User talk:Kingsindian/Archive 4

Controversial Reddit communities
Afternoon, I would appreciate your input to an RFC introduced by an SPA relating to the inclusion of SRS in the "Controversial Reddit communities". SPA has canvassed to overturn 3 years of consensus on a 4 day vote. Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not know much about SRS, but RfCs typically run for 30 days; so plenty of time for other people to weigh in. I do not see any RfC header in the section. Nor is the header neutral and brief, as required in the guidelines. If the discussion is to have any meaning, it needs to be done properly. Also, your message here could be considered canvassing, because it is not neutral. It's best to leave a neutral notification message to venues/Wikiprojects which are interested in the matter, not individual talkpages. Hope this helps. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers, am aware of process and have highlighted the lack of neutrality, objectivity and the reality of RFC whereas the ever changing IP is trying attempt to subvert a process. I would appreciate you providing such similar guidance to the IP on the talk page as that is not his aim and I fully expect he will continue to ignore my explanations despite having some so.
 * This is rather blatant canvassing by myself to support a due RFC process that has seen the IP canvas on his behalf.
 * Otherwise, you wouldn't find me doing such a thing. Koncorde (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

AE
Thanks again for copying the stuff to AE. I really do appreciate it. You're right about what you said there about reporting norms. I certainly won't be giving Oncenawhile the courtesy of a warning if I plan to report him, which I could have done on multiple occasions over the years. Anyway, thanks again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. If I see a report on the "other side" (or on the "same side", for that matter), I'll show up there to argue against it, as usual. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Franzboas master account
Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Re ARBPIA notice to me from NMMNG
Thanks for your comment; I am sure what you say is true, at this point I am not trying to persuade this editor of anything at all, its rather more a case of enough is enough. If he finds my public comment unacceptable then it is a matter for him to take such action as he sees fit and I have invited him on his talk page to do so if he believes that is the right course. If so, then we will anyway arrive at your suggested WP:DR.(e4 fan as White and Sicilian for choice as Black, I don't dislike KI as Black, hard work tho)Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the WP:DR I had in mind. I was talking about a content dispute resolution, using RfC or some such measure. Conduct disputes end up at some kind of admin noticeboard. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 09:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see (I think); this is not any longer about specific content (although disruptive, unconstructive and nonconsensual editing have all played their part in reaching this point). I have said my piece and I am content to await developments, if any.Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Mentorship?
I am back after a long absence for health reasons. Two to three years back, when I was learning the 'Wiki system' and being grossly naive, you were like a strict parent with me, and I greatly appreciated it and learned more from you and from Nishidani than from anyone else. I still have a great number of uncertainties, not even knowing most of the Wiki protocols [I only came across WP:NOT today - Wiki is not a Poll!!]. I want to review a series of key articles which I sincerely find to suffer from imbalance. May I respectfully request that you act as my mentor on one article, so that I do not make stupid errors, and present my proposed edits as Wiki-compliant as possible? The article is 2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict ... I know, I know, I could have chosen an easier example, but then, that's me ... the 2200+ to 71 difference in mortality sends a powerful message to me. Many thanks for your consideration ... declining my request will not make any difference to my respect for you. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Unfortunately, I am rather busy right now and have little time to edit Wikipedia. When I get some time, I'll be happy to help you. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your willingness. Should you be able to spare the time in the future, I would welcome a signal from you. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Imposing on your good offices
Could you look over the talk page at Shuafat, and, as a an editor no one would doubt is neutral, (if you think my remarks are fair, of course) possibly consider asking the editor who made that innuendo about the presence of 'antiJewish', then antiJewish/Israeli editors, there (there being only two who opposed him - the sling is obvious (to me)) to simply cross those words out. I've had a decade of that being thrown my way, and though it might strike others as trivial (and while I think it fatuous), I'm not going to allow this kind of slur to go unremarked anymore. D won't listen to me, but I think a word from you might be taken more seriously. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, matters had escalated to WP:AE before I saw this message. Hopefully it gets resolved there. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Temple Mount
Can you fix the indentation on your post? It is randomly outdented without an outdent, and since I replied with sources and quotes from those sources, it has kind of messed up the formatting. You may want to remove it beneath my last post or whatever it is a reply to. Seraphim System ( talk ) 08:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I was aware of your political evolution, which you used to mention on your userpage. Strangely enough, depending on my mood, I oscillate between your starting point and your end point (without going through any of your intermediate points: I had never any sympathy for neoconservatism or neoreactionary thought, possibly because I never took them seriously). I have read a lot of Deirdre McCloskey's work (the most fruitful one for me was: The Rhetoric of Economics). I plan to go through her Bourgeois Virtues books some time (I have read her outline the basic thesis elsewhere, for instance the WSJ article you linked). If you'd like to have a chat about politics and stuff (on the talk page or through email), let me know. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antifa (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Spencer ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Antifa_%28United_States%29 check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Antifa_%28United_States%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

