR rule. However, several people have commented on WarKosign statement. It seems that none of the people have picked up on a simple fact: Warkosign's proposal is exactly the same as "Version 1", which used to be the rule before ArbCom capriciously changed it. Let's see how this is true:

Warkosign's proposal is: "Use a plain 1RR with the provision that the initial edit counts as a revert."

How did "Version 1" work?

1. Editor A makes a change at time T1.
2. Editor B reverts it at time T2.
3. Editor C re-reverts at time T3.

If A and C are the same person and (T3 - T1) < 24 hours, A has committed a violation.

Half a minute's thought will show that the two ways of wording the proposal are identical.

---

There are two key properties of Version 1 which make it desirable, and which avoid the absurdities I listed above:

1. All the action takes place within a 24-hour time period. [Since T1 < T2 < T3, and (T3 - T1) < 24 hours].
2. One only needs to really look at editor A's edits. [Since Edit #1 and Edit #3 are the operative edits.]

---

To clear some more historical amnesia: this rule was the one everyone used, and it used to work fine before ArbCom decided to change it to "Version 2" for no reason at all.

Now, considering this history, you might appreciate why I would prefer that ArbCom not impose any more hare-brained rules on the editor population. Let's stop with the experimentation and go back to 1RR, which was perfectly fine and perfectly understood by all. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The proposed remedy consists of going back to 1RR, together with some vague talk about admin discretion. I, of course, support the first part -- but the second part seems either meaningless or dangerous to me. Discretionary sanctions are already discretionary; there's absolutely no need to add some sort of boilerplate language to a remedy. If the intent of the remedy is to advocate for stricter action by admins at AE, I also oppose such things. As people who read my comments at AE probably know, I almost always advocate leniency in these cases.

In particular, I oppose the action taken by AGK, who seems to believe that he can fix the problems in ARBPIA by harsher sentences. There are several possible answers to AGK's position. Firstly, nobody elected anybody to fix ARBPIA's problems. Second, what makes you think you can fix it? You think you're so smart that you can fix problems going back a decade? Third, what if things don't work (as has happened repeatedly, including in the case under discussion). Do the people who makes these rules and/or apply "discretion" in enforcing them suffer any consequences? That was just a rhetorical question.

I would prefer the following situation. Clear-cut cases of violation / edit-warring should be discouraged by reasonable sanctions. Page protection and warnings can be used to handle less clear-cut cases.

Finally, a note about "tag-teaming", and Number57's comments. It is impossible to stop "tag-teaming" because nobody knows what it means. In this area, opinions are often polarized and predictable -- I can often guess people's responses by just looking at their username. It's dangerous to jump to the conclusion that two people who think similarly are "tag-teaming". Number57's solution can be gamed very easily: just wait 25 hours to revert, as much as you want. It takes absolutely no brain power (bad faith is already assumed to exist, so it requires no more bad faith). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

The cases pointed out above involving GHCool and Onceinawhile are not the same. In the first case, GHCool "originally authored" (a picture link to a building!) on 23:38, 6 July 2017 - the article was subsequently edited by several editors over the next year+. The filing was claiming that GHCool's revert from 7 September constituted "original" authorship in relation to the subsequently revert on 20 September. In the second instance (Onceinawhile) this is bona fida new content introduced at the end of October 2018 and blanket reverted in the beginning of November 2018 (with little intervening editing).

The text of the remedy reads: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."

There is a question of interpretation (and admins and editors have varied) here in regards to what may be construed as the "original author" and "first revert" (e.g. is this the first time a (non-revert - as reverts are already covered per 1RR) modification (usually addition) was introduced to the article? Or does this include subsequent times? How far back does one go for "original authorship" (a year+ ago and hundreds of intervening edits?)). Per Kingsindian's (and others) reading - the 24 Hour window applies after any edit - also after the "first revert". Per a different reading of the same text, if editor A introduces text at T1, B reverts at T2, someone (A or someone else) reverts at T3 (say >24hours), B reverts at T4, and A reverts at T5 - then the revert at T5 (even if T5-T4 < 24hours) is not a violation since A's originally authored material was already "first reverted" at T2 (assuming T5-T2 > 24 hours).Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I would posit that much of the difficulty in enforcing ARBPIA's modified 1RR is that it is... modified from standard 1RR/3RR. I think there is merit for the "original author" provision (though possibly more clearly framed - this really should address fairly recent additions of material (or other edits that are non-reverts) that were subsequently reverted) - however I would suggest that a way forward would be to 1RR (or SRR) on a project-wide basis - ARBPIA is not unique in edit warring vs. other topic areas (or articles) with 1RR imposed - and any tweaks to 1RR (or SRR) would make sense in other 1RR projects. It would also make enforcement easier - as one wouldn't have to attempt to explain (assuming one understands the rule correctly one's self) time and time against the particularities of the ARBPIA version of 1RR vs. other 1RRs. Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Awilley: - simpler rule - any edit made to an article (including additions) is a revert. Adding content undoes the null state of the lack of said content. This does slow down cooperative build up - as once someone else edits - no more edits for you for the next 24hrs. Some editors do this regardless (also now) as keeping track of "what is a revert" (e.g. if you readding material which was in the article in a similar form a while back) is not that easy. It removes the first mover advantage.Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

• I think this rule is not working as it not stopping any edit wars for example see here [168].It only prolonged the edit war.The proper way is to reinstate consensus required rule .Its only way to stop edit wars so users will engage in meaningful discussion. --Shrike (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• And like I noted in Ghcool case there were no violation there as he was already reverted --Shrike (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Opabinia regalis: The consensus clause worked fine. Yes it was harder to develop an article but when material was added by agreement it was the best WP:NPOV researched material.No real evidence for any drawbacks were presented. --Shrike (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• @BU Rob13: You proposal would not stop this edit war [169]. I support AGK and WJBSCRIBE suggestion about "consensus required" suggestion --16:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WarKosign

The intent of this rule is to avoid the following situation (which was allowed, and regularly happened under regular 1RR):

• Editor A makes an edit
• Editor B reverts the edit (for some good reason), using their 1RR quota
• Editor A un-reverts, using their 1RR quota.

Now for 24 hours the article is stuck with a change that A edit-warred in. In theory, A can continue un-reverting B every 24 hours, effectively forcing their version of the article - until both are banned for slow-going edit war.

Perhaps the rule should be modified so any change by a specific editor that was reverted counts as a revert, so same user un-reverting it is a violation of 1RR. This seems to me far easier to explain and track. “WarKosign” 15:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

The current rule is extremely difficult to understand and police. I would suggest either a clarification spelling out exactly what the rule is, or more preferably, a new rule that takes us back to the simple times when everyone in the area understood the intent, rules and enforcement of such rules. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

The ruling is a pain in the arse, difficult to parse (as in KI's first example above where it confused the hell out of me, and I'm not a stupid person, honest), and just needs binning in favour of something that's easy to work out. Yes, we're still going to have the issue of tag-teams serially reverting to avoid 1RR, but this remedy doesnt' work against that either. Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

I totally agree that the present situation is absurd, (and, if I recall correctly, stated so at the time...so did User:Zero0000)

However, WarKosign is also completely correct: all this started because in a one-to-one "wikifight", the one inserting something, always "won".

(And as this is the IP area, for "inserting something", read: "inserting something negative about a place, person or organisation")

That first insertion has to count towards 1RR, IMO, ...please, please do not change it to not counting. What WarKosign suggest is very sensible: that the first revert cannot be done within 24 hours their own edit. (and NOT the revert of their edit), Huldra (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I see many "outsiders" (of the IP area) argues that we should go back to the unmodified 1RR rule. Choosing between that, and the present is like choosing between the plague and cholera (as we say in my country).

Surely, we can come up with something better? Huldra (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with power~enwiki: "if content is added, the person adding it cannot restore it within 24 hours of the initial addition." Basically 1RR, but with a small modification.

As for Number 57 suggestion (can only be reverted once within a 24 hour period by any editor), is is more "gameable" than power~enwikis suggestion, hence I prefer power~enwiki solution.

The suggestion from WJBscribe, to bring back the "consensus" clause, is utter disastrous, and is something none of us who are working in the area has asked for. Huldra (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

To refresh your memories: all this started with me coming to ARCA Back in November 2016. My goal was clear, as I stated then: "A strengthening of the 1RR rule for articles under ARBPIA: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period."

I had seen several one-to-one edit-wars, where the one wanting to insert something always won, as that first insertion did not count towards 1RR.

Iow: it was not because edit warring itself was a major problem in the IP area. It simply isn't any more, not after the 1RR and 30/500 rules. I see several editors referring to "slowing down edit warring"...I feel they are, as we say in my country, "shovelling last winters snow".

If we first can agree about the goal, then we can agree about the rule. Huldra (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

PS. (And to those of you who are still talking about "consensus required": to be blunt: to me you are living in a lovey dovey fantasy world. This is ARBPIA. Wake up and smell the gun powder.)

User:BU Rob13 Is it possible to add the sentence:

"Each editor is also limited to one addition of the same material per page per 24 hours on any page in the same area."? That would remove the "addition" bias which started this whole discussion. Huldra (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

User:KrakatoaKatie and User:RickinBaltimore, what do you have against my additional sentence? (bolded above here) Huldra (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Awilley, for nicely tabulating the options. (You could perhaps add an Option 0: roughly going back to 1RR, which is what they are voting over now.)

I would of course prefer any one of the variations of "Version 1".

As one with 70+ K edits, of which at least some 95% are under WP:ARBPIA, I would say that one of the greatest frustrations in the area, are the sub-par actions from some admins on WP:AE.

If you impose a draconian sanction on someone who clearly has made a good-faith mistake (and never given a chance to revert), then you can be absolutely sure that we will have many, many more reports on mistakes, where the "culprit" has never been given a chance to revert.

I.o.w.; it will lead to lots and lots of more time on the AN, ANI, or AE boards...

An editor suggested that a report to AE should not be acted on, if the "culprit" had not been given a chance to undo his/her mistake. I think this is an excellent suggestion.

Giving admins even more power than they already have wrt sanction is not needed, as far as I can see. What is needed is some training of admins so that they administer the rules more equally. (And not like now, when it is a roulette, as someone said.)

User:Opabinia regalis: you said "Version 1" was not "a good option for the same reasons cited in prior discussions - i.e. because it breaks what "xRR" means everywhere else on the project". Well, but so did "Version 2" (ie present rule).

Ok, ok, that didn't turn out well, but my argument has always been for "Version 1", as you will always very easily know if it was 24 hrs since last time you edited an article....but you have to look into each and every edit in order to ascertain that none of the stuff you added had not been reverted in "Version 2". Hence all the confusion and mess with the present "Version 2" option, Huldra (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

I've been editing in the I-P area for over 16 years and three rule changes during that period stand out as making a significance difference. The first was the introduction of 1RR in place of 3RR — this was a very big improvement. The second was the 30/500 rule, which I personally like a lot as it eliminates the need to endlessly defend articles against fly-by-night pov-pushers.

