Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 105

Clarification request: IP conflict (October 2018)

 * Original discussion


 * Case or decision affected
 * Some editors "indefinitely banned from edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. "

Statement by Orientls
Would it be a topic ban violation if an editor topic banned from "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan" edits Regional power with the purpose to debate the status of India or Pakistan?

The description of India and Pakistan in the context of regional power heavily focuses on conflicts between India and Pakistan. Reliable sources largely emphasize on conflicts between two countries in this subject when they discuss their "power". Some more factors including "regional power" that falls within the India-Pakistan conflict area are mentioned by this reliable source.

Historically we have considered subjects like Khalistan movement, Insurgency in Balochistan to be a violation of this particular topic ban since these subjects are also tied up with conflicts between India and Pakistan.

Even if an editor edits such subjects without actually making mention of India-Pakistan conflict, then still it could be still considered a topic ban violation because India-Pakistan conflict is among the major factor involved and ultimately the coverage of India-Pakistan conflict is significantly affected. Orientls (talk)


 * This is not about a particular editor but clarification concerning  treatment of this subject (Regional power) when the editor is editing this subject with purpose to debate the status of India or Pakistan as regional power.
 * Topic banned from India-Pakistan conflict or not, both types of editors treat the subject as a part of India-Pakistan conflict. This question was also raised by Adamgerber80 above as "scenario which is currently playing out on another talk page discussion". FWIW, I have presented both sides that those who don't consider this subject to be a topic ban violation (from IP conflict) would only claim that "I made no mention of any India-Pakistan conflict", while influencing the very same conflict by editing this subject.
 * I don't know if topic banned editors (and how many of them) could be named as party since they are not the ones seeking clarification or raising any demand for one. Non-topic banned users have shown no interest in seeking clarification either. Given these uncertainties, I saw no need of naming anybody as a party unless they had shown interest anywhere. Nevertheless, I also believed that anyone interested can ask clerks if they want to be a party to this request. Orientls (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't we use ARCA instead when there is uncertainty over the scope? Reporting an edit without being sure if it constitutes a violation or not would likely result in sanction on the reporting editor and that is what we need to avoid. Orientls (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
I am generally suspicious of these generic "I won't tell you who I'm asking about" questions. ArbCom should decline to answer without background info. Doing it this way denies the targets of the filing the opportunity to comment. If ArbCom doesn't decline, someone should notify all the editors in the linked enforcement log addition. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Clarification request: IP conflict: Clerk notes

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



Clarification request: IP conflict: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is ultimately a decision for the community, in my opinion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Floq makes a good point. Is this about you, Orientis? If it’s not, you should name the editor about whom you’re concerned. Katietalk 01:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with Rob and Katie here. I don't think ARCA should be used to make such granular decisions in the absence of any specific context. If you're reporting an edit you believe is a violation, report it at AE and see what the admins there think. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jumping on the bandwagon. Not here, AE. Doug Weller  talk 05:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely a matter for AE to handle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We review most things on a case-by-case basis. I would need to review the editor's past history and the edit itself before making any decision. Mkdw  talk 22:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: ARBIPA topic ban clarification (October 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Ivanvector at 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * SheriffIsInTown (among others) topic banned from "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan"

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * diff of notification SheriffIsInTown
 * diff of notification DBigXray

Statement by Ivanvector
I am seeking clarification on whether the article on the geographical feature Siachen Glacier is covered by the scope of the aforementioned sanction in its entirety because it contains a section describing the Siachen conflict (actually two sections) which itself is a dispute between India and Pakistan. This is in response to DBigXray posting a note to SheriffIsInTown that their semi-automated filling of a reference within the description of the conflict  was a violation of their topic ban, which they acknowledged and self-reverted. While nobody here disagrees that this specific edit was strictly a topic ban violation, I've been challenged on my interpretation that hypothetical constructive edits to the significant portions of the article which do not concern the conflict would not violate this sanction, and so I am seeking clarification on that point.

I'd also like to point out that I restored the ref-fill edit as it was clearly constructive. I was then referred to the "banned means banned" section of the banning policy, which does not state that edits made in violation of a ban must be reverted; on the contrary it states that "". And I'd also like to draw the reviewers' attention to an essentially concurrent discussion in which another editor was sanctioned for attempted frivolous enforcement of this same decision. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you, that was a silly omission on my part. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SheriffIsInTown
Although, I am thankful that 's message on my user talk allowed me to remediate the blunder I made in form of an inadvertent violation of my ban, I am bit disappointed in the choice of language in their message. There is quite a bit of assumption of bad faith in their comment when they put it like "I saw that you are still editing Siachen Glacier", it conveys as if I was a long term habitual editor of that article and I am still continuing to edit that article in defiance of my ban but in reality that was my first ever edit on that article. I never ever edited that article in good ole days of freedom to edit any article on Wikipedia then why I would knowingly and willfully violate my topic ban just to fill a reference so assuming good faith, the message could have better read as "I see that you might have inadvertently violated your topic ban in this edit, please be careful in future as your ban is broadly construed and it does not matter whether you are fixing a reference or adding content about actual conflict." No matter the disagreements or different backgrounds, why cannot we give space to our fellow editors by assuming good faith towards them when we have a choice between both (good or bad). While we are here and being thankful to the admins to give me a leeway, my question to them and more specifically to ARBCOM members is that would not it be a good idea to exclude purely technical edits such as the one I made out of the scope of such topic bans. I am unable to see what could be the risk of such edits spiraling the conflict out of hands or starting an edit-war or battleground editing pattern which could be risks when an edit is truly content related. Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 15:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Fetchie Mankala
I think that in this case, the entire article is subject to ARBCOM rulings. It's clear from looking at it that the conflict is more than a mere mention in this article.

Statement by Thryduulf
Before I looked at the article I was expecting to opine that the parts of the article related to the geographical/geological/environmental/etc aspects of the glacier would be fine to edit. However, after having read the article it seems that everything is intimately tied up with the conflict, or its origins, history or effects. I would recommend topic banned users give this article a miss in its entirety.

Ivanvector is correct though regarding reinstating the self-reverted edit. WP:PROXYING is the relevant policy here - "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." [emphasis in original]. The edit in question was clearly productive, and there is no suggestion that it was performed at the direction of anyone else. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG
I do not have an affinity for boundary-testing-experiments but IMO, if Sheriff can manage to edit the article excluding anything tangential to the conflict, there's no problem.