3O
Hi! I see that you have been active on the talk page of Palestinian right of return and you seem knowledgable. Plus your page has the category Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions. So I want to invite you to offer your third opinion to the content dispute described here: Talk:Right of return. Of course feel free to decline the invitation if you don't want to! ImTheIP (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Third Opinion is usually given by a neutral party who has not interacted with the participants. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to provide one. I suggest you follow the instructions given here. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 19:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

2000 Ramallah lynching
Your involvement in the discussion on the above is much appreciated. François Robere (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. == This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC) ==

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Message
Are you an Admin? Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you should be.--Shrike (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm not interested. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 09:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

2000 Ramallah Lynching
Haven't had much time to sort out the mess you get in sources, which are distinctively contradictory. It intrigues me as just one more case where a thing of crucial symbolic value for a country which has extensive resources to get at the 'truth' or at least sort out scrupulously the varying angles of a narrative to get at the probable turn of events, remains utterly obscure. (When this happens, as it does frequently,(massively detailed recordings of conflict incident communications are available for decades but these are never made public to 'prove' a point) one has some good reason to suspect that whatever 'official' version does circulate, it is not historically adequate, but pays lip-service to a account adequate to the symbolic order desired, while sweeping under the carpet anything that doesn't suit the story to be told.)

In any case, many fuss over my insistence on precise language ('turned the wrong way'/vs/'accidentally'), and this desire to be precise was met with skepticism, as if there was a POV arrière pensée lurking in my suggestion. Well, one may think as one likes of others' motives, but I had in mind an old but famous point made by J. L. Austin. I thought of it while breakfasting abroad this morning, and reviewing the day's wiki work options, and on coming back, managed to dredge up an accessible link to his paper. I thought you might be interested because you asked me about Rorty. The key bit runs: "As practice in learning to handle this bogey, in learning the essential rubrics, we could scarcely hope for a more promising exercise than the study of excuses. Here, surely, is just the sort of situation where people will say 'almost anything', because they are so flurried, or so anxious to get off.'It was a mistake', ' It was an accident '-how readily these can appear indifferent, and even be used together. Yet, a story or two, and everybody will not merely agree that they are completely different,.."

Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured article review for Tahirih Justice Center
I have nominated Tahirih Justice Center for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You are being notified because you participated in a discussion about the article at NPOVN. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

AE appeal
FYI I went ahead and closed this as no consensus to overturn the existing sanctions. Rob seems to have a good idea about parameters which could be useful, though, and can be discussed at the template. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is unfortunate: I was hoping that given a bit more time, the discussion would converge on an acceptable solution. Since you say that the talk page template is merely a courtesy, and the real sanction is made at DSLOG, what do you think about simply removing templates from all pages which have not been logged at DSLOG? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I closed the discussion because there was clearly not going to be consensus to overturn the existing sanctions as a whole. The ongoing discussion was about changes to a template that don't actually confer sanctions, so the best place to have that discussion would be on the template's talk page, not the AE page, since there was no actual AE appeal being discussed anymore.If a template has been placed by an administrator and not logged, it is probably a better idea to contact them to see if they forgot to log it rather than to remove the template: the actual sanctions are recorded in the log and made visible by the page edit notice (see Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions), but admins are human and also forget. If it was added by a non-admin and it can't be found in the arbitration enforcement logs, I would contact the person who placed it there, see why they did it, and if it was a mistake because they didn't realize that non-admins can't place active sanctions on a page, it should likely be removed or replaced with a generic DS notice.tl;dr: I think it's a bad idea to remove any of them without talking to the person who placed it. It's a sensitive topic area, and mass removals without discussions won't lower the temperature. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you are saying that the template is not simply a courtesy, and even if the restriction is not logged at DSLOG, it still applies? Btw, this is archetypical "sticky" behavior which I pointed out in my appeal: anyone can slap on the template, not even knowing about its details, but to remove it would require a case by case discussion. There are some cases which I mentioned in my appeal, which were not even added by admins. Ironically, one of the templates was added by, thinking that it was the "default" template. I can't make this stuff up. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that it’s just the decent thing to do to ask someone what they meant to do before undoing their actions, especially in a field this contentious. In the case of administrators, it also gives them the chance to correct the mistake they may have made by forgetting to log it. In the case of non-admins, they might have been restoring it after it was removed or the like, so asking to clarify is ideal as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you want to contact all editors who placed the template on pages (other than you and Coffee), and ask them if they specifically wanted "consensus required" on the article? I suggest you sample a few editors randomly and see for yourself what is likely to be the outcome of this exercise. I already gave at least three data points in one direction. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not be doing so, but you should if you feel as strongly about this as you appear to. My actually suggestion is to contact anyone who didn’t log a sanction or where the sanction logs don’t match, for what it is worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, so you want me to do a large amount of work to fix a mistake which I had nothing to do with. Perhaps you consider this sort of thing the "decent thing to do". Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Message

