Revision as of 04:54, 11 December 2017

• WP:ARCA

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page 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).

Submitting a 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).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
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.

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.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and 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.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles

Initiated by Huldra at 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Huldra

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

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

There are presently 2 different interpretations, lets call them Version 1 and Version 2:

• In Version 1: its original author may not restore it within 24 hours after their own edit
• In Version 2: its original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other users edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok User:Callanecc, thank you for your reply.

(And yes, in RL editors will battle it out on talk pages, or in edit lines: none of us wants to waste time edit warring)

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

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

I do not like rules which are open to a lot of interpretation! I like rules that are absolute clear, which each and every one of us has to follow. And, Version 1 is such a rule.... Just saying....Huldra (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Newyorkbrad I tried to answer that above, and here: User_talk:Opabinia_regalis/Archive_15#that_pesky_I.2FP_area_again...

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

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

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

User:SMcCandlish ok, one ongoing example, at Mausoleum of Abu Huraira:

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

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

Statement by (uninvolved) editor Cullen328

I support Callanecc's interpretation that "the original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other user's revert." These restrictions are designed to encourage broader talk page discussion leading to consensus, and slowing down article space reversions serves that goal. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

Only version 2 is logically feasible. Example of why: I make an edit at 00:01. No one notices it until 23:59, and they revert it. Two minutes later, at 00:02, more than 24 hours has passed under version 1, so I'd be free to re-revert. Not cool, and not the intent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ<  06:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Kingsindian seems to be making a point that's not really on-point. Yes, this ArbCom language is an "extension of" 1RR (itself based on 3RR). However, that in and of itself means it is not the same as 1RR; otherwise the new wording would not exist, and the decision simply would have imposed the same 1RR rule we're used to. This is different: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours". There is no way to interpret that, that makes any sense, other than "within 24 hours of the revert by the other editor". This interpretation has no effect at all on "regular" 1RR or 3RR. Since the intent is to restrain editwarring, not to punish some particular editor in relation to some other particular editor, the further consistent interpretation is that if A puts material in, B reverts it, C restores it, D reverts it, neither A nor C can re-restore it for 24 hours after D's revert. Otherwise, people can just email-coordinate an unstoppable WP:TAGTEAM. C becomes a new "original author" from the point of their own re-insertion, but it doesn't just erase A's connection to the material.

The wording could probably be clarified as "If an edit is reverted by another editor, the same editor may not restore it within 24 hours of that revert." That would cover every instance. E.g. to continue with the same example of rapid-fire editwarring: if E restores, F reverts, and G restores, G's restoration is an edit, and B, D, and F cannot revert it the same day. If H reverts, that's an edit, so A, C, E, and G cannot restore the same day. Easy-peasy. The problem here is the word "original", which implies only A is subject to the special 1RR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ<  23:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that Kingsindian's response is "SMcCandlish claims that the intent was to stop edit-warring. No ...", followed by a lot of rationalization, I'm comfortable just stopping here, other than stating the obvious: Any system can be gamed with determination, but version 2 is much less gameable because it forces each party to wait a full day, and they'll eventually run out of tag-team partners.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ<  06:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

Option 2 was definitely the intent. ~ Rob₁₃ 15:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

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

Btw, there is nothing unfair about version 1. It slows down the edit-war, just as version 2 does. In the hypothetical example floated above, the second person can make a revert of their own after 24 hours from their edit. May I remind people that most consensus in Misplaced Pages is achieved through editing: often what is needed is simply a rephrasing which everyone can live by. If version 1 is unfair, so is 3RR, which is policy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The comments by Arbs are extremely weird. Everyone recognizes that version 1 is the current interpretation, used by all sides in the area. (Please find me a single case where version 2 was used.) Now, ArbCom wants to change the interpretation to version 2. Why? Who asked for it? Did anyone complain that the (tweaked) 1RR isn't working properly? What's the evidence for any such thing?

