Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: ARBPIA3	Motion	(orig. case)	14 March 2017
Amendment request: OccultZone and others	Motion	(orig. case)	24 March 2017

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: ARBPIA3

Initiated by Zero0000 at 06:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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:

• Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 00:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: 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. Zero^talk 08:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Opabinia regalis: 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. Zero^talk 08:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Opabinia regalis: 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. Zero^talk 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor BU Rob13: 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? Zero^talk 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: 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. Zero^talk 00:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: 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? Zero^talk 01:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor WJBscribe: 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. Zero^talk 09:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor BU Rob13: 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. Zero^talk 13:38, 6 April 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. ~ Rob₁₃^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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Euryalus: 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." ~ Rob₁₃^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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Zero0000: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Opabinia regalis: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Huldra: "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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Doug Weller: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Doug Weller: 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? ~ Rob₁₃^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. 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Huldra. 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. 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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• @El C: 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. 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 Wikipedia: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. WJBscribe (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Opabinia regalis: 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. 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)

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#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles. 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)
• @BU Rob13: @Doug Weller: 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)

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 57 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 57 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#Lead_map_-_consensus_to_remove.3F 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)

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:

• WJBscribe 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.
• WJBscribe 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.
• WJBscribe 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 WJBscribe 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 ♝ ♚ 08:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A simple point regarding the statements by Number 57 and WJBscribe. 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)

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)

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:

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.

As always someone might attempt to game the rules, and this is where the AE would need to be involved. “WarKosign” 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. “WarKosign” 07:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: 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. “WarKosign” 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 ^(talk) 00:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis 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 ^(talk) 15:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, 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 ^(talk) 17:18, 5 April 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)

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 BU Rob13, 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)
  • @Rich Farmbrough: 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)
    • @Zero0000 and Huldra: 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)
      • @Huldra: 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)
• Yea! How unusual. Let's do it. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Motion: ARBPIA

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

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.

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

   Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

4. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 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

1. 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)

@BU Rob13: 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—I certainly don't want—to see blocking of good-faith, unsuspecting editors for inadvertent violations. @Opabinia regalis: 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) @Doug Weller, Opabinia regalis, Newyorkbrad, Ks0stm, Kirill Lokshin, and Callanecc:

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)

Ks0stm, 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)

@Opabinia regalis: 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)

@Opabinia regalis and Ks0stm: 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. @Callanecc and Ks0stm: 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)

@Opabinia regalis and Callanecc: 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

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

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

1. 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)

@BU Rob13: 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)

---

Amendment request: OccultZone and others

Initiated by OccultZone at 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

OccultZone and others arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others#OccultZone: banned

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others#OccultZone: banned

• Unban

Statement by Worm That Turned

I'm no longer nearly as active as I used to be, but I did notice this request. I've looked back at the past case and refreshed my memory - and on the whole, I would like to see OccultZone unbanned. He was a highly prolific editor who added significantly to Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, he didn't know where to let things go and move on - the term "obsession" used by OccultZone above does indeed summarise my view of his behaviour. He's had a significant period to break that obsession, and if indeed he has been off-wiki for that period - I absolutely support a return to editing.

My only suggestion would be to put some sort of prohibition about adminshopping, and maybe a couple of other restrictions against some of the other areas highlighted in the arbcom case. These should be time limited, to help OccultZone ease back into editing. That said, I would support his return with or without restriction. Worm^TT(talk) 10:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

I quite agree with WormTT. There are already restrictions in place from the case that would still apply should OccultZone return, and if it can be crafted, a "shopping" prohibition might not be a bad idea either. But I think OccultZone is not irredeemable, but is a good person who made some very bad decisions. Since to all indications OccultZone has ceased socking and respected the ban, I certainly hope that's a positive sign that better decisions will be coming in the future. I think it's worth a try. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Yunshui

Not much to add, save that I endorse the comments by Worm That Turned and Seraphimblade. I'm hopeful that OZ's behaviour in the summer of 2015 was an anomaly that won't be repeated and so I'd support an unban (with the other two restrictions remaining in place). Yunshui ^雲_水 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by 78.26

As per Worm and Seraphimblade, I would like to see OZ's ban lifted. There is no evidence presented that he has attempted to circumvent his ban, and has thereby demonstrated his ability to abide by the ARBCOM decision. The appeal shows CLUE regarding what went haywire, and how this editor will deal with it going forward. OZ is a productive editor who lost the way, time to welcome them back to the "straight and narrow". The restrictions proposed by Worm make sense. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by DoRD

