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

WP:ARBPIA4

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)

Proposal/issue

I proposed an option/issue. Please let me know if I've done this incorrectly Buffs (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: Proposed remedies go on the workshop, not here. I would recommend moving your remedies there instead. SkyWarrior 19:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Buffs (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extension

Zero0000, you've asked for a time extension, and while I'm amenable to the idea, there's still 3 days for the evidence phase and 10 days for the workshop (which is the more important part of the two for this case). How much of an extension are you hoping for? My recommendation is that you see what you can get done in the time allotted and then give us an idea of how much more time you'd need. I really don't want this case to drag on forever! Worm^TT(talk) 11:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned What I plan is to comment on each aspect of the current rules and propose limited changes. If that is fine in the Workshop page, I can do it by that deadline. My suggestions will mosly come from my experience of editing in the area for a long time rather than from specific incidents. Zero^talk 11:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, That sounds very much like something that fits in the workshop. Participation is important bin a case like, especially from those who are doing the work, so if there's anyone you are surprised isn't here, feel free to give them a nudge. Worm^TT(talk) 11:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully propose that 2 months is more than ample time. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence phase closing

The evidence phase will be closing within the next few hours. The workshop will remain open for another week. – bradv🍁 18:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK: when the arbiters passed the March 2019 amendments, I don't think they had any idea as to what was the consequences (namely that no-one could get sanctioned without an editnotice being in place on the article in question.) (Please correct me if I'm wrong, and that you actually knew the consequences.)

Now, when the rules have become too complicated even for the rule-makers: something needs to be done. Namely to simplify the rules. I think we should start with what we need, and what work well. I think most of us "regulars" in the area thinks that the 30/500 rules has merit, and should stay. But I, for one, am at a loss to see why we need two set of rules (for articles 'reasonably construed' vs 'broadly construed' being under ARBPIA): I would put all under 'broadly construed'. (If there is something my years editing here has taught me, it is that one should never, ever underestimate what can be quarrelled about. I'm surprised not more ARBPIA quarrels have made it to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars...(but at least Hummus and Falafel gets (dis-)honourable mention), Huldra (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions affect pages as a whole. We have pages whose topic is ARBPIA related; they count as ones which are reasonably construed as relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict. And we have pages whose topic isn't ARBIA related, but which contain ARBPIA-related material; those are ones, such as the AirBnB article, which can be broadly, but not reasonably, construed as being related to the conflict. The problem with just changing the wording so that the editing restrictions (1RR and 500/30) are applied to pages of the latter, generally-but-not-reasonably-construed kind, is that the restrictions would apply to the whole content, not just that related to the PI conflict. You can imagine that wouldn't be popular with editors on otherwise contention-free pages. Also there would be the possibility, where pages contain content relating to multiple arbitration cases, of those pages being subject to conflicting sanctions. What would be good is if, somehow, the editing restrictions could be applied at sub-page level to only the ARBPIA-related material on pages of the broadly-but-not-reasonably-construed kind. At the moment, of course, discretionary sanctions do apply to that material. A question worth asking is whether discretionary sanctions could be applied in such a way that, effectively, the editing restrictions do apply all over Wikipedia.

I'm hoping that I have actually reached the point of understanding the rules. If that's true, they aren't actually that complicated (though perhaps sub-optimal and not as traditionally interpreted by most editors). Could be that my hopes will be dashed when the discussion begins though.

← ZScarpia 11:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you are not sure if you understand the rules or not.....does not increase my faith in that these rules are easily understandable... ;)

One solution could be that only a paragraph should be under ARBPIA...this should go along with the possibility to be able to "watch" only a paragraph (or two) in an article. EG, I "watch" Heredia, Costa Rica, only to undo jokers like this (Ariel is an Israeli settlement on the West Bank): It would be great to have "only" the "Sister cities" under ARBPIA, and that you could "watch" only that paragraph, too, Huldra (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that people understood what I meant in the latter part of my comment, though I didn't express myself very well. In my interpretation of the rules, they are not that complicated, though I'm not confident that my interpretation is correct and I'm pretty sure that others interpret them differently. ← ZScarpia 13:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this was quick! El_C 04:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence by El_C

Up protection

Vague "Up Protection" — since the criticism is of your truly, I will answer: it is not vague, it implies that protection is being heightened from a lower level of protection, which was proven to be ineffective. But those examples are outside the scope of these proceedings, anyway. El_C 23:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case of Jewish Israeli stone-throwing

I wanted to just apply 1RR, without EC. But the required editnotice includes EC by default. So I had to apply EC protection, even though it was not actually needed (dispute involving established users only). Perhaps we need more than one editnotice for ARBPIA articles. El_C 23:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nishidani

I don't even know if I have the right page, and what follows relates to El_C's remark.:I don't follow these pages. I don't know what EC means, for example. All I know is that rules anyone could understand at a glance were made, one stuck to them tenaciously, and for some time, when one observes a violation of them,(it's very simple: don't revert twice in 24 hours) protests about the disruption or abuse are going unheard because I, for one, apparently don't understand something about notification templates on the page, though the page, above, has notified all editors for 4 years they may not revert twice in 24 hours. Rule-complexity leads to gaming. So for YHWH or his putative son's effing sake, give us a simple set of rules even a dumb dickhead like myself can understand, and disallow pettifogging. Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]