Contents

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

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.

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:

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

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 1RR restriction

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

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

Information about amendment request

• General 1RR restriction

• A strengthening of the 1RR rule for articles under ARBPIA: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:

Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. 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. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

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

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

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

Oppose

Abstain

Comments