| Revision as of 12:28, 21 April 2019 editDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,417 edits →Some issues relating to the IP area: we need to make it clear to editors that ARBPIA notices cannot be placed on articles not clearly within the ARBPIA area as a whole, and that only Admins can place an ARBPIA talk page notice that includes ECP - or better yet, the committee should change "reasonably construed" to "broadly construed"← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:06, 21 April 2019 edit undoIcewhiz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users38,036 edits →Some issues relating to the IP areaNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| ::: Much appreciated. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC) | ::: Much appreciated. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::::{{re|BU Rob13}} I think there are still problems. We've agreed that anyone can place the ARBPIA talk page notice, right? (But see below because that's not exactly true) The core of the problem is that ARBPIA discretionary sanctions are different from others, perhaps unique. For American politics we say "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.". '''All edits''' for the AP area, but not for IP. That's because you can only place the ARBPIA template on pages that are "reasonably construed", as opposed to "broadly construed". When I argued that if there was a section in a BLP that was relevant to the IP area non-ECP editors should not edit that section, it was pointed out that if the BLP wasn't centrally involved in the IP area then the article wasn't reasonably construed. The incident that led to this particular thread was placing the ARBPIA notice on ], an article which does not appear to be reasonably construed, and thus the revert to ]'s edit adding it was correct. Huldra has replaced it following the above discussion, and I can't blame her. This is confusing and in fact we have no definition of "reasonably construed" nor is the phrase used at ] which only mentions "broadly construed". That subsection says "When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy. And that policy says ] which says " (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather"." Again this does not apply with regard to ARBPIA. In fact, only Admins can place ARBPIA talk page notices if they include any restrictions such as the ECP notice at ] even if the article is reasonably construed. ] what do you think of this? ] ] 12:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC) | ::::{{re|BU Rob13}} I think there are still problems. We've agreed that anyone can place the ARBPIA talk page notice, right? (But see below because that's not exactly true) The core of the problem is that ARBPIA discretionary sanctions are different from others, perhaps unique. For American politics we say "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.". '''All edits''' for the AP area, but not for IP. That's because you can only place the ARBPIA template on pages that are "reasonably construed", as opposed to "broadly construed". When I argued that if there was a section in a BLP that was relevant to the IP area non-ECP editors should not edit that section, it was pointed out that if the BLP wasn't centrally involved in the IP area then the article wasn't reasonably construed. The incident that led to this particular thread was placing the ARBPIA notice on ], an article which does not appear to be reasonably construed, and thus the revert to ]'s edit adding it was correct. Huldra has replaced it following the above discussion, and I can't blame her. This is confusing and in fact we have no definition of "reasonably construed" nor is the phrase used at ] which only mentions "broadly construed". That subsection says "When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy. And that policy says ] which says " (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather"." Again this does not apply with regard to ARBPIA. In fact, only Admins can place ARBPIA talk page notices if they include any restrictions such as the ECP notice at ] even if the article is reasonably construed. ] what do you think of this? ] ] 12:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: I also think there are issues regarding pages with sub-parts that are very ARBPIA (while other parts are not). Regarding awareness - BU Rob13 -'''Would you consider a request to self-revert per ARBPIA 1RR, on a user talk page, as an alternative (to the edit notice) manner of fulfilling the awareness requirement for that user on a specific article?''' Many of the regulars request self-reverts in any case, and this will streamline affairs. If the user doesn't self-revert (and they replied and/or continued editing after the user-talk page post) - then AE could be filed. ] (]) 13:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:06, 21 April 2019
| Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Misplaced Pages. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.
This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist. Please click here to file an arbitration case • Please click here for a guide to arbitration | Shortcuts |
| Arbitration talk page archives |
|---|
| WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
| Various archives (2004–2011) |
| Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
| WT:RFAR subpages |
| Archive of prior proceedings |
Statement by 92.8.219.133
(Posting by banned user removed.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Moved to - Please don't move it there, this IP is banned Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs), as so often. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Future Perfect at Sunrise: reverted --DannyS712 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't move it there, this IP is banned Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs), as so often. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Some issues relating to the IP area
- Looking at the wording of Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice (that is, {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}), it says (under "Template documentation"): "Note that a lack of this template is not an indication that the article is not subject to the restriction."
- Alas, here, on 14 March 2019 ar.com added "This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice."
- IE, you define it as one thing, then implement it to mean exactly the opposite. To me, this looks absurd.
- Also, can non−admins still place {{ARBPIA}} on article talk pages? I was reverted on this, by an editor who said that this was now only to be done by admins. Is this correct? Huldra (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely incorrect. Non-admins can do that. Also, absence of the edit notice means the restrictions can’t be enforced, but it doesn’t really mean they aren’t in effect. ~ Rob13 00:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Distinction without a difference. nableezy - 14:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not entirely. If an editor clearly aware of the restrictions knowingly was violating them on obvious pages that just didn't happen to have an edit notice yet, I would say file an ARCA. While admins at AE don't have the authority to sanction without the edit notice there, to prevent overzealous enforcement, the Committee theoretically could. I could see myself voting for a topic ban on an editor at ARCA if they were clearly violating the remedy but carefully avoiding situations in which it was enforceable at AE. The Committee generally frowns upon any form of "gaming" restrictions. ~ Rob13 16:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Distinction without a difference. nableezy - 14:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely incorrect. Non-admins can do that. Also, absence of the edit notice means the restrictions can’t be enforced, but it doesn’t really mean they aren’t in effect. ~ Rob13 00:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- First, User:L235 just changed the Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice, so that it now say the same as the latest motion. So that problem has been taken care of.
- Also, thank you for making it absolutely clear that non−admins can still place {{ARBPIA}} on article talk pages. User:GoldenRing also made it clear here that I could also place a {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}. (I have been reverted on both, by people saying that I, as a non−admin, had no right to do so.) The ARBPIA notice really need to make this clearer, though: at the moment it is simply not clear that any editor can put an {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} on a talk page.
- Also, in effect this means at the present we virtually cannot report any 1RR violation to AE, as extremely few articles in the IP area actually have a edit notice. I reported a clear violation of 1RR to AE here, the reported editor walked off scot free due to the lack of edit notice on the page in question. It would be the same for, my guess: some 98% of the articles under ARBPIA sanction. The editor in question just came off a topic ban in February; to bring a thing like this to ARCA seems like a serious "upping" the level of bureaucracy. I don't see this as progress.
- Finally, I would like to say that even if we "usual suspects" in the IP area rarely agree about a thing, except for what is under ARBPIA, or not. I cannot recall that there have been any serious disagreement between us about that issue. Roughly it is like this: when 2, 3 or more of "the usual suspects" appear on a talk–page, then it is under ARBPIA ;P Huldra (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
To editor BU Rob13: As I see it, the only real problem here is that ordinary editors don't have the technical ability to add editnotices to articles. It means that for practical purposes the 1RR rule has all but disappeared from ARBPIA. This is a bad thing because 1RR has long been the most effective dampener on edit warring there. Zero 00:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Zero0000: You are welcome to take any page that needs an edit notice to my talk page and I'm happy to place one. Same goes for anyone else. ~ Rob13 02:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've placed ~100 edit notices just now, including all of Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I'll keep going through subcategories and placing edit notices every once in a while. Feel free to ask for edit notices in specific places on my talk, still, if needed. ~ Rob13 02:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Zero 03:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: I think there are still problems. We've agreed that anyone can place the ARBPIA talk page notice, right? (But see below because that's not exactly true) The core of the problem is that ARBPIA discretionary sanctions are different from others, perhaps unique. For American politics we say "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.". All edits for the AP area, but not for IP. That's because you can only place the ARBPIA template on pages that are "reasonably construed", as opposed to "broadly construed". When I argued that if there was a section in a BLP that was relevant to the IP area non-ECP editors should not edit that section, it was pointed out that if the BLP wasn't centrally involved in the IP area then the article wasn't reasonably construed. The incident that led to this particular thread was placing the ARBPIA notice on Solomon's Pools, an article which does not appear to be reasonably construed, and thus the revert to User:Huldra's edit adding it was correct. Huldra has replaced it following the above discussion, and I can't blame her. This is confusing and in fact we have no definition of "reasonably construed" nor is the phrase used at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Placing sanctions and page restrictions which only mentions "broadly construed". That subsection says "When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy. And that policy says Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Topic ban which says " (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather"." Again this does not apply with regard to ARBPIA. In fact, only Admins can place ARBPIA talk page notices if they include any restrictions such as the ECP notice at Talk:Solomon's Pools even if the article is reasonably construed. User:Zero0000 what do you think of this? Doug Weller talk 12:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- I also think there are issues regarding pages with sub-parts that are very ARBPIA (while other parts are not). Regarding awareness - BU Rob13 -Would you consider a request to self-revert per ARBPIA 1RR, on a user talk page, as an alternative (to the edit notice) manner of fulfilling the awareness requirement for that user on a specific article? Many of the regulars request self-reverts in any case, and this will streamline affairs. If the user doesn't self-revert (and they replied and/or continued editing after the user-talk page post) - then AE could be filed. Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: I think there are still problems. We've agreed that anyone can place the ARBPIA talk page notice, right? (But see below because that's not exactly true) The core of the problem is that ARBPIA discretionary sanctions are different from others, perhaps unique. For American politics we say "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.". All edits for the AP area, but not for IP. That's because you can only place the ARBPIA template on pages that are "reasonably construed", as opposed to "broadly construed". When I argued that if there was a section in a BLP that was relevant to the IP area non-ECP editors should not edit that section, it was pointed out that if the BLP wasn't centrally involved in the IP area then the article wasn't reasonably construed. The incident that led to this particular thread was placing the ARBPIA notice on Solomon's Pools, an article which does not appear to be reasonably construed, and thus the revert to User:Huldra's edit adding it was correct. Huldra has replaced it following the above discussion, and I can't blame her. This is confusing and in fact we have no definition of "reasonably construed" nor is the phrase used at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Placing sanctions and page restrictions which only mentions "broadly construed". That subsection says "When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy. And that policy says Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Topic ban which says " (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather"." Again this does not apply with regard to ARBPIA. In fact, only Admins can place ARBPIA talk page notices if they include any restrictions such as the ECP notice at Talk:Solomon's Pools even if the article is reasonably construed. User:Zero0000 what do you think of this? Doug Weller talk 12:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Zero 03:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've placed ~100 edit notices just now, including all of Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I'll keep going through subcategories and placing edit notices every once in a while. Feel free to ask for edit notices in specific places on my talk, still, if needed. ~ Rob13 02:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)