Initiated by Shrike at 08:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

According to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 any edit done by new account in the area could be reverted according to ARBCOM decision.Recently I stumbled in two cases:

1. AFD created by a new account Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force_(3rd_nomination) (talk)
2. Article Issa Amro (talk)

What should be done in such case?Should they be speedy deleted according to G5 or there are some other procedure?

@Ryk72:@BU Rob13: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)[reply]

@Doug Weller: @BU Rob13: According to this clarification [1] 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)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis:,@DeltaQuad: 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ryk72: 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.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Shrike: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @DeltaQuad: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doug Weller: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @DGG: 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? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doug Weller: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious concerns about the second exception proposed by Opabinia regalis 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Opabinia regalis: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixing ping : Opabinia regalis ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Opabinia regalis: "Editors eligible to be extended-confirmed"? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@BU Rob13: 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)[reply]

@Shrike: 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)[reply]

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. Zero^talk 13:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • @Shrike: 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)[reply]
    • @BU Rob13: 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • @Opabinia regalis: 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• The may allows admins to use the tool they think is best for the job. The ban itself is not optional --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the purpose is best served by including talk pages in the ban, as previously. But for edge cases, Thryduulf's comment seems exactly right. With respect to may, the comment just above by Guerillero says all that needs to be said. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

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)[reply]

1. This works for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   this is better than what I wrote a year ago --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

4. 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)[reply]

   Uhhh...what? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Simply exception #2. Will explain more soon. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rethinking this, §2 of the above motion, is pretty confusing to anyone who does not speak wikipedia --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Prefer v0.3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm active on this, but I've posted the template above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

@Opabinia regalis: 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)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: 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.

@Shrike: 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)[reply]

@BU Rob13: 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Support

# with thanks to BU Rob13. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with v3 now, revisit this if there are further problems. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. Prefer v3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agreed with Amanda and OR, plus I prefer v0.3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{[citation needed]} 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)[reply]
2. This works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. This looks good to me too. Good job Amanda! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. works for me --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
6. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Still a little hesitant about the second exception, but this seems like a start. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Aren't those "the criteria listed above" (in the first sentence)? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@DeltaQuad and GorillaWarfare: Does BU Rob13'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)[reply]

No issue with wordsmithing it to whatever is nearby. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Clerk note: @DeltaQuad, Opabinia regalis, Callanecc, Guerillero, and Doug Weller: 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 · t · c) 02:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  D'oh, yes, that's what I meant; thanks L235. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Huldra at 23:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 1RR restriction

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

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

Information about amendment request

• General 1RR restriction

• 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.

In the Azzam Pasha quotation, Editor1 makes an addition, Editor2 removes it, Editor1 then makes the very same addition a few hours later (which Editor3 removes), and Editor1 argues they did not break 1RR as "the first edit was an edit, not a revert".

• If Editor1 is correct, then I would like the 1RR rule amended, so that such disruptive behaviour is disallowed.
• (If Editor1 is wrong, and they did indeed break the 1RR, then I withdraw this request)

I have edited as if that 2nd addition was a violation, but then I have possibly been too "conservative". (But I edit virtually only articles under ARBPIA sanctions, so better safe than sorry..)

I agree completely with User:BU Rob13: If Editor1 view is correct, then "Deference is automatically given to the position that is not the status quo, contrary to all our usual processes." I would like to add: "...and contrary to common sense."

It seems to me that people here agree that this *is* a problem, but that we cannot amend it without amending the 1RR rule for everybody. (Which seems to be a large task?)

But if we added a sentence to the ARBPIA3, like the one in Template:2016 US Election AE: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."

…then Editor1 could not have made that 2nd addition: problem solved.

