Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: SQL (Talk) & Cthomas3 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Joe Roe (Talk) & Premeditated Chaos (Talk) & Worm That Turned (Talk)

Comments by El_C: ECP and 1RR link, preemptive protection and more

As mentioned, here, an edit notice that permits the application of 1RR without EC protection should be made available. (Refactor: some more context). El_C 04:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: The current wording in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction says that 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. 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 ECP edit notice (talk page one, mostly) instructing editors that the page falls under ECP, when this is not enforced.)) 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 more context. El_C 17:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Addendum 2: Now we have at List of countries and dependencies by area, a non-admin editor involved in an ARBPIA dispute taking it upon themselves to add the ARBPIA talk page notice and is now claiming 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 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? El_C 04:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by ZScarpia

On pages reasonably construed as being in the ARBPIA topic area, two editing restrictions apply: 1RR (the General 1RR restriction [1]) and 500/30 (the General Prohibition [2]). 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.

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 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.

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. 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.

    ←   ZScarpia   23:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the "Addendum 2" case: The template added was the ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement, rather than ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice, 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.     ←   ZScarpia   01:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by selfstudier

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.

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.

ZScarpia's comments seem apposite.Selfstudier (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Buffs

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. ??? Buffs (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Joe Roe:

@Premeditated Chaos:

@Worm That Turned:

(add pings).

To the clerks, I would like to request an extension on the deadline as no response has been forthcoming. Buffs (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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 public. It should be posted in the next couple of days after it's been reviewed and polished. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

SGTM! :-) Buffs (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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 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. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Robert McClenon

At wit's end

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. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)