The entire second paragraph of lead, etymology-section and drainage-section ought not be any related to the conflict.

I would advise against the seemingly-innocent section of Environmental issues courtesy that they are caused by the presence of forces et al, which links up to the conflict.

The rest of the sections are a.

I concur with Ivan's restoration and commend him for rising above petty process-wonkery. Whilst I agree that this particular edit violated Sheriff's T-Ban, I don't have any idea as to why DBigXray asked for a revert; a plain note of caution would have been sufficient. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Adamgerber80
I agree with the current action taken by Ivanvector and believe that this was a constructive edit. IMO, as long as we are here, there is an issue with this topic ban from the point of view of it's scope. Just to be clear I am not arguing for or against the ban or trying to dig into the reasons behind it. My intention here is to clearly list what is allowed and what is not allowed under this topic-ban, for the sake of the editors who are under the ban and other editors who edit in the general area. When the ban was crafted there was some degree of ambiguity to it (not certain if that was deliberate or not) which has led different administrators to derive different interpretations from it and impose it per their view. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to maybe make a small list of gray areas to remove procedural overhead of people reporting each other and leading to more discussions. I would present two scenarios which happened recently because of the aforementioned ambiguity. There was a WP:ANI discussion about an editor who was involved in the area and some editors who participated in the discussion were briefly banned since this was considered a violation of their topic ban. Another scenario which is currently playing out on another talk page discussion where there was a discussion about inclusion/exclusion of countries (along with India and Pakistan). I don't have a strong opinion in either of these cases or other gray areas but feel listing no-go zones and okay zones might be easier for all of us. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

ARBIPA topic ban clarification: Clerk notes

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


 * , just a heads up I added the diffs of your notifications for you. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * no problem! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

ARBIPA topic ban clarification: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * General comment: I should know better to ask this after almost nine years on the ArbCom, but is it altogether impossible for common sense to govern this sort of question? My thanks to those who have already employed this underutilized dispute-resolution tool. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We run into this issue quite a bit and may times where the intent is not innocent. In those cases, we have taken a hard line stance on the wording of "broadly construed", especially if it is apparent the editor in question has difficulty disengaged and continuously tests the waters. In this case, broadly construed was also used in the discretionary sanction and editors were expressly warned that "testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block". That being said, it appears the intent was accidental and immediately reverted their actions once they were notified. No block was issued and I think it was handled reasonably well by both involved. We allow administrators to rely their judgement when enforcing discretionary sanctions on a case-by-case basis. In this case a notification was a measured and appropriate response. Mkdw  talk  20:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As Mkdw says, this is an issue which comes up a lot. Technically if the edit has absolutely nothing whatsoever (note the broadly construed) to do with the conflict between the two countries then it would be okay. However, administrators and the Committee have taken a fairly hard line in interpreting what is and what is not covered by a sanction. There are a number of things which need to be considered when determining whether an edit is a violation of a sanction and what, if any, action should be taken, these include the history of the editor and sanction, conflict on the article in the past, what exactly is edited and what, if discernible, the intent of the edit was. In this case, I believe that the correct action was taken and nothing more needs to be done. SheriffIsInTown reverted their edit when they where alerted that it might be a violation of the topic ban rather than fight about it (which is another factor in deciding what to do). Looking at the article, I believe that it would be difficult to edit much of it without the edit being at least tangentially related to the India-Pakistan conflict so it would be best to not edit the article at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Mkdw. I could expound and sound important, but he’s put it as well as I could. Katietalk 01:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh Mkdw is good. I agree. Doug Weller  talk 05:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Mkdw. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Piling on the Mkdw bandwagon. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree with MKDW. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (October 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Shrike at 13:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Shrike
In my view the only requirement to enforce the 500/30 remedy is notification via Template:Ds/alert. In recently closed WP:AE request .Admin AGK commented that user didn't received any clear warning so the AE action could not be taken in this regard.If the ARBCOM agree with AGK then I ask what kind of wording is required and add this as standardized template if not then clarify and amend the decision that the only requirement is notification about discretionary sanctions in the area.--Shrike (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But to enforce the General prohibition admin must take discretionary sanction So someone could be topic banned without even receiving an alert? --Shrike (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer that it would be clearly described as AGK noted we don't expect the new users to read all the walls of texts and follow all the links.--Shrike (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz
I'd like some clarification here, seeing that I posted "Please note, that until you are WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, you are not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages (see WP:ARBPIAINTRO) - you can post talk page comments, but not edit the article themselves. specifically due to the 500/30 restriction and Wickey's prior edits - but this got dismissed at AE as a "helpful postscript". Now this was framed politely (and not - "if you continue editing ARBPIA articles, I will take you to AE and try to get you banned") - but I did specifically say Wickey was not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages. Are we not supposed to be polite? When posting this, I was suspicious this was Wickey-nl (and was considering a SPI filing), however I was framing this (per WP:AGF) in the manner I would approach any new user. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As a side note - given that the DS regime applies to many different topics, and often without an special restrictions - it would be nice if the standard ds/alert template (for a-i) would include a link to WP:ARBPIAINTRO as well as clearly specifying the 1RR and 500/30 restrictions which apply project wide (without a need for specific page logging) and are additional to the usual DS rules.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
The committee reviewed and replaced the prior generation of standard discretionary sanctions in its 2013–14 term. I think we easily forget how troublesome the concept of "awareness" became in the community. At the time, we frequently heard from editors who – out of the blue – received sizable sanctions without having been formally made aware that standard discretionary sanctions were in effect. Obviously, a page notice on every affected article and talk page was impractical. We therefore adopted alert (and its ancillary systems, Z33 and Filter 602).

The committee has adopted language (WP:ARBPIA3) that the general restriction should be enforced, preferably, using extended-confirmed protection – or using reverts, warnings, blocks, etc.

In this matter, petitioner requested enforcement of the 30/500 general restriction – an entirely different remedy to discretionary sanctions. The enforcement requested was not to revert the respondent's edits or warn them about the general restriction. The enforcement requested was a heftier sanction (for anyone can revert). I denied that request. I am rarely minded to decline enforcement where there has been a breach.

The petitioner complained to me that the separate DS alert, served on the editor in summer 2018, included a warning that the 30/500 restriction was ineffect. However, the alert template links to many pages about discretionary sanctions; none discuss the general restriction. There was indeed a single sentence appended to the alert, but it read to me like a string of alphabet soup attempting to warn about one remedy in the same breath as another. The explanation was inadequate for a remedy that the committee, by its own language, thinks ought to be enforced by technical means. Respondent's edits were to pages that lacked the standard talk banner or editnotice.

