| Revision as of 20:54, 24 February 2012 editHJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators121,834 edits →Clarification requested on ARBPIA 1RR restriction: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:47, 24 February 2012 edit undoBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators113,139 edits →Clarification requested on ARBPIA 1RR restriction: this isn't making a lot of sense to meNext 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) | ||
| :If this is the intention, that any edit by an IP to any of these articles can be reverted on sight and they are not subject to the 1RR restriction, shouldn't we just semi-protect the whole lot of them? ] (]) 22:47, 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) | * <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) | ||
Revision as of 22:47, 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)
- If this is the intention, that any edit by an IP to any of these articles can be reverted on sight and they are not subject to the 1RR restriction, shouldn't we just semi-protect the whole lot of them? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 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)
- Could we broaden this to 1RRs generally? If I'm talking out of my arse here (wrt the WP:TROUBLES arbitration case), I'd appreciate being told so (and why). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 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)