The third change was the "original author" rule now under discussion which, alas, has been a disaster. Nobody can even agree on what it means. Rules have to be clear bright lines that every good-faith editor can understand. This was an attempt to combat some types of edit-warring and system-gaming by adding a more complex rule, but the experiment has failed and it is time to end it. Zero^talk 07:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

In response to Huldra: the 1RR rule alone is probably not the optimal state, but I wouldn't like the "original author" rule to be replaced in this sitting by some other new rule. That would just risk bringing in a rule that turns out to be as bad as the current rule. I suggest taking it slower; perhaps we can have a working group of I-P editors to work up a proposal to bring to ArbCom for approval? Zero^talk 07:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Responding to AGK: I strongly disagree with every word you wrote. (1) The 30/500 rule is easily explained to anyone and can be enforced objectively by e-c protection. (2) "instead forbid making significant changes without consensus...Leave the detail of when "consensus" was wilfully not sought in a given case as a question for enforcement." This would be the greatest catastrophe to ever hit the area. Article development would become tediously slow and the number of AE cases would skyrocket. Rules should be written so that editors know when they are breaking them. I'll be blunt: we know from experience that admins at AE do not maintain a consistency of judgement and sanction and we consider it a form of roulette. It also seems that you don't know the way editing in the area is conducted. Excessive reverting without a concurrent talk-page argument is in fact relatively unusual and in most cases everyone can claim to have "sought consensus".

Responding to WJBscribe: "editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit". When that one was removed there was a big sigh of relief. This rule would mean that pov-pushers can slow down article development by a large factor with almost no effort, since the rule does not impose any obligation on them to justify their reverts. They can just revert and sit back. Zero^talk 01:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

People who come to edit in the I-P area almost always have a strong opinion about it. The idea that "consensus" is always available for the seeking is simply wrong. The real problem isn't reverts anyway, it is neutrality. Editors who consistently push their politics into articles year after year while carefully obeying the revert limits are completely secure. I don't have a cure to propose for that. Zero^talk 01:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

AGK, it is actually the people who spend their time editing in the area whose experience should be listened to, not admins who sit at AE and don't understand the editing dynamic. The fact is that serious edit wars in the I-P area are fewer now than at any time in the past. A few bright-line rules can help to reduce that further (but never eliminate it), but poorly-defined proposals about requiring consensus are cloud cuckoo land. Leaving the actual meaning of a rule to enforcement, as you suggested, would be be the worst possible outcome. Those editors who enjoy success in eliminating opponents by AE roulette will be encouraged to step up the practice. And they will succeed often enough. Zero^talk 12:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Number 57's idea to reduce tag-team editing is worth looking at, but the actual proposal doesn't work. ("if A adds material, B removes it, then no editor is allowed to make any further revert within the next 24 hours") This enables B to keep something out of the article permanently even against a strong consensus of all other editors. Also, please, let's not have the phrase "original author" in any rule, since there is widespread misunderstanding of what it means. Zero^talk 12:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Number 57: Your response to this is correct, but it involves an extra principle ("don't edit against consensus") that isn't part of your proposed rule. Rules are suboptimal if they require visits to AE to enforce non-bright lines. Such visits would produce or not produce a good outcome more or less at random. I acknowledge that I'm being difficult because I don't have an alternative in mind. I still think that your idea is worthy of careful study. Zero^talk 03:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments on the motion. The first part is good because it is a bright line that worked moderately well when we had it before. The "Editors cautioned" part reduces the brightness of the line established by the first part, and encourages exploratory AE reports to take advantage of the randomness there. The "Administrators encouraged" part is negative as administrators already have too much discretion at AE. Zero^talk 07:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What is most broken about current enforcement is that it consists of punishing one of the participants chosen at random (according to who is reported). It is unfair as well as ineffective. It would be much better if administrators visited articles, mandated more discussion on problematic sections, required RfCs as needed, etc. Zero^talk 07:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

JFG's "enforced BRD" only makes sense if there is a clear starting point. Once some text has been in an out of an article a few times, it isn't clear who has what obligation. Zero^talk 12:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

DGG's analysis is quite correct. BU Rob13's system works like this: A and B have a dispute over content, A reports B to AE, B gets a topic ban, A throws a party and edits the article according to his/her own pov. This is only a good outcome if you think that the purpose of Wikipedia is to eliminate disputes, rather than to write balanced articles. Rather than promoting the "schoolyard of naughty children" model of the I-P area, we should be aiming to replace it by rules that promote compromise. Zero^talk 04:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm replying in-line to this one point, because I think it's important. Why do you have so little faith that administrators will holistically review the situation at AE? If A and B get in a dispute over content and both edit war, then both should be sanctioned equally. If one edit wars while the other is trying to discuss on the talk page, I would want the one edit-warring to be removed from the topic area until they're willing to edit collaboratively. My encouragement to administrators makes clear that the conduct of editors involved in an edit war should be examined even when they do not cross bright lines, which will prevent AE from being used as a tool to remove opponents for crossing bright lines by mistake, which is something we've repeatedly seen under the current sanctioning regime. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Rob, if it was possible to get admins at AE to behave as you say, I'd be in favor of it. Alas I'm dubious that the current system, which is a form of roulette as I said before, can be reformed just by some words of encouragement. Capricious decisions will still be a problem. A better way to address the case of people being removed for making honest mistakes would be to require that editors only be reported at AE if they fail to respond adequately to a warning. Zero^talk 23:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

As an administrator active at WP:AE, I have on several occasions decided not to take enforcement action because I find the remedy at issue too complicated to understand and to apply fairly. I recommend that it be replaced, if it is still deemed necessary at all, with a simpler rule, such as 1RR or merely a reminder to not edit-war, because edit-warring can result in discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 08:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bellezzasolo

Having seen a few of the associated ARE cases play out, I have noticed that there is a lot of confusion about this particular rule. What to do about it, there is the harder question, but the current rule is in my opinion too opaque and needs to go. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Number 57

I support the rule's existence for the reasons noted by WarKosign, i.e. that it stops someone adding controversial information to force their edit back in.

However, I would also like it to go further (to stop tag teaming), so perhaps it would be clearer and simpler to simply have a 1RR rule whereby an edit can only be reverted once within a 24 hour period by any editor. So if A adds material, B removes it, then no editor is allowed to make any further revert within the next 24 hours. This would hopefully force people to follow WP:BRD rather than rely on weight of numbers to force changes on an article.

Alternatively, we could just reword the current rule so something like "If a change made to an article is reverted, the original author of the change is not allowed to undo the revert within the next 24 hours" – I don't think anyone could fail to understand this unless they were wikilawyering their way out of being caught.

Number 57 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Zero's assertion above that my proposal "enables B to keep something out of the article permanently even against a strong consensus of all other editors". It allows B to revert the information from the page once, at which point the discussion should go to the talk page; if there is a strong consensus there, then it can be readded. If B then removes it against a clear talk page consensus, they can be brought to AE under discretionary sanctions. Number 57 12:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the proposal below is a regressive move; it allows controversial additions to be added back into the article by the original author, and does nothing to stop tag-teaming. I don't believe the current rule is really that difficult to understand. Number 57 00:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Onceinawhile

Since this rule was last amended earlier this year, I have the great pleasure of being the only editor ever sanctioned solely for breaching this “original author” rule (action has been taken two other times, but with additional circumstances). The only comment I will make on this here is please can those who implement ARCA rule amendments please ensure that they are properly publicized (eg on all three Wikiproject talk pages). Long term editors who only edit “once in a while”, and don’t have ARCA or AE on their watchlist, do not reread the banners every time to look for minor amendments to long-running rules.

As to the point at hand, I have recently taken the time to review all the other “original author” AE cases since the rule change; it is clear to me that the rule is not achieving its purpose.

I like Number 57’s first suggestion a lot (one revert for any editor in 24 hours), as it is easy to understand, deals with this “first insertion” point elegantly, and frankly reflects the way most of us already behave. The multi-editor revert wars have to stop.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

One reflection on Number 57’s “an edit can only be reverted once within a 24 hour period by any editor” proposal. Under this rule, we would need to be careful not to allow a situation where any deletion counts as a revert, otherwise major articles could become unstable. Imagine an editor coming to the Israel article, deleting half the history section and writing a wall of text on the talk page to justify it. If that counted as a revert, then the article could have a hole in it for a long time (or at least one out of every two days). Onceinawhile (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am unconvinced by the proposed motion, which will encourage more "admin roulette" (speculative AE cases).

I propose that to mitigate whatever is agreed, we have a voluntary list at WP:IPCOLL where editors can commit to self-policing with others on the list. Signing up would be a commitment not to take other editors on the list to AE without first warning them of a possible AE and giving them a reasonable opportunity to remedy the perceived violation. Many editors do this already, but if editors choose sign up, it might take some of the uncertainty away.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: responding to your comment in Zero’s section, if I understand you correctly you are saying that you intend to strengthen WP:BOOMERANG to prevent speculative AEs being used as a weapon.

That assumes that the “battleground” editors only choose to make speculative AE requests when they are fighting over a particular article. Unfortunately that is not the case. Editors in this space are well aware of the dangers of boomerang. There are too many editors who sit back and watch over articles, without contributing, but will take any opportunity to bring a perceived opponent to AE.

If you want to minimize bright line AEs whilst encouraging collaboration, then require that for a 1RR AE to be valid, an editor must have been given a reasonable opportunity to self-revert or otherwise recant. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

The rule itself is not a bad idea, it's just worded terribly. Just change it to the following and all the confusion about what original editor means goes away:

Editors may not re-revert a revert of their edit for at least 24 hours from the initial revert of their edit.

You go back to the original 1RR you go back to the situation where somebody is able to force their edit in based off edit->revert->re-revert (that being the first revert by the initial editor). nableezy - 17:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I see that is a bit how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood-ish, but I think we all would understand it. nableezy - 17:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

• I agree with Newyorkbrad's question, speaking of ARBPIA, "..is there any reason it needs special rules beyond those governing the entire rest of the encyclopedia (including all of the other topics subject to discretionary sanctions"? If the committee wants to apply new and better restrictions, they should probably wait for some candidates to emerge from actual practice rather than draft them from scratch. And if they impose a new restriction themselves, they should say what data it is based on. It has happened that a restriction that sounds good on paper will not be understood by either editors or admins. From my own review of the discussions at AE, I don't see anything yet that can compete with the tried-and-true 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

I too am an administrator active at WP:AE. Seemingly, I am also part of the minority who do enforce ARBPIA 1RR, albeit reluctantly. The rule's name is indeed a misnomer.

In any event, an undercurrent to this amendment request was the perceived unjustness of the Revert Rule. Certainly, the rule no longer meets the tests of policing by consent. However, the committee's primary question is not really the due process (or unfairness) of the Revert Rule. We routinely enforce some other 'special' rules – like ARBPIA 30/500 – that are persistently miscommunicated. Respect for collaborators – well-meaning and otherwise – is imperative on a volunteer project. But it is a secondary question of execution or detail.

I rather think that the primary question is how to best secure an editing environment that is stable, produces balanced content, and is not off-putting to well-intentioned editors. In other words, does Wikipedia work there? By any measure, pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, on Wikipedia, are not this kind of environment. Indeed, we've had more arbitration cases (and enforcement requests) about the conflict than any other topic.

ARBPIA 1RR was recently amended by the committee. I believe that amendment was a well-intentioned effort to go further towards bringing about the desired kind of editing environment. The effort failed, perhaps because it was over-concerned with minutiae.

However, there remains a need to address the editing environment. Dealing with the obvious symptoms of user conduct can only do so much. In my view, you should consider how to amend the restriction to instead forbid making significant changes without consensus. Leave the detail of when "consensus" was wilfully not sought in a given case as a question for enforcement.

That said, if this change were implemented, I believe the current environment at WP:AE is too used to "discretion". There is a wide scope of discretion allowed when dealing with more blatant manifestation of misconduct – ie the conduct that discretionary sanctions deals with. It wouldn't do to grant that latitude here too. But, again, these are secondary questions of practicality and implementation. AGK ■ 19:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: By what means can we uphold WP:NPOV? Consensus. I wonder if you are too close to the topic to completely evaluate the problem. I discussed enforcing in my final paragraph. AGK ■ 18:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphim System

I think the purpose was partially to force editors to take 24 hours to think before hitting the revert button and I have found this to be helpful to de-escalate in the conflict area for the most part. But I also agree with concerns voiced in this discussion that sometimes it can be difficult to keep track of which edits are yours, especially if they are months old or years old and have been tweaked during that time. At what point does it stop being your edit? For me, the ideal solution would be to impose a time limit on this, but this might make it even more confusing for the enforcing admins. Maybe we can just leave it as good advice that editors can follow voluntarily? Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Following up on Newyorkbrad and Ivanvector's points, my understanding is that the intent behind discussing violations before sanctioning/reporting allows good-faith editors an opportunity to self-revert. Most 1RR violations are inadvertent and editors will self-revert when they are pointed out. I don't think anyone should be allowed to violate the restriction, but problems inherent to enforcement are not fixed by broadening discretion. The strong preference, in practice seems to be not sanctioning good faith editors without strong evidence of a pattern of CIR, incivility, battleground, etc. (Which, I suppose, is why the present case has garnered so much attention). Most of the time, editors will self-revert and there is no need for admin intervention. Opening the door on inconsistency only adds to the confusion, and runs the risk of deterring participation in critical areas that need attention from experienced editors.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

I would prefer a return to the simple language we started with, i.e. "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." 1RR, plus not restoring any reverted edit (regardless of who made it, and who reverted it) without discussion. The key here is to stop various forms of tag teaming or slow edit wars, and force editors to the table for proper discussions. The current sanction doesn't achieve that. I think we should stand firm that reverting is not the way to establish consensus, there needs to be proper discussions on talkpages about controversial edits. As a fall back, Number 57's approach is fine, but worry it still will lead to slow moving edit wars because people prefer to let the clock tick down 24 hours that engage on the talkpage. WJBscribe (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

When there are disputes between good-faith contributors as to the content of an article, there necessarily will be a dispute of some form; the purpose of Discretionary Sanctions should be to encourage this dispute to take the form of a civil discussion on a talk page.

The committee should clarify/adjust the rule so 1RR counts the addition of content as the one revert for the purpose of 1RR; if content is added, the person adding it cannot restore it within 24 hours of the initial addition. That seems fair and is simpler for editors to understand.

There seems to be some appetite for wider reform of the editing rules, but I don't see it as necessary. On long-standing articles with enough talk-page watchers, 1RR (with "consensus required") for additions works fairly well, despite grumbling. For rapidly-developing articles (think Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination in the similarly-contentious American Politics area) 1RR does not work, but I don't see evidence of that kind of issue being frequent in this area. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I agree the wording is convoluted. However, the intent is absolutely sound, as noted by several, above, so if it is to be amended, please find a simpler wording that has a similar effect, otherwise the slow burn edit wars will resume afresh. In preventing that specific form of abuse, the rule as written is effective. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

I'm not involved in this topic at all. However, I have been in other 1RR-imposed topics where the intent was to prevent this behavior, but the message often would get lost. The intent is basically if you make a WP:BOLD change, and it's reverted, you don't get to revert it back in without gaining consensus on the talk page (and blocked if you do that within 24 hours). That is functionally WP:BRD, which could be imposed as a remedy regardless of that page being an essay, but I feel like there has been concern linking to an essay in a remedy description before.

However, WP:ONUS policy is already clear that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I can't say I've seen it really integrated into 1RR DS descriptions yet. People forgot about the policy sometimes too. Would linking to that as part of a supplementary sentence clear things up at all in the remedy? Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

In what ever you do I think you need to ask your self if you KISSed it right and made it feel better. It's needs to be the simplest possible means with the maximum effect.

Two noteworthy suggestions here catch my eye, One by Number 57 and also the arbitrator BU Rob13. Perhaps a combination of both. In clear case of any system gaming, whether editor warring in the bounds of 1RR or what ever replacement editing restriction chosen or any other type of attempt at gaming the system for some benefit to a chosen cause in this dispute.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser

I think there is too much bureaucracy, and this rule is a perfect example. However, once you get the idea, it's actually quite simple to follow or enforce. It is an additional step to keep things quite in an area which is in need of additional care, so we might as well keep this.

If we are looking for a rule that is not being enforced and should be scratched, remove #3 regarding tendentious edits and disruptive behavior. It is either not implemented or implemented arbitrarily. Debresser (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley

Here's the problem as I see it:

Rule	Purpose of the rule	Negative side effects
Regular 1RR	Slow down edit wars, give time for discussion on talk page, encourage WP:BRD	Exacerbates the first mover advantage by allowing BRR (a Bold addition by Editor A, Revert by Editor B, Revert by Editor A). It takes two editors to maintain the status quo against one determined editor making bold bold changes to an article.
Current rule (call it anti-BRR)	Eliminate the first mover advantage of 1RR by putting a 24-hr timer on reverts of reverts of bold changes.	Apparently tricky to understand and enforce; can result in the ridiculous situations mentioned by the OP.
Consensus required	Eliminate the first mover advantage of 1RR by forcing a talkpage discussion for bold edits challenged by revert.	Can favor the status quo too much, allowing a single determined editor do dramatically slow down article development by forcing a discussion with clear consensus to implement any change they don't like.

I would really like for someone to come up with something like the current rule that fixes 1RR (prevents BRR situations) that is easy to understand and enforce but that doesn't have the negative side effects of the more draconian "Consensus required" rule. ~Awilley (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Re: "make any edit a revert" I definitely don't like that. That's not intuitive, calling something a revert that's not a revert, and results in ridiculous situations where people are only allowed to make one edit per day on rapidly changing articles about recent events that definitely need the attention of experienced editors. ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A bit of a brainstorm

I took the liberty of tabulating some of the suggestions that have been proposed above, adding a couple ideas of my own.

Name	Rule	Notes
Current state or "Version 2"	If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit	Current Palestine-Israeli rule
Restatements of "Version 2"	Editors may not re-revert a revert of their edit for at least 24 hours from the initial revert of their edit.	Suggested by User:Nableezy
	If a change made to an article is reverted, the original author of the change is not allowed to undo the revert within the next 24 hours	Suggested by User:Number 57
1RR for Bold edits or "Version 1"	If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of their own edit.	The original Version 1 mentioned by OP User:Kingsindian
Restatements of Version 1	Each editor is also limited to one addition of the same material per page per 24 hours on any page in the same area	Proposal from User:Huldra
	If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must wait 24 hours (from the time you made the edit) before reinstating your edit.	My rewording of the same idea
Consensus required	All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).	Restriction widely used in the American Politics topic area
Enforced WP:BRD	If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must substantively discuss the issue on the article talk page before reinstating your edit.	Another idea of mine
Combinations of Enforced BRD and 1RR for Bold edits	If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and/or wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit	Possible combinations (either AND or OR), still weaker than "consensus required"

I would have posted this on the talk page except this page doesn't have one. I can add to the table as needed, just ping me if you want me to add something. ~Awilley (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JFG

I am not familiar with the Palestinian conflict domain but I have been heavily involved in American politics, where numerous articles are subject to the "1RR + consensus required" rule. Indeed, this rule is sometimes hard to interpret, with typical confusions about what constitutes an edit (adding or deleting material), what is a revert (restoring material that was boldly deleted is a revert, consecutive reverts count as just one), and how far in the past should an edit be construed as the stable version vs a recent bold change (depends on activity level at the article).

Despite its faults, this rule has a key quality, which matches a fundamental behavioural guideline of the encyclopedia: editors should resolve their disputes on the talk page rather than argue via edit summaries in a slow-moving edit war. With this consideration in mind, I would support Awilley's suggestion of an "enforced BRD", including a reminder of who has the WP:ONUS to obtain consensus for any change. Suggested wording for clarity:

Enforced BRD – If an edit you made is challenged by reversion, you must substantively discuss the issue on the article talk page before re-instating your edit. The onus is on you to obtain consensus for your change. Other editors who wish to re-instate the same edit are also required to discuss the issue first. This rule applies both to edits adding material and to edits removing material.

That should take into account most of the sources of confusion and wikilawyering that we have witnessed since this restriction has been in place. I think we don't even need 1RR if we switch to such an enforced BRD rule. — JFG ^talk 07:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Once some text has been in an out of an article a few times, it isn't clear who has what obligation. Actually, it's been rather clear, based on activity level on each article, which version is longstanding enough to be considered the base version upon which a recent change is being disputed. Admins could certainly figure this out easily when complaints about rule violation arise. — JFG ^talk 12:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector

As an administrator who makes occasional forays into adminning in discretionary-sanctioned topics, even sometimes intentionally, I endorse Kingsindian's statement absent the parts impugning the competence of the Committee members who arrived at this restriction. Even with Kingsindian's explanation and other supporting comments here I, probably one of the more provocatively "process-for-the-sake-of-process" administrators here, understand very poorly what is meant to be restricted by this restriction. I have no idea whatsoever why this word salad is preferred over standard 1RR. I think I see what the difference is but I read it as 0RR for the initial contributor and 1RR for every subsequent revert, and in any situation where I might be tempted to sanction an editor in relation to this restriction I'm going to end up giving them a "grace revert" so that I can be sure that a violation has actually occurred. How many reverts was that, anyway? I've lost count.

I suggest the "general 1RR prohibition" be replaced with this text, which is mostly copied from the three-revert restriction that everybody understands: An editor must not perform more than one revert on any single page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behaviour. In addition to the usual revert exemptions, reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this restriction.

As a tangent, the General Prohibition itself is redundant to standard WP:ECP, which was not available at the time of the prohibition's initial drafting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Having said this, the motion below is reasonably clear from my perspective. I hear what Newyorkbrad is saying regarding the "first offence" provision but as an administrator I prefer this wording: we're not required to block someone on a first offence, but neither are we prohibited from doing so. Removing the clarification creates an expectation that a user who violates the restriction will be warned, then allowed to violate the restriction again before being blocked, and that's fatal to a 1RR restriction (it automatically becomes at least 2RR).