 * On the AN, AE section, you wrote that you are opposed and then gave your opinion. You might want to change your "opposed" to "overturn" since the section is AE Appeal, and someone might assume that you are opposing the appeal, rather than agreeing with the appeal and want it overturned. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited B'Tselem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Area C ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/B%27Tselem check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/B%27Tselem?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Debresser at WP:AE
I agree that asking Debresser to self-revert would have been a better approach, and it's what I would have done, but his edit-warring led an administrator to protect the article 15 minutes after he violated the rule. Hoist by his own petard, I'm afraid. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

RE - AK
RE - this comment - first of all, you are correct that the AK in most sectors did not collaborate with the Nazis (unlike, for instance, the situation in Lithuania). There were however exceptions - specifically in modern day Western Belarus (Nowogródek) and Lithuania (Wilno) - in both of these areas from circa 1943 (as the Soviets advanced) - local units made truce and weapon supply agreements with the Nazis - in this regard the fairly recent (but comprehensive) The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939-1945 by Zimmerman is a good read for Nowogródek (search for Pilch) and for Jewish/Underground relations in WWII. HOWEVER - lack of Nazi collaboration does not mean that the AK (and particularly the NSZ - which was separate from the AK until parts of it joined the AK in 1944) had good relations with the Jews. Particularly, the reason Holocaust survivors and scholars make a comparison (on the danger or deadliness) is the hunting of Jews in the countryside and forest by the NSZ and some AK units (which varied quite a bit - the AK wasn't uniform - different units represented different Polish political factions) - In regards to Jews hiding out in the forest - the Polish underground was often the primary danger in many areas (not for lack of will by the Nazis, but rather since the Nazis did not go into the forest as much) - Jews out in the forests specifically targeted as "bandits" (to be liquidated) in AK orders (though there is some debate over the scope of the banditry order - whether this was a codeword, or that it applied to Jewish and non-Jewish bandits - however Jews in the forest were pretty much forced to a life of banditry (or petty theft) to survive). Zimmerman covers this in depth, but shorter coverage in English can be seen here and here. There are also issues with the AK's (or more specifically post-AK after its dissolution) record after the Soviet conquest in 1944-45. So the question here isn't one of Nazi collaboration (which, when done, was vs. the Soviet advance in 1943 and was of an "enemy of my enemy is my (temporary) friend/truce/weapon-supplier"), but rather actions independently carried out.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Re George Bell
Sorry Kingsindian. I had not scrolled down enough to see the "missing" text down at the bottom. Better where it is now though I think.Charles (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 17:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Misc.

