Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3

Statement by MrX
Arbcom should swiftly decline this case. There is no evident pattern of long-term WP:ADMIN abuse or tool misuse. Malik Shabazz seems to have reacted to perceived harassment by another user. The community has not been afforded the opportunity to address the concerns in this complaint, as is the usual process defined at WP:ADMIN. I would also add that it's silly to redact Malik's comments on ANI, yet bare them for the world to see here.- MrX 01:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As an ordinary member of this community, I'm stunned by the suggestion that Arbcom should discuss de-sysoping in private, and equally disheartened to see that some committee members have apparently already made up their minds to permanently de-sysop. The subject of this case has not even been given to opportunity to answer publicly, or to have his response examined by the community. Please help me understand under what policy Arbom derives the authority to circumvent the consensus established dispute resolution processes? - MrX 03:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I understand the need to temporarily de-sysop an account that may have been compromised, or when we fear that someone is going berserk and might break the internets. Setting that aside, my comments about due process and transparency stand.- MrX 03:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by non-party Zero0000
I'm an administrator whose editing interests have overlapped with Malik Shabazz's for a long time. Malik Shabazz has been an excellent contributor to the encyclopedia for many years, so it is sad to see him lose control as he did here. I hope that he will be given the opportunity to resume editing after a break. Just one comment on the evidence: a case for misuse of administrator tools needs to be made more carefully than it has been. Ceradon's list contains examples that are not misuse (the first diff: if an administrator improperly uses an offensive edit summary, then revdelling it should be his next edit), and examples not requiring administrator tools or done by someone else. Zerotalk 02:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know his motive, but you don't either and we shouldn't assume malice without evidence. On principle, something offensive should remain in the encyclopedia for as little time as possible. Of course he shouldn't have written the edit summary in the first place, but after he did so deleting it was proper, even required. Zerotalk 02:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the haste here. One hour and 14 minutes between filing and desysopping. Doesn't Malik even get an opportunity to speak in his own defence? Zerotalk 02:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Further to this, I understand better after Courcelle's comments. I hope that any permanent action will be taken with much less urgency, giving Malik adequate time to make a defence. Actually he has been one of the best editors I've interacted with and I believe that a careful review of his administrative activities will show that, with the possible exception of the past day or two, he has been a good administrator.  I'll also mention one matter that probably escaped the attention of a few here: Malik is Jewish (userbox). Words that are shocking in most circumstances can be unexceptional invective within the tribe (think of the 'n' word as used between African-Americans). Whether that holds here, I don't know; just give him a chance. Zerotalk 03:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of socks, there is a matter we shouldn't forget. Israeli newspapers have documented well-funded programs to teach people how to "promote the image of Israel on the internet". Some fraction of the new users who pop up with suspiciously good pre-existing Wikipedia skills might not be socks at all, but rather graduates of courses that taught them such skills. Zerotalk 02:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Avi, sorry but I don't accept that. AGF applies to individuals, not to generic observation of an area of Wikipedia. Of course there are also pop-up new editors with a Palestinian perspective, but they are much fewer and almost always comparatively inept. In both cases, they get the benefit of AGF until they prove they don't deserve it. Anyway, do you really think that a Yahoo group is analogous to a government-funded program? Zerotalk 04:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Avi, I frankly don't know what you are talking about. I did not accuse any person of anything, all I did was report what was in the news. My statement was aimed at those, most of whom you would consider to be on my side of the fence, who always cry "sock" when a new user with already-mature skills comes along. Often they turn out to be right, but I expect that sometimes they are not right. The discussion amongst arbitrators here is moving towards a general review of the I/P area. Perhaps I should wait until the review is officially underway, but I'm perfectly entitled to mention one factor that I suspect plays a significant part. The example I mentioned was the only one I can document; if you know of others feel free. Zerotalk 05:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Your analysis of "sonny boy" is off-target. Yes, it is a phrase that can be used as term of endearment, to a child, a loved one, etc, but none of that applies to its use towards a stranger in a hostile situation. It is like "honey", which is common between lovers and from a parent to a child, but if you use it to a woman who is a stranger engaged in a dispute with you, she will be offended and call you a sexist pig. I know nothing of the practical use of "sonny boy" in a racial situation, but I don't see the slightest reason to doubt that Malik was offended by it. It would have been obvious to him, and it should be obvious to you, that the term was not intended to connote endearment. I advise you very strongly to not try it out on black strangers. Zerotalk 13:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, what I did was try to make editors aware of the facts pertaining to the term 'sonny boy', not anecdotal or regional experiences just the facts and that is 'sonny boy' is not as far I have researched, a racist term. Twobells''t@lk 15:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Writ Keeper
I'd like to note two things. First, Malik's revdel of the 8th was done at Brad Dyer's request. Not strictly correct, perhaps, but not something I'd hold against them, either.

Second, I feel that it's important to note that there was (imo) clear provocation from Brad here. Brad accused Malik of directly copying from a source, which is a serious accusation that wasn't true (it was actually added here). I would argue that the opening shots in this exchange came from Brad, with his condescending (to say the least) "sonny boy" here. Add that with the recent history between these two, and I'd say it's pretty clear that Brad was just looking for an excuse to pounce on Malik, and this was the next thing that came along.

Not that any of this excuses or even much mitigates what Malik said, or should interrupt the level 1 procedure here (which I personally think might be hasty but that's to one side); I'd just like it on the record that this didn't happen in a vacuum. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved EvergreenFir
The use of racial and ethnic slurs in this manner should be ground for immediate removal of tools.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

First a handful of cases of sexual harassment and now one of racial harassment. When are we going to fix WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS and actually implement it? If you want stuff like this to stop then do something about it and stop opposing every effort to address it. The discussion on HARASS after LB's case is all but dead in the water. Suggestions to the community in a proposed decision won't do anything more than the nothing it's already done. We need strong enforcement and strong protections against this.
 * Do you have any concrete suggestions for an alternative way forward? We are prohibited from creating or imposing policies ourselves. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A strong position statement from arbcom and action from WMF come to mind. But as long as people block any attempt to recognize the project's problem with identity-based harassment and insist that all harassment is equal, we're not going to get anywhere with consensus alone. We'll just keep losing editors and retaining those who benefit from the harassment.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
Wow, sometimes ArbCom works really quickly, and in this case unnecessarily so. You can't desysop like this for an insult, and the abuse of tools is singular: one revdel, in anger of course, just one, and no suggestion of a pattern. Not even a second abusive tool usage. I'm also puzzled by the suggestive rhetoric of "what else has he hidden", a phrase used by the filer--well, that's easy: you have admin glasses, Ceradon, and you can see what he has hidden, so there can be no question here. I find it sad that Malik did what he did, and I also find this whole circus wholly unnecessary. It's like Human Resources is looking over our shoulder constantly, and we are more than happy to rat each other out with these procedures--do you all not remember we're supposed to be colleagues here? (Someone commented that racial abuse is grounds for a desysop--surely that person knows how "sonny boy" must have been intended in this case.) Malik, I'm sorry.
 * After some more arbs have weighed in, I still am not convinced how we (you) extrapolated from one single clear error in judgment to the suspicion that this would be an ongoing pattern. One strike and you're out? Drmies (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * no, no cloud. No cloud. A hastily performed temporary emergency desysop which, as seems to be more and more clear, was unnecessary, that's not a cloud. Malik should never have been desysopped in the first place. At the risk of repeating myself, I still am not convinced how we extrapolated from one single clear error in judgment...etc. There was no pressing need to desysop him--and I have no idea why anyone thinks that was a good idea, even though it was supported by some people who generally have good sense. But all of this does only one thing, and that's to ensure that Malik won't be back. Here we are, figuring out whether he was just temporarily insane or is at risk of habitual tool abuse, patronizing the fuck out of him and making ourselves look like asses. All of those involved or being witness last night, including me, should have blocked that baiter. We're all cowards, inasmuch as we knew it in a timely manner, for not acting on that, and instead focusing on the aftermath, which could have been prevented. No, no cloud, except for ours. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I support that "bad evening" proposal of yours--if only your actions, and of some others, hadn't made it necessary. And if you're going to write it, please make it sound as little patronizing as possible: it wasn't just Malik who was having a bad evening. ArbCom was at the wheel, with eyes wide shut. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , "not unprovoked" is a good candidate for understatement of the year. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender
I recommend not accepting this case. Malik Shabazz is the most gentle, reasonable, forgiving, and harmless editor, never mind admin, I have ever seen or come across on Wikipedia. He also endures, without complaint, a nearly daily and non-stop onslaught of racial and ethnic slurs and abuse (check the revert and also revdel list on his talk and user pages), for being black and for being Jewish, and for editing circumspectly on controversial pages on Judaism, Muslim and Arab issues (which he also has an interest in because of his stated interest in Malcolm X), other ethnic conflicts, and pages on black figures or issues, etc. Thus far, to my knowledge, he has endured all of this without a single complaint or drop in civility, until apparently just now. Obviously a breach of civility and revdel parameters occurred, but this short-term lapse in judgment after enduring years of abuse is not worthy of an ArbCom case or a de-sysopping. Merely a warning should suffice. If this were a longterm pattern, that would be another thing entirely, but this is a singularly out-of-character short-term blow-up and misjudgment. Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Your cherry-picking of four edit summaries without any context at all, out of 8 years of exemplary and thankless service mainly in anti-vandalism in highly troublesome areas, and enduring near-daily racial, ethnic, and religious slurs, is not "sustained incivility". Calling out relentless trolls on their bullshit is not incivility in my opinion, especially after the trolls' repeated attempts to game the situation. The f-word is only used twice, once on Malik's own talk page when removing trolling. I've heard it said, and done, by admins (including at least one of the admins opining on this page), that one is allowed to say "Fuck off" in an edit summary on your own talk page when removing trollish posts. I'd invite you to examine the years of abuse that Malik has received on his talk page, but you wouldn't be able to view most of it because most of it has been revdelled by admins. Softlavender (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that this will influence your position, but you do realize that Malik Shabazz is Jewish, right? By religion, by ethnicity, and by birth: both of his parents are Jewish (one is Ashkenazi, one is black -- statement here). Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, you haven't even broken the standards that you linked to, in my opinion: User:Malik Shabazz/Recall. If you are reading some sort of inviolable Olympian ideal into the word "appropriate", then you've set yourself above mere mortals and expected yourself to be a god or a superhuman or a saint or an angel. I think most everybody here who knows the details of your eight years of difficult, much-assailed, and unstinting service would call your conduct "understandable". And extremely short-lived (not an actionable pattern). No one in existence has never done something "inappropriate". By God, you've forced me to drag out an impromptu sermon I wrote when another admin "retired". Please read: starting at sentence three. And please give yourself a ******* break: You are not made of stone, and you are not superhuman, a saint, or a robot, as much as you might like to be any one of those. Come back and resume your service; to deprive us of it over some unreasonable expectation of perfection is ... unreasonable. Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ivanvector
I believe I'm uninvolved although I did comment at ANI that I endorsed (as a non-administrator) Chillum's initial block of Malik. Given that Malik was abusing the tools to edit through a block and restore revdeleted personal attacks, the level I desysop was absolutely warranted, however I encourage the Committee to decline this case at this time. It seems obvious that Brad Dyer's pointy behaviour and his own use of thinly-veiled racial epithets (per Drmies) were the opening salvo in this exchange, which somehow pushed one of our most level-headed admins to completely and rapidly self destruct. Of course that doesn't excuse Malik's behaviour, which would be appalling from any user but especially from an admin, but with the temporary desysop and both users on an enforced holiday, these issues are for the moment resolved. I agree with other users who have said here and at WP:ANI that if Malik's regrettable but isolated misstep resulted in permanently losing admin rights, that would be an overreaction and a net loss to the project. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the motion: as a matter of process, Malik should not be resysopped if he intends to retire. If I may: suggest amending the motion to read: "1. Malik Shabazz is hereby resysopped and  reminded that use of the tools while blocked is prohibited." (changes in green) I don't believe this alters the spirit of the motion, and I, like others, hope that Malik does decide to return. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The idea of limiting certain topic areas to editors with a higher number of edits is not new. I came across a discussion some time ago on a page which had a restriction requiring something like users at least 30 days old with at least 200 edits (a much higher bar than 4 days/10 edits). Of course I can't remember where that was now or I would link to it; hopefully someone else watching this maelstrom recognizes what I'm talking about. I'd be interested to hear if that has helped to calm the environment there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken
Very little to say here:
 * My observation of and limited experience with Malik Shabazz have been uniformly positive. This appears to be a fairly singular incident, albeit a rather serious one, and ArbCom should take his exemplary editing and administrating history into account.
 * Neverthless, I endorse the temporary desysopping. Under the circumstances it was warranted and justified.
 * I believe the the Committee should accept a full case to delve into the circumstances of the provocations of Brad_Dyer towards Malik Shabazz. Since the case might end up in a permanent desysopping (although I don't think it will and don't believe it should), it can't be handled by the community, or, rather, if the community handles it it will probably just wind up here anyway. BMK (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a little weird how this case requested mutated into a review of the P/I circumstance. I hope the committee is able to make some headway there, although the ongoing situation in the RW might be a good indication of the difficulty of doing so. On the other hand, if ArbCom is able to come up with something new, maybe it could be applied to RL. BMK (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dave Dial
It's as if nobody on ArbCom knows Malik. I agree that his actions deserve a block, and if a continued use of the tools, a temporary desysop. But Malik has been one of the best and most level headed admins on the project. This seems to be a very hasty response with little to no thought about the individual and the character of that individual. Dave Dial (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Uggg, so ArbCom must accept this 'case' and further deliberate to death what should be dealt with using patience and common sense? By all means, don't wait a few days for some of the heat to die down. Bahhh. There is no pattern of this type of behavior, there is no need to examine the intricacies of the whys and hows. It's obvious. Sorry, this will be my last comment here. I respect ArbCom members volunteering their time for the project, but..... Dave Dial (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Avraham
I try not to get involved in Arbcom discussions, but I feel compelled to speak, if only as a character reference. I have dealt with Malik for many years now—often on actuarial related topics, sometimes on Judaism or Israel related topics. We often do not agree, but he has, to the best of my recollection, always comported himself with dignity, class, and great reserve. He has done so for years, even dealing in some of the more tendentious areas of the encyclopedia. As I can best understand it, in this instance, his prodigious patience ran out. So, yes, he was actively violating the civility norms; unquestionably. For that he was blocked as a protective measure to prevent further escalation. Similarly, the talk page block was appropriate.

My concern is for the apparent rush to desysop. As noted in the original request, Malik has been an admin for 8 years, and an active one for that time. I am of the firm belief that no admin should get any special treatment just for being a member of that class. I am of the same level of belief that every editor needs to be judged in the context of his or her history, regardless of class. Malik is not a problem editor; nor is he is a problem admin. Just the opposite. This week, though, Malik lost his temper, his cool, his reserve, and his will-power, and let his frustration, anger, and emotion get the better of his common sense and good judgment. That is not desysop-worthy in my opinion. A reminder that as an admin he should act as befits an officer and a gentleman is warranted. Perhaps an outright warning as well, but a knee-jerk desysop of someone whose years of history and tens of thousands of civil and respectful edits—content and maintenance both—would be punitive and not preventative, and giving one incident out-sized weight, in my opinion. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Malik's retirement is clearly a net loss for the project. If anything positive comes out of this fiasco, it is my opinion that it should be 1) that we finally put our money where our mouths are and civility should be enforced and 2) as social construct, common sense and wisdom should temper rote bureaucracy. -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, this case is a counter-example to what I meant when I said A measured response was called for, not an emergency desysop. I believe even a cursory review of Malik's history would indicate that he was not going to cause any immediate disruption to Wikipedia, which is the purpose of an emergency desysop. -- Avi (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I echo and re-echo 's frustration and would urge ArbCom to use this incident as a springboard to implement some real cleanup of the most difficult areas of Wikipedia, with a focus on cleaning up the SPA/Troll/Attack accounts on all sides. I don't know if an edit count minimum is the right way to go; if anything, I'm afraid that caters to those who know how to work our system. Perhaps something like a 1-strike and you're topic banned for a week for certain violations. 3RR would probably not be one, as it's easy to get caught up, but ad hominem attacks, or even insulting throw-away comments would result in a wide-area topic ban. Refusing to use the talk page is another. Put serious repercussions on the behaviours that prevent, if not collegial, then at least cordial editing. -- Avi (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Per about failing his own recall criteria, I think he has made a public decleration that were he ever to want to be an admin again, he volunteers to undergo RfA. -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I find, Zero, to be a striking example of assuming bad faith. Automatically assuming that any new editor whose point of view isn't Palestinian is a plant aimed at violating Wikipedia's policies is something I find rather distasteful. Also, there is evidence of the same from the other side (such as Pallywood and that yahoo group years ago which was formed specifically to edit articles from a Palestinian perspective). If you have suspicions that someone is a sock of a blocked/banned user, by all means, drop the hammer. Otherwise, everyone needs to be given the assumption of good faith, whether you agree with them or not, so long as they do not violate Wikipedia policies. We may not have to agree with each others' opinions, but we need to work collaboratively as best possible. Painting people you disagree automatically without proof does not foster collaboration. -- Avi (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the venue to discuss the various attempts by governments, quasi-governmental entities, local new organizations, or the like, to influence the I/P area. One can make the case that there are multiple Arab governments funding initiatives to color the narrative as well. As I said, irrelevant. Your statement can be taken as a form of poisoning the well against individual editors with whom you disagree. That is counter the policy of AGF and the spirit of collaboration which is necessary on Wikipedia, and especially necessary in this most contentious of areas. Again, if you have evidence that someone is violating Wikipedia policy and guideline, you know I will be first in line to protect the project, regardless of political opinion. But I reiterate that poisoning the well and the assumption of bad faith against new editors without any evidence is improper and counter to how we are all supposed to act here. And that is even if you are correct that 1) there is no difference between a public relations campaign and outright propaganda and 2) there is no similar campaign from the other side. As neither of those statements is necessarily true, honesty and integrity demand we treat everyone with the same respect so long as they do not violate our rules. And yes, blocked/banned editors (of any political persuasion) trying to evade their sanction is a clear violation. -- Avi (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I do not argue that there are people with pro-Israeli positions who abuse Wikipedia. My concern is that there seems to be a theory that every "new" pro-Israeli contributor is a government plant and should be blocked on sight as opposed to new Pro-Palestinian editors. I think we are both in agreement that 1) there are serious and reasonable concerns from both sides that articles are improperly slanted and they should be corrected and 2) there are people who want to use Wikipedia as a platform to further their own political agendas or slander those who disagree with them. We need to support the former and hinder the latter. I think has a valid point where he says that most new users, from both sides, are probably not political warriors, but people whose own understanding of the conflict does not jibe with Wikipedia's, and they are trying to correct the articles. With these people, directing them to Wikipedia's pillars and some background on this morass would be helpful. If we know someone is a socks (like Brad), they should be blocked on sight. -- Avi (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just bringing that as an example of there being issues on both sides; I know it's defunct and not a threat now. I also agree that the Israeli side is more "open" about their intent; or, at least, there are more articles about it in "mainstream" press as points out. Then again, it is not inconceivable to state that "mainstream" press is more left-leaning (Ha'aretz) and less "affectionate" of Israel (The Guardian). But it doesn't matter. 1) People who violate our principles and guidelines should be sanctioned, period. 2) Assuming anyone "new", or new to the area, has a diabolical plan to mislead Wikipedia is improper and an assumption of bad faith. You, I, Sean,,  all had to start somewhere; we were all new to the I/P conflict once upon a time. If you or Zero would have been "assumed plants" and blocked, just because you exhibited 1) knowledge of the conflict 2) knowledge of Wikipedia and 3) a point of view, that would have been a net loss. While we may have differing opinions on many of the underlying issues, I maintain that the "collegial tension" helps to balance Wikipedia properly, so that NPOV is maintained, and I appreciate your (collective) work, and the fact that you are open to bettering the project as opposed to POV-warrioring. So, Huldra, I agree with you that a suspected sock of a banned/blocked editor should probably be checked for sleepers as soon as they are blocked. That, in my understanding, is clearly allowed to protect the project. (I personally haven't done much checking in the past two years, as I am on the Ombudsman commission, so for propriety, I am trying to refrain so as to be able to handle cases (if any) from EnWiki. I probably will not return to active Enwiki CU duty until March 2016) However, I maintain that 's point of view—assuming ill intent a priori to pro-Israeli editors because there is more "open" discussion of these editors—goes against our core policy of assuming good faith. Moreover, it serves to alienate a group of editors who, with some education and information, may quickly learn our policies and guidelines and bolster the ranks of the "good" editors in this area. Someone who continues to deliberately ignore our policies and guidelines, despite respectful attempts to educate them, should be, in my opinion, subject to escalating topic bans if not worse. -- Avi (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If your intent is that we should extend to every new editor the same courtesy and short leash, and your recount of your experience was just that, and not for supporting a different standard, then I misread you, gladly stand corrected, and tender my apologies for my misunderstanding. -- Avi (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
I wonder which banned/blocked ethno-nationalist extremist admins are facilitating this time. Given Brad Dyer's passive aggressive nature and his whiny fucker-ness, he looks a lot like NoCal100 to me. But I guess he could be any of a number of the worst kind of Israel supporters attracted to Wikipedia who obsessively return here with the community's de facto blessing. Either way, in ARBPIA, the probability that he is a sock is certainly greater than 50%, thanks to Wikipedia's pathetically weak and time wasting defense against sockpuppetry, apparently willful blindness and tolerance for day to day POV pushing and community willingness to collaborate through discussion with liars, racists, ultranationalists, people who support ethnic cleansing etc. This is what happens when there is an almost complete lack of policing of the ARBPIA topic area coupled with the profoundly foolish and counterproductive notion that it even remotely resembles a collaborative, collegiate environment, a mantra stupidly repeated by admins over and over again. I was lucky enough to go to collage. Don't remember it being infested with sociopathic piece of shit excuses for human beings. The reality is that about half of the editors active in ARBPIA, often the most active editors, are ethno-nationalist extremists or thereabouts, who the community, for the most part, pretty much allows to get away with their abusive misuse of the site. Good people, highly involved admins like Malik, could make the topic area a genuinely collaborative collegiate environment by getting rid of the many truly appalling people who come here to advocate by simply blocking them on sight - it's easy to recognize people who come to Wikipedia to advocate. But instead Malik's 'involved' hands are tied and he is subjected to Wikipedia's weak and pointless version of tar and feathers. One day admins will need to face up to the reality that they have lost control of an entire topic area and that it has consequences.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'll wager that 'Brad Dyer' (who I assume is NoCal100 - but what difference does it make really), has highlighted the futility of blocks, topic bans, this discussion, and the existence of admins by simply switching to the reactivated EscEscEsc account. Give it up guys, you are wasting your time. Better to shut ARBPIA down like an unsafe work place (it's only a few thousand articles) and bring it back when there are tools available that effectively protect people and content.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

, this may interest you. A while back I tried to have a look at socking, 500 edit limits, AGF and the effects of semi-protection for a prominent ARBPIA article. It's debatable whether any useful conclusions can be drawn from the results given the small sample size, but I'm not sure whether you have seen it before. One of the banned/blocked editors at that time is still active of course (via both registered accounts and multiple IPs). You just reverted them here, Buenos Aires based Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim at the article that started this whole thing with Malik. Malik is gone, AndresHerutJaim a racist, ultra-nationalist sociopath who lies without hesitation (but is very civil on wiki - civility being a valuable tool to manipulate people), is still here.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (Just for other users, the relevant permalinks are: this and this.) Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

, I've uploaded results for 2 more articles for what it's worth (not much), 2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing ( pdf) and Operation Damocles (pdf). Regarding "if we look at a set of articles, the first probability [sock] will likely stay the same or decrease, but the second one [non-sock] is likely to increase", I really have no idea, but I'm guessing that the figures for a large set of articles would have a large variance. I don't know what I think about the 500 edit requirement anymore. It would probably prevent some innocent well meaning people acting in good faith from editing (people who actually deserve civility and all the good things Wikipedia has to offer), but maybe that's a good thing because the reality is that Wikipedia can't provide a safe and collaborative environment for those kinds of people right now. There's a duty of care, I would hope, and no one should have to collaborate with (or hunt) sociopaths and fanatics simply because they want to edit a tiny part of a very large encyclopedia. More importantly though, like you, I don't think it would work, but I've been wrong thousands of times. I don't think it would work because I don't think 'Wikipedia' really understands and appreciates the creeping normality in ARBPIA, the widespread casual fanaticism, ultra-nationalism and undercurrent of bigotry that fuels the fire. I would get rid of anonymity and allow involved admins to do as they please, and accept that there will be mistakes/collateral damage - whatever it takes to get the topic area under control.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

, I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I agree that WP:GLUE is a good essay, too good for ARBPIA I suspect. Problem is, I used to be like you. Now I'm not. One thing leads to another and after a few years in ARBPIA you are asking yourself, "I wonder how Colonel Walter E. Kurtz would resolve this conundrum, he seemed like a pretty reasonable guy". I don't subscribe to the view that WP:AGF and civility are nice things anymore. My experience in ARBPIA is that the people who hold pretty reprehensible and/or foolish views and act on those in ways that degrade the content and cause conflict and disruption usually do so in good faith. For me, AGF and civility are also too often collaborating with the enemy and appeasement because in ARBPIA WP:NOTBATTLE is not true. With views like this I can't edit in the topic area anymore. As for AGF with socks/trolls, and other techniques to reveal tells, I think if a content editor has to waste even a few minutes of their life dealing with socks/trolls/POV pushers, Wikipedia has failed to protect the topic area and the editor should probably do something else until things are fixed. How many edits have you managed to make in ARBPIA so far? NGO Monitor made 3,874 (identified in part thanks to Malik), the socks of banned and blocked users have made tens of thousands and will no doubt make tens of thousands more regardless of how much time editors spend dealing with them, unless something changes.

On your second point, I think your are right about the way (genuine) new contributors are added to the WP editor pool, but you are a rarity, and in ARBPIA, editors who try to comply with content policy will be treated as pro-Palestinian activists because apparently reality has a well-known pro-Palestinian bias.

On your third point, I think the number of new editors unsuited to ARBPIA, editors with what I regard as a conflict of interest (but Wikipedia apparently doesn't), editors with puzzling beliefs like Israelis and Palestinians having a different intrinsic value, has always exceeded and will always exceed the number of editors genuinely suited to ARBPIA. So, for me it should (unfortunately) be about brutally suppressing the bad and hoping the good editors will flourish. This is something I've never understood at all by the way - why won't editors stay away from topics that they cannot possibly edit without convolving their views with the article? Why is the wording of Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles so wishy-washy? Why doesn't anyone care that it has been completely ignored for years? When we first moved here we used to live at the Wireless road end of block that was bombed in Bangkok this week. I've walked past the shrine countless times of course. Am I editing the article about the bombing? No way. That would be dumb, as would editing any topic where I have a conflict of interest because of strong personal views or things where I might forget that I'm not a reliable source. I think this is one of the fundamental problems in ARBPIA, conflict of interest (in good or bad faith, it doesn't matter which in practice) and the misplaced belief that systemic problems get fixed, when in fact, they don't, they get worse. The editor pool is perhaps large enough already. I think the ARBCOM mandated Requests for comment/Jerusalem case showed that sanity and policy can prevail (together with a couple of other rare examples) when the community acts and drowns out editors unsuited to ARBPIA. But even there, so much time was wasted dealing with people saying pointless things (in good faith) because they personally believed those things to be true, people with a very clear conflict of interest.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

et al, I'm skeptical about the significance of the various recruitment drives/training programs intended to correct the anti-Semitic pro-Arab lies in Wikipedia that demonize Israel and dehumanize Israelis by reflecting the content of reliable sources according to policy, rather than using apparently better pro-Israel sources, including ethno-nationalist extremist NGOs who do such fine work. I haven't personally seen what I would regard as decent evidence of those efforts significantly impacting on ARBPIA's demographics or the bearing of its political compass. I think Kingsindian's story is probably the norm, people mostly wandering into ARBPIA or something in the press or Wikipedia catching their eye. I don't think you need to recruit and train people to advocate anyway because, puzzlingly, they do it naturally. Wikipedia isn't technically challenging for young devotees I guess, it allows people to advocate for the truth as they see it in every edit they make and can't stop them from doing it even if it wanted to. I agree that people misidentify some new editors as socks, but I think that is perhaps because those editors consistently (and often ignorantly and/or offensively) advocate for their cause in a way that to long-term editors is cookie-cutter advocacy. After a while you've heard it all before and one POV-pusher acting in good faith looks like another banned/blocked POV-pusher (also acting in good faith for the good of Wikipedia from their perspective).

I think looking at an article like Iran–Israel relations is more informative than thinking about external recruitment and its effects. I see that in Talk:Iran–Israel_relations you are following the rules, assuming good faith and trying to collaborate, but I suspect that it's a waste of time. Who are these people adding incidents between Israel and Syria to the page without sources specifically indicate Iranian involvement? They are socks Wlglunight93/Averysoda and the IP socks of Argentina based AndresHerutJaim. The chance of apparently new editor 'AttacksinSyria' not being a sock of one of those guys is probably approximately 0. Perhaps you will see new editor 'Beukford' over there shortly.

I find it surprising that people are repeating the same Wiki-mantras as if they mean anything in practice. AGF, what Wikipedia calls 'collaboration', blocking, topic bans, civility, editing warring restrictions, SPI, everything that Wikipedia has been doing for over a decade doesn't work in ARBPIA and related articles that attract advocates. Many people can and will do as they please for the sake of their cause here, they will have a very significant impact and not a thing can be done about it right now. Wikipedia needs to try something different. Maybe try operating the topic area like an occupied territory, erect barriers, restrict movement, colonize space to exclude, patrol 24 hours, shoot first, ask questions later, rain artillery down on the guilty and innocent alike and hope that it will achieve something. Who knows?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved Kingsindian
Some background: I actually made the edits which were at the bottom of the ANI mess. The material was not added by MShabazz, as Brad Dyer mistakenly stated. As I stated on the talk page, the revert by Brad Dyer seemed rather WP:POINTy to me. (I am not accusing Brad Dyer of anything in the following) I do want to note, however, the routine socking which goes on in this area, which MShabazz is quite familiar with. I reported two socks (sock1, sock2) of just in the past month, and another user reported a long-time sock of  (sock), active for years. I have ran into them tag-teaming (see for example the RfC here which I started, also here). I am actually pretty sure that NoCal100 is back, and I even know who it is, but I don't have the evidence yet. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 09:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree with sentiments, I feel that the solutions he proposes would make the matter worse. We don't need more decorum in this area, and enforced "cordiality" is not to the point: we need to hunt for socks, POV pushers and vandals. If we topic-ban people for violating decorum and "cordiality", it is a standing invitation for trolls and socks to goad users to overreact, as Malik did here (I am not accusing Brad Dyer of anything). This is not a theoretical complaint: one of the major socks in this area  specializes in exactly this. The thing here is that some of the massive POV pushing in this area can be seen only if the editors are somewhat WP:INVOLVED, but WP forces admins to be uninvolved, so admins focus only on conduct, while forgetting about content. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 22:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * has been cited by a couple of arbs in their voting rationales. I find their argument dubious in the extreme. Are we really supposed to believe that this diff is not baiting by a troll? This happens a couple days after Malik reverted a copyvio of Brad's on another page. Brad helpfully stalks him to another page which he never edited before, reverts him for alleged copyvio (of material which he didn't add), and adds a WP:DTTR for good measure. Also note the timestamp, only a short while before it all blew up. Please, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. This kind of "equal principles" will only result in punishing of the aggrieved party. The troll will just create another account. Even laws of war have special rules for reprisals (I am not suggesting this is war, just pointing out the principle). There is nothing which compels anyone to apply "equal principles" here. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment on Hammersoft's diffs, especially the "fuck off" one. I really dislike this hunting of diffs in isolation. Diffs are just a technical method to save space and computation time, they do not constitute a conversation. Here is what happened. Miraclexix, a "new" user, appears on Malik's talk page to ask about WP:ARBPIA. Malik, painfully polite, replies to each of his points, and gives useful suggestions. After massive POV pushing on this page (all of which was reverted by multiple editors), Miraclexix repeatedly template bombs Malik's talk page. Malik starts with "thanks for the warning", then "taking out the trash", finally "fuck off". Please, tell me we should assume WP:AGF here. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will like to remind that WP:COPYVIO WP:HARASS and WP:NPOV are also wikipedia policies, yet nothing happened to the other editors. This context-free focus on WP:CIVIL is a recipe for disaster. This is my last comment on this matter, since I am just repeating my points. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Regards to proposals made by some people, including some who I respect a lot, to restrict editing to people in this area with 500 edits: I oppose this. The topic area is very wide, and 500 edits is lot, especially for casual editors. It may quite easily turn away editors who are enthusiastic or knowledgeable about this topic. I myself made less than 500 edits before I made my first edit to this area. Initially they were just gnoming edits, but I was led into it bit by bit, and now I am very active in this area. 500 edits is fine for a very narrowly focused article like Gamergate, but not for a wide area. Socks and trolls can easily circumvent this. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 06:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is quite interesting, I hadn't seen it before. You note that >70% chance that a <500 edits user is a sock, though there exists a non-trivial chance that it is not a sock. Also, this was just one article: socks often edits lots of articles in the area, while interested non-sock users might start with something narrow (I speak from my own experience here, and some others), so if we look at a set of articles, the first probability will likely stay the same or decrease, but the second one is likely to increase. This is why I don't think this 500 edits restriction makes sense for a wide topic area like this. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 09:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the other files, and I have three comments. First WP:AGF is not just a nice thing, it is also useful in identifying socks/trolls. A good essay I have read and apply a lot is WP:GLUE. If one deals with socks and trolls with WP:AGF, sooner or later they shoot themselves in the foot. This is the technique I used to identify two socks of for example. However, it is quite time-intensive and there is always the chance that one will lash out at a troll, which is of course what the troll is counting on. Second, one of the very first articles in WP:ARBPIA which I worked on was 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. This was at the height of the war, and the article was almost hourly attacked by socks, trolls and POV-pushers. I saw what was going on, but I also found many knowledgeable people who contributed in this area, which encouraged me to stick around. I think this is the way (genuine) new contributors are added to the WP editor pool. People pick some small area where they can contribute, and then see many good people working there, and then branch out. Thirdly, ultimately I think the trolls and vandals will win (perhaps they have already won), unless we can increase the editor pool here. Anything which makes entry harder will only benefit the socks and the trolls, and overly burden the good-faith editors who have to do the double job of writing content and fighting trolls. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
The Committee should take this case in order to do the following: As the statements above show, Malik is normally known to be very level-headed and calm. I think I am not alone in preferring that Malik returns to active mop-duty as soon as his normal equanimity returns. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Review Malik's long history, and restore his sysop bit after this unfortunate and no doubt temporary meltdown (it is likely there is some external mitigating factor at play, this is absolutely not characteristic of Malik).
 * 2) Review Brad Dyer's behaviour.

Statement by Alanscottwalker
Malik, I have only had limited interaction with you and I have been impressed. You went wrong ('fight fire with fire and all burn', as they say, I think you usually know that), but, please, hopefully you can find your way back to us (perhaps not to that subject area, even though it needs much adminning). I can only offer my best wishes to you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC) (My hope is that you are not desysopped, permanently, I think part of that depends on what you want and say. I can offer further unsolicited advice at my talk page, if you want it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC))

Malik, please, yes, you were harassed, and called in effect, a nigger. I see that, and others do too. It is so wrong, that that happened. For the moment or for several days, can you take your understandable frustration out, away from your keyboard? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

, It is precisely because it is condescending that it is such a racially loaded personal attack, when referring to an African-American man. "[I]t's the ultimate sign of disrespect, and is often more offensive than calling them the N-word."

To reply to some belated comments below, although their comments make no difference to whether Malik is an admin, or not, as currently he is not. Malik has apologized for his inappropriate actions and retired. To put it in context, it's clear the use of jewboy was disruption to make a point, that Malik was hurt by the disruption caused by, and the harassment of him by, the sock, Brad Dyer. Malik's point was that the sock's use of sonny boy was a racial slur, just like jewboy, and it was (sonny boy has a particular connection to black face and as almost all aknowledge, boy is racially loaded.  So yes, Malik went wrong, as I said seven days ago, but the harping on it below is not "deescalation". Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, pleased to meet you. I cannot find a single reliable source that refers to 'sonny boy' being a racist term. Subsequently, all the debate that followed is irrelevant in that the foundation to the claim, seemingly, holds no merit, regards. Twobells''t@lk 15:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Non-involved user Stifle
I have had a look at the situation. The behavior, save for using admin tools whilst blocked, would get an average user blocked for a few days at most. Admins being held to a higher standard, or otherwise, Malik Shabazz has ended up with a week block as far as I can see. A single isolated instance of using the tools inappropriately and a series of incivil edits do not seem to me to be worth going through the mill of a full-blown case.

Therefore I would urge ArbCom to decline, with a motion if necessary that Malik Shabazz is sentenced to "time served" in terms of the desysop and block, in view of his otherwise long and excellent record. My second preference would be in line with JzG. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare: A normal editor would be blocked for incivility, and indeed Malik Shabazz was. I don't see a reason for desysopping. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
I greatly respect Malik. The problem is that ArbCom can not be seen to hold different standards from case to case, and there is no doubt that the language used in multiple example is quite unacceptable, and that he used sysop tools in a less than circumspect manner. Sorry - there is no way to excuse many of the comments made at all, and if a normal editor made them, they would receive more than a one week block just for that. Misuse of sysop tools has, per policy, only one result. But I still like him Malik an editor, and agree on his positions many times. Collect (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno

 * I agree with in that Level I procedures were appropriately invoked here; in the time it would have taken to implement Level II procedures, the user may have performed further administrative acts through the block during (what appears to be) a temporary lapse in judgment.

Has the committee been in contact with Malik yet? Perhaps talk page access could be restored or he could be unblocked so that he may prepare a statement? –xenotalk 12:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)  Talk page access since restored Since unblocked


 * Respectfully, I disagree that Level I procedures were not made out. An administrator intentionally and actively using administrative tools through a block to initiate or further a wheelwar does cause harm, if only by blatantly disregarding the social contract to which administrators are held. –xenotalk 12:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Worm That Turned
I'm a disappointed in those who agreed to a level 1 desysopping. Malik does not appear to be compromised or intent on causing harm in a rapid or planned fashion. 1 admin edit and it was clearly "reactive" not "planned". A simple "Don't do that" could have sorted that. I also disagree with Roger that Level 2 would be appropriate. I'm assuming no explanation was requested. Simply, Malik should not have had his tools removed. He should have been told to stop and then a case if necessary. The administrative action was over his edit and he unhiding it. There's all sorts of arguments over whether it should be deleted or not, but it's not a simple case of him intending to cause harm. Now that I've registered my disappointment, we should look forward. Malik, who I've not worked with but believe the testimony's to his character, was clearly provoked here. Yes, his actions were unacceptable, but that was dealt with by the community. I'd like to see Malik contact the committee, admit he was out of order there and have the tools returned. Don't put a massive amount of hoops in the way here - a simple explanation (which should be bloody obvious anyway) is all that should be needed. WormTT(talk) 12:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Level I procedures may be used if (a) an account appears to be obviously compromised, or is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion, or (b) multiple accounts are actively wheel-warring.
 * Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. (my bolding)
 * , there's a different between where we are and where we should be. I'd support a temporary desysop procedure for situations like this, but Arbcom's "Level 1" procedures are not them. There are VERY strict circumstances that Level 1 desysop procedures should be used - compromised account, or intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion. The harm caused is debatable. The planned fashion completely out - this was completely reactive over reach of power. Like I say, there's 5 names who voted for that the desysop that... well, I'm disappointed in. I wasn't there, I'm not going to criticise too much - but I stand by my statement "it was the wrong decision". <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>) 12:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , just do it, there's enough support to see how it turns out - a Level 1 desysop was the wrong decision, taking a step to make it right is a step in the right direction. Even if it's just a motion that "Malik can request return of the tool if he decides to return"... it's the right thing to do. <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>) 07:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe
Just to note that I have restored Malik's ability to edit his own talkpage. Given that there are proceedings here, I think he should be able to post a public statement before his block is due to expire if he so chooses. Talkpage editing restrictions should be a last resort and, even the restriction was needed at the time, it hopefully isn't now. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller: Firstly, a process point: I assume that your edit to the proposed motion is intended to mean that: (1) Malik can request the tools back; and (2) that the circumstances of his desysop should not be considered to be controversial circumstances by the bureaucrat who actions his request (i.e. the usual bureaucrat discretion when dealing with resysop requests does not apply)? I think it would be helpful if this were made clear. Second, I am not sure that the edited motion sends quite the same message as the motion that has been voted on so far, and should perhaps be an alternative for consideration rather than a substitute. The onus would now be on Malik to take a positive step to regain his tools. If ArbCom's view is that there is no longer a need for an emergency desysop, and the conduct does not warrant permanent desysop, shouldn't the user get their rights back without having to ask for them? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Pluto2012: I have blocked indefinitely. I suspect any uninvolved admin would have done the same: (1) The account's only edits were edit warring on controversial topics; (2) The username is clearly meant to be provocative; And (3), in addition, their edits were restoring content previously added by a sockpuppet. Is there a reason why you raised this here? I would have hoped that our existing processes are OK for bringing such accounts to the attention of administrators.  <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
Personally I don't think this should be accepted - As far as I'm aware Malik's never once gotten pissed off with anyone - Infact he's always been polite and calm with everyone, Even when trolls come to his talkpage he simply shrugs it off and gets on with it, Everyone on this project loses there shit at times (myself included) so I don't really think it's right nor fair to bring an Admin to Arbcom over his outburst which looks to have been his first in the 8 years he's been here. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DrKiernan
Black youth and artistes seem to revel in using the word nigger, and no-one says they are racist. So, is it racist for a Jewish person to use the word jewboy? Probably not, especially when it is used in a remark that is clearly satirical. DrKiernan (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't think it's possible to call a black Jew a racist, and expect to be taken seriously. DrKiernan (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved, but upset) StevenJ81
I would have taken the time to write my own opinion in support of Malik. But as of about 15 minutes ago, there is now a "RETIRED" template up on his talk page. So I think some of the high-and-mighty ArbCom/Bureaucrat/Steward types who are buzzing around this page better figure out now how this project can possibly continue when effective, responsible contributors and administrators can get bullied and slurred to the point where they want to leave. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Chillum, if you and others around here are really that heartbroken, then let's figure out a way to fix some of this stuff. There are a lot of people with a lot of fancy flags who wouldn't even dream of touching some of the stuff that Malik was willing to work on. And yet those people dare to criticize?
 * Really, only a little bit of this is about the particular case at hand. It's a much more general problem.
 * I appreciate how politically contentious this topic area is. And I really appreciate that Wikipedia is open, in principle, to editing by anyone, any time, no matter what. But at this point, something's got to give.
 * So what's going to give? This topic area is already de facto not open to "everyone" to edit, because a lot of good, dedicated people (like me, I'd like to think) can't stand being there, and so won't edit there. Except for guys like Malik, increasingly only the nutcases (on both sides) are left. In my view, this area has got to be left to experienced editors, and even experienced editors need to have their edits vetted (à la pending changes). If you're going to complain to me that a rule like that violates "open to everyone", I will repeat: it's already not open to everyone. So in that case, we might as well concede that, and try to create an encyclopedia that is of high quality.
 * Frustratedly, StevenJ81 (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Responded there. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment on suggestion of about 20:30 UTC: I fully support that, though don't be surprised if Malik doesn't come back, or doesn't come back for a while.  StevenJ81 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In support of Doug Weller's motion below, I would add: I think the ArbCom should consider the absolutely radical, unprecedented, inappropriate action of full-protecting EVERY SINGLE, SOLITARY PAGE in this topic area until this matter is settled. Malik was one of the few effective cops on the beat. I'm willing to bet that this now becomes an absolutely, positively unmanageable battlezone now. I have NO CONFIDENCE WHATSOEVER in Administrators' and ArbCom's ability to manage this now. So I strongly suggest it be completely locked down for the time being.
 * To Thryduulf and Gorilla Warfare, since you have just done the equivalent of kicking Malik while he's on the ground, I badly want to throw similar invective at you. But I won't, for fear of being blocked. Instead, let me just say this. I hope, in my heart of hearts, that in the real world, someone walks up to you, or better yet: to your mother, with you present, and calls her just as ugly a name as Malik was called. Maybe, then, you'll have a clue as to what just happened. Until then, you have no clue whatsoever. And people with no clue whatsoever have no business being on ArbCom. Just saying ... StevenJ81 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I am not at all condoning the behaviour that Malik was subjected to. I am however condemning equally the breaches of civility by both parties - two wrongs do not make a right. See also the comments by Panyd below, particularly "[I]f we don't address both the instances of incivility here, nobody will care the next time someone calls you [Mike] 'sonny boy' either. Why should they?". Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that provisionally. But I think you're still missing a couple of things here. First, there is a reflexive instinct here to treat both parties' offenses equally, especially if you're ArbCom. But that would not be appropriate here. In an argument between an experienced, respected Wikipedia administrator and a troll, the experienced colleague ought to have our support, or at least the initial benefit of the doubt. Period. And if you will argue that on ArbCom you can't be that way, I'd respond: Maybe—but since he's already said he's not coming back, you didn't have to add insult to injury by saying you don't want this case to be connected to Mike's name. Second, I'm still not sure that you fully understand that the real problem was the fact that it got to this point at all, because of the atmosphere in this topic area. What Mike did was a consequence, not the main event. And I don't believe that there is a snowball's chance in, er, Hades, that ArbCom would be taking up the overall matter of this topic area if this hadn't happened. So not only is it appropriate that the case be opened in Mike's name, I would absolutely insist on it. Because he deserves some legacy that something good came out of this ugly event. And you, Thryduulf, need to recognize and appreciate that . StevenJ81 (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A level 1 desysop is absolutely always only temporary until the emergency is over and all the facts can be examined soberly and all circumstances taken into account, and until those facts have been examined I am not prepared to give support or benefit of the doubt to either party. I made the comment about the name of the case precisely because it needs to be about the overall topic area, not the conduct of one person, and arbitration cases are named to reflect their scope not as a legacy for someone who deliberately and knowingly racially abused another editor (regardless of why and/or whether it was justified). Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice, bureaucratic answer there, Thryduulf. For the reasons I stated above, you should have been prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. And for the reasons I stated above, I insist that his name stay on the case. Think of it this way: if this were a court case, it would now be in court in the name of the estate of Malik Shabazz. Be WP:BOLD about that, Thryduulf. You're an experienced Wikimedian. You can manage that. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Except ArbCom is not a court, we are not dealing with Mike's estate and the names of cases are decided by the committee as a whole not by the demands of one editor, so your instance insistence(?) is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand that this was not some sort of unprompted outburst, and that Malik's response was very much provoked. I think it's very important to be understanding when handling conflicts that involve very personal attacks and slurs such as these. I also think it's important that Wikipedia not become a place where one racist insult is met with another. I disagree that the two offenses should be condemned equally, nor do I think they have been. The instigator has been blocked indefinitely, which I think is appropriate, and Malik Shabazz has been unblocked but also desysopped. I think this outcome is proportionate for the time being. I would be willing to discuss the possibility of a resysop if there was some dialogue with Malik Shabazz about avoiding a situation like this in the future, but given that he's stated that he has no interest in regaining the tools, they should not be returned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My last response, then I think I'll unfollow the page for a while.
 * Thryduulf: my "insistence" is not enforceable, of course. But it's not irrelevant, either. The Arbitration Committee can do what it chooses on that front. But I'm entitled to my opinion, and I'm entitled to express that opinion.
 * Gorilla, nothing you have just said is wrong, of course. But I can't help but think that you are still confusing the sideshow with the main show. And the main show is (a) how much leverage WP:NOTHERE people have, especially (b) in contentious topic areas like this. Focus on the main event. Remember that WP:NOTHERE people don't care so much if they break rules. Remember that there is every incentive for them to come in and blow themselves up in order to take out others, and very little downside. Fix that. If you do that, you're entitled to worry about whether Malik Shabazz ought to get his rights back (in theory). If you don't, more Malik Shabazzes are just waiting to happen. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User talk:StevenJ81 I realise you may have dropped this page from your watchlist, but I don't think it would benefit anyone, including Malik Shabazz, if we kept his name on a case coming out of this with a focus on reviewing the remedies in the Palestine-Israel case. I'm sure that if such a case does result and the outcome helps good faith editors in that area that Malik at least, and certainly others, will realise that something good came out of the original situation. I'm speaking as someone who hopes that he does come back someday and regains the tools. Doug Weller (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft
There's claims here that this event, with regards to Malik Shabazz, is isolated. This is false. A cursory examination of history shows Malik to be uncivil on a number of occasions. Everybody has bad days. But, sustained incivility is not compatible with adminship. I note that he has apparently retired. It would be problematic if this user's admin flag were restored and a case concluded this latest incident was isolated, therefore no problem. There is a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "cut the bullshit; if you don't see scandals, regardless of your politics, your head is in the sand"
 * "You can't just make shit up and put it in front of a footnote"
 * "look at the end of the fucking paragraph, you morons"
 * "Fuck off"

The idea of just sweeping the gross incivility under the rug as a 'bad evening' is repugnant. Thryduulf is spot on; no matter the provocation, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for an editor, much less an administrator, to engage in the sort of depraved racist comments made by Malik. Sweeping this under the rug will effectively grant everyone leeway to insult as much as they are insulted. Is this really the Wikipedia we want to have? This, especially in light of the fact that Malik's behavior is not isolated (see my comments above), makes any notion of ignoring this and moving on simply unacceptable. Of late, we've had a lot of discussion at various locations about the fact that administrators are treated as a special class of user here, and this is why we need a community based desyopping ability. If gross, racist incivility is not enough to even rise to the level of official scrutiny at ArbCom, then it might be time to remove #3 from Arbitration/Policy, as ArbCom is clearly not acting in the best interests of the community in this regard. Either WP:CIVIL is policy for everyone, and WP:ADMINCOND is policy regarding admin conduct or it isn't. Decide. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You've encouraged people to look at the context within which the four edit summaries above exist. I'd like to address a more abstract point here, rather than highlight your specific actions in those. When is incivility actionable? Should we allow incivility when it is provoked? Should we allow it if someone really truly is a moron? Should we allow it when someone actually is a ? Or, do we say that civility here dictates that we always show respect for our fellow editor, even when the other editor doesn't appear to deserve it? I believe the latter. I don't think anger, prodding, baiting or any other 'justification' permits any of us to go off the handle and start spewing epithets of any kind. To give a base example (and I'm addressing this at no one; this is only an example), if someone were to say to an editor "You are fucking gay ass loving piece of dogshit!" it does not grant the target of that insult permission to respond in kind with their own set of insults. Someone said recently (elsewhere on the project) that fighting fire with fire only results in both parties getting burned. This is true, but it's even worse with civility. If we have two editors going at each other with insults, we get into sandbox mode of 'he threw the first insult!' and similar refutation of common decency. It brings disrepute to the project, and our inability to address this is shameful. Insults are insults, period. Either we have a WP:CIVIL policy or we do not. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

See my comments just above this one. There is never an excuse for being so uncivil. I don't care what the provocation is. It does not excuse the behavior. Explain, maybe, but in no way should it ever be taken as an excuse. As to taking diffs in isolation, I noted in my opening of this statement it was a cursory examination. The point being that if I can so easily find such egregious cases of verbal abuse of other editors, then the notion that this latest case of a week and a half long angry spat isn't as isolated as some people want to make it out to be. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
I haven't run across Malik Shabazz very often - probably because he does the hard stuff and I do the easy stuff - but the testimonials above lead me to think that the best solution to this one-off blow up is (a) allow the NPA blocks for both parties to remains in effect, or if an unblock template is used, be addressed the way typical ones are (b) return the tools with no case, contingent on an assurance from MS that this won't happen again, (c) make sure that MS realizes that this was pretty far over the line, even if there are extenuating factors, and (d) decline a case for now, let the community try to address the underlying behavioral issues with MS and BD, and accept a new case if that fails. Before I knew the background, I was originally much more upset with the epithet "Jewboy", but based on Softlavender's and DrKeirnan's comments, my understanding is that this is not evidence of actual anti-Semitic prejudice, but an attempt to hurt with words, mirroring words thrown at him. Not good, obviously, but a different kettle of fish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As I look into this more, I get more and more concerned that de-escalation would be (a) highly desirable, and (b) increasingly unlikely based on how we usually work. Any possibility that, now that the heat of the moment has passed, we could take the first step and preliminarily unblock and resysop, on the basis that it's not likely to be repeated, and that we might be able to salvage an apparently invaluable admin working in a nightmare topic area?  An area that I am literally too chickenshit to touch?  I've been one keystroke away from a Level 1 desysop myself, and that was without being refered to by a term that, to quote Drmies, "combined racism with utter disrespect, in a word that has centuries of history in American racist speak". Surely we can find a way to bend rules in such a way that we don't shoot ourselves in the foot? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As a first step (the only one I can take as a mere admin) I've unblocked Malik. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I would interpret his previous 8 years of apparently calm and upstanding admining in a toxic topic area as evidence he knows he can't do that. He was just called a racist epithet and snapped; surely he doesn't have to grovel? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
I haven't dealt with Malik much but when I have he's been a hard-working and patient administrator, one of the good guys, who is about the last person I'd expect to end up here, if I'm honest. His reaction to the message is not too different in scope to a similar incident on my talk (although I would hope it's obvious I was simply making light of the situation) and being repeatedly accused of policy violations without any proper evidence would drive anyone else up the wall. I think Malik should take a few days off to clear his head and Arbcom give him an open offer of the tools back on the condition that the next time he feels like making a personal attack, to just shout it at the monitor without pressing "Save page". It's not like he's been repeatedly disruptive all over the place; this is a one-off where things got out of hand; hence there is no reason to take a case. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo
Great job, arbs. A black American male gets called sonny boy, quite literally the most insulting thing you can say to a black American male, after being hounded by an obvious sock in the most contentious editing area of the whole wiki and rather than having his back you desysop him. Well done. And the racist troll gets what? A 48 hour timeout or some such BS?. Great job, admins, as well. Capeo (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , are you serious? Perhaps do some research before questioning the "racial overtones" of calling a black man boy in America.  Maybe start with the history of the phrase I Am a Man.  A phrase that in some form or another was used by civil rights advocates from the late 1700s on to the 1960s where male blacks would march with placards saying I Am a Man.  Perhaps research the Memphis Sanitation Strike in '68.  A google image search will get the point across.  For centuries in America adult black males were referred to as boy in a demeaning fashion to delegitimize their stature as equals. Capeo (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , in regards to your comment to Steven, that's a false equivalency that anyone examining the context of the dust up dispassionately shouldn't make. That's just as bad as that ANI went. Everyone harped on "OMG, that admin is swearing at that user!!! How awful!" rather than "Holy crap, that user just basically called that admin a nigger! Ban them."  Which is how it should have went. Followed by a talk with admin saying we sympathize, the situation has been taken care of, next time try not react the way you did and trust us to have your back when you report it.  Instead arbcom went the nuclear route, blew up any chance to not escalate the situation and likely lost a dedicated admin. Capeo (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur
I believe I've never had any substantial involvement with respect to any of the primary parties to the case, but would like to note the following conditions are in play currently: Level 1 Desysoping was invoked on an Admnistrator (rightly or wrongly), Said administrator has elected to retire in chronological proximity to said desysoping, Said administrator retired while under scrutiny for their administrative actions. As such I assert that a "under a cloud" situation has occured. In order to prevent AN/ArbCom flu outbreaks in the future, should the committee with to curtail the gambit, to pass a simple motion confirming the desysop and indicating that should the editor wish to regain Administrator privileges, they should stand a new "Request for Administrator" campaign. Hasteur (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * adding the under the cloud makes clear that there was cause for concern when the retiring took place and therefore a standard request for resysop would be out of order. Hasteur (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
This is extremely distressing. My testimonial hasn’t the authority, or neutrality one will observe in, to name the major editors who have commented whose work I admire,  Avi and StevenJ81  but I agree with them, as I rue (while understanding) their decisions to withdraw from an active presence in the I/P area. It is an extremely stressful area to work, and made more so by the unending recycling of sockpuppets,  and the prevalence of the sheerly incompetent with a national mission guiding their every revert,mostly ungrounded in policy. Those who work there know that half of their daily grind will consist in trying to talk reason to editors who are indifferent to the talk page, or use it in a highly desultory fashion. Brad Dyer is a disgrace to the project, but he’s not alone: at least 8 editors there, often red-linked, are destructive in their purposes. Identify laboriously one of them, and two pop up after the ban is set, hydra-like. In good part, the area has been effectively abandoned as either (a)”toxic” (b)or because the anarchic nature of editing there works out as an attritional war, where the best fall because there is simply no answer to blind attritional gamesmanship. Malik is one of the few (two or three) admins who, able to see both sides, could be relied on to enforce policy there. This is the second instance I can recall where we have lost an invaluable editor because he, on one single occasion, blew up and got tired of being polite to either an obvious sockpuppet or a nuisance provocateur. It is this fact, the success with which idle editors can achieve a massive gain – the elimination via successful provocation of an extremely good editor/admin – without having their own record or utility for the project examined, which is deeply disturbing. An encyclopedia that shows itself ready to adopt draconian measures for the rarest lapse (and the lapse was very serious) in an admin of 8 proven years of exceptional duty, while demonstrating a total insouciance to the “toxic”  idiocy of editing in the area he worked in (we need, ladies and gentleman, a high bar of perhaps at least 400-500 non-I/P edits for newbies who wish to work on I/P issues),  will only serve to disenchant the few masochists who put up with the nonsense, which looks as though it were being condoned by sheer negligance. How long are we to put up with this inane anarchic state of abandon, when the best  admins are punished for a frailty as exceptional for his record as it is, formally, unacceptable? Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Opabinia regalis
Of course we all agree that the comments here were way, way over the line, and we all wish Malik well. But considering the category of things that can be described as an emergency - and let's even restrict the scope to things that are emergencies on the internet - is this really in that category? A person who is being racially harassed changed the visibility of one of his own intemperate reactions while blocked? Seems more like yet another demonstration of how difficult it can be to stop the gathering momentum of Something Must Be Done. Meanwhile, the desysop was done before anyone got around to blocking the person doing the harassing.

If this case is accepted it should be about some combination of 1) this repeated pattern of unnecessary escalation by ANI stampedes, 2) the general toxicity of the topic area (which is apparent even to the entirely uninvolved), and 3) the ineffectiveness of the community at dealing with harassment, provocation, and trolling as opposed to mere "incivility". Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown
Deysopping via Level 1 seems a bit strong, but it's done so I don't see a point in laboring it. That said, deescalating the situation would be best, and it would seem rebitting him might be in order as there isn't any immediate threat. The reason for the temporary desysopping no longer holds true. Then Arb can decide if a case is really needed, or if the community can handle it. I'm torn without looking at more details, but this is a unique blowup from an admin that has a long history of good service, so desysop may very well be the wrong long term solution. And, "under a cloud" is meaningless because he didn't voluntarily resign the bit. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved John Carter
Granted, given my own unfortunate record, my word on its own may not mean much, and actually probably shouldn't mean much, but there is no way in hell that I can see that it is reasonable or justified to permanently desysop someone after he has been subjected to insults, like "boy," which is among the most offensive and emotionally loaded epithets one can level against an African-American. The closest thing I can think of would be calling a German of the 1950s to 1970s a "Nazi". Yeah, a lot of us, including me, at whom the insult is not directed, might not see it as being as bad as it is, but I have repeatedly heard particularly strong reactions to that term among African-Americans in St. Louis, where I live, and I have every reason to believe that the same holds true elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although it has flaws, like everything else here, I actually rather like the idea of having some sort of permanent protection of certain topic areas from truly new editors, like Nishidani proposes above. There may be a few other areas of wikipedia which encounter as much controversy, maybe, I don't know. But the I/P area certainly is a longstanding point of contention which doesn't show any signs of becoming more resolved in the near future, and maybe having the creation of some new policies or guidelines or ArbCom rulings regarding how to maybe create a level above existing semi-protection to deal with such articles and topics would be a good idea. I have a really horrible feeling that a lot of the articles relating to the upcoming US presidential election would probably benefit a lot from having an additional stricter level of semi-protection available as well. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand and, to an extent, agree with you below. My one point of differentiation is whether, at times, "a single instance" of misconduct can extend to a brief period of time. Personally, I have to assume that, at least for some people at some times, a single instance of administrative misconduct can extend to multiple specific actions over a short time period. This might be particularly true if, for instance, the admin had just suffered some sort of real-life problem. If someone enters into editing on one day with a chip on their shoulder, as it were, and their misconduct over a period of hours extends only to one particular dispute, like on a talk page, yes, I think it might not be unreasonable to in at least some cases count that as a single incident of misconduct. I think everyone deserves at least one mistake, even administrators, and sometimes in the cases of both admins and non-admins a specific event of misconduct can extend to multiple specific acts of misconduct. John Carter (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Winkelvi
I watched this situation unfold and was certainly shocked at the racist terms being thrown around by both parties, along with the sexually-themed anger-insults. I wondered, as did other editors, why Malik's tools were removed so abruptly -- even in light of his bad choice to use the tools inappropriately following his block. My hope was that after he slept on it and a number of hours had passed that his understandable anger would have cooled and the better angels of his nature would come forth. Especially after he was unblocked earlier today. The continuation of ugly comments from him following his unblock not only shocks me but causes me to be glad he isn't getting the tools back - for now. Generally, I have always thought of Malik as a very good editor with a rougher side that would come out on occasion. The examples provided show a side of Malik I have actually encountered more than once - not often, but often enough for me to remember the sting of his words and actions when I was faced with them. Considering all of this, my opinion is that returning the tools sooner than later would be a mistake. My hope is that as more time passes, he will reconsider his declaration of retirement as well as the ugliness he has issued in comments along with the ugliness in comments issued against him. And that he is an administrator again, possibly on a probationary status? (if there is such a thing) If he does return, it would be hard for him to forget all of what's transpired, but even so, it would be better to have him back than to never have him back at all. He's still a net-positive in my eyes. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
The I/P area is drowning in socks, one nastier than the other, and it makes the whole area absolutely poisonous. I strongly support Nishidanis suggestion: let people have, say, 500 non-I/P edits before they can edit anything in the I/P area. It will not stop the dedicated sock, but at least we can avoid all those throw-away socks, presently 13 to the dozen. Huldra (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I know quite a few, what I would call "Palestinian activists" in RL. And, as a group, I would say that no-one, and I mean no-one, despises Wikipedia more. Most would not touch Wikipedia for their lives. If you don´t believe me: please attend a meeting of a Palestinian solidarity group; and *tell* them you edit Wikipedia.......chances are you will receive the "respect" of, well, somewhere  between  a serial rapist and a child pornographer.


 * I also know that both pro-Palestinian people and pro-Palestinian groups have been actively warned against having a Wikipedia article about them. This because there is a whole  "cottage industry"  of pro-Israeli  NGOs which dig up dirt (some would say fabricate it) about them, and this will- inevitably,  get into their articles.


 * user:Avraham, the yahoo-group you mentioned was set up by already established Wikipedians; before 2009. I was not a member, but Tiamut was. And she said it was mostly inactive, and only had a dozen messages or so. To the best of my knowledge: no pro-Palestinian  recruitment campaign  for Wikipedia has *ever* been done.


 * Solutions? One suggestion: when socks like Brad is blocked, why isn´t there a compulsory  CU? Socks virtually always have some "back-up" socks. While some sock-masters are highly competent and would probably manage not to be detected by our CU: most are not, and would be caught.


 * In the meantime: on Wikipedia it looks as if every killed Jewish child gets -on average- 100 times more space than a killed Palestinian child, is this fair?  Huldra (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dan Murphy
The ongoing Wikipedia experiment measuring how long "Malik" could endure near-daily racist attacks without losing his temper appears to have run its course. He made it just shy of 9 years.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by passerby User:Mangoe
I have no involvement in this other than what I can read in the links. That said it seems to me that Malik's behavior is way out of line, and even if there were no prior occasions we wouldn't tolerate this of just anyone.

OTOH I see that at least from one direction User:Floquenbeam has rendered the matter moot by blocking Brad Dyer indefinitely. Mangoe (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Soham321
From what i can understand Malik's main grievance seems to be that Brad called him "sonny boy" and that this is something unacceptable to say to a black person which Malik claims he is. He is not the least apologetic about the abusive words he has directed at Brad: "asshole", "fucking stupid", "too stupid to edit wikipedia", etc. In fact Malik continues to show defiance and continues to use abusive language after he was unblocked ("You can all suck my balls, assholes.") I have been observing Malik for quite some time now since he regularly participates on some pages which are of some interest to me. I will clarify that i only saw him fighting obvious vandals on such pages; he never interacted with me and never reverted any of my edits.(I have also never interacted with Brad.) I had a good opinion of Malik uptill now. I find the words Malik used for Brad to be unacceptable, particularly so for an Admin who is supposed to display exemplary behavior. This is also not a one off case of Malik flying off the handle as has shown in this discussion. So unless Malik shows some remorse for what he has done, i am afraid he cannot be shown leniency just as Zinedine Zidane, the greatest footballer of his era, was not shown leniency when he did not follow the rules and gave a head butt to Materazzi after the latter had directed some provocative words towards him. I am also not sure how "sonny boy" has racist overtones as Malik seems to be insinuating. Sonny Boy is also the name of a song sung in the year Eddie Fisher was born; Fisher's family nickname became "Sonny Boy" after the hit song; Fisher was a caucasian. I am not claiming that Brad was completely blameless, but overall the entire incident seems to be an example of Malik being supersensitive about his alleged race.

Having said all this, does Brad really deserve to be given an indefinite block by an Admin? He did behave in a somewhat aggressive way towards Malik and he did use the words "sonny boy" but giving him an indefinite block for this comes across as an unacceptable exercise of Admin power. A warning, of the kind had given Brad, should have sufficed in my opinion.Soham321 (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In view of the comments on this page (at least one of which was specifically directed at me) and on the TP of other editors, i will just state that there is a genuine difference of opinion on whether 'sonny boy' should be considered a racist taunt. On Jimbo's TP, writes that the phrase "sonny boy" is "belittling but has no racial connotations at all anywhere other than some parts of the US." responds by saying that the word 'boy' when used for a black man is definitely a racist word all over the US. agrees with Drmies. However, writes: ''just for the record, "sonny boy" as originally coined 50 years, 75 years, 100? ago, had ZERO racial connotations, period. I do agree that the use of "boy" directed at an Africam-American adult is one of the worst things, after the n word, that can be said and does have a long history.'' Just so that we are clear, Brad had used the words 'sonny boy' for Malik and not the word 'boy'. There is one other thing, and that is that as has pointed out on my TP, WP is not a US centric site. 'Boy' may be a racist word in the US, but it is not so in India. As Twobells writes: it deeply troubles me that language is being policed a little too strictly in the last few years and offence taken where none is given, or at least not explicitly implied, remember, the English-speaking nations are modern, liberal democracies where giving offence in the pursuit of debate is the accepted norm, being a by-product of democracy.

I will add here that a race related controversy had broken out between Australia and India when the cricket teams of the two countries had played a match. The Australian Andrew Symonds, who is half black, was called 'Monkey' by the Indian cricketer Harbhajan Singh. The Australians made a complaint of racism to the match officials. The Indian defense was that the Australians had been calling them 'bastards' which is a highly derogatory term to use against anyone in India since it is taken to be an insult to one's parents. Moreover, it was pointed out in the media that the word 'monkey' has no racist connotation in India. In fact, a prominent Hindu God is the monkey God Hanuman. A significant section of the Australian media had criticized the Australian team (the match had taken place in Australia), and one Australian paper had injected some humor into the controversy by superimposing the face of Symonds on the body of the Monkey God. More on this here, here, and here.

has correctly stated on my TP that just as the word 'nigger' is unacceptable, so the word 'untouchable' for a low caste Indian should also be considered unacceptable. (Under the Indian constitution, it is illegal to call anyone an 'untouchable'). Calling Dr Ambedkar, who framed the Indian constitution, an 'untouchable' (as a senior editor on WP has been doing persistently) should be deemed unacceptable according to Mohan; personally i think it is akin to calling Martin Luther King a nigger.

I would request Arb to keep the above in mind when framing any WP policy related to racism. Soham321 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I also request Arb to take a look at the WP page of Martin Bashir, specifically the section describing the circumstances in which Bashir lost his job at MSNBC. This was evidently a case of a black person being supersensitive about his race and overreacting to a perceived insult. And, finally, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI0Bknh65mA here is Sheriff J.W. Pepper of Louisiana calling James Bond a 'boy'. Notice also how a police man talking to J.W. Pepper refers to the other cops on the scene as 'boys'.] And here is the same J.W. Pepper calling a black man a 'boy'. Soham321 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Wikimedes
While it seems reasonable to temporarily desysop a blocked admin to keep him/her from using the tools while blocked, having to claim that using the tools was an imminent danger to Wikipedia to accomplish the desysopping led to a lot of unnecessary drama. It might be useful to have a standard procedure in place to keep a blocked admin from using the tools (a second time) while blocked.

I hope that both blocked parties will return after they and the community have time to cool off. --Wikimedes (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Panyd
Are we going to enforce our own rules or are we not? Civility is one of the five pillars this encyclopedia is supposedly built on and yet again and again we see gross personal attacks and verbal abuse of our editors and stand by and do nothing.

I thought we wanted to create an inclusive community. I thought we wanted Wikipedia to be a welcoming place for all. When an administrator, who is supposed to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others starts calling another user 'Jewboy' for any reason, and we do nothing, (bar a tiny slap on the wrist of course) we deserve all of the scorn and media derision we decry as unfair.

And if Brad called a user who identifies as black 'Sonny boy', then yes, that user needs a review too. However, 'sonny boy' does not give Malik impunity in telling another user to 'suck my dick'. Or another two users.

When Malik asks 'what's next? Calling black people niggers?' I have to ask who on Earth he's addressing. The user who thought 'Jewboy' was an acceptable way to speak about another editor? Yes, I would certainly expect that user to move onto calling others 'niggers' - and I would certainly believe that any community who thought 'Jewboy' was acceptable to go ahead and allow 'nigger' to start entering our daily discourse.

The Arbitration Principles say that Personal attacks which occur during the course of Arbitration either on the Arbitration pages or on the talk pages of the arbitrators fall within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration. - has the edit repeating the 'Jewboy' epithet not met this criteria? Seriously. Do we give one single toss about civility or not? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 09:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

- no, it does not. I understand the argument, but I could call someone 'a fucking loony' and my status as a certified crazy person wouldn't make that less of a personal attack. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

- you say (Nobody cared about his personal attacks either, but that's par for the course.) - do you want this to change? I want this to change, and in order to do that a case like this needs bringing forward. As others have said, I don't think anyone wants you to grovel or throw yourself at a lion - but if we don't address both the instances of incivility here, nobody will care the next time someone calls you 'sonny boy' either. Why should they? (Again, I do care. That shouldn't have happened. We should act on this stuff) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved NebY
Malik did not use his admin tools while blocked and involved to delete or undelete an article, block or unblock an editor, or wheel-war with another admin. He performed a revdel that was requested. As he was blocked, involved and angry in a heated situation, a preventative desysop was a reasonable measure but permanent desysopping would not be clearly proportionate or necessary (compare suspending or dismissing an employee). A statement such as 's "Malik Shabazz misused his administrative tools to the extent that it required a level 1 desysop" could easily be read as suggesting misuse on multiple occasions or in a major action. Can we be clear that that's not the case? NebY (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Modernist
Over the past 9 or ten years my encounters with Malik have always been productive, respectful and useful. Malik Shabazz has been an enormous asset to wikipedia. He has comported himself well over an enormous period of time - editing and essentially providing judicious expertise most of the time. In my opinion he should not be desysopped permanently but should retain his position as an administrator. Seems like every once in a while we all want to explode; this place can do it to you; point being it isn't necessary to condemn someone for getting seriously pissed after being severely provoked...Modernist (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Wikimandia
If your average editor behaved in such a way, ragequit included, there would be a very lengthy ban in place, end of question. Admins should be held to a higher standard than your average editor. The only one using profanity, the N word and "JewBoy" was Malik. Anyone can claim to be anything on here (black, white, purple, Muslim, Jewish etc) - nobody should get a pass on being allowed to say slurs by way of their own ethnic makeup. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
My recommendation would be for ArbCom to abolish this whole AN/I cesspool, and also set up a new RFA process where candidates are accepted based on an expert evaluation, desysop all sitting Admins who were appointed by the old system, they can get their tools back if they go successfully go through the new system. AN/I should be replaced by an ArbCom like system where all cases are accepted, Admins hear cases like Arbs do in ArbCom cases. This enforces good behavior within such a forum. Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cryptic
We rely on the arbcom not to make emotional, kneejerk decisions with respect to removal of administrators' bits. That's why arbcom has the authority do so, and why ANI flashmobs do not. I echo the concerns stated by this IP; it's unfortunate he or she felt too timid or threatened or whatever to say it while logged in. —Cryptic 05:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved GregJackP
Per the norm, a minority member of WP gets race-baited and all of the Euro-American-Whites can't wait to hammer them. If one is black, NDN, or Latino, from my experience, we have to not react to blatant racism. If we do react, the non-minority editors get irritated, and we get blocked. We don't have enough content creators, and we really don't have enough minority or women content creators to be running them off.

Incivility is wrong, but understandable in this case.

Regardless, Malik is a content creator who has taken articles to both featured and good article status. Editors and admins are a dime a dozen, anyone can do either. Content creators are harder to find, and it is your job to protect them against the race-baiters. GregJackP  Boomer!   07:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

, in the southern U.S., "sonny boy," when directed at an adult black male, is a racial slur. Malik is well aware of the insult that was being made. Race-baiting is race-baiting. Period. GregJackP  Boomer!   21:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Shoy
Courcelles and NativeForeigner, if you don't like the revised motion, propose a different one. Even if it doesn't pass, you'll at least make your intentions known. shoy (reactions) 13:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Mrjulesd
1. What's needed is some sort of clarifying motion. Something along these lines:

The committee resolves that:
 * Malik has announced his retirement from English Wikipedia, and will therefore remain desysoped. However, should Malik change his mind over retirement, he is to be resysoped under the following conditions. He needs to e-mail Arbcom, and in this e-mail he must:
 * Request the use of the admin tools.
 * Pledge to refrain from admin tool use if he is blocked for any reason.
 * Pledge to refrain from language incompatible with admin status.
 * An Arbcom member will then place a notice on WP:BN requesting his resysop.

2. Also, maybe the best way to deal with the PI conflict is to restrict editors to 6 month or older accounts with a minimum of 500 edits. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 20:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Lankiveil
From my uninvolved perspective, both users have directed racial abuse at each other, and obviously that can't be tolerated even under the most lenient interpretations of WP:CIVIL. I'm not going to go into which was worse than the other, both were equally unacceptable and it appears that both users have now permanently departed (with that departure being enforced on User:Brad_Dyer's part via an entirely justifiable indef block.

That said, I would urge the committee to accept this case, not to look at the I/P issue specifically, but to address the more widespread problem of racial harassment. A quick perusal of the rev-deleted and suppressed contributions at User talk:Malik Shabazz will reveal an extensive history of racist trolling and abuse. In these circumstances, it is no wonder that Malik eventually snapped, and I admire him for holding out for as long as he did under that onslaught; I doubt I'd have been able to. The committee should consider extending discretionary sanctions to all instances of racist abuse and trolling so that perpetrators can be swiftly dealt with, rather than Wikilawyering on AN/I over whether calling an African-American "boy" is really racist, as we see in some statements above. Dealing with this sort of abuse early and decisively will lead to better results for the project than taking the easy option and waiting for unpleasant incidents like this one to bring everything to a head. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
If you want to scare off the few admins willing to stick their heads in the rural route gas station toilet otherwise known as Wikipedia's I/P topic area, by all means take this case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved TwoBells
It has just come to my attention that the actual term employed was 'sonny boy', that actually changes everything, the term 'sonny boy' has no racial connotations anywhere as far as I know. In the English-speaking world, particularly, Great Britain and the Commonwealth nations, 'sonny boy' is a gentle, harmless term employed in everyday speech. When I first became aware of the issue I thought the issue might be a little more complex seeing as the term 'boy' does have racial connotations in the USA, however, 'sonny boy' most certainly does not. In closing, do we know the nationality of the editor concerned? It would go in his favour if he is either British or from the Commonwealth where such a term is in everyday usage with no negative connotation, regards. Twobells''t@lk 08:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As a white British English speaker, I would most likely interpret someone calling me "sonny boy" as condescending. However it has been made very clear that to a black person from the (southern) US it is a very racist term and Mike clearly interpreted it that way. user:Brad Dyer is now marked as a sockpuppet of user:NoCal100. The last version of NoCal100's user page written by them claimed they are an American English speaker from California, so it seems probable that they knew exactly the meaning of the term they were using. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Thryduulf, agreed, the term can be construed as condescending in the UK and the Commonwealth, however, being condescending is not racism. Having said that, if the editor concerned is American and the term 'sonny boy' is known to have racial connotation then by all means censor him of his use of language, best wishes. Twobells''t@lk 11:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) edit. I have searched extensively for a source that states 'sonny boy' has racial connotations, however, to date I have yet to find a single entry. Generally the term is defined thus: a general term of address to a man or boy. ...lovable; Someone who has very great personality. Younger person with great admiration for;of Someone who makes your days brighter; brings life; Someone you have great love for; He is not as perfect as sonny boy.. The very worst definition I could find was 'patronising of a young man' (1870). . Subsequently, if we are suddenly banning editors and admin for being patronising we are in deep doodoo. Twobells''t@lk 12:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Sonny boy" or even "sonny" between friends or acquaintances is fine, but between people who don't like each other is insulting. And someone not from the American south who knew that 'boy' to a black person was definitely insulting might believe that "sonny boy" was too. Doug Weller (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
The misogyny and anti-semitism of the comments is unjustifiable. This person cannot be an admin. Those who want to excuse it seem to be wrapped up in groupthink and may have lost perspective. Jehochman Talk 12:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012
The departure of Malik is a very bad thing for wikipedia. Somebody here above has pointed out that he is one of the seldom who is trusted enough to 'enforce' a decision/a solution. That's what we lack in this project and this area. Anyway, I had felt him very nervous these last time and given what has happened, I think a break from wp and from administratorship is welcome for him.

Proposal regarding I/P articles
The reasons why the area of the I/P articles are poisoned have been discussed here above. People have to understand how tiring it is to see coming back again and again socks or meatpuppet who game the system and being in the impossibility to do anything but 'discuss' again and again for nothing. There is no pleasure in spending half of one's time against this. It is poisoning and destructive to work in that area. All this for free and for a hobby. One could question the mental sanity of people keeping trying to do so. Or maybe principle it is just a question of principles.

I identify 3 ways for these socks with strong pov editing to game our system :

1. Due to policy of confidentiality, they can create new accounts undefinitely and due to WP:AGF we cannot request CU systematically. So they are eternel ;

2. Due to 1RR (or 3RR) and the equal treatment of all contributors (new or experienced ; unable to make abstraction of his/her pov's or not), they know that they will have the opportunity to defend their case on the talk page and that if they are not answered, will introduce their pov's ;

3. With experience, they learnt to use Civil POV pushing. This warranties to them that the discussion can last for ever and that nobody can stop any game because of WP:AGF.

Some remedies here above were suggested, as the 500 edit count. I fear it can be gamed easily. On wp:fr, we have seen "new accounts" adding categories in articles or addings spaces in order to reach the given limit required in some elections and then sleeping some time to get the required time of existence to reach the criteria...

We could ask a 'bot' to systematically chekc the IP of newcomers and compare this with banned users or proxies but I fear this will never be accepted but the community.

Other editors have concerns about the importance of WP:AGF and WP:CIVL. WP:1RR has also proven its efficiency. But that's also here that they game us. I think we need to find a solution around here. Something that is arbitrary enough to solve the issue but so light that it will not harm our principles.

Proposal : I suggest that we keep all the articles in WP:1RR for everybody but that we offer to some contributors who have received trust from the community of contributors in that field to be exempted of 1RR and who should fall under WP:3RR. It is very important that we have enought of these with sensitivies (CIVIL and AGF versions of the work pov's) from all sides and it is also important that this is not an automatic process but that they are 'elected' or at least 'accepted'.

Doing so, we don't prevent anybody to edit. We don't prevent anybody to be listened on the talk page. But in case of abuse or delicate situation, we entrust some editors to have a little advantage to chose the right version and to have some more weight in discussions. We also don't force contributors to discuss endlessly. If somebody is not convincing, we will not lose hours and hours to face civil pov-pushing. If we have enough contributors with all sensitivitives there is no risk of problems. We come back to the situation of other areas in wp.

Pluto2012 (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a concrete case
#1 and #2. Greyshark is tagged to be rather pro-I and I am tagged to be rather pro-P. This edit is made by an obvious sock who is in infraction with WP:1RR. But given it is a newbee, he is protected by the system of warning.


 * Why could not someone block him (at sight) and support us not to spend hours in finding the right way to get rid of this sock and tire him ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @WJBscribe : Thank you for very much your intervention. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Some WP:RS on the issue and return from experience
@Avraham and @Zero0000 : I don't agree with the symetry with which Avi wants to describe the problem even if -per WP:AGF- we have to establish totally symetric principles to solve this :


 * Nir Hasson, The right's latest weapon: 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia, Haaretz, 18 août 2010
 * Rachel Shabi, Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups, The Guardian, 18 août 2010
 * Hezki Ezra et Yoni Kempinski, First Ever: Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course, Aroutz Sheva.
 * Benjamin Hartman, GA special feature / An online battle for Israel's legitimacy, Haaretz, 14 novembre 2008.
 * Jeremy Gozlan, Wikipédia s’invite dans le système éducatif israélien, Tel-Avivre, juin 2014.

The community fought "paid advocacy". Here we are 1 step further. Israel government and other groups pay people to train others to advocate for Israel on wikipedia! There is no equivalent. And as contributors on the field we have lived that.

And even if both sides are involved : There is no symetry in the means :
 * Harriet Sherwood, Israel and Hamas clash on social media, The Guardian, 16 juillet 2014.
 * "In recent years Israel has recruited hundreds of students to assist in its hasbara, or public diplomacy campaign. These individuals – some of whom are paid – act openly and covertly, many engaging in below-the-line online discussion threads to promote Israel's interests.
 * At the start of the [2014] conflict in Gaza students at the Interdisciplinary Centre, a private college in Herzliya, launched a social media campaign on Twitter and Facebook, "Israel Under Fire".
 * According to its leader, Yarden Ben-Yosef, 27, more than 400 students have volunteered for the programme (...)".

On wp:fr we found a nest of these and after several years they were finally all found and banned. They founded an association and a wiki. Their facebook page is worth reading too.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Answer to Avi
@Huldra - Avraham - Zero0000:

Avi writes that: "However, I maintain that Pluto2012's point of view—assuming ill intent a priori to pro-Israeli editors because there is more "open" discussion of these editors—goes against our core policy of assuming good faith."

That's a straw man argument. I never wrote this. I wrote that we have to take care of all newcomers in the difficult area of the I/P conflict and ~that we should have more freedom to manage this because it is tiring, harms our motiviation of editing wikipedia and harms... us. What has happened with Malik illustrates this.

What I wrote, and Zero0000 and Huldra pointed out this too, it is that the situation is mainly the results of pro-I advocacy groups who are convinced that Israel is deligitimated in the media. I have documented this by wp:rs sources for those who are not aware of this. In the context of writing an article in the main, I would state that the comparison of Avraham with Yahoo is wp:undue and insisting in that direction is pov-pushing.

I am myself IRL strongly pro-I. I have arrived on the project 10 years ago and wrote several Featured Articles in the area on wp:fr. I put writing wikipedia above my convictions as a hobby and for intellectual pleasure. But as Huldra, Zero0000, and many others (!), we have been harassed and even outed at an incredible and unacceptable level.

I think the community is partly responsible of the situation for its 'inaction'. The extreme application of WP:AGF (by us) leads to WP:Civil POV pushing (by them). We (the community) should strongly support long standing editors against these dangers, wherever the problems come from and their side.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
Three distinct issues are raised here. Notoriously and proverbially, complex cases make bad law.

First, there are the (apparent) emergency. It is past.

Second, we have the festering mess of Israel-Palestine at Wikipedia. As many, many people have noted above, this is intractable, it must be dealt with, and the few administrators willing to deal with it ought not to be dismayed by ArbCom's heavy and ill-considered hand.

Third, we have the separate problem of harassment of editors -- including administrators -- by Wikipedians seeking to achieve various ends -- often to drive the opposition away from Wikipedia or to secure their bans. ArbCom has given made this problem far, far worse with its decisions in Gender Gap, Gamergate, and Lightbreather -- each of which secured to sexual harassers the end they most devoutly sought. Not only do harassers now have a textbook; they now have a book of case studies. Meanwhile, the call for the community to develop a policy against sexual harassment -- weakest of weak tea -- has apparently foundered on an entirely-predictable lack of consensus.

So, sure: an editor can’t go around calling a sock puppet a jewboy. Nor should an editor go around calling a rival a corrupt faggot (Gamergate), a cunt (GGTF), or distribute their faked nudes (Lightbreather). It’s a waste of breath warning you, I fear: you're going to take this case. When you do, you must secure to yourself experts in US racism, in anti-semitism, and in the rhetoric of Israel-Palestine today. Failure to secure such expertise will doom you again to yet another of the blunders and narrow, humiliating escapes that have punctuated your past year.

If you can possibly muster the patience, it would be wise to leave this case to your successors. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Anthonyhcole
I've just noticed this. I closed this recent ANI report where, at Brad's request, Malik deleted his (Malik's) edit summary that Brad considered to be a personal attack. I looked at some of Brad's first edits and found a level of competence rarely found in newbies and a definite bias toward Israel. The dispute in the abovelinked ANI discussion also included Malik objecting to Brad using a 7(?) year old source to make a claim about the present, which I take to be (a mild case - in isolation - of) misrepresentation of sources by Brad.

In the Noleander case, we had an editor consistently slanting existing articles and creating slanted articles against Jews and Israel (and I think from memory misusing sources) whom this committee banned from the topic. If Brad is clearly not a new user, is misusing sources to push a view and is consistently slanting articles toward Jews and Israel, it may be appropriate to topic-ban Brad.


 * Thanks Sportsguy17 . --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  14:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Sportsguy17
I usually don't comment at this kind of thing (for a good reason), but it really upsets me when we lose a dedicated, long-term content contributor over a bunch of bullshit like this. This is Wikipedia failing its content contributors at its finest. A sock was able to successfully drive off Malik, who is/was exactly the kind of editor Wikipedia needs. I hope that ArbCom can figure out, through a case, how to retain content contributors and prevent a similar blip from ever occurring again. Content editors being driven off is actually a larger problem than some people think and it's very deleterious to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs more content editors. If ArbCom doesn't solve that problem, then trolls and socks will continue to be able to drive content editors off the project.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 13:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Brad's already been indeffed for his egregious personal attacks and for driving Malik off the project...and he was found to be a NoCal100 sock, albeit I concur with your idea for a topic ban, as I'm sure we'll be hearing from him again (under a different alias, of course).  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 13:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by HiDrNick
Editors have pride. Regardless of Malik's retirement, I strongly encourage the arbiters to take a public vote on the original proposed motion, "Malik Shabazz may be resysopped by a request to the Bureaucrats if he intends to return to active editing and is reminded that use of administrative tools while blocked is prohibited.".

Malik's tools were stripped away by a dubious application of WP:LEVEL1 procedures, and his retirement is a direct result of ArbCom's actions. Passing this motion would make it explicitly clear that Malik is welcome to return to editing whenever he is ready to do so, without being required to grovel to ArbCom first.

A full case seems likely to be accepted. If a fair and public hearing finds that Malik should be desysopped for his conduct, then so be it. Hi DrNick ! 19:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:HiDrNick, the case is not going to be about editors but about reviewing and perhaps revising the sanctions now in existence for Palestine-Israel related articles. Doug Weller (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is all the more reason to dispense with this emergency temporary desysopping by motion, immediately. The fact that Malik has "retired" is irrelevant, and ArbCom must not use that to shirk its responsibility here.  Editors get riled up, retire, cool down, and later return to productive editing all the time.  But if ArbCom fails to explicitly remove this cloud, why should he ever want to come back?
 * If Malik's desysopping was intended to be permanent, he is entitled to a hearing, and he should not have to come asking for one.  Hi DrNick ! 20:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm
I'm not familiar with Malik at all, but I feel compelled to objectively provide a few obvious points for the record, if only to counter those who are blatantly clamoring for him to receive special treatment:
 * The original sanction against Malik was a minor and obviously-justifiable block that almost certainly would have been immediately overturned upon the resumption of a reasonable demeanor. It was Malik and only Malik who escalated the situation to the point of his block being extended, his desysopping and his retirement.
 * Malik willfully and knowingly misused his administrative privileges in violation of an active block and an emergency desysopping was literally the appropriate response to this.
 * Nobody on Wikipedia is irreplaceable or entitled to special treatment.
 * Being an upstanding member of the community does not absolve one of the consequences of significant misdeeds.
 * All Wikipedians know that administrators are subjected to exceptional levels of argumentativeness, incivility, personal attacks, condescension, coercion, wrongful accusations and disruptive behavior. Administrators are only given the tools if they have already demonstrated that they can be trusted by the community to withstand this for the entirety of their tenure, and yes, this includes hypothetical incidents of racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, ableism or any other forms of discriminatory, hate-fueled harassment.
 * Administrators are only human and yes of course we snap sometimes, even to the point of shameless incivility and personal attacks, and especially when provoked. I am perfectly guilty of this as are many other good administrators I'm familiar with. These incidents are virtually always overlooked and forgiven by the community. Even so, the comments made by Malik were obviously beyond the pale. The severity of his disruptive comments was obviously calculated, by far exceeded something which can be overlooked as an understandable fit of anger, persisted well beyond what could be considered to be an isolated outburst, and was directed at editors other than the one who provoked him. I completely understand why, given his long-term good standing, this drastic change in behavior is difficult for most people to comprehend, but it doesn't change the facts.
 * Looking at the big picture, I have to concur with . The initial severe incivility and personal attacks resulting in a block, compiled with the persistence of it to the point of talk page revocation, compiled with the tool misuse, compiled with even further incivility and personal attacks after being unblocked in an attempt to deescalate, clearly renders this person unfit to continue to be an administrator. We would not tolerate this sort of behavior out of anybody and the fact that people are suggesting we should is astonishing to me. S warm   ♠  23:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do some editors get more space to make their points?
This is not a case that I intend to get involved in, but I would like to point out that, once again, those editors who make preliminary statements get more room to make their points than those who do not.

Combine this with the fact that, once again, the word limits were not enforced (The Arbitration/Requests/Case page clearly states "Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words", but you let StevenJ81 post 1623 words, Avraham 1720 words, and Sean.hoyland 1960 words -- and copied them over to the evidence page without any trimming), I can only assume that the rules aren't real this time either and that you would ignore another 2000-word wall of text, so if I were to present evidence and follow the rules, I would get get 500 words while Sean.hoyland's gets 4000+ words.

Please note that we discussed this already at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. I am going to repeat something I wrote on that page:

Looking at the larger picture, we may have to face the possibility that whoever sets these procedures lacks certain skills regarding predicting the probable impact of procedural decisions like what gets copied where. I am thinking of the recent case where I was made a party to a dispute about gamergate and a copied opinion on that case was entered on a different page with my signature, all against my will and without my permission. That was a bad decision on procedures and it is something that if it occurred anywhere else on Wikipedia would have resulted in sanctions for forgery. I am experienced in designing procedures of this nature and I am sure there are others like me. Can we help by forming some sort of informal advisory board on arbcom instructions and procedures? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I very much agree. If one looks at the last few cases it is hard to escape the conclusion that the enforcement of evidence limits and deadlines (including the committee's own internal deadlines) has become lax. As points out above, these are not necessarily harmless errors, and I fully support the idea of putting additional measures in place to remedy them.  -Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. I got carried away with responses, and grossly violated the word count. Especially as some of what I wrote was related to Malik specficially and not the I/P area. I would be more than happy to either wrap my statements in a collapse box, or have them outright deleted, and replaced with a 500 word statement focused on this case. -- Avi (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and collapsed unrelated statements and enough text so that what is not hidden is fewer than 500 words. I would not be averse to a clerk flat-out deleting the hidden sections. I understand that any new statements are subject to a new 500/50 limit, correct? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to make it clear that I am in no way faulting the individuals I listed as examples. It is very easy to lose count when replying to multiple editors, and without a clerk watching over the case and reminding folks when they exceed the word counts, of course some people go over the limit without realizing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting back to my main point, Can we who are interested in this sort of thing help by forming some sort of informal advisory board on arbcom instructions, procedures, and enforcement? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the way the rules get "honored" in the past is having clerks sit on it and they go warn/beg/implore people to cut down their submissions, but that takes much effort, and this case took forever to open, so my guess is it being August in the Northern hemisphere clerks are taking it easy, somewhere. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The rules didn't get enforced in the Kww case either, and that one started in June. Frankly, I am not too worried about the lack of enforcement. I am far more concerned with arbcom creating procedures that lead to bad results. I was listed as a party to a dispute about gamergate (thus putting me at risk of harassment -- and I post with my real name) and a comment on that case was copied onto a page I had never edited with my signature attached, all against my will and without my permission. It took several protests to get the forgery removed. My point is that anyone who lacks the ability to anticipate a problem like that should not be allowed to make decisions about whether or not to move other editors comments between pages. We elect arbcom members for their wisdom and ability to resolve tough people problems. That doesn't automatically make them good at creating low-level procedures like this. Please, arbcom, let us help. Let us figure out a good set of procedures and instructions, and then you can have final approval. Otherwise we will keep doing things like giving one commenter four to eight times as many words as another commenter gets. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Respectfully,, the clerks did not open the case because the Committee instructed us to hold enacting the motion for a not-definite period, and it was only with prodding that we got authorization to enact it. FYI, the arbitrators are clarifying best practice for the clerks to follow, and I expect to be clarifying the clerks' procedures based on those shortly, especially regarding enforcement of word limits. Suggestions, etc. are very welcome, and those that involve the procedures of the clerk office can be sent to WP:ACCN. That sounds like quite a good idea, but I'm not certain what level of changes you expect to make. Do you intend for these suggestions to merely build upon existing framework, or to create a new system for proceedings entirely? Thanks all for any patience you can muster. L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 00:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI all, I've made a quick amendment to the clerks' procedures that should remove the ambiguity in "should I warn or wait for an arb to say something", which should reduce the chances of this happening in the future. No arbs have given directions on the trimming of the existing prelim statements at the evidence page yet. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 02:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Creating a new system is rarely a good idea, and I wouldn't support it. I am envisioning discussing minor tweaks one at a time, probably starting with trying to fix the two problems I mentioned above. (some editors get more words than others, I and several other editors were made a party to the gamergate case and had comments added to that case with our signatures, even though we never intended to get involved in that case).


 * The phrase "the arbitrators are clarifying best practice for the clerks to follow" troubles me. I see no evidence that being a good arbitrator gives a person the skills needed to come up with best practice for the clerks to follow, and one way of interpreting that particular sentence is "Thanks for the offer, Guy, but we don't need help from you or anyone else". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with almost everything Guy Macon has said so far and at the Kww case. I design, refine and outright butcher process-flows as part of my job. Writing procedures, processes to follow, how to react in specific situations. The main flaws with Arbcom's processes are 1)Process-creep. Over time the process of a case has built up to a monster that is really not appropriate to all situations. The Arbs and clerks adhere to a process that could be twice as short in some situations if taking a common sense approach. An example: Where cases are about misuse of admin tools, the actual evidence and workshop phases serve zero purpose. If the case has been accepted it has already been evidenced that the tools were misused, the next step should be 'Is the tool misuse worth detooling?' - a further evidence and workshop phase do not benefit that. 2)As Guy has demonstrated above, the actual processes they do have are either not followed or are bent beyond their intent in order to get around them. Example: Word-count is meant to force editors to think about what they are submitting and restrict their evidence to the relevant facts rather than wandering off, soapboxing etc. When the clerks and arbs allow the word restriction to no longer be relevant, it should either be removed completely or raised to a level that encompasses the opening statements. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion as to the merits and extent of word limits has been a perennial discussion internally. I'll expand on this in the next day or two, although I wouldn't be opposed to changing how word limits work. Ideally workshop and evidence should be a way for arbcom/community interaction on these issues but it oftentimes doens't work out that way. In this particular case it's largely been reframed around IP/civility issues so the introductory phases are relevant as the case is framed. NativeForeigner Talk 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with both of the above comments. Related issue: In the normal course of events, the only time I should ever see a page on Wikipedia with a comment signed by Guy Macon is when I, Guy Macon, posted that comment on that page. The only exceptions should be things like when I post something on the wrong page, and it gets moved (not copied) with a note at the old location explaining where it was moved and why. Furthermore, on those rare occasions where such a move places one of my comments on a page where I have never posted, it should never, ever be marked as being something that I cannot delete without facing sanctions from Arbcom.


 * In fact, doing that might very well (I say "might" because it is a gray area) violate the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. As I write this, at the bottom of the page is says "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License". That license in turn says "In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license: [...] the author's moral rights" (wikilink to moral rights wikipedia page in original).


 * Some folks may not quite get what I am talking about, so let me explain using an example that is not a gray area. Someone posts an RfC and I respond with "Support, per numerous arguments presented by others" and my signature. Then someone cuts and pastes that comment into an unrelated RfC. That would be a violation of my moral rights to the integrity of my comment, by not preserving the integrity of my comment from alteration, distortion, or mutilation. In other words, in this particular example the CC BY-SA 3.0 License doesn't just protect the words of my comment (changing the "Support" to "Oppose" would be an example of that) but protects the fact that my comment was posted as a !vote on that particular RfC. Of course this isn't an absolute prohibition against moving comments to other pages -- people do post things in the wrong place and moving it to the right place doesn't violate any moral rights -- but it takes a human to make that decision. In the gamergate case the clerks copied my comment automatically because they were instructed to copy all comments, thus arguably violating the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. (As I have said before, this is not a criticism of the clerks who were just doing their jobs. It's the procedures I am arguing against here.) Related: Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We've done this several times this year so that the evidence is all on one page and we don't have to keep flipping back and forth. I guess you could argue that we shouldn't delete anything you post on a case page, but obviously we do that from time to time if an editor has gone way over their word length and won't cut it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * All good points. I never participated in an ArbCom before, and didn't even notice that there were limits. I will in the future. Also ... as Avi did, I will edit down my comments on the evidence page, though it may take me several days to get back to do so. But as I note below, I'm not sure exactly what we're "proving" here, so I have no way to know if my comments currently on the evidence page are trenchant or not. ... And as I also ask below, is there something we already agree to, so that we don't have to keep providing evidence? I'd love to focus on solutions. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If none of your evidence focusses on problems editing the P-I area, do nothing. Doug Weller (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Would the Arbitrators kindly clarify the case motion?
I truly don't mean this to be thick-headed or difficult, but I have a question. The main case page here is the original discussion page on Malik's situation. This case grew out of that situation, and I am an advocate for everyone remembering that. So I don't have a problem with that per se. However, I truly can't tell what the drafting arbitrators have decided is the question and scope to be decided. So, with all due respect to the ArbCom, would someone mind clarifying that? Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When we accepted the case it was with a motion stating that we will be "reviewing and if necessary modifying by motion existing sanction provisions in the prior Palestine-Israel articles case." I'm in discussion with my colleagues about how we can make this more explicit. Doug Weller (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. But by itself, it feels a little vague.
 * For example, we are supposed to "bring evidence". Evidence of what? Again, I think I know what you want to see, but there are a lot of ways I could go.
 * Similarly, I don't know how much (if at all) we start from some common ground of agreement. For example only : Do we have to prove (and to what standard?) that substantial amounts of trouble are caused in this area by IPs and single-issue editors? Or do we all stipulate (to at least some degree) that this is a problem?
 * The more time we have to spend proving there is a problem, the less time we have to spend discussing solutions in the Workshop. So understanding what actually needs to be proved, and getting there efficiently, is important.
 * Thanks to you and your colleagues for undertaking to make this more explicit. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, may I raise a parliamentary inquiry, as it were? The workshop closes on 15 September, which is the second day of Rosh Hashanah, one of the most important Jewish holidays of the year. I think we could agree that this arbitration has a strong chance of involving many Jewish participants, and a decent number of those may not be available to go on Wikipedia on 14-15 September, during the holiday. The problem is not that we cannot participate in the workshop before the holiday. Clearly we can. The problem is that for a full 48 hours at the end of the workshop, people can make suggestions and proposals adverse to us that we will have no opportunity to respond to before the workshop closes. So I would respectfully request that the workshop close on 16 September. This way, all contributors will have a fair chance for a last look before it closes. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Evidence that the present sanctions still aren't making the area a collegial place to edit. Whatever you can provide with the word limits, although if you are already concise and have more evidence we can probably extend them a bit. The evidence phase doesn't take time from the workshop phase, so I don't see an issue there. No problem at all changing the workshop date, we'll do that (although not today, need to discuss if there's any problem with the 16th, if if the 17th might be better). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a related scope question; is an examination of the situation that led to this case being accepted (between Malik Shabazz and Brad Dyer) in scope? I don't have much to add on the I/P article topic broadly, but I think that the way that particular incident was handled leaves much room for improvement.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

I am totally confused by this. I was notified on my talk page of this arbitration today, but I have no idea what the question is. I have been involved in editing with both Malik and Brad, and have lots of thoughts to share, but it seems we are way past that stage already. If input is desired, please do let me know. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Second parliamentary inquiry (attention Doug Weller): If it was not appropriate for the the workshop to close on a major Jewish holiday like Rosh Hashanah, it is equally or more inappropriate for the evidence page to close on that day. See argument a few paragraphs just above here. I assume at this point that you cannot move the evidence close period earlier. Therefore, I respectfully request that the evidence page close not earlier than 16 September.
 * I will add: the new workshop close date is 28 September, which is Sukkot, another major Jewish holiday where many of us will be off-wiki. Please understand: I am not making these dates up. September 14-15, 23, 28-29 and October 5-6, along with Saturdays, are days that many Jewish contributors need to be off-wiki.
 * I am willing to assume that ArbCom and the clerks are simply not aware of the timing of these holidays, especially Sukkot, which was not previously part of the discussion. I therefore assume that ArbCom will accommodate this request, as they did my previous one. But I have to say that when the Workshop close was moved partly to accommodate Rosh Hashanah, and then the Evidence close is moved directly to Rosh Hashanah, my willingness to assume good faith starts to be strained. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary statements removed
Hi everyone. At the direction of a drafting arbitrator, I have removed the preliminary statements from the evidence page, and posted them to the main case talk page, as was standard practice prior to a procedure change about a month ago. Thanks - L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 21:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JordanGero
Although this matter appears to have run a good part of its course already, it relates to circumstances I have recently (and some further back) been involved in, namely the idea of assuming or automatically granting moral superiority to those who belong to an identity group that has been or is perceived to have been historically victimized. Prior to registering a user name, several of my edits of controversial articles were reversed by one Malik Shabazz, with talk page discussions with Mr. Shabazz quickly turning extremely racial and caustic, on his part, not mine. One of the justifications used by Mr. Malik Shabazz was his "status" as a "black Jew", therefore he "knew better." I now see how deep-seated this belief of implied moral superiority actually is, and how it contributes to the mentality of certain individuals, particularly Mr. Shabazz in this case, but to those who support him as well (see following paragraph) to believe they are untouchable, as well as to the tone, diction, and overall presentation of controversial Wikipedia articles and subjects.

Namely, DrKiernan (talk) wrote the following in the 'Preliminary Statement' section above: "Frankly, I don't think it's possible to call a black Jew a racist, and expect to be taken seriously." This statement is best described by one term: permissible racism exercised by unjustified assumptions of such permission. Believing that one's identity automatically precludes one from accurately being described as a racist is in itself a racist declaration because it grants automatic moral superiority based exclusively on membership in a group, which is exactly in line with my discussion on the talk page of the European Colonization of the Americas article, not to mention says absolutely nothing about the personal qualities of the individual at hand (i.e., their character). I will forgo explaining more substantively exactly why DrKiernan's assertion that someone who is a "black Jew" cannot be accurately and reasonably described as a racist, on account that its absurdity is rather clear to begin with, and hopefully seen and understood as such. Arguing that calling someone "Jewboy" is not racist simply because it comes from a source that also claims to be Jewish is borderline nonsensical, particularly given that Mr. Shabazz appears to see the conflict as "Jewboy vs. nigger", on account of his statement of "the Jewboy has chased out the nigger." By this logic, anyone who convincingly claims to be of Jewish origin, culture, or religion can hurl anti-Semitic slurs with impunity. Moreover, DrKiernan's argument that black individuals call each other "nigger" all the time and it is not seen as racist completely belies the point: such circumstances are slang references- they are not made to racially offend, particularly not when such racial offense is made after the person making it has taken the position of not being part of the group against which he/she has verbally attacked (i.e., "the Jewboy has chased out the nigger.").

Having said all that, I would like to note that I am rather pleased that the abuses of power by the user Malik Shabazz have come to light, and that his racist and distasteful methods of injecting his point of view across Wikipedia are being thoroughly examined. I take comfort in knowing that the western bias of resolving morally and historically ambiguous contests in favor of those who are or are assumed to have been victimized has its limits, and that there is a point when bending facts and abusing one's position as a minority comes to be unacceptable in determining the best way to present a topic or event. Here endeth the lesson. JordanGero (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, how this comes out of nowhere, from a brand-new editor. Perhaps CU can clear up where this really comes from. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I request to make a statement as well
I happened to notice this arbitration request, and want to give a statement here testifying to my respect for Malik Shabazz as an editor on Wikipedia.

Just a few words about myself. I am a top 500 Wikipedia editor, who has been actively editing Wikipedia for 8 years, and does so with much pleasure till this day.

I have had regular opportunities to see Malik in action, often as the resolver of some content dispute, mostly on Israel-related articles. We have had identical as well as opposite opinions, and often Malik has resolved the issue with another point of view, or a compromise solution. His edits and conflict solution skills are of the highest order.

I am well familiar with vandal or single-purpose edits, which constitute a rising percentage of overall edits on Wikipedia with the years. Sometimes it is very frustrating to have to deal with edit warriors. If at one time, users would propose changes before they make them, nowadays most editors just make the change and even when reverted, they think that till the discussion is over, they feel that they must restore their valuable contribution to Wikipedia.

In view of Malik's excellent record, and with a deep understanding of the hard work and frustration involved in dealing with all kinds of disruptive and tendentious editors on Wikipedia, I ask the arbitration committee to be sympathetic to Malik Shabazz, and as lenient as possible. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (1) (January 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by Zero0000 at 01:16, 2 December 2015 (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 Zero0000
I'm writing concerning the General Prohibition "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Unfortunately many articles are seeing a lot of edits from IPs and others failing to meet this requirement (many of which are probably unaware of it) followed by reverts by others. Semi-protection would help a lot. My question is: since semi-protection will have no effect on editors who are entitled to edit at all, can semi-protection be applied by involved administrators?

Of course automated enforcement of the prohibition would be the best solution.

Statement by Mz7
I don't think the committee should make any blanket endorsement of involved administrator action. I can envision disputes over which articles fall under the general prohibition, and things can turn ugly if there is an WP:INVOLVED case. Obviously, the reasonability rule still applies—if an involved admin protects a page that any reasonable administrator would also protect, then there shouldn't be any issues (see third paragraph of WP:INVOLVED). But this is a very case-by-case thing, and if there is even a slight possibility of contentiousness (and in this topic area, this might always be the case...), always WP:RFPP. Mz7 (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create some form of hidden maintenance category that includes all the pages under the restriction, and craft a bot or an edit filter that disallows or automatically reverts and warns users fall under the restrictions? If ARCA is not the right venue for discussing this, we should probably have a community discussion. Mz7 (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:CASCADE, cascading semi-protection is currently not available to administrators, as it would effectively allow non-administrators to semi-protect pages. Even if it were possible, by my understanding of cascade, you would have to transclude every page you want to semi-protect onto one page, which would be rather cumbersome. Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (PIA3)
It was fairly clear that there would be trouble making this fly. The difference between a 500/30 protection on one article, and the same on a whole topic is one of kind not quantity.

While it is technically feasible to find a solution, it is pretty undesirable to effectively topic-ban 7 billion people - especially given the breadth with which these topic bans are interpreted. It is equivalent to banning all under 60s from parkland, becasue some youth drop litter. (More topical analogies might also spring to mind.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Kingsindian
I meant to open an WP:ARCA request for this, but was too lazy and forgot.


 * There is no way to consistently apply the General Prohibitions remedy to the entire topic area, and nobody has even tried so far. It is even unclear as to what list of pages one is supposed to apply this to.


 * Semi-protection will not take care of the 30/500 requirement, and is trivial to defeat by a moderately determined sockpuppet.


 * IP and non 30/500 edits are often benign and useful. See this diff updating the HDI status for State of Palestine. Many others can be given.

I suggest the following, which is explicitly allowed by the remedy. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters. Let the emphasis of the enforcement be on reverts rather than semi-protection, edit filters or blocks. Use semi-protection sparingly and temporarily, in direct response to disruption. 's proposal about involved admins applying semi-protection (ideally temporarily) seems good to me. The emphasis on blocks makes the most sense, is most consistent and least harmful. It is trivial to undo any bad edits by IPs, inexperienced editors etc. In my experience, just mentioning the magic word WP:ARBPIA3 is enough to "win" any content dispute (the recent flap involving Huldra is an exception rather than the rule; she didn't say the magic word). Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed, but not surprised that my common sense and consistent proposal isn't attracting any interest. It has been months since the remedy was passed. The sky hasn't fallen by relying on reverts so far. Nobody has a clue about how to implement the remedy in a consistent way using something more drastic like lots of semiprotection or edit filters. For instance, a ton of articles come under ARBPIA which don't have the template on their talk pages, so template based edit filters wouldn't work. Perhaps the committee should stop chasing chimeras. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 01:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mdann52
If we are going to do this, it may make sense to create a page (eg WP:Palestine-Israel articles 3), place that under cascading semi-protection, then allow editors to add articles to it in this topic area as needed. I'd note we do also have Special:AbuseFilter/698, although this will not work effectively on larger scale applications - there just aren't the resources available for it to run! Mdann52 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ah, my bad - I'm aware you can set it up in the site config, but I see why you wouldn't want to. Thanks for correcting me on the other point too. Personally, I don't believe now there is anyway we can centrally enforce this reliably in that case. Mdann52 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While an edit filter is possible, it would require every page to be manually loaded in, and with limited resources to run the filter, it's unlikely to run well enough for this purpose. Mdann52 (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Question from Harry Mitchell
Without comment on the substantive issue, could an edit filter not check for a specific category or a template on the talk page? Or perhaps the existence of a specific editnotice, since those can only be created by administrators and a handful of others? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MusikAnimal
Indeed, this is basically a repeat of what I've written below... we already have a filter that disallows unqualified users to edit a explicit set of articles, which an edit filter manager can add to easily. However there has been long discussion of a template/filter-based solution. You would add pp-30-500 to any page and an edit filter would apply the 30/500 editing restriction to that page. An additional filter ensures only admins can add/remove it. See User:MusikAnimal/pp-30-500. Users would be able to request an article be put under 30/500 at WP:RFPP. So in effect we have a new form of protection until we can get WMF to create what we need. The filters need to make this work are ready to implemented, but I haven't done so yet as I also felt broader input was needed &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  01:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am confident the two filters needed to make a template-based solution won't have a noticeable effect on performance. We have numerous other filters that are less restrictive and with much more complex regular expressions. With Special:AbuseFilter/698 we are already halfway there. This sounds expensive, but performance is greatly improved by restricting the filter to the article/talk space, to users with < 500 edits, and then checking for the presence of the pp-30-500 template. We could do one better and require admins add it to the very top of the article, so the regex won't need to scan the whole page &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (1): Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3 (1): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I thought we had asked the WMF about automated enforcement mechanisms?  DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two questions here:
 * Can involved administrators semi-protect pages in this topic area?
 * I do not think this topic area should be treated any differently than any other with regards to WP:INVOLVED, so no (except as per Mz7). Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can the restrictions be enforced automatically?
 * This is not a matter for ArbCom as far as I am concerned. If it is possible (I don't know) then as long as all relevant policies and guidelines are followed then it may be used subject to community consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If it gets the thumbs up from BAG, one could use an admin bot to semi-protect all of the pages in the topic area. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Concerning the clarification suggested by Thryduulf in this section, I agree that involved admins should not get involved in any aspect of enforcement, including this. I would like to see a way of enforcing numerical limits that did not rely on individual actions;any way that works is OK with me.  DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with an administrator semi-protecting a page that falls within these boundaries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Recommend semiprotecting all articles as the ruling effectively does this anyway. Yes some articles will be 'gamed' by accounts but that can be policed much more easily of all articles semiprotected. Admin actions should be done by uninvolved admins though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Liberal use of semiprotection on pages that unregistered editors are not permitted to edit because of an ArbCom ruling seems logical. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Semiprotection can be superseded by the 500/30 solution as discussed below. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned below, an automated, edit filter-based mechanism of enforcement is the best option here. Given that semi-protection does not actually enforce the specific restriction in question, I don't see it as an appropriate first resort. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * mentions a dynamic, template-based edit filter implementation in his statement below. If I understand what's being proposed correctly, there would be no need to pre-define a list of articles, and consequently no performance issue with running the filter, even for a large article set. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If an edit filter will work, I support that as a solution. Semi-protection isn't sufficient. Doug Weller  talk 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly as Kirill has mentioned. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 13:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , User:Mdann52 points out the flaw here, which had struck me also but I assumed I didn't understand how it would work. If Mdann52 is correct, we need to think again. Doug Weller  talk 11:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to be that MusikAnimal has answered that adequately. If he is wrong, and it does not work efficiently enough, only then we will need to reconsider.  DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2) (January 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by When Other Legends Are Forgotten at 04:29, 31 December 2015 (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 When Other Legends Are Forgotten
Does an article need to be tagged with the  template on its associated Talk page for it to be considered subject to the case restrictions (30/500)? I am referring to articles which clearly relate to the conflict (e.g, they contain text such as "Palestinians exiled in 1948 are denied their right of return.", and as such, it would be hard to argue that they could not "be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict".

A further clarification is required with regards to IPs ability to edit talk pages of articles subject to the 30/500 restriction, as it seems that some administrators are of the opinion that they are allowed to edit such pages (see )

- I am not opposed to enforcing the restriction via a template, in fact, I would welcome such a measure. But that really does not address the issue I am asking clarification for, nor does your suggestion that only admins be allowed to add the template seem sensible to me - there is no such requirement to add the {{ARBPIA}] template  to such articles today - any editor can do so, at their discretion. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of articles subject to the restriction, and many of them are not tagged. Are we to wait until an admin sees fit to add the template to articles such as Jibril Agreement before IPs can be reasonably prevented (via reverts ) from editing them in contravention of the restriction?

Statement by MusikAnimal

 * I don't think the 30/500 restriction should be left to personal opinion. It may sometimes be that the subject itself is not directly associated to Arab-Israeli conflict, rather limited to a particular section, or even a few lines of text. At any rate I definitely don't think it's fair to unqualified users to give no indication that they shouldn't be editing.Currently there is an edit filter that disallows edits from users who do not meet the 30/500 qualification. When this was set up I was given an explicit set of articles to target, that has been added to since then. I believe the editing restriction should be exclusively enforced by these means. It seems silly to allow any given editor to enforce it manually based on their own interpretation (not to say When Other Legends Are Forgotten's opinion is wrong).There has been talk of introducing a new page protection system powered by a template (documentation to come) and two separate edit filters. Lengthy discussion can be found here and here. If we proceed with this route, it will be clear to editors the page is protected, as it will have a padlock icon. The decision to impose the editing restriction will be left to admins at their discretion, and users could request this protection at WP:RFPP (have to talk to Cyberpower678 about the bot, but one step at a time). Any admin can add the enforcing template to a page and the edit filter will then protect that page under the 30/500 restriction. An additional edit filter will ensure only admins can add and remove the padlock template. I believe this new system will alleviate confusion on what articles are under the editing restriction, as the process will be very formal. Having authored the template and offering to author the new filters, I am actually ready to move forward with this approach pending consensus to do so. Pinging and  (maybe this isn't the best place to discuss)Hopefully we can adopt the new system soon. Until then, I believe the single edit filter we have now is the best course. If there are any outstanding articles that fall under the editing restriction but are not currently enforced, please let edit filter managers know via the filter noticeboard.


 * (pings don't actually work here since there's no timestamp =P): I don't think getting admin attention will be that much of an issue, as you'll be able to request protection at WP:RFPP just as you do any type of protection (we can even add it to Twinkle). E.g. anyone can add pp-protected to an article, but it won't actually be protected until an admin comes along and does it. Similarly the same is true for the 30/500 restriction. I realize this is a bit different because with semi it's at admin discretion whether or not it should be protected, whereas if you created a new page that's unambiguously about the Arab-Israeli conflict, no one is going to argue it qualifies for the 500/30 arbitration remedy -- and by all means, revert as necessary in that case if the protection is not yet in place. You might as well request an admin to add the padlock template, otherwise it's purely up to the page watchers to enforce the restriction, and only those page watchers who know the restriction even exists. Admin intervention also ensures we don't get bogus claims that a page is eligible for 30/500 (again, not referring to you). E.g. one could add it to the talk page and start reverting away, until someone comes by and stops them.Another idea is to make sure all pages with the 30/500 template are also semi'd (as no anons meet 30/500). That way we can utilize some technical magic to make the ARBPIA template add a category if the corresponding subject page is not semi'd. This would give us a list of pages that probably also need to have the 500/30 enforcing template added to them. Hell, we could even have a bot find all pages with ARBPIA on the talk page and no pp-30-500 template on the subject page. I don't want to get too carried away with technical matters, and further backlog my list of to-dos, but the template approach to enforcing the 500/30 restriction is at the top of that list -- and I really think it is the best solution, which means we will require admin intervention to qualify an article for 30/500 but in a way that's more formal and conducive to a stable editing environment &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  06:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If by "tag" you mean the new pp-30-500 which automatically enforces the editing restriction, the addition of it will absolutely have to be left to admins (they can be involved, assuming there's no question it applies to that article). This is a powerful editing restriction, much moreso than semi, pending-changes, or even PC2. We can not let just anyone add it, we need admins to verify it is truly needed on that article or else it's usage is subject to abuse. Again, getting admin attention is as simple as making an RFPP request. These are processed quickly.Now, if an article is clearly subject to the arbitration remedy, anyone can of course enforce the 30/500 restriction manually, but they should at least add ARBPIA to the talk page so people are aware this is a thing, and also request 30-500 protection assuming they are aware it exists. There might also be articles where only a portion of it is subject to 30/500 restriction. In such a case we obviously wouldn't protect it with pp-30-500, and enforement would have to be left to page watchers.Again mind you there is an edit filter already doing this job, just doesn't go off of a template admins can add, which is the better solution as it won't require edit filter managers to update which articles are protected. This edit filter was put in place as a result of this ArbCom case, and it's usage was challenged and upheld here and here. The filter-enforced disallowing of edits is favourable over letting editors do the job manually, as it presents a friendly edit notice telling the user why they can't edit, as opposed to bitey page watchers reverting with the summary "you can't edit here". All in all, if we are to keep the 30/500 editing restriction, I see no reason why we shouldn't do in a way consistent with other page protections, especially given this one is the more powerful of protections.


 * Regarding talk pages: I'm with Zero, Kelapstick and Drmies in that there should be no automatic disallowing of users not meeting 30/500 from editing talk pages. This is the only venue they have to contribute. As such protection should be done no different than as we would with any other page – only protect once repeated disruption has been observed, as a preventive measure. We should start with semi, and if disruption continues, admins will be able to add pp-30-500 to enforce the 30/500 editing restriction.I also agree with Xaosflux that edit notices (and the ARBPIA on the talk page) should be required. The issue is unqualified editors still see the Edit button, and may spend some time making sizable contributions before edit filters disallows the edit, or someone reverts them. It's only fair for them to be given prior notice &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  21:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This template/filter based solution is ready to go, I just wanted to make sure there was consensus to implement it. This is a whole new form of protection, in line with any other level of protection. With it's usage comes responsibility, and a strict protocol might be needed. I think it should only be used when a page is unambiguously qualifies for 30/500 protection, in that the subject itself falls under the restriction – not just a section of the article or a paragraph therein. I also don't think it should be used on talk pages, and that clearly is subject to debate. Note that I can implement it to only work on article pages. What do you think? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  00:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
I do not think that a tag should be required. Experience with the ARBPIA sanctions over several years shows that the few disputes over which articles are included are fairly easy for the admins at AE to decide. And once they have decided, the status of that article is settled from then on.

In case a tag is decided, it would be a very bad idea to require an uninvolved admin to add it. The outcome of such a rule in practice would that the sanctions would only ever be active in a small fraction of the articles in which they are required. I propose the opposite: any editor satisfying the 30/500 condition can add a tag; any uninvolved administrator can rule that the tag is not appropriate for that article. (But I still think that no tags at all would be better.) Zerotalk 07:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding talk pages, previous restrictions in the ARBPIA series were not applied to talk pages and I think it would be bad policy to start now. Talk pages should be open to all editors in good standing. Editors who cannot edit an article themselves should still be able to go onto the talk page and make suggestions for article improvement. If necessary, the wording of ARBPIA3 should be adjusted to make this clearer. Zerotalk 23:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

, yes, the literal reading of "any page" includes talk pages, project pages, even user pages (eg my talk page is clearly related to the i-p conflict; are IPs now forbidden from writing there?). However I looked in vain for any discussion or even mention of this issue on the ARBPIA3 pages and seriously wonder if the arbitrators who voted for the proposal noticed that it said "page" rather than "article". If an IP notices a typo, where can be it legally reported? Zerotalk 07:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
While it's clear that ARBCOM explicitly allow for the GP to be enforced in any way that is currently possible including manual reverts, When Other Legends Are Forgotten seems to be under the impression that the restrictions can be enforced by sockpuppets of topic banned/blocked users, such as himself, very probably a sock of NoCal100, during the often extended periods Wikipedia's slow and deeply flawed system of protection against sockpuppetry allows the sock to remain active. Perhaps ARBCOM could make it clear that sockpuppets of blocked users are never allowed to enforce the restrictions (or indeed do anything at all in ARBPIA) and When Other Legends Are Forgotten could accept and abide by that clear rule so that we don't have the absurd and counterproductive situation of a person who is not allowed to edit in ARBPIA (or anywhere) telling people that they are not allowed to edit in ARBPIA. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by xaosflux
Personally I abhor that a new "class" of editor has been created by decree of ArbCom. That being said, as it has been decided to ban all new editors from editing certain articles - I think it needs to be abundantly clear to the editors that they are under such a topic ban and why. I think at a minimum edit notices should be required on any page that is considered in scope of this ban. While the decision only says that this ban "may" be enforced, I would never enforce it for any good faith edit - however the sanction appears to support allowing anyone else to enforce it even for good faith editing. — xaosflux  Talk 16:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2): Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * No, but articles that fall inside of the 30/500 GP should be tagged. We explicitly allow for the GP to be enforced in any way that is currently possible including manual reverts -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  06:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The wording is plenty clear that are prohibited from editing any page includes talk pages. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Guerillero. Having said that, I think  is correct in that an automatic, edit filter-based system would be a far better enforcement mechanism than having individual editors perform manual reverts, and would not object to amending the case to require its use once it's operational. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support trying it out on the basis you've suggested (application based only on article subjects and only to articles). Let's test it out for a few months and see how well it works and whether we need to adjust those criteria. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All articles covered by the 30/500 rule should be tagged, however from a practical standpoint I know that not all of them are. Not being tagged does not inherently mean that the article does not fall under the restriction. As far as the wording of the GP, it restricts editing on any page, which based on my interpretation would include talk pages. Having said that, common sense should prevail. For example, if an IP makes a good faith edit request on the talk page, the request should be reviewed, rather than just blanket reverted, because it's permitted. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is ready to implement, we should implement it per Kirill's suggestion, for articles only (not talk pages). --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, and yes. No, they don't need to be tagged; yes, I see no reason to deny IPs from editing the talk pages (in other words, I'm going with Kelapstick's common sense, rather than his earlier reference to the Letter Of The Law). Drmies (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also no and yes, in that I wouldn't add the edit filter to talk pages. GF requests should be considered, that's common sense, but I'm not sure how much use of talk pages those that can't actually edit the articles should be allowed. Doug Weller  talk 21:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Doug, I think the risk of disruption on those talk page is so much lower that we can accept that. If the privilege gets abused we can block, and I suppose we can always revisit it. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure Drmies, we don't need to do anything right now about talk pages. We can handle any problems that might arise. Doug Weller  talk 15:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In brief, I agree with Kelapstick; articles subject to the restriction should be tagged, but common sense says talk pages should be unrestricted unless problems occur. On the template/filter system, I'm glad to see that people have been working on developing a workable technical solution for this, which is much superior to "manual" enforcement. I hesitate to have arbcom start mandating the use of specific, purpose-built technical means to restrict editing, but given the level of disruption in this topic area, would be willing to try Kirill's suggested amendment once the system is up and running. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What Kirill said. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Supporting Kirill's comments also. Doug Weller  talk 15:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pages should be tagged (both with an editnotice and a notice on the talk page) and technical enforcement seems optimal (to the extent of Kirill's comments above). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree that pages should be tagged (And I think that when the more complicated filter is adopted, the padlock is not sufficient tagging--though people will not be able to edit, they need to know why); and I agree that this is not meant to  apply to talk pages. If we ever need to do that, we can, but so far it does not seem necessary.  DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (3) (January 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 14:32, 12 January 2016 (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 Sir Joseph
I put in an AE against someone but........... but I did have a question for clarification. The most recent decision of the ARBPIA specified that any editor may revert an IP editor or < 500 poster without regard for the content of the post.

1)If the IP is adding correct information, and another editor leaves it in, does it then still get to be reverted, and if it does, does it get to be reverted hours later? For example, an IP editor adds some content, I, or someone else looks at it and realizes it to be a good edit so it's left in. Is it still considered revertable or is it now part of the article? Does it make sense that it can be reverted 5 hours later, even if the article was edited by another editor in the meanwhile?

2)If the IP is adding/removing information and the non-IP is just reverting without looking since IP-IP-IP says we can, what can a non-IP editor do to not run into 1RR rules when he wants to keep that information in?

I understand that someone might not want to get involved, but there are issues when you revert blindly without looking at the content. I've seen it several times already and most recently yesterday/today which is what made me post this clarification request. There certainly has to be a time limit on the IP reversion, or at the very least once another editor has edited the page after the IP editor, then that IP editor's edits should not be considered revertible.
 * @Serialjoepsycho, so you're OK with someone reverting an IP edit's content indefinitely? At a certain point, the edit becomes part of the article and should no longer become an "IP edit subject to unlimited revert." If another editor edited the page and hours passed by, then that edit should not be allowed to be blindly reverted. You say it's not broke, but I disagree. When you blindly revert content from an encyclopedia without looking at content, that obviously is damaging to the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 16:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @SJP, it first says "ALL anonymous IP edits and then registered 500/30. Of course what is not an anonymous IP? Does that then open it up to a known IP editor who doesn't want to register for whatever reason? That's another headache. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
This is a very simple matter. WP:ARBPIA3 is (though not called) a topic ban. WP:BANREVERT already covers it. If it's not broke don't fix it. It's not broke.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I have a problem with someone reverting an IP edit's content indefinitely? Absolutely. But then that's not actually what we are talking about. We are talking about someone reverting a topic banned editor, that is IP editors and all other editors with under 500 edits who are topic banned from editing ARBPIA articles. Anyone who is not topic banned is free to reinsert this material. Now this person may also be reverted, but we have talk pages. They can go to those talk pages and give a coherent justification for those changes. If they fail to get a consensus they can open an RFC or some other form of dispute resolution and seek a consensus. There is nothing new with WP:ARBPIA3 other than how these editors get released from the topic ban. Reverting banned users is not new. It's certainly not a broken system because you couldn't settle a content dispute at AE. That is actually intended.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I question the actual clarity. Reading it myself I took it to apply to IP editors under 500 edits and registered editors under 500 edits. If this is intended to entirely block all IP editors it might be apt to change the language. Probably something to the effect of All anonymous IP editors or accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited.... Specifically changing the conjunction and to or.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved TransporterMan
If the Committee is taking the position, which appears that it may be, that BANREVERT is not applicable in this situation the Committee would be well-advised to be careful not to create or inadvertently or intentionally imply any obligation to restore the reverted material which could cause either the reverting editor, regular maintainers, or other editors to be subject to criticism or sanctions if they fail to do it. That's just another opening for the kind of drama which this restriction and exception to BANREVERT is intended to avoid. (If words such as "should be restored" are used, it should be made clear that "should" in that case means, "it would be a good thing for the encyclopedia if they were restored, but no one is required to do so.") Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (3): Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3 (3): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * WP:ARBPIA3 is quite clear: any IP edit to the affected pages may be reverted on sight, regardless of how much time has elapsed or whether there have been subsequent edits. If another editor wishes to re-instate the same content, they may do so using their own account, subject to the various other restrictions in place (such as the general 1RR)—but this must be done with an explicit new edit, and not by merely choosing not to revert the original one. (The extra work involved here is one of the reasons why I think we need to use an edit filter approach that disallows the original edits in the first place, rather than forcing other editors to revert them by hand.) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the case of a valid edit by an IP, the edit can (probably should) be reverted, and reinstated by a permitted editor, who then takes ownership of the addition. I was thinking that a null edit could be completed where the edit was accepted by a +500/30 editor, however that would just get too complicated. As Kirill states, in this case, not taking action cannot be seen as an acceptance, it is would be too difficult to track. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've no issue with a null edit being used as long as it explicitly defines the content the IP has added (such as a space added either side). However as Kelapstick says it could (and probably will get complicated) so reverting and re-adding (with a link to the +500/30 IP or account edit) would seem like the best idea. I agree that technical enforcement would be beneficial. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (March 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 14:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
 * All anonymous IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days days tenure are prohibited from editing....

Statement by Sir Joseph
The existing statement has a logic hole that while unintended creates some ambiguity if read logically. If someone has fewer than 500 edits but more than 30 days tenure, because the statement is written in the negative, that person would not be covered by the clause. While an admin and ARBCOM might understand that the person should be covered, it should be rewritten to clarify that you need to be here 30 days and 500 edits because we should enforce rules as written not as intended. You can see one discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Removing_analysis_of_POV_author_in_Hebron_Pages where the logic was pointed out (originally, some user noted that it was clear, and when I pointed out to him the negative, he reversed, so clearly there is some murkiness.) As stated at the page:
 * 1) Shit, you're right. I'm reading it as it's intended, not as it's written. Okay, so ARBCOM needs to read logical conjunction. Clpo13
 * 2) With all those AND's in the the 500/30 ruling, it looks like a logic gate. The assumption at the time looks to be based on preventing brand new accounts and IPs from editing but it indeed fails to rule out old accounts with less than 500 edits, whether it be because the account holder doesn't edit much or the edit counting software doesn't count extremely historical edits. I'm striking my comment above as well. This looks to be something that needs a Clarification request at WP:AE Blackmane
 * 3) I think my statement covers what is intended by the ARBCOM ruling, I ran it through my SQL brain and it does work. I also switched to "fewer" because I believe that is more grammatically correct when you are counting something distinct. This should be a simple amendment that should clarify the issue.  Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  14:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR
Despite the assertion above, the sanction is not written in the negative. It is quite clear, and positive: "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited...". The "and" makes it evident that only editors with both 30 days tenure and 500 edits are allowed to edit in this topic area. RolandR (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph's latest response does not make sense. The phrase "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited..." quite clearly means "all anonymous IP editors" and "all accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure". Parsing it the way Sir Joseph suggests would ban "all anonymous editors" and "all accounts with fewer than 500 edits" and "30 days tenure" (not "editors with fewer than 30 days tenure"). This would be nonsensical, and obviously not what is intended; to create such a sanction, the phrase would have had to read "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits or 30 days tenure are prohibited..." Since the arbitrators chose to use the word "and", not the word "or", it is clear that their intention was that editors were obliged to meet both criteria, not simply either criterion. At least I agree with him about the use of "less" instead of "fewer". RolandR (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And this has nothing whatsoever to do with mathematicians or computer programmers. We are editors on English Wikipedia, reading and writing in English and employing (or trying to) the common rules of grammar, not scientific specialists trying to programme a machine. RolandR (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * (Referring to an intermediate comment by Mrbrklyn, now moved to its own section). The rule IS tied together with an "and", not an "or": "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited...". And your personal abuse is not appreciated; please in future stick to the issue itself. RolandR (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional Clarification Statement by Sir Joseph
RolandR, because this is ARBCOM, we have to be exact in the ruling, and this statement is not logical in what they want. If you parse this out logically, it excludes old accounts with fewer than 500 edits. The statement as currently written, basically says: All anonymous editors AND all editors with less than 500 edits AND editors with less than 30 days tenure. Because of all the "ANDS" the last one means it is a distinct statement, similarly to how the 500 edits clause is distinct from the anonymous edit clause. It is a simple amendment to clarify that this ruling is for anonymous edits, and 500 edits and also those with less than 30 days tenure. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 15:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * RolandR, why are you breaking the statement the way you are, "All anonymous edits" and "all accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure" the way it is written, you can also break it as, "All anonymous edits and all accounts with less than 500 edits" and "30 days tenure" I'm not sure why you are against this proposal. This clarifies the intended ruling. If you take the written statement as it is now and parse it logically, it will fail what ARBCOM intended. Take it to a programmer or a mathematician. The fact that people are debating it means it is not 100% clear and if a few commas can clarify it then we should change it. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and the statement as written is ambiguous. You know what ARBCOM intended so you don't see the ambiguity perhaps. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @GorillaWarfare, your suggestion would have the same logic issue in your second statement. My suggestion, while a bit more verbose covers everyone, without ambiguity.
 * @GorillaWarfare,(mobile edit) I think because you have an "or" in your second clause it would allow older accounts with fewer than 500 edits. I'm not positive though. (Btw, the ping for me didn't work. I wonder if a space in the name breaks it)Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 22:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

One bit of clarification, what is the difference between an "anonymous" IP address and a regular IP address? Does that mean that if we have a static IP who edits for years and just doesn't want to login or register they can edit? If so, how are we, or the edit filter, supposed to determine who that is? I think it might then make more sense to just say IP, or we need to figure out a way to somehow whitelist some of the IP addresses into the edit filter for known IP addresses. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 03:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think this language should be much clearer to all. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 15:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Blackmane
I also commented in the ANI thread that Sir Joseph refers to. The ambiguity arose because the reported user had only about 350 edits but the age of the account was well over a few years. The Arbcom ruling does not include such accounts. The spirit of the ruling was to prevent new accounts and anons from diving straight into the swamp of PI articles. The ambiguity unfortunately does leave a loophole whereby long dormant accounts with less than 500 edits could bypass the ruling. It would be worth clarifying whether these accounts are included under the ruling. It could be argued that such dormant accounts would not be familiar with the more recent ARbcom rulings and should thus be excluded from editing in ARBPIA3 sanctioned articles. Blackmane (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I used what info is available based on the pop up tool and extended that as an example. How big your brood is, is of little importance to me and to this ARCA, as is how much time you can or cannot spend here. What is salient to the discussion is how the text of the Arbcom ruling applies to old accounts with few edits. Blackmane (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Even if the original text is ok, which can be argued, the proposed text is better. So I support the change. Zerotalk 08:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity
The rule is confusing as written. What is surely intended is the following: "Editing in the I/P area is allowed only to editors with a registered account created at least 30 days previously that has been used to perform at least 500 edits." In this instance, it's clearer to write what is allowed, not what is prohibited. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Responses by Mrbrklyn

 * @Sir Joseph: No - it is restrictive enough as it is. If a use is less than 30 days or have less than 500 edits, then they should be resticts.  Anyone with an account over 30 days should be given a pass.  YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE EDITED WIKIPEDEA FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS.  They should not be restricted. Mrbrklyn (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @RolandR: You don't know what you are talking about Roland, which is not unusual. Logic is not a function of Comp Sci, and the language in predicate logic, which is what is being discussed here, was outlined by Charlse Dickens....


 * So learn how to read and apply logic, if you desire to be an editor on the big stage. If you can't handle this basic logic problem, how are you in a position to make decisions that affect the policy for MILLIONS of people.


 * What your intending it to say, and it is NOT what it says, is


 * ALL Announynous IPS and ACCOUNTS with Few that than 500 editos OR less than 30 days old.


 * You want the conditions to BE NOT tied toether with an AND, but EITHER case....


 * That being said, that rule would SUCK and would eliminate all us older people wh:o not only can parse basic logic, and even multiply in our heads.


 * I'm opposed to changing it. Those who are NOT 30 days old AND with 500 edits (both together) ONLY should be banded because then they are new.  Even if they have 500 edits, they should be at least 30 days old. Mrbrklyn (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @Blackmane: My activity has not been dormant. I have 6 kids that use this thing all the time, aside myself. What I don't have is endless amounts of time arguing over nonsense all the time, or a political ax to grind, like our group of radical leftists, and BSD activists on here. Mrbrklyn (talk) 06:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * - It is important because from the matter of policy it is being asserted that old accounts are dormant, and they are NOT dormant, and suddenly come alive in some neferious means to disrupt paged. They are not dormant and neither, most important, are the users.  I'm sorry, I've been useing wikipedea and editing CONTINUALLY since its inception, and a policy that prevents my voice from being heard on at talk page sucks.  The ruling should remain, IMO, that accounts younger than 30 days AND less than 500 edits, should remain.  Once either of those thresholds are passed, there should be no restriction.


 * BTW - the software is not showing all my edits Mrbrklyn (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @Opabina and others: The meaning for the sentence of the restriction is not really a debating point.  It has, factualy, one meaning.  It is not abiguousitous either except that it confuses readers, but upon analysis it has ONE CLEAR meaning which is that accounts MUST be less than 30 days only and MUST have less than 500 Edit in order to be restricted.  I would say, don't change it.  The rule has been abused enough.  As for the idea that accounts are more than a single user, that is HIGHLY unlikely.  By changing this to an extreme restriction, you leave the editing in the hands of a few full time radicals and prevent the common working man with a chance to have an input.  Maybe extend the account age to 6 months?


 * Additionally, wikipedea software is not tracking editing numbers in history correctly. There are 100's of edits that are not in my account listing. Ihace had whole articles created, argued and merged... no record of them. Mrbrklyn (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There really are 2 ways of reasonably interpreting this statement using normal English parsing, although they are not exactly what Sir Joseph describes:

(1) There are two classes of editors who are prohibited from editing the pages:
 * All IP editors
 * All accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenures

(2) There are two classes of editors who are prohibited from editing the pages:
 * All IP editors with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure
 * All accounts with less then 500 edits and 30 days tenure

I assume that the committee meant the latter, only because the first is the equivalent of permanent semi-protection for a large class of articles, something which is not often done, however, English does allow the first interpretation, depending on whether the first "and" is inclusive or not (the second "and" obviously is from context alone). I would also guess that the vast majority of IP editors never reach the 500/30 threshold, so any IP that does is effectively in a sub-class of "non-registered accounts" (i.e. long-time editors) which should be treated the same way as a long-term editor with an actual account. But given the potential ambiguity of the statement, perhaps a clarification would be in order. BMK (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Threaded discussion is not allowed in this area. Your comments have been moved to a separate section, right above this one. BMK (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that the bottom section is for the comments of Arbitrators only. No one should be posting there except Arbitrators. BMK (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Guerillero & Kirill: That seems sensible. BMK (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, although I don't think anyone has actually mentioned it, this request grew out of a discussion on WP:AN concerning Mrbrklyn's editing on Hebron and related pages, so it's probably as important to clarify the actual intended meaning of the sanction as it is to decide whether a clarification of the wording should be undertaken. Non-Arbitrator admins may want to take some action on the basis of the committee's decision. BMK (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
This is a decaration that all IP editors are vandals. Since they change and are not controlled by the IP editor, it may be an impossible goal. Semi-pretect it. Or semi-protect it and add the requirement to newly created users. But applying 500/30 makes it seem as if anyone can acquire the ability to edit, even IP's, but that is not the case. It becomes a false assertion that the article is not semi-protected and is ripe for abuse that avoids scrutiny. --DHeyward (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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


 * Tidied a bit. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 18:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My understanding of this (although I wasn't on the committee when it passed) was that this restriction was the equivalent of BMK's first description. And it equated to de facto semiprotection plus a restriction on those editors who do not have 30 days tenure and 500 edits. Yes this restricts ten year old accounts with less than 500 edits. Related to the semiprotection comment, in the last (or one of the requests since January) this was discussed, and it was stated (at least by me and nobody disagreed) that this was effectively blanket semiprotection, however semiprotection was not implemented on all related pages as it does not cover the entire restriction. Since we are having this discussion it seems that there is some degree ambiguity that must be addressed. I don't see how we can say that IPs with 30 days tenure and 500 edits can be considered "one user", and thus exempted from the restriction. I believe I also mentioned in a previous discussion related to this that we shouldn't just blanket reverted an IPs edit "because we can" if it makes sense not to, and that common sense should prevail (famous last words). --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the confusion above, I think clarifying this wording would be a good idea. Perhaps "Any (a) anonymous IP editor, or (b) account with fewer than 500 edits or less than 30 days tenure, is prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." I also think that 500/30-restricted articles should be semi-protected for the duration of the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I'm not sure I see the ambiguity, but your suggestion ("All anonymous IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days days tenure are prohibited from editing...") also seems fine. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and proposed a motion since there seems to be some support for it here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed "anonymous" from "anonymous IP editors," though I'd be shocked if that would cause issues if left in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to a wording tweak, but I think in context it's quite obvious that the intended scope is that editing these pages is permitted only by owners of accounts more than 30 days old which have more than 500 edits. (There have been various proposals to implement this by technical means, either by an edit filter or a new user group, and AFAIK both have used this definition - it'd be interesting to check if anyone involved in those discussions noticed or pointed out this apparent ambiguity.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My original intent was BMKs first reading. The statement in question was written to exclude three classes of editors: IP editors, named editors with less than 30 days tenure, and named editors with less than 500 edits. Some accounts can fall under more than one of these classifications. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to adjusting the wording to better reflect our intended meaning. To avoid confusion, perhaps we can simply name the three classes of excluded editors (per Guerillero) explicitly? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is replaced with, "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."



Enacted - Kharkiv07  ( T ) 13:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) As proposer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure.  Clarity is always preferred.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) kelapstick(bainuu) 03:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) I've also done a minor c/e. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Definitely clearer than what we had passed originally. Courcelles (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 8)  Doug Weller  talk 16:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain


 * Comments

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (March 2016 2)
Initiated by Howicus at 18:51, 22 March 2016 (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 Howicus
So, I came across a new user who ran afoul of the editing restrictions related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I do not want to give them incorrect advice, especially in an area like this where a violation can lead to a block. The restriction states "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Does this also prohibit those users from posting on article talk pages of articles related to the conflict? I looked around on related talk pages, and I saw IPs and new accounts who posted without getting blocked, warned, or reverted, but I would like to know for certain. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, . Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I think there is a big difference between a talk page and an article page. It is not that often you will find a vandal participating in the talk pages of an area. There are people who instinctively revert any IP address edit in the ARBPIA area and I think that is stupid, whether it's in an article or talk page. We should be encouraging talk page edits, they are contributing ideas and while they can't edit the actual article, they may be helping someone else come to a better edit. Of course, if they are disruptive, then you have free revert. As to the letter of the law, which is your question, yes, they are not allowed to edit in the talk page or the article and someone could bring them to AE and have them blocked. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 13:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * , this came up in January. The 30/500 restriction explicitly applies to talk pages. However (my opinion) best practice is to not blanket revert and throw blocks around willy nilly when non-disruptive Good Faith™ requests come from editors who are not permitted based on the restriction. If you are looking to advise a new user, I would advise them to not edit the talk page until they meet the criteria, as they may or may not find themselves blocked if they do. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What Kelapstick said. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See Kelapstick 2016a --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, seems good advice. Doug Weller  talk 15:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent advice.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pile-on "per Kelapstick". Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, so I did, thanks . Though I think I was thinking of whether or not they should be tagged for the edit filter. "Don't technically prevent such edits, but don't encourage them either" sounds right. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When this was considered in January,only Guerrillio and Klapastic said it should apply to talk pages ; Drmies, Doug, Opabinia, and DGG said it should not. I remain of the opinion that it should not. If disruption occurs there, it can be dealt with, but there is no evidence that sine the remedy was passed, the new eds. are being disruptive there.  DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 - General Prohibition (April 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by Clivel 0 at 18:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * WP:ARBPIA3

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

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdJohnston&type=revision&diff=713061767&oldid=713028032]

Statement by Clivel 0
This decision prohibits accounts with fewer than 500 edits from editing any page that could be "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". I would however like clarification as to what is meant by "reasonably construed" as this seems to be a rather imprecise term open to interpretation. For example, given that the vast majority of anti-Semites also dislike the Jewish State (even if the converse is not necessarily true) and therefore likely to take sides against Israel, is it the intention of WP:ARBPIA3 to stifle debate on anti-Semitism, or could that be an unfortunate side effect of an imprecisely worded decision?

A case in point being the Stephen Sizer page which Administrator User:EdJohnston has placed under the protection of the banner. Due to the imprecise wording of WP:ARBPIA3 I believe that User:EdJohnston has incorrectly applied the banner.

As a vicar there would be little of note about Sizer that would even merit his inclusion in Wikipedia if it were not for allegations by the Board of Deputies of British Jews that Sizer has over a number of years promoted and distributed anti-Semitic material. This eventually resulted in his six month social media ban by the Bishop of Guildford who stated "I have concluded that, at the very least, he has demonstrated appallingly poor judgement in the material he has chosen to disseminate, particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic".

Also of some interest, but again in itself unlikely to be notable enough to warrant his inclusion in Wikipedia, is Sizer's strong opposition to the doctrine of Christian Zionism. A doctrine which believes that the return of Jews to the Holy Land is necessary in order to full-fill a Biblical prophesy. Again this is not directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict although it is possible that both proponents and opponents of this doctrine could take sides in this conflict, something Sizer seemingly has done, yet I don't believe that in itself offers offers enough weight to place the page under the protection. Otherwise, almost any page mentioning Jews, Israel or anti-Semitism could at a stretch be "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Clivel 0 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re PIA3)
"Reasonably construed" is pretty standard phrasing on Wikipedia, and when I was on the Committee it was always taken to mean that if an uninvolved editor reasonably believed that the subject was related to the area of dispute and that applying restrictions would be of benefit then they may be applied.

The purpose of a 500/30 restriction is not to stifle debate - Wikipedia articles and talk pages are not forums to debate the subject. Wikipedia articles exist to present an encyclopaedic overview of the subject from a neutral point of view. The point of talk pages is to discuss the wording of the article and how to improve it. To this end, a 500/30 restriction facilitates the discussion in that it allows participation only from those who have at least a basic understanding of the point of the discussion and Wikipedia's policies and culture. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston (re PIA3)
My decision to put the ARBPIA banner on Talk:Stephen Sizer was discussed at User talk:EdJohnston. I gave my rationale to User:Clivel 0 for considering this article to be related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. I had first become aware of the Stephen Sizer article on March 23, per a 3RR complaint. I closed that complaint with 3 days of full protection for the article.

It is evident that Sizer holds views about Israel that have drawn wide attention. Articles about Sizer don't always agree on how to summarize him. In his own blog in 2009 Stephen Sizer asserted "I do wish to see the present illegal occupation of Gaza, the Golan and the West Bank “disappear”…"  An article in Church Times says "On Monday, the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, announced that he had given Dr Sizer an ultimatum: stop your activism over the Israel-Palestine conflict or lose your parish." These sources indicate that Sizer has views that are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is a different controversy as to whether the views of Sizer are antisemitic, but he argues plausibly that he is not. If we were only discussing whether person X was an antisemite then it's unlikely that ARBPIA would apply to their article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 - General Prohibition: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3 - General Prohibition: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Shouldn't this have gone to AE for wider review first, if Ed's talk page explanations didn't satisfy? I really don't see that ARCA or the committee needs to be getting involved in making rulings about specific articles, and Ed's reasoning for why this article falls under the restriction seems entirely reasonable and within administrative discretion to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is unclear. If the question is about how wide the net is cast, that's a valid question in individual cases but not yet a matter for this forum. If the question is about a specific article, that can be exciting but it 's not clear to me what it has to do with the 500/30 setup. And finally, if the question is whether "WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 [was written up] to stifle debate on anti-Semitism", the answer is no. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ed's explanation works for me also. And it definitely was not written to stifle debate on anti-Semitism. Doug Weller  talk 13:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What Doug said. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While I'm all for clarity in our remedies, there's only so much we can define. "Reasonably construed" is an attempt to avoid trying to codify every last thing that is and is not within the topic area—a task that would be impossible. It is to be interpreted as Thryduulf explains above: if an uninvolved editor reasonably believes that the subject is related to the area of dispute, it is reasonably construed to be within the topic area. In this specific case, I think EdJohnston's application of the banner is acceptable per his explanation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an appropriate application of "reasonably construed". The restriction could not be applied to anything having to do with anti-semitism, but there is a clear connection to ARBPIA, as outlined by EdJohnston above.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline to consider as I consider this to be a reasonable exercise of admin discretion which is what I generally see the role of ARCA to be in enforcing discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (May 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by Nableezy at 22:17, 27 April 2016 (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


 * diff of notification EdJohnston

Statement by Nableezy
The longstanding practice on what edits are governed under the prohibitions passed as part of ARBPIA and ARBPIA2 was that it applied to all edits within the topic area, meaning pages that as a whole are a part of the topic area and any edit to them is covered (e.g. Hamas, Israeli-occupied territories ...) and individual edits that are about the topic to pages that as a whole do not fall within the topic area are also covered while edits to those pages outside of the topic are not (eg editing the Barack Obama page to edit material on his views and or actions regarding the conflict are covered but edits regarding his election to the presidency are not). The prohibition WP:ARBPIA3 however says that IP editors and named accounts with less than 500 edits/30 days of tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That on its face leaves out edits to pages that are largely outside the topic area but edits that very much are within the topic area. I'm requesting clarification on whether both sets of edits are covered under the prohibition, and if so suggest an edit along the lines of are prohibited from making any edits that could be ... replacing are prohibited from editing any page that could be .... This came up on AE, so thought it wise to ask for clarification here. I'm not entirely sure who needs to be a party here, I just added the admin dealing with the AE complaint.
 * Sean's comment below has several examples, the ones I think are the least ambiguous are, , , and . None of those articles can reasonably be said to be, as a whole, part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, but each of the edits unambiguously are. Maybe Ed is right and this is premature, but I'm not too concerned about that specific AE. Regardless of how that is closed I'd prefer a crystal clear prohibition one way or the other, and this seems like an easy thing to make that clear. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

 * User:Nableezy probably opened this due to some comments made in the thread at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The AE thread is still open. At the moment it appears that the AE complaint might well be closed due to an agreement by Wikiwillkane to cease all edits in the Arab-Israeli topic area until he has reached 500 edits. In my opinion this request for clarification is premature. In the past it has been agreed by the committee that some articles are under a topic ban only in part. Whatever the decision reached about partially-banned articles, the AE can go forward anyway since several fully-banned articles are named in the diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The thread at AE about Wikiwillkane has now been closed with a warning against any further violations of the 500/30 rule. I am unsure whether it makes this ARCA moot or not, since I think Nableezy would like the committee to issue a general ruling. The question (I think) is whether the General 500/30 prohibition and a typical ARBPIA topic ban have the same scope. That is, they both restrict all A-I-related editing across all of Wikipedia even when the entire article (such as Roseanne Barr) is not otherwise an ARBPIA topic. In the AE I found myself rejecting the arguments by Wikiwillkane who believed that adding mention of Roseanne Barr's speech to a BDS meeting was not an A-I violation. My view was based on what I consider to be common sense. The matter is sufficiently obvious that I don't think the committee needs to pass any motion to revise the wording of the 500/30 prohibition. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
Recent examples: <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ARBCOM authorized the WP:ARBPIA3 restriction for the ARBPIA topic area as everyone knows.
 * The restriction can now be implemented automatically by the server via extended confirmed protection (see WP:BLUELOCK). This automates the task of ensuring IPs and accounts that are not allowed to edit certain articles cannot edit those articles.
 * Extended confirmed protection has not been rolled out across the topic area for reasons that are unclear to me at least. It has only been implemented on articles on request after the articles have been subjected to disruption. The ARBCOM authorized restriction will be enforced whether or not an article is given extended confirmed protection. If the restriction is not enforced by the server via extended confirmed protection, it will be enforced by editors. The effect will be the same but the cost is different. Extended confirmed protection automates the enforcement of a restriction that already unambiguously applies to thousands of articles.
 * Extended confirmed protection is limited in the sense that it only works at the article level. So it could be argued that it can only reasonably be implemented on any page that "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". If extended confirmed protection had been rolled out across the topic area, Wikiwillkane, an editor recently brought to AE, would not have been able to edit the Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian political violence, Omar Barghouti and the Judea and Samaria Area articles and no one would have had to waste their time reverting them.
 * Extended confirmed protection could not have prevented the creation of the Dafna Meir memorial article created for one of the 230+ victims of the latest wave of violence and the associated image copyright violations. Editors have to enforce extended confirmed protection in cases like that and they will.
 * Extended confirmed protection is also not yet smart enough to help with the examples above where content unambiguously related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is added/updated/removed by people whose edits would have been rejected by the server if they had made the same edit in a protected article. The 500/30 rule needs to be implemented at the content/statement level to provide the kind of protection it is intended to provide. Any weakness will be exploited by people who lack the experience or integrity to comply with Wikipedia's rules. Editors who ignore WP:NOTADVOCATE will relentlessly exploit gaps in the protection, gaps that currently have to be plugged by people rather than the server.

Statement by Sir Joseph
We also have something similar where an editor will revert and label it ARBPIA 30/500 when the article is not under sanction at all. Most recently, I saw it at one of Israel's ambassadors. The page has no mention of any conflict, yet someone edited the page and it was reverted as if that page is under sanctions. What is to be done with things like that? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, why is Haaretz under sanctions? It's an article about a newspaper company. I looked at the history and couldn't find vandalism so extreme to label it under ARBPIA. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * , can you provide some examples of the types of edits in question? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 500/30 applies to all edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (not just articles). However BLUELOCK should only be applied to pages which are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict to avoid a situation where we have Barrack Obama's article (for example) BLUELOCK'd due to a related paragraph. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My first instinct was that this is scope creep. In particular, there is no way of informing newer editors of this restriction before they make an edit about the topic to some seemingly entirely unrelated page. But the examples offered are so obviously inappropriate that I do think they should be covered as a matter of common sense. I would hope to see people reserve strict enforcement for unambiguous cases, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Callanecc on this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Callan --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Coming late to the party with nothing to add except that I agree with Callan also. Doug Weller  talk 17:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (October 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Epson Salts at 15:03, 25 September 2016 (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


 * diff of notification Joe Roe
 * diff of notification Martyn.Preller

Statement by Epson Salts
WP:ARBPIA3 states that " All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. ". Such an editor (account with < 500 edits) recently created a couple of new articles clearly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which are now up for deletion. (see Articles for deletion/Yinon Plan). An editor (Joe Roe) has stated that the aforementioned restriction does not apply to creation of new articles, so I would like clarification of that.


 * Given the clear statements by the arbiters below, can such an article be Speedily deleted under G5? Epson Salts (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Joe Roe

 * I didn't state that the restriction doesn't apply to creation of new articles, I suggested that the enforcement of that restriction might not extend to automatically deleting articles created by new users, rather than say, asking them to cease editing it further. This all seems rather over the top... Joe Roe (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Martyn.Preller
I was not aware of the rules about the Israel-Palestine conflict and created this article in good faith as it was a notable article missing from Wikipedia a notion supported by 2 other editors.

I will of course observe this restriction placed on me until I meet the criteria of over 30 days and 500 edits.

I think it would be a shame to delete the article and I'm happy for others to edit as they see fit to improve it.

Martyn.Preller (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Wehwalt
It is our policy to encourage good faith article creation. Purposeless to deter the love of writing on an article that is otherwise acceptable. Maybe keep it in mainspace. If it's abused, you can reconsider. And if the article is crap or propaganda, the road to AfD is especially clearly marked around here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The restriction applies to all edits, whether to new or existing articles. Obviously, there may be some differences in how the restriction is enforced on a technical level—as far as I know, the new protection level doesn't really work for not-yet-created articles—but the underlying rules are in effect regardless. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't create an article without editing. Doug Weller  talk 16:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It applies to new articles, though we need to figure out howto apply it automatically. In the meantime I suggest moving to userspace.  DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt there is a technical way to prevent it, however DGG's userspace suggestion makes sense. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (December 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Shrike at 08:41, 30 October 2016 (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
According to WP:ARBPIA3 any edit done by new account in the area could be reverted according to ARBCOM decision.Recently I stumbled in two cases: What should be done in such case?Should they be speedy deleted according to G5 or there are some other procedure?
 * 1) AFD created by a new account
 * 2) Article
 * Your proposition is good as it clarifies that talk pages could be edited but it still didn't answer my concern about new article creation and AFDs.--Shrike (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

According to this clarification the sanction is not only about articles but about edits too and I think its good practice because it should stop socks to disrupt the area.The wording should be changed accordingly to be conclusive about every Wiki space(article,talk,new pages and etc)--Shrike (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

, I think its wrong to allow those users to create articles.The original motion was enacted because of sock puppetry.It will give socks a possibility to use this venue to participate in Wikipedia although there were banned--Shrike (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
The provisions of 500/30 allow, but do not require, edits by users who do not meet the threshold to be reverted or removed. If the edit in question benefits the encyclopaedia (I haven't looked to see if the listed ones do or not) then it seems silly to revert for the sake of reverting. At most a friendly note on the user's talk page informing/reminding them about the 500/30 restriction seems most appropriate.

For any AfD I think following the guidance at Speedy Keep point 4 is best: If subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's [...] status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
As it stands now, non-extendedconfirmed accounts are prohibited from editing "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". While we're here talking about this remedy, can you amend that to exclude talk pages? It's clear the committee didn't intend to bar IP editors from making talk page requests in this topic area, but that's technically what it's done. In a topic area like this, it's only a matter of time before some "clever" wikilawyer tries to make that argument.

I will not comment on the substance of the original issue here other than to say that, as always, common sense should be exercised everywhere on the project. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I disagree with restricting this to just articles. I've seen extremely personal and contentious edit wars break out over the color of a heading on an Israeli-Palestinian conflict related navbox. I think this restriction should extend to templates, categories, modules, etc. Additionally, your proposed change significantly weakens the remedy from an actual prohibition on editing to mere eligibility for 500/30 protection (something that is already allowed via the usual protection policy). If the intent is just to rule out the weird talk page edge case (and perhaps project space, while we're at it), I'd suggest the following amended remedy instead.


 * All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. This remedy does not apply to talk pages or the Wikipedia namespace.


 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, my issue is a complete tack-on, since it doesn't make much sense to handle two concurrent ARCA requests for the same remedy. I don't have too much of an opinion about your issue, but if it's determined an amendment needs to be made to correct something about that issue, it would have to be on top of my proposed one. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know that the remedy is as confusing as you believe it is. I read "may enforce" as a statement of what tools may be used by administrators to enforce the remedy rather than a statement that administrators may choose to ignore the remedy at their discretion. The statement is a bit antiquated, as we now have extendedconfirmed protection as the obvious tool to enforce the remedy, but I suppose reverts are always appropriate and blocks would also be appropriate if an editor continuously hopped to new pages in blatant disregard of the remedy. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I can't speak for the Committee in terms of how they want that to be enforced, but I can speak as an administrator who has been protecting many pages related to this remedy. I don't think remedy #1 of this case is relevant here, and as written, remedy #6 in WP:ARBPIA doesn't apply either. In the past, the Committee has worded discretionary sanction remedies to specify any edit in a topic area is covered. See here. Perhaps such a rewording would be sensible here? I certainly have noticed that this conflict tends to find its way onto pages I'd struggle to confidently place within the topic area. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Given the statement that the ban is not optional, applying it to talk pages prevents non-extendedconfirmed editors from filing edit requests. Is this the committee's intention? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As an aside, and assuming this makes it to motion v0.2 at least, we can easily implement "any edit" without ECP using standard warn and block. If an edit related to this topic area is made by a non-extendedconfirmed editor on an article unrelated to the topic area, an admin could alert them of the remedy. If they persist, AE block just like a topic ban violation. This doesn't need any complicated instructions or procedures from ArbCom. If "any page" is changed to "any edit" in the remedy, enforcing administrators can be trusted to use our discretion when choosing when to protect vs. handle an individual editor via warnings and blocks. This should be subject to the same talk page exception, of course. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of AfC submissions
I have serious concerns about the second exception proposed by below. I'm guessing that OR sees an allowance to create drafts and pass them through AfC as similar to a talk page exception, but there's a rather substantial difference in which editor does the reviewing. At a talk page in the topic area, editors knowledgeable about the topic area will show up. They know what to look out for in terms of POV-pushing and biased sources. At AfC, random reviewer #928 shows up, who likely knows nothing about the Arab–Israeli conflict and the POVs involved. I seriously doubt random reviewer #928 can adequately review the article for neutrality without knowing anything about the topic area. I doubt AfC will adequately screen out the POV-pushing, socks, etc. that will always be involved in this topic area, and I expect we'll be back here within half a year if this exception is approved. It's a substantial loosening of restrictions that deserves a full discussion unto itself, at the very least, whereas the talk page exception merely documents existing practices. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When I think new editors in ARBPIA topics, I immediately think socks. The benefit may be the occasional good-faith new editor, but the cost is that every sockmaster in this topic area still in possession of a working keyboard is going to try to push their POV into the mainspace. I'm highly skeptical that AfC + project talk page messages can handle the deluge of nonsense we're likely to see. As an alternative, why not say all new articles in violation of the editing restriction must be deleted but are eligible for WP:REFUND into the userspace of any extendedconfirmed editor? This includes the original author if they stick around long enough to be extendedconfirmed. I'm sure there are other solutions out there as well. I think it's very telling that this restriction has been in place so long before this has come up. We have one potentially good new article in the topic area from a non-extendedconfirmed editor in over half a year. I can say with utter certainty that we'll have many more POV-ridden drafts than that within the first week if we open this door. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixing ping : ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As an aside, while my name is invoked in Doug's support statement for his motion 2, I strongly oppose it. Philosophically, I don't believe in applying a topic ban to editors pre-emptively, preventing them from making edit requests via talk. Preventing new editors from even suggesting changes would be the most significant departure from our "anyone can edit" philosophy since the creation of Wikipedia. The idea of such a departure coming from a small group of arbitrators by fiat rather than from the community makes it even less palatable. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the Motion v0.3 from Amanda. The text is clearer than Motion v0.2, and the substance of exclusion 2 is substantially improved from Motion v0.1. It doesn't hit on the "any edits" issue yet, but Doug's point about our trend toward an omnibus is spot on. I'd rather fix a few things and get those fixes right than do everything at once and get some stuff wrong. We can always come back at a later time if the "any pages" vs. "any edits" issue gets to be very important. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 08:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The intention of the second exception is to provide administrator discretion on whether to retain articles. It does not provide administrator discretion on whether editors can create them in the first place. Warnings and blocks for the editors who create the articles may be appropriate while simulatenously retaining an individual creation if it's unproblematic. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Editors eligible to be extended-confirmed"? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72
Suggest amending to:

2) All  articles pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, excluding pages in the Wikipedia and *Talk namespaces, are eligible for extended confirmed protection. Editors may request this at WP:RFPP or from any uninvolved Administrator.

or similar. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind reply. I accept and agree with your comments about namespaces other than mainspace. My intent was to cover only the namespaces containing content which appears in the encyclopedia itself, and (as you rightly point out) this does include more than just articles. Share your concerns about limiting access to Talk pages. I have amended my statement above. I maintain, however, that the remedy is better phrased as a restriction on pages (with a process for technical implemention) than a restriction on editors - a topic ban, without notice, of all new editors isn't a practical solution, nor is it warranted. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your question. I don't think that either the AfD or the new article creation are sufficiently innately disruptive as to require restriction. The AfD closed with no consensus; so it doesn't seem like a disruptive nomination. The article subject, on a cursory inspection, appears notable; so it doesn't seem like a disruptive creation. We also have well developed processes (and enough eyes) on deletions & creations which deal with disruption well. I do think that the best way to implement the intent of this remedy is for any editor to be able to request ECP on a page in this topic space (as defined above), without having to demonstrate disruption of that page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Note that the question of whether the 500/30 rule applies to talk pages was addressed here before, see the second I/P case here. (That's the page version before the case was archived but I cannot locate the archive.) The response then was that talk pages are included. However, it would not be a disaster if talk pages were excluded. On the other hand, it would definitely be a bad idea to just change "pages" to "articles", as pages like categories, templates, AfD discussions, etc, need defending just as much as articles do. BU_Rob13's suggestion is good.

Regarding Shrike's questions, I think that new articles created by non-500/30 users should be speedy-deletable, unless substantial improvements have meanwhile been made by a permitted editor. Similarly for AfDs.

Either way, dear arbitrators, please don't leave these matters for the community to sort out. Please make a decision so we can get on with writing articles. Zerotalk 13:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I believe this came up at ANI, and it was a bit of a strange case, with the HumanRightsUnderstanding account coming out of nowhere (and disappearing back into that void). In both cases I'm with Thryduulf, which means that, in essence, I completely trust the community in taking care of these issues on their own merits. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording of this remedy has confused me for a while now. We say that under 500/30 edits are prohibited, but then say that prohibition may be enforced. It sounds like a very confusing signal. I've been asked quite a few times at other offwiki venues how this is supposed to be enforced including thoughts on the mass page protection of the entire area. I don't think we are being fair to throw the work to the community in this case and say figure out how it's supposed to be enforced, when we can't even be clear on how it should be enforced. What exactly that means the committee should modify or change this to...I have no idea at this time. It's worth the discussion though to me. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've just run into an odd problem at Ancient maritime history. Maybe I should be asking for a clarification. The article isn't obviously related to the PIA area, but the edit is. A new editor changed "The Phoenicians were an ancient civilization centered in the north of ancient Canaan, with its heartland along the coast of modern-day Lebanon, Syria and northern Israel." to say "northern Palestine". I reverted him a while ago as the coast of northern Israel isn't part of the Palestinian territories and, because his only other edits, in 2010 and 2015 were similar, changing Israel to Palestine, gave him a DS alert. Just now he's reverted me saying "Palestinian boarders never changed prior to occupation, while zionist/Israeli boarders expand by annexation and are an unreliable reference". So is he allowed to make such edits, and if he is, how is that different from editing a page clearly within the area covered by the DS? Doug Weller  talk 19:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Although User:Callanecc stated that "500/30 applies to all edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (not just articles)." the wording is still "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."  Doug Weller  talk 19:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, rewording to make it clear that "any edit in a topic area is covered" is a good idea, as I'm pretty sure that's what we meant. As I see the 500/30 as akin to a topic ban, I'm not convinced that talk pages should be excluded. Doug Weller  talk 18:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the wording issue DQ raised, I've always read that as an acknowledgment of the reality that enforcement is never 100%, either because things slip by or because someone makes a deliberate choice to let an otherwise constructive edit slide. Of course, I don't know that last year's arbs actually meant to parse that finely. (This wasn't the part of the text that was updated earlier this year.) Last time this came up I think the general consensus was to use common sense on talk pages and in areas where editing can't be managed by technical means - ie don't throw away a new editor's new article if it's otherwise good, or revert an otherwise useful comment, but don't feel obliged to keep crap or put up with POV-pushing. If there's a preference for spelling that out in a motion, though, I'm on board with Rob's idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If we honestly do not expect full enforcement, should we not just make it clear that anything that doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia is (delete|rollback|remove|block|protection|nth option)able instead of a complete prohibition that we don't want enforced? That seems to be more in the spirit of discretionary sanctions and allows it to be enforceable. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, doesn't every rule work that way? ;) The only cases where we can actually aspire to complete enforcement are policies of legal significance, and even then stuff slips by. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The may allows admins to use the tool they think is best for the job. The ban itself is not optional -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the purpose is best served by including talk pages in the ban, as previously. But for edge cases, 's comment seems exactly right. With respect to may, the comment just above by says all that needs to be said. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Doug Weller's suggestion to reword the remedy to read "any edit" is reasonable. I am hesitant to extend this protection to include talk pages, however—I think prohibiting new editors from even discussing or suggesting edits to a very broad swath of articles is too extreme. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (v0.1)
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:


 * All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.


 * The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
 * Editors who do not meet the criteria may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
 * Editors who do not meet the criteria may make limited use of the Draft: namespace and their userspace to prepare encyclopedic material. They may not create new articles in the topic area; however, they may submit drafts to the Articles for Creation process. If an article is created by an editor who does not meet the criteria, and the article is not otherwise a candidate for deletion, it should be moved to the Draft: namespace or to the editor's userspace. Under no circumstances should this exception be used to store advocacy material, material violating any Wikipedia policy, or other content with no realistic prospect of mainspace use.




