Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles: Difference between revisions
→ARBPIA General Sanctions: to avoid the WP:CREEP in footnotes, and to make this clearer for the users affected by this (who are, by definition, not Wikipedia regulars), move the amendment right into the text Tag: Reverted |
Undid revision 1036618359 by RandomCanadian (talk) not in the text as enacted; suggest a change on the talk page if you think this page can be better formatted; this page should not be edited by those other than clerks and arbitrators |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
'''500/30 Rule''': All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.{{pb}}The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:{{ordered list |
'''500/30 Rule''': All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.{{pb}}The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:{{ordered list |
||
|1= |
|1= |
||
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, |
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.{{refn|group=note|name=RM|In a [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_(July_2020)|July 2020 ARCA]] and in a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Clarification_(July_2021)|July 2021 motion]], the Arbitration Committee clarified that [[WP:RM|requested moves]] are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy.}} |
||
|2= |
|2= |
||
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. |
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. |
Revision as of 18:30, 1 August 2021
This page contains an authoritative compilation of certain rulings of the Arbitration Committee. It should not be modified without the Committee's authorization. |
These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (pages in the "conflict area"):
- 500/30 protection – editors to pages in the conflict area must be logged-in users with at least 500 edits and 30 days tenure, with certain exceptions as provided below.
- 1RR – subject to the normal exceptions, editors may not make more than one revert (as defined in WP:3RR) per page in the conflict area per 24 hours.
- Discretionary sanctions – administrators may impose sanctions on disruptive editors and apply general restrictions on specific pages in the conflict area in accordance with the discretionary sanctions procedure. Page restrictions imposed under discretionary sanctions are explained in edit notices for the affected pages.
ArbCom remedies
This page documents the topic-wide remedies adopted by the Arbitration Committee in the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) case. These remedies superseded remedies adopted in Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t), West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t), and Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). Enforcement actions relying on previous remedies are not vacated and remain in force.
Editors reminded
2) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and making use of dispute resolution where necessary.
Wikipedia cannot resolve the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian people or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all real-life conflict parties. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.
- Passed 5 to 1 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Editors counselled
3) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may wish to devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Side X and who finds that they become caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Side X and Side Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Side X.
- Passed 5 to 1 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Definition of the "area of conflict"
4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing
- the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
- edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")
- Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
ARBPIA General Sanctions
5) The following set of sanctions will be considered the "ARBPIA General Sanctions".
- Discretionary sanctions: Standard discretionary sanctions are activated for the area of conflict. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing the area of conflict whilst aware.
-
500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
- Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.[note 1]
- Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.
- One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Standing sanctions upon primary articles
6) All primary articles will be subject to the ARBPIA General Sanctions. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} should be added to the talk page of affected pages, and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} should be added as an editnotice to affected pages. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles. The templates may be added to primary articles by any user, but may only be removed by an uninvolved administrator. Users who lack the appropriate permissions to create an editnotice should place the talk page template as normal, then make an edit request for someone with permissions to create the edit notice.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
General sanctions upon related content
7) All edits made to related content (i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict) will be subject to ARBPIA General Sanctions.
When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} on the talk page and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} in the editnotice to do so. If there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on related content. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator. Users who lack the appropriate permissions to create an editnotice should place the talk page template as normal, then make an edit request for someone with permissions to create the edit notice.
Editors should apply the ARBPIA General Sanctions templates to related content only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools. Administrators should only utilize the ARBPIA General Sanctions to reduce disruption caused by edits related to the conflict area. Problematic edits made to unrelated content on the same page should be handled by normal administrative means.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Disputes about scope of conflict area
8) In the case of disputes regarding whether or not an article is a primary article, or whether a portion of content is related to ARBPIA, editors should use normal dispute resolution methods to come to a consensus.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Available sanctions
9) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
- Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
- Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
- There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
- Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
- Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Condensing of remedies
1) For the sake of easy referencing, the following existing remedies are vacated (with the intention of replacing them elsewhere in this decision):
Extended content