EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
Seraphim System (talk | contribs) →Arbitration CA notice: new section |
||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
{{paragraph break}} |
{{paragraph break}} |
||
:<div style="float:left">''{{resize|88%|Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Season's Greetings1}} to send this message}}''</div>{{-}} |
:<div style="float:left">''{{resize|88%|Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Season's Greetings1}} to send this message}}''</div>{{-}} |
||
== Arbitration CA notice == |
|||
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#SECTIONTITLE]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]] may be of use. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> |
Revision as of 20:22, 21 December 2017
Your comment about Akocsg
I noticed your comment on the Edit Warring noticeboard and thought I should bring something to your attention. Wario-Man has had numerous run-ins with Akocsg and posted on AN/I 08:41, 28 October 2017.[1]
- Akocsg (talk · contribs) and block log
- Blocked on German Wikipedia [2] (Ethno-POV-Account on a mission)
This user removes the contents which he does not like and replace them with his own personal opinions. He always uses misleading and false edit summaries.
- I mention some of his edits for the comparison:
- The recent issues:
- Ashina Removed sourced content of article by providing a misleading edit summary,[12] then started edit warring and inserted his personal opinions.[13][14][15]. Then switched to IP-hopping.[16][17] That IP-range is from Germany and since this user was active on German Wikipedia, then I'm sure it's him. IP's edit pattern and edit summaries matches with him too. IP targeted related articles[18][19][20][21][22][23] and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page.[24]
- Baghatur Repeated his old way: Removed the content which he does not like and replaced it with a random non-English citation.[25] Then after 2 month, he repeated it again (non-English sources).[26] And this one.[27]
It's a nationalistic mission/quest by him on English Wikipedia just like German Wiki. Is it necessary to provide more evidences? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I will say from my own experience that Akocsg tried to cherry-pick information from Otto Maenchen-Helfen(ie. using only a few pages from his book) to present a Turkic-POV rendering of the Huns.[28] Richard Keatinge agreed with me that this was cherry-picking information.[29]
I have not checked the information posted by Wario-Man, but he is an editor that is meticulous in their sourcing and editing. I felt, judging from your comment on EW board, that you should be completely informed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- This edit is the most duplicitous edit summary concerning Akocsg.[30] By removing an ethnicity and source which either Akocsg lied about the contents of the journal article or had no access to said journal article, in which case Akocsg's statement,"The source gives no such information" is a lie. I do not believe this editor can edit neutrally.
- Per the source,"As for Taqi-al Din, an Arab astronomer and astrologer from Damascus..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- This edit is the most duplicitous edit summary concerning Akocsg.[30] By removing an ethnicity and source which either Akocsg lied about the contents of the journal article or had no access to said journal article, in which case Akocsg's statement,"The source gives no such information" is a lie. I do not believe this editor can edit neutrally.
- @Kansas Bear: Every edit of that user (in some specific topics) should be checked by other editors. Did you see his recent edit warring on Göktürks? I did not review his edits on there, but it seems he used his favorite methods again: changing the sourced content, writing misleading edit summaries, misrepresentation of sources or cherry-picking them (highly probable). There is a strong reason why German WP blocked him and we should consider it. As I said in my ANI report, I didn't report him for requesting an indef-block. I just wanted a solution by admins. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- In all honesty, its beyond me how no one has put a proper halt to this long-term WP:TENDENTIOUS "editing". I took a proper look, and virtually about every single edit "Akocsg" has made on history / ethnic-related topics, is one that should be reverted per WP:TENDENTIOUS. They're all packed with dishonest edit-summaries and self-formulated unsourced additions.
- I just had to revert him once again. Its a pretty beautiful example as well. Take a look at how he, at the same time, removed mention of the Armenian and Greek Genocides, added more information on violence against Ottoman muslims, and added a bunch of other self-formulated POV twists to already sourced content. All under the label of "improved language, fixed dubious claims and pov, removed unrelated content, fixed statement mentioned twice in the same section".
- The fact "Akocsg" has already been indeffed by our German colleagues in late October, should tell a thing or two. Its really not that hard to see whether an user is WP:HERE or WP:NOTHERE, especially with the experience we all have. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
IP hopper edit-warring to add unsourced gamer trivia to Laureano de Torres y Ayala article
Hi Ed, I'm having a problem with a persistent IP hopper who insists on repeatedly adding unsourced gamer trivia to the Laureano de Torres y Ayala article. This junk tells absolutely nothing about the actual subject of the article, describes an alternative imaginary history of the subject, and is unsourced besides. Carlstak (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've semiprotected the article, but you really need to discuss this on the talk page. Popular culture sections do exist and it is not vandalism to create them. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed. I understand that it's not vandalism, and I don't oppose popular culture sections per se, just those (especially referring to games), that have zero content actually related to the subject of the article, other than a character who has the same name but otherwise no more than the barest connection to the historical figure. In my opinion, if the added content can't meet that criterion, surely it should say something about how the fictitious character relates to the subject's continuing place in culture. If it can't meet that criterion, it should at least be sourced. I wrote the Legend of Billy the Kid article, for example, that consists almost entirely of information about his place in culture, as well as the Youth culture and music section of the James Dean article, so I'm not constitutionally opposed to pop culture sections. I will remove the section and leave a note on the talk page. Carlstak (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Carlstak (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Martin Frobisher
I think that indefinite semi-protection at Martin Frobisher is overkill. The total number of edits on that article is small and of course that makes any vandalism much less. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Reduced the semiprotection to one month. But in defence of the overkill, this is one of the articles where anonymous editing tends not to be beneficial. In 2017, out of 18 IP edits I think two were kept. Undetected vandalism can build up in infrequently edited articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. True enough but I'm usually here every few days and would probably notice it if someone else didn't. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Urgent problems on your blocked Brexit article
Good morning Ed Johnston. At the instigation of the new editor "Volunteer Marek", you had blocked the Brexit article for unregistered editors such as myself. However, if you now look at the Brexit article and its Talk page, you will find that Volunteer Marek is now fighting/threatening/ignoring other registered editors. Meanwhile, the page is not being properly updated. Specifically, there has been a major meeting of the 28 European Union state leaders earlier this month, resulting in the first breakthough agreement on Brexit,[31][32] and none of this has been added to the article.
It is urgent: the Brexit article is read by 5000-6000 readers per day. You are the expert - can you please take action (sock puppet search, lifting the block, mediation, whatever)? 86.170.121.241 (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- The talk page at Talk:Brexit is open to you. Why not make a proposal there of any new text that you want to see added to the article. The article remains semiprotected due to an edit war reported at AN3 in early December. I assume you are the same person as the IP 86.170.121.152 (talk · contribs) who was previously reverting at Brexit. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- To answer your question: No, because proposing new content on the Brexit Talk page has in the past not led to any material being added to or subtracted from the article, and I do not anticipate that passive editing culture to change. I do not know the reason for this editorial inactivity, but it is reminiscent of your attitude of "passing the buck". It appears there are simply too few registered expert Brexit editors to cover such a huge and developing topic. No offence meant, please.
- As concerns your assumption: yes, I and others were involved in removing the new and controversial content. I understand it is Wikipedia policy to postpone controversial new content until consensus has been reached on the Talk page. Also, I did not like Volunteer Marek's threatening language to shut down the Brexit article for editing. That is not how we conduct business in Britain. Or on Wikipedia. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- You are choosing to work on a hotly-contested article. We can't always assume that other editors will behave perfectly. VM is known for his colorful remarks and he has not escaped sanction in the past. Under your previous IP you did participate in the RfC at Talk:Brexit#RfC on the 'Economic effects' section and POV. If you are willing to continue in this way, and if all editors would wait for RfC outcomes then the dispute would solve itself, and there would be no need for any admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds promising, Ed. Brexit was a surprisingly good-natured article most of the time. Yes, the economics discussion was a brick wall (some of my background is in statistics). But I am not sure what you suggest my next steps should be now. Please advise. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- The last RfC was withdrawn by the submitter, User:EddieHugh due to objections to the question. I can't tell if he was intending to submit a new one. Can you think of an improved RfC question that is worded neutrally and might inspire people to comment pro or con? The previous thread was full of people attacking each other rather than content-based reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, I do not think I could improve on Eddie Hugh's RfC approach. I support Eddie on the inadequacy of the economics section. But my priority at the moment is to get the UK-EU Brexit "breakthough" agreement into the article. That should not be controversial with Marek and therefore no RfC needed. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose the solution would be to create an account instead of being an IP-based editor, but I know that some people don't want to do that. I've become reluctant to make any edits to the article recently, as the pattern of interaction with Volunteer Marek is: my edit gets reverted; I start discussion on the talk page; there's some to and fro; VM tells me to justify my edits/position; I justify my edits/position; VM stops discussing; I re-add my edit; my edit gets reverted... This happened in one talk page section; I'm hoping it doesn't happen again in the latest section, but I'm not optimistic. In the words of 86.170.121.241, above: "proposing new content on the Brexit Talk page has in the past not led to any material being added to or subtracted from the article". I don't know how to deal with this approach to editing, when it involves (from my perspective) talk page engagement until the discussion turns against an editor's position, and that editor then stops engaging, only to return when his preferred version of the article is altered or even has legitimate tags added to it. If this has put me off editing the article, I'm sure it (and I have to include the actions of several editors, including me, in 'it') has put others off too, hence the absence of the "breakthrough" agreement in the article. I'm sure that another RfC would be looked at by more editors, who would then join the list of those put off. All suggestions on the impasse are welcome! EddieHugh (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Another way to interpret these results is that you made a proposal but it did not win general support. To someone like myself who was not following closely, the matter was extremely confusing. Starting with an RfC question that is too vague will sometimes not lead anywhere good. If an RfC reaches a definite result it can be enforced by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I do not think EddieHughes' RfC was to blame. Nor do I think there was a question of support/opposition. Eddie and I simply failed to extract basic clarification from VolunteerMarek on his new material. Example. Marek: "Economists predict the UK will be poorer by 1.3% as a result of Brexit". Question: "When will we be poorer by 1.3%? In 2019? For the next 10 years? Forever? And compared to which baseline year? 2000-2017? 2019?)". With Marek sidestepping this basic request for information, we could not begin to discuss Marek's new material. VM continued refusing to provide the information, he then turned to you (EdJ) to save his edit. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Another way to interpret these results is that you made a proposal but it did not win general support. To someone like myself who was not following closely, the matter was extremely confusing. Starting with an RfC question that is too vague will sometimes not lead anywhere good. If an RfC reaches a definite result it can be enforced by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose the solution would be to create an account instead of being an IP-based editor, but I know that some people don't want to do that. I've become reluctant to make any edits to the article recently, as the pattern of interaction with Volunteer Marek is: my edit gets reverted; I start discussion on the talk page; there's some to and fro; VM tells me to justify my edits/position; I justify my edits/position; VM stops discussing; I re-add my edit; my edit gets reverted... This happened in one talk page section; I'm hoping it doesn't happen again in the latest section, but I'm not optimistic. In the words of 86.170.121.241, above: "proposing new content on the Brexit Talk page has in the past not led to any material being added to or subtracted from the article". I don't know how to deal with this approach to editing, when it involves (from my perspective) talk page engagement until the discussion turns against an editor's position, and that editor then stops engaging, only to return when his preferred version of the article is altered or even has legitimate tags added to it. If this has put me off editing the article, I'm sure it (and I have to include the actions of several editors, including me, in 'it') has put others off too, hence the absence of the "breakthrough" agreement in the article. I'm sure that another RfC would be looked at by more editors, who would then join the list of those put off. All suggestions on the impasse are welcome! EddieHugh (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, I do not think I could improve on Eddie Hugh's RfC approach. I support Eddie on the inadequacy of the economics section. But my priority at the moment is to get the UK-EU Brexit "breakthough" agreement into the article. That should not be controversial with Marek and therefore no RfC needed. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- The last RfC was withdrawn by the submitter, User:EddieHugh due to objections to the question. I can't tell if he was intending to submit a new one. Can you think of an improved RfC question that is worded neutrally and might inspire people to comment pro or con? The previous thread was full of people attacking each other rather than content-based reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds promising, Ed. Brexit was a surprisingly good-natured article most of the time. Yes, the economics discussion was a brick wall (some of my background is in statistics). But I am not sure what you suggest my next steps should be now. Please advise. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- You are choosing to work on a hotly-contested article. We can't always assume that other editors will behave perfectly. VM is known for his colorful remarks and he has not escaped sanction in the past. Under your previous IP you did participate in the RfC at Talk:Brexit#RfC on the 'Economic effects' section and POV. If you are willing to continue in this way, and if all editors would wait for RfC outcomes then the dispute would solve itself, and there would be no need for any admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- @86.170.121.241 draft something regarding the developments you refer to, put it on Talk:Brexit, suggest where it should go in the article, and if it seems reasonable to me I’ll put it in the article. Suggest this moves to Talk:Brexit. @EH please don’t despair.
- Gravuritas (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Gravuritas, if you make such a change you are expected to have a realistic belief that the change has consensus. Otherwise it represents a renewal of the previous edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Afaik there have been several edit wars/ near edit wars over parts of the economic stuff in the body and the lede. The change proposed by the IP, if I’ve understood it correctly, would be an update to the progress/ negotiations/ part of the article, so I don’t understand how that is continuing an edit war, unless you’re suggesting my mere involvement will automatically trigger an attack from another editor. Posting the draft on the Talk page will in any case allow comments from other editors before I include it in the article. I am trying to be constructive in a very destructive atmosphere, and. I personally am not worried whether the article is up to the minute with the twists and turns of negotiations and politicians’ stances, so if you oppose this idea I’ll withdraw my offer.
- However, I’m more worried that you seem to be saying that any edit to the section constitutes continuing the edit war if made without consensus. I’ve recently made a few small edits, of some of the more blatant propagandistic stuff: do I really need to ask for consensus before deleting the weasel ‘supposed’ from ‘supposed failures’, or adding the data source of 2010 to a study misleadingly labelled 2017?
- Gravuritas (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- An update on the progress of the negotiations would be new material and would be less of a problem. But anything further about the supposed economic damage done by Brexit (or, criticism of the reliability of academic economists) probably needs good discussion and support on the talk page. My comments here are plain vanilla policy, if I'm not mistaken, so it may not be wise for me to go on too long. If the point hasn't been accepted by now it's not going to be. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Gravuritas, if you make such a change you are expected to have a realistic belief that the change has consensus. Otherwise it represents a renewal of the previous edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer Gravuritas. To update the Brexit article, two insertions are needed, one in the lead and one in the body, as follows.
Please add the following content to the Negotiations section, last paragraph of Brexit#History:
Since the German federal elections in September, a German caretaker government under Angela Merkel had unsuccessfully tried to form a stable coalition with various parties. On 7 Dec 2017 new elections were averted when the German socialist party under Martin Schulz agreed to negotiate a coalition government with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic party, on condition that a "United States of Europe" be created by 2025.[1]
The following day (8 December), the UK and EU negotiators announced a "breakthrough agreement" to begin negotiations immediately on future UK-EU trade relationships and on a 2-year transition period after 2019. The net payment offered by the UK is estimated at 40 billion pounds but is conditional on the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".[2][3][4]
And please add the following sentence to the lead, just after "Negotiations with the EU officially started in June 2017.": In December 2017, all EU leaders agreed to commence negotiations on future UK-EU trade and on a 2-year transition period after 2019.
Thanks. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Oltermann, Philip (7 December 2017). "Martin Schulz wants 'United States of Europe' within eight years". Retrieved 8 December 2017 – via The Guardian.
- ^ "Brexit breakthrough: May pledges 'no hard border' as commission says 'sufficient progress' made". The Irish Times. 8 December 2017. Retrieved 8 December 2017.
- ^ "Brexit: 'Breakthrough' deal paves way for future trade talks". BBC News. 8 December 2017. Retrieved 19 December 2017.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ "Brexit: EU leaders agree to move talks to next stage". BBC News. 15 December 2017. Retrieved 19 December 2017.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help)
This could have been prevented...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartoon_Network_(Canada)&action=history
Also: not actionable by themselves, but...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_Swim_(Canada)&action=history
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teletoon_Retro&action=history
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%A9l%C3%A9toon_R%C3%A9tro&action=history
Presented with minimal commentary, to avoid unnecessary bias. Modernponderer (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Should probably also mention this, regarding your talk page discussion comment: Talk:Cartoon Network (Canada)#Removal of programming list Modernponderer (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
A long-term problem
I have been seeing the similar/repeating issues on multiple pages for a long time and it is getting tedious. Here it goes again[33][34]. I think the anon 94.176* deserved to be blocked longer time for evading their edit warring block and the user deserved to be indeffed due to their persistent nothere behaviour on multiple articles. 185.43.229.0 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- If you think 94.176.89.105 (talk · contribs) was previously blocked for edit warring, can you link to that? Technically, 'Eastern Iranian' and 'Indo-European' could both be true. The book by James A. Millward appears to be a good source, and can be previewed on Google Books. This kind of thing deserves a good talk page discussion at Talk:Xinjiang. You are writing to me from an IP with only three edits. Presumably you are raising this complaint because you have participated in this topic area under another identity (either account or IP). If so please link to it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Here is your block regarding evading previous edit warring block[35]. No, i did not participate in the discussions in this topic area before and my point was not the current discussion on Xinjiang. It is a long-term issue and since their editing topics are within my areas of interest, i am aware of the ongoing issue(s) and i think it needs to be comes to an end. The ip is evading their previous edit warring block and the account is nothere to contribute (if you check his edits thorough). Therefore, i think, both deserved to be blocked as i mentioned above. Since you are also, to some degree, aware of the problem, i wanted to bring it to your attention again. Cheers, 185.43.229.85 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- You are continuing to hop IPs, which is ironic since you are requesting action against a different IP-hopper. Which probably won't do any good without a rangeblock, which is risky and would need good evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- It changes unintentionally and i was not aware of it, sorry. As for evidence, the ip requested unblock was also 94.176* (as can be seen in the link i provided). Actually, i requested action against the nothere user too (i.e. not only against the ip). 185.43.229.85 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- You are continuing to hop IPs, which is ironic since you are requesting action against a different IP-hopper. Which probably won't do any good without a rangeblock, which is risky and would need good evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Here is your block regarding evading previous edit warring block[35]. No, i did not participate in the discussions in this topic area before and my point was not the current discussion on Xinjiang. It is a long-term issue and since their editing topics are within my areas of interest, i am aware of the ongoing issue(s) and i think it needs to be comes to an end. The ip is evading their previous edit warring block and the account is nothere to contribute (if you check his edits thorough). Therefore, i think, both deserved to be blocked as i mentioned above. Since you are also, to some degree, aware of the problem, i wanted to bring it to your attention again. Cheers, 185.43.229.85 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Edit Warring block
You recently blocked me for a 1RR violation in an area where I did not know about the 1RR violation and had not received a discretionary sanctions warning. Can you explain this please? I am asking because I thought formal DS warnings were mandatory for each topic area before DS can be applied under ARBCOM remedies - [36] Seraphim System (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- You don't see a that states:
- "Note!"
- "This page is under a 1 revert rule restriction due to the discretionary sanctions imposed here. Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period or you may be blocked from editing for a short period. Seek consensus for any contentious edits at Talk:Armenian Genocide." ???--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- (Reply to Seraphim System): You are referring to this AN3 complaint about Armenian Genocide. As noted at Talk:Armenian Genocide this article has been under a page-level 1RR restriction since 2008. We don't notify people individually about the 1RRs that are imposed as page-level restrictions. Editors are expected to be aware from the talk page. In the case of Armenian Genocide there is also an edit notice of the 1RR that appears when you hit the edit button to change the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I still think it was a bad block since I didn't know about the restriction and there were no attempts to discuss prior to reporting. I never received any DS notice for WP:ARBAA2, did I? - I don't see why the rule for DS should be different for any discretionary sanctions - the rules are stated clearly "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict." - if what you are saying is true it should be clarified at WP:ARCA. If not, you should be able to admit you made a mistake. Seraphim System (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I believe I have correctly described the current practice regarding 1RR violations. If you want to change the practice, you would need to get consensus somewhere. It's not even required that a person blocked for 3RR should have been made previously aware of 3RR (WP:EW: "A warning is not required"), though admins often try not to block newcomers in cases where they seem unaware of Wikipedia policies. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- 1RR is a discretionary sanction, it is not WP:EW - there does not need to be warning regarding the specific editing restrictions on the articles, but there does need to be proper notice in each topic area. WP:ARCA would be for clarification. The point is we have a notice/awareness requirement because even experienced editors may not be aware that DS are in effect in a particular topic area, which I was not.Seraphim System (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- An administrator may choose to apply a 1RR restriction to a page under WP:AC/DS, but nowhere does it say that blocking for the 1RR depends on prior notice of every editor. See the material at WP:1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- 1RR is a discretionary sanction, it is not WP:EW - there does not need to be warning regarding the specific editing restrictions on the articles, but there does need to be proper notice in each topic area. WP:ARCA would be for clarification. The point is we have a notice/awareness requirement because even experienced editors may not be aware that DS are in effect in a particular topic area, which I was not.Seraphim System (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I believe I have correctly described the current practice regarding 1RR violations. If you want to change the practice, you would need to get consensus somewhere. It's not even required that a person blocked for 3RR should have been made previously aware of 3RR (WP:EW: "A warning is not required"), though admins often try not to block newcomers in cases where they seem unaware of Wikipedia policies. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I still think it was a bad block since I didn't know about the restriction and there were no attempts to discuss prior to reporting. I never received any DS notice for WP:ARBAA2, did I? - I don't see why the rule for DS should be different for any discretionary sanctions - the rules are stated clearly "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict." - if what you are saying is true it should be clarified at WP:ARCA. If not, you should be able to admit you made a mistake. Seraphim System (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- (Reply to Seraphim System): You are referring to this AN3 complaint about Armenian Genocide. As noted at Talk:Armenian Genocide this article has been under a page-level 1RR restriction since 2008. We don't notify people individually about the 1RRs that are imposed as page-level restrictions. Editors are expected to be aware from the talk page. In the case of Armenian Genocide there is also an edit notice of the 1RR that appears when you hit the edit button to change the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Greeting
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Arbitration CA notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#SECTIONTITLE and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks,