Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles	Motion	(orig. case)	6 November 2018
Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms	none	(orig. case)	18 November 2018
Clarification request: Magioladitis	none	(orig. case)	17 November 2018

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles

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 [1].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 [2]. 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)

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. [3] ~ 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)

---

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms

Initiated by Petrarchan47 at 07:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Genetically modified organisms 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:

• Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Statement by Petrarchan47

I am appealing this action by Drmies: ​[8]​

Background:

• KingofAces43 opened an WP:AE​ case against me. ​[9]​

• The majority of the community weighed in on my side​. [10]

• KingofAces43 contacted two administrators about this case:
  • Seraphimblade ​[11]​
  • Drmies [12]​ who said, "Kingofaces, I am sure you want more, and I am sorry I have no more to offer at this time." ​[13]​

• After ​Sandstein closed the case [14],
• Drmies reopened it. [15]​

Drmies had no authority to reopen the case according to policy​. violating WP:ADMINACCT Dismissing an enforcement request​​

In this 2015 case the Committee unanimously agreed "once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened". Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate)​

Drmies was informed of the violation and said, "There is nothing wrong with reopening a thread; if one admin can close it, surely another can reopen it, especially if a third admin thinks there's something to the request". [16]

(The "third admin" was AGK who weighed in after the case was closed ​​​[17]​, and after Drmies reopened it, banned me indefinitely from all GMO-related pages. [18])

@Serial Number 54129: I have struck mention of WP:ADMINACCT as unnecessary. petrarchan47คุก 17:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I agree with Winged Blades of Godric below that the grounds given for this appeal are invalid. But I certainly don't join Winged Blades of Godric's personal attacks on the appellant, which, having been made in an arbitration forum, should result in appropriate action from arbitrators or clerks. Sandstein 12:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

I'm not really sure what's intended here. Petrachan47 was topic-banned from GMOs by AGK through discretionary sanctions. How the AE ended up being closed doesn't affect that topic ban or any sort of appeal. Topic-banned editors cannot bring up the subject material, admin board discussions, etc. of their ban unless it's directly relevant to an appeal, so I'm not sure why Petrarchan is trying to bring this up as opposed to someone else who isn't topic-banned if this is meant as a more meta-AE clarification rather than their own ban. I don't see any mention of a topic-ban appeal, and even if there was, none of what's posted here so far would address anything relevant towards an appeal, such as addressing the long-term behavior issues they were banned for in the first place we'd expect of an actual appeal. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG

He had raised the same point at Sandstein's t/p, a month back, where Sandstein pointed him to the same and he replied No worries, thanks for responding.∯WBG^converse 08:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

There would be some minimal merit, if he had chosen this venue to criticize AGK's final decision and/or the quantum of the sanction but here we have something about Drmies' actions as perceived violations of ADMINACCT and previous ArbCom decisions.

FWIW, I pretty much concur with Tryptofish's comemnts at the original ARE-thread and think that the awarded sanction easily passes the rational basis review.∯WBG^converse 09:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SN54129

• I'd disagree with User:Sandstein's analysis that fucking incompetent rises to the level of a personal attack; it merely recasts WP:CIR slightly more robustly (possibly, on refelection, slightly overly robustly, as although the question of competence is fundamental, it can also be an extremely sensitive one).
• @Petrarchan47: Wot's ADMINACCT got to do with it? ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I've been mentioned, and I've been involved in this since the original case, so I will briefly say that there are insufficient grounds for any action here. The claim that the majority of the community were on her side is a stretch, and the rest sounds to me like wikilawyering about how an AE thread was closed. The bottom line is that the enactment of AE sanctions was in conformance with policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 November 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.

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

• I've removed some statements made by WBG at the direction of a member of the arbitration committee. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Sandstein's comment closing the thread stated that another administrator could take action if he or she thought it was warranted. Given that statement, the usual rule against reopening a closed AE request would not apply in this instance. If Petrarchan wishes to appeal from his topic-ban or seek to end it, he should focus on the substantive reasons the topic-ban was imposed rather than procedural issues. @Winged Blades of Godric: It is a bit contradictory to accuse an editor of trolling and of incompetence for the same post, since they imply very different mind-sets. On the other hand, it is quite acceptable to respond to the post without alleging either of these things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Magioladitis

Initiated by Magioladitis at 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Magioladitis arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Magioladitis 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Magioladitis

1. Am I allowed to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Should_BAG_members_have_an_activity_requirement??
2. Am I allowed to do this task Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Change_coming_to_how_certain_templates_will_appear_on_the_mobile_web?

The first one is in the talk page of the bot policy.

The second one is a case of a series of edits that affect or may affect the visual output in the future and in some cases only in specific devices e.g. mobile phones.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

In the second one, we have the following: Is there really a discussion that community should consider of whether to make these changes or not? Is the discussion of whether we should be making edits in advance to avoid breaking things in the future? If there is no subject of discussion on whether we should make these changes, then is there a consensus to make these edits? If yes, I am allowed to make these edits manually? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

So, in the first one, I can participate in discussions about Bot policy as long at I do not mention COSMETICBOT or as long as noone in the discussion mentions it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I am asking the following: Do you think that these annouchments have automatically a consensus of implementation or not? If not I would like to participate in the discussion. If yes I would like to start editing right away. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

PMC check my last comment above. It's not clear to me if these requests my WMF have consensus in the community. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Unless I've missed something, neither requested action seems to be forbidden by either the Magioladitis or Magioladitis2 cases. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:23, 18 November 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.

Magioladitis: Clerk notes

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

• I've done some formatting fixes.‎ Cameron11598 18:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Magioladitis: Arbitrator views and discussion

• As I understand it, Magioladitis, you would not be prohibited from participating in either discussion provided you do not discuss or participate in portions of the discussion that would violate your sanctions. For example in the BAG RFC, the principle discuss is clearly outside your sanctions, however, Headbomb has mentioned COSMETICBOT. You should not participate in that portion of the discussion. Mkdw ^talk 18:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The RFC will need to be formally closed. The request by the WMF for assistance appears to be effective now and it does not appear the community has raised any concerns or desire for a specific process. I would caution that if any changes are met with resistance, to stop and seek community consensus on the issue before proceeding any further. Mkdw ^talk 17:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Mkdw - as long as the comments themselves aren't about COSMETICBOT, there's no reason you couldn't participate in those discussions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Recuse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that you are not restricted from participating in the BAG discussion, as long as you avoid COSMETICBOT. As for the VP discussion, Magioladitis, are you asking if you can participate in the discussion, or actually make edits to make the visual changes when the discussion has finished? Everyone is responding to that one as though you are asking if you can participate in the discussion, but your actual wording is "Am I allowed to do this task". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Magioladitis, your response makes no sense. I need you to clarify: are you asking if you can participate in the discussion, or if you can make the edits when the time comes? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

For the second one, I would say you can discuss the situation, as long as you don't bring bots, AWB, or automated edits into it, which would (IMO) cross the line of your restrictions on COSMETICBOT discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with the comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

---