Also, please correct the wikilink to "General Prohibition" to target the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#General Prohibition section, unless that is not the intended general prohibition. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

I don't think the essentially "be nice" motion below will help. Has an "Administrators are encouraged" or "editors are cautioned" motion ever helped? And certainly not in WP:ARBPIA, arguably the most controversial DS area. IMO, the rule is confusing simply because of the "original author" stuff creating confusion - if you restore a year later an addition made by someone else, are you prevented by this restriction to immediately revert a revert made to your edit?

Instead, use If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must wait 24 hours (from the time you made the edit) before reinstating your edit., as proposed by Awilley above. As far as I can see, this is far clearer, and ameliorates the main issues brought forth by Kingsindian regarding absurdities, as it make sures that you can't get sanctioned if you make only one edit a day, and makes it so that T1 is limited to 24 hours. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 15 November 2018 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting more statements, but based on everything I’ve seen over the past few months, I’m inclined to agree that the rule-set for this topic-area has become unduly convoluted. No comment on any specific current or recent situation, but editors who feel aggrieved by a sanction have the right to appeal, either to AE or to us here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Onceinawhile: If you disagree with the sanction imposed on you, you have the right to appeal, either to AE or to us here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • General question: Recognizing that the Israel-Palestine topic-area is an exceptionally contentious and difficult one, is there any reason it needs special rules beyond those governing the entire rest of the encyclopedia (including all of the other topics subject to discretionary sanctions)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • We seem to have a consensus that change is warranted, but much less so on what the change should be. (Imposing a "consensus required" rule may sound sensible at first glance, but it has hardly been a panacea in the American politics topic area.) But I will add that regardless of whether we stick with the current wording or change it, arbitration enforcement sanctions, much less severe ones, should not be imposed on good-faith, policy-mindful editors who may unwittingly commit an isolated, inadvertent violation of a recent change to a uniquely complicated set of rules. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• I think this rule is very clearly defined, but if only to stop the endless wikilawyering, we should just bin it. Back to normal 1RR, probably with a heavy encouragement in the remedy that administrators consider the use of discretionary sanctions when 1RR isn't violated but an edit war is nonetheless waged. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• If it's not working, we should try something else. Going back to 1RR seems like a step in the right direction. Worm^TT(talk) 18:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• I think consensus required is at least as hard to make work sensibly but I'm willing to listen to arguments that show it can work without someone keeping track of consensus. Since people are saying the current rule doesn't work, I'm willing to go back to 1RR. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm being an idiot. We can't "go back" to 1RR because that's part of the current sanction, at least according to the template that says "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, reasonably construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." Doug Weller talk 09:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• • • Just to clarify, I'm saying that we wouldn't be replacing the enhanced 1RR with the ordinary 1RR, just removing the enhanced. I'm not sure that the enhanced is as some suggest, but if it is causing so much confusion maybe it needs to be abandoned. Doug Weller talk 06:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Would like to hear from more editors working in PIA before making a decision, but certainly willing to considering returning to 1RR. Mkdw ^talk 01:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Allowing the clock to run down remains a possibility in nearly all scenarios including the standard 1RR. Number 57's suggestion of "an edit can only be reverted once within a 24 hour period by any editor" seems as straightforward as possible. Mkdw ^talk 19:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• I am with Mkdw on this. I'm also willing to consider a return to 1RR, but i would like to hear from more of the editors in the ARBPIA area before making my decision. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't like this rule, but I haven't liked most of the other ones tried either. The path that led us here went through this complaint about the "consensus required" stuff, very similar in its frustrated tone to the current request, so let's not do that again. Plain 1RR didn't work, none of the various modified versions tried have been satisfactory, and the only significant "modified 1RR" proposal yet untested is Huldra's "1RR but the first edit counts" idea, which IMO isn't a good option for the same reasons cited in prior discussions - i.e. because it breaks what "xRR" means everywhere else on the project. So, uh... any new brilliant ideas? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Like my colleagues, I agree that the current version seems to not be working, just like many previous versions did not work. Not a final decision by any means, but I actually like WarKosign's suggestion, because it eliminates the first-move advantage that seems to be the major issue in this area. I know it isn't what 1RR is on most of the project, but couldn't we just call it something else? SRR for special revert rule? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• We were asked to do something. We did, but if it’s not effective, we should do something else. I quite like Number 57’s proposal myself. It’s closer to true 1RR than our current 1RR rule is. Katie^talk 19:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles

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

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Further, the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to include the following remedies:

Editors cautioned

Editors are cautioned against edit warring, even if their actions are not in violation of the general 1RR prohibition active in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Instead of reverting, editors are encouraged to discuss their proposed changes on the article's talk page, especially when the edit in question has already been challenged or is likely to be challenged.

Administrators encouraged

Administrators enforcing arbitration remedies in this topic area are encouraged to make use of appropriate discretionary sanctions to prevent or end prolonged or low-speed edit wars, even when the general 1RR prohibition has not been violated by any involved editor.

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

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Proposed. This rolls back the remedy to the normal 1RR restriction, but it further adds what amounts to a remedy and a note on enforcement of the existing discretionary sanctions to discourage low-rate edit wars. Any editing is welcome, of course; this was thrown together fairly quickly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
2. I’m willing to give this a shot. Katie^talk 21:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
3. I think this is the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Agree with trying this. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Let's try it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
6. I am willing to give this a try, but if it does not work out, I would like to try a modified version of Number 57's proposal which had quite a bit of support from the community and committee. Mkdw ^talk 18:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
7. Sorry for taking a long time to get to this thread; I've been telling myself it has to be top of the wiki to-do list for days. Considering the complexity of other rules in the area, I think "plain" 1RR has a lot of advantages. I'm with Mkdw in that we should give this a try, but have a plan for other alternatives in mind should problems turn up again. Thanks to Awilley for compiling a handy table of options for reference. (I'm partial to "enforced BRD" myself.) I agree with NYB's point in principle, but would also prefer to change just one thing at a time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
8. Per my earlier comments. I'd like to see discussion of NYB#s point before commenting on it and agree it should be dealt with separately. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reprising comments I've made before, I cannot support any reformulation of this (or any) restriction that contains the sentence Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense without qualification. Too often for my taste, we have seen editors blocked or sanctioned this year for isolated, inadvertent violations of a 1RR or similar restriction. (In fact, I believe a lengthy topic-ban imposed for an isolated 1RR violation, by an editor who didn't realize that the 1RR rule in the I/P topic-area had been changed again, is what led to this very request for amendment. An appeal from that sanction is currently pending on AE, and if the appeal is not granted there, it should be brought here.) I understand the need for stricter rules in our most problematically edited topic-areas, but not at the expense of fairness and proportionality. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

• I want to specifically comment on why I didn't propose Number 57's suggestion, since it gained some support. I appreciate the suggestion, but I think it has serious flaws. First, editors would be sanctioned with a bright-line based partially on the actions of other editors. If I reverted something without realizing it had already been reverted in the last 24 hours by someone else, I would be crossing a bright line and face a block. Bright lines work when it's obvious when one is crossed. This seems more like a tripwire than an obvious line, and given the general enforcement situation in this topic area, I think such a remedy would be brandished as a weapon to remove opponents from the topic area.

  Second, the issues with this remedy do not represent a failure of wording or of this one remedy. They represent a failure of the entire approach the Arbitration Committee has taken with this topic area. We've continuously tried to prescribe narrower and narrower bright lines to prevent edit warring, and we're routinely met with either wiki-lawyering or confusion as the rules grow more complicated. If anyone currently on the Committee is to blame for that failure, it's myself, as I've championed that approach since before my time on the Committee. I have to accept the fact it simply hasn't worked. Number 57's suggestion continues this approach, and I think it would ultimately face the same issues. Instead, I think we need to start relying more heavily on administrative discretion. Our administrators know edit wars when they see them. Let's stop worrying about where the bright line is and start enforcing discretionary sanctions in cases like this. [170] ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Shrike: I have to respectfully disagree with you that such an edit war would not have been stopped under my suggestion. As soon as it broke out, admins could either fully protect the page or implement a 0RR on that specific edit's contents as a discretionary sanction. They could also look at some of the individual editors who showed up to continue the edit war after the initial edit and revert to see if any should possibly be warned or sanctioned for perpetuating edit wars given their history in the topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Huldra: My view is that the added benefit is outweighed by the almost certain wikilawyering. For one, we'd have an ARCA within the month questioning what should be done with cases where the deviation from status quo was a removal of content that doesn't fall neatly into the category of a "revert". I'd prefer to leave it to our enforcing administrators to sanction editors who routinely violate WP:BRD in the topic area. Reverting a revert without discussion is edit warring, and when done repeatedly, it is sanctionable behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • We got into trouble, Huldra, when we tried to re-define 1RR because we also unintentionally boxed ourselves into the definition of revert. Like Rob, I’d rather give the admins broader discretion and see how that goes before we try to strictly define terms again. Katie^talk 02:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Tomorrow is a deferred holiday in lieu of Remembrance Day. I'll try and find time then to review the community's comments about Rob's proposal. There was a lot of support for Number 57's proposal, so I will need time to evaluate this one.Mkdw ^talk 03:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Do you think something like the requirement for DS notices for this 1RR would help resolve this issue? Mkdw ^talk 05:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mkdw: That is helpful but is not quite the issue I'm getting at. We have the requirement of "warning" or "on notice" (although that has turned into much more of a bureaucratic mess than I intended when I first suggested the concept ten years ago). My point is that sometimes an editor, even one who is aware of the discretionary sanctions, will inadvertently violate one of the rules. And, the more complicated the rules are, the greater the likelihood of an inadvertent or technical violation, by a good-faith editor who is doing his or her best to edit within policy. Blocks or topic-bans are not the appropriate administrator response in those situations and I am concerned that the last sentence of this proposal, which admittedly is the same as the current wording, seems to encourage blocking without mention of reasons not to block that would sometimes apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob 13: relying of admin discretion is what has gotten us into this situation. In previous example of unresolvable RW ethnic conflict, there have been a relatively small number of editors here with a particular interest in the controversy, and a great man established WPedians with a neutral perspective. In this area, perhaps more than any other that arises in the enWP, there are a very considerable number of editors with very strong views on each side, to established accepted political or historical position, very little common ground, and, to be frank, very few administrators who do not have a fairly strong opinion of their own. Some admins, and some editors, have the exceptional ability to deal with it neutrally regardless of their predispositions, but even so, those who do not like the results of such edits rarely believe that those editors or admins are neutral.