What I find untenable is the present situation, where if one editor want to change anything, then it takes two editors to keep the status quo. To me, this is counterintuitive, Huldra (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the issue raised is not only limited to ARBPIA3, but is more generally applicable. I respectfully invite the committee to make general comment on "first mover advantage" in revert wars (described more fully at WP:WINWAR#Intermediate tactics and gambits), particularly as applied to contentious topic spaces; and on if & how this should be addressed. I also respectfully invite the committee to examine the impact & effectiveness of the combination "1RR/consensus" restrictions applied to multiple articles in the ARBAP2 topic space. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a "bug" when it comes to all types of revert rules. Deference is automatically given to the position that is not the status quo, contrary to all our usual processes. The solution is to accompany all 1RR restrictions with the "Consensus required" restriction, as noted by Doug below. This has worked well on certain American politics articles this past election cycle, and it wholly addresses the issue here. This should be looked at in a context beyond just ARBPIA3. A motion amending all previous cases that currently have active 1RR restrictions to include the "Consensus required" restriction would be ideal. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Opabinia regalis: It's an issue every time 1RR is applied for a new change. While editors may not have brought it here before, that doesn't mean the issue hasn't been encountered. ARCA isn't exactly the most welcoming or well-known venue when one encounters an issue. It would be akin to past motions made to update old cases to use standard discretionary sanctions, etc. Given that this would be a potentially large undertaking and that this would be a perfect opportunity to see if some old active restrictions are still necessary, I'd recommend leaving this decision to the incoming Arbitration Committee in 2017. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @EdJohnston: Personally, I think the "consensus required" restriction is still a bright-line. It's essentially a modification to 1RR. It states that if you make an edit and it is reverted, you must get consensus before re-adding it. Could you clarify what you see as the difference between pairing that with regular 1RR and adding a 1RR exemption that states original edits count toward the rule? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Providing the wording of the "consensus required" restriction for reference, as listed at Talk:Hillary Clinton: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Note that it applies only to editors reinstating an edit that moved away from the status quo after it was reverted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the definition of the 1RR rule could have wide-ranging effects. User:GorillaWarfare has recommended a community discussion. Another option is to encourage the admins who issue page-level restrictions under discretionary sanctions to try out different restrictions and see what the results are. Note that the proposed improvements to the 1RR rule by User:Huldra (above) and the one described by User:BU Rob13 to add 'consensus required' are quite different. While Huldra's rule is simple enough to be automated, BU Rob13's rule that requires consensus could make deciding a 1RR complaint more of a judgment call. Thanks to Template:2016 US Election AE we are gradually accumulating some experience with the 'discussion required' rule, the one favored by Doug Weller and BU Rob13 though some analysis would be required to see what the actual effects are. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal makes sense, since the status quo should get the advantage in a dispute between two editors. However, I'll mention one thing about the wording that doesn't seem to have been noted: it would allow one editor to do multiple reverts in the same article within 24 hours provided they were to different parts of the article. So this proposed wording is in one way less restrictive than before. However, on balance it would still be an improvement. Zero^talk 12:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• This seems reasonable, although if a broader change is going to be made to WP:1RR that should be a community discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I may be exposing my ignorance here, but I interpret "1RR" as "Editor 1" here does - have (some) people in the area been treating it differently? The proposed change seems reasonable, except that we then end up with two subtly different types of restriction in effect in different areas: one where each individual can revert only once, and one in which each edit can be reverted only once. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Huldra: Thanks for the clarification. @BU Rob13: That would sort out the consistency issue, at the cost of introducing a change in a lot of areas where one isn't expected, for the sake of fixing something that hasn't been brought to us as a problem in those areas. I'll have to look later at where else 1RR is in use as an arb remedy at the moment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinda spitballing here, but how about a formulation along the lines of "WP:BRD is required in this topic area"? That has the benefit of stopping one step earlier than 1RR - Editor1 would be obliged to give up or start a discussion, rather than restoring the material - and uses an already-common editing pattern, which avoids the confusion of slightly differing 1RR variants floating around. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• What OR said. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sanctions are meant to prevent disruption and edit wars so I can see the concern. I think normally we do interpret 1RR as Editor 1 does, although I'd like to see a community discussion on that. One way to deal with the problem now would be to add the bit about "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." although that's not problem free. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As the person who did the leg work for last years trim of DS, putting together the research to to omnibus motions is tiring --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• We definitely need a community RfC before we can go changing the definition of 1RR. I also took a brief look at what 1RR restrictions were enforced this past year, and it seems that all would have either benefited or had no affect from the consensus required bit. In 6 areas, there could be an argument that 1RR should be rescinded with only one enforcement. Considering the use of 1RR DS enforcement is low outside AmPol & Macedonia (India Pakistan and PIA lagging a little further behind), I think a case by case application of it would be better than trying to omnibus, and remember this for future decisions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice research, that is definitely not the pattern I was expecting to find! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have never been happy with 1RR (or 3RR) because no matter how one specifies the details, it will give one side or another an automatic advantage. They are both the typical sort of WP rough-and-ready rules that only have the virtue of being a standard, abandoning than any attempt to meet the circumstances. A plain reliance on WP:BRD is probably wiser.It's no fairer, but it's simpler. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Doug mentions the "Consensus required"--from what I have seen, this is already accepted practice. (I've not looked much at the ARBPIA3 articles, but I've seen this argument used in American Politics articles.) Such practice, I am all for, but I'm (always) concerned about overregulating. That's not to say I don't think that there's nothing to this request. On other hand, sure it is true that in this situation it takes two editors to undo one controversial edits, but in these areas which are by definition contentious there's typically more than two editors duking it out. In this particular case, that's what seems to have happened, and subsequent talk page discussion did not lead to an edit or other war--so while the 1R requirement led to the sketched situation, where it takes two to undo a controversial edit by one, isn't that (roughly speaking) not what happens anyway? A consensus is formed because the two reverted the one and talk page discussion didn't change that situation? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.  Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Support

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments