590:)) The general consensus among admins in RfPP is now to not preemptively protect ARBPIA pages before there has been some disruption first. So that (preemptive protection) is also something the Committee needs to address. Because I get the sense that the quoted part was written when consensus (possibly among Committee members themselves) was otherwise. At any case, this further illustrates the difficulties broght by 1RR and ECP being tied together. Finally, should it be permitted for ARBPIA restrictions to be added by non-admins or should it be part of admin discretion? Is it okay for involved editors (admin and non-admin alike) to apply them? Something the Committee definitely needs to address in their 4th reform of ABPIA. Per usual, some
670:, one. It may be added by anyone, but it serves only as a reminder as its presence or absence make no difference to enforcement. Discretionary sanctions may be applied on any page which has a broadly construed relationship to the ARBPIA area no matter whether any notice is displayed, though editors cannot be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force. The normal 1RR and 500/30 sanctions only apply on "reasonably construed" pages. There, for enforcement of 1RR, the editnotice (not enforcement) template must have been displayed.
43:
214:
619:
taking it upon myself to remove the ARBPIA talk page notice from that page, as I think it's best to suspend this problematic practice while the
Committee deliberates (hopefully) on how to best approach the designation of pages as falling under the ARBPIA DS. I know of no other DS where involved, non-admin editors get to designate a page as such. What makes ARBPIA special in that regard?
810:
compromise is that it should be assumed to be NOT ArbCom-related unless explicitly stated in the summary; any ambiguity should be inferred as being NOT ArbCom-related and deference should be given for such actions. Such a conclusion limits the scope of ArbCom and ECP to those articles that are/should already be under their purview and would codify that assumption.
643:
order for them to have continuing protection, a situation which was exacerbated by the requirement that editnotices could only be added by priviledged editors. Adding editnotices entailed affected pages coming under ECP protection, automatically enforcing the 500/30 restriction. That caused a pushback by those opposed to the pre-emptive use of ECP.
777:
I'm sorry for the delay. We are actively working on it (in fact, it's what I spent my morning on). It's holiday season for a lot of Arbs so it's been difficult getting everything together and getting eyes on things. There's now a roughly-complete draft, but it needs review before being posted to the
642:
Earlier this year a requirement was introduced that the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} be placed on any page construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict in order for 1RR to be enforced. This introduced a number of problems. There was suddenly a need to add editnotices to scores of articles in
618:
that 1RR is to be enforced in the dispute (a dispute which only involves extended-confirmed users). Now admins are supposed to enforce 1RR (and also, by extension ECP the article) on an article that is loosely connected to ARBPIA, but whereby the current dispute does involves ARBPIA? For now, I am
646:
What I would suggest, is the decoupling of adding the editnotice from extending ECP to pages. The 500/30 rule worked well before ECP was introduced. ECP could be added using normal processes in the event that serious disruption by non-autoconfirmed accounts was being caused on particular pages.
809:
Per the discussion regarding ECP, I think a simple solution would be a requirement to explicitly state whether ECP's been applied for ArbCom-related actions or standard escalations. Conversely, I realize some people don't want that requirement as it feels too bureaucratic. I think a reasonable
647:
Hopefully, the decoupling would satisfy those opposed to pre-emptive protection. Priviledged access should be removed so that any editor can add the editnotice. Since adding the editnotice would no longer entail imposing ECP on a page, that shouldn't be a problem.
834:
I didn't see "At wit's end" in the workshop, but I agree that the arbitrators were right in bringing it out. I think that it should be used more often, because cases generally go to ArbCom after the community is already past wit's end. I agree.
550:
581:
But due to the above statement, this results in ECP being approved by default, and if the editor is not an admin, on an unprotected page, even. (I would venture to think that there quite a few of these unprotected pages with an
623:
598:
565:
122:
687:
I do not usually get involved in this sort of thing although I try and keep up with developments. As the editor referred to by El_C in his
Addendum 2 I would like to say that I simply followed the advice given.
800:
786:
116:
105:
544:
111:
100:
703:
94:
29:
677:
656:
844:
574:
819:
771:
725:
89:
435:
472:
304:
611:
639:). The intention of the former was to reduce edit warring ; the intention of the latter to reduce abuse by sockpuppet accounts, which had reached chronic levels.
237:
691:
I realize there is an enforcement issue and I don't make a habit of placing the template but I do think that the "calming" effect of the notice is worthwhile.