What we need here is a rule so transparent that it does not rely on any admin discretion at all. I do not favor such bright line rules in general--I think we normally do need to take circumstances into account. This area is an exception. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to disagree. In the best modern example we have of an area this contentious – India-Pakistan – the problems in the area were reduced the most by topic bans enacted via administrator discretion. Bright line rules had absolutely no effect. No bright line has worked here, no matter how clear, and I don't think any one will work. The editors in this topic area have shown a willingness and ability to maximize their disruptive behavior within the constraints of whatever bright line we set up. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (March 2019)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Doug Weller at 11:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Statement by Doug Weller

My clarification request concerns the article for Ilhan Omar, a member of the United States House of Representatives. She's a controversial person in part simply because she is a Muslim and in part because of some comments on Israel. I added the usual ARBPIA template at the top of the page and have told some non-ECP editors about the ruling applying to them if they edit related content in the article. I've been asked at Talk:Ilhan Omar#ARBPIA if 1RR applies to the content relating to the dispute. I've always assumed that it doesn't automatically apply and only applies if the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} is added to the talk page and the edit notice {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} added to the article.

I'd like to confirm that:

1. The plain talk page template without {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} means that the only restriction on the article applies to non-ECP editors editing within the area of the dispute. 1RR does not apply and cannot apply to only part of an article.

2. If edits to the article not relating to the dispute suggest that the subject is being targeted because of her positions on the dispute (or her Muslim identity) it's permissible to apply ECP to the article without the other restrictions or simply to apply the AE restrictions template even though the article as a whole doesn't fall within the area of the dispute. It's increasingly my opinion that this should be done. Interestingly the article on her fellow Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also has a section on the dispute but Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez show it covered only by American Politics but with a 1RR and enforced WP:BRD (Template:American politics AE).

@AGK: You've said that "The PIA General 1RR restriction applies to all content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This includes parts of an otherwise-unrelated page" and others seem to agree. But that isn't what the text we voted on said or what I understood it to mean at the time. The motion we voted on says "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." No mention of "all content". Suggesting that it applies to all content (which would mean even in pages where there's no talk page notice about ARBPIA) seems an overreach to me. What might be a reasonable argument is that by putting the sanctions notice on the talk page, even though I didn't add the specific restrictions, puts the entire article under 1RR. Is that the argument you are making? But that raises the question why have the two notices? We should only have the one notice, the one that spells out the sanctions. As for the edit notice, this was my interpretation of this clarification request. We discussed edit notices and awareness there extensively and the motion we passed says

Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:

The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and

here was an editnotice ({{ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.

That's what WP:ACDS says now. It seems unreasonable to say that if the page is mainly about another area that it doesn't need an edit notice related to the ARBPIA 1RR restriction. Doug Weller talk 21:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: there's a whole section at Ilhan Omar#Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I don't see how ARBPIA could not be relevant to that or that non-ECP editors or IPs should be allowed to edit it. Could you explain your reasoning? Rob, I agree with your assessment. Having said what I said to Rick about this specific article, I also have seen articles where there has been editwarring about whether a location is in Palestine or Israel, often just about that single word. I've always seen ARBPIA as meant to also cover this sort of detail as it's clearly, to me at least, within the conflict area. So I'd agree that an article such as Omar's should have a 1RR edit notice (and it does now under AP), I'm not sure that an article where the main ARBPIA issue is the location should have one unless we can craft it so that it's clear exactly what in the article is relevant. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis, BU Rob13, KrakatoaKatie, and RickinBaltimore: I agree that AP2 and BLP deal with most of my concerns and I've set AP restrictions. That still leaves the problem of the section in Omar's article on the Ilhan Omar#Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It's my strong opinion that this is covered by by the 500/30 restriction but not all share my opinion. In particular Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sangdeboeuf was about an edit by Sangdeboeuf[171] where they reverted an edit relating to the confllict by a non-ECP confirmed editor on the basis of my statement that non-confirmed editors could not edit any content relating to the conflict.[172] User:TonyBallioni, whose views I generally agree with, disagreed that ARBPIA applied to this section. I hadn't thought that this was even a grey area but to my disappointment I can't find anything to back my assumption. So I and I think others need to know if non-ECP editors and IPs can edit material relating to the conflict if the article isn't basically about the conflict. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: I agree, the page itself is not essentially about the dispute, but the section is, and I think that what WP:TBAN says applies here. Using "weather" as an example, it says that a tban from the topic "weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not." If we wish to prevent edit-warring in an area covered by sanctions, those sanctions should cover not just articles devoted to the area but sections of articles that focus on the area. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZScarpia: I think I've been wrong in my assumptions, wishful thinking perhaps as I think ECP needs to apply to all related content in this area. The problem (and the reason I've been wrong) is that 1RR and the general 500/30 rule are not actually discretionary sanctions. I think they should be part of DS as I see a lot of drive-by editors and IP addresses (and the cynical side of me says some of these are editors logged out) changing content that's only a minor part of an article - often the names Israel or Palestine or the location of sites or towns, and 1RR and 500/30 would be a big help here, as well as in cases such as the section of Omar's article that is specifically about the conflict. Topic bans cover all content of course, is that the sort of AE action you are thinking of or is some related to the ECP issue? Doug Weller talk 13:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Calthinus

Doug Weller if you don't mind, I'd like to clarify the question(s) here a bit, as your original request is actually touching on multiple different issues that could be relevant for whether a page is ARBPIA... and I'd like to make clear the options among which we unsure which matches global (as opposed to local i.e. page-respective) en-wiki policy.

1) The simplest of all, that some of Omar's comments that drew controversy were about Israel. She is an American politician though and the controversy is in America. Does this mean it is (a) not ARBPIA at all, (b) ARBPIA for specifically those comments and the ensuing controversy or (c) ARBPIA in total.

2) Probably the comment Ilhan Omar that made the most controversy (aside from mostly religious Christian right-wingers flipping out about her hijab, which I don't personally think is relevant to ARBPIA) is her view that pro-Israel lobbyists have "hypnotized" people. To many Jews, including many progressive Jews, this is an offensive anti-Semitic canard that is all the worse because Omar herself is hypocritically the victim of religious bigotry, while for others, again including people who are Jewish, it is media (especially conservative media) taking what she said out of context. Without commenting on which side is "right", there are actually two questions here:

• 2a) Are pro-Israel lobbyists or lobbying groups covered by ARBPIA, and are comments about them by others. Does this make (a) nothing ARBPIA, (b) just the material related to pro-Israel lobbying/ists, (c) the whole article for subjects involved ARBPIA.

• 2b) Again without commenting on the "correctness" of either side, Omar is accused of antisemitism. Full disclosure my personal view is that she is more chronically inconsiderate and communalist than she is anything akin to David Duke, which is not going to be popular with either side. While obviously most non-Israeli Jews are non-Israeli and indeed a significant minority are critical of the structure of the Israeli state, issues of global antisemitism are central to Israeli identity. Do figures (wide range: Omar to Sebastian Gorka to David Duke, no I do not believe they belong in the same category but these are an easy and relevant examples that are not --yet-- covered by ARBPIA) who have commentary on their nation's foreign policy via Israel and also antisemitism become covered by ARBPIA in the capacity of (a) not at all, (b) Israel and antisemitism related material, (c) just Israel material or (d) in totality?

3) As it stands currently, Doug Weller's writeup mentions Omar's very visible Muslim faith. Islam is not definitively "Israeli/Palestinian domain", however just like antisemitism there is a lot of interaction, as there is a sense of pan-Islamic solidarity regardless of the reality of this solidarity, on both sides. Furthermore, although this fact may be regrettable, by wearing the hijab and by spearheading the effort to allow head coverings in federal government processes, Omar became an iconized living symbol of religious Muslims in the US (again, personally I find this incredibly problematic on many different grounds but it is hard to deny it has become the case) and has been punished for it time and time again by unabashed Islamophobes on social media elsewhere. At first glance this may not seem relevant, but since Doug brought it up, it is worth mentioning that issues of Muslim immigrant assimilation do play a role in debates about how Muslim Americans can relate to American foreign policy (I am not implying all Muslim Americans are anti-Israel/pro-Palestine/or anything whatever, but one cannot deny that this is relevant). Should this also be a consideration? Personally I think, no, but it has already been brought up and is worth asking because I can see another side here as well

Hope I've made the issues here more, not less clear?--Calthinus (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

@AGK: But per PIA General 1RR restriction it applies to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" and not to the content. I btw agree with you AGK and think it should apply to the content but then the wording should be changed --Shrike (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

Agree with AGK and Shrike: when ARBPIA notice is place, then it is 1RR for the whole article.

As for changing the rules (so that ARBPIA is only for a part of the article)...Please don't. The usefulness of that does not make up for the added level of complication (The rules are more than complicated enough as it is!) Huldra (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

I'd like to introduce this AE case into evidence. The AE case involved, in part, edit warring in Acid throwing - which is mostly not ARBPIA - however Acid throwing#Israel, West Bank and Gaza Strip is very much ARBPIA related. Such ARBPIA sections are common in longer pages - and applying this on the section would make sense. Ilhan Omar is in the border-zone between reasonably and broadly (as much of the coverage of her, through the years, is focused on antisemitism/Israel/etc.) overall, and specific sections of the page are very much ARBPIA related. Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: - the motion at present is unclear on who may place the notice. All users (as with the current ARBPIA banners)? Just admins? If just admins (which I think is a bad idea in this case) - where can one request that notices be placed?Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: - AFAIK the ARBPIA banners were mainly placed by non-admin users (@Shrike: and @Huldra: were both prolific) - however their coverage is spotty (I would guess less than 30%-40% coverage - lots of pages clearly in scope do not have an ARBPIA banner), and sometimes wrong (e.g. Iran/Israel which was ruled out of scope by ARCA still has some banners). The current 1RR regime covers thousands of pages at the very least, and in some situations (e.g. during the 2014 Gaza war) new pages can pile up at rather high rates. At present the topic area lacks "resident admins" (@Zero0000: does edit in the topic area, but is not always around. @Number 57: mainly edits in election related contexts, and I am not sure anyone else is active). The really "hot" edit wars tend to occur not in established long running pages such as the Six Day War but more down in the weeds - current events, terror attacks, and individual settlements and bios. If there is no mechanism here for quick rollout (either normal user, or a queue with good response times) - things will get ugly, and possibly even less clear (e.g, users 3RRing up until the edit notice going in) than today. Unlike AP2 which has fairly active "resident admins" and topics edited by regulars, ARBPIA lacks the residents and has many "flash crowds" that show up when a current event is occuring (and editing lots and lots of pages - bio/places/units/etc related to the event).Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It is beyond growing pains. Rfpp often takes 12 hours and if the edit notice is not streamlined there (and obvious to admins there who are often at ARBPIA what? When they respond) - it will be overlooked. ECP protection is at present very spotty and some admins at RfPP will reject an ARBPIA ECP request if there was not enough recent disruption (counter to my reading at least of ARBPIA3). I want to stress again how fast and how ugly it gets during terror waves / wars / events - and in those cases it is on several new articles and often obscure existing articles. Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