For these reasons, I denied the request to hand down a more rigorous sanction. I do not think we need the general restriction modified or a new template created. I do suggest editors like petitioner use the existing language to begin warning (clearly) and reverting at the first opportunity rather than requesting enforcement at the second. AGK &#9632;   17:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There is not really such a question here. Awareness (in the technical sense) is a precondition of DS but not of the General Prohibition. This thread is about whether enforcing the given complaint, other than by reverting, would have been proportionate.  Some editors of the topic area think so; I was unconvinced that the Prohibition had been made clear.   AGK  &#9632;   17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
Well, observers of the IP area will know that I don't often agree with Shrike and Icewhiz  (and that is  putting it diplomatically), but here I agree with them: with this alert on 15 July 2018, I would have considered Wickey warned, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
I am also of the opinion that the warning was adequate. If the committee concludes that there was something inadequate about it, please spell out what the problem was so that we can issue better warnings in the future. Zerotalk 09:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm very much of the opinion that editors should be aware of restrictions before being sanctioned by them, however, I see in this case that the individual was made aware of ARBPIA in July, with a specific extra comment highlighting the 500/30 restriction. Since the template which was left has a clear link to Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, which also goes into depth of the 500/30 restriction, I'm interested to know what more AGK would be looking for? <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Having read AGK's explanation, I'm happy things proceeded properly - within the bounds of admin discretion and all that. I'm not sure if there's discussion at cross purposes, or just simple misunderstandings, but I believe the alert was sufficient in this case for "awareness". I do also agree that it's generally enforced by extended confirmed protection (for preference) and simple reversion where not, so a heavier sanction would need a more in depth breach, and would therefore be expected to have more "awareness", through warnings and the like. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 20:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have the same concerns as Worm, just tacking on the fact that there was a link to WP:ARBPIAINTRO which clarifies all possible restrictions and also provides a link for the case. I fail to see how with both of these, it invalidates the warning for the purposes of that enforcement. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 19:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear i'm not looking to question any potential outcome as that's not what this ARCA asks of us, but simply the question of if the warning was sufficient to satisfy awareness. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 22:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * To answer the original question, the awareness requirements for discretionary sanctions do not apply here, because this is not a discretionary sanction. There are no similar requirements related to this remedy, but administrators are certainly within their discretion to issue a warning instead of a block if they feel the editor was not aware of the remedy they violated. I will note that AGK declining to enforce this remedy in this circumstance doesn't mean another admin cannot. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Actions to enforce arbitration remedies are "arbitration enforcement actions", not discretionary sanctions. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 11:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The 500/30 part of ARBPIA is an arbitration remedy, not a discretionary sanction, and I can see no requirement of awareness there. Admins are authorized to issue discretionary sanctions, but those potential remedies are separate from the 500/30 prohibition. Awareness is a requirement for DS, as we clarified earlier this year. An admin can issue a warning or decline to block at their discretion, including if they feel an editor was not sufficiently aware. Katietalk 07:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Firstly, I don't see that any action is needed in response to this request as declining to take action in favour of a warning is well-within admin discretion (and is one of the things they should consider). As the General Prohibition (AKA 500/30) is not a discretionary sanction, or the system of discretionary sanctions, the awareness requirements of discretionary sanctions do not apply. However, administrators should use their discretion to determine what the most appropriate response is to breaches of the General Prohibition. Generally this would be page protection, reverts and notification of the 500/30 requirement. If editors continue to breach the General Prohibition (and, likely, that page protection isn't a viable option) then administrators may decide that further arbitration enforcement action is required. For the general prohibition the only other enforcement option open to admins, according the remedy and case, is a block initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Note that a block under the General Prohibition is not a discretionary sanction but an arbitration enforcement action. Having said that, assuming an editor is "aware" of discretionary sanctions, a discretionary sanction may be issued (such as a topic/page ban) to enforce conduct requirements (including the General Prohibition and 1RR) in the topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As this isn't a DS we all agree that a warning is not formally required. I agree with what Callanecc has said above, but I do think that there is one thing we could do to improve how we handle the 500/30 remedy. When I give DS alerts in this area I often had a note about 500.30, but this would be better dealt with by either a link in alert or having the remedy clearly described in the alert. Doug Weller  talk 13:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not much to add here except that I agree with Callanecc's position on the matter. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 20:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Paranormal (October 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Guy Macon at 03:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Statement by Guy Macon
This involves the Parapsychology page. quoted an arbcom case from 2007 that says

"there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way"

This conflicts with the lead of Parapsychology, which says

"It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists".

The discussion at Talk:Parapsychology seems relevant.

Please clarify: is there an arbcom ruling that mandates calling parapsychology a scientific discipline as opposed to pseudoscience? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Discretionary sanctions alert: --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Related:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Fringe theories/Noticeboard --Guy Macon (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

In the arbitrator views and discussion section, Rob13 correctly pointed out that "the Arbitration Committee does not rule on content". Apparently, Morgan Leigh did not get the message, because he wrote "Wikipedia has already ruled that...", quoting the Findings of Fact section of a 2007 arbcom request for arbitration.

In more recent arbcom cases, the findings of facts always focus on user behavior, but it seems that things were a bit different in 2007, and the case (request, really -- that's something else that was done differently back then) has multiple findings of facts that really do look a lot like the Arbitration Committee ruling on content. In my considered opinion, a simple clarification saying that ancient arbcom requests that appear to rule on content should not be used the way Morgan Leigh used this one would clarify the situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note that in this RfC Morgan Leigh has repeated his "Despite an existing arbitration ruling" language, claiming that arbcom has ruled in his favor in a content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * To Morgan Leigh's credit, he has closed the above RfC and replaced it with
 * Talk:Parapsychology.
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * WTT, It is unclear whether Morgan Leigh now agrees that arbcom does not issue rulings on content disputes or whether he is simply following the guidance found at
 * Requests for comment
 * and at
 * Writing requests for comment.


 * If Morgan Leigh now agrees that arbcom does not issue rulings on content disputes, then the point is indeed moot, but I would like to see him explicitly state that rather than assuming it and then watching him continue to claim that arbcom has ruled in favor of his preferred content and having to re-file this clarification request.


 * Another aspect is that this should be closed in such a way that a reader in 2029 can clearly understand what the arbcom policy about content disputes was in 2018. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Morgan Leigh
There is a Request for comment underway on the talk page regarding this issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parapsychology#RfC:_Should_reliable_sources_that_defend_parapsychology_be_excluded_altogether? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Users left feedback they they didn't think the the RfC was neutral or specific enough. I have closed it and opened a new one [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parapsychology#RfC_Are_the_sources_specified_in_this_RfC_reliable? here] Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The focus of this dispute is about reliable sources. I have added reliable sources that defend parapsychology. Some of these sources are from the very same journals and academic publishers, and in once case from the exact same book, as sources that are in the article at present being used to criticise. Other editors are arguing that reliable sources cannot be used if they are written by parapsychologist because parapsychology is "plainly false", "we don't use poor sources like those you suggest, to falsely contradict good sources", and that my sources contained "stupid reasoning that only appeals to gullible simpletons who swallow any reasoning that points in the direction they like".

The article presently says that "It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists". I am trying to add cited sources that defend parapsychology to add balance. There are presently nineteen sources in the lede alone that criticize parapsychology and none that defend it. I tried to add one and it was reverted with the edit summary "reverted fringe pov". So I provided more and they were all reverted with a claim that it was "massive undue weight on a minority view".

Some examples of things I cited:

Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. American Psychologist, 73(5), pp 663-677. "Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses."

Braude, S.E., (2007), The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations, University of Chicago Press - "But in fact, those who sarcastically dismiss parapsychology typically know little. They haven’t carefully studied the data or issues for themselves."

However other editors are constantly removing them contenting that these sources cannot be cited at all on account of them being written by parapsychologists. So I added this source, which is by a critic of parapsychology:

Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Roediger III, Henry L.; Halpern, Diane F., Critical Thinking in Psychology, Cambridge University Press, p. 292, ISBN 0-521-60834-1, OCLC 69423179, "throughout the more than a century and a half of psychical research and parapsychology, informed criticism has been scarce. Critics have focused on a few select examples, usually the weakest cases; have misrepresented the evidence and the claims; and have been polemical."

But it was removed with a comment that said I was "cherry picking" quotes.

For a full list of other sources cited and removed please see the RfC. Thank you. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I took this issue to the NPOV noticeboard and notified all editors involved. I have only just learned, from Guy Macron's statement here, that this issue was taken to the fringe theories noticeboard by Simonm223, who did not notify me. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * User: Guy Macon has arbitrarily used closed discussion and archived my original statement in listing RfC - i.e. "Despite an existing arbitration ruling here where it was found that, "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.", editors are arguing that parapsychologists should not be cited at all because they are not mainstream." If he was not happy with the wording he could have asked me to change it. In order to address his concerns I have replaced the text with, "Despite this finding that, "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.", editors are arguing that parapsychologists should not be cited at all because they are not mainstream." Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts I have removed the paragraph from the beginning to the discussion section and put a simple, more neutral sentence in its place. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have responded to feedback and closed the RfC and opened a new more specific one. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like to address the issue that the quote was taken out of context. While Guy has excerpted from the quote in presenting his request here, I quoted the entire finding as can be seen here No powerful confirming data all all.


 * I understand that arbcom does not rule on content. However this finding is from the last time that the issue of parapsychology was arbitrated on which is why I relied on it. There are serious problems, mostly with content, but also with user conduct at the parapsychology article that I feel need to be addressed. e.g. I have been threatened with admin action a number of times by these editors. I feel that a group of editors with a particular agenda are POV pushing. How can it otherwise be explained that the exact same sources that are deemed good enough to criticise a position are not deemed good enough to defend it? When I try to add balance with citations from within the exact same journals, books from the same university presses or even from the exact same books as criticism I am accused of cherry picking quotes. This is not how academic writing works. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by LuckyLouie
Some of the language in this 11 year-old case has apparently been misinterpreted to suggest Arbcom has ruled on a content issue. Suggest a clarification if needed, then close. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants

 * Honestly, I think this request should be thrown out. No offense to Guy Macon, but scrolling up the page would have contextualized the quote Morgan is harping on about and shown their use of that quote to be just cherry picking. In my opinion, an enforcement request against Morgan would be more productive, as they are clearly engaged in pro-fringe advocacy at that article and other locations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tgeorgescu
At this moment I have nothing to add to this discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JJE
Um, actually that arbitration case does exist: Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223
As far as I know I did not bring up anything to do with Paranormal at the Fringe noticeboard. I brought up issues related to Parapsychology at the Fringe noticeboard. And while I'm rather exasperated by 's conduct there, and did eventually suggest this as a venue for their tendentious editing at Parapsychology I didn't have the time or energy to post to Arb/E and as such didn't notify them as I didn't take an action on it. I don't believe you are required to notify a user to a discussion involving their edits on a wikiproject page which is not used for the issuing of any sanctions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Update OK, I see this is in fact about Parapsychology and yes, I did make that statement at WP:FRINGE/N but, again, I didn't open an Arb/E case, nor AN/I nor 3RR/N nor any other complaint at a board with any sort of enforcement capability, so I don't see how my failure to notify Morgan Leigh is at all relevant to this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
ArbCom does not make binding content decisions. It is also quite possible for both statements - that there is a discipline of studying it, and that psi itself is pseudoscience - to be simultaneously true. As the historical proponents of psi (Puthoff, for example) have retired, so study has focused more on the cognitive biases that cause people to believe in it, and the people working on the basis that it's real have become increasingly isolated. We're now in a situation where much of the argumentation for psi in the literature is motivated reasoning by people whose ideas have also been rejected. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {Other Editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Paranormal: Clerk notes

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



Paranormal: Arbitrator views and discussion
11) In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking. The firm concept of "Arbcom does not rule on content" is more recent than that ruling so lines have been blurred in the past. There are a number of factors which need to be taken into account - 1) The quote is taken out of context, which starts by saying that mainstream science does not include the paranormal. 2) Saying that there scientific methods are being used does not stop an area from being a pseudo-science. 3) Consensus (and the real world) can change over such a long period and Wikipedia does not have to remain fixed based on one finding 11 years ago. 4) Most importantly, content decisions are made by the community and by consensus for a reason - Arbcom does not decide on content issues. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by this request. The linked ArbCom case doesn't exist. I assume you meant Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience? If so, discretionary sanctions are still active from that case, and that's it for remedies that affect more than just individual editors. The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, the reason it was red-linked was because there was "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration" twice in the wikilink for some reason. In any event, the answer is still the same, basically. Content issues are decided by the community, and ArbCom can't step in here to decide the content dispute other than to say that relevant policies and guidelines apply (such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE). ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 11:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Using the scientific method to study something doesn't automatically make it a legitimate branch of science. I could make any number of studies using the scientific method (hypothesis, testing, analysis of results) about my cat's ability to predict my week by meowing. They can be as technically correct as anything, but that doesn't make meowology a real science. The statement in the ArbCom case wasn't wrong; there are people who do attempt actual studies of parapsychological phenomena. The fact that those people do that, and that ArbCom remarked on it in 2007, doesn't invalidate the consensus of the overall scientific community that parapsychology is pseudoscience. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There definitely is a case, it's just 11 years old and therefore stored in the old style cases. This is the finding in question, which is quoted in full
 * Having looked further, it seems Morgan Leigh has now started a new RfC, rendering this moot. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * as much as it would be nice for Morgan Leigh to acknowledge our points of view, you asked the question, we clarified, he changed his RfC. As far as I'm concerned, that should be the end of it with regards to the ARCA. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a number elements to consider here, the first is PMC's point, the second is Worm's point that the quote has been taken out of context, the third that some common sense needs to applied to a decision made more than 11 years ago, the third is that ArbCom doesn't, and can't, make rule on what content should be in articles, the fourth is that, as Worm notes, the comment has been taken out of context, and the fifth is that this is a finding of fact (in the case) not a remedy so is not binding on anything anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Great Irish Famine (November 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Amorymeltzer at 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Deacon Vorbis
 * Angusmclellan

Statement by Amorymeltzer
Who can unprotect Great Famine (Ireland)?

This is a little weird and more than a little old, but this query started when I saw a request at RFUP by that Great Famine (Ireland) be unprotected. He noted that the earliest protection log there is unprotecting the page, seeing no reason in the log, then reprotecting Per ArbCom mentorship. In fact, the original protection log is under The Great Hunger, where the page was indefinitely protected linking to this message on the talkpage explaining the reasons.

In short, GIF remedy 1.1 put the page under the mentorship of three to five editors for at least one year in September 2007, and established a triumvirate in October 2007 (talkpage notice). The mentors then put the page under indefinite semiprotection (as noted above) June 2008 (specifically ).

I have been unable to determine what, if anything, happened to the mentorship group, in particular how it was ended. I think it safe to assume it has ended; only Angusmclellan has been recently active, but as a former mentor I would assume they don't have any extra authority. Regardless, it is unclear to me who can undo a former and temporary group's indefinite actions: does it revert to the Committee or the Community? ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I've only listed and notified two people here as parties, given the age of it. If desired, I can notify the other two mentors as well as the original parties to the original case; one is active, one is semi-active, two are inactive, and one is blocked.
 * 2) This is so old that was a clerk.

Statement by Floq
If I tried to cut through the bureaucracy and simply unprotected the page, would anyone attempt to have me sanctioned? Although maybe ArbCom is bored these days, and we should give them a chance to do something and make them pass a motion... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If it helps, it seems to me the wording of the remedy that Amorymeltzer linked above implies the mentorship expired after one year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I move that Bishonen be sanctioned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
I'm sorry, I realize I'm curtailing the fun, but I've unprotected, mainly per Brad. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC).

Statement by EdJohnston
Occasionally Arbcom gets in the mood of tidying up old decisions. Let's hope they will conserve their energy and let this one sink back into obscurity without a new omnibus motion. There is one tiny issue as to whether the Famine page might fall under WP:TROUBLES, by current standards. If that question needs to be reviewed, my guess is that WP:AE may be sufficient, at least as a first step. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 1 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.

Great Irish Famine: Clerk notes

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



Great Irish Famine: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Some historical background as to how the remedy from the 2007 case worked out would be interesting, but there can't possibly be anything that happened in 2007-2008 that would control whether the page should remain protected today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bishonen has gone ahead and removed it, with no fanfare. I think we're done here, except for the object lesson that it's probably a good thing we don't do these kinds of remedies anymore. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, move along, nothing to see here. Doug Weller  talk 08:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (November 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Kingsindian at 13:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * 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:
 * (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, Person B is. 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, Person B is. 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  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 &#9821; &#9818; 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 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 &#9821; &#9818; 02:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 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, 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 &#9821; &#9818; 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)


 * - 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 .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)
 * 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)
 * You proposal would not stop this edit war . 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): 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.
 * 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.

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. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 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. Zerotalk 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? Zerotalk 07:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Responding to : 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 : "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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 01:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , 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. Zerotalk 12:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

'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. Zerotalk 12:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * : 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 07:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

'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. Zerotalk 12:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

's analysis is quite correct. '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. Zerotalk 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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">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. Zerotalk 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. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  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  5  7  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   5  7  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   5  7  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 ’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 ’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)
 * 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). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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 &#9632;   19:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 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  &#9632;   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 and '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. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">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:

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)


 * 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.

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 '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:

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)


 * 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:

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 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 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 above. As far as I can see, this is far clearer, and ameliorates the main issues brought forth by 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)
 * 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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">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. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 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. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">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. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">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? &spades;PMC&spades; (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. Katietalk 19:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 06:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; 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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) I’m willing to give this a shot. Katietalk 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. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">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  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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We got into trouble,, 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. Katietalk 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.<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 03:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think something like the requirement for DS notices for this 1RR would help resolve this issue? <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 05:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Magioladitis (November 2018)

 * Original discussion

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


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Magioladitis

 * 1) Am I allowed to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy?
 * 2) Am I allowed to do this task Village_pump_(miscellaneous)?

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)

Doug Weller ask permission to edit template namespace. The request in Village Pump says "We ask for your help in updating any templates that don't look correct." -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore i.e. I can comment in the bot policy page when it comes to other matters. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore Bots? I am not allowed to say that we need a bot to fix those? How I am supposed to file a bot request then? I am allowed to apply for BRFA's as far as I undertsand. Or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 21 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,, 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,  has mentioned COSMETICBOT. You should not participate in that portion of the discussion. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">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. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * if the edits you want to make "only introduces a cosmetic change (that is, where there is no substantive change made in the same edit)", then you are prohibited from doing so. Neither of these discussions lift the sanction placed against you. I would err on the side of caution and consider edits like this one to be only a cosmetic change to how the maintenance notice displays. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 21:21, 21 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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">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,, 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". &spades;PMC&spades; (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? &spades;PMC&spades; (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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


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


 * I agree with Mkdw. You can't comment on COSMETICBOT but you can comment on other material. Like PMC I'm confused by some of your questions - some of which don't seem ones we can answer. Are you asking us for permission to edit and if so to edit what? Doug Weller  talk 10:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mkdw summed it up best I think. You cannot comment on COSMETICBOT and should stay far away from that discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To add, I would say you can comment on the situation WITHOUT bringing up bots, or AWB ot any time of automated edit. Stay far away from those as you can. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (November 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 12:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * diff of notification TH1980


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88
 * <Stricken on appeal> or <Suspended for six months, after which it will lapse> (see below)

Statement by Hijiri88
(This is a drastically trimmed version, without extraneous diffs/permalinks/elaboration. I didn't think it was necessary to present multiple reasons other than "I don't want this anymore" when I first came here. Please see here for the earlier text, which including multiple replies to WTT went well over 1000 words.)

I want this IBAN removed for the following reasons:
 * It didn't properly serve its original intended purpose of protecting me from hounding. TH1980 continued going around reverting my edits (I was unable to report him without violating by separately but simultaneously imposed "Japanese culture" TBAN) for months until he was eventually TBANned himself. Since the community-imposed TBAN serves the function of preventing his hounding me more effectively than the original IBAN, the original IBAN is redundant.
 * Even now TH1980 is still clearly stalking my edits, as the diffs he presented below come from multiple unrelated discussions spread out over the two years since he and I last interacted, including my conflict with a sockpuppeteer/troll on the Game of Thrones articles, an area of the project he has never shown any interest in, and that conflict ended with the editor's being blocked in August 2017, since which time I've made over 10,000 edits. There's no way he found these diffs by going back and reviewing my edit history in response to me filing this appeal, but rather he was clearly monitoring my edits closely, constantly, for the last two years, and keeping a record of the stuff that he could use to make it look like I was violating or skirting my other restrictions. (Which restrictions, by the way, are not related to this IBAN, so his talking about them, even here in response to an IBAN appeal, is almost certainly not covered under BANEX.)
 * I have trouble talking about hounding/IBANs in general without running the risk of editors thinking I am skirting the boundaries of my IBAN.
 * I do not want to be subject to any unnecessary editing restrictions.
 * I do not want to have to think about TH1980 anymore, and his name appearing next to mine on WP:RESTRICT (a place a lot of editors seem to go to get information on editors they interact with on various noticeboards around the project; whether this is appropriate for them to be doing or not is irrelevant, as it is a simple fact that they do) forces me to from time to time. TH1980 (and some other stuff) made editing Wikipedia a fairly miserable experience for me in 2015, and being continuously subject to an editing restriction just because he wants me to be just doesn't seem healthy. I honestly don't think I can go on editing if I'm to be subjected to a permanent restriction because TH1980 hounded me, I requested an IBAN, and now he wants to keep the IBAN, apparently for no reason other than that I want it removed. (Note that TH1980 has never supported any proposal that I supported; this was the main form his original hounding took.)
 * I want to be able to edit the articles TH1980 followed me to, without having to worry about accidentally undoing one of his edits. On one occasion earlier this year, I was working on Korean influence on Japanese culture, came across some questionable text and tagged it, but on suspicion it was added by TH1980 I had to email another editor to rewrite or remove it, as, suspecting it might be related to TH1980 I was reluctant to do it myself. (Yes, I recently confirmed it was added by him, with a misleading edit summary, and said addition being a deliberate re-addition of text I had previously removed was itself an IBAN-violation, so as a ban-violation itself it probably needed to be undone regardless, but I can't do it.)
 * Multiple editors (one in particular, but he's not the only one) have brought up my IBAN with TH1980 in completely unrelated discussions on ANI and elsewhere, either when I was engaged in a conflict with another editor or when I simply commented on an ANI thread in which I was uninvolved (or reported a general problem on ANI, in which I had been previously uninvolved). They have done this in a manner that implies I was subjected to this IBAN because of my own disruptive behaviour, rather than because I made a specific request for an IBAN to protect me from harassment. I recognize that I was subject to other restrictions due to my own disruption, but those are not the ones under discussion. And even if I was still subject to those, I could respond by saying "Yeah, but..." with in however much detail as was necessary, but I can't say "That ban was put in place on my request because the other editor was hounding me", since mentioning the other editor in that fashion would generally be taken as an IBAN-violation in itself. (Diffs and quotes of some of this was sent by email to WTT.)

For the above reasons, I would very much like this IBAN removed, or at least amended in such a manner as to address the above issues.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * <Cut for length> I have not been subject to any kind of 1RR restriction, even a suspended one, for months. I am a little concerned that TH1980 thinks the IBAN will allow him to get away with complaining about my supposed edit-warring with someone more than a year ago. This kind of comment is almost certainly not covered under BANEX, regardless of whether it is taking place on ARCA. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn Okay, I know when to admit defeat. Maybe I'll take the blatant IBAN violations in TH1980's statement below to AE (including a fairly explicit admission to having followed my edits quite closely for the two years since being told not to last time I took him to AE). Or maybe ANI, since the TBAN violations (which are almost as blatant) can't be handled on AE. I'm not sure if I'm allowed report TBAN violations in cases like this: I know if they weren't also IBAN violations I couldn't, but in this case I would be reporting them as IBAN violations first, and mentioning as an aside that they are also TBAN violations. I'm also not sure if it's technically acceptable to report ArbCom remedy violations on ANI rather than AE; Catflap's ;ast logged-in TBAN-violations were, but that might have been an anomaly. Anyway, I'll have to figure out these issues (someone explicitly telling me would be nice) before moving forward. But I really can't see anyone telling me I am required to continue to put up with this. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Floq: What do you mean about criticizing the quality of the other person's edits? I was explaining how it came about that I reverted their edit back in 2015, before the IBAN was in place. I have not discussed the quality of any edits TH1980 has made since the IBAN was put in place (saying the edit summary was misleading is not an attack on the quality of the edit). Also, ANI is not my primary activity here, and I honestly have no idea where you would get that impression: my mainspace to WP: space edit ratio is roughly 3:1, and that includes a not-insignificant contribution to RSN and other content noticeboards, and AFD. I basically only hang around ANI when I am busy in real life and unable to do the research necessary to write good articles (or when I have a problem with a particular user, but I think my experience with both CurtisNaito in 2013-2015, and my experience with another editor earlier this year, should prove pretty handily that I only use ANI as an absolute last resort in those cases (CurtisNaito followed me around for over two years, and I never brought it to ANI, until he brought me to ANI, at which point I hadn't posted on ANI in so long that no one even knew who I was; this year I only brought another dispute to ANI after the other editor had repeatedly questioned my mental state). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "came across some questionable text" is not a reference to any specific edit but merely to a sentence of the article as I found it live; I didn't find out that it was written by TH1980 until almost a year later (earlier this week, while filing this report); and again, the questionable text in question was written several months before the IBAN was put in place. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TH1980
I'd prefer that my IBAN with Hijiri88 not be lifted. Just checking the diffs that were presented in the original Arbcom case, there are dozens of instances of Hijiri88 making false and harassing statements against me. (For example, ). There were also a lot of cases of Hijiri88 stalking me to articles that he had never edited before, just to revert reliably sourced and accurate information I had added. (For example, ). If Hijiri88 doesn't intend on continuing to engage in harassment or stalking, as he claims above, then there's really no reason to lift the IBAN.

Even in the text above, Hijiri88 is engaging in mischaracterization. As he points out, I did accidentally mention his name once, but I deleted that post within minutes, well before the AE case even opened. Hijiri88 left out the fact that in the same AE case, he was discovered to have mentioned me by name as well, in clear violation of the IBAN, and, in contrast, he did not delete these posts until after the AE case. He also claims that he amended a passage in the article about Korean influence on Japanese culture to better reflect the source, but that isn't true, since my passage was a direct, word-for-word quote from the original source. When I later expanded the article, I merely incidentally changed the direct quote to a paraphrase of the original, and that, of course, related to an edit Hijiri88 made long before the IBAN was imposed.

I suspect that lifting this IBAN could cause considerable disruption in the Wikipedia community. In the Arbcom case, Hijiri88 and Catflap08 received a mutual IBAN, which has now been lifted. However, if you look at Hijiri88's recent posts, he wastes an inordinate amount of Wikipedia community time calling Catflap08 "a NOTHERE troll, a tendentious POV-pusher, or too incompetent to read sources and accurately summarize what they say", posting a false claim on Catflap08's talk page that Catflap08 was blocked for harassing him (though a quick look at Catflap08's block record shows that that is clearly NOT the reason why he was blocked), ranting about Catflap08 at the administrator's noticeboard, and mentioning Catflap08 in other contexts. In other words, lifting an IBAN between Hijiri88 and another user is something we can't do lightly, as Hijiri88 uses that as an excuse to engage in a really egregious level of grave dancing. It would save the Wikipedia community's time if he remained unable to make similar harassing statements against me.

In general, I don't think Arbcom's enforcement of its decision has been very good. For example, Arbcom imposed a one-revert rule restriction on Hijiri88 as part of its original decision, but Hijiri88 doesn't appear to have ever truly abided by it. He simply asked other users to make the extra reverts for him.

I would like my IBAN to be preserved, and I hope that it will actually be enforced, unlike so much else of the original Arbcom case.TH1980 (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88 said above "the text might have been added by TH1980, and when I checked the history to confirm I had to email Nishidani to deal with it." Was this a violation of the IBAN? Is it appropriate for Hijiri88 to be e-mailing other users to have them make edits that he himself is unable to make due to the IBAN? I wouldn't mind an official ruling on this, because I am concerned about Arbcom's enforcement of its decision, and Hijiri88 was found in the Arbcom case to have repeatedly violated a previous IBAN with Catflap08. As seen above, was Hijiri88 allowed, as he did many times, to ask other users to make reverts that he could not make himself due to the one-revert rule restriction? Likewise, is Hijiri88 allowed to ask other users to revert edits that he himself cannot due to an IBAN?TH1980 (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
It would actually be useful if an Arb did answer Hijiri's revised question before this is closed. If they do, it might be useful to point out the hypocrisy of Hijiri's complaining the other editor has violated the i-ban in this request, when Hijiri has been doing the same thing (for one example, criticizing the quality of the other editor's edit). Hijiri should note that an admin might very well close such an AE request by unilaterally (no consensus required at AE) blocking him, so ANI (where consensus is required) would be safer for him. But at some point, I assume a critical mass of people are going to notice that Hijiri gets involved in conflict All. The. Time. It's his primary activity here. Who knows, perhaps the coming ANI thread will be the place where this happens. An Arb might be able to save him from himself by pointing this out here, before the thread is closed as withdrawn. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Replying to (and pinging  because it affects them too) "...came across some questionable text and tagged it, but on suspicion it was added by TH1980 I had to email another editor to rewrite or remove it..."; describing it that way strikes me as much a iban violation as TH1980's similar violations (with the added concern that asking someone else to make the edit for you was a violation of the iban as well). IMHO, you're both violating your iban here, and if it didn't look like this request was about to be archived, I would have suggested an arb or clerk warn you both to stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:41, 29 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.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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



Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm generally unwilling to lift a 2-way IBAN when one party is against it and I'm not seeing a strong need for Hijiri88 to have it lifted, so I'm a decline <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite Hijiri88 - it was made to a two-way IBAN because 1-way IBANs do not work well. Simply, IBANs are useful when users don't get along for a long period, and that's what's happened here. As I say, if there is an IBAN in place, and one user wants it to stay - there needs to be a damn good reason for me to agree to its dismissal. There isn't one here. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The restriction you refer to is specifically leaving someone alone, someone who you believe has hounded you in the past. They are similarly restricted. This allows you to get on and edit, and him to get on and edit, and everyone else to... get on and edit. The rhetoric of having a "target painted on your head" doesn't help your cause - there's no target unless you can't leave the editor alone. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I too think it best to leave the ban in place. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a need to lift the ban at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88 has withdrawn their ARCA request and so I think this can be closed. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 00:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (November 2018)

 * Original discussion

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


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Statement by Petrarchan47
I am appealing this action by Drmies: ​

Background:


 * KingofAces43 opened an WP:AE​ case against me. ​​


 * The majority of the community weighed in on my side​.


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


 * After ​Sandstein closed the case ,
 * Drmies reopened it. ​

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". 

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


 * I have struck mention of WP:ADMINACCT as unnecessary.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes I am appealing my topic ban, with a focus on the reopening of my AE case which violates this DS rule:
 * Dismissed requests may not be reopened. However, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee
 * This procedure was not followed.


 * I am not precluding other issues being considered, such as the severity of AGK's determination.

''Note: There has been considerable activity in my case over the last 24 hours. I would appreciate if you wait to close this case until I have responded further.''   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I managed to have completely missed the note on my talk page; my apologies. I really don't have much to say. This is an attempt to get something undone by way of a technicality, that some procedure was not followed or was broken--it seems to me that there is already broad agreement that this simply doesn't apply. For starters, there's Sandstein's "This does not prevent you from taking action if, unlike me, you believe it is warranted." More importantly, in my opinion, is the suggestion that everything is covered, or should be covered, by procedure. BTW, I think the community should be pleased that admins are willing to disagree and to consider and reconsider matters, and that more admins are willing to step up to the plate: all of us are making a small number of admins, including Sandstein, pull all the weight at AE. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Petrarchan: it's funny, but years and years ago, before I was an admin myself, I'd watch these candidates get asked at RfA, "when would you invoke IAR"? And I literally had NO idea, thinking the rules captured most if not everything, and IAR was only used to keep stuff that was deleted at AfD or something. Silly, huh. Now, if it is the judgment of the committee that indeed this little bit of procedure, this complaint, is valid, and that that would vacate the topic ban, I'd think it would be a good candidate for IAR, but I also think that this entire matter will either be appealed or pop up again at AE, and that it will turn out that while you thought you were building something here, you were actually digging a hole. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
First, linking to instants in the discussion gives an incomplete picture. Here is the full enforcement thread.

Appellant argues that per this principle in a case decision, enforcement requests are carved in stone if an administrator hats it. Such a rule would be finicky, even for Wikipedia arbitration. Mercifully, decision principles are not binding. The actual rule is that requests are dismissed with a consensus of uninvolved administrators.

When the request was first closed, 1 administrator supported acting and 1 did not. Consensus: absent. Once a consensus emerged, 2 administrators favoured action and 1 was ambivalent. Consensus: existed. I think what happened between times is irrelevant. AGK &#9632;  20:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I agree with 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> 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).
 * Wot's ADMINACCT got to do with it? ——  SerialNumber  54129  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 Atsme
,, , , , Herein the confusion lies, and I request that the arbs please explain how they or any other admin can overrule the following Arbitration decision: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement
 * 6.1) Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened. In these cases, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, but care should be taken that this only be done when appropriate. Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return. Passed 9 to 0 at 8:25 pm, 23 August 2015, Sunday (3 years, 3 months, 3 days ago) (UTC−5)

We are dealing with a rather important decision that was made by ArbCom and I see no justification for changing that decision. Are you now saying that Sandstein did not dismiss an enforcement request because what I read was that, technically, he did dismiss it when he specifically stated that he did not agree the evidence was convincing and closed the case which is an administrative action. He also stated that the "reported diffs are confrontative, but they are mostly about content, not other users. Because no admin has taken action so far, and the thread is being used for what look like pointless recriminations, which I do not intend to read, I'm closing the thread now."  That action was technically an administrative action of closing the case. I am excluding the ping to Drmies because anything stated after the decision to close is in opposition to the ArbCom ruling. We cannot keep pulling these stunts - and yes, that's what I believe has happened here and it has a chilling effect. For one thing, it is not fair to the accused to be endlessly drug through the mud only to survive and have another admin with a different POV drop the blade on the guillotine​. That's as close to double indemnity as it gets and it's just plain wrong. When an admin has used their discretionary judgment based on the merits of a case and what other admins apparently​ have agreed to by their silence, and the finding of fact is that no action should be taken - well, that is the close; i.e. the dismissal of the case and as such no other admin can reopen it regardless of what the closing admin stated after his closing argument. Where does it say that an admin may close a case but allow others to take whatever action they deem appropriate when it involves DS?? Such an action is completely opposite of the ArbCom decision. I'm asking the arbs I've pinged to please show me the exact ruling that allows such a close to be overturned once it has been formally closed as no action. This case was not heard at AN/I or AN - it was heard at AE which to me means the decisions made by ArbCom should prevail. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 01:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PMK, please show me specifically where it states what you believe to be applicable in this case. I included the actual finding of fact decision by ArbCom and feel that if what you believe is true, it will be in writing somewhere. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 01:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Further clarifying - where does it say an admin can overrule a decision by ArbCom? ArbCom stated unequivocally that Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened.  It's black and white - no ifs, ands or buts - there is nothing in that decision that even suggests a case can be reopened and overturned...not even a hint...the admin executed an enforcement action and dismissed it. Period, the end.  Whatever he says after that is not applicable because it would be a violation of the ruling.  Had Sandstein said something along the line of I disagree with the arguments, the evidence is unconvincing...yada yada...and I hereby concede to let others make the final decision and close the case.  That is not what happened - he closed the case - and Drmies reopened it despite ArbCom's clear decision that once a case is closed it may not be reopened.  I am not aware of any amendments or changes to that decision. If there are, please show me. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 02:05, 25 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. 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)
 * There are several named parties to this ARCA that have yet to provide statement. I would like to hear from some of them before making a decision. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read this a few times now, and Petrarchan47, am I to understand that you're not appealing the GMO topic ban per se, but in fact appealing the "re-opening" of the thread? I assume, with the hope that if we confirm the thread should not have been re-opened, then the ban wouldn't have happened, and therefore can be dismissed. Well, no - I have no issue with the thread being re-opened, there had been little discussion and Sandstein closed as such, explicitly allowing for Drmies (or any other admin) to take action. If he'd closed as "clearly no violation", that might be different. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues, Sandstein closed the thread specifically allowing other admins to modify the outcome at their discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As do I. I don't see grounds for granting the appeal.  Doug Weller  talk 17:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Same; Sandstein explicitly closed the thread to allow for later modification, so it's not invalid. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I would argue that Sandstein used the discretion afforded to administrators in handling AE requests to specifically leave room for Drmies (or someone else) to reopen the thread. Just as we respect an admin's discretion in crafting situationally-specific sanctions, we should also respect an admin's decision to close with a situationally-specific caveat, as was done here. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment - Sandstein exercised his judgment to dismiss the thread while explicitly carving out an opening for Drmies to exercise his judgment if he disagreed with Sandstein's. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That principle is obviously intended to prevent situations like the one that resulted in the case you're quoting, where one admin unilaterally (ie without the consent of the dismissing admin) overruled a dismissal and blocked someone for a month. It is clear in this case that Drmies did have the prior consent of the dismissing admin, so his action was hardly a unilateral reversal. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with my fellow admins. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)