Template talk:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice

Related template

There is another template here:

• Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement --Timeshifter (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the template for the main page that ends up in the edit screen? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 14:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I must have missed your message. I have edited very little in this area for a long time. I see another related edit notice here: Template:Editnotices/Page/Gaza War. See also:

• Category:Editnotice templates
• Category:1RR-related templates
• Category:Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates --Timeshifter (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Awareness

Callanecc: how does the recent ArbCom motion on page level discretionary sanctions awareness impact this. The documentation was updated recently by someone other than a committee member. The ARBPIA 1RR general prohibition is not a discretionary sanction, but a sanction directly authorized by the committee in it's ruling, so the page level sanction awareness criteria might be a bit unclear as to if it applies to this in addition to DS.

I'm asking mainly because if you go through WP:AELOG/2018 and WP:AELOG/2017, you'll see a fair amount of ECP pages that do not also have an edit notice, which would pose a problem considering that 1RR in theory are the exact same as those that are under 500/30. As an example Nabih Berri, a page you put under ECP, doesn't have the notice, and there are others put under ECP as AE actions by current arbs (obviously in their individual capacities as admins, but still, it shows how easy it is to forget the thing...) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: You're correct that the new awareness criteria don't apply to sanctions directly imposed by the Committee (ie this 1RR). I'd probably also argue that, while technically covered by the awareness criteria, an edit notice is redundant when applying page protection as a discretionary sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Callanecc, thanks for your quick response. I would agree with you on the ECP and awareness, I was just using it as an example of how if an edit notice were required, there’d be a fair amount of pages people simply forget to add the 1RR notice to where it would also apply. Again, thanks as always . TonyBallioni (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit"

Shouldn't this template be updated by removing this restriction? (I remember it being dropped at ARCA.) ~Awilley (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Ping L235 - they updated the talk page template but not the editnotice.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Confusing

Hi. I've read through the relevant cases, so I'm not very confused by what the restrictions are, but when it says subject to exceptions below, I don't see any exceptions... am I missing something? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA-1RR pages that aren't under a 30/500 protection yet still show "Editors to this page must be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days tenure"

L235, this was brought up at the helpdesk. We have 299 pages that were placed under an ARBPIA-1RR and were given a 1RR edit notice, but were not given a 30/500 protection when this editnotice was amended. Could we remove the edit notice from these pages or could we change them to only show 1RR?

– Thjarkur (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Thjarkur: Hey, thanks for putting this list together! If I understand you right, you're asking why these pages have the editnotice but no ECP protection, and whether we can change the editnotice to show only 1RR for those pages or whether we can remove the editnotice from those pages. It depends a lot on the specifics of the page and whether they fall within the ArbCom decision, but there's no decoupling the 30/500 and the 1RR. There are five cases:

1. Does not fall within ARBPIA, and has no editnotice. No action necessary.
2. Does not fall within ARBPIA, and has editnotice. Not good. Editnotice should be removed. AE appeal is potentially necessary.
3. Falls within ARBPIA, no editnotice.
   • The editnotice should be applied.
   • If edits are made in violation of 1RR and 500/30, they may still be reverted. I believe administrators may still block for violations, but generally refrain from doing so if there was no editnotice.
4. Falls within ARBPIA, has editnotice but no protection. Administrators may protect the article. Even if the article isn't protected, editors who are not extended confirmed should not edit, and their edits may be reverted. But no individual admin is required to protect, and no individual editor is required to revert edits made in violation; if particular edits are unambiguously helpful, there's no requirement to get rid of them.
5. Falls within ARBPIA, has editnotice and protection. No action necessary.

Hopefully I've answered your question. Let me know if I can be of any additional help. (Courtesy ping Shenme, Victor Schmidt.) Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see, thank you for this detailed response! – Thjarkur (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem! And just for the record – I was wrong about #3. Under the terms of the ArbCom motion, with regard to the 1RR remedy, This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)