I can't actually tell what everyone is proposing in this discussion. The question is whether to apply ARBPIA only to entire articles or selectively to parts of articles. The former would be a simpler rule, but it can also lead to absurdity. A year or so ago there was a huge edit war on List of state leaders in 2016 (or some other year) over the 3 lines that applied to Palestine. It would ridiculous to apply ARBPIA to the other 250 or so items in that list just because of those 3 lines. I think that what we need is something like this: if an article is largely related to the I-P conflict, it is covered in toto; otherwise the parts of an article related to the I-P conflict are covered. Zero^talk 08:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

To editor TonyBallioni: Your proposal to remove from ARBPIA articles about debate within other countries will impact articles like American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Christians United for Israel, both of them about American organizations that now carry ARBPIA tags. In my view, removing ARBPIA protection from such articles would immediately open them to edit-warring of the kind that ARBPIA is intended to subdue, involving the same editors who edit-war on other ARBPIA articles. I cannot see this as a step forward. Zero^talk 05:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

There's a lot of verbiage up there (says the long-winded guy), but the key thing to me is that unusual restrictions like 1RR should never be held to be applicable at a page without the admin-placed editnotices and other templates that explicitly make them so and which are hard to miss. Drama-frought topics are among the most likely to attract new editors, so there's a serious WP:BITE problem here. If I'd ended up blocked my first week of editing, for violating an obscure and excessive rule I didn't know about and which applied only to a particular page, I probably never would have come back. Consider also that new editors can't tell who's an admin, and which concerns to take seriously (lots of noobs get lots of grousing and templates from lots of people; a DS notice from an admin isn't likely to be interpreted as special by someone who doesn't know the ropes yet, but a big warning every time they edit a particular article is harder to ignore).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

As one of the admins who is more active in ARBPIA from an AE perspective, I'll copy what I just posted at AE here where the ARBPIA and AP2 issues colidied:

I think that a lot of the focus on this article as a part ARBPIA is because the subject is visibly Muslim, and that plays a part in the news coverage, because it is a region where the ethno-religious tensions are high. This hasn't been brought up here, but I do think its something that needs to be addressed as a sort of elephant in the room.

That being said, I don't think being a Muslim American politician with views on the conflict makes that politician part of it under our rules anymore than an Evangelical Christian congressman who wants all of Israel and the Palestinian territories to be part of the State of Israel because it will speed up the end of the world. The question is whether or not she can reasonably be considered part of the conflict. I do not think she or any other current member of the United States Congress can.

@KrakatoaKatie and RickinBaltimore: something I do think the committee could possibly amend or clarify here is that the ARBPIA general prohibition does not apply to the internal politics of countries that aren't Israel or its neighbors. Namely, if I wanted to, I could make a fairly strong wikilawyerly argument that Harry Truman is reasonably construed to be under the sanctions. Those of us who aren't active participants in the Wikidrama in the area think its crazy, but AE for ARBPIA is generally the same faces reporting each other on technical violations repeatedly or reporting newer users to the area who are on the other "side" that we eventually end up indefing. One country having an internal debate as to its policy on the State of Israel and its relationship with its Arab neighbors is not what these sanctions were usually intended to address. The committee clarifying "Hey, this area is clearly not part of the sanctions." Would be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Zero0000, well, Christians United For Israel is not under ARBPIA ECP currently and the banner on the talk page proclaiming it as being part of it was ironically added by an IP 6 months ago. American Israel Public Affairs Committee currently is, but I would much rather see it under AP2: Israel has long been a third-rail in American politics (in part because of the desire of some evangelicals to bring about the end of the world by supporting it...) and its role in US politics probably should be addressed in its own right. There are also likely articles in British politics that should not be under ARBPIA that are because of the anti-semitism controversies with the Labour Party. A foreign political organization or politician being accused of being anti-semetic or of being a Zionist because of positions on Israel does not suddenly make an internal political dispute part of this conflict.
  I could see an argument for ArbCom creating new discretionary sanctions for topics surrounding Antisemitism, Zionism, and related topics, but that would need a new case, and I don’t like the direction where it seems that we’re trying to fit things related to those topics into ARBPIA, which I think is a very bad thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

Speaking with my AE-admin hat on, I would not consider Ilhan Omar to be under 1RR or the General Prohibition.

Bans are generally constructed as either "pages related to...." or "pages and edits related to....". In this case, both the ARBPIA 1RR restriction and the General Prohibition are constructed as "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" - ie. the "and edits" is not there. Therefore, when assessing whether these restrictions are being violated, the question is not "Are the edits related to the conflict?" but "Is the page reasonably construed as being related to the conflict?"

I have always seen a difference between "broadly construed" and "reasonably construed" and my understanding is that the "reasonably construed" language was deliberately chosen to be narrower than "broadly construed." My understanding of this language is that "broadly construed" includes any page that has some connection to the conflict, while "reasonably construed" includes only pages on subjects that are mainly about the conflict (or subjects that are mainly notable because of a connection to the conflict). Ilhan Omar is notable as a member of the United States Congress and has made some controversial remarks about the Arab-Israeli conflict; she is related to the conflict, but her principle notability does not come from the conflict. Therefore, the page is not "reasonably construed to be related" and so is not subject to 1RR and the General Prohibition. However, the page is broadly construed to be related, and so is subject to discretionary sanctions.

Clear as mud? GoldenRing (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

The way things have worked in the ARBPIA area is quite sensible, although that and the wording of the rulings are probably out of kilter, which, I think, is the reason for the current request. The rulings have been applied to ARBPIA-related content in any page, no matter whether the topic can be construed as being in the ARBPIA part of the project or not. In the former case, the rulings have been applied only to the ARBPIA-related content; editors could edit non-related content on those pages freely. As the usage notes that go along with the template for the ARBPIA notice indicate, the notice does not have to be placed on a page in order for the rulings to apply there. In the page which is the cause of the current request, the Ilhan Omar one, that means that under the practice followed in the past at least, ARBPIA rulings would be enforceable on any ARBPIA-related material there without the notice having been placed. The problem that placing the notice has caused is that editors are questioning whether any of the majority, non-related material there is under editing restrictions or not. We possibly have two problems with the current rulings: one that the wording of the rulings may indicate that those rulings apply only on pages where the subject matter falls wholely within the ARBPIA area when in fact the practice has been to apply them to content anywhere; a second whereby we either don't have a second notice which indicates that only ARBPIA-related content on the relevant page or the notice that we do have does that. The practice that has been followed is sensible and I don't think that it should be altered to conform with what the wording of the rulings actually say. Altering the wording of the rulings and the notice would involve a lot of pain which would still not necessarily end up with a sensible form of wording. Given the wording of the notice which we do have, it would be better if it was only placed on pages whose subject matter, broadly constued, fell wholly within the ARBPIA area, those being ones where it would be sensible to apply the ARBPIA restrictions to most of the material. Following current practice, the absence of the notice would not prevent the restrictions being applied to relevant content in other pages.     ←   ZScarpia   13:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:: "I hadn't thought that this was even a grey area but to my disappointment I can't find anything to back my assumption." From following AE requests for years, I'm sure that the ARBPIA restrictions were applied to isolated sections of ARBPIA-related material in articles which weren't otherwise wholly within the subject area.     ←   ZScarpia   12:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:: "The problem (and the reason I've been wrong) is that 1RR and the general 500/30 rule are not actually discretionary sanctions. I think they should be part of DS as I see a lot of drive-by editors and IP addresses (and the cynical side of me says some of these are editors logged out) changing content that's only a minor part of an article." I'm having a little bit of difficulty construing the meaning and significance of the rules being part of discretionary sanctions, which makes me wonder whether I've mistaken what the case is about and whether I've been writing at cross purposes with others here.
My view is that 1RR, which was imposed to slow down edit warring, and 500/30, which was imposed to help combat the use of sockpuppetry to evade sanctions, are restrictions applied to to the editing of all ARBPIA-related material. Discretionary sanctions[173] in the form of, for example, topic bans may be applied by administrators in order to ensure, inter alia, that restrictions such as those are adhered to ("Discretionary sanctions – administrators may impose sanctions on disruptive editors and apply general restrictions on specific pages in the conflict area in accordance with the discretionary sanctions procedure."[174]). Viewed that way, the rules are restrictions that automatically apply to ARBPIA-related material which discretionary sanctions enforce, not restrictions which can be applied as sanctions at the discretion of administrators.
It looks to me as though, at route, the problem here is the ambiguity in the phrase "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". How may a page be "related" to the conflict? One interpretation is that the a page's subject matter as expressed in the page title itself should have an obvious connection to the IP conflict. Another interpretation is that the whole of the subject matter should have an obvious connection to the IP conflict. Yet another interpretation is that a relationship may be established if just part of the content is connect. The latter is the one which I'm maintaining is the one which is sensible in terms of reducing strife in Wikipedia and also the one which was traditionally followed on the AE and AI noticeboards. Other editors here such as Icewhiz and AGK seem to be supporting that interpretaion.
Taking the third interpretation, there then follows the problem of determining, in the case of pages where only part of the content is related to the conflict, whether the restrictions such as 1RR and 500/30 apply to the whole content or only the conflict-related parts. Unfortunately, WP:ARBPIA can be interpreted as requiring the restrictions to apply to the whole content, though that is neither necessary or sensible as far as the editing of the non-conflict-related material is concerned. A reason that it is not sensible is on display here: in articles such as the one on Ilhan Omar, editors with no interest in the IP conflict will resist the imposition of the ARBPIA restrictions being imposed if those restrictions are applied to the whole page; yet if they're not applied to the parts of those pages whose content is related to the IP conflict, the end result will be the appearance on those pages of the editing problems which the restrictions were designed to cure. Roger Waters is most significant for his music career in Pink Floyd. Because he is outspoken on Palestinian rights, though, on Wikipedia there is a struggle to insert conflict-related material condemning or defending him which threatens to swamp the whole article. Ernest Bevin was British Foreign Secretary at the time when the Cold War was developing and also when the various parts of British India gained independence, yet because he was Foreign Secretary in the couple of years surrounding the creation of Israel, there are similar problems on the article devoted to him. Jeremy Corbyn has had a long political career and is currently the Leader of the Opposition in the UK parliament, het because he is a strong supporter of Palestinian rights, issues surrounding that again affect that article. The United States is vital to Israeli interests: as a member of the UN Security Council it uses its veto frequently to protect Israel; Israel is the main beneficiary of US overseas aid; US military muscle is used to the benefit of Israel against opponents which Israel itself does not have the resource to fight; US financial muscle can be used to fend of the threat posed by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement; US courts can be used to wage lawfare on Israeli opponents. Therefore there exists in the US a very strong lobby which protects those interests. The knock-on effect for Wikipedia is that a lot of pages have a partial connection to the IP conflict.
Perhaps a way of resolving the current interpretation problem would be to refer to administrators who were involved in the wording of the ARBPIA rulings and asking what their intentions were and also to administrators who have been involved long-term in enforcing them and asking what their interpretation was.
    ←   ZScarpia   16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:: Doug, looking at the Ilhan Omar talkpage, if I've read your comments correctly, you're stating that, in ARBPIA, 1RR and 500/30 are remedies, not discretionary sanctions, which sounds equivalent to what I was trying to say above. The article is interesting in that it contains material falling under two Arbitration Requests, i.e. American Politics and ARBPIA. I think the talkpage demonstrates why the ARBPIA remedies need to be applied to the IP-conflict-related material contained in the article.     ←   ZScarpia   01:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

The idea that a a notice and template should be a requirement for the 1RR restriction to apply to an article is a no brainer. I mean, the very fact that lots of people have no idea - including apparently some of the Arbs judging by User:Doug Weller's opening statement (not criticizing him, I had no idea either) - that it doesn't work that way, evidences that the way we have it now is just goofy. And sort of... mean. On all other areas under ACDS no notice means no restrictions. Editors who make edits go by the instructions that are visible to them. Yes, yes, I know that you get informed about the 1RR applying to anything "broadly construed" ... once a year. But seriously, unless you're very active in a particular topic area, who the hell can remember some notice they got EIGHT+ months ago on their talk page??? *Especially* since the rules are so different from how it works everywhere else.

