Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Israeli government

Procedural question
Yesterday, removed two votes from this AFD discussion pursuant to WP:ARBPIA3, which states that "[a]ll 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" (emphasis in original). Do AFD discussions fall within the the definition of "any page?" I am not asking for the votes to be reinstated, but I would like to know more about the applicability of the remedy cited above. Heated AFD discussions involving Israeli and Palestinian topics are not infrequent events, and I have seen IP editors contribute to these discussions in the past. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It does apply to AfD. I was actually strongly opposed to the remedy being enacted, but since it was, one should follow it. Anyway, the point raised by the IP has now been reiterated by another editor, and is being discussed. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , as case clerk, are you able to confirm? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the rule is that IP/newbie editor may be overriden at any time, thus they cannot be cannon fodder in an edit war. There is no change for IP users, only for new accounts - and the goal is to eliminate the temptation to create a sock puppet to win some edit war.
 * If the edit of the article is constructive, I don't see any reason to revert them, same as was with IP editors before. If any editor does revert them, any other editor can re-introduce the constructive change (as long as it's undisputed, of course). If the edit is disputed, then the fact that an IP/new editor made this edit first does not change the revert count since reverting them does not count - again, it removes the temptation to use sock puppets.
 * On a talk page their comments can be removed, but any "old" editor can quote them, so whatever they have to say can remain on the talk page as long as there is at least one editor who considers it somewhat worthwhile (and it is not considered offensive by others). The only thing they cannot do is !vote in an RfC, but since the closing is supposed to weight the merits of the argument made by an editor rather than simply count votes - I see no difference in practice. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I often leave IP edits alone, if I feel they are useful. In a current WP:ARCA case, I even proposed that indefinite semi-protection should not be used (it's not getting much traction though). Whether something is constructive or not is a matter of judgement. In my own, it wasn't. You disagreed and raised the point yourself, that is OK with me. But the remedy is clear. IPs aren't allowed to edit at all in this area. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 21:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)