615:
466:
579:
community is encouraged to place the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
430:
462:
258:
250:
716:
So...is anything actually going to be done? We're past the deadline and literally none of the arbitrators appear to have touched the page. ???
404:
558:
254:
424:
269:
247:
607:
505:
457:
395:
314:
242:
420:
531:
400:
25:
633:
On pages reasonably construed as being in the ARBPIA topic area, two editing restrictions apply: 1RR (the
General 1RR restriction
410:
390:
273:
415:
328:
309:
378:
449:
340:
829:
373:
824:
299:
228:
21:
634:
637:
54:
Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and
682:
365:
205:
351:
294:
286:
783:
628:
524:
336:
234:
180:
762:
To the clerks, I would like to request an extension on the deadline as no response has been forthcoming.
346:
264:
586:
edit notice (talk page one, mostly) instructing editors that the page falls under ECP, when this is not
385:
191:
17:
553:, an edit notice that permits the application of 1RR without EC protection should be made available. (
840:
711:
779:
742:
517:
175:
778:
public. It should be posted in the next couple of days after it's been reviewed and polished. ♠
751:
699:
591:
224:
186:
836:
80:
8:
673:
652:
155:
72:
849:
169:
695:
663:
815:
796:
767:
721:
667:
610:, a non-admin editor involved in an ARBPIA dispute taking it upon themselves to
489:
575:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction
150:
144:
493:
51:
This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion.
733:
164:
811:
792:
763:
717:
620:
595:
562:
213:
491:
139:
545:
Comments by El_C: ECP and 1RR link, preemptive protection and more
494:
495:
662:
Regarding the "Addendum 2" case: The template added was the
525:
608:List of countries and dependencies by area
532:
518:
614:the ARBPIA talk page notice and is now
14:
636:) and 500/30 (the General Prohibition
305:Clarification and Amendment requests
37:
35:
694:ZScarpia's comments seem apposite.
65:
36:
860:
56:comment only in their own section
212:
41:
664:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement
668:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice
13:
1:
845:17:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
704:06:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
678:01:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
624:04:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
820:16:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
801:16:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
787:22:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
772:22:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
726:03:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
657:23:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
599:17:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
566:04:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
436:Conflict of interest reports
7:
825:Comments by Robert McClenon
265:Search archived proceedings
30:Palestine-Israel articles 4
10:
865:
310:Arbitrator motion requests
70:
18:Knowledge talk:Arbitration
683:Comments by selfstudier
573:The current wording in
850:Comments by {username}
506:Track related changes
366:Arbitration Committee
206:Knowledge Arbitration
629:Comments by ZScarpia
315:Enforcement requests
243:Guide to arbitration
161:Drafting arbitrators
743:Premeditated Chaos
337:Contentious topics
235:Arbitration policy
176:Premeditated Chaos
60:
712:Comments by Buffs
542:
541:
509:
477:
347:General sanctions
295:All open requests
225:About arbitration
200:
199:
195:
184:
173:
159:
148:
131:
123:Proposed decision
120:
109:
98:
64:
63:
48:
856:
755:
752:Worm That Turned
746:
737:
676:
655:
534:
527:
520:
508:
503:
496:
475:
431:Clerk procedures
423:
381:
352:Editor sanctions