 * Thanks for the kind words. Btw, I would characterize it as "Sisyphean" rather than "Herculean". Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Word of advice
Hi, Kingsindian (cc: ). I've closed the AN block appeal discussion, as it's clear there's not going to be any consensus for the unblock you seek. I closed the discussion now to spare the project of more drama than it has already received. However, let me be clear: had that discussion remained open for a sufficient period of time, and the discussion continued to trend in the way it was going, it would have been closed as a community-endorsed block, which, according to policy, is the same thing as a community ban. Administrators do not have the authority to overturn a community ban; a later community discussion authorizing an unblock would be required, and the bare minimum "time served" for that to happen would most likely be six months, per standard practice. I came very close to closing the discussion in that manner, but ultimately felt that the discussion had not been open long enough for there to have been the required "due consideration" sufficient for a community ban. There is nothing inherently harsh about an indefinite block. It can be as short as a few minutes. It's largely up to the blocked user. All that is required is a GAB-compliant unblock request. Blocked users have the right to re-appeal to a new admin, as many times as they want, they have the right to debate, dispute and discuss the block with administrators ad infinitum, they can negotiate unblock conditions, and hammer out what exactly needs to be said or done in order to secure an unblock. When you appeal to the community and the community endorses the block, all of that goes out the window and the user basically has no recourse but the six month standard offer, though it's still left up to another community discussion at that point. So, in your good faith effort to cast this indefinite block as "too harsh", you almost got the user indefinitely banned, which is substantially more draconian. I performed the close at this time on the assumption that nobody will have a problem with allowing the user to retain the regular options for an unblock. There is no guarantee that somebody won't insist on reopening the discussion, thus giving the block "due consideration", in order to secure a community-block, and if that happens, there's really nothing I can do. But, this is just a heads-up about the situation. I think the best thing you can do is bow out and let this user quietly negotiate an unblock. Like I said, there is no guarantee that things won't escalate further, but letting the user handle it with admins is going to be their best bet. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, S warm   ♠  05:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have communicated with Clockback, and they would like to re-open the block review and let it run its course, even if it means that they might end up in an even bigger hole. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've sent Clockback a message giving them one more chance to reconsider, but if they confirm that they fully understand the gravity of the consequences and still wish to reopen the discussion, I will do so. S warm   ♠  07:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Clockback has now replied on the talkpage, asking for re-opening. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 10:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My sympathy is still with Clockback, as I consider he has been harshly and unfairly treated. But it's hard to help someone who shoots himself in the foot at every opportunity. I'd like to thank you for what you've done on his behalf. Maproom (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice
Posting this for informational purposes only since you have recently contributed at Talk:Sarah Jeong. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi
I wondered if you had seen the present WP:ARCA, initiated by Sir Joseph. The arb.com members wants evidence from WP:AE...I seem to recall that you gave some at an AE? ...but I cannot find it. Please refresh my memory...Huldra (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hitchens
I see that you have resigned from the discussion. Kind of a crowded forum. If you would like to talk via google hangouts or skype, i would be willing. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would probably prefer email. In any case, I need a break from this matter for now. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought talking would be more swift. (I would do that voice only if the anonymity is your concern).
 * I sympathize with your frustration; whatever you like, or nothing.  Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I usually need time to think through what I'm saying, and I do lots of edits and rewriting. That's why I prefer asynchronous communication like email. There's no hurry about the matter, since the outcome isn't really in the balance now. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Email is fine. :) And only if you like. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope that I’m not intruding here, but might be of interest to yourself and Jytdog (who I assume has watch listed here) the article Peter Hitchens wrote on his blog: Goodbye Wikipedia and thanks for all the laughs.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  10:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I already knew about it though: Hitchens emailed a link to me. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 10:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry: I all but completely left Wikipedia several months ago after an unpleasant experience on de.wikipedia.org, hence I have only just seen that you mentioned me during the Clocback COI discussion. It's far too late now, but still for what it's worth: your assessment of the situation fits in very nicely with my perceptions from the time when I was active on the Bell article. Clockback was upfront about his RL identity and his agenda was well known. At one point the other user and I were in agreement that the section needed to be pruned back, but I found it difficult to hold a reasoned discussion with them about how to do it. I'm unfamiliar with dispute resolution on en.wikipedia.org, but it looks as if you approached the COI discussion very conscientiously and were given a hard time for your pains: I am very sorry about that. My position: Although I sincerely hope that Bell is innocent of the allegations, I believe strongly in writing the WP article according to the current state of the reliable sources. --GroupCohomologist (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Hi. I saw your comments there. I am sorry we seem to have different views on what standard of sourcing we should use on articles on living people, and that the consensus seems to be totally against you. Can I suggest making any complaints you may have about my actions at a more relevant forum like AN/I? Obviously I don't think there was anything wrong with what I did, but if you do, that would make more sense than (apparently) holding a long-term grudge. Thanks. --John (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in complaining at ANI (the matter is not too important either way). And I don't know you, and don't plan to hold any long-term grudge against you. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 10:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