I agree with the statements above, but I would like to see a commitment from OZ regarding SPI. If he files a sockpuppetry case, he will need to abide by the decisions of the clerks, CUs, and/or patrolling administrators. Considering his statement, I don't expect that this would crop up again, but an acknowledgement would alleviate some concerns. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Inlinetext: If there was a connection between OZ and any other sockfarm, we would have discovered it, so your concerns are unfounded. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Inlinetext: You strongly disagree with what, and what does your anti-paid editing crusade have to do with OZ's unban request? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Inlinetext: I'm sorry that you dislike the term I used, but the fact remains that you are mistaken. You are seeing a connection that does not exist. I'm not going to rehash OZ's SPI here, but IPs from Singapore had nothing to do with it. In addition, there was no indication of paid editing raised in the ArbCom case, and apart from your accusations, I am unaware of any suspicions being raised elsewhere. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93

I had very little direct interaction with OZ whom I always saw as a prolific contributor who was sometimes unable to drop the stick. However, I had substantial interactions with BladesMulti, an account blocked as a sock of OZ that had substantial behavioral issues, including edit-warring, and NPOV related issues. I can provide further evidence if needed. Since it has been three years, I don't think this precludes a lifting of the ban, but I think this is something Arbcom should look into, and possibly leave certain restrictions in place with respect to these issues. I'd suggest a 1RR restriction.

Furthermore, there are some unresolved issues with respect to another account, namely AmritasyaPutra, who was initially blocked as an OZ sock, later (as I understand it) unblocked after a BASC appeal, and then blocked again for socking on his own account. Now if the first block was, in fact, a false positive, then this is no barrier to OZ being unblocked. But (and I realize some of this information probably is private, and cannot be shared outside the committee) some clarity about this might be nice: because the last AP sock was in fact blocked three months ago, and the previous one not too long before that. Vanamonde (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: If arbcom believes that the balance of probability is that AmritasyaPutra and OZ are different people, it seems to me that a little book-keeping to clarify that would be appropriate. For instance, could we separate the two SPIs? That seems to be the crux of the issue here for several people. I understand that arbcom cannot share any non-public evidence they have, but they could at least explain whether they are acting on evidence, or on an assumption of good faith. Vanamonde (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: You say down below that you don't know enough to comment on any possible separation between AmritasyaPutra and OccultZone. Yet the entirety of OZ's case for an unban (which I am not necessarily opposed to, for the record) rests on the claim that he is completely different from AP, who was blocked for socking less than six months ago. How can arbcom be willing to support an unban request, without addressing the question of separation? Vanamonde (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Since you mentioned it, I went back to look at some of my own notes/conversations from the period in question, and I think I didn't cover everything above. The issue of Bladesmulti is a difficult one. That account was most remarkably disruptive, and I think Joshua Jonathan, Kautilya3 and myself dealt with the bulk of its issues. However, Blades's edits had a number of characteristics, including remarkably poor English, that are not generally present in OZ's edits (though once again, I have had limited interactions with the main account). So either OZ was putting on a remarkable act, or there were multiple people involved in operating this sockfarm, which is a very worrying possibility. But this is not a hypothesis we can test; so if OZ has really turned over a new leaf, I'm willing to AGF. However, the passage of time had helped me forget the true extent to which Blades had been disruptive. I don't want to produce vast numbers of links here, but even just this is indicative; Blades was saved from a siteban only through an offer of mentoring. Given this history, and given the disruption of AmritasyaPutra (whose position vis-a-vis this whole mess has yet to be clarified...) I'd agree that a topic ban from South Asian topics is needed until and unless OZ demonstrates an ability to edit constructively elsewhere. Alternatively, a 1RR restriction, as I suggested above. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Inlinetext

Editor indef-blocked; commentary irrelevant. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is not clear to me why this edit was made by the user with that edit summary and what their connection with User:Natalinasmpf is. Their next edit was cryptic. Hence I oppose the unbanning of this editor who appears to be a component of the very long term abusive 'Natalinasmpf' sock /paid-editing team who are unredeemable and still hugely active on Wikipedia. Inlinetext (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC) OccultZone Well, in that case it is doubly disruptive to have 2 sets of paid-editing/sockpuppeting teams on Wikipedia disrupting Singapore and India related articles with their internal fighting when it causes massive harassment of non-involved editors. Inlinetext (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC) DoRD I strongly disagree. However, until this local community alters its stand on Outing in the context of sockpuppetry and paid-editing, I am not going to post about it on this project. Inlinetext (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC) D4iNa4 I don't have to repeat that I have been editing WMF projects with an account since 2004, have over 5,000 edits, have never been blocked, and I stopped editing after extensive harassment by Arbcom sanctioned editors. Your own sockpuppetry is something I would not have ordinarily commented on elsewhere, but it is relevant here. Inlinetext (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC) DoRD I disagreed with If there was a connection between OZ and any other sockfarm, we would have discovered it. My concern with paid editing is directly connected to the recent harassement I encountered, OZ's edit to Natalinasmpf's user page and harassment of several other users over time by this ring in furtherance of their paid editing. IMO, there were too many botched CU's over time involving Singapore IP's, editing in specific areas and "my brother did it" excuses. This is very long term "slow" abuse by computer experts, which I am not prepared to discuss publicly with this community until its policy on Outing is altered to allow it. I object to the term "crusade", especially since it refers to massacre of Asians by Anglos. Inlinetext (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC) DoRD I don't know how you can state that the issue of sockpuppetry allegations for editors with CU'd Singapore IPs was not raised at OZ's Arbcom case. 1) OZ removes a CU badge from Natalinasmpf's User page and replaces it with the user's original content. 'Natalinasmpf' edited in the Singapore topic area, and its very unlikely that the editor has stopped editing. 2) There is some on-wiki evidence linking Natalinasmpf and Simfish, eg. link and considerable off wiki evidence about the person(s) behind the names. 3) User:Simfish is (now) a declared paid editor for User:Vipul. 4) It is unclear where User:Alamkonayun has vanished (great server crash ?) along with their edits. Natalinasmpf is indeffed and User:Bonkers The Clown continues seamlessly, it goes much further than this and connects to WP:LTA/OM, editors who rant that CU is magic pixie dust "My brother did it", and WMF finally taking over child protection from Arbcom. Inlinetext (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC) @OccultZone How can you say that User:AmritasyaPutra is unconnected when as recently as 15 September 2016 this account was CU blocked as your sock-puppet ? At your case AP made the following statement If it is not dealt with it will only worsen even in case of OZ being indef`ed; a lot of his friends and new editors like me will consider it an act of wasting a good editor in haste. diff. Several of these "friends" (confirmed sockmasters who were similarly allowed back to edit) very recently showed up at a Rape in India related discussion to harass me and votestack where a current sock of 'Natalinasmpf' also participated. In my mind there is no difference between sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, especially when you act on behalf of a former sockmaster admin like 'Natalinasmpf' whose mop was recalled. Inlinetext (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC) @Thryduulf I have not claimed that OZ was AP or Ekvastra. I have claimed that AP is connected and was admittedly a meat-puppet of OZ (diff provided earlier) and OZ friendly editors eg. User:D4iNa4, User:Capitals00, User:Marvellous_Spider-Man have continued to edit colllusively and abusively as meatpuppets to harass me along with sock(s) of 'Natalinasmpf' in the same Rape in India topic area as recently as Feb 2017. The first 2 sockmasters were similarly unblocked but have not reformed (and it is doubtful if OZ will either considering his problematic behaviour as 'BladesMulti' and penchant for rapid bot-like editing to cover his spoor). CU is not sufficiently capable of stopping such off-wiki coordinated meatpuppetry where the players have a common COI and include former admins. Inlinetext (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Note Inlinetext (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked for continued disruptive editing, harassment and personal attacks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Having refreshed my memory of this case, I think the time has come to allow OZ a conditional to return to editing. The conditions being the topic ban and one account restrictions remaining in place, and a restriction on forum shopping being added. For the latter, perhaps something like:

OccultZone may not:

• Raise any issue at more than one venue, whatever that venue is.
• Raise any issue at a venue other than where it is being discussed.

OccultZone is not restricted from:

• Moving a discussion from one venue to another, if (a) there is consensus among those discussing it to do so; or (b) uninvolved users indicate it has been raised at the wrong venue.
• Commenting in multiple venues if an issue is moved (by himself or others).
• Commenting in multiple venues if a single issue has been raised in multiple places by other users.
• Notifying users or pages of discussions in other venues.

As usual with things I suggest it is probably possible to simplify this! Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Inlinetext: CU is not magic pixie dust, nor it is infallible - the CU tool provides technical data that must be interpreted in conjunction with behavioural and other evidence. For example if two people edit from the same institution or from the same ISP then there will almost always be a degree of technical overlap - more so if they use a common operating system and browser (CU can show the user agent).

What happened in September 2016 was that user:Ekvastra was found to be the same person as AmritasyaPutra. Because AmritasyaPutra had previously been regarded as a sock of OZ this was placed under OZ's case page at SPI but there was no evidence presented or presumably found at that time that AmritasyaPutra and OZ were the same person - indeed based on non-public evidence submitted to arbcom AmritasyaPutra was previously unblocked as the balance of probability was that they were different people. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone/Archive#10 December 2016 there is argument presented that they are different people based on behaviour evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Inlinetext: Well OZ will remain topic banned from rape in India and similar topics, if he violates this topic ban he will be swiftly reblocked at WP:AE. If other users are harassing you in that (or any other) topic area you need to seek dispute resolution against them, not against OZ. Iff dispute resolution has been tried already but has not worked (I've not investigated) then filing a request for arbitration to look at the topic area and/or the specific users may be appropriate, continuing to rant at OZ for the actions of other people is not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I agree that would be a good idea. Doug Weller seems to have been the arb who has most recently looked at this, so hopefully they will comment on whether the OZ and AmritasyaPutra SPIs should be separated or not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Callanecc: In the bullet point "Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever that venue is (with the exception of bring a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom)." the word "bring" should be "bringing". Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Roxy the dog

Blades is responsible for the besmirching of my otherwise virgin block log, and at the request of an arbiter who hasn't signed their comment below, I thought I might note that these socks have coloured my editing behaviour since that time. Blades went from being incompetent in English overnight to having reasonable ability when I started challenging him at Ayurveda, and we received a minor block at the same time, after the events described in the link to BladesTalk where I am involved below. I never expected to see Blades or the editor known as blades back at his tricks again. I am no longer optimistic. Roxy the dog. bark 13:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SAMSNUGGET

Sock of Inlinetext. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Vanamonde93: The missing link for this discussion is that this is a secret digital meatpuppet army of RSS workers on Wikipedia who are networked through fronts like the Ramakrishna Mission, seminaries like Vivekananda Institute of Human Excellence (admin check delete log), and edits and ivotes are coordinated through facebook messenger, whatsapp. Here is the reliable link. Many of its members are with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the account passwords are shared so you get non-Indian IPs mixed with IPs from India, and situations where accounts use broken English in one edit, switch to decent English and then revert to form. They have figured out Wikipedia so they maintain multiple good hand / bad hand accounts which argue both sides of the debate to rig it. But I'm not telling you anything new am I ? Smasnugget (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by D4iNa4

I have seen that main account's conduct is generally taken into consideration while socks are ignored because a user's attitude can be different on every sock account they use. Best response to socking and its consequences was the site ban that he is still abiding.

Of the diffs you provided @Doug Weller: one diff was from January 2014, 2nd diff is not working and last one came after violating 0RR on a article that is already rid of 0RR rule, here Bladesmulti was blocked and unblocked along with some other editors.[1][2] It also seems that he made no edits on any article with this sock during final 2 months,[3] except one which involved removal of unsupported attributions and a spam link.

Few articles where I have been interested since first day were also edited OZ and his edits of any accounts remains there to this day because they were useful. He has not evaded site ban and it should cease any possibility of further topic ban, see WP:PUNITIVE. I further agree with Opabinia regalis, that entire case emerged from rape in India subject, it is sensible to maintain topic ban over it.

Like others told, OZ is a good contributor and also to the South Asian articles area which is regularly disrupted by spammers, harassment socks and edit warriors and they return anytime they see inactivity of other contributors, and that's the thing usually forces me to keep checking the articles, having OZ's presence would be advantageous. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Joshua Jonathan

I was the editor who mentored Bladesmulti (see User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship, and Amritasha Putra; this "discussion", which presents a nice overview of sockpuppets, may serve as a reminder that the mentoring was not exactly succesfull, and the efforts on my part were not met with an equally repricocal attitude by Bladesmulti. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Capitals00

Just saw I was pinged here by now indeffed editor. Nonetheless it's good, I support unban.

I agree with Doug Weller's suggestion to put 6 months topic ban from South Asia, there should be a time limit since he never had a topic ban before.

Noting the broadness of 6 months ban from South Asia, this topic ban should supersede the active topic ban on crimes in South Asia (often known as Indian subcontinent). I don't find any sense in current topic ban because OccultZone used no socks on Rape in India and present version of the article is same as his preferred version. I should note that Indian subcontinent is bigger than just India. On all of his accounts, he had only one block more than 3 years ago for violating WP:3RR[4] on all his accounts, rest of the blocks were overturned, sometimes as unwarranted, and none of his accounts ever had a block unrelated to India that's why 1RR restriction is not an option as well. Capitals00 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72

Taking the pedantry even further...
@Callanecc and Thryduulf: Suggest: "Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever those venues are (with the exception of bringing a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom)." - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:17, 17 April 2017 (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.

OccultZone and others: Clerk notes

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

OccultZone and others: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm amenable to an unban, probably with a forum/admin shopping restriction in addition to those already in place from the case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm open-minded, but waiting a couple of days for any additional statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• At this point I would support an unban with a strict prohibition on ADMINSHOP as identified in FOF#4 from the case. I don't think a 1RR restriction is required given the topic ban remains in place. Mkdw ^talk 04:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Thryduulf: Sorry, I don't think I know enough to be sure about the issue. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support unban accompanied by an initial topic ban from SPI (appealable in due course), and perhaps a restriction on forum-shopping. Views welcome on how to word this last one. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'm still not convinced about the sock issue. As Bladesmulti he denied being related to OZ:User talk:Bladesmulti#Unblock request "Am I related to OccultZone, AmritasyaPutra and others that are noted at [1]? You can compare contributions and subject interests with these accounts,[2]-[3]-[4] I am not interested in animals, celebrities, sports, crime and politics like any of these users. According to the tool, there are no articles where I contributed with OccultZone, except one talk page which was RFC.[5] I never contributed on any good article, AmritasyaPutra continuously did. I had conversation with AmritasyaPutra by email, I was asked by him to vote at [6]". Although I still might be persuaded to unblock hoping that he's changed, I think the topic ban is far too narrow. I'd like to see him banned from all articles and discussions relating to South Asia for at least six months. Let him show that he can contribute usefully somewhere else first. So conditional support but only with such a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Doug, your edit summary says "topic ban from all South Asian topics, not just Rape in India", but the remedy reads " a) sexual assault or b) crime on the Indian Subcontinent, both broadly construed" - I read that as a topic ban from either of those things, not just from the intersection of the two. Is that not what was meant in the original decision? As far as I can tell, the events that led to the original case began when OZ got blocked for edit-warring at the rape in India article, and escalated as OZ made various accusations against the admins involved and the others in the edit war. I don't see much evidence that he was specifically disruptive on other South Asian topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Hmm. Yeah. Sure. I'm on the record as wanting editors to be unbanned, so I can't really say no here--but with a topic ban (sharpened up per Obabinia) and OMG THE FORUMSHOPPING THE SPIS THE ACCUSATIONS none of that please. I barely remember last night's dinner, but I remember that very well. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Opabinia regalis: aren't we going to include his socks in his editing behavior now? As Bladesmulti he was a disruptive editor, blocked several times. See his talk pages at [5] [6] [7] I'd like the opinions of some of the editors who engaged with that account. We already have Vanamonde's. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 5 April 2017‎ (UTC) @Roxy the dog: apologies for forgetting to sign. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
    • You're right, I'd mixed up Blades and AP. Blades' past edits suggest a topic ban from Ayurveda/Indian traditional medicine is a good idea. All of South Asia seems too broad. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Opabinia regalis: OccultZone states that most of his edits were non-South Asian and that he will accept any (and I presume all) of the topic ban and 1RR proposals to complete the lists and years articles.[8] I think we can now move forward with an unban. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

OccultZone and others: Motion

The indefinite siteban of OccultZone (talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:

• OccultZone's topic ban from remedy 2 and one account restriction from remedy 3 in the "OccultZone and others" case remain in effect.
• OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from filing, commenting in or discussing sockpuppet investigations. If OccultZone has a reasonable suspicion that a user may be engaging in sockpuppetry, they should raise the issue with the functionaries, an admin, or a sockpuppet investigations clerk, who can then file a sockpuppet investigation if, in their opinion, one is warranted.
• OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits related to, or editing any page about South Asian topics, broadly construed.
• OccultZone is indefinitely subject to a 1RR editing restriction.
• OccultZone is indefinitely restricted from:

• Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever that venue is (with the exception of bringing a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom).
• Raising any issue at a venue other than where it is being discussed.

For clarity, OccultZone is not restricted from:

• Commenting in multiple venues if an issue is moved (by himself or others).
• Commenting in multiple venues if a single issue has been raised in multiple places by other users.
• Notifying users or pages of discussions in other venues.

These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Enacted - Miniapolis 16:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Time to get moving on this, thanks for the suggested wording Thryduulf‬. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Mkdw ^talk 18:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
4. If OZ is OK with the South Asia topic ban, then it works for me. Otherwise I still think what I previously thought - this is too long, and shouldn't permit shopping around sock accusations by email either - but let's give it a try. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Support to move it along, and thanks Callanecc for posting this. Idly, I think the second dot point could be shortened to just the first sentence, and there's a few conditions here that will hopefully be easily removed at the six-month ARCA, but for now let's give this a try. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
8. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain/Recuse

Discussion

---