 * Support
 * In the absence of objections to this formulation over the last couple of days. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC) v3 works. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) This works for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * this is better than what I wrote a year ago -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) kelapstick(bainuu) 08:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Somewhat reluctant support. I'd still like to see a way to apply this (without ECP) to any edit, not just any article. Doug Weller  talk 19:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Works for me, tho like Dough I 'd like to4 expand it ro relatedm aterial on oither paged. 1 DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Uhhh...what? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) I thought it was probably just me that was worried about AfC, but now that user:BU Rob13 has endorsed my unspoken concerns I am moving to oppose.  After all, we do say that Wikipedia has no deadline. It does of course mean that IPs can't create articles in this area, but that's in line with the prohibition against IPs editing in this area. The motion would have let them submit articles that they couldn't edit if they were created, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Doug Weller  talk 21:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Simply exception #2. Will explain more soon. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Rethinking this, §2 of the above motion, is pretty confusing to anyone who does not speak wikipedia --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  14:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Prefer v0.3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * Clerk note: There are 11 active arbitrators, so 6 support or oppose votes is a majority. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 08:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm active on this, but I've posted the template above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since we've hit the one-month mark on this, here's a bone to chew on. On #1, I think Rob has a good point that a venue for edit requests is reasonable provided that any disruption can be squelched without too much trouble. However, I can't quite convince myself to extend the exception to Wikipedia space - we don't need more socks at AfD or ANI. On #2, I think we'd all rather that new editors not create new articles on the subject, but we have no way to inform them not to if the new article is among their first edits in the area, and once it's written it hardly seems reasonable to delete it if it's not otherwise deletable. (This is also a recurring problem with G5 in general.) I could go the other way on this.
 * I haven't included the issue of "any edit" vs "any page"; I'm not convinced there's much added value there. Those edits changing "Israel" to "Palestine" and vice versa in unrelated articles are silly, but they mostly get reverted anyway AFAICT; I'm not sure spreading this prohibition so widely across the encyclopedia, to articles where the local editors may have never heard of this ARBPIA3 stuff, is enough of a net benefit. I wouldn't mind if an edit filter could catch some of the common patterns though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Does "editors who do not meet the criterion"  mean "editors who do not have extended confirmed user access" ? DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To a close approximation. We could probably just say EC and tell whoever asks for clarification about whether it applies to editors who've requested the EC right be removed, or alts of EC editors, to find something less lame to do with their time ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree on it being article space only. Given all pages should be protected it does seem a bit moot really...as they can't edit them anyway..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a particular point in saying non-extended confirmed vs. IP, Accounts < 30/500...it just sounds better the way it is, but that's nitpicking.
 * I like this clarification as it provides an enforcement venue on how to handle what falls through. My one concern though is dumping in the Draft space. 1) It still allows the article to be published as is, what we are prohibiting in the first place 2) AFC doesn't receive very much attention. So giving the false hope that it will one day be created amongst months and months of backlogs I feel isn't appropriate. Could we leave it just to the userspace allowing any other content contributor to pick it up and run with it under CC-BY-SA 3? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand point 1, sorry - there's not much difference between draft and user space for this purpose, except that drafts are slightly more convenient. Neither one is indexed, so I don't think there's any difference in terms of "publishing" between a draft and a userspace page. On point 2, I think that's how AfC often works anyway - someone can poach a draft and move it to mainspace without going through the Official Process if they want to. But you're right that it may be easier to specify that an eligible account has to move the page to mainspace, regardless of process.
 * The problem is that we have no way to actually tell a new user that they can't write new articles on this topic until they've already done it, at which point the work is done and we might as well judge it on its merits. So it makes sense to give some guidance on how to do that. If piles of socks start writing terrible articles and pestering people to accept them, then we can reevaluate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When AfC reviewers come upon an article that's clearly about a controversial subject, they often post on the relevant wikiproject talk page for help, which is as good an idea for this subject as it is for the science and medicine articles where I usually see this. And as above, if someone who is extended-confirmed but not an "official" AfC reviewer wants to deal with the article, that's also fine. (Those new article search bots are good for this, and also pick up drafts.) The underlying problem here is that there is no way to tell new editors they can't create an article about this subject until they've already done it. And it makes no sense to throw it away without considering its quality once the effort's been made. The article that started this discussion is still live and is pretty POV-y but not that bad by typical standards of new editors creating new articles. I don't see any other way to do it without codifying the unpleasant notion that it's fine to delete otherwise-acceptable content on the basis of rules its author couldn't possibly have known existed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * For me, the key reason to permit draft space is to permit well controlled classes working on this area. Though its not a good topicchocie for general introductory classes, and can be for advanced ones in the subject with suitable supervision.  DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (v0.2)
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. In the case of edits relevant to the topic area in articles (but not talk pages) not clearly related to the topic area, this will be enforced first by an Administrator placing a DS alert on their talk page with further edits handled as usual by AE.




 * Support
 * 1) with thanks to BU Rob13.  Doug Weller  talk 16:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll go with v3 now, revisit this if there are further problems. Doug Weller  talk 14:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I can't read that last sentence and get it through my head...and neither will a lot of other people. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed with Amanda and Opabinia. It's unclear and also broader than it needs to be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Prefer v3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed with Amanda and OR, plus I prefer v0.3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain


 * Comments


 * This is meant to deal with clear infringements of the sanctions within articles not obviously related to the topic area. These are fairly frequent (in my experience at least) and should fall within the sanctions. I see it as similar to a topic ban, where we ban editors from any edits related to the topic ban even if the article isn't directly related to the topic. There are 3 aspects to v.01 and I think they need to be dealt with separately. Doug Weller  talk 16:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, v0.1 dealt with just two things; I left this one out on purpose, because it is much broader than the question we were asked in this request. This started out about an odd corner case, and this proposal hugely expands the scope of enforcement of these sanctions without really being grounded in an explicit request for such an expansion. We've all seen these edits in seemingly unrelated articles, but we haven't seen any evidence that they are specifically disruptive in a way that exceeds any other fly-by nuisance edits. This is not similar to a topic ban, because topic bans are applied to individuals who can be told in advance what not to do, while this is applied to an entire class of user who have no way to find out they're "banned" from this area. It's also putting enforcement responsibility on editing communities surrounding totally unrelated articles where there is unlikely to be much awareness of the bureaucratic details. I'm open to persuasion given evidence this is necessary - as in, evidence of actual disruption, not just examples of these edits being reverted along with the day's poop vandalism - but I'm not convinced yet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13 is right, I should have confined this to article space and I've amended my proposed motion. I hope this works. It's meant to have exceptions but these should have separate motions. Doug Weller  talk 10:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (v0.3)
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:


 * All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.


 * The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
 * Editors who do not meet the criteria are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
 * Editors who do not meet the criteria are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) This strikes the equal balance I think we are looking for. It doesn't send potential drafts to AFC to review and I think  on whether they consult wikiprojects is needed, but regardless it's just a venue for more drama, it gives a realistic enforcement venue, and is clear cut and to the point. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) This works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) This looks good to me too. Good job Amanda! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) works for me --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  14:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Ok. I still think that we may need to do something about editing articles that aren't themselves related to the topic area (the ones I see are usually archaeological ones where editors argue about a location), but this is an improvement over version 1.  Doug Weller  talk 14:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Still a little hesitant about the second exception, but this seems like a start. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * Needs a little wordsmithing to be clearer. "Editors who do not meet the criteria" is unclear (I know you mean "who do not meet the criteria to edit in this topic area", but it sounds like "Editors who do not meet the criteria listed above"). Also I'm not sure whether I like the second exception. It says that editors who are not above the 500/30 threshold cannot make new articles, but then goes on to say that they sort of can. I of course don't want to pass a remedy saying that administrators MUST delete articles even if they're valuable, but if we do indeed want to restrict new article creation, I think there's got to be a way we can word it to be less encouraging of folks to just try writing articles and see how far they can get. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Aren't those "the criteria listed above" (in the first sentence)? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The way I first read it was "Editors who do not meet the criteria [so who are not IP editors, who have more than 500 edits, or have more than 30 days tenure] may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area..." I realize what DQ meant was "Editors who do not meet the criteria [that would allow them to edit in the topic area without restriction] may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area..." GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, hmm... we could just say "extended-confirmed editors". I avoided in v1 because the two categories aren't quite the same, but I hope whoever tried to make that wikilawyer argument wouldn't succeed in any event. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Does 's suggestion of "eligible to be extendedconfirmed" work for you? Rob, next time we're just going to make you draft ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No issue with wordsmithing it to whatever is nearby. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, see above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Clerk note: In order to reflect the plain intention of the motion, and to make the motion not moot, I have inserted the word "not" into the motion (the exceptions apply to editors who are not extended-confirmed). Please ensure that this reflects the original meaning of your vote. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * D'oh, yes, that's what I meant; thanks . Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (February 2017)
Original discussion Initiated by Hijiri88 at 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * General Prohibition

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

Statement by Hijiri88
How does the GP work when an IP or new account makes off-topic edits relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict in articles that are not inherently related to the conflict? Is permanent (or even temporary) extended-confirmed protection appropriate?

This came up recently at Arab Jews. I am not sure if my concern technically applies to that article or not, since the article does seem to be related to the Arab-Israeli conflict by definition (even though I recognize that there have been Jews in Arabia for as long as there have been Jews).

But if this hasn't already come up and been formally clarified, it's almost certain to come up at some point.

The discussion on the Arab Jews article involved a number of specific users but I'm not sure if I should name them as "parties" to this ARCA request as I'm asking for general clarification and not asking for sanctions or anything like that.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * And I just made two minor tweaks to the article Edward Said before it occurred to me that technically that article is also covered under the GP (it even includes a full sub-section called "Palestinian National Council"). It has been edited by IPs, and probably also new accounts, dozens if not hundreds of times since the GP was put in place, but were these violations? As currently worded, is the GP even technically enforceable? Is putting such a high level of protection on such a broad swath of articles feasible or even desirable? Sorry if these questions have already been answered; I haven't been following this thread. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
Long story short, this is the "any page" vs. "any edit" issue of the last ARCA which was pushed to the side so as not to omnibus things. Perhaps it's time to make that small change? I would recommend doing the following two things:


 * 1) Expand the prohibition from "any page" to "any page or edit". Note that just "any edit" leaves a lot of room for interpretation with edits on pages that have substantial information on the conflict but where the edit itself does not, so keeping "any page" in there seems necessary.
 * 2) Note that extendedconfirmed protection as an arbitration enforcement action is not appropriate for pages that are just victims of occasional off-topic editing. This doesn't necessarily have to be part of the remedy itself, but it should be made plain in the arbitrator opinions below, at the very least. We wouldn't want random BLPs of Israeli or Palestinian individuals to become indefinitely extendedconfirmed protected under this remedy only because a single IP editor makes an off-topic edit about the conflict.

~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iazyges
I agree with BU Rob on the any page vs any edit idea. I also think any unrelated page that come to be the subject of vandalism should only go up to semi-protection, unless the volume of vandalism would be enough to merit protection in its own right. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  04:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Palestine-Israel)
If the change is made (I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should) I think it important that Abrcom make it clear the language is that edits made by users not meeting the threshold "can" or "may" be reverted not "must" be reverted. For example a typographical fix, vandalism reversal or unambiguous BLP correction should not be reverted solely because of the person making the edit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I don't want to see ECP extended to pages where the Arab-Israel topic is not the prime concern of the article, but I would support the suggested change from "any page" to "any page or edit". Probably with the proviso that any editor not reaching 500/30 can be reverted without it being considered edit-warring and that a notice should then be placed on that editor's talk page (whether or not they are an IP) explaining the sanctions. Doug Weller  talk 15:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't like this idea and still haven't seen any evidence that it's necessary. I'd be more inclined to make this change given some examples of cases where IPs or new accounts are disrupting non-PIA-related articles with PIA-related edits in ways that can't reasonably be controlled by normal editing. One or two borderline cases aren't enough justification for such a broad expansion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would support the concept if there was sufficient evidence of a problem. Absent some notable or systemic examples of disruption we don't have enough to justify the change. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While I am not opposed in principle to such an extension, I also don't yet see this as warranted, and it might open up Pandora's box with DS used as a bludgeoning device. I much rather trust the judgment of administrators and the community using the regular means. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are similar to OR and Euryalus, if there is evidence that there is disruption to pages due to PIA-related edits to non-PIA pages (and hence aren't ECP protected) then I'd consider changing the DS criteria to any edits (but I wouldn't be comfortable authorising ECP for this use). As is, with the current evidence, I don't see a need to change it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed that BU Rob's suggested change does not appear necessary at the moment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As the others have said above, there seems to be insufficient evidence to warrant any action at this time. There have been plenty of viable suggestions towards remedy if the problem proved to be more systemic and widespread. <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 00:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Need I pile on? I'm not willing to expand DS this broadly without further evidence of issues. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2) (March 2017)
Original discussion

Initiated by BU Rob13 at 16:59, 10 February 2017 (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


 * SoWhy

Statement by BU Rob13
See the conversation surrounding Regularization Bill here. Multiple administrators have interpreted the most recent change to WP:ARBPIA3 to mean that extended confirmed protection should only be used on articles in the topic area if edits by new editors or IPs come from multiple sources, are frequent, and are sustained (as we would do for normal disruption). Having been around for the last ARCA, this was plainly not the intent. As said last time around "The ban is not optional." Please clarify that the first method of enforcement should be ECP, with other alternatives more suitable to instances where an editor is editing across many articles or where ECP is otherwise not effective or sufficient. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noting the last (and most recent) discussion posted below by closed with consensus to protect pages as soon as the restriction is violated, but not before. That's all I'm asking for clarification in favor here - that the pages should be protected if the restriction is violated. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The wording states that those secondary options are to be used when ECP is not feasible, not when the secondary options are feasible. Could you clarify why ECP wouldn't have prevented the disruption/wasn't feasible? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, . There's a sharp difference between declining to action something and declining a request so that no other admin actions it, though. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify whether the restriction is mandatory or not? If it is, can you clarify what valid edit is omitted by ECP protecting an article? I really struggle to understand the logic in blocking an editor when protection would suffice and the protection has zero false positives by construction. ARBPIA#500/30 places ECP protection in the form of a behavioral restriction (rather than a technical restriction) on all ARBPIA articles. Regardless of intent, failing to protect an article in response to disruption weakens the restriction and allows editors not allowed to edit in the topic area to edit that article in the future. Again, no-one is saying we hold a gun to an admin's head and force them to protect. We're just saying they shouldn't take an admin action and actually decline protection when it would act as a simple enforcement of the ArbCom remedy. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The effect of this decision is that ARBPIA3#500/30 is fully optional and up to admin discretion. The typical protection policy already allows that. If a decision will not be enforced, you should rescind it. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * But this remedy doesn't say protect articles to prevent disruption (which is covered by the protection policy) or jump up some levels via discretion (which is covered by active discretionary sanctions). It's a prohibition, full stop. Zero edits by non extendedconfirmed editors are allowed in this topic area. If we really just intend to allow discretion, which I'm not against, then drop this remedy and rely on DS. We shouldn't have an unenforced prohibition on the books, though. Its confusing. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It just falls back on admin discretion, which is covered by DS. I agree limiting disruption is the goal, but if we want to back away from the heavy-handed prohibition to allow discretion, we should rescind the prohibition and make that clear. Saying "We're prohibiting this but not really" isn't good policy writing. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Can any arbitrator explain to me how "We have a prohibition, but admins don't have to enforce it and can actively decline requests to enforce it." is any different than "We have discretionary sanctions, which allow discretionary ECP protection, and admins are encouraged to make liberal use of it."? The latter is certainly more clear. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate for editors in the ARBPIA area to make their requests for page protection at AE instead of RFPP? One of the issues here, as I see it, is admins applying the typical "protection policy" mentality to this remedy, whereas this remedy is wholly distinct from our protection policy. Perhaps moving such requests to AE would be wise. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it's noted as a change to remedy, the mentality toward ARBPIA3#500/30 shown here is a change. The restriction has worked because it's been enforced whenever an IP editor/new editor has edited an article within the topic area with indefinite ECP. That has been the practice from Day 1 that ECP was implemented until now, and I believe there's been subtantially less disruption in the topic area since the advent of ECP than under the restriction before that, which is quite a good differential to see what effect indefinite ECP has had. This new interpretation of the remedy is the change you seek to avoid making in the absence of a rationale for doing so. This is the first time ever that I've seen an administrator decline this type of protection, and if other admins follow suit in enforcing the remedy only in cases of sustained and severe disruption, we can expect the "minor" disruption to get through. If we're already changing the interpretation of the remedy and how its enforced, we might as well change the wording as well to make things clear. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As an aside, as an excellent illustration of what happens when we don't extended confirmed protect articles in this topic area, Regulation Law (the article whose protection request started this) was edited by a block evading editor. I've now enforced the restriction with indefinite ECP. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Whether we should ECP protect articles that IPs edit in a topic area where they're prohibited from editing isn't a corner case. It's the entire set of cases. I'm still not 100% clear on why the Committee is resistant to handling this whole issue here (...should I open an ARCA about modifying the restriction directly below at the same time? how is it helpful to split discussion?). You're describing discretionary sanctions but continuing to preserve a prohibition. I'll continue enforcing the remedy as written until it's changed, because it's unfair to new editors to have unwritten rules and exceptions that they're unaware of and can't hope to understand. It's better to say "Clear this bar and you can edit in this area" than "Clear this bar and you won't be harassed by other editors, but until then, we may or may not bother you regardless of the quality of your edits. Good luck." ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy
The current wording of WP:ARBPIA3 is

Neither this wording nor the two previous ones (which explicitly used "may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters") contains a rule that ECP has to be used to enforce the prohibition, just that it's preferred. In this case there was only one editor who could have been dealt with individually, without the need to lock down the page.

That said, I have no particular opinion on the topic itself and I'd be fine if WP:ARBPIA3 was clarified to read "has to be enforced". Regards  So Why  18:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @BU Rob13: The current consensus (cf. the links NeilN provided and also at the recent AN/I thread) seems to be that ECP should be used "liberally but not automatically" (to borrow 's phrase) when it comes to this particular topic ban, i. e. iff there has been a disruption. At the time of the protection request, the article in question was newly created by a relatively new user and then stubyfied without a disruption in sight. The new user in this case didn't know about the ArbCom ruling and edited in good faith as far I can tell, so it was not a violation and thus no need to apply ECP. If the Committee believes this particular motion should apply to all articles, even before disruption happened, then yes, clarification is required since the current wording allows the interpretation we have seen become consensus (and which I based my decision on). And if your strict interpretation is to be the correct one, ArbCom should just protect all such pages preemptively and be done with it. But since they haven't done so in the past, it was a reasonable assumption by myself (and many others) that ArbCom didn't want to demolish the third pillar before disruption actually occurs. Regards  So Why  21:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @Kevin: So basically what you are saying is "admins are not robots but in such cases they have to behave like robots"? So why not make it easier? Let's just create a subpage that anyone with extendedconfirmed userrights can edit and where people can list articles that should be protected and an adminbot will just apply EC protection to all entries on that list. Regards  So Why  18:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As for the comments that there is a difference between declining and not doing something, please keep in mind that any admin patrolling WP:RFPP only decides based on the page as it presents itself at this time. It's not wheel-warring if another admin protects a page later on when later edits justify it. Thus declining to take action when a single good-faith editor without knowledge of the restrictions creates an article does not mean that the page cannot be protected later on if disruption occurs. That said, I personally think the Committee should reconsider the prohibition altogether and I agree with that it would work much better as a discretionary sanction. I understand the need to limit participation from certain high-conflict articles but the blanket ban currently in effect violates our fundamental principles, i. e. that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that any restrictions should only be enforced if no alternative represents itself. Plus, as DQ points out, a DS would be more useful in keeping track of the disruptive patterns. Regards  So  Why  07:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the discussion about the validity of this restriction should need a new ARCA request. has already pointed out, quite eloquently, that there have already been far too many ARCAs concerning this topic, so why force a new discussion? Evidently the current restriction is problematic and de facto unnecessary since an extended DS would serve the same purpose with the additional benefit, as DQ points out, of changing the venue to WP:AE which is where such requests actually should be decided anyway. Even if the Committee declines to take such action at this time, it should at least consider the last point, i.e. changing the venue to WP:AE for all such requests since WP:RFPP does not log actions and the log at WP:AN is only showing the newest protections (and not just those relating to this restriction). Regards  So  Why  13:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I can only agree with 's comments. I think when the restriction was created and reworded, the fundamental principle of "anyone can edit" was essentially abandoned by those who interpret it quite literally. wrote in his comment that "the committee's position is that, in general, enhanced protection should be the first line of defense" in these cases. I think it's important to emphasize the "defense" part. Yes, 30/500 can be used to defend an article against those who wish to corrupt it with their POV-pushing, vandalism or other discouraged behavior. But it should not be used preemptively when nothing has actually happened and especially not to punish those new or seldom editing users who follow all the rules.
 * I myself have deleted over 8000 pages and protected nearly 800 (probably handling thrice as many requests at RFPP), so I'm certainly not someone who believes that "anyone can edit" means "do what you want". But it does look like this restriction has been misused as a tool by some established editors to lock down as many articles as possible so that new editors can't edit them. And since only very few will take the time to become extended confirmed after the treatment MusikAnimal describes, it means that the pool of editors working on those articles will shrink constantly, thus hurting the whole project. Regards  So Why  19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN
Past admin discussions: --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive_8
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive_9
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection

Admins are supposed to use their best judgement when enforcing various policies, guidelines, and rulings and I don't see why this should be an exception. 500/30 is a means to an end, and not the actual goal. Repeating the wording here, "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." So let's say we have a BLP of an author who, along with other works, has written a controversial book on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Every so often IP editors come in and disrupt the section of the BLP that covers the book and its reception. Can the page be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Yes. But why should we immediately use the sledgehammer of 500/30 when semi or PC could suffice, allowing new/IP editors to constructively update the BLP? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

To address the concerns above perhaps change to
 * This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
 * This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not optimal, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

Generally, admins are supposed to use the least-restrictive form of protection feasible to start with. 500/30 allows us to skip a few levels in certain topic areas. For example, if Palestine Liberation Organization was unprotected we can immediately apply 500/30, skipping over PC and semi, as that's the optimal solution. For other pages, 500/30 may not be optimal. Admins can apply it without enduring a barrage of criticism but can choose a lesser form of protection if that will stop current and anticipated future disruption just as well. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

, zero edits by non extendedconfirmed editors in this topic area is not the goal; it is the preferred method to stop the disruption in this topic area (which is the actual goal). The current (or my proposed) wording makes it clear that 500/30 (i.e., zero edits by non extendedconfirmed editors) is the preferred method to use to achieve that goal. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that this isn't a corner case. However I think Arbcom's intent was to clean up editing in this area by making it easier for admins to skip a few steps ordinarily mandated by protection policy. If you don't want admins to use their judgement about when to skip these steps then I could see ECP easily spreading to articles like the BLP example I proposed above. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by L235
Admins ≠ page protection robots. The restriction is mandatory to follow, and anyone may enforce it, but no one is required to – in the same way that, for example, WP:V is policy and mandatory, but no individual editor is required to enforce it by finding sources for any article they happen to notice bad sourcing on. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
A decline per ARBPIA3 makes no sense there. If yall want to say that this is like WP:V in which it is mandatory but nobody is required to enforce it then fine, but then dont also specifically get in the way of somebody else enforcing it. A good faith page protection request should be enough to trigger the protection. It means that the sanction has been violated on that specific page and that ECP would prevent further violations. Declining it on the basis of a decision that says it is the preferable method to deal with violations makes zero sense. If an admin would rather not protect the page then fine, dont, but dont also decline the request, just ignore it and allow somebody willing to deal with it to do so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
If the whole article can be reasonably construed to be under ARBPIA, then ECP should be applied when asked. After all, ECP protection would only mean that those who can't edit, won't edit. If the article is not under ARBPIA and only sections of it are, then that is where the individual edit can be reverted, etc. I don't get the declining protection on a page when the page is clearly part of ARBPIA and ECP blocked people can't edit regardless. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
I seem to have been pinged about this. I don't have any strong feeling about this rememdy except for some remorse for being the open who opened Pandora's Box. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MusikAnimal
I have very strong feelings about this, so let me first apologize for my tone. My sentiments are not targeted at any admins or the Arbitration Committee. We all want what's best for the project, so let me share what I think is best.

It is in my opinion preposterous and irresponsible to preemptively protect articles that have experienced little or no disruption, in direct conflict with the protection policy. Wikipedia is supposed to be open. Sure we get vandalism and POV pushers, but that's a natural consequence of a wiki and we can deal with it on a case by case basis. Any sort of blanket editing "prohibition" is contrary to the entire point of Wikipedia. What's worse about ARBPIA is we protect indefinitely. The idea is to use the shortest effective duration and lowest effective protection level, yet we for some reason are ignoring that philosophy entirely. I'm sorry but this infuriates me.

Let's assume there was no disruption at all on a given article, and in fact constructive editing from new users – do you then actually feel accomplished in applying indefinite protection, limiting editing to experienced editors? Do you really feel like you were doing the right thing by shutting out users who were helping? Are you OK with the idea that those editors may give up on the project? Think about that. Also, what if a new user creates a well-written article that falls under ARBPIA – We're going to immediately protect it? Are we meant to delete it? How do you think the editor feels about that? How would you feel if that happened to you? What if you were someone who simply is a big fan of Israel in general, and you find you can't edit most of the articles you want to edit? What would be your opinion of Wikipedia? Would you still want to be a part of the community?

Of course sometimes 30/500 does make sense, but that doesn't seem to be the case with most ARBPIA requests I see at RFPP. What's wrong with a brief semi if it does the job just as well? Use your judgement, ignore the rules... put the encyclopedia and the free knowledge movement first.

Maybe we should do some analysis and see how many constructive edit requests there are to these preemptively protected pages. It may shed some idea on the collateral damage we are causing. However I'm sure most newbies won't add edit requests, but simply give up.

Overall I'm going to have to be very stubborn about this. If others want to play the blanket "you can't edit this page" game, I'm not going to fight them, and I won't decline any RFPP requests, but I for one refuse to protect pages or rollback constructive edits merely because other related topics had at some point in the past experienced considerable disruption. No thanks, WP:IAR all day long for me. All articles deserve the same fair chance at openness. It's one thing to do the one-revert rule, impose discretionary sanctions, etc., but you should use caution and sane judgement with admin actions that affect innocent editors. The point of protection is to prevent disruption, not prevent progress... &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  05:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to also point out that on these ARBPIA articles that aren't protected, some people are reverting edits by users who are not extended confirmed – even if it was constructive. It is very difficult for me to sit back and watch this, and I can't fathom why you would think this is OK. If you wouldn't normally revert it then please, don't. Just don't. This is arguably worse than preemptive protection. With protection the editor never had a chance to try to edit constructively. Here the editor volunteered their time and effort, and you're knowingly removing their work. Take away the ARBPIA stuff and this can be blockable behaviour. Why is it all of a sudden acceptable? Surely you understand why it is unfair? These are not banned editors... their contributions carry the same weight as the next guy. I'm not necessarily saying the entire ARBPIA 30/500 restriction should be lifted, but if not doing so means we continue to punish innocent editors then yes, it should be lifted. The issue it seems is that people are looking at this ArbCom ruling and taking it literally, reverting any non-ECP editor. How is this is not a problem? My feelings here regarding edits differ from the protection in that I would have to feel inclined to intervene if it makes sense to do so. If I see you've reverted a clear improvement, merely because they don't meet the 30/500 threshold, barring an edit war I will have to kindly restore the content. I don't need policy or ArbCom rulings to tell me not to, and the same goes for page protection. The revision history tells you if protection is needed, just like the diff of an edit tells you whether or not it should be reverted. Right? Again, I apologize for being so stubborn, but surely you see why I would favour WP:5P3, WP:5P4 and especially WP:5P5. We should not be attempting to override or undermine the very fundamental principles that have made Wikipedia a success... &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  21:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The ruling advocating for 30/500 happened before it was implemented. And sure, many of these articles need ECP, without question. However as I said, this doesn't seem usually be the case at RFPP. What here suggests semi won't work? It will require some digging, but you'll find good edits from non-EC users. What about here? Note the now blocked extended-confirmed sock that was undoing those good anon edits. This one still isn't protected, and hasn't received one bad edit. Or here? I see lots of good and very little bad over the article's 12-year history. I just don't think we should feel like "automatic" protection should be a thing when it clearly is not only unhelpful but detrimental. I'm not that familiar with ArbCom process but doesn't a "clarification and amendment" mean it can be amended? At the very least perhaps we could ask editors not unconditionally undo good edits just because they think the article falls under ARBPIA. Instead, report to RFPP and let an admin decide. Good edits should stay, regardless of who made them. A "clause" saying this will go a long way, methinks. It's easy for us to impose a blanket "can't edit" restriction but we're not newbies, whom we teach to be bold and follow the fundamental five pillars. They're left hanging scratching their heads, wondering what this is all about when they thought they were helping. Then we link them WP:ARBPIA3 and expect them to read it? I'm all about protecting articles when the need is there, whatever we have to do to stop disruption, but don't go against our core philosophy and knowingly put a stop to good contributions when there is zero evidence to the contrary &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mifter
While I'm in the neighborhood stating my position in regards to other cases I thought I would add my perspective (noting that this discussion appears to be on its way to closure). I considered and decided against adding it earlier however after reflection I believe it cannot hurt to add what I have observed. I agree fully with MusikAnimal above that the current implementation of blanket ECP on articles in this topic seems to go against the general spirit and mission of Wikipedia as well as the protection policy itself. I further agree that clarifying the decision to read something along the lines that "ECP is fully authorized, and should be preferred whenever an issue arises in this topic that has not quickly and effectively been resolved by lesser steps" (addressing the concerned raised by NeilN above that we might want to jump to a higher standard of protection in this area) may be be prudent. In general after taking a fairly long wikibreak where I was semi-active and for portions completely inactive, coming back I have seen what I believe to be a startling shift towards a more closed encyclopedia. I recently raised a concern at AN that we are now blocking IPs without any or just a level 1 warning for extended duration, years in some instances, primarily due to conduct that occurred years ago. That is not the issue here, however it does inform what I believe to be a general shift in a worrisome direction. Further, having patrolled RFPP regularly since coming back the number of requests that simply state in essence that "anons never contribute positively" or are "only disruptive" accompanying requests for indefinite semi-protection is also alarming. We wonder why our community grows continually smaller and we struggle to retain new editors. To me, this is but one symptom of a larger issue. Clearly, this topic is an area where we have seen extraordinary levels of disruption and where a strong inclination towards using ECP where disruption is occurring/has occurred/is likely to occur is more than justified. However, I agree that a blanket position to prevent all unregistered and new editors from editing anywhere in this area runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and for articles on the fringe of the topic which have no history of disruption and in all honestly are unlikely to become areas of concern preemptively locking the articles causes more harm than good, freezes existing issues in place (whatever they may be), and only further reinforces the perception that Wikipedia for as open as we claim it to be is a closed system where you either fit in or get out. Mifter (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse for this clarification request only. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * No individual administrator is required to enforce a particular arbitration decision, whether or not that decision provides for administrative discretion as regards the specific means of enforcement. In this case, we've deliberately left the choice of how to enforce the 500/30 editing restriction up to the enforcing administrators' discretion; while the committee's position is that, in general, enhanced protection should be the first line of defense here, we're not going to second-guess administrators who choose to utilize one of the other enforcement mechanisms absent some credible evidence that those administrators are doing so to deliberately undermine our decision. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with NeilN and Kirill on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill said it well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kirill Lokshin. <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 00:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite a few editors have come forward with new information since I made my last comment. I will re-review this request this week. <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 20:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can an Arbitrator please clarify to me what the Wikipedia definition of prohibition is? It's not matching the English language definition of the word. I agree with NeilN's view on what the intended effect SHOULD be, but we are purposefully undermining ourselves saying these edits are prohibited, but you don't have to enforce it. What then is a point of a prohibition? We could just take a page out of our history books from Prohibition in the United States.
 * Right now what I am hearing is that arbitrators do not want full prohibition. Fine, lets not make it that then, but lets make some sense. Without a full prohibition, this is honestly a very strong extended DS. This would work a lot better as an extended DS too as it actually gets logged so we can figure out where the disruption is coming from and better react to requests to change our enforcement methods on this.
 * Anything short of a change, and administrators are in violation of the remedy by not applying 500/30, especially after an IP has edited a page. To be clear, I wouldn't enact any sanction on such an administrator, but why make it an issue in the first place?
 * When this remedy was first in place, we did not have the 500/30 protection available to us, and an arbitrator called it something along the lines of an effective semi-protection over the pages. Now that we have 500/30 protection available which can be used as a discretionary sanction, is there a point to even continue having this restriction in place? This still affects a large amount of contributors who have good faith intent in the topic area. We are up to this now being the 11th ARCA on the matter, and 3rd potential motion. We need to fix this to something that makes some sense. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I see the prohibition in this case as similar to the old practice of criminal outlawry: participation by a non-500/30 editor on the affected topic is effectively deemed "illegal", and anyone may prevent or undo it using any means at their disposal—but, short of actually assisting the editor in evading the restriction (which is prohibited), no individual is required to act against them, or to act against them in any particular way. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable way of describing it, but I think the point being raised is a little bit different: if declining a public request for ECP is an "admin action", then that's different than simply not taking action because it puts a barrier in the way of other admins who might want to act. To continue the analogy, you can ignore the outlaw, or arrest him, but in this case the action is more like standing in the town square saying "I am not arresting that outlaw". Publicly declining a request for admin action is more-or-less an admin action, under the AE principle, and someone else coming along to take the action that's just been declined puts themselves at risk of wheel-warring accusations. (I'd say speeding is a better analogy, and letting someone off with a warning instead of a ticket doesn't actually mean there's suddenly no speed limits anymore.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't mean to suggest that decisions made later after a change of circumstances would be "wheel-warring". I don't really even mean to legitimize the possible accusations of it for "overturning" a non-action without any change of circumstances. I'm just trying to describe the pitfalls of responding to this request with "well, nobody's required to act". Proposing that the restriction be lifted should go in a separate request IMO. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This seems like a bit of a "missing the forest for the trees" issue. The purpose of the restriction was to cut down on disruption in this topic area caused by socks, POV-pushers, and good-faith but inexperienced editors who need time to become acquainted with the project before diving into such a difficult subject. As far as I can tell, it's working fairly well for that purpose. At least, we've seen very few issues reach the arbcom level that were actually about disruptive editing. However, we're now seeing many many questions about the logistics of managing the restriction. In this instance, I don't see that the last clarification lacks, um, clarity ;) It's "preferably" enforced by ECP, but different admins may have different preferences in different situations. It is entirely normal that enforcement of a restriction might not be 100% perfectly consistent every time and yet retain its intended effect. I think the best solution is to worry less about the corner cases unless they've clearly caused problems. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Why ask for a new discussion" is mostly just organizational, so a consideration of loosening the restriction gets filed under its own header, gets noticed by watchers and attracts comments specifically on that topic, etc. (To be honest I hate the way ARCA is organized and archived, and I find archived ones hard to read when there's a lot of topic drift.) As for the AE thing, I don't really see the advantage - AE is structured to be a slower and more commentary-based venue. Are people looking specifically for a log of PIA-related ECPs? As far as I can tell, what we're doing now is working. It's more important that the remedy be effective than that it be perfect. If it works 99% of the time, then cleaning up the edge cases to catch the last 1% isn't really worth the investment. My preference is to do nothing unless there's empirical evidence that changes are needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As I understand it - not having been on the committee at the time - the problem was that the topic area had become so clogged with socks and POV-pushers that it was no longer possible to get much real editing done because of all the time and effort and goodwill being soaked up by behavior issues. The benefit of the restriction is that it is no longer necessary to invest time in evaluating each individual "new" editor's contributions to judge whether they're socking or block-evading or well-meaning but clueless. It is also arguably less bitey to tell a well-intentioned new editor "that topic area is restricted, but if you get some experience elsewhere, you can edit there later" than to greet them with suspicions and possibly outright accusations of socking, and similarly better to revert their newbish edits because of a general restriction than because they've been judged low-quality. There may be an argument for modifying the restriction - and MusikAnimal, real data is always great - but this ARCA isn't an argument about modifying it; it's about best practice in the mechanism of enforcement in a corner case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't pay attention to this for a few days and figured I'd come back to it with fresh eyes later, since a bunch of very sensible people have said they think there's a problem to be solved here. However, I'm still not seeing one. Maybe this is an example of the upside of arbcom not getting involved in its own enforcement (because it's easier that way to take the 50,000-foot view) or maybe it's the downside (because we get out of touch with common practice). But I still don't see a reason we should be second-guessing individual instances in which an admin exercises the relatively limited discretion they have by the existing wording of the restriction. The original 30/500 decision was implemented in late 2015, and ECP was rolled out last spring, so we have enough experience now to judge if any changes need to be made, if someone were interested in gathering data. I still think that should be its own filing, not a side issue arising from an old thread about a related topic that nobody but the participants is reading anymore :) Changing the restriction would have a sufficiently broad scope that IMO an ARCA request specifically on that topic would benefit from wider exposure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request: ARBPIA3 (May 2017)
Original discussion

Initiated by Zero0000 at 06:10, 14 March 2017 (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 Zero0000
The motion passed on Dec 26, 2016 begins, with my sentence numbering added:
 * "(a) Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. (b) In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. (c) Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit."

Since the act of restoring a reverted edit will most commonly be a revert itself, it is unclear whether sentence (c) applies to it. The relevant (very common) scenario is like this:
 * (1) someone makes an edit
 * (2) a non-30/500 editor reverts it
 * (3) someone undoes action (2) without talk-page discussion.

I'm sure the community would consider action (3) to be law-abiding, but a literal reading of the motion does not support that assumption. The problem is that sentence (c) refers only to the revert limit and not to the requirement to get consensus. I suggest that sentence (c) be replaced by something like "Edits made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit and the requirement to obtain consensus."

Note that if sentence (c) is read as not applying to the need for consensus, then a non-30/500 editor can cause major disruption to article development by reverting legitimate editors, which is contrary to the purpose behind the introduction of the 30/500 restriction. Thanks. Zerotalk 06:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 About the need for consensus . I am writing with 15 years of experience in the IP area, 12 of them as administrator. I can tell you as a fact: this new rule as it is being interpreted will be a mill-stone around the neck of every good editor working in the IP area. Please don't get bogged down in discussing one particular incident; what is important is the future application of the rule.

There are two major problems that I'll spell out one at a time.

1. The rule massively increases the power of a revert in the hands of a disruptive editor.  No obligation at all is placed on the reverter—not to explain the revert or even to take part in the "consensus forming" that is compulsory for everyone else. Disruptive reverters have never had such power before, and they will use it.
 * This scenario will be common: (a) X inserts some new material, (b) Y reverts the insertion, (c) X writes a justification for the new material on the talk page, (d) silence.  What can X do?  If X waits for a while and then reinserts the new material, Y will drag X to AE for breaking the rule.  Article improvement is now frozen by someone who didn't give a single word of explanation.
 * This scenario will be common too: (a) X inserts some new material, (b) Y reverts the insertion, (c) X writes a justification for the new material on the talk page, (d) Y endlessly replies "I disagree" to everything X writes. In the past when X and Y were on equal footing after one day, there was motivation for them to find a compromise position, and this a very common way that minor disputes are settled in the IP area.  With the new rule, Y has all the power and no motivation to compromise. Minor disputes will be harder to solve.
 * This scenario will be even more common: (a) X inserts some new material, (b) Y reverts the insertion, (c) X writes a justification for the new material on the talk page, (d) a few of the usual suspects arrive and take predictable sides, but there is never general agreement that consensus has been reached.  Everyone will be afraid to edit the text because someone will claim that consensus hadn't been reached and some admin at AE (alas) will agree with them. Article improvement is now frozen.
 * There are only two ways to have a consensus that will definitely pass inspection at AE: unanimous agreement and an RfC closed as consensus. So why shouldn't we start an RfC whenever there is a disagreement?  Because: in the IP area a large fraction of all edits are not to the liking of someone else.  If we can't save RfCs for the important and long-running disputes, we will be starting one or two every day and soon our time will be totally consumed by RfCs instead of articles.
 * This new super-charged revert is the perfect weapon for neutralising individual editors across multiple articles. That will happen too, and the first signs have appeared.
 * The committee wanted to create an environment in which there is more discussion than now. That is a laudable objective but this rule won't help.  The "discussions" created by this rule will have one side with the weight of Arbcom behind them and no reason to agree to anything.  They can get their way merely by stonewalling, and that is exactly what will happen.

2. No time limit is specified for the need for consensus.  A literal reading of the rule is that for each edit we have to search the article history, right back to article creation if necessary, to see if we are undoing a revert. Presumably nobody would be punished for undoing a five-year's old revert, but what about one year, one month, one week? It is a granted that admins at AE won't agree on what timeout is reasonable. Editors need to be able to tell with reasonable certainty whether they are acting within the rules, but the current wording does not enable that.

Nobody from the IP area asked for this rule. Since the very purpose of rules is to assist good-faith editors to write great articles, I put it to you that this rule is not a good one. Thank you for reading. Zerotalk 00:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboards like RSN and NPOV often don't end with a clear consensus, and they hardly ever bring fresh editors to article talk pages. They usually just attract regulars who express completely predictable opinions. And who gets to decide when consensus has been reached? Editors who think that some admin will agree there was no consensus will take the opportunity to punish their opponents by taking them to AE. You know that because you already did it. Zerotalk 08:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone has read the "Editors are limited to one revert" in the first sentence as meaning anything except "Each editor is limited to one revert". It isn't the problem that caught Huldra. So if that's what you mean, I don't see how it would help. All good editors in the IP area love the 1RR rule. We also love the brilliant 50/300 rule, which has greatly reduced the labor of keeping good articles good. The problem is with the next sentence "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit" which is a disaster and nothing at all like what Huldra asked for. I've tried to explain why it is bad above. Some people around here have the idea that the IP area is rotten and needs to be fixed by wielding a big stick. The truth is that the area has never been better. The last thing we need is a rule that leaves good editors not knowing whether the edit they want to make will get them blocked or not. Please remove it. Zerotalk 08:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that the sentence is similar to a comment Huldra made before, quite different from her initial request. I think her comment was a mistake, unusually for her, but I'm more concerned with what will work. The sentence means that one editor can bring editing to a halt without even giving a reason, then nobody else will know when editing can resume because the group will not agree on when consensus has been achieved. Zerotalk 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you think the rule worked in one case has no bearing on how it will "work" in general. Why not try to answer some of the objections? Zerotalk 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your reply mostly consists of misrepresenting my, and others', position and I will only respond to one point: You claim: "you've also argued that admins can't exercise common sense (blocking someone for re-adding something that was reverted years ago)". My response: Nonsense. My objection is that admins will not agree where the boundary lies and we shouldn't have to wait until we are taken to AE before knowing if an edit will get us blocked or not. If I want to gamble, I prefer Las Vegas. Just add a time limit to that sentence and the problem is gone; easy. Zerotalk 00:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused by the logic of your latest statement. If one "side" has all the numbers then surely that side has the upper hand in "consensus forming" and so would be advantaged by a rule that requires consensus. You yourself argued against holding an RfC on those grounds. Now you allege that the side with the numbers wants to remove the need for consensus as it is not to their advantage. Are you not trying to have it both ways? Zerotalk 01:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We editors in the IP area are not naughty children who need to be brought into line. Almost all of the regulars spend more time on the talk page than in article space already, whenever there is the slightest disagreement. A rule that demands the elusive state called "consensus" must be achieved before anyone can edit prevents reaching consensus by editing, which is provided by policy as the first way to achieve consensus. The result will not be more consensus, but more frozen articles. Zerotalk 09:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You can read El_C's statement to see that it has not worked without problem in the American politics area. And your claim that there has only been only incident in the ARBPIA only means that you only know of one. In fact, all over the area editors are unsure of when they are allowed to edit. Zerotalk 13:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The present proposal would remove the problematic aspects of the previous ruling. Even though it can be improved, I urge that it be passed like this with any finessing left to future cases. Regarding 's suggestion, I think that there should be a principle right across the project (not restricted to ARBPIA) that reverts made without a cogent explanation don't count towards consensus. This is almost stated at WP:CONSENSUS, but an arbcom ruling that gives it some teeth wouldn't go astray. Zerotalk 12:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
It's very clear the Committee intended for this whole motion not to apply to reverts related to the General Prohibition. All we need here is to amend the very end of that motion from "exempt from the revert limit" to "exempt from the provisions of this motion". That clears up the ambiguity. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad, but let's fix the easy issue before dealing with the more complicated issue. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing the sentence would definitely imply a warning is necessary, at least in my opinion. Perhaps replace the final sentence with "Administrators are encouraged, but not required, to give adequate warning to an editor before enforcing the remedy." ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The new issues are editors who believe an editor should be able to make an edit, someone else reverts, and then a second editor comes along and strong-arms the first edit through without discussion. They wouldn't agree with that characterization, but it is what it is; reverting a revert without discussion is the start of an edit war. That's what a removal of "consensus required" or loosening to only apply to the original editor results in. The status quo can and should be maintained as discussion occurs on the talk page. Some have argued that compromise edits should be allowed, and they are! The particular situation that resulted in Huldra's block was a revert that was exactly the same as a previous edit which had itself been reverted. I see nothing to fix here. This restriction has worked quite successfully and been interpreted reasonably by admins in the American politics topic area. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The objection is "We should be able to keep making reverts even after someone has objected without first gaining consensus." I wholeheartedly object to that entire premise. I see you've also argued that admins can't exercise common sense (blocking someone for re-adding something that was reverted years ago), but I disagree with that as well. I haven't read the extremely long sections here because I'm rather time-constrained this week, and I trust the Committee not to make an intentional decision to open up the topic area to limited amounts of edit warring. The fact that edit warring has decreased is a result of this remedy, not an indication the remedy serves no purpose. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you misunderstand Huldra's complaint. She wasn't blocked based on wikilawyering of that language. She was blocked due to this sentence: "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." She interpreted that sentence to mean that only the editor who originally made the edit is required to find consensus before restoring it, but that's plainly not what the language said. I should note that I was the one who suggested "consensus required", not Huldra; she just queried the issue of 1RR supporting new material over the status quo due to a technicality. She did not provide the solution, if I am recalling correctly. If that sentence were to go, that would mean that seven editors could come along and each make one revert back-and-forth until they exhausted their numbers. Only after that would things move to the talk page. That's an edit war, full stop. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Don't edit war" is not a revolution. Note that editors who revert a single time but are continuing a larger edit war are always doing something blockable based on admin discretion, as edit warring is against policy regardless of whether you break 3RR, 1RR, etc. You've said in the past that your main concern is that this stops you from making gradually different edits to find a compromise, which is typical in the I-P topic area. It does not. A different edit is not a revert. Restoring the same edit without substantial change is a revert. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Editor A reverts. Editor B questions the revert on the talk page. Editors C and D both support Editor A's revert, but Editor A doesn't comment. Under your proposed motion, Editor B is free to revert anyway after 72 hours. If we're going this route, we should rework it to be that editors may revert after 72 hours if no editor supports the revert. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also "without penalty" needs wordsmithing. That seems to imply our typical blocking policy does not apply. "without penalty via this motion" or something like that would be better. I still don't think we really need a change, though. "Consensus required" has worked without issue in American politics for quite some time, and the only instance of it not working in ARBPIA is when an editor exactly duplicated another revert with zero discussion. Any way you shake it, that's exactly the sort of edit meant to be barred by this kind of restriction. The Committee has been hesitant to change something that "isn't broken" in the past (e.g. general prohibition), so why the sudden urge to change something that has never resulted in a block that would be considered improper even after the proposed change? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 11:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmborugh
I can't believe we are applying 30/500 to the whole subject of P/I (even though I believe I predicted wide application). The community was (rightly) very leery of permitting protection when it was introduced for pages with incessant vandalism. We now have four types of protection, and a similar number of move protections, plus cascading protection (and edit filters).

To add to this a "general prohibition" which is effectively another trap for the unwary seems a bad idea. May I suggest that while considering the specific point raised above it is worth considering if this can be simplified.

The section:

"but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."

could be replaced by

"but where that is not feasible, other measures may be used in the normal way to cope with disruption."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Yes that's exactly my first point. The ECP was introduced as a one-off in response to GG (and was probably a bad idea then), and is now widespread and part of MediaWiki software.
 * Effectively it's another barrier to editing. Where ECP is applied to a page it is at least fair, in that it prevents editing neutrally.
 * The GP, enacted as a community enforced measure can (nay, must) result in uneven implementation, and wasted effort by good faith IP editors.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC).

Statement by WJBscribe
I agree with NYB that the final sentence of the motion should be deleted. However, if qualifying words are to be added to that sentence instead, may I suggest "in exceptional circumstances" rather than "on rare occasions". It isn't just an issue of frequency - the circumstances should be such that an administrator reasonably judges it appropriate to block without a warning. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * While this provision is being discussed, and to avoid the need for repeated amendments, I wanted to draw the Committee's attention to a potential issue as to the meaning of "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I understand this restriction to mean that every editor is prohibited from restoring a reverted edit until a consensus has been obtained, regardless of who made the edit and who reverted it. In other words, if editor 1 makes an edit and editor 2 reverts it, not only editor 1 but also editor 3 is prohibited from restoring the content. This seems to be: (1) the plain meaning of the words used and; (2) highly desirable if we are to stop "tag team" revert wars, in which editors on each side uses up their individual one revert for the day in sequence, which have become a regrettable consequence of the 1RR sanction. Some have suggested that in the sequence above, only editor 1 is prohibited from reverting without consensus, but editor 3 is free to do so provided that have not used up their one revert for the day. If that was the intended meaning, clarifying words may need to be added. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Responding to Huldra's comment below, consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree. The AE sanction is not that you cannot restore a reverting edit until the person who reverted it agrees - it requires a consensus of all editors opining on the edit. If finding a consensus on the talkpage is difficult, the usual options apply to gaining additional input - WP:RFC, WP:3O, mediation etc. The objection to obtaining consensus shows that it has been far too long since proper consensus-building discussions have taken place in the IP area, and that there has been far too much reliance on the sort of "tag team" edit wars to which I refer above. As I have observed previously, it seems that Huldra (no doubt like others in the topic area) has become used to each side squaring off with their personal 1RR "entitlement". She therefore apparently only intended the 1RR sanction to be modified so as to remove a perceived first mover advantage (a balancing amendment if you will). Actually, I think ArbCom rightly had in mind breaking the ongoing edit war patterns and forcing editors to engage in proper consensus building discussion. I am struck that "where everything has to be agreed on at talk, before anyone can revert" is described as a "monster rule". The hyperbole aside, if it indeed reflects the attitude of most of those active in this topic area, I think it demonstrates how far their editing behaviour has departed from usual community norms. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If the revert isn't well reasoned, it should be fairly quick to establish a consensus to override it. I worry that a "well reasoned" requirement will spawn wikilawyering over whether the revert was well reasoned and/or was believed to be well reasoned. I'd be OK with saying that the revert needs to be made in good faith and/or that the reason for it should be explained, but think a "well reasoned" requirement would make the sanction unenforceable. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed that, in discussing the difficulties in reaching a consensus, Huldra repeats the fallacy that consensus requires that "we all agree" (I have never said that) and then goes on to consider: "3 vs 1 on the talk page, is that consensus? 5 vs 1? 10 vs 1?" Apparently it is impossible to move away from an expectation that disagreements will be determined by the numbers on each side. Might I suggest reading Consensus? It starts "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia" (my emphasis). If it has stopped being the case for the IP topic area, it is high time that changed. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly believe that amendment would be a mistake. I urge you and your fellow Arbs not to adopt it. I don't understand why you think it would desirable to enable: (i) the original author to just wait 24hrs, then edit war, instead of discussing the controversial edit; and/or (ii) a third party to perform a drive-by revert instead of engaging in discussion. The rule as drafted is a good one - edits that prove controversial should be discussed before they're readded by anyone, so that WP:CONSENSUS (not strength of numbers and perseverance) determines the content that is ultimately adopted. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by El_C
I've been pointing out lately that, like 0RR/1RR, we need something on the projectspace (also linked to the pagenotice) which is set up specifically for this 0RR-consensus rule, perhaps under WP:0RRC. Something that elaborates and clarifies it further, perhaps with examples. It just seems that only a sentence or so is too prone to confusion. Perhaps it's best that such a page is set up by the Committee or at least a Committee member, just so there's no misunderstandings for future editors about its meaning. El_C 02:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Addendum—In regards to the rule itself: The revert in question has to be well-reasoned. Otherwise, we are risking virtually unexplained reverts grinding editing to a halt. El_C 09:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Addendum2—Difficulties with the consensus rule on the 1932-IP front (Donald Trump example) has reached a point where an admin had to remove it from the article entirely (Russian interference example). So, the Committee should be aware that said confusion isn't limited to ARBPIA, but also extends into 1932-IP realm. El_C 01:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Addendum2—All participants are waiting with baited breath for clarification about the consensus rule, weeks go by and... nothing. And now DGG says the Committee doesn't need to decide on it now. If not now, when? El_C 05:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
When I came to ARCA in December, I asked for That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period.

I thought I got that, but apparently I instead got a monster rule, where everything has to be agreed on at talk, before anyone can revert?

Eg. When User:Shrike inserts this,  I can then remove it, go to the talk page and cry  WP:UNDUE, …and then neither Shrike nor anyone else will be able to insert it again, as long as I’m protesting on the talk page? No-one of the regulars, AFAIK, in  WP:ARBIPA has asked for such a rule! This does not help us who edit in the area, it only helps  trigger happy admins. (95-99% of my edits are on articles under ARBIPA, this would make my work virtually impossible.)

I am notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration for more input from the regulars in the area.

Finally, I agree 100% more with User:Newyorkbrad about not "blocking without warning”. I have been blocked without warning twice, and it is by far the most disheartening experience I have had on Wikipedia. By far. And this is coming from a woman who has had more than a thousand death and rape threats on WP. (I believe admins can see some examples here and here) Seriously, I rather have another thousand death and rape threats, than another unwarned block. Huldra (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * WJBscribe is absolutely correct here: "She therefore apparently only intended the 1RR sanction to be modified so as to remove a perceived first mover advantage," in fact, this is what I had thought I had got.
 * I stand by my claim, they way WJBscribe interpret this motion makes the whole area unworkable. Firstly: how to decide when consensus is achieved? From my understanding of WJBscribe  above it is when all agree. This will, on some pages, never happen. For one thing, if you look at some of the most contested talk pages, you will see plenty of banned socks. Some of them easily gets over the 500/30 limits, (I think User:NoCal100 had over 30 K edits with his original account)...they get caught in the end, but they will use wikilawyering on talk pages forever, first. Look at Talk:Walid Khalidi, to see what I mean.
 * If there are 3 vs 1 on the talk page, is that consensus? 5 vs 1?  10 vs 1?
 * And it isn't that we don't use RfC, sure we do, but it is sometimes difficult to get results. I started one on Talk:Kfar Ahim on 11 January, it was closed (for the second time) on  22 March, and I have of course not edited anything which was up for this RfC in the period.
 * I repeat: nobody in this area has asked this rule, AFAIK. Should the views of us who actually write the articles count for anything?  (But I’m waiting for more views of other "regulars" in the area) Huldra (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh, if there is something I have learned during my 11+ years editing in the  WP:ARBIPA area, is that there is nothing so small that it can't be argued about. I would so love that the strength of the argument, or strength of  knowledge, (for lack of better description:  English is not my native language) always won the day. That is not so in RL, and it is certainly not so  IP topic area. I brought up 3 vs 1 on the talk page, is that consensus? 5 vs 1? 10 vs 1? ...because if this rule remains, there will be discussions about this. 100% guaranteed. AFAIK, I was the first, and so far only one, who has been blocked for violating this, yes, monster rule. It is my sincere hope that I will be the last.  Huldra (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

When WJBscribe blocked me (btw, without discussing it at AE first), it was with the justification that I was aware of the restrictions, pointing specifically to User talk:Huldra. I was actually delighted when I got that notification from User:L235! I even sent him a public thanks for it.

I don’t think WJBscribe  knew that I had initiated that motion, but instead  thought it was  the normal “warning" about Discretionary sanctions?

I would therefor suggest that when people like User:L235, and others, report on the results from WP:ARCA to people who initiate motion, that they should start their report something like this: "As a result of your request at WP:ARCA  at [link], the following motion has passed: etc.. Huldra (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Opabinia regalis: Zero0000 is correct; it is that second sentence: In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit  which is the problem.  The description that Kingsindian gives of the IP area is, unfortunately, very correct, IMO. If anyone think that requiring "consensus" (however that is defined), will make us achieve consensus, is living in a fairy tale world where  pigs can fly. The only thing that the  "consensus" sentence will achieve is that the  whole area will "freeze," as it is.
 * Changing the first sentence to what Opabinia suggests, while removing that second sentence, would bring about the change I hoped to get in December  Huldra (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Opabinia regalis: You wrote on that last ARCA, (02:06, 28 November 2016) about the difference between:   "one where each individual can revert only once, and one in which each edit can be reverted only once." Stupidly, I always assumed the first  of those options, but what we got was the second option. If there is consensus for it, could we change it so that it is each individual who can only revert once? Huldra (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13 You write as if the situation in the IP area was terrible before this last amendment, but it wasn't. It was better than it has ever been, (Well, everything is relative, of course.) It was better  in the sense that we could write articles, and not spend all our time arguing with socks.  So I wasn't asking for a revolution, I was asking for a small  adjustment. What I got was a revolution.  Huldra (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, what about:


 * Each editor is limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The same editor cannot readd material which has been removed by another editor in any 24 hour period.

This might not be very elegant language, but it, hopefully, conveys the essential meaning: when one editor wants to add something, it does not take two editors to stop him/her, but only one. Huldra (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Opabinia regalis: Your suggestion seems fine to me. (English isn't my native language, nor do I live in an English speaking country: my English can always be improved!)   Huldra (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, absolutely none of the editors in the IP-area  had asked for this, before it was introduced, without editors (at least me!) knowing what it entailed. (That some of my regular opponents  are so delighted  to see me blocked, that they now, afterward, want to support this, does not change that fact.)
 * And does it work? Look at the article Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. I was blocked for removing an OR map, and introducing another map. I was 100% confident about removing the OR map, however, I was fully ready to accept another map. But look, after more that 3 weeks…the same map is still in the article. One would have thought that if my edit was so disruptive that I needed to be blocked over it, that it would be easy to gain consensus to have it undone? Instead editors are now terrified to change anything without every Tom, Dick and Harry agreeing, as we know trigger-happy sheriffs are on the prowl. Do you really think that is an improvement?
 * I think it is a great mistake to compare the IP area with American politics topic area. I took a look at some of the main articles there, they had thousands of editors “watching." While in the IP area, even a central article like the  Jordanian annexation of the West Bank only has about 130 watchers. By far the majority of the articles I edit have less than 30 watchers. A "typical" disagreement is between just two editors…how do you decide that elusive "consensus", then? My idea was that in such a case, status quo won the day. If instead a "consensus" is what we will need, I see a huge increase in  WP:RfC, WP:MC, etc. Huldra (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, I would implore you to consider the sentence proposed by User:Opabinia regalis. As it is now, discussion had simply stopped many places, this "consensus"-rule has basically stopped any development. Eg, the map which I was blocked for introducing into the article more than a month ago is still there....And User:Number 57:  If I had known that the  "consensus"-rule was in place after December, I would have brought you straight to WP:AE for the long list of reverts you did, after I had started a RfC on  Talk:Kfar Ahim. As you know, I didn't. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc. The present situation simply gives admins too much power. (I have seen several cases of people reverting without consensus, but  I simply refuse to report them to be sanctioned under a rule which I strongly disagree with), Huldra (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Any wording for this rule will favor one side or another. Our basic anti-edit war concept of 3RR, and the widespread practice of WP:BRD, will in any situation favor either the original wording or the change. In a 1RR situation, this will necessarily be increased. Every possible proposal here runs into the problem of special cases--there will always be times when it will lead to the wrong result.  This may be my personal bias. but when no proposal really solves the problem, the best thing to do is to keep the status quo, because   people have learned how to work with it. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, well, that is the thing, when we got the amendment in December 2016, we got an amendment none of the regulars in the IP area had asked for...and I, who had initiated the amendment, had no idea as to how it would be implemented.
 * (And I really don't understand, editors like Number 57, who on one hand laments the fact that the 30/500 rule cements the current editors, (something I agree with him about), on the other hand he supports the December 2016 consensus rule, which cements it even more...? This simply does not make sense to me.)
 * I reluctantly supported the 30/500 rule, as there are some rather nasty vandals out there, and they have thankfully mostly disappeared now. Things were mostly fine before December 2016! What the December 2016 rule did, was to give any admin, not King rights, but demigod rights to block anyone who does anything against that elusive "consensus". The result....as Oncenawhile notes: development  has simply stopped on many articles. IMO: this is madness. Huldra (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a fundamental weakness with the whole discretionary sanction and AE processes. It would only work if all admins involving themselves in it are perfectly reasonable. We can realistically expect admins to be somewhat reasonable, but beyond that we're not going to get. I would suggest an alternative to the entire system if I could think of one that would be acceptable here; perhaps someone else will be able to.  DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, quite, but you could presently limit the Admins demigod rights, by working on the suggestion made by by Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2017. That way we would be back to the clear cut 1RR. We lived well with that, before December 2016. Huldra (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Opabinia regalis: I would hope for Alt 2, but even a return to Alt 1 (that is, the situation before December 2016) would be preferable to the present situation. The Kosovo solution, suggested by Oncenawhile, sounds very much like Alt 1? Huldra (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, folk, thanks for passing this latest resolution. I think this covers what I meant ...but I have been burnt so badly before, that I’m not betting my life on it! ;P

Statement by Number 57
My view, as both an admin and editor on the fringes of this topic area, is that the current interpretation that an edit has to achieve consensus before being reinstated is fair enough. This topic area was plagued by tag-team reverting and this has pretty much ended it. Allowing reverts after 24 hours just leads to longer-term revert wars rather than solving the problem.

I think the block Huldra received for the edit on Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was perfectly justified. Oncenawhile made an edit that was reverted by an editor who deemed it controversial. Huldra made no attempt to get consensus for this but instead simply reinstated Oncenawhile's edit. If this sort of thing is allowed, then we have no effective deterrent against tag teaming, which simply means the side with the most editors will 'win' every time, albeit over a period of days rather than hours. Number  5  7  13:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In response to some of the subsequent comments since I made the statement above, I think it's worth making clear that those objecting to the requirement to achieve consensus are all from the 'side' with the most editors and which has lost the ability to tag team.
 * With regards to the 30/500 rule, it should probably also be pointed out that most of the editors in this sphere are long-term (around a decade) editors with a pretty clear bias. The introduction of the 30/500 rule has cemented one side's numerical superiority (and therefore dominance of the topic area) by effectively preventing any the entry of any new editors.
 * Unfortunately this numerical superiority also lends itself to the rules being set more and more in favour of that side, as in discussions like this, more editors will be able to show up with one viewpoint than the other (to date, this discussion has attracted five editors with a pro-Palestinian viewpoint and two with a pro-Israel viewpoint). Because arbitrators aren't able to identify which 'side' editors come from, the numerical weight of comments is seemingly taken at face value.
 * Realistically, the only way to solve the problem is to topic ban any editor who can be show to be involved in long-term one-sided editing. Number   5  7  12:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike
I agree with what Number 57 said.And the proof that the rule is working is the fact that there is a discussion right now Talk:Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank instead of edit wars.Its also clear that group of editors that holds small majority on certain POV will oppose the rule because for them its easier to win in the revert war then to discuss--Shrike (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Its clear to me that the onus to build consensus should be on editor that propose the change.--Shrike (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

{{PING|Zero0000}] There are additional ways to attract users except RFC.There are various noticeboard like RSN,NPOV and so on and there are also relevant project pages.There are no need to build unanimous agreement to reach consensus per WP:Consensus--Shrike (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No decision is a decision too.--Shrike (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
I'll make three points, but first I'll set out the undisputed facts:

The map, which was added six years ago, had no source at all. Only one person (Shrike) supported the map (I don't know what their position is exactly), and at least four people were opposed to it. There was some discussion going on about which kind of map should be there instead. Huldra said clearly in the edit summary, and on the talkpage that she was removing the map because it was WP:OR.

Now the three points:


 * seems to be unaware of the realities in this area: it is possible to predict the reaction of most people on a topic just by looking at their username. The position comes first, the justifications are an afterthought. This will not change until hell freezes over, the Sun absorbs the Earth or Israel/Palestine is solved, whichever comes first.
 * does not seem to appreciate that their interpretation of the rule makes working in this area impossible. Unlike WP:1RR which is a bright-line rule (which works pretty well), "consensus" is a much more elusive beast. On Wikipedia consensus is primarily achieved through editing. It is not an accident that the first section in WP:Consensus is: achieving consensus through editing. Of course, discussion is good, and discussion did occur on the talkpage.
 * blocked Huldra without warning and without giving her a chance to respond. Nobody has ever explained why this was necessary. The question is not whether what did was permitted, but whether it was wise. I appreciate the quandary of the admins that they need to stick to the letter of the rule in this politically fraught area, but this action wasn't wise.

I propose the following solution: remove the wording altogether. The reason is simple: the focus should be on disruption. A person who repeatedly adds material without consensus is engaging in edit warring. We already have rules against edit warring; why do we need a separate ham-fisted rule which doesn't work? I concur with people above that nobody from ARBPIA asked for this rule; why is it being imposed?

Additionally, I would add a sentence to the remedy: people should extend the basic courtesy of asking people for an explanation, or asking them to self-revert, before bringing them to WP:AE or blocking them. This is already WP:ARBPIA practice; I have been warned a few times in the past because I had broken WP:1RR inadvertently, I always self-revert, even if I think I'm right. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A simple point regarding the statements by and . I don't know where this "tag-teaming" issue suddenly came up, and why it is being mixed up with the remedy. Neither the decision in the original ARBPIA3 case, nor the motion which changed the 1RR rule, says anything about "tag-teaming" or "drive-by reverts". Nor has anyone given any evidence that "tag-teaming" in this area is any worse than other areas of Wikipedia. The wording should be changed on those grounds alone. The most one can argue is that this measure, which was introduced for some totally unrelated reason, has the salutary effect of preventing tag-teaming. So let me address the latter point directly. Does "tag-teaming" go on in this area? Of course, but no worse than it goes on everywhere else on Wikipedia. There's nothing special about this area, except that opinions tend to be much more polarized, because of the subject matter. In many cases here, people edit similar articles and have sharply opposed views on matters. Charges of "tag-teaming" can be easily flung in such cases. This problem has no solution (unless someone wants to try to solve I/P in the real world - full support to you in that case), and it is indistinguishable from any other area involving politics or religion on Wikipedia.  Lastly, I want to second Zero's point that we're not children here. Rules against edit-warring already exist, and discretionary sanctions cover cases of bad-faith reverting and refusal to discuss on the talkpage. It's all very well to talk about "numbers don't make consensus", but "strength of argument" is not a workable criterion (who evaluates the "strength of argument" anyway?). In many cases, consensus is genuinely unclear. (I note that nobody has even pretended to offer a defence of the original map here, because it pure WP:OR). I reiterate what I said above; a rule like 1RR works because it is a bright-line rule (relatively speaking). "Consensus" is not a bright line rule, and most of the consensus on Wikipedia is achieved through editing and compromise phrasings. Everyone involved in this area is an experienced person with thousands of edits to their name. They should work things among themselves like adults, not run to mommy to file frivolous cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talk • contribs) 10:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me first deal with the point which made a day or so ago, then move on to the general point. Firstly, the rule is not "pro-Israel" or "anti-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" or whatever. I don't like these terms at all, but I'll use them anyway. For instance, there was recent WP:AE request against E.M.Gregory (who is nominally "pro-Israel") by a person who doesn't work in the WP:ARBPIA area at all (Fram). I saw EMG break the rule in other cases as well, but didn't bother to report them (see Talk:Jewish Voice for Peace for an example) because I think this rule is silly. It's just that some people are more litigious than others. This kind of thing ought to put to rest any speculation that this is some sort of partisan maneuvering for advantage. Let me now come to the main point. The problem is not, as DGG seems to believe, unreasonable admins enforcing the policy; the problem is reasonable admins enforcing unreasonable policy. DGG has also misread 's comment made on April 7th. The latter is, as far as I can see, agreeing with Huldra that the original wording tweak was supposed to be just that: a tweak. It was not meant to be some sort of new policy (which nobody asked for, by the way). All people are asking for is for the committee to fix the mess created (inadvertently or not) by a freak wording change. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Rules against WP:Edit warring still exist, just as they did before the earlier remedy passed. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
Number57’s impression that ‘This topic area was plagued by tag-team reverting and this has pretty much ended it.’ I could give, as someone stalked and reverted with persistence by several editors, a dozen examples just from pages I edit  over recent months which contradict this (I too can get things wrong, certainly, but so often, with the same unconstructive reverters?). Zero‘s point captures the core of the issue, though his use of the future tense overlooks the fact that what he foresees is already in place:'''The rule massively increases the power of a revert in the hands of a disruptive editor. No obligation at all is placed on the reverter—not to explain the revert or even to take part in the "consensus forming" that is compulsory for everyone else. Disruptive reverters have never had such power before, and they will use it.''' This is seconded by both El C’s comment, ‘The revert in question has to be well-reasoned. Otherwise, we are risking virtually unexplained reverts grinding editing to a halt,’ and Opabinia regalis’s regarding a change to ‘each editor’ is one step in the right direction. The problem is not as clear as the initial suggestions made out. Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussing abstractly misses the gritty details of actual editing practice and therefore the precise issues whose abuses we are designing policy measures to avoid or reduce.


 * In several recent cases, all neutral observers agreed that there was no RS issue at all, and that the BLP es, was unfocused since the facts cited (and reverted out) had absolutely no negative implication. It has often been determined that Mondoweiss can be used as a source for specific material, (see User:Rhoark). At Al-Dawayima massacre long-standing material, an innocuous link to the only available English translation of the Hebrew text used in the article,  was removed  as WP:Undue. An edit war took place, with all sorts of policies cited vaguely to keep it out, so I took it to RSN here. The advice given was that a link to that translation violated no policy cited by the reverters. I notified the page I would restore it, but the editors persisted in saying there was no talk page consensus, (which apparently overrides a board consensus?). It was however duly restored by Huldra.(March 5)


 * 11 days later, confident the principle re Mondoweiss was fresh in all minds, at Michael Sfard I added completely innocuous neutral data for it from ther same source to a biography of an Israeli human rights lawyer here and here. It was reverted out as not compliant with WP:BLP:. I took it to the RSN board. The advice was the same. The advice said there was no WP:BLP abuse, so the original reverter came up with a WP:SPS statement. The revert was then restored. There was no noticeable talk page justification by the reverter. The reverter ignored what the RSN board had suggested and kept finding some vague policy tag to justify his removalist practice.
 * Now this is not the place to discuss the merits of those examples, but they are typical of time-wasting, of reverting with any number of unfocused policy excuses, and making even very simple obviously neutral additions extremely  difficult.
 * A simple way round this kind of editing abuse is to maintain the severity of the rule, but require of the I/P qualified reverter to notify the page before any I/P revert, and, once the revert is then done, to explain precisely what the edit summary means specifically. I.e. if you write WP:RS/WP:BLP, WP:Undue you must clarify why that policy was stated, referring to its specific content. In the case of Sfard, the obligation should have been to explain why noting that his grandparents survived the holocaust, etc., violated the provisions of BLP (As the deleter must have known, hundreds of wiki Israeli/Jewish bios note such facts for their subjects). In other words, if we have this revert right, it must oblige us, when using it, to do some actual work, at least for a few minutes. Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "All good editors in the IP area love the 1RR rule. We also love the brilliant 50/300 rule"
 * I confirm Zero's remarks. Thanks to successive admin regulative ameliorations, it's become, no longer, as often viewed, 'toxic' but fairly amenable to good editing, save for the peculiar twist in reading given to the 1 revert (for all) then no change unless 'consensus' is achieved (between 2 or 3 editors). The 500/30 rule greatly reduced sockpuppetry and the refinement of the rule of I revert rule helped stop some abuse by long-term editors generally. But it can, as some have suggested, be gamed, by using spurious edit summaries that look like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT pretext. The more you guys limit our freedom to game the system, by making us work harder, the better. The only real problem here is potential abuse among long-term editors, who may feel entitled to revert out of dislike of the other editor, or the introduced content. And that is why it should be clarified that exercising this right demands that the reverter give an accurate explanation, referred to the relevant policy texts, on the talk page expanding his edit summary when reverting. Some fine-tuning must clarify that this is not an invitation to contrarian omnipotence, of the kind implicit in that reading which implies:'I can revert anything, and then it cannot be restored unless the other person gets permission on the talk page.'WarKoSign has some useful suggestions also in that regard.Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jonney2000 please refrain from hyperbole. I use 1% of what I read from those sources (Mondoweiss) and RSN over the last few years has found nothing problematical in my use of it.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could we have at least an explicit clarification on the perception that on any I/P article if any editor makes a revert, on whatever grounds, no other wikipedian can change it until some consensus is achieved to do so? This is the way this rule is being applied, with it being argued, against the policy rule 'one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period,' that any one revert cannot be challenged because to do so putatively violates DS, and it is investing editors who spend much time just reverting an awesome omnipotence. I thought the intent was each editor was under a one revert restriction, meaning if the revert was badly motivated or meaningless policywise, another could intervene and restore it, As we have it being used, any one editor assumes a dynamic authority over everyone else. This is an open invitation for mischief, such as cancelling undoubtedly focused and well sources relevant information added to a page, instead of moving it elsewhere. Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Oncenawhile
The current status of the ARBPIA rule is a significant impediment to progress in the relevant articles. The idea that an editor can swoop in, revert, and then disappear - leaving behind in their wake a stonewall for the other editor - is clearly unacceptable. It makes the status quo unassailable in too many cases, as it is too easily gamed, because there are simply not enough people willing to mediate these kind of disputes as neutral third parties. The previous situation was better, but was also being gamed by 1RR tag-teamers as we have previously discussed. The key here is that reverters / supporters of the status-quo must have the same burden to contribute to substantial discussion as those supporting change. The goal must be to force opposing sides to discuss with each other, in order to reach a reasoned compromise.

To improve this I am inclined to agree with the direction of Nishidani's comment above. I propose that we add text along the lines of:
 * A revert can be reverted if it is not accompanied by a talk page explanation which progresses any discussion. Should a reverting editor not take an active part in subsequent attempt to form consensus for or against the proposed change, after [72 hours] their revert can be reverted without penalty.

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


 * Here is a perfect example of how this is being manipulated, at an article I have been working to bring to Featured Article status. The opposing editor boasts that he has no need to attempt to discuss at all. He explains that he will never engage one-on-one to resolve disagreements, and implies that this has worked well for him because other editors rarely turn up. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are false statements made in bad faith. I'd be happy to expand in the unlikely event anyone is interested. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

to comment on two of your comments:
 * "Any wording for this rule will favor one side or another."
 * I strongly disagree with this premise, and no evidence has been provided to support what is an extraordinary claim. The proposed changes are not about favoring pro-Israeli editors or vice versa, it is about favoring good editors over "ninjas", "tag teamers", "filibusterers" etc.


 * "... keep the status quo, because people have learned how to work with it."
 * This is exactly the point - the current set of rules are only four months old and dozens of us editors have NOT learned how to work with it. In my experience alone, numerous discussions have stopped on pages I have been working on because the "reverting editor" no longer has any incentive to enter discussion. It has made the Ninja-reverter all powerful. It is stopping these Israel-Palestine articles across Wikipedia from improving, despite constant improvement through discussion being Wikipedia's raison d'etre.

The current situation is a travesty, bureaucracy gone mad. DGG, with respect, the views in your last post can only mean you are not fully aware of the issues we are complaining about. Perhaps the problem is that because this ARCA request started on one topic and evolved into another, so this thread has simply become too confusing. Maybe we would be better off starting again with a new and focused ARCA request.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * When I referred to one side or another, I did not mean one side of the current subject dispute, but more generally those seeking to change text in whatever direction from whatever topic.  Each side is normally quite sure the other is the one being obstructive.   DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Worth considering the restriction wording at Talk:Kosovo: "All editors on this article are subject to 1RR per day and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page" Oncenawhile (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by WarKosign
As I wrote in ARBPIA3 evidence, I consider tag-team edit warring the main problem of the area, so enforcing discussion before restoring a revert is a great improvement. WP:BRD is an important editing tool which in my opinion should have been an official policy. Some editors wrote that the need to achieve consensus disrupts the editing. Let's consider a few scenarios:

1.
 * A made a good-faith edit
 * B made a good faith revert with a comment explaining the reason
 * possible outcome - A agreed (good outcome, consensus achieved quickly)
 * alternatively, A or someone else opened a discussion on the talk page.
 * possible outcome - the subject is of interest to many editors and there is a lively discussion that reaches some consensus. Good outcome.
 * possible outcome - Neither B nor anyone else responses to A's talk page post (bad outcome, this situation should be addressed)

2.
 * A made a good faith edit
 * B made a bad-faith revert without a proper explanation (this should be addressed)
 * A or someone else opened a discussion
 * possible outcome - there is a discussion and a consensus is achieved
 * possible outcome - there is no active discussion. Same bad outcome as in #1, needs to be addressed.

3.
 * A made a bad faith edit
 * B reverted
 * Before this rule - A or A's supporters would keep re-instating the bad faith edit indefinitely, potentially as they drag the talk page discussion indefinitely. If no consensus is reached they may claim that since this is the long-standing stable version it is the one that should stay. Extremely bad outcome of bad faith editing against the consensus that is now made impossible.
 * With this rule, same as in #1 and #2 - some consensus is reached

To sum up, I see no serious drawback to the requirement to achieve consensus before restoring a revert, except two which can be resolved by the following amendments: As always someone might attempt to game the rules, and this is where the AE would need to be involved. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 08:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Huldra's last proposal ("same editor") defeats the purpose - the problem is tag-teaming editors introducing modifications against consensus, and this proposal allows it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The revert has to have a comment clearly explaining which policy the original edit allegedly violates. If it's too complicated to explain in the comment, the reverter has to begin a talk page discussion and to mention it in the comment.
 * 2) If there is no response to A's attempt to discuss for some time (say, 72 hours), A may re-try the edit and it may not be reverted without responding to A's attempt to communicate.

I think your scenario is mixed up. Before editor A could revert, some editor X made an edit. Then A reverted this edit, B who supports X's edit questions the revert on the talk page. C and D support A, neither X nor B respond - the article remains in its original state and there is silent consensus to keep it this way. Alternatively, if we assume that A reverts some old-standing content it's not actually a revert but rather a new edit. B disagrees and revert's A's edit, stating the reasons on the talk page. C and D support A; there is apparent consensus against B's opinion so A's edit is re-instated and B is not free to revert it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Jonney2000
I don’t know about this purposed rule per say, I think it will always come down to a numbers game, but an issue brought up by another editor needs to be addressed. Which is Mondoweiss and similar publications on both sides. One side has pushed for Mondoweiss to be included as a post facto reliable source. They have done this by preferring to source content from Mondoweiss at every opportunity. When it is readily available in other places.

Some stuff published on Mondoweiss maybe reliable for Wiki if the author is a reliable source. Just the same as if the author had posted on his own blog. But much of Mondoweiss is just random activists with no credibility at risk. Since they have no skin in the game in terms of their reputations and no guarantee of fact checking; it is a very problematic situation.

At the same time pro-Israel think tanks like Middle East Forum are removed on sight. Despite many articles being published by credible academics in those places. The partisanship and accompanying hypocrisy is very troubling.

It is always easier to add material to Wiki then remove it. I would like to see more focus on what are acceptable sources and less on editors voting their opinions. Otherwise Wiki is in danger of ending up a blog.Jonney2000 (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I think that even with some of the problems of the new rule, it does seem to be working. There are far fewer issues and far fewer disputes. I don't think Huldra's suggestion would work in this case. If we restrict the DS to only that editor, that doesn't stop another editor from reinserting. What should be done is a re-education of how to gain consensus. If the talk page discussion is not helping, then we need to follow DR, either contact DR, or RFC, or 3rd Party. There are plenty of outside help when the main interlocutors don't seem to be getting anywhere. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 00:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to your proposed sentence. It will not solve anything but again bring the IP area into a numbers game. If I add something and person X reverts, I can't revert back, but person Y can. That will leave us back to edit warring. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 15:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think your proposal (minus the grammar issues, :) ) is a good start. I could live with that and I think it would cut down on some issues. It clarifies what is needed and what needs to be done, without resorting to any proposal that would encourage numbers game. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

How does the new ruling solve anything? It removes the whole requirement for consensus. What will end up happening is that editors will just wait 24 hours and revert. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 03:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davidbena
The problem that I have with the new edict of 26 December 2016 in the general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles is the stipulation that reads: "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." Question: Is this to imply that all new edits made since 26 December 2016 in Palestine-Israel articles can be deleted by editors, and they can challenge the editors who put them there in the first place, without the first editors restoring their edits until a new consensus has been reached? If so, you open the door for "abusive editing," that is to say, the new guidelines allow editors to freely delete areas in articles based on their sole judgment and conviction and which edits had earlier been agreed upon by consensus, and that such changes will remain in force until such a time that a new consensus can be reached. As you see, this can be problematic. Second Question: Do the new guidelines also apply to reverts made in articles where a consensus had already been reached before 26 December 2016, or do they only apply to reverts made after 26 December 2016, or to both? To avoid future problems arising from this new edict, can I make this one suggestion, namely, that the new guidelines in Palestine-Israel articles be amended to read with this addition: "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense, or where abuses arise over reverts made in an article where a consensus had already been reached before or after the edict of 26 December 2016 took effect, such editors make themselves liable to disciplinary actions, including blocking." (This, in my opinion, will lend some disambiguity to the new edict).Davidbena (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphim System
I think including something like this In addition, editors who make a revert are expected to accompany their revert with a talk page explanation explaining their revert. would also be helpful. There should be some element of genuine discussion, the issue with the original wording being that it allowed editors to hide behind the consensus rule to avoid discussion. They would simply revert and then not reply to any talk page discussions once their preferred version was protected under the rule. Right now, this sounds to me like the 1RR rule restated. Seraphim System ( talk ) 10:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA3: Clerk notes

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


 * Noting that as there are currently only 11 active arbitrators, six is a majority. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Agree with, this seems resolvable with amendment of the final clause to read "exempt from the provisions of this motion." Other views welcome, but this seems a legitimate issue with a fairly simple fix. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, agreed. Finally, an easy PIA ARCA! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think we need better documentation of the history of 30/500, because this keeps coming up in PIA-related ARCAs. The "general prohibition" is not new to this current motion. It was enacted as a remedy of the WP:ARBPIA3 case decision in November 2015, following occasional successful use of a similar remedy as an AE action in gamergate-related articles. The "extended-confirmed" user group and corresponding protection level were introduced in April 2016, and would most likely never have existed if not for the need for a technical means to enforce the PIA3 decision. All of the other policy development related to its use came after its introduction for arbitration enforcement. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In catching up with the new material about the "consensus required" section, I'm surprised at the commentary about the "new rule" that "nobody asked for". As far as I'm concerned, there are only varying interpretations of a three-month-old rule that someone did ask for, and it seems fairly clear from reading the comments in context that the intention was more or less to agree with Huldra's request and apply a fix for the "status quo asymmetry" issue she described. You might think I have some degree of expertise in the author's intentions, given that I proposed the text of the December 2016 motion, but you'd be wrong! I'd forgotten that was me till just now ;) I think some of the discussion about the dangers of "slow-motion" edit wars are missing part of the point, that edit wars are tempting in part because they're so much faster than discussing things. Slowing it down puts discussion on a more similar timescale and gives it a chance to interrupt the cycle. More to the point, the interpretation of the December 2016 motion under which Huldra was blocked does exactly the opposite of what she asked for by artificially inflating the influence of a single editor. Does "each editor is required...." (suggested waaay down below) sound right? That may not be perfect, but it is much better than endless arguments over what exactly constitutes a "well-reasoned" revert and what is "consensus" to unrevert. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the idea was to remove the interpretation that a single revert by a single editor disqualified everyone else from reverting. Huldra's suggestion from the previous ARCA was to borrow the American politics language: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). Which isn't particularly different from the disputed sentence editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I was trying to do :) Apparently it's hard to write something that everyone interprets that way without knowing the history. Suggestions from all welcome, I'm traveling at the moment so the problem may be in my brain.... Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, a derivative of Huldra's version: Each editor is limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. Second sentence reworded a bit because beginning it with "the same editor..." seems confusing to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry all, it's been awhile since this thread had much activity. That's partly my fault - last time I suggested someone start a new ARCA request for an issue related to an existing one, the response was "but that's just extra bureaucracy!" so this time I suggested just using the existing request, and the result is extra confusion and delay instead. But mostly I think it's because we haven't had any brilliant ideas for solving this particular problem. I think at this point we should consider the "consensus required" concept to be a failed experiment and do one of two things:
 * Restore the pre-December 2016 status quo of 1RR. This has the disadvantages Huldra outlined in that request - namely, that there is a structural bias in favor of the reverter such that two editors are needed to maintain the status quo of a given passage - but has the advantage of being fairly simple to understand and administrate. Everyone knows what 3RR is; the rule applicable to this topic area is just 3RR-2.
 * Replace the current rule with something like my suggestion above. This (I think) fixes the maintenance issue, but at the cost of greater complexity. The rules applicable to this topic area have become very complex and legalistic, are difficult for editors new to the area to remember, and are not intuitive for administrators to apply. Adding more special rules for this topic could exacerbate that problem.
 * I'm leaning toward option 2, given that we were convinced in December that plain 1RR was causing problems, but would like to see more feedback on that before proposing a motion, because we've already had enough problems with unclear or ambiguous wording. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea! How unusual. Let's do it. Doug Weller  talk 09:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Motion: ARBPIA


The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
 * Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
 * In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit the provisions of this motion . Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, including (in exceptional circumstances) on a first offense.


 * Support
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Temporarily striking while we figure out the new issues.
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 12:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I'm opposed to the last sentence, for the reasons discussed here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * On reflection, having considered the example linked to by NYB. Support the general point of the clarification and would support absent the last sentence which implies that blocking without warning is more commonplace than I think the motion intended it to be. There's circumstances where it's necessary, but they're a minority. Apologies all for this change of heart. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC) On amended wording above.


 * Abstain
 * I would be in the support camp if the words "(in exceptional circumstances)" were removed, but after reflection I'm not so unhappy with it as currently written that I want to oppose and hold up the works over it. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * OK, slightly less simple than I thought ;) After confusing myself looking for the original motion text, I finally clued in that this is actually pertaining to WP:ARBPIA (ie, the original case), not WP:ARBPIA3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * perhaps we can do both at once, if there's interest. Reword the clause per your suggestion, and also remove the last sentence in the same motion. Will see what others think. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Would removing the last sentence give the impression blocking without warning is forbidden? Doug Weller  talk 11:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest there are circumstances where it is justified, either we could remove the last sentence and leave it to admin discretion, or add a qualifier like on rare occasions. I'm just not keen on implying blocks without warning should be a standard response, as that probably wasn't the intent of the original motion but could be interpreted this way on a strict reading of the above. Other views welcome, as always. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In my view, "blocking without warning" should never take place in the sense of "the editor was blocked even though he or she didn't know he or she was doing anything wrong, and would have stopped immediately had he or she been told." (The only exception would be if for edit(s) so bad that they would have been blockable on any article, independent of the special Israel/Palestine rules.) On the other hand, I'm not looking to invite wikilawyering along the lines of "I wasn't specifically warned today about these edits." I expect there is general language about the expectation of warnings from other DS contexts that could be used. But as currently written, my concern about our being perceived as authorizing the sort of out-of-left-field-to-the-editor block that raised a concern last summer is a serious one. We don't want&mdash;I certainly don't want&mdash;to see blocking of good-faith, unsuspecting editors for inadvertent violations. as the proposer of the motion (and who was also active in the discussion last year). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, I agree that that sentence is a problem, and just didn't think to take this opportunity to address it. On the other hand, it's been part of this remedy for a long time. (Either I need more coffee, or I can't work out the sequence of amendments listed on the WP:ARBPIA page to find where the text originated. The first version of the general 1RR text links to what appears to be a later amendment, where the term "first offense" isn't used.) I'm the last one to go all WP:BURO, but for some reason PIA-related sanctions in general seem to be particularly attractive for proposed changes that are only indirectly related to the original reason for the ARCA request. This request seemed to involve a very minor change and has attracted very little comment, and I think if we're going to make a different and larger change it should get a little more community exposure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I realized a few hours after I voted that that sentence might be an artifact, in part because it didn't sound like something you'd write. But as the restrictions draw tighter and tighter, it becomes all the more important to encourage everyone to deal with inadvertent, isolated violations in a sensible way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, yeah, I would probably not have proposed that myself ;) The only change here is removing the struck-out text and replacing it with the underlined text.
 * Digging back through the history, we seem to have done a lousy record-keeping job in this particular case, but the earliest version I found including that clause was added here in November 2010, apparently following this discussion, in which consensus was formed to apply a 1RR remedy with text copied from what was then in use for The Troubles, which ultimately traces back to the result of this 2008 AE filing about sanctions in the 2007 Troubles case. Given the length of the breadcrumb trail, I'm surprised the "blocked without warning" problem detailed in that ARCA hasn't come up more often. I don't see any other currently active sanctions that use this wording, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But I still am concerned that removing it would give the impression Admins cannot block without warning. I'm happy with adding a qualifier such as Euryalus has suggested. Doug Weller  talk 18:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made an edit to the motion per this discussion. Please feel free to revert if this is not a preferred set of words. Pinging those who voted, so they can review or re-amend. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel like the way it is now it may be wiki-lawyered into "I was warned, and I committed my first offense, but the circumstances weren't exceptional, so I shouldn't have been blocked". I think I would prefer just go with something like "including on a first offense, provided the user has been made aware of the 1RR restriction" or similar. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 23:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , your wording is different, and by my reading really would require a warning before a block. (I'm sure we can all think of edits so bad that requiring a warning first would be pointless.) I don't really buy the argument that removing the sentence would be a decision-by-implication that warnings are now required, but since the idea is apparently out there, I think Euryalus' wording is fine. My main interest in making this change is that we publicize it well, because it seems that this has been technically permitted for a long time and we don't really have a good handle on whether the circumstances of that previous ARCA were unusual or whether this happens a lot but just doesn't end up on our radar. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I proposed my wording because I don't like the possible interpretation of the current wording that editors may only be blocked the first time they violate the 1RR restriction under exceptional circumstances, and I would be fine with the current wording if "(in exceptional circumstances)" were dropped. Still, the more I think about it the more I don't see how any second or third revert can be so egregious that a block for violating the 1RR restriction is necessary without the user having been warned of the 1RR, especially as upon a fourth revert it's classic 3RR territory anyway. Plus I don't feel like it would be a onerous task to notify an editor of 1RR after a 1st-3rd revert before blocking; if they revert again after that notification, you block them under the 1RR, and if they stop reverting after the notification, then the warning worked and no blocking is needed in the first place. If they've already reverted more than three times, you can already block them under 3RR without regard to the 1RR.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * what about if after "on a first offense" we add "after a notification of this provision" or something similar?Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like we need to figure out what exactly we're trying to do before distilling it into a single sentence. I understood the original goal to be establishing that blocking without warning is permitted but should occur only under exceptional circumstances. both of your proposed wordings seem to mean instead that blocking without warning is not permitted, period. I prefer the former, though I'd expect most of those "exceptional" cases would involve edits that were sanctionable for other reasons anyway. We shouldn't produce a result that appears to limit admins' discretion more than in any other area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * After some reflection, the warning issue I feel is resolved to my satisfaction already by the striking of "without warning". I'd be perfectly happy with this motion if the words "(in exceptional circumstances)" were removed, per my arguments that I feel like it could lead to wikilawyering, but I'm not so opposed to the motion as it is now that I feel the need to oppose outright. I'll abstain for now, and support if "(in exceptional circumstances)" is removed. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that as long as we're here, we might as well also deal with the "consensus"/1RR issue that was raised at AE recently, and that has been referred to in the most recent comments above. (I was wrong... there's no such thing as a simple PIA related request :) To my view it is fairly clear that if the person who requested the last "clarification", and who left that ARCA believing her request had been fulfilled, now gets blocked for allegedly violating that same rule, the fault is in the rule. Changing "editors are limited to one revert...." to "each editor..." - the plain meaning of the corresponding 3RR rule, and obviously what Huldra thought it meant - would resolve the ambiguity. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Motion: ARBPIA Consensus required


The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
 * In addition, editors who make a revert are expected to accompany their revert with a talk page explanation explaining their revert. Should a reverting editor not take an active part in subsequent attempt to form consensus for or against the proposed change, after 72 hours their revert can be reverted without penalty. Reverts without a talk page explanation can be reverted after two hours. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit the provisions of this motion . The normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, including (in exceptional circumstances) on a first offense.


 * Support
 * as proposer. Doug Weller  talk 16:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * I'm quite happy to have this tweaked, but I think we need something better than the current situation. Doug Weller  talk 16:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. So far none of my colleagues have commented so I'll wait to see what they think. I've had complaints about it in relation to American politics by the way. Doug Weller  talk 16:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I confess that I keep losing the thread on this ARCA since the second issue arose a couple of weeks ago, so maybe I'm missing something here. But I'm still confused why we're doing things that are significant changes from (what was thought to be) the status quo. In December, Huldra requested a fairly subtle change to the existing 1RR restriction that would have the effect of making it easier to maintain the status quo after a disputed edit to an article. We more or less agreed with the principle but failed at writing text that was reliably interpreted that way. Three months passed without any apparent issue, after which an admin made the disputed block that exposed the differences of interpretation in the December text. Why are we now considering endorsing that interpretation - which brings with it a much larger change to the editing dynamics in the area - as opposed to modifying the text to better reflect the goals put forth in December? There is no evidence of a new problem in need of a solution, only evidence of an ineffective attempt at solving the old problem. I am less persuaded by the various hypothetical situations being tossed around than I am by comments from editors with long histories of non-disruptive participation in the topic area. Somewhere in this wall of text is my response to the "slow motion tag team edit war" hypothesis - slow things down enough, and discussion happens on the same timescale as reversions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I also do not see why we need to do this now.  DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Motion: ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified


The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
 * Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit  the provisions of this motion . Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Enacted -  Mini  apolis  23:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) This is my "option 2" from my comment above, and I think more closely reflects the original intention of the December 2016 modification. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) A  reasonable way to deal with this, at least for the time being.  DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) I think we can see if this will resolve the outstanding issues. Fortunately and unfortunately, we always have the option to revisit the issue if it needs to go 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  00:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Worth a shot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, this is worth trying and better than what we had.  Doug Weller  talk 13:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) kelapstick(bainuu) 01:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Mkdw.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 17:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) It's not a secret at this point that I think the rule-sets in this and a couple of other topic areas may have become too complicated to readily understand and follow. A very experienced editor recently described me as possibly "the anthropomorphic personification of Wikipedia's bureaucracy"; if I can't figure out what all the rules are, what hope do others have? But until others start arguing otherwise, I will accept the consensus that a specialized, complex set of rules is needed in this topic-area and that the proposed edit is an improvement of those rules. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * "Finally, an easy PIA ARCA!" --myself, nearly two months ago. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Made some edits - it's been so long I forgot to include the original motion. Also edited "per day" to "per 24 hours" for consistency, though I better not see anybody trying to hang their argument on that. Pinging . Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the change is fine with me.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (July 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Shrike at 06:42, 3 June 2017 (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
The restriction reads "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc."

Does user that don't meet the criteria can !VOTE in RFC? Because it would be a big loophole to allowing non-ECP editors to influence the outcome of a RFC.The situation right now that the vote in the RFC was allowed []--Shrike (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC) The same question is about move discussions too of course Shrike (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:ThryduulfThe intent of the remedy was circumvent sock participation in the area.I don't see any difference between casting a vote in AFD and RFC. -- Shrike (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:Thryduulf But this the whole point of the remedy there is no way to know if someone a sock except obvious cases and that the reason that all new users are limited.You should read the arbcom case and see why such sanction was enacted in the first place Shrike (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Either way please make a motion so it will be perfectly clear and I am in full agreement with KI on this one. Shrike (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re PIA3)
I think it is helpful here to include the first part of the remedy not just the exception:
 * All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
 * The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
 * Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
 * [The second exception is related to article creation and not relevant to this request]

My reading of that is that if an RfC (or move, etc discussion) is being held on an article talk page that is not ECP protected, then editors who do are not extended confirmed may contribute to the RfC provided that: (a) their comments are constructive, and (b) their conduct is not disruptive. If the RfC is being held at any other venue then only extended confirmed editors may participate.

I am not involved in the topic area, but allowing constructive comments from editors who are not disruptive seems like a Good Thing. The intent of the remedy seems to me to be clearly to prevent disruption not to prevent all new editors from influencing article content. Even if most disruptive users are not extended-confirmed this does not imply that most users who are not extended-confirmed are disruptive.

I would also therefore strongly argue against choosing the venue of an RfC on the basis of who may participate (rather than where it is most relevant). I would regard ECP protecting a talk page solely to prevent non-extended-confirmed editors from participating in an RfC, without evidence of disruption on that talk page, to be contrary to the protection policy. I should note that I am not alleging either of these has happened, I have not looked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * if the commenter is a sockpuppet then the comment is disruptive and not permitted. If sockpuppets are disrupting the page then it can be protected under the terms of this remedy, if the page is not being disrupted then there is no problem to solve. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the difference between an RfC and an AfD, one is about making improvements to the article the other is about deleting it. Non-extended-confirmed users are explicitly permitted to make constructive comments and requests towards improving the article, some of these comments will require discussion - including discussion about whether they are improvements. I see no material difference between a discussion about changes to the article and an RFC about changes to the article. RfCs about things other than changes to one or a small number of closely related articles should not be being held on article talk pages. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So if a comment is constructive and not disruptive (on its own or in combination with others) and the conduct of the commenter is constructive and not disruptive (on their own or in combination with that of others), why does it matter if the user is a sockpuppet or not? How is permitting such users to make constructive comments on articles outside the context of an RfC different from permitting such users to make constructive comments on articles in the context of an RfC? If the exception was a causing a problem then you would be seeking an amendment to remove it all together, as you are not doing so strongly suggests that in practice it is not causing issues. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
The 30/500 rule was made because of the presence of sockpuppets in this area. (I did not support it, but that's not relevant now.) I am not accusing the editor of being a sockpuppet, and their comment is constructive. In general, constructive edits and comments by people are welcome. I often leave constructive edits alone (even on the main article) though they are technically not allowed to edit. I am also opposed to the practice of using edit filters on these pages pre-emptively, instead of when disruption arises.

Given this situation, comments in an RfC are a different matter. To some extent, RfCs are a vote (even though many people pretend they aren't). A headcount is often used as one of the factors in the final close. Allowing sockpuppets to "vote" in RfCs defeats the whole purpose of the restriction.

I suggest: allowing general talk page comments, and perhaps participation in the "discussion" section in RfCs, but not to "vote". Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
The related Syrian Civil War topic area, under general sanctions (WP:GS/SCW) has recurring problems with sock/meatpuppetry or suspiciously competent new accounts popping up suddenly in RfCs. I haven't seen that in this topic area, but I also haven't paid attention to many (any?) RfCs in this topic area. I don't agree with barring IPs from commenting on RfCs, but I think it should be generally accepted that new accounts in controversial topic areas with histories of sock/meatpuppetry will have their opinions weighted as appropriate given the circumstance. That weight would be zero or near-zero. This is a good compromise/informal solution that doesn't stifle discussion, avoids instruction creep, and keeps sock/meatpuppetry (which has quite a history in Middle East topic areas) from dominating RfCs. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I would be curious to hear more views on this, but my preliminary opinion aligns fairly closely with Thryduulf's. ECP is an effort to curb disruption on these articles, not a blanket statement that editors with too few edits or too short a tenure are somehow incapable of providing value to the articles. Where possible, input should be welcomed from 500/30 editors, since many (most?) of them are not disruptive. If some of these editors are so disruptive to an RfC that they're hindering it, that disruption can and should be addressed. If there is a little disruption among otherwise good-faith participation, it can be ignored by whoever closes the RfC in the same way that input from sockpuppets and trolls is ignored. Otherwise, opinions of editors who are not yet extended-confirmed shouldn't be discounted just because they haven't worked up the sufficient edit count.
 * I waver a little bit on this view, since it doesn't fully align with the restriction against !voting on AfDs or contributing to noticeboard discussions, etc. What keeps me leaning in the direction of allowing it is that often things are decided by simple, informal discussion on talk pages, and that's something we've invited non-EC editors to participate in. It seems odd to exclude them from these same discussions as soon as they morph into RfCs, particularly since the decision on when to start an RfC varies widely between editors and topic areas. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is starting to sound like the "no eating food outside the kitchen" rule ;) But I also broadly agree with Thryduulf. Do we have examples where this has caused actual problems? (I'll be honest, I think the significance of socking in RfCs, XfDs, etc. is generally overstated - while we can all think of occasional exceptions, most of the time this is either blatantly obvious, or doesn't involve enough accounts to make much difference.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I also broadly agree with Thryduulf on this. I wouldn't have thought that socking (by new accounts - that ECP would actually stop) in RfCs (etc) doesn't tend to be too much of a problem based on the reasons OR gives. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (I would stop the arbcom.) --122.53.31.204 (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (January 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Huldra at 23:17, 1 December 2017 (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 Huldra
How is the above statement: "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" to be interpreted?

I have discussed it with User:Opabinia regalis and User:Callanecc at some length here.

There are presently 2 different interpretations, lets call them Version 1 and Version 2:
 * In Version 1: its original author may not restore it within 24 hours after their own edit
 * In Version 2: its original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other users edit

I can live with either version (both are an improvement on what we had), I just need to know which one is the correct interpretation. Huldra (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the example that User:SMcCandlish: as I wrote on the above discussion with Opabinia regalia and Callanecc: that is only if you revert late, after almost 24 hours. In effect, both Version 1 and Version 2 will, if there are only 2 editors involved, result that the new stuff is in the article about half the time, on average.


 * As I said, I can live with both versions, but if Version 2 is the valid version, then I think we would need the addition suggested by Callanecc.


 * The reason I would prefer version 1, is that that is a fixed edit to relate to. Take an example, under Version 2 :


 * 1) Editor A inserts material at 00:01, 1 Jan
 * 2) Editor B partly removes/change the material at 00:05, 1 Jan
 * 3) Editor C partly removes/change the material further, at 00:10, 1 Jan

...then what should editor A relate to: can A edit 24 hours after editor B’s edit, or is it 24 hours after editor C’s edit?

(In Version 1, it is easy: it is 24 hours after editor A’s first edit.)

I’m sorry to be so nitpicking here: but 12+ years in the I/P area has thought me that there is absolutely no issue so small that it cannot be quarrelled over, or get you reported, so this really needs to be clarified. Huldra (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok User:Callanecc, thank you for your reply.
 * (And yes, in RL editors will battle it out on talk pages, or in edit lines: none of us wants to waste time edit warring)


 * (But, I’m trying to figure exactly how the rules will be interpreted, knowing all too well that the threshold for being reported is rather ......low.)


 * However, keep in mind that if B, or C, removes as much as a single word from what A has added, it would be counted as a (partial) revert...this makes Version 2 sound more and more like the dreaded "consensus required", which wasn't wanted by the "regulars" in the I/P area. It also open up for personal interpretation: say, was this one word removal important enough for it to be counted as a partial revert? And if D, E and F messes around with the text that A added, A must wait until no-one change it for 24 hours? Oh horror.


 * I do not like rules which are open to a lot of interpretation! I like rules that are absolute clear, which each and every one of us has to follow. And, Version 1 is such a rule.... Just saying....Huldra (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I once said, a bit flippantly, that it is easy to avoid all edit wars: you could just forbid all editing. Which is the way we are going. With Version 1, we would always, sooner or later end up on the talk page: there is a limit to how much damage/disruption an editor can make, if they are only allowed one edit a day! My BIG problem with Version 2 is that it is unclear...if there are more than two editors: what will count as an revert, and what will not count as an revert? I expect lots of reports about this in the future....And a lot of waste of time. Sigh. Huldra (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Newyorkbrad I tried to answer that above, and here: User_talk:Opabinia_regalis/Archive_15

The short answer is: if you revert after almost 24 hours, yes, then the new stuff will stay in, most of the time.

If you revert immediately, then the new stuff will stay out, most of the time.

If, on average, a revert is done after 12 hours, then the new stuff will stay in half of the time. Actually, this is much the same both for Version 1, and Version 2. However, lots of complications might ensue with Version 2, if there are more than 2 editors, and/or partial reverts, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SMcCandlish ok, one ongoing example, at Mausoleum of Abu Huraira:


 * 16:01, 8 December 2017 editor A adds label
 * 17:54, 8 December 2017 editor B removes label
 * 17:59, 8 December 2017 editor C re add same label.

If I have understood correctly, according to Version 2, editor C (User:Shrike) has broken the rule? He has not broken the rule according to Version 1, AFAIK, Huldra (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think Option 3 is a definite improvement to Option 2. Huldra (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Opabinia regalis yeah, the I/P area on the WP dramah boards is not my idea of  fun.....(It's a thousand times more fun to actually  write articles in the area...which is, thankfully, what I'm mostly doing.)
 * However, I do sincerely hope that you don't go back to the old 1RR, or 3RR system. Remember: all this started, because in the "old system", in a one to one editor "fight", the editor wanting to add something always won, as that first addition don't count towards RR.
 * I think all the 3 Versions suggested is an improvement to the old system, my preference would be:
 * Version 1
 * Version 3
 * Version 2
 * ...in descending order. I can live will any version, but I really have to know which is valid, Huldra (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Several editors here say they support Version 2, as that, they say, limit edit warring. BUT, recall, we didn't start this in order to "limit edit warring"...as there was no edit warring in the previous version (in a one to one editor "fight") ...as the editor wanting to add something always won. So the argument supporting Version 2 (instead of Version 1) because it  "limit edit warring" is a bit of a Red herring, IMO, Huldra (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, to repeat, edit warring is not a great problem in the IP area, after 1RR was introduced years ago. The damage one can do with one edit a day is ...limited, to say the least.
 * Secondly, I still favour Version 1, for the clarity. Take an example, playing out just now, on Qusra article:


 * after a 5 day break, I add stuff in 3 edits, last  22:59, 26 December 2017‎
 * 04:41, 27 December 2017 another editor again removes some stuff...NOT any of the new stuff I added; in order to find out who added that stuff, you have to look through the edits for weeks back! (Ok, spoiler alert: I added it, about 3, or 4 weeks ago)


 * When can I reintroduce some of the stuff removed? Under Version 2, I have honestly no idea, is it 04:42, 28 December?? Under Version 1 know: it is 23:00, 27 December.


 * This is the problem with Version 2 in RL: typically editing goes back and forth like this..the sentence "of the first revert made to their edit" is bound to be contested, ie, I could revert at 23:00, 27 December, saying it was not the first revert....the first revert of some of this stuff was back some weeks ago, on 06:27, 3 December 2017.


 * This is why I like Version 1: it is "clean", and absolutely crystal clear what is meant. Huldra (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I would really appreciate if some of you, that is, those of you who voted for Version 2, answered the above question. When could I safely have reintroduced stuff removed from  Qusra, under Version 2? I  simply do not know. Huldra (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:KrakatoaKatie could you please tell me under Version 2: when would I have been able to reinsert some of the stuff in the above example? (Without breaking the rules, that is.) Was it 04:42, 28 December, or 23:00, 27 December? Im not trying to be difficult her, but I  honestly have no idea, (I have twice been blocked, without any warning, for something I had no clue that I had done anything wrong. I do  not want it to be a third time. It was the two most disheartening experiences I have had on Wikipedia, far worse than having user names like this, or the zillion nastiness here. So yeah, I am going to nag about this until I get a clear answer.) Huldra (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) editor Cullen328
I support 's interpretation that "the original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other user's revert." These restrictions are designed to encourage broader talk page discussion leading to consensus, and slowing down article space reversions serves that goal. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Only version 2 is logically feasible. Example of why: I make an edit at 00:01. No one notices it until 23:59, and they revert it. Two minutes later, at 00:02, more than 24 hours has passed under version 1, so I'd be free to re-revert. Not cool, and not the intent. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC) And (to followup to the followup) nothing in that scenario or any scenario we're contemplate has anything to do with -reverts. If you make a series of tweaks to your own stuff, admins treat it as a single edit for determining xRR matters. No one is going to be fooled by patently silly attempts at system gaming. I think this is all a moot point, since some combination of versions 2–4 (if we call Callenecc's no. 4) is going to be the result. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  10:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Kingsindian seems to be making a point that's not really on-point. Yes, this ArbCom language is an "extension of" 1RR (itself based on 3RR). However, that in and of itself means it is not the same as 1RR; otherwise the new wording would not exist, and the decision simply would have imposed the same 1RR rule we're used to.  This is different: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours".  There is no way to interpret that, that makes any sense, other than "within 24 hours of the revert by the other editor".  This interpretation has no effect at all on "regular" 1RR or 3RR.  Since the intent is to restrain editwarring, not to punish some particular editor in relation to some other particular editor, the further consistent interpretation is that if A puts material in, B reverts it, C restores it, D reverts it, neither A nor C can re-restore it for 24 hours after D's revert. Otherwise, people can just email-coordinate an unstoppable WP:TAGTEAM.  C becomes a new "original author" from the point of their own re-insertion, but it doesn't just erase A's connection to the material. The wording could probably be clarified as "If an edit is reverted by another editor, the same editor may not restore it within 24 hours of that revert." That would cover every instance. E.g. to continue with the same example of rapid-fire editwarring: if E restores, F reverts, and G restores, G's restoration is an edit, and B, D, and F cannot revert it the same day. If H reverts, that's an edit, so A, C, E, and G cannot restore the same day.  Easy-peasy. The problem here is the word "original", which implies only A is subject to the special 1RR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that Kingsindian's response is "SMcCandlish claims that the intent was to stop edit-warring. No ...", followed by a lot of rationalization, I'm comfortable just stopping here, other than stating the obvious: Any system can be gamed with determination, but version 2 is much less gameable because it forces each party to wait a full day, and they'll eventually run out of tag-team partners.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "name me a person who edits regularly in the ARPIA area, and I'll find you an edit in their recent history which violates version 2" – That would likely be because it hasn't been the typical interpretation (and wouldn't be under "traditional" 1RR, though it arguably makes more sense in this application of the concept – thus this entire ARCA discussion). If it were already the common and certain interpretation, then people would avoid making edits that transgress it. Kind of a "Q.E.D.", really.  As I said in a thread at my user talk page involving some of these peeps, no one cares about edits that may or may not have transgressed this principle, before it is certain that it is the principle, even as recently as one full day ago, because those edits are already stale in AE's eyes; sanctions that could be imposed are to be preventative, not punitive – if people aren't editingwarring pretty much right now, and clearly trying to game the special 1RR, then there's not any clear enforcement action to take, especially when ArbCom is still deliberating about which interpretation should really be employed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  15:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Re: "If, as you agree, nobody actually follows version 2, and everyone follows version 1, then the clarification should ..." – The longer Arb comment I see down there disagrees.  ArbCom isn't bureaucratically bound by what label a request has; the committee is here to do what makes the most sense for the project in the context. And various clarification requests have resulted in amendments (though ArbCom is officially not bound by precedent anyway).  PS: I don't agree that no one follows version 2; I just take your word for it that many presently do not (otherwise this ARCA would not be open). I have been advising, when people ask me [I'm not sure why], that they should follow version 2 since it is clearly the safest bet in the interim, regardless what ArbCom might ultimately decide; it's not possible to be sanctioned for revert-warring .  :-)   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  16:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Zero0000's idea that version 2 could be use to permanently prevent someone from editing is implausible, since the editor wanting to game that way is subject to the same restriction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Seraphim Blade's "Version 3" works for me, too. I think that might assuage Kingsindian's concerns, while also addressing the GAMING scenario I outlined above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Callanecc's effective Version 4, "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit", seems good to me. It still resolves the gameability of Version 1, while being more restrictive than "traditional" 1RR, and apparently assuaging the concerns about Version 2 (even though I don't think those concerns are realistic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
Option 2 was definitely the intent. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
May I remind people that this rule was simply a tweaking of the 1RR rule. In 1RR, a person is allowed to make 1 revert per day. This mechanism depends entirely on their edit time, not the other person's edit time. Therefore, version 1 is the only logically consistent and easily-understandable interpretation here. I have always interpreted the rule that way, and as far as I know, everyone else in this area has as well. To take one example of out hundreds, see this AE request, where the complainant, the defendant, and everybody else in the discussion works with version 1. Indeed, if version 2 was applicable, this revert would have been a 1RR violation. Please don't change the interpretation now. There is no evidence that version 1 is creating any problems: if it's not broke, don't fix it.

Btw, there is nothing unfair about version 1. It slows down the edit-war, just as version 2 does. In the hypothetical example floated above, the second person can make a revert of their own after 24 hours from their edit. May I remind people that most consensus in Wikipedia is achieved through editing: often what is needed is simply a rephrasing which everyone can live by. If version 1 is unfair, so is 3RR, which is policy. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The comments by Arbs are extremely weird. Everyone recognizes that version 1 is the current interpretation, used by all sides in the area. (Please find me a single case where version 2 was used.) Now, ArbCom wants to change the interpretation to version 2. Why? Who asked for it? Did anyone complain that the (tweaked) 1RR isn't working properly? What's the evidence for any such thing? I remind ArbCom that the original amendment process just wanted you to tweak the standard 1RR a little bit to get rid of the "first mover" advantage. Initially you capriciously added the "consensus required" provision, which was only removed after lots of strife. Now you want to capriciously change the remedy again. If ArbCom failed to write the original remedy properly, fix your wording to match the practice, instead of trying to make everyone change their practice to match your wording. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously doubting that version 1 is the current practice? Please find me a single instance of anyone using version 2. Even the people who are commenting in this section (who work in ARBPIA) saying that they would like version 2, actually use version 1. I can easily prove this assertion if anyone cares. Having established that version 1 is indeed the current practice, here's the point. Nobody asked ArbCom to change the practice from version 1 to version 2. Why would you do such a thing anyway? Where is the evidence that version 1 is not working, or that anyone has complained about it? Why are you insisting that everyone in this area change their practice to match the wording which ArbCom screwed up? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me come at this from another angle, since people are so enamored of the "logicality" of version 2. People who are arguing for version 2 haven't thought the thing through. Many reverts are partial. Let me give an example: Person X writes "A B C D", person Y changes it to "A B Q R" which is a partial revert. Person Z changes it to "A P Q S" which is another partial revert. This text is incorrect in some small way, so person X changes it to A P Q D". But this is another "revert" which "introduces material which X introduced initially". With version 1, all person X would have to check is that they make only one edit a day to the page. With version 2, the matter would be extremely complicated: they would have to check all intermediate edits which could theoretically have reverted any edit they made in the past and then wait 24 hours after that edit. One surefire way to avoid this situation is to wait 24 hours after the last person's edit. But then some other editor can swoop in after 23 hours, so you may have to wait 24 more hours after that person's edit. The whole thing is absurd. It beats me why people want to change a perfectly fine provision which was working without a hitch for the past several months. "Just because you can" is not a good enough reason. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in example 1 which involves spelling errors. And that is a simple example I coulhd construct in 2 minutes. I can think of many more elaborate ones. The point is the one I made in the last sentence of my comment: while making an edit, a person has to check each edit in the past 24 hours and compare it to all their own edits in the past, and check if any of them could be classified as a partial revert. In contrast, version 1 is clean and simple: if you only edit the page once a day, you can never run afoul of it. As for your "gaming" comment, it is a guarantee that every rule in this area will be gamed, or to go one level deeper: people will accuse other people of gaming the remedy (see the AE request I linked above, for an example). The remedies should be simple and clear. Version 2 is neither. Btw, this was the problem with the "consensus required" provision as well: it was neither simple nor clear. Version 2 is just a wannabe "consensus required" remedy. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is how I respond to 's comment and 's comment.
 * 1) I am sorry for banging on about this, but it is not a matter of what "I support". I claimed that  version 1 is used by everyone in this area. I have yet to hear a single case where version 2 is used. Why on Earth would you change the remedy when there have been no complaints about it? Where is the evidence that version 1 is not working? You are asking everyone in this area to change their practice. Why? Just because you can?
 * 2) SMcCandlish claims that the intent was to stop edit-warring. No, the issue which the tweaking was supposed to address was a very simple and narrow one: editor A adds something, editor B reverts (using up their 1RR), then editor A reverts (using up their 1RR). And now editor A has a "first mover advantage". Please read the original request. A strengthening of the 1RR rule for articles under ARBPIA: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period. There were zero mentions of edit-warring or tag-teaming or all the other bogeys which are now being shoved into the discussion. If only ArbCom had simply done what had been asked of them, we wouldn't be here. ArbCom first screwed up by using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Then when after lots of strife, that "consensus required" provision was removed, ArbCom now wants to impose another capricious remedy. Because they don't carry any of the burden of their screw-ups. How about, the next time the remedy blows up in everyone's faces, instead of blocking the perpetrators, we block a member of ArbCom or the wise guys who propose these fancy schemes?
 * 3) SMcCandlish's proposed tweaking will not change anything in my argument. Indeed, their statement makes it completely clear that the "original edit" which is at issue can be indefinitely long back in the past. This is a recipe for disaster. Here's the thought process required for every edit: Whenever a person (editor A) makes a change (edit 1) to an article, they have to look at all the edits in the past 24 hours, check if edit 1 could be considered a revert of one of those edits (say edit 2); if yes, look at the entire history and see if any of their past edits (edit 3) were reverted by edit 2 and then check if edit 1 is reintroducing material from edit 3. There is a simple heuristic for avoiding these mental gymnastics: don't edit an article unless the last edit is 24 hours old. But this can be tricky because other people can edit in the meantime, which can push the "safe" time back indefinitely.
 * 4) Version 2 will not stop edit-warring or tag-teaming. All one has to do to edit-war is wait 24 hours after the last edit. If there are only 3 editors active on the article (2 vs 1), tag-teaming can go on indefinitely, same as version 1.

This mindset that you can or should control editor behavior minutely must be jettisoned. We are not children to be disciplined by adults, especially when the adults in question can't even get their own act straight. Finally, let me plead for some perspective. What is the damage people are afraid of? How much damage can a person inflict if they're only allowed to make the edit once per day? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * did not address any of the points I made; and their new assertion, which they think is "obvious", is wrong again. Version 2 requires no more determination, thought or work than version 1 to game. Suppose there are two editors on the page. Each of them simply waits 24 hours to revert. Since the other person can't do anything within 24 hours anyway, each of them is safe in their practice. Meanwhile, people are ignoring the really "obvious" thing here: the wider the restrictions and the more untested they are, the higher the potential for gaming. Indeed, if I was the type to make a malicious sockpuppet, I would do the following. First, I create a new account, get it to 30/500. I go to any of the pages and find an old dispute. Then I rephrase the text to take one side of the dispute (taking care to not explicitly mark it as a revert) and wait for someone to revert me. Voila! That person has "restored a reverted version within 24 hours". Rinse and repeat with another user. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In 's example, there was no violation of either version 1 or version 2 (because A and C are not the same person). But it simply shows that version 2 doesn't help against edit-warring or tag-teaming. Btw, I make a challenge here: name any person who edits regularly in the I/P area, and I'll find you a violation of version 2 in the recent history. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To eliminate a technical irrelevance in 's latest comment, please look at this edit (and the preceding and subsequent edits by other people), which clearly violates version 2 -- it removes "shifting" which was earlier removed and reverted. I mention this not to single out Sir Joseph, but to make the point that everyone in this area violates version 2 all the time. My standing offer remains: name me a person who edits regularly in the ARPIA area, and I'll find you an edit in their recent history which violates version 2. It's revealing that nobody here has taken me up on the challenge. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a clarification request, not an amendment request. If, as you agree, nobody actually follows version 2, and everyone follows version 1, then the clarification should simply affirm the practice and avoid ambiguity. An amendment request would require, at a minimum, some argument or evidence that the current remedy isn't working and needs some change. QED, indeed. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 16:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I have to ask: is there any kind of evidence or logic which would change your mind? Or are you simply lawyering for some outcome which you have already decided? If it's the latter, why are we even arguing? You have the power to do whatever you want. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Initially, you asked me to show that version 1 is current practice. I did. asked me to address 's points. I did. In total, I have written about 2000 words trying to argue against option 2 from all angles I can think of. My point is simple: what kind of evidence or logic are you looking for? If you won't change your mind no matter what you hear (as most people tend to do), then there's no point arguing. I'm sorry, I can't show that version 2 is responsible for Benghazi or hasn't released its tax returns yet. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion about option 3 or whatever are all beside the point. What exactly is gained by all the rigmarole, except forcing everyone to learn new rules? In all this verbiage, nobody has given a single reason why version 1 should be changed at all. Nor is there any evidence that it isn't working as intended, or that there is any doubt about how it works. There was one point of ambiguity raised by one editor who doesn't even regularly edit in ARBPIA, which led to this clarification request. All ArbCom had to do was affirm the current practice and remove ambiguity. For some reason, people are loath to take this simple, commonsensical and completely logical step, but are floating all kinds of fancy schemes, including going back to original 1RR and creating some new "option 3".

Sometimes the status quo is good for a reason. See Chesterton%27s_fence. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment on proposal
's "Callanecc version 2" does not help to fix any of the problems described in this edit (see point 3 1 ) and the scenario in this edit. The reason is simple: unlike 3RR, 1RR and the currently practiced by everybody version 1, "Callanecc version 2", can allow the original edit which was reverted to be indefinitely long in the past. Therefore, one must in theory (and sometimes in practice) check one's own entire edit history when making a revert: to check if the edit in question reverted one of your past edits.

This is not merely a theoretical issue: in this area, many things are litigated over and over again, by many different people. Thus an edit can be a revert of an edit long in the past. I'll give a simple example which happened right in the middle of this ARCA (I swear I did not set this up deliberately; I didn't even realize it till brought it up). Please read this talk page discussion. This state of affairs makes no sense, which is why everyone in this area, who don't agree on anything, instinctively and without communication, follow version 1 (it's a Schelling point).

Overall, as I point out repeatedly above, "Callanecc version 2" requires no more thought, determination or work to game or edit-war, as compared to version 1. There is no evidence that "Callanecc version 2" was the intent, or that version 1 is not working. Version 1 should not be changed, because it will require that everyone change their practice from a clearly working remedy to a clearly bad and untested remedy which requires more cognitive load by editors but brings no advantages. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 's comment misses my entire point (maybe I was unclear). Neither version 1 nor version 2 was violated in this case, so it cannot have anything to do with whether things "worked perfectly" or not. My point was the old issues get re-litigated all the time in this area. That's all. Instead, consider a slightly tweaked alternative scenario: suppose, a year ago, I and some other editors got consensus that a paragraph belongs in the lead. Suppose I was part of that discussion and wrote the final version of the paragraph. One year hence, some editor with 22 edits comes along and removes the passage. I see the change on my watchlist and undo it. Then I have broken "Callanecc's version 2". There are two points here:

Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, I doubt any admin will sanction me here, because I have taken an extreme case to make my point. But the point is still that the rule was broken by me. The fact that admins will likely ignore silly rules is a good thing, but one shouldn't write silly rules in the first place.
 * I would likely talk with the person who I reverted on the talk page. That is fine, but it requires work and time; it doesn't come automatically. And it has nothing to do with the rule: it will happen because I know how Wikipedia works and how to discuss on the talk page, not because of some irrelevant rule. If I was the type of person who is disinclined to discuss with the editor (and want to avoid breaking the rule), I will just wait 24 hours to make my revert. The rule has nothing to do with my good faith or behavior at all; a point which I have been crying myself hoarse about.

says that both version 1 and version 2 have good arguments. I don't believe that there's really any good argument for #2 but let's concede this point for the sake of argument. There is a crucial difference between #1 and #2: #1 is the accepted interpretation by every single editor in this area. Therefore, changing to version 2 will force everyone to change their practice. And for what? As I have showed multiple times above, version #2 requires no more effort, thought, bad faith, or determination to circumvent. Indeed, it is an open invitation for people (including trolls and socks) to dredge up past conflicts to get people sanctioned. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz
I think option-2 makes sense. Lets play this by a case scenario on case1 - suppose an edit is reverted 27 hours after it is inserted into the article - the original author is then free to immediately revert the revert - moving the article away from the status-quo? I don't think this is wise. The original author should back off, discuss, and if there is going to be a revert-war (not advisable for all involved!) - revert after 24 hours. If a 3rd editor comes along - he is free to re-revert if he sides with the author.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment on proposal
Callanecc's version 2 is clearly superior. Counter should start from first revert (causing a 24 Hour discussion period or intervention by other editors) - and not from the original edit (which could be "sneaked in" - see below).

Regarding the recent example brought up by user:Kingsindian - it is a case where the rule worked perfectly. Kingsindian inserted a large chunk of text to the lead This got reverted due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=814844094&oldid=814843737 already in infobox. This is not a summary of section 3.3 (Casualties) - but rather a POVish fork relying on questionable sources.]. We discussed (which is what should be done!) in the talk page over the course of half an hour - he saw some of my points (that what was added didn't match the body), I saw some of his points (that this was removed "sneaked out" in 2015 and no one noticed). I self-reverted - self-revert - will modify to match body. - and then made a series of edits to match the body, we discussed some of these edits, and I made a further edit based on Kingsindian's comments ‎Reverting the final paragraph of the lead: re - Add Protection Clusters figures for civilians.. Or in short - two editors coming to an agreement on the talk-page, in a contentious subject area, within 5 hours (2 hours (7:25-09:08) on the initial exchange, one followup to the followup edit was discussed in a laid back fashion as was finally resolved in another 3 (additional edit at 12:46)).

