| Revision as of 14:39, 9 January 2020 editBradv (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators37,877 editsm Reverted edits by 86.130.35.245 (talk) to last version by Serial Number 54129Tag: Rollback← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:53, 24 January 2025 edit undoJéské Couriano (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers40,317 edits →Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed: ReTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}} | <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}}{{ArbCom navigation}} | ||
| <!-- Archive date of 10 days has been agreed amongst arbitrators and clerks. Do not change without discussion. --> | <!-- Archive date of 10 days has been agreed amongst arbitrators and clerks. Do not change without discussion. --> | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive index | |||
| |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 500k | |maxarchivesize = 500k | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 52 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| Line 13: | Line 19: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| ⚫ | == Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators == | ||
| == ] unblocked following successful appeal == | |||
| : ]<!-- ] (]) |
: ]<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | ||
| * |
*Good! I'm glad that you did this. --] (]) 02:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *I'd like to thank the Committee for its action here. The Committee's workflow challenges have long been a substantial concern and this could be a meaningful step in addressing them. When the Committee appoints the coordinating arbitrator(s), I would ask that the Committee announce who those arbitrators are; I think it would help the community (e.g., at ACE) to know who might be spending extra time on coordination efforts and may have less time for other arbitrator tasks. {{pb}} I also appreciate arbitrator comments such as ] by {{U|Daniel}}, which suggest that if this motion is eventually seen as insufficient, the Committee will reconsider Motion 1. I certainly hope that the Committee will continue actively exploring ways to deliver workflow improvements that help arbs increase capacity and spend time resolving substantive issues. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point ({{tqq|1=Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters}}), I strongly urge the coordinating arbitrator to assign an ID to each non-spam communication, akin to the ticket number in a VRTS thread. (Whether and how to group related threads or emails together is a question on which I'll defer.) {{pb}} When I was on the committee, many of the balls we dropped had not gotten to the voting stage or even the "this is a problem we've decided to deal with" stage. Instead, they were stray emails that requested or alerted the committee to possible action that were then not followed up upon. Assigning identifiers allows the coordinating arbitrators to say not only "Votes are needed on matters X, Y, and Z" (on which there is already a proposed action or vote), but also "Threads 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 need triage and initial action." in the tracking function. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding The Rambling Man == | |||
| == EncycloDeterminate unblocked == | |||
| : ]<!-- ] (]) |
: ]<!-- ] (]) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | ||
| *:I echo the concerns of GW in the initial statement, over as she said, "removing a sanction that TRM repeatedly violated, without including some sort of replacement." I may somewhat agree that the wording of the initial sanction was problematic and was not effective in curbing uncollegial behavior, and it also is clear that there was little desire by the community at large to enforce the sanction based on its wording. However, there ''is consensus that there is a problem that needs fixing'', and to remove the sanction without a replacement, better worded, one sends the message that TRMs treatment of others is and has always been OK, which is definitely not true. I would have liked to have seen the sanction amended rather than vacated. --]] 13:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == ] closed == | |||
| *::I don’t think us saying that the restrictions we've placed haven't helped and deferring to the community (as well as suggesting another case might be in order if the problem persists) at all implies any lack of a problem. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : ]<!-- ] (]) 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | ||
| *A debacle all-around. But perhaps vacating the sanctions and starting from a clean slate is the best way to go. In wording they were vague, ineffective, and confusing, holding TRM to a standard that no reasonable person could be expected to meet. Still, this may be a fruitless endeavor as it seems TRM has effectively retired.--] (]) 14:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Broadly agree with all of the topic bans + suspended site ban, though would’ve liked to see more meat and potatoes in terms of remedies to ensure future TBANs aren’t necessary (ex. the article titles remedy or even something wholly experimental like the Levant Subcommittee, though I understand why they didn’t pass). The balanced editing restriction is a good start. | |||
| *:TRM effectively retires frequently. I'm not concerned he'll be gone long. --]] 15:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Overall, while I’m not confident this will fully solve the area’s many issues, I do think this is overall a good moment for the topic area in terms of lowering temperatures/ensuring adherence to ], and I sincerely hope it does that; I’m also encouraged by the de facto further endorsement to ]. Thanks to the arbs for taking on this absolute juggernaut of a case. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 00:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Well I was curious about this so I checked, and the last time TRM went over a month without editing was . So this is in fact rather unusual for him.-- ] (]) 15:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I thank the Committee for coming to what I think is the right decision. It felt like pulling teeth, with the incredibly lengthy period before the case was accepted, and the further time before the parties list was finalized, and finally with the PD votes that went through second-guessing, but I believe that it came out correctly in the end. I imagine it's always difficult for Arbs to balance, on the one hand, wanting to be responsive to community input, even when there are competing and opposite views being expressed, and on the other hand, wanting to make an independent and objective conclusion, without bowing to undue pressure. So this was a hard case. But I hope that, going forward, "being right isn't enough" will be an accepted part of Misplaced Pages editing culture. --] (]) 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::That may be true, past performance is no guarantee of future performance and all that. It is definitely not the first time since 2008 where he announced his intention to quit. He's retired many times, and been back in short order. Maybe he really is gone. Could be. --]] 15:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I |
*:I hope it's OK for me to ask this here. Nishidani has been keeping a running commentary on the topic and on the case on his user talk page, and it includes some pot shots at me. Given the TBAN as well as ], could all of that be removed? It wouldn't feel right for me to do it myself, but maybe an Arb, Clerk, or uninvolved admin, could do it. --] (]) 00:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *I wonder how much impact the new balanced editing restriction will have. BEANS 'n' all, but to me it seems rather easy to make a large volume of gnomish or minor edits to defeat the 'balanced editing' clause. Granted, there are still other tools to restrict editors. It's perhaps the messiest topic area on Misplaced Pages. I'm happy about the first bullet though ({{green|All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.}}, though the proposal a while ago for pending ECP would be ideal. ''']]''' 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*I will say, without regard for TRM specifically and just speaking in the general, is that there is a general unwillingness to sanction editors for incivility where such editors have an established presence at Misplaced Pages, and I saw this sanction (which has proved to be inadequate in hindsight) as an attempt to clarify and add teeth to a civility restriction. There are clearly two ways incivility is handled: | |||
| *:What I'm curious about is why the committee invented a new restriction but did not use it themselves. To me that suggests they're not very confident about its usefulness. ] (]) 01:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* When a new user or an IP address shows up and calls someone an asshole or something similarly, they are quickly warned and if they repeat the behavior, they are blocked. | |||
| *::I'm hopeful about the restriction, and I hope to see confident application in the future. I think it's a good idea that might be used to encourage highly-motivated editors to take a crack at the backlog and thus better integrate into the Wiki community. ] (]) 01:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* When an established user, who everyone knows is aware of the civility and NPA policies, calls someone an asshole, they will either not be blocked, or if they are blocked, another admin will quickly unblock them and make excuses for their behavior. Paradoxically, the more egregious the violation, the ''less'' likely the block is to stick, so calling someone a "fucking asshole" will result in people saying "there's no rule against saying fuck" and thus it is easier to get unblocked if you say "fuck" than if you merely insult someone without using one of the seven deadly words. | |||
| *:::Some of the most effective strategies for POV pushing in the PIA topic area can be found by examining the behavior of highly-motivated partisan ban evading actors. They make on average about 20% of their revisions in the topic area. So, they have already discovered that a self-imposed balanced editing restriction can help them fly under the radar, at least for a while, delay detection, reduce the likelihood of being reported at AE and facing sanctions etc. ] (]) 05:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*I do want to clarify that TRM has never, to my knowledge, called someone an asshole or a fucking asshole. What they have done is to cast aspersions against people over simple differences of opinion; to use aggressive and insulting language about people's motives or intelligence over any difference of opinion, and to presume that anyone who does things differently than he would is met with scorn and insult. He method of convincing people he's right is not "my way is better because of these reasons" it is "my way is better because your way is stupid" (again, not sure he's ever used the word stupid, but he's said similar things). The use of insult and scorn to win arguments is highly incivil and unproductive and TRM does so often. That sort of behavior is what we need to stop. --]] 16:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{ping|LokiTheLiar}} They did the same thing in ]<sup>(expand the collapsible)</sup>, and the reason for this is because these restrictions are intended to be used as ''discretionary sanctions''; i.e. something admins can use in contentious topic areas. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 06:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <small>Note: I have amended my comments above slightly, without changing the general meaning, with better word choices. My original comments can be found in the history. --]] 17:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *Thanks to the arbs for taking on this case - I've already started watching some PIA-related pages that I had stopped due to the toxicity, and I'm hopeful that I won't have to un-watch them again. I still am, bluntly, shocked that only two arbitrators noticed the fact that the BM FoF as passed contains blatantly false accusations (misrepresentation of sources) and voted against it - but I don't necessarily disagree with the final outcome of that FoF. I would encourage arbitrators to ensure they review evidence entirely and ensure that accusations labeled as "facts" about parties are actually supported by the evidence. It shouldn't be necessary for someone to defend themselves on the evidence/workshop page if the evidence itself is blatantly inaccurate to begin with - we should be able to trust that arbitrators reviewed the evidence so we don't have to. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 02:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *How is this going to improve the topic area? I agree that some behavior wasn't great, but also banning some of the most knowledgeable and productive editors is not how we improve the encyclopedia for our readers, which needs to be the #1 priority. I'm disappointed that Arbcom could not find a less disruptive way to deal with the situation. (] · ]) ''']''' 06:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| You're right that our approach to civility is inconsistent and wrongheaded. But the community has never ever come to grips with it and that's not a matter for Arbcom. | |||
| I'm grateful Arbcom finally removed this problematic sanction that was causing more trouble than it was solving. TRM wrote here on several occasions that he felt it was a stick he was regularly hit with and even, towards the end, he said it made him feel harassed. No wonder he's taken a long wikibreak - and I hope it won't mean retirement now that he can no longer be targeted using this particular sanction. Aside from anything else, the ] is fast approaching, and he normally works like a demon to get our coverage up to standard. | |||
| TRM was once a very highly regarded member of this community, with advanced permissions. He is still highly regarded by the many editors he's worked with (helped) on quality content: FAs, FLs, GAs etc. I hope he'll come back and Arbcom and the community will one day recognise they can put all the rest of the sanctions to bed, too. --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 17:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I hope TRM does return. As Dweller says, if TRM doesn't improve ], a bunch of new editors and IPs will and (with all due respect) they won't do half as good as job at it for the simple reason they're not experienced enough. I always like having him "on tap" to do a featured list (particularly something like ] which has had several failed FLC attempts), and it has been reassuring for him coming to my defence in the past. ] ] ] 17:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *The motion baffles me, not so much what the motion actually is but rather the fact that several arbitrators acknowledged that it's kicking the can down the road, but they voted for it anyway. Like, if Arbcom had said "in hindsight, TRM's behavior is not disruptive so we are vacating the restriction", I would find that unpalatable, but logical. With "we know TRM's behavior is disruptive but we're vacating the restriction anyway, and feel free to file a future case request", I don't know know what to think - arbitration is supposed to "break the back of the dispute", but this seems like Arbcom saying they don't know what to do either. ] (]) 00:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **It's Arbcom saying "this restriction has failed to solve the problem, and has actually made things worse so we'll get rid of it for now. We don't have any better ideas at the moment but we'll give it another try if things don't improve." Far from ideal, but better than the status quo. ] (]) 00:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding Magioladitis == | |||
| ⚫ | : ]<!-- ] (]) |
||
| == Question about ARBPIA4 and related content == | |||
| I'm slightly unsure about how this works on pages with related content. The General Sanctions section says "500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict... On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring." | |||
| ] says "When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place <nowiki>{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}</nowiki> on the talk page and <nowiki>{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}}</nowiki> as an editnotice to do so. If there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on related content." The way that reads, you can't revert an IP editor or someone covered by 500/30 until the template and of course the edit notice is placed. Have I read that correctly? ] ] 13:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :You can't cite the sanction unless you've made notice that the article and/or content is covered by the sanction. There are lots of reasons one could revert an IP for a bad edit, just that your rationale should not be ''only'' an ARBPIA violation unless there was already a clear notice of ARBPIA present. It would be rare for any edit which violated ARBPIA would somehow be perfect if only ARBPIA wasn't violated. I will say that you clearly have a specific event in mind, and speaking in the general about a specific event is unlikely to be helpful. If you could include some diffs to show what prompted this concern, you could get better feedback more tailored to helping you work out the problem you are having. --]] 13:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks but I was hoping for a reply from one of the Arbs involved or a clerk. No specific example but one I was concerned with in the past is politicians whose articles are only generally related. I'm assuming that the edit notice and talk page notices are required before reverting for ARBPIA reasons, but just want reassurance that I'm right. On the opposite end, still related to articles generally related, are the edits that try to reverse the location of a place or something that involves only a few words, not a whole paragraph or section. ] ] 16:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::For both primary articles and related content, "The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced". The way I read that, that means you can still revert the IPs for the ordinary reasons without the templates, but they can revert you right back if the templates aren't present. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 19:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Money emoji appointed trainee clerk == | |||
| : ]<!-- ] (]) 18:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| *💰, 💸, furthermore 🤑, perhaps even 💵... notwithstanding 💲! <span style="background:black;padding:1px 4px">] ]</span> 19:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Money bag, Flying money, furthermore seeing dollars, perhaps even Money emoji... notwithstanding dollar sign?" I'm not sure 💵 follow. ]<sup>]]</sup> 19:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well I had been happy to see this but then I see Money is off to an inauspicious start not being able to recognize Salvidrim's clear as can be message. What kind of clerk will he be if he can't understand such straightforward expression? (j/k of course, congrats Money). Best, ] (]) 19:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Money emoji, unfortunately, resigned mere hours after being appointed after being intellectually defeated by Salvidrim, setting the record for shortest clerkship" ]<sup>]]</sup> 20:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Congrats! I've had this page on my watchlist since the 2019 ARBCOM elections and it's nice to see some good news. :) <small> Yes, I used an ] instead of an emoji.</small> ] ] 20:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * 👋 ] <small>]</small> 21:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Welcome Money! Let's hope you dont mess up as much as I did dealing with stuff the first few times ;). <span style= "font-weight: bold;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{emoji|1F911}}{{emoji|1F44F}}{{emoji|1F44C}} (Congratulations! Money Emoji). –]<sup>]</sup> 21:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Congratulations Money Emoji, and welcome aboard. – ]] 22:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Welcome to the team --] | ] 22:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I think we've only crossed paths in copyright related issues but my experience is very positive. Welcome!--]] 22:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * You'll do great! Congrats! ]] 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Welcome! ]] 03:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{reply|Money emoji}} why have you recused from the Kudpung request? ]]] 13:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Arbitration motion regarding |
||
| : ]<!-- ] (]) 21:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
Latest revision as of 06:53, 24 January 2025
Shortcuts
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.
Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators
- Good! I'm glad that you did this. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank the Committee for its action here. The Committee's workflow challenges have long been a substantial concern and this could be a meaningful step in addressing them. When the Committee appoints the coordinating arbitrator(s), I would ask that the Committee announce who those arbitrators are; I think it would help the community (e.g., at ACE) to know who might be spending extra time on coordination efforts and may have less time for other arbitrator tasks. I also appreciate arbitrator comments such as this one by Daniel, which suggest that if this motion is eventually seen as insufficient, the Committee will reconsider Motion 1. I certainly hope that the Committee will continue actively exploring ways to deliver workflow improvements that help arbs increase capacity and spend time resolving substantive issues. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point (
Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters
), I strongly urge the coordinating arbitrator to assign an ID to each non-spam communication, akin to the ticket number in a VRTS thread. (Whether and how to group related threads or emails together is a question on which I'll defer.) When I was on the committee, many of the balls we dropped had not gotten to the voting stage or even the "this is a problem we've decided to deal with" stage. Instead, they were stray emails that requested or alerted the committee to possible action that were then not followed up upon. Assigning identifiers allows the coordinating arbitrators to say not only "Votes are needed on matters X, Y, and Z" (on which there is already a proposed action or vote), but also "Threads 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 need triage and initial action." in the tracking function. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point (
EncycloDeterminate unblocked
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed
- Broadly agree with all of the topic bans + suspended site ban, though would’ve liked to see more meat and potatoes in terms of remedies to ensure future TBANs aren’t necessary (ex. the article titles remedy or even something wholly experimental like the Levant Subcommittee, though I understand why they didn’t pass). The balanced editing restriction is a good start.
- Overall, while I’m not confident this will fully solve the area’s many issues, I do think this is overall a good moment for the topic area in terms of lowering temperatures/ensuring adherence to WP:CIVIL, and I sincerely hope it does that; I’m also encouraged by the de facto further endorsement to WP:BRIE. Thanks to the arbs for taking on this absolute juggernaut of a case. The Kip 00:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thank the Committee for coming to what I think is the right decision. It felt like pulling teeth, with the incredibly lengthy period before the case was accepted, and the further time before the parties list was finalized, and finally with the PD votes that went through second-guessing, but I believe that it came out correctly in the end. I imagine it's always difficult for Arbs to balance, on the one hand, wanting to be responsive to community input, even when there are competing and opposite views being expressed, and on the other hand, wanting to make an independent and objective conclusion, without bowing to undue pressure. So this was a hard case. But I hope that, going forward, "being right isn't enough" will be an accepted part of Misplaced Pages editing culture. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hope it's OK for me to ask this here. Nishidani has been keeping a running commentary on the topic and on the case on his user talk page, and it includes some pot shots at me. Given the TBAN as well as WP:NOTWEBHOST, could all of that be removed? It wouldn't feel right for me to do it myself, but maybe an Arb, Clerk, or uninvolved admin, could do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder how much impact the new balanced editing restriction will have. BEANS 'n' all, but to me it seems rather easy to make a large volume of gnomish or minor edits to defeat the 'balanced editing' clause. Granted, there are still other tools to restrict editors. It's perhaps the messiest topic area on Misplaced Pages. I'm happy about the first bullet though (All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article., though the proposal a while ago for pending ECP would be ideal. JayCubby 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- What I'm curious about is why the committee invented a new restriction but did not use it themselves. To me that suggests they're not very confident about its usefulness. Loki (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm hopeful about the restriction, and I hope to see confident application in the future. I think it's a good idea that might be used to encourage highly-motivated editors to take a crack at the backlog and thus better integrate into the Wiki community. Scharb (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some of the most effective strategies for POV pushing in the PIA topic area can be found by examining the behavior of highly-motivated partisan ban evading actors. They make on average about 20% of their revisions in the topic area. So, they have already discovered that a self-imposed balanced editing restriction can help them fly under the radar, at least for a while, delay detection, reduce the likelihood of being reported at AE and facing sanctions etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- @LokiTheLiar: They did the same thing in APL, and the reason for this is because these restrictions are intended to be used as discretionary sanctions; i.e. something admins can use in contentious topic areas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 06:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm hopeful about the restriction, and I hope to see confident application in the future. I think it's a good idea that might be used to encourage highly-motivated editors to take a crack at the backlog and thus better integrate into the Wiki community. Scharb (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- What I'm curious about is why the committee invented a new restriction but did not use it themselves. To me that suggests they're not very confident about its usefulness. Loki (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks to the arbs for taking on this case - I've already started watching some PIA-related pages that I had stopped due to the toxicity, and I'm hopeful that I won't have to un-watch them again. I still am, bluntly, shocked that only two arbitrators noticed the fact that the BM FoF as passed contains blatantly false accusations (misrepresentation of sources) and voted against it - but I don't necessarily disagree with the final outcome of that FoF. I would encourage arbitrators to ensure they review evidence entirely and ensure that accusations labeled as "facts" about parties are actually supported by the evidence. It shouldn't be necessary for someone to defend themselves on the evidence/workshop page if the evidence itself is blatantly inaccurate to begin with - we should be able to trust that arbitrators reviewed the evidence so we don't have to. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- How is this going to improve the topic area? I agree that some behavior wasn't great, but also banning some of the most knowledgeable and productive editors is not how we improve the encyclopedia for our readers, which needs to be the #1 priority. I'm disappointed that Arbcom could not find a less disruptive way to deal with the situation. (t · c) buidhe 06:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)