The problem of course is that this whole "we'll make up a rule but keep it secret" approach was done by admins who didn't bother to even think of how it works from a regular editors' perspective. The flawed design is a result of "what will make it easier for me to block people" thinking by cowboy admins, rather than "what will make for a more collaborative editing environment". Come to think of it, most of the whole discretionary sanctions apparatus is set up on the basis of that (witness the lack of success that DS has had in most controversial areas) thinking, this is just the most egregious example of that dysfunctional approach.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• First: for rules this complex, we shall need to ensure the guidance (like editnotices) is unambiguous. ARBPIA stacks general remedies on top of one another, necessitating requests for clarification like this one. Let's also make sure we try hard to simplify 'spaghetti junction' templates like {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}, which needs to use about three times fewer words.
  The PIA General 1RR restriction applies to all content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This includes parts of an otherwise-unrelated page. The page need not have the standard 1RR template before the restriction applies, though clearly administrators should not mindlessly sanction for reverts by unaware users even if a strict reading of the procedures would permit enforcement. Whether another remedy shares jurisdiction on a particular page does not change this position. AGK ■ 20:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• The 1RR restriction applies to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". It does not apply to "any edit", just "any page". As such, a page that couldn't be "reasonably construed" to be within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area is not subject to 1RR, even if a small amount of content related to that topic area would place it within the topic area if "broadly construed". The use of "reasonably construed" instead of "broadly construed" was quite intentionally done. I would say a page like this is "broadly construed" to be in the topic area, but not "reasonably construed" to be there. Discretionary sanctions are active, but 1RR is not (by default). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As a side note, enforcing administrators could choose to apply 1RR to any page "broadly construed" to be within the topic area as a discretionary sanction, if desirable. It's just not automatic. I see this as optimal, since it allows administrators to tailor the sanctions on pages at the fringe of this topic area to the level of disruption they're experiencing. Does this change your opinion on whether we should be expanding the general 1RR sanction, Shrike? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • To correct a point of confusion: {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} has no effect other than to notify editors of the sanctions in place on the topic area. It does not need to be on the talk page to "activate" discretionary sanctions on the article, though its presence is desirable to increase awareness of the sanctions. I find that template somewhat problematic, even, because it seems to imply that the set of articles with 1RR and the set of articles with discretionary sanctions are identical. This is false, since 1RR is "reasonably construed" and discretionary sanctions are "broadly construed". All articles with 1RR have discretionary sanctions active, but not all articles with discretionary sanctions active fall under the general 1RR. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @KrakatoaKatie: Including the ECP, actually. ECP can be applied as a discretionary sanction if needed to control actual disruption. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Doug Weller: All of that awareness/notices stuff is related to discretionary sanctions. The 1RR in this topic area is not a discretionary sanction, and therefore there are no such requirements. Personally, I see that as the one thing we might want to address in this request. Requiring page notices before first-offense, no-warning sanctions for the violation of 1RR in a broad topic area seems the minimum we can do to promote awareness of the remedy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• i have a problem saying that the ARBPIA 1RR restriction applies to all content when the page AGK linked to himself clearly says otherwise. There will be a couple thousand more pages covered under that restriction if we move from 'pages' to 'content'. As for this particular page, I think it's a real stretch to include it under ARBPIA, but it's obviously covered under AP2, which can do what Doug wants except for the ECP. Katie^talk 01:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• I think linking this to ARBPIA is really a stretch, and would set a precedent that other pages would be added to ARBPIA that necessarily wouldn't need to be. As Katie stated above AP2 would cover this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As a practical matter, it seems obvious that both BLP and AP2 apply, so what's the advantage of using ARBPIA in this context? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • That's the way I see it as well, since BLP and AP2 apply, the Congressperson making comments about Israel/Palestine doesn't make the page itself about Israel/Palestine. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• I am inactive on this discussion, including any motion that may result. SilkTork (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles

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

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

The community is encouraged to place the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Enacted - Bradv🍁 02:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Support

1. Last year, we altered our discretionary sanctions awareness requirements to reflect the fact that we really shouldn't sanction editors who are unaware of active page restrictions. To do this, we required the use of edit notices before sanctioning. The change did not affect this remedy, as the general 1RR prohibition is unrelated to discretionary sanctions. The same rationale for requiring edit notices applies here, though, so let's ensure we aren't sanctioning editors who either don't know that 1RR is in effect in this topic area at all or don't know that a specific page could be "reasonably construed" to be within the topic area. If this is passed, ideally, a bot would add the edit notice to all pages that currently transclude {{ARBPIA}} on their talk page as a starting point. Edit notices could then be added/removed as needed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Katie^talk 15:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
4. – Joe (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
5. OK, let's try this. This set of sanctions has required "clarification and amendment" so many times it has to have set some kind of Wikipedia record by now, and it gives me a headache every time, but I sure haven't had any better ideas. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
7. Sure. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

@Icewhiz: Nothing in the motion restricts who may place an edit notice, and we explicitly encourage the community to place them wherever applicable. Technically-speaking, though, only admins or template editors have the rights to place an edit notice. Presumably, requests by editors to place them could be made to any admin. As a starting point, as I noted above, a bot could easily place them on every page that's tagged with the 1RR talk page notice. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: There may be temporary growing pains as the edit notices are rolled out, which was the same case when we required them for enforcing page restrictions active under discretionary sanctions. As a practical matter, whenever ECP is requested at RfPP, you can simply ask for the edit notice to be placed as well. The coverage is the same for the general prohibition and the general 1RR restriction. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: If such a request is declined and removed despite an IP/new editor having recently edited the page, feel free to bring it to my user talk. I'm happy to both protect the page and have a word with any administrator who is not only declining to enforce an arbitration remedy personally (completely fine) but actually removing a request to have it enforced such that no other admin will see it either (not fine). Obstructing an arbitration remedy is not a good look. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Reopening Closed AE Actions (June 2019)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 18:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Tban from ARBPIA Area [175]

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. {{{clause1}}}

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

• Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff
• diff

Information about amendment request

• {{{clause1}}}

• {{{clause1-request}}}

Statement by Sir Joseph

The purpose of this ARCA is basically two simple queries. 1. Can an AE action be reopened once closed, and if so, 2. does a re "certified" TBAN then become effective as of the newer date.

• I was TBANNED by GoldenRing on May 10, 2019 for three months.
• On May 14th, he vacated the TBAN on my talk page and then rescinded the TBAN and reopened the AE action.
• El_C then re-issued the TBAN and reset the clock for another three months.

The problem I have with this is that it sets a bad precedent for several reasons. We can have 1, never ending TBANS if we allow AE actions to be reopened and then TBANS to be reset, but also not have some sort of policy that once an AE action is closed, it is closed. I understand it's not a court-room so there is no double jeopardy, but it doesn't seem fair to have a system where an admin can just days, weeks months or even a year go by and then undo an AE close. If we do allow it, we do need then to set up strict guidelines as to why, when and how a closed AE action can be reopened and how it can then be re-litigated.

• Note I am not specifically appealing my TBAN, I am filing an ARCA about policy and guidelines about reopening a closed AE, (and then extending a TBAN but that's minor.)

• @BU Rob13: User:BU_Rob13/AGF_applies_to_everyone Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Apparently people aren't reading this request. As, they see the signature and that is all. That is a shame. As I wrote not a few lines above, I am not "specifically appealing my TBAN, I am filing an ARCA about policy and guidelines about reopening a closed AE." And ARBCOM is the place to request policy and guidelines. As to @El C:, I posted that link to AGF because BU_Rob13 is not AGF at all with this request. As I specifically mentioned in this request, I am not appealing my TBAN, I wish to see some sort of policy or guideline setup and I think it's something we need to discuss and this is the place to do it. It's not called wikilawyering to see a situation and want to setup policies. And for what it's worth, I was told specifically by ARBCOM to file this request. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13:Again, you can think that, but that is not true. One thought I keep having because you were the one who started the process of the TBAN on my AE action is that my AE action had many admins and yet just a few days later, you were nowhere to be found on a similar AE action. I am sure I'm not the only one to notice. In any event, ARBCOM is the place to ask for guidelines and policies and yes, once an AE is closed, we should have some sort of policies or procedures in place as to how an AE can be reopened or if it can be reopened. I am not sure why that is such a huge ask. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13:Whatever, this is why this place is so toxic. And you and GoldenRing brought up Wikilawyering, in one prior case, I was actually emailing Sandstein about a block appeal and he responded "go to AE." I then did, and he then blocked me (which I found a bit odd). You would assume a nice person would respond, "don't do that because that won't work" or "don't do that because I will block you" but this place here has gone down hill over the past few years. So how is that called wikilawyering when I'm directed to do something by an admin? How is this called wikilawyering when I was directed to do this by ARBCOM? This place just reeks of entrapment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• @KrakatoaKatie:As I said before, this is not an appeal. If I wanted to appeal, I would. You said that this is a remote occurrence and four days is not that big of a deal and if it happened months later that would be something to talk about. But that is the point, it did happen, and we should plan on the off chance that it does happen in the future. We should maybe say if you think four days is not a big deal, then maybe five or six reaches the redline and set that as a policy. That is all I'm asking for. Policies are setup usually because something happens for the first time and then they write it up as a policy for the next time. Whether you agree with GR and EC's actions, after a certain time period, an AE action should be marked as closed/stale, whether it's 7 days 10 days, that time period should be discussed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mkdw:I would point you to the above as well. I'm not sure why everyone keeps missing this. I am not appealing, this is purely for policy and guidance for the future. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Mkdw:Thanks for the clarification, you mentioned appeal in your first sentence so I assumed you were talking about my ARCA as an appeal. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