329:Active sanctions
287:Open proceedings
257:
216:
202:
201:
189:
187:Worm That Turned
178:
167:
153:
142:
125:
114:
103:
92:
83:
66:
45:
44:
38:
864:
863:
859:
858:
857:
855:
854:
853:
852:
837:Robert McClenon
832:
827:
749:
740:
731:
714:
685:
671:
650:
631:
606:Now we have at
568:
547:
538:
504:
498:
497:
492:
482:
481:
480:
469:
452:
442:
441:
440:
427:
419:
407:
382:
377:
368:
358:
357:
356:
331:
321:
320:
319:
289:
279:
276:
261:
253:
231:
88:
87:
86:
79:
75:
59:
42:
34:
33:
32:
12:
11:
5:
862:
851:
848:
831:
828:
826:
823:
808:
806:
805:
804:
803:
760:
759:
756:
747:
738:
713:
710:
708:
684:
681:
666:, rather than
661:
630:
627:
549:As mentioned,
548:
546:
543:
540:
539:
537:
536:
529:
522:
514:
511:
510:
500:
499:
490:
488:
487:
484:
483:
479:
478:
470:
465:
460:
454:
453:
448:
447:
444:
443:
439:
438:
433:
428:
418:
413:
408:
403:
398:
393:
388:
383:
376:
370:
369:
364:
363:
360:
359:
355:
354:
349:
344:
333:
332:
327:
326:
323:
322:
318:
317:
312:
307:
302:
297:
291:
290:
285:
284:
281:
280:
278:
277:
272:
267:
262:
252:
245:
240:
232:
227:
221:
218:
217:
209:
208:
198:
197:
90:Main case page
85:
84:
76:
71:
69:
62:
61:
52:
49:
46:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
861:
847:
846:
842:
838:
822:
821:
817:
813:
802:
798:
794:
790:
789:
788:
785:
781:
776:
775:
774:
773:
769:
765:
757:
753:
748:
744:
739:
735:
730:
729:
728:
727:
723:
719:
709:
706:
705:
701:
697:
692:
689:
680:
679:
675:
669:
665:
659:
658:
654:
648:
644:
640:
638:
635:
626:
625:
622:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
600:
597:
593:
589:
585:
580:
576:
572:
567:
564:
560:
556:
552:
535:
530:
528:
523:
521:
516:
515:
513:
512:
507:
502:
501:
486:
485:
474:
471:
468:
464:
461:
459:
456:
455:
451:
446:
445:
437:
434:
432:
429:
426:
422:
417:
414:
412:
409:
406:
402:
399:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
384:
380:
375:
372:
371:
367:
362:
361:
353:
350:
348:
345:
342:
338:
335:
334:
330:
325:
324:
316:
313:
311:
308:
306:
303:
301:
300:Case requests
298:
296:
293:
292:
288:
283:
282:
275:
271:
268:
266:
263:
260:
256:
251:
249:
246:
244:
241:
239:
236:
233:
230:
226:
223:
222:
220:
219:
215:
211:
210:
207:
204:
203:
196:
193:
188:
182:
177:
171:
166:
162:
157:
152:
146:
141:
137:
133:
129:
124:
118:
113:
107:
102:
96:
91:
82:
78:
77:
74:
68:
67:
57:
53:
47:
40:
39:
31:
27:
23:
19:
833:
830:At wit's end
807:
761:
758:(add pings).
715:
707:
693:
690:
686:
660:
649:
645:
641:
632:
603:
602:
592:more context
587:
583:
578:
570:
569:
559:more context
554:
160:
135:
134:
132:
127:
55:
50:
696:Selfstudier
604:Addendum 2:
270:Ban appeals
248:Noticeboard
136:Case clerks
791:SGTM! :-)
577:says that
476:(pre-2016)
463:Statistics
396:Procedures
81:WP:ARBPIA4
588:enforced.
571:Addendum:
555:Refactor:
401:Elections
674:ZScarpia
653:ZScarpia
616:claiming
151:Cthomas3
112:Workshop
101:Evidence
73:Shortcut
28: |
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
734:Joe Roe
473:Reports
411:History
391:Members
386:Contact
374:Discuss
238:(CU/OS)
165:Joe Roe
784:(talk)
416:Clerks
274:Report
185:&
174:&
149:&
812:Buffs
793:Buffs
764:Buffs
718:Buffs
557:some
450:Audit
16:<
841:talk
816:talk
797:talk
768:talk
722:talk
700:talk
621:El_C
596:El_C
563:El_C
551:here
467:Talk
458:Talk
425:Talk
405:Talk
259:Talk
229:Talk
192:Talk
181:Talk
170:Talk
156:Talk
145:Talk
128:Talk
117:Talk
106:Talk
95:Talk
26:Case
780:PMC
672:←
651:←
612:add
584:ECP
561:).
341:Log
140:SQL
843:)
818:)
799:)
782:♠
770:)
724:)
702:)
594:.
163::
138::
121:—
110:—
99:—
839:(
814:(
795:(
766:(
754::
750:@
745::
741:@
736::
732:@
720:(
698:(
533:e
526:t
519:v
421:+
379:+
343:)
339:(
255:+
194:)
190:(
183:)
179:(
172:)
168:(
158:)
154:(
147:)
143:(
130:)
126:(
119:)
115:(
108:)
104:(
97:)
93:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