Now - lets imagine Kingsindian's original edit had "sneaked in" - and someone noticed it 48 hours later (just as the original removal in 2015 was sneaked out without anyone noticing). And for the sake of argument (of the original author clause) lets consider Kingsindian's original edit as an addition and not a revert (we could wikilawyer this at AE - but bringing back a paragraph from 20 months ago does seem like authorship and in any event this is an illustrative example):
 * 1) In the case of version #1, had I reverted him, he wouldn't have had to discuss with me (he would have - his conduct is generally exemplary - but not all editors are of the same cloth) - he could've reverted me right back (as 48 hours elapsed since his original authorship).
 * 2) In the case of version #2, he has to discuss for 24 hours before making any action. This fosters actual discussion - as the author instead of doing a "knee jerk counter revert" is forced to defend his work on the talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
Version 2 makes the most sense and seems to be the only option for editing here. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add since Huldra mentioned it and Kingsindian did, or did and reverted, that the case in question might be used as a discussion as to which version is proper, but the article in question is not under ARBPIA sanctions, so if people are stated as violating 1RR, that might give people the impression that people in question did something wrong, when nobody in that article violated any sanction. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
Version 2 is the most reasonable. Version 1 is simply pedantic and can be used as a blunted weapon. Further I'm under the understanding in the case of a 3RR that consecutive edits by the same editor count as one edit. It would seem reasonable that the same logic should apply here. And in such a conflict ridden area of wikipedia its better not to give people a cannon to fire.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Kingsindian, What you are talking about to me would fall under gaming the system in the event that it's reported as a violation of these sanctions. A minor change, a general maintenance post to fix grammar and such, is or least should be outside of the scope of these sanctions. At some point here someone has to call bullshit and say competence is required. Be that the admins that enforce this or ARBCOM right here and now. Someone chasing a ban of someone because they changed "Csll" to "call" and later also separately actually edits the article once shouldn't be allowed. This kind of thing shouldn't be seen the same as a bickering partisan who came into promote their end of this spectrum.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

At some point you really have to draw a line in the sand. Consecutive edits aren't fundamentally different than one single edit. This is fairly normal behavior across wikipedia. Gaming is considered disruptive across wikipedia whether the article is under sanctions or not. Here you are being asked to make an ungameable system. You can't. If gaming would be an issue here with people reporting others for making consecutive edits then your actions would be more fruitful in taking on that gaming.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Number 57
Version 2 makes far more sense; version 1 potentially allows controversial material to be reverted back into an article almost immediately (if their original edit is reverted more than 24 hours after they made it) rather than making the editor adding it to take time out to reconsider the material; this also follows Wikipedia norms like WP:BRD. Number  5  7  22:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
I hope that everybody who supports Version 2 suffers from a painful itch from which there is no relief, just like the hell you will be creating in the arena of editing in a contentious area. What you're describing works fine if people are edit-warring over the inclusion or exclusion of the same bit of information; no editor who has already participated in the edit war may take part again within 24 hours of the last edit. It is absolutely unworkable in situations in which one editor edits another editor's contribution in a manner the first editor doesn't like, or in which three or more editors make their tweaks to a bit of contested text. What will it mean in those situations? We'll see you at WP:AE and find out. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphim System
I'm inclined to think that Option 2 sounds like a better idea, but that it is unworkable in cases where multiple editors edit. On normal articles, restoring to a past version would be considered one revert. But within the 24 hour rule, I would support an Option 3, it should be within 24 hours of the first revert to the editor's work. This would address the concerns on both sides. Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the question that has been raised by Icewhiz, Kingsindian and others is when you have more complex situations involving multiple editors. For example, let's say Editor A makes an edit. Editor B makes a partial revert. Then 3 hours later there is another partial revert, perhaps changing some language or individual words. Let's say you add "The sky is blue and it rained on Tuesday". The first editor removes "it rained on Tuesday", and the second editor changes it to "The sea is purple" - when would you be able to restore your original edit? It would become difficult for Editor A to keep track - since the discussion is open now, we should have a stable and clear understanding, not introduce further confusion. I think if version 1 is changed, it needs to be stated very clearly that the 24 hour period starts after the first revert. Seraphim System ( talk ) 00:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes that is what I had in mind. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Let's have Option 2. It allows me to permanently prevent another editor from editing. All I have to do is revert them within 24 hours, then re-revert them (using different wording of the essentially the same content) every 24 hours. Eventually they will get tired of waiting and go away. Zerotalk 01:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, Callanecc's suggestion "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." will prevent this and is acceptable as an alternative to Option 1. The plain Option 2, however, won't work; I won't repeat Kingsindian's proofs. Zerotalk 02:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course that is what would happen eventually. However a rule that requires admins to monitor the situation and make frequent judgement calls in situations that are technically within the rule is a bad rule. As much as plausible we should write the rule so that obeying the rule is acceptable behavior and disobeying it is unacceptable behavior. I submit that both Option 1 and your revision of Option 2 come reasonably close to that, but the original Option 2 does not. Zerotalk 02:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "Zero000's idea that version 2 could be use to permanently prevent someone from editing is implausible, since the editor wanting to game that way is subject to the same restriction", but this is not true since self-reverts are not counted as reverts at all. Zerotalk 03:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I concur in Kingsindian's belief that virtual all the editors in this area have always assumed that Option 1 is what the rule is. I was surprised when one (exactly one) editor interpreted it differently. I'll also point out that revert limits in the past, including the all-important 3RR rule, have involved the time between the reverts of one editor, not some complex calculation involving the edits of multiple edits. So without a doubt Option 1 is the clearest and least surprising option. I agree with Kingsindian's conclusion. Zerotalk 08:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The irreparable vagueness of Version 2. What is "the first revert made to their edit"? Suppose (1) editor A adds something, (2) editor B removes it, (3) editor A adds it again, (4) editor B removes it again. Is editor A allowed to edit the material 24 hours after edit 2 (the first revert of A's insertion of this material), or 24 hours after edit 4 (the first revert of edit 3)? The confusion gets worse if the edits are not so clear-cut as this but overlap only partially, or if edit (3) adds material that can argued as equivalent but isn't the same. These are not artificial scenarios but just everyday editing. As it stands, Version 2 is an open invitation for wikilawyers to take their editing opponents to AE in the hope that some admin will agree with their interpretation, and sometimes that tactic will work. In contrast, what is allowed under Version 1 will be clear to almost everyone in most practical situations. Zerotalk 01:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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


 * Renamed to "Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles". Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My interpretation is version 2 - the original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other user's revert. The purpose of this part of the motion was to replace the requirement for consensus to be achieved by making editors wait before restoring their own edit after it had been reverted. This was so it would be more likely that the two users would discuss it and (probably more likely/hopeful) that other editors will be able to comment (or revert if the edit is inappropriate). I'm open to amending the restriction to "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the other user's revert ." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The first thing to consider is whether editor B or C actually "reverted" editor A's original edit. In that situation (depending on the their edit) both editor B and C have "reverted" so editor A cannot change it until 24 hours after editor C, and editor B can't change it until 24 hours after editor C's edit. Having said that, (depending on the edit) all of those editors would be very wise not to revert until after they've started a discussion on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to remember that just because an editor technically breaches the restriction does not mean that they will or should get blocked. There is a reason we don't have bots automatically blocking people who breach 1RR reason. We have human admins review the situation before issuing blocks to determine whether the editors involved are being disruptive or not. If the editors who are breaching the restriction are working constructively by modifying each other's edits then there isn't a need to block them. If, on the other hand, editors are reverting each others edits and are not working constructively then blocking them likely is the best way forward and that's where this restriction is useful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment, that's exactly what version 2 already does. See User talk:Callanecc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . So turning that into language for a motion, how does this look: replace "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours with If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In that instance Zero, assuming neither of you had made an attempt to discuss the issue, I can two edit warring blocks on the horizon. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My interpretation is also version 2, for the same reasons. Doug Weller  talk 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with version 2. With all the endless clarifications on this issue, one might reasonably dispute that version 2 is a good rule, but it's the one we have. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was trying to decide which of my neglected non-work-related responsibilities I should catch up on today, and for some reason I picked this one, and trying to read all this is sapping my will to live. I'm increasingly concerned that there is no "right" interpretation of the various forms this remedy has taken and we're all just playing Calvinball. I get the impression that most variations on "stronger-than-1RR" restrictions that have been tried have caused a disproportionate level of confusion (see also: "consensus required"). Everyone knows what 3RR is, and everyone knows what 3-2 is. Am I just being grumpy, or is there a case here for flushing the whole mess and going back to plain old 1RR? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, OK, I'd forgotten how we wandered off down this path in the first place, amid all the "Version 3.14159 is broken because it doesn't cover what should happen when someone edits on a leap second!" stuff ;) Backing up a bit, I like Callanecc's wording if indeed the best way to do this is something like version 2, but I'm becoming persuaded that the simplicity of version 1 is worth the occasional weird edge case along the lines of SMC's example. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keen on additional points of view from regular I/P editors, but for now, an unpopular contrary view from me: I prefer version 1 for the reasons outlined by Huldra and Kingsindian - it's simpler, it avoids disputes over partial reverts, or in circumstances where there are more than two editors, and it achieves the same basic outcome of slowing down edit wars. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My interpretation is version 2. Basically, "its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" from the time it was reverted. While I think both would significantly reduce edit warring, version 2 does more to foster discussion. It effectively removes a technicality that would make the restore time consistent across all applications. Either the sanction language could be updated or an example situation included in the documentation. <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 14:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which Arbitrators are recognizing version 1 as the current practice? "Everyone" seems fairly inaccurate against the comments from other Arbitrators; one in five gave a preference for version 1 but did not explicitly state that's the current practice. The four of five state they "interpret" the meaning as version 2 as the current meaning. I would rather match intent of the remedy than match current practice. The reason being is that current practice isn't always the best practice. Look at WP:CIVIL for example. Also, I view version 2 as already in place but needing clarification; and not a change. <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 19:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not all clarifications are not going to reflect the practices of some. There would be no point on requesting a clarification on something if the automatic expectation was that the outcome would always result in affirming the current practice; clarifications affirm the intent and purpose of the sanction/enforcement. Doing so otherwise would be a horrible practice. People would ignore sanctions/enforcements and then come to ARCA citing 'current practice' expecting the 'clarification' to endorse their actions, regardless of the actual intent and purpose. <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 17:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The very nature of this discussion is to work out the fine details and nuance regarding some of our more complicated governing policies and rules. You've been one of the most vocal opponents of version 2, so I'm not sure why you're asking about the point of talking about it with you. If you feel the current discussion of 'current practice versus intent' is exhausted, then I tend to agree. There have been other substantive arguments for version 1, and I've been following them as well. I replied to specifically to you because you asked me a bunch of questions and you continuously bring up current practice in your lengthy section, as recently as yesterday. <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 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To those supporting "version 1," how do you respond to SMcCandlish's point above? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 2 seems the more reasonable. It's the most direct way of doing what is intended: to wait 24 hoursbefore continuding the disagreement..  DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. In this specific example, at Qusra, the material which was removed was not added in the previous 24 hours. Therefore, in both versions of the proposed motion, you can revert right away once. The burden is then on Icewhiz; in version 1, he can revert within 24 hours of his own edit, and in version 2, he has to wait 24 hours after your edit. If that's not clear, let me know and I'll try again. :-) Katietalk 00:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Version 1

 * Support
 * 1) Second choice. This version would help but I think version 2 would make the biggest difference in both preventing and slowing down the edit warring. In addition I think version 2 was the original intention. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Euryalus (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) I was originally on Team Version 2, but I've become convinced that the simplicity of version 1 is preferable. I think the focus on what "slows down the edit war" more is a bit off-point; it's more important to know when the clock started than to be slightly "slower". Anyone playing games with the details of timing should be called out for their manipulative behavior anyway. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) First choice. Version 2 was the original intent, but this avoids certain issues unique to version 2. In particular, what happens if someone removes a piece of information two months after it was added? Is that a revert? That's a question that editors regularly argue over with 1RR/3RR, so if we can avoid it here, let's do so. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Second choice. Katietalk 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The alternative is superior.  DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * I'm undecided at this time. Frankly, there are good arguments presented above against both "option 1" and "option 2," and part of me wishes that we could find a better alternative altogether, although I understand that some of our best wikiminds have tried for years with no great success. Also, although it hasn't been part of this discussion, I don't really care for the last sentence (of either option), which I think may help lead to blocking of good-faith editors who aren't aware of all the details of the special editing rules for these pages or momentarily lose sight of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem then is not the rules, but unreasonable enforcement of the rules at AE. The procedures designed to give stability have protected unfairness. It is impossible to write rules that admins can misapply.  DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Version 2

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) First choice. Per my comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) If the purpose is to prevent edit warring, this is the correct time frame and much less susceptible to gaming.  DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  Doug Weller  talk 14:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC) term expired--Kostas20142 (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Second choice. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) First choice, as it stretches out the time frame. Katietalk 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Alex Shih (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) The ARCA requested a clarification on the intent and I think version 2 was clearly it. The issue of sorting out partial reverts will be challenging, but something I would hope could be done on a case-by-case basis and within the confines of good taste and good judgement. I trust the community and administrators to take these two things into account when applying an action. It is after all why we have people reviewing these things and not robots automatically blocking editors who violate a strict set of perimeters. <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  03:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) First choice. Both are gameable, but I think this one is less so. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * Pinging arbitrators listed as active but not yet commenting here: we're a couple of votes short on either option, it'd be good to wrap this up in the next few days. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (May 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Shrike at 10:32, 4 May 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
Does Iran-Israeli conflict (and particulary Iranian nuclear program)are part of the I/P conflict? The question was risen because of Project Amad and though it was protected by blue lock by Courcelles [] some of the admins argued(while others agreed with me Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement) that because Iran is not Arab country the discretionary sanctions doesn't apply. In my view it does apply: This short lived article have exactly the same problem as the I/P:(I don't ask to sanction anyone of course)
 * Newly created account jumping to the article with not bad knowledge of wikimarkup
 * Editing by the users the edit Arbpia articles and exactly by the same partisan lines.For example and  it also evident from  AE[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mhhossein] case that was filed.
 * Edit warring 07:27, 2 May 2018‎,#13:27, 2 May 2018‎.

In my view the conflict with Iran exist only because the I/P conflict exist had this conflict wouldn't exist the Israel-Iranian conflict wouldn't exist also. Anyhow I wish ask for amendment one way or another. A note:Its not an appeal on AE case its just a clarification if Iran-Israel conflict is under the relevant area--Shrike (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mhhossein
It's a new game by Shrike-Icewhiz. Unlike what Shrike said, five admins commented in this absurd nomination and only one of them thought Project Amad could fall within ARBPIA. Most of non-admin users disagreed with him, too, and I don't know why he's trying to pretend "others agreed with him". -- M h hossein   talk 18:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki
In the past, Iran's support for Hezbollah has sometimes meant Iran-Israel relations fall under ARBPIA. I agree with the AE consensus that Project Amad is not under the General Prohibition. However, it may be reasonable for the committee to expand ARBPIA to include the Israel-Iran conflict. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on arbitrator comments, it seems clear that the (exceptionally stringent) rules of ARBPIA are not going to be applied to all Israel-Iran conflicts. I don't see any way that standard Discretionary Sanctions could be implemented through Amendment to ARBPIA. As I can't point to any recent disruption in this area and see no diffs here claiming there is disruption, this seems like a reasonable outcome. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TheGracefulSlick
I think you just need to pack your bags on this one, Shrike. Several editors were clear at the AE case. This is just a roundabout to get Project Amad under ARBPIA restrictions; by proposing the conflict is ARBPIA sanctionable, sub-topics like Project Amad would have to be included for it to be universal. It does not work that way, however, and needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis or, better yet, with a bit of common sense.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Attack Ramon
The page is protected from editing by new users, with a claim that it is subject to WP:ARBPIA3:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACourcelles&type=revision&diff=839619136&oldid=839618769
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_Amad&type=revision&diff=839130707&oldid=839126480

looks like even the sys-admins can't make up their minds if ARBPIA applies or not ?!?

Statement by Icewhiz
I request you take this - and clarify either way whether Iran-Israel conflict(s) are under ARBPIA or not. We currently have ARBCOM templates and extended-confirmed protection on many articles that are "pure" Iran/Israel conflict articles. The recent Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement was on a recently placed page that was protected 500/30 due to ARBPIA by one admin (Courcelles), and the first admin (Masem) reaction at AE was that this was a clear ARBPIA violation. It would add a great deal of clarity if the scope was clearly set out in WP:ARBPIA - as was done for the Syrian Civil War. The present situation where this isn't spelled out - leads to a wide grey zone where enforcement isn't clear, a-priori, to editors. Having this spelled out clearly in WP:ARBPIA will clearly delineate the scope of the sanction.

In terms of whether to include Iran/Israel conflicts (which do not involve Arabs/Palestinians - e.g. I would assume 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping would be in scope to being part of the 1982 Israel/Lebanon war and February 2018 Israel–Syria incident due to Syria being a side) - there are merits either way -
 * Against - Iran is not an Arab country.
 * For - Iran, since 1979 (and particularly since 1988), has aligned with the Palestinian cause and other groups (e.g. Hezbollah in Lebanon) and has been involved in conflict with Israel via proxies and directly.

I'll add that editor conduct issues (and the editor pool) - tends to be similar for Iran/Israel content to the rest of ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Words? What about Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, Stuxnet, Flame (malware) - not to speak of recent (widely covered) CRYSTALBALLING of a possible outright shooting war.Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012
Very interesting request.

Everybody is aware that Iranians are not Arabs and even less Palestinians and that way it is difficult to argue that Project Amad falls under WP:ARBPIA, which deals with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On the other way, regarding what happens in practice on wikipedia on the internet and IRL (ie in the media): every article here, every publication on the internet and every statement from a public personnality that could affect positively or negatively Israel, will immediately be the topic of a war on words from advocacy groups.

And this is an important concern for wikipedia because it does affect the purpose of the project, which is to develop an encyclopaedia (1st pillar) complying with some values such as NPoV (2nd pillar) and in civility = pleasure to participate (4th pillar).

So there should not be doubt that everything touching Iran-Israel conflit should be added in the area of WP:ARBPIA restriction because it will be the target of exactly the same behavioural problems as all the articles direclty linked to ARBPIA.

But... It should as well be clear once for all that there is no symmetry in the disturbances. The equation is not "Iran =/? Palestinians" (as some against the introduction try to counter-argue), it is not "Iran-pov-pushing =/, Palestinian-pov-pushing" (as those for the introduction argue). The only equation from wikipedia's point of view is: "Israeli-related entries =/? propaganda war"!

And that's something that should once for all be understood and accepted on wp: The problem IRL is very complex, dramatic and -as on each problem- it should be dealt with distance and NPoV. It is also highly controversial, polluted and biased. But the problem on wikipedia is the pov-pushing and the propaganda war majoritary lead by [some] pro-Israeli and Israeli contributors who take part to that propaganda war from Israel and for Israel. There is no any other problem.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Further readings :
 * Nir Hasson, The right's latest weapon: 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia, Haaretz, 2010.
 * Rachel Shabi, Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups, The Guardian, 2010.
 * Hezki Ezra and Yoni Kempinski, First Ever: Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course, Aroutz Sheva
 * CAMERA seeks 10 volunteers to submit info on wikipedia.
 * Interview of Naftali Bennett.
 * Benjamin Hartman, GA special feature / An online battle for Israel's legitimacy, Haaretz, 14 novembre 2008.
 * Jeremy Gozlan, Wikipédia s’invite dans le système éducatif israélien, Tel-Avivre.com, 2014.

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I'll reiterate the basics of what I wrote previously in the Mhhossein AE request and extend them a bit:

While not an Arab country, Iran is a country in the Middle East which take a very strong stance opposing the existence of Israel, as, historically, have the Arab countries, and for this reason should be considered to be within the penumbra of ARBPIA, which we are instructed to take as "broadly interpreted." This is not to say that conflict between Israel and every other country in the world should be within its purview, but Iran shares enough characteristic with the Arab countries that are definitely part of the sanction regime that the inclusion of Iran is logical and reasonable.

It is to be noted that the same POV editors who are involved in Israel/Palestine and Israel/Arab disputes are also involved in those concerning Israel and Iran -- a strong indication that the same prejudices and biases are being played out, those which necessitated ARBPIA in the first place.

If this interpretation is not accepted, the problem of Israel/Iran editing is going to continue to be fester, while remaining outside the ability of admins to control it with discretionary sanctions. Inclusion is a simply solution, and does not violate the spirit of the original remedy -- indeed, it conforms to its purpose very well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * In answer to Malik Shabazz: no, the relations between Israel and every other country should not come under ARBPIA, but the problem with Iran is that is shares with the Arab countries almost every aspect in its relations with Israel except being an Arab country. The purpose of ARBPIA was to control disputes between editors favoring the parties in that region, and Iran is so closely related that including it is not an unreasonable step. (The same kind of problem exists with ARBEE, in the question of just where "Eastern Europe" begins and ends.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not in the least absurd. Discretionary sanctions aren't natural formations, they're man-made rules, and they can be defined in any way that's helpful to the community and the project. If ArbCom decides that Iran should fall into the penumbra of ARBPIA, then it does.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
The question of the boundaries of the "Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed" is an important one, and it should be clarified. Uganda accepted an airplane from Israel hijacked by Palestinian terrorists in 1976; is every article about Uganda and Israel part of the conflict? West Germany was the host of the Olympics when Palestinian terrorists kidnapped and killed Israeli athletes; is every article about Germany and Israel part of the conflict? If Israel picks a fight with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, is that part of the conflict? Where does it end? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Pluto2012 that nationalistic editing is a serious problem, it is hardly unique to the Middle East and more importantly, it is not the purpose of ARBPIA and ARBPIA3 to solve Wikipedia's problems with nationalistic editing. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, Beyond My Ken, that's an absurd assertion. An article unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict does not fall within the ken of ARBPIA based on its subject's  similarity  to the Arab-Israeli conflict, no matter how much you (and others) may wish that it did. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
The article AMAD Project is not about the Israel-Iran conflict. The only revelance of the topic to Israel is that the Israeli Prime Minister made a theatrical speech about it. Actually a great number of different world leaders have spoken about it. So the article which brought the question here does not exemplify the question.

Leaving that aside, it is reasonable to ask whether articles that really are about the Israel-Iran conflict should be included in ARBPIA. In fact all of the active conflict is included already because it involves Arabs as well, such as Israeli bombing of Iranian military assets in Syria and Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The only part of the conflict that is left out is the "war of words", which includes threats of extreme violence from both sides. If that is included too, it would be only a handful of articles so it hardly matters. Zerotalk 14:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I don't have a strong feeling either way on whether Iran-Israel should be included in ARBPIA. However, the way to answer the question is to look at the Iran-Israel articles and decide whether they should have the same protections. Then, if it is decided that they need the same protections, this should be implemented by an actual modification of the definition of the scope of ARBPIA so that the coverage of Iran-Israel is explicit. Zerotalk 01:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing
Copied from my input on this at AE.

This is not the first time that the question of ARBPIA enforcement on Iranian-Israeli relations has come up. The response seems to have generally been that Iran is involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, mainly through its proxies, but that this doesn't make every edit or article related to Iran-Israel relations subject to ARBPIA DS (compare this request with this one and this one and perhaps this one). GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 8 May 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_3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel_articles_3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * With respect to whether the special rules for editing Israel-Palestine articles currently apply to articles about Israel and Iran, the answer is that they do not, unless a particular article also contain specific reference to the potential impact of Israel-Iranian disputes to the Israel-Palestine issue. With respect to the perhaps more interesting question of whether the Israel-Palestine rules should apply to Israel-Iran articles, my answer would be "only if there's a clear necessity to do so." The special rules that have evolved for the Israel-Palestine topic-area (like the ones for some of the American politics topic area) go well beyond even ordinary discretionary sanctions and represent a serious but necessary derogation from the usual "anyone can edit" model. Their application should not be unduly extended without a genuine showing of need. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently, the answer is no. All articles about the conflict between Israel and Iran are not necessarily covered under the sanctions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area. Some may be covered if they explicitly address Palestinian issues (e.g. articles that discuss Iran criticizing Israel for its actions toward Palestinians), but this would be a minority. As for whether they should be covered, I agree with NYB. We should heavily scrutinize any attempts to extend such harsh sanctions, so I would only be willing to consider that question in a full case. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We can't extend these serious sanctions to any article that has anything to do with Israel in the manner proposed here. I recognize that Iran supports Hezbollah and that is part of ARBPIA, but it's a stretch to include everything regarding the intersections of the two countries. ARBPIA and its two siblings are specific, and I'm also unwilling to consider any extension outside having a full case. Katietalk 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (June 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Makeandtoss at 16:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) "All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are subject to discretionary sanctions: Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial notification."


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * "All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are subject to discretionary sanctions: Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial notification."
 * Add:"An administrator may only add the protection template to the article relating to this case after having clearly demonstrated how the article is likely to witness edit-warring." or .."after having gotten a consensus from users and other admins"

Statement by Makeandtoss
Jordan for example, a high-level article with around 6,000 daily views, is held under the Arab-Israeli conflict arbitration template. No IPs or new accounts are allowed to edit the article, and a minor edit-war over content that may not even be related to the conflict will trigger harsh discretionary sanctions. 5 out of 95 paragraphs in the article discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict, and this somehow makes it eligible for the harsh sanctions. Another suggestion would be to make two sanction templates, the existing one for directly related articles to the conflict, and another 'diluted' form that allows IPs and new accounts to edit but restricts reverts to 2 and has less harsh sanctions. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Are they working as they are supposed to? Are the templates added to all the articles remotely relevant to the conflict, or do they only apply on some? Can't see any templates on US, EU, UN, UNSC, UK, Henry Kissinger, Gamal Abdul Nasser, Harry S. Truman? They all can be "related" to the conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone intends on explaining how this template quelled the disruption--that doesn't exist-- on the Jordan article? Or does anyone intends to repeat the same argument over and over? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN
Please see this discussion. You'll see that other admins including myself were sympathetic to your position but Arbcom as a whole was not. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Raymond3023
I had expected removal of ECP from an article. I was told that "you cannot request removal except by action/motion of the Arbitration Committee itself". Now I am not sure how correct that was after reading comments here. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks BU Rob13. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:57, 26 May 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 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * No. That’s not how discretionary sanctions work. They are interpreted broadly for a reason. I will also note you’re actually asking us to also modify several other remedies related to this topic area (1RR and ECP), not just the discretionary sanctions. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The ECP sanction actually uses "reasonably construed" instead of "broadly construed", so it's already narrower than the discretionary sanctions in general. An editor who disagrees with a specific placement of ECP can appeal that at AE or ARCA. I would be of the opinion that a country not directly involved in the dispute probably isn't reasonably construed to be in the topic area, although it would be broadly construed to be. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not opining on whether Jordan falls into the Arab-Israeli topic area "reasonably construed", which is what's needed for the 500/30 restriction to apply. That's a matter for the community to decide at AE, if someone appeals any sanction there. Having said that, ECP isn't currently on Jordan, so IPs/new editors can edit it. There's not really anything current to appeal, and I'm not quite sure why placed that notice on Jordan if it isn't actually under 500/30 protection.  Any editor can appeal a page protection placed as an arbitration enforcement action at WP:AE or to the enforcing administrator. Such an appeal would presumably only be successful if the community felt the enforcing administrator erred in deciding that the article can be "reasonably construed" to be within the topic area. Otherwise, WP:ARBPIA3 indicates ECP should not be lifted. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with regarding the "right question", and I'd like to note that the question is currently being answered by the community at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The sanctions are working exactly as they are designed to do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. As Rick says, this is the way we designed them to work. Doug Weller  talk 16:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline, per above. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing in part with my colleagues above, I would be interested in exploring whether we can accommodate this request at least in part. The 30-500 rule is a serious departure from our "welcome newcomers, anyone can edit" model. I understand why it has been adopted in the IP topic-area, but the effect is to bar a new editor for weeks or months from aspects of articles not part of that area. That being said, applying sanctions to only parts of articles raises significant awareness and line-drawing problems of its own. Does anyone recall whether this type of issue has come up before and how it was resolved? Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Does the fact that an article falls, or might fall, into the Israeli-Palestine area mean that it's automatically covered by 30/500, or does that only apply when an admin has specifically decided to restrict a particular article? I am sure there are plenty of articles that are at least arguably or borderline within the topic-area, which newer editors are editing without any problem, and on which there has never been any editorial conflict nor is there any anticipation of one developing; I'd be reluctant to conclude that all those edits are formally forbidden. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline. I believe in the "anyone can edit" model but these sanctions have quelled a huge part of the disruption around this area. Katietalk 16:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This request wasn't articulated clearly; it appears to have been filed after discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Jordan that concluded with a frustrated remark by . I fairly sympathise with the sentiments expressed (Disclosure: I recall having interacted with this editor once at one of their Good Article review request); As have stated above, this isn't the correct venue, nor are you asking the right questions. The clause will not be amended, as it is working as designed, so personally I would withdraw this request.The questions you need to be asking the community is whether or not Jordan can be "reasonably construed" to be within the Arab-Israeli topic area, as Rob have pointed out. And if you believe it cannot be construed as such, you should be filing an appeal request at WP:AE using Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal, I believe. Also, administrators are not required to place page restrictions on articles that may be related to arbitration decisions. So the other question that you may want to ask the community is that whether or not Jordan has been subject to sufficient amount of disruptive editing that prompted an administrator to act within their discretion to place a page restriction.Currently the page notice situation at Jordan is quite confusing to me; as Rob have also pointed out above, the article on Jordan isn't currently under extended confirmed protection, nor has it been since July 2017. Therefore, I think it's fair for you to ask  to elaborate (beyond this reply) on why he felt it was necessary to place the page notice on April 2018 when he is not required to do so, although it is within his discretion; and whether or not placing the notice without actually applying extended-confirmed protection on the article is a good practice; to me this could be perceived unfairly by new/IP editors, who are capable of editing the page, but if they do edit the page, they can be subject to summary sanctions. I think this is the sentiment that Makeandtoss was trying to express. I suspect if this was done intentionally, the page notice was added to serve as deterrent for potential disruption, but was not protected as there wasn't recent disruptive editing. But I am not sure if this was the original intention of how the page notice was intended due to the way it is being phrased. Alex Shih (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I hate the whole 30/500 thing. I hate the fact that it worked well enough to be promoted from temporary clumsy desperation hack originally applied to a single article in an unrelated topic area to actual baked-in user-group implementation. I hate the fact that its effectiveness relies heavily on there being relatively little room for discretion on when an admin should use it. All that being said.... the method has, apparently, worked. And the proposed change would make it much less effective and invite the same sorts of tendentious arguments that the sanction was designed to stop. So no, I don't think that would be a good idea. As for the details of the implementation (re NYB above) - to my understanding the common practice has been that non-ECP editors can't edit on the topic, but the whole enforcement infrastructure with the templates and page protections and whatnot only gets used on pages that are primarily about the topic, not ones with only a passing reference to the Palestine/Israel conflict. Obviously there's something of a gray area there despite efforts to make the sanction easy to use, but the specific question of whether the Jordan article should be ECP'd is a better fit for AE, where admins who regularly work in the area can weigh in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Not archived?
Shouldn't this case have been archived here? Huldra (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It was archived here since that's the case it modified, but since it seems to be causing confusion, I'll copy it here too. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:L235, thanks! Huldra (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (August 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3
 * First sentence to be changed to, "In order to edit any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict an editor must be registered and have more than 30 days tenure and have more than 500 edits"

Statement by Sir Joseph
This clause seems to continuously cause issues or concerns and it seems to me that rewriting this to specifically highlight in this manner makes it clearer as to who can and can't edit in this area.

Statement by Dweller
, see my comments at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and those of my non-alter-ego,. I genuinely didn't understand the wording because the Oxford comma is confusing (actually, in my book, just darn wrong) and the wording is poorly drafted. Please bear in mind that we will often need to point this to newbies and people with passion on the topic. Both of those are reasons for crystal clarity. There's more discussion about this on my user talk. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * . Why is it that your wording below ("IP editors are prohibited as are registered accounts which do meet meet both criteria: 30 days or more; and 500 edits or more.") is so much clearer than an official ArbCom ruling and yet you resist changing it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero
I can see this suggestion is not going anywhere. However, there is a different sentence in the ARBPIA rulings that does cause confusion and it would be good to have clarification of its meaning. I refer to the sentence "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." that appears in the General 1RR restriction. Consider this sequence: (1) A inserts some text, (2) B removes it. Some time later, (3) C reinserts the text, (4) D removes it, and (5) C reinserts it again less than 24 hours after edit (4). In the plain meaning of the sentence, C can argue that they didn't violate the rule because the "original author" of the text is A and not them. I've seen this from experienced editors at least three times at AE and on multiple occasions that didn't get to AE. A different problem is that the English language does not usually use "author" to refer to someone who makes a deletion, so a sequence deletion, revert, deletion is not clearly covered. Without thinking about it very much, I propose that the sentence be modified as follows: "If an editor makes an edit that is reverted, that editor may not redo the edit within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." Zerotalk 09:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I never said the rule was being gamed. I believe that all or most of the appearances I have seen of this interpretation were made in good faith. I'm not surprised, either, because the wording is objectively misleading. Zerotalk 11:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbs, please see this current AE case for a fine example of how everyone is confused about the meaning of "original author". Zerotalk 09:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Please the AE case in my previous sentence. Practically nobody knows what this clause means. Please fix it! Zerotalk 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike
I second Zero suggestion to make the original author clause more clear.-12:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
I was asked to comment here by two people. Zero0000 is quite correct that the text is a bit confusing, and it should be amended along the lines they suggest. The AE case cited is a good example of the confusion, though in my opinion, it's a clear-cut violation of the remedy. The problem is that the remedy is bad.

I consider the changing of the wording to be putting a band-aid on a cancer. The fact of the matter is that nobody understands the remedy passed by ArbCom, not the editors, not the admins, not even people who pushed for the remedy in the first place. See the current AE case where I demonstrate this.

The wording ("Option 2" here) should never have been implemented, and I said so at the time. I don't have any confidence that ArbCom will do the right thing, since they have already screwed up multiple times. I may say something more substantial in the future, but that's enough for now. I would prefer a new ARCA where the cancer itself is considered, not just the band-aid. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 12:55, 17 August 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 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm not sure I agree. It's plain to me what the sentence means, you need to have evidence of experience to edit the topic as a registered user. That's been set at 500 edits and 30 days tenure. No matter how it is written, there will be someone who thinks it can be written better and I'm reluctant to support a motion for a change that doesn't change the meaning. <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>) 19:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My frustration stems from the fact that this remedy has been wordsmithed twice already with very little change. <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>) 07:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is clearly some uncertainty as Admins have expressed concern. User:Zero0000 has suggested "Registered accounts are only permitted if they have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits." I can't see any downside to the wording, but I might have missed something.  Doug Weller  talk 07:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly opposed to further changes of this remedy. It's already quite clear. The remedy says that the following three types of editors are prohibited from editing in the topic area:
 * IP editors
 * Accounts with less than 30 days tenure
 * Accounts with less than 500 edits
 * If you fall into one or more of those categories, the prohibition applies to you. The current wording is grammatically and logically correct for that meaning. It means what we want it to mean. I'm very open to changing remedies if it will increase clarity (see above), but that is not the case here. At some point, we have to stop refactoring this and rely on reading comprehension. I would be surprised if an administrator could not demonstrate those skills when pressed and after the repeated clarifications at this board, but if so, I would suggest that they avoid enforcement in this area. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 08:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it isn't so much clearer, Dweller. It is identical. Why are you not now concerned about IP editors being modified by those two criteria in the sentence? They are equally set off from IP editors as in the current writing. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A plain reading of the sentence is already clear, as is WP:ECP which is based on the ArbCom decision. I've no problem clarifying decisions (as this is), but I don't see a need to amend it. To be clear, IP editors are prohibited as are registered accounts which do meet meet both criteria: 30 days or more; and 500 edits or more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We're getting to the point that we'd be changing it just to change it. It's been clarified and amended so many times already that the original purpose behind the remedy is becoming clouded. When the intention, to prevent new and/or inexperienced (or not so new/inexperienced) users from editing in this contentious topic area, is considered along with the words on the screen then the meaning is much clearer. Any way we write the remedy it can be interpreted in different ways, that's language for you. To gain an understanding of a message, one must do more than just read words on a page, the intention and context must also be accessed. In ArbCom's situation, the way people do this is to read principles, findings of fact, arbitrator's comments on votes and clarification requests. We could add a footnote with the criteria written a different way but I don't see that as necessarily helpful given that it could (and likely will) lead to another interpretation. As I said above, there are other pages which have been created to further explain and "flesh out" the decision, for example WP:ECP, ARBPIA and ARBPIA 1RR editnotice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It reads plain and clear to me as well. Oppose any change. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues. There is no need to change the wording. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The very clearest version would actually be something like "Only registered editors with at least 500 edits and at least 30 days' tenure may edit articles in this topic area; other editors may not do so." (The negation of an "or" statement is an "and" statement; see De Morgan's Laws.) By the way, this is as good a time as any to mention again that I dislike the whole concept of a whole topic-area being under an extended-confirmed restriction, but I'll accept the word of those active in the area that the alternatives are worse still. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't say I object to changing the wording - there are many ways to say the same thing - but I don't believe the hypothesis that there is confusion about this that would actually be alleviated by changing the text. I do think there's a lot of motivated reasoning about this topic - as in, people naturally subconsciously gravitate toward whatever interpretation means they get to do what they want - but the problem isn't really in the wording. Opabinia externa (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

On the topic of Zero's suggestion

 * While we all pretty much agree with there being no need to change the wording of the general prohibition, I think brings up a good point regarding the use of the phrase "original author" in the general 1RR. I'm not worried about dropping "author", since for better or worse, Wikipedia defines those removing content as an author. I am concerned about "original", though. I think we intended that restriction to apply to the most recent editor who added the content to slow down or prevent edit wars. Is there an appetite for making that more clear? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit 'meh' on the topic. If there's evidence of the restriction being gamed in the way Zero explained (which hasn't/can't be dealt with under the discretionary sanctions) I'd be more willing to do something. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we need to change it as we never meant it to mean the original editor who added the text, and that's what "author" means to a lot of people, including me. I'm happy with Zero's suggestion. Doug Weller  talk 12:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with Callanecc. Meh. I can see how this could be misinterpreted, though I'd be interested in links to the AE threads demonstrating the misunderstanding if you have them handy, . Opabinia externa (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Like Callanecc, I'd be more interested if we see evidence of gaming. I don't want to go messing with it unless there's a problem. Katietalk 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with just closing this out. After reviewing the AE thread, I don't see much evidence of any legitimate confusion. One editor proposed a rather off-the-wall defense, and administrators at AE didn't accept it. As long as the wikilawyering isn't causing legitimate confusion, maybe we should just let this one rest. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (August 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Huldra at 21:55, 13 August 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


 * diff of notification Shrike
 * diff of notification RebeccaSaid

Statement by Huldra
Are edits in user space also bound by WP:ARBPIA3? RebeccaSaid is/was working on an article in her user space, User:RebeccaSaid/Eva Bartlett, Shrike blanked the page, with the edit line "WP:ARBPIA3 new users aren't allowed to edit articles relating to the conflict". I undid it, which one of us is correct? Please clarify, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Icewhiz: you write "there ain't much point in creating a draft if you can not mainspace it, requiring a proxy editor" ....that of course presumes that you finish with the draft within 500 edits, or less. Some people might do that, but I know for myself that I typically work on drafts much longer than that. Eg., I have had literally thousands and thousands of edits since I started eg User:Huldra/Jisr al Majami or User:Huldra/Maqam Sitt Sukayna (and none of them ready for mainspace yet, IMO), Huldra (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Icewhiz: That is an interesting question, where I dont know the answer. I honestly didn't think Eva Bartlett was part of WP:ARBPIA. (Hey, I virtually live in the ARBPIA area on WP, and I had never even heard of her work on Palestine.) Well, live and learn. Huldra (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, this can be closed (actually, I wasn't aware that it was still open ...) Huldra (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike
The usual practice in the area revert the violation in sight and discuss it with users after the violation is removed and that what I did but I understand where you comments coming from and in similar cases I will take more lax approach next time. --Shrike (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RebeccaSaid
Not that this is actually relevant here - but I'll clarify what I was actually doing, why I was doing it and how this situation arose.

The article of Eva Bartlett was deleted as it was created by FromNewsToEncyclopedia, block evading sock of M.A.Martin. This is what the article looked like at the point of deletion. Eva Bartlett. An attack page. The article was retrieved and then proposed for deletion again. AFD.

I started a practice/dummy article in a user space, in order to pull together some actual biographical information which is completely lacking from what is supposed to be a BLP. The intention being to post it at the AFD or within the Talk Page of the article for consideration. The article did not at that stage fall within the "Arab/Israeli conflict" scope. This is because the article subject is not notable for her work around Gaza - she has gained any notability she has for her more recent reporting on Syria, which is reflected in the article.

This morning I posted a brief statement here: ARE Cross & directly under the statement of Shrike, who, incidentally, I've never interacted with before. Within 30-40 minutes of me posting my statement, Shrike blanked my user space, concluded that the article of Eva Bartlett fell within the scope of the "Arab/Israeli conflict" (based on what I'd written, not what was actually within the article itself) and followed that with a veiled aspersion about me having had previous user accounts. Here's the sum of their Contributions  to Wikipedia for the day.

To be frank, I am more concerned about the motivation behind this editors sudden interest in my edits, my account & the article of Eva Bartlett, than I am about whether I am "allowed" to edit something, or not. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller I didn't imply that I was being personally restricted if that's what you mean. In plain terms I was questioning whether the article fell within the scope of the "Arab/Israeli conflict" in it's present format, particularly as the main justification given was  "Between 2007 and early 2013 Bartlett spent a cumulative three years living in Gaza and eight months in West Bank. During this period she volunteered with the International Solidarity Movement and documented her experiences on her InGaza blog. ", which isn't in the article. The article has been around for a while, nobody has made that distinction before and I felt that restricting the article on the basis of something that might go in the article, or might not, was jumping the gun.
 * Lessons learnt:
 * A. polish crystal ball to avoid wasting time trying to improve badly written, biased BLP's - as someone may come along and make a tenuous link to something you're not allowed to edit, and wipe out all your work.
 * B. Accept that random people will regularly cast veiled aspersions about previous accounts/sock accounts/multiple accounts without an iota of evidence or justification - because assuming good faith is unnecessary when dealing with someone new/inexperienced.  Got it!  --RebeccaSaid (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As the article subject is only notable for her work in Syria, there's nothing within the body of the text that covers her actual work in Gaza, apart from mention of her blog (which doesn't even link to the blog, it links to a critical opinion piece - surprise, surprise!), it wasn't flagged up as falling within the scope until yesterday and other new users have edited it without issue - combined, I'd suggest that I would need a crystal ball to realize, at the time of writing, that they'd be a problem in the future. Rest assured, I won't waste any more time here, on what is obviously, a pointless exercise. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz
Shrike is correct, as WP:ARBPIA3 clearly forbids editing to any page. There is a single carveout - talkspace for constructive suggestions. Carevout 2 is not an exception, but merely admin discretion on enforcement in article creation ... As to whether the rule should be modified - that's a different matter, but there ain't much point in creating a draft if you can not mainspace it, requiring a proxy editor.Icewhiz (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - I suspect that an editor that reaches 500 edits mainly by editing to a draft in their user space will probably have their extended confirmed bit removed due to gaming. (Nothing wrong with draft space edits - to the contrary - generally a "good thing" to work in draft (either online or offline) - the issue is the EC bit).Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 14 August 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 3 (clarification): Clerk notes

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


 * FYI, the clerks will close it as soon as we get authorization to (which should be soon-ish). Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (clarification): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Correct. You may not work on drafts or otherwise be involved in this topic area in userspace until you meet the requirements for the prohibition to no longer apply. The only exception is the Talk: namespace. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's usually correct. I've done such removals on occasion where it was obvious small edits were made to game EC. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * She's a rights activist covering Palestine, according to the lead. That's rather unambiguously in the topic area. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While entirely correct, I think 's approach here could have been slightly less aggressive ideally; rather than issuing a alert at 08:52, requesting extended confirmed proteciton at 08:59 and blanked the user page at 09:00, I would allow some time for the new user to voluntarily revert themselves, if they would. WP:ARBPIA3 #2 briefly describes that discretion should be exercised. Alex Shih (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , User:Shrike did not apply a restriction to you as you suggested on your talk page. That restriction is for all new editors and applies automatically. And as my colleagues have said about, that restriction applies everywhere except talk space. It's common for Administrators to take action involving editors they haven't been involved with before, I see nothing untoward about Shrike's actions. Doug Weller  talk 13:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * the subject always fell within the sanction area. I don't think you needed a crystal ball to know that a rights activist covering Palestine would fall within ARBPIA. And sadly we have had a lot of socking within our most tendentious sanctions area. This edit is another one, please don't make such edits until you achieve ECP. Doug Weller  talk 18:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Per Rob and Doug. Katietalk 20:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Rob and Dave Doug.  DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Rob and Doug., I assume you also mean Doug? This ARCA has been open for awhile and the question has been seemingly answered. I think this can be closed relatively soon barring any new differing comments or opinions. <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 20:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (December 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Zero0000 at 13:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) WP:ARBPIA3


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * WP:ARBPIA3
 * Remove ambiguity

Statement by Zero0000
The sentence "Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required." literally says that non-extended-confirmed editors may delete new articles. This was certainly not the intention. To remove this ambiguity I suggest the insertion of one word: "Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required."

I also doubt there has been actual confusion. I see this only as a little bit of cleanup that should be carried out on the principle that rules should really say what everyone assumes them to say. Zerotalk 18:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JJE
Well, has there been actual confusion because of this ambiguity? It doesn't sound likely. And if there was, should this be folded into the pending case on this topic area? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * While it does not seem like the current wording has been problematic yet and it is technically impossible for non-admins to delete articles, I am fine with the suggestion of adding 'created' to clarify to what by is referring. <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 22:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I too have no problem with this change. I'm aware. though, that we're about to open ARBPIA4 to review all remedies - as this hasn't been misinterpreted in the past, I think it's something that would be best covered there. <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>) 09:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * would you mind raising this at WP:ARBPIA4 so that it doesn't get lost? IF so, I think we can close this and deal with all together. <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>) 18:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The change makes sense to me -- agreed that it's confusing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be an uncontroversial clarification, I'm okay with it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur that this matter is best addressed in WP:ARBPIA4.  AGK  &#9632;  20:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)