As already mentioned, GoldenRing said "pending another admin closing" — I therefore closed it accordingly, having already evaluated consensus among uninvolved admins to do so. I note that both users involved in the dispute were subjected to 3-month TBAN, in the end. Which, ultimately, reflects well on how AE is able to operate in dealing with protracted ARBPIA disputes, despite its various imperfections. So, I don't think we need any additional guidelines at this time. El_C 21:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What are you trying to say to Rob, Sir Jospeh? Use your words. El_C 15:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Katie, I specifically told Sir Jospeh that he may count the TBAN as having began on May 10. So this 4-day resetting (trivial anyway) mentioned by him is a non-issue. El_C 16:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

I reversed the sanction I had imposed because I had qualms about the outcome but considered that my judgement was so impaired by the concomitant kerfuffle at AN that another admin should deal with it instead of me. The committee should direct Sir Joseph to WP:NOTBURO, perhaps warn about a distinct tendency to wikilawyer, and otherwise dismiss this request. If the committee want to spend some time on light entertainment, Special:Permalink/897199190#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction is a pretty good specimen of wikilawyering. GoldenRing (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

My sincere apologies to Bishonen and wishes for a speedy recovery. For everyone else, you've now been warned. GoldenRing (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re AE)

I think the only thing that might be needed here is to say that in situations like this that the clock start time doesn't change unless there is explicit agreement otherwise among the uninvolved admins. I think the likelihood of an AE being reopened after a significant length of time and are pretty slim as all the reported behaviour would be stale. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

This "appeal-without-appealing" should be considered an appeal by the Committee, whether Sir Joseph wants it to be one or not. The attempt to claim this is merely a request for clarification about whether a topic ban is valid without that being equivalent to an appeal, presumably to retain the ability to appeal at other venues at a later time, continues the long pattern of wikilawyering that has repeatedly gotten Sir Joseph sanctioned. By making clear that this is an appeal, whatever the result of that may be, the Committee can send a strong message about whether it is susceptible to wikilawyering. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• And the fact that this question strikes at the heart of the validity of your ban is completely ancillary? This request is questioning the validity of your ban, full stop. You cite your own topic ban as the only example of this potential issue. In fact, you list it as the decision affected by this request. And yet you're not appealing it? That's pure semantics. I am not saying anything positive or negative on whether this appeal should be accepted, but it absolutely should count as an appeal for procedural purposes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• The vague allegation of wrongdoing is nice, and the implied threat is noted. I did not comment on many AE requests during my tenure on the Committee, because I did not want to get into positions where I had to recuse on a large number of appeals. That is a common practice for arbitrators. I did regularly watch AE, though, probably reading a majority of requests there during my term. In your specific case, I felt the administrators commenting before me at AE were going down a very incorrect path by focusing on procedural hurdles to sanctioning for a 1RR violation while failing to consider taking action under normal discretionary sanctions. I felt the likely result if the discussion continued as it was going was incorrect enough to warrant me jumping in to comment, even if it meant later recusing at an appeal at ARCA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

OMG, @GoldenRing: Don't link to something like that "discussion" on Sir Joseph's page and call it "light entertainment", please. It has melted my brain. I would actually warn the arbs against reading it. Bishonen | talk 19:46, 22 May 2019 (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.

Reopening Closed AE Actions: Clerk notes

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

Reopening Closed AE Actions: Arbitrator views and discussion

• First, I consider this an appeal, because if we don't consider it one, we'll be back here next week with his "actual appeal" and we're not doing that. Second, let me get this straight. You didn't like GoldenRing's close. You raised a fuss (because, among other nitpicky things, somehow you were unaware that you'd been warned a whoooole bunch of times about DS under ARBPIA3, which defies belief), GR undid his close for another admin to handle and El C gave you the same result. (Don't go talking about the problems with DS and your warnings, because that's not what you're here for.) What exactly did you expect GR to do? He's there to gauge consensus when he's closing, and that was the consensus of the discussion. He's supposed to reopen the discussion and let another admin handle it if he feels it's necessary. I have no problem with GoldenRing's actions here, and I have no problem with El C's re-close except that the clock doesn't reset, so the TBAN is from May 10. If this had happened four months later instead of four days, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on, but trying to skirt around to get a second bite at the apple if/when this appeal/action/request/whatever doesn't go your way tries my patience. Katie^talk 16:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: Thanks, I missed that. Sorry. Katie^talk 16:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I find the likelihood of this being a sizeable recurring problem to be so remote that ARCA could more than handle any appeal involving similar or greater circumstances. For this to occur again, you would need an AE closed, re-opened within days, and then basically the original decision endorsed. This occurs so infrequently that ARCA and a reasonable community could assess any claims about impropriety to tell the difference between an AE endorsement or an obvious and excessive extension. We are not tied by legal precedent and every situation is able to be assessed on a case by case basis. If three days makes such an impactful difference to the editor, then the only question it really raises for me was whether the duration was long enough. Mkdw ^talk 16:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Nothing about my comment is about an appeal [by you right now]. I gave you my direct answer; I see no outstanding problems worth addressing and any claims of impropriety in similar situations in the future can be brought to ARCA on a case by case basis. Mkdw ^talk 16:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It is why I expressly stated "any" and not "your" when talking about whether future issues could simply be addressed by an appeal. Mkdw ^talk 16:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• This is most certainly an appeal, not a clarification. I agree with the thoughts of Katie and MKDW above, and do not feel any adjustments need to be made. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm treating this as a clarification because the issue is interesting - GR appears to want to strength test all aspects of AE bureaucracy, and continues to offer us new and challenging situations to debate! :-) In all aspects of Wikipedia I tend to follow the intention rather than the rule. If the intention was to TB Sir Joseph, and Sir Joseph is TBanned, then there is really nothing more to discuss. I do like process, and if process appears to have not been followed to the detriment of the project, then that's worth looking into. But if a box didn't get ticked on the way to the appropriate result, well, then, let's go back and tick it and get on with our lives. Nobody is going to agree to reverse an appropriate decision because the box didn't get ticked. We are not lawyers who take money to endlessly argue points of law rather than doing the right thing. We are unpaid volunteers trying to do our best to keep this project going with the least amount of disruption. So, moving forward - if any unpaid volunteer feels they are unsure about any decision they made and wish to pass that decision on to another unpaid volunteer, then I am 100% fine with that. So on the questions raised here: 1) "Can an AE action be reopened once closed" - yes, under IAR, if the closing admin is uncertain about their close, they can vacate it and leave it to another to decide the matter; 2) "does a re "certified" TBAN then become effective as of the newer date" - that would be down to the admin closing the reopened discussion. In any event, the reclose, and/or the length of the TB can be brought here for appeal. In this particular case, to save everyone time and effort, if this came back as an appeal I would decline. SilkTork (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• The rules are clear and simple: only impartial admins may impose sanctions, and unfair sanctions can be overturned on appeal. These rules and principles are not eroded in the situation described: if a sanction is wrongly imposed (or changed, or replaced, or whatever) then there are clear paths towards appealing. We have nothing to clarify or amend. AGK ■ 13:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Suggesting that we archive this request: AGK ■ 21:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Concur with my colleagues above that no changes need to be made. Also agree that this can be archived. Worm^TT(talk) 08:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to have only administrators to move any articles relating to Arab and Israel in Arbitration request

• Hello, this is one year since last discussion held, I will discuss more important issue about moving the pages relate to Arab Israel conflict. In the past year, I see that many editors, notably extend confirmed users, moving the page without consensus from wider Wikipedia community because any Israel or Palestine articles from renamed will subjected to be controversial. So I propose here to have only administrators right to move any Arab Israel conflict besides only one revert in last 24 hours. Any thoughts? 114.125.249.255 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for clarification: WP:ARBPIA

Is adding that David Ben-Gurion "worked on Yom Kippur and ate pork" a violation of an I-P topic ban? Chesdovi (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Zionism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Zionism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 16 § Wikipedia:Zionism until a consensus is reached. Q𝟤𝟪 22:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

Don't forget to add {{pp-protected}} template above. 2001:4452:1A3:5600:3D3B:4026:4894:716D (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (March 2024)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Sagflaps at 16:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/1211052253

Statement by Sagflaps

Does WP:ARBECR exclude editors who were granted the extended confirmed permission at WP:PERM? See Special:Diff/1205113976 and Special:Diff/1211048521.

Statement by Selfstudier

Apologies, didn't realize you had been granted ECR, you can withdraw this. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment by 54129

Absolute nonesense from User:Sagflaps. They would have done better actually talking to the other editor instead of running here. Here is the chronology, it has a hint of 'WTF' to it...

a) At 15:51, today Selfstudier makes the error—albeit innocently—or reminding Sagflaps that only ECR-confirmed editor can edit certain pages;

b) At 16:11 today Sagflaps filed here;

c) At 16:16 today (why five minutes later?) they informed Selfstudier of this report;

d) At 16:17 today Selfstudier apologises at Sagflaps' talk for their original error and suggests they withdraw this report;

e) At 16:18 Selfstudier apologises on their own talk (in response to Sagflaps' notice) for their original error and suggests they withdraw this report;

f) At 16:19 today Selfstudier apologises on this very page for their original error and suggests they withdraw this report.

g) And at 16:20 today Selfstudier self-reverts his comment on T:Israel, acknowledging in the edit summary that the editor was granted ECR after all.

This is a litany of poor moves demonstrating little but 'GOTCHA!' bad faith by Sagflaps, compared to a succession of apologetic and conciliatory responses by Seldstudier.

Selfstudier: do not apologise any more, you've done enough. Sagflaps, meanwhile, has continued editing throughout this report so should be sanctioned either for deliberately filing a report and then walking away, or not realising the importance of communication. Apart from this filing, they have not responded to anyone. In either case, I doubt the project will gain much by having them ECRd. ——Serial 17:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Further, Sagflaps' first diff (19:40, 8 February) is misleading because at that time—regardless of the status of the previous account—the Sagflaps account itself was not ECR (the accounts were not publicly linked until 19 January and the permission granted on the 21st). As such Selfstudier's warning stood in good faith (and in any case should not have been taken so much as a warning, but more along the lines of a DS/CT alert, by which no doubt is cast on behavior by the notice. ——Serial 17:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Noting for the record that Saglaps is on a Wikibreak since 17:40 today, with no acknowledgement of their actions apropos Selfstudier. In terms of both civility and communication, let alone good faith, this is deplorable behavior. ——Serial 18:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree

@Serial Number 54129: I'm not following your point about Sagflaps' 8 February diff. The Sagflaps account was granted ECR on 21 January, 18 days before Selfstudier posted to his talk page on 8 February. So it is not the case that at that time—regardless of the status of the previous account—the Sagflaps account itself was not ECR.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2024 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• ARBECR applies to non-extended-confirmed editors. If an editor is extended-confirmed, then they are not prohibited by ARBECR. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Agree with Primefac. Sagflaps, while the pure question asked here is reasonable I do have to wonder why you jumped straight to filing an ARCA without first engaging with Selfstudier. firefly ( t · c ) 21:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I also agree with Firefly. By way of background, the committee explicitly chose to tie ECR to the permission. This was demonstrated in HJP where we granted the permission to a party so they could participate in the case if they wished. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I agree with everyone above --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.