I remind ArbCom that the original amendment process just wanted you to tweak the standard 1RR a little bit to get rid of the "first mover" advantage. Initially you capriciously added the "consensus required" provision, which was only removed after lots of strife. Now you want to capriciously change the remedy again. If ArbCom failed to write the original remedy properly, fix your wording to match the practice, instead of trying to make everyone change their practice to match your wording. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Are you seriously doubting that version 1 is the current practice? Please find me a single instance of anyone using version 2. Even the people who are commenting in this section (who work in ARBPIA) saying that they would like version 2, actually use version 1. I can easily prove this assertion if anyone cares.

Having established that version 1 is indeed the current practice, here's the point. Nobody asked ArbCom to change the practice from version 1 to version 2. Why would you do such a thing anyway? Where is the evidence that version 1 is not working, or that anyone has complained about it? Why are you insisting that everyone in this area change their practice to match the wording which ArbCom screwed up? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me come at this from another angle, since people are so enamored of the "logicality" of version 2. People who are arguing for version 2 haven't thought the thing through. Many reverts are partial. Let me give an example: Person X writes "A B C D", person Y changes it to "A B Q R" which is a partial revert. Person Z changes it to "A P Q S" which is another partial revert. This text is incorrect in some small way, so person X changes it to A P Q D". But this is another "revert" which "introduces material which X introduced initially". With version 1, all person X would have to check is that they make only one edit a day to the page. With version 2, the matter would be extremely complicated: they would have to check all intermediate edits which could theoretically have reverted any edit they made in the past and then wait 24 hours after that edit.

One surefire way to avoid this situation is to wait 24 hours after the last person's edit. But then some other editor can swoop in after 23 hours, so you may have to wait 24 more hours after that person's edit.

The whole thing is absurd. It beats me why people want to change a perfectly fine provision which was working without a hitch for the past several months. "Just because you can" is not a good enough reason. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: There is nothing in example 1 which involves spelling errors. And that is a simple example I coulhd construct in 2 minutes. I can think of many more elaborate ones. The point is the one I made in the last sentence of my comment: while making an edit, a person has to check each edit in the past 24 hours and compare it to all their own edits in the past, and check if any of them could be classified as a partial revert. In contrast, version 1 is clean and simple: if you only edit the page once a day, you can never run afoul of it.

As for your "gaming" comment, it is a guarantee that every rule in this area will be gamed, or to go one level deeper: people will accuse other people of gaming the remedy (see the AE request I linked above, for an example). The remedies should be simple and clear. Version 2 is neither. Btw, this was the problem with the "consensus required" provision as well: it was neither simple nor clear. Version 2 is just a wannabe "consensus required" remedy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is how I respond to SMcCandlish's comment and Newyorkbrad's comment.

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

This mindset that you can or should control editor behavior minutely must be jettisoned. We are not children to be disciplined by adults, especially when the adults in question can't even get their own act straight. Finally, let me plead for some perspective. What is the damage people are afraid of? How much damage can a person inflict if they're only allowed to make the edit once per day? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish did not address any of the points I made; and their new assertion, which they think is "obvious", is wrong again. Version 2 requires no more determination, thought or work than version 1 to game. Suppose there are two editors on the page. Each of them simply waits 24 hours to revert. Since the other person can't do anything within 24 hours anyway, each of them is safe in their practice.

Meanwhile, people are ignoring the really "obvious" thing here: the wider the restrictions and the more untested they are, the higher the potential for gaming. Indeed, if I was the type to make a malicious sockpuppet, I would do the following. First, I create a new account, get it to 30/500. I go to any of the pages and find an old dispute. Then I rephrase the text to take one side of the dispute (taking care to not explicitly mark it as a revert) and wait for someone to revert me. Voila! That person has "restored a reverted version within 24 hours". Rinse and repeat with another user. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

In Huldra's example, there was no violation of either version 1 or version 2 (because A and C are not the same person). But it simply shows that version 2 doesn't help against edit-warring or tag-teaming. Btw, I make a challenge here: name any person who edits regularly in the I/P area, and I'll find you a violation of version 2 in the recent history. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

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

Statement by Sir Joseph

Version 2 makes the most sense and seems to be the only option for editing here. Sir Joseph 16:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to add since Huldra mentioned it and Kingsindian did, or did and reverted, that the case in question might be used as a discussion as to which version is proper, but the article in question is not under ARBPIA sanctions, so if people are stated as violating 1RR, that might give people the impression that people in question did something wrong, when nobody in that article violated any sanction. Sir Joseph 04:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

Version 2 is the most reasonable. Version 1 is simply pedantic and can be used as a blunted weapon. Further I'm under the understanding in the case of a 3RR that consecutive edits by the same editor count as one edit. It would seem reasonable that the same logic should apply here. And in such a conflict ridden area of wikipedia its better not to give people a cannon to fire.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Kingsindian, What you are talking about to me would fall under gaming the system in the event that it's reported as a violation of these sanctions. A minor change, a general maintenance post to fix grammar and such, is or least should be outside of the scope of these sanctions. At some point here someone has to call bullshit and say competence is required. Be that the admins that enforce this or ARBCOM right here and now. Someone chasing a ban of someone because they changed "Csll" to "call" and later also separately actually edits the article once shouldn't be allowed. This kind of thing shouldn't be seen the same as a bickering partisan who came into promote their end of this spectrum.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Statement by Number 57

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

Statement by Malik Shabazz

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• My interpretation is version 2 - the original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other user's revert. The purpose of this part of the motion was to replace the requirement for consensus to be achieved by making editors wait before restoring their own edit after it had been reverted. This was so it would be more likely that the two users would discuss it and (probably more likely/hopeful) that other editors will be able to comment (or revert if the edit is inappropriate). I'm open to amending the restriction to "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the other user's revert." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Huldra: The first thing to consider is whether editor B or C actually "reverted" editor A's original edit. In that situation (depending on the their edit) both editor B and C have "reverted" so editor A cannot change it until 24 hours after editor C, and editor B can't change it until 24 hours after editor C's edit. Having said that, (depending on the edit) all of those editors would be very wise not to revert until after they've started a discussion on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it's important to remember that just because an editor technically breaches the restriction does not mean that they will or should get blocked. There is a reason we don't have bots automatically blocking people who breach 1RR reason. We have human admins review the situation before issuing blocks to determine whether the editors involved are being disruptive or not. If the editors who are breaching the restriction are working constructively by modifying each other's edits then there isn't a need to block them. If, on the other hand, editors are reverting each others edits and are not working constructively then blocking them likely is the best way forward and that's where this restriction is useful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• My interpretation is also version 2, for the same reasons. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with version 2. With all the endless clarifications on this issue, one might reasonably dispute that version 2 is a good rule, but it's the one we have. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keen on additional points of view from regular I/P editors, but for now, an unpopular contrary view from me: I prefer version 1 for the reasons outlined by Huldra and Kingsindian - it's simpler, it avoids disputes over partial reverts, or in circumstances where there are more than two editors, and it achieves the same basic outcome of slowing down edit wars. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• My interpretation is version 2. Basically, "its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" from the time it was reverted. While I think both would significantly reduce edit warring, version 2 does more to foster discussion. It effectively removes a technicality that would make the restore time consistent across all applications. Either the sanction language could be updated or an example situation included in the documentation. Mkdw 14:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Kingsindian: Which Arbitrators are recognizing version 1 as the current practice? "Everyone" seems fairly inaccurate against the comments from other Arbitrators; one in five gave a preference for version 1 but did not explicitly state that's the current practice. The four of five state they "interpret" the meaning as version 2 as the current meaning. I would rather match intent of the remedy than match current practice. The reason being is that current practice isn't always the best practice. Look at WP:CIVIL for example. Also, I view version 2 as already in place but needing clarification; and not a change. Mkdw 19:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• To those supporting "version 1," how do you respond to SMcCandlish's point above? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages requests