1RR
"Perhaps I should collect all these absurd cases and open an ARCA request." — That is a very good idea and I'll help as I can. But ArbCom have shown a frustrating lack of interest in clarifying their own rulings. Zerotalk 13:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ghcool it was not his first revert so the rule doesn't apply. --Shrike (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am a bit pressed for time now, but I'll probably open an ARCA request soon. My opinion is that it would be best to simply go back to 1RR, with no frills at all. It's simple and a bright line, which is what it should be. One cannot really handle all the game-playing that goes on in political areas with one rule. So the best thing is to have a simple (and effective) rule. More complicated cases can be handled with discretionary sanctions. What do you think? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Going back to the old 1RR rule is not a good idea: remember why it was changed: if A added something, B removed it, then A could immediately reinsert it, as that first addition was not a "revert". Basically anyone insisting on adding something to an article would win, in a one-to-one situation, Huldra (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On the other hand the new version is good for knee-jerk reverters. Someone adds good text, someone reverts it just because they don't like it, now it has to stay out for 24 hours after which the cycle can repeat. I'm sure it is impossible to write a workable rule that stops all types of bad behavior. The most crying need is to get rid of the ambiguous phrase "original author"; beyond that I'm not sure. Zerotalk 00:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, no: anyone insisting on adding something to an article would not win (ultimately). They may win exactly one round, which is only 24 hours. Ultimately, WP:ONUS is still policy, as are prohibitions against edit-warring. If they continue to add stuff over repeated reverts, they're violating policy. The reason I think 1RR is the best rule is that it is simple and completely dependent on your own behaviour. You are given one revert every 24 hours, regardless of what your "opponent" does. One does not worry about whether the other guy is "reverting" or not. So, for example, if you only edit the page once a day, you cannot run afoul of 1RR. Furthermore, it works better with the way watchlists work on Wikipedia: one sees a change one doesn't like, one checks whether one hasn't reverted within the past 24 hours -- and then it is safe to revert. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * and Kingsindian: Remember how it was under the old 1RR rule, before I started all this. Then you could have this:
 * 12.00 A add something new
 * 12.01 B removes it
 * 12.02 A readd exactly the same stuff...as that first addition was not technically a revert, this would be ok(!)
 * 12.02 next day: the earliest B could remove it again, without breaking 1RR.
 * 12.03 next day: A could readd it a third time.........etc, etc, etc
 * The above is why I said that you had to be 2 editors wanting to remove some stuff, in order to counteract 1 who wanted to add it.
 * I agree that if you could only add/remove the same stuff one time in 24 hours, then that would be the best solution; but that was not what the old 1RR was, Huldra (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying. But the second instance is not the same as the first. And the third instance is not the same as the second (and so on). WP:ONUS and prohibitions on edit-warring still exist; they are meant to handle exactly this issue. The 1RR rule (and the 3RR rule, from which it is derived) is not meant to handle all bad behaviour, only one kind of bad behaviour. Also, see Zero's comment about the flip side of the "tweaked 1RR" rule: it encourages obstructionist behaviour by revert-happy people. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in theory, but I think that we both know that in practice admins hate to admonish someone over rules which are diffuse. And "edit-warring" is such a diffuse rule. I would rather we had something which you suggested above: that any  edit done 24 hrs after your own last edit, is ok. If we had such a rule, everyone, both editors and admins, would know exactly what were expected at us. And clarity of rules should be our utmost ambition, (if the rules are to be changed again.) (That last AE report, where several admins simply threw in the towel, saying they didn't understand the rules, was a disgrace, IMO.) Huldra (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents - "original authorship" makes sense, but it also makes sense to have a uniform standard, project wide, for 1rr (or 3rr for that matter - same issue if someone is willing to go to 3) - getting admins to understand specific arb xRR rules... Is grounds for confusion. Perhaps adding new content to an article should count as a revert (for xRR) - as it undoes the choice of other editors to ignore the information up until that point? Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Another one
here. Pinging User:Zero0000 for yet another discussion of our Byzantine rules, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have opened an ARCA request about the remedy. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request motion
A motion has been proposed about your amendment request. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 06:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard