| Revision as of 20:23, 24 February 2012 editCourcelles (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators434,776 edits →Arbitrator views and discussion: my take← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:30, 24 February 2012 edit undoASCIIn2Bme (talk | contribs)7,224 edits →Clarification requested on ARBPIA 1RR restrictionNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| The restriction is worded thusly: "''Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty.''" I've just unblocked a user who was blocked for violating these sanctions. Their argument was that they received a big fat notice on their talk page that contained this wording from the decision, and that they therefore believed they could revert IP users without penalty. I assumed the notice was misrepresenting the decision, but that is in fact exactly what it says. I'm a bit confused by this, it seems to suggest that any and all IP edits on articles covered by this sanction can be treated as vandalism. Am I missing something here? ] (]) 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | The restriction is worded thusly: "''Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty.''" I've just unblocked a user who was blocked for violating these sanctions. Their argument was that they received a big fat notice on their talk page that contained this wording from the decision, and that they therefore believed they could revert IP users without penalty. I assumed the notice was misrepresenting the decision, but that is in fact exactly what it says. I'm a bit confused by this, it seems to suggest that any and all IP edits on articles covered by this sanction can be treated as vandalism. Am I missing something here? ] (]) 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| * <small>I happened to have Beeblebrox's talk page on my watch list.</small> I think the intended meaning of "without penalty" was "not subject to this (1RR) restriction". The wording should probably be changed to avoid misunderstanding and/or wikilawyering in the future. ] (]) 20:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | === Clerk notes === | ||
Revision as of 20:30, 24 February 2012
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requests| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification requested on ARBPIA 1RR restriction | none | none | 24 February 2012 |
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Requests for clarification
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header
Clarification requested on ARBPIA 1RR restriction
The restriction is worded thusly: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty." I've just unblocked a user who was blocked for violating these sanctions. Their argument was that they received a big fat notice on their talk page that contained this wording from the decision, and that they therefore believed they could revert IP users without penalty. I assumed the notice was misrepresenting the decision, but that is in fact exactly what it says. I'm a bit confused by this, it seems to suggest that any and all IP edits on articles covered by this sanction can be treated as vandalism. Am I missing something here? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I happened to have Beeblebrox's talk page on my watch list. I think the intended meaning of "without penalty" was "not subject to this (1RR) restriction". The wording should probably be changed to avoid misunderstanding and/or wikilawyering in the future. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
Moved from WP:ACN as this is the right venue. Courcelles 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the way the remedy is worded, the 1RR does not apply to reverting IP's, but usual rules on edit warring and 3RR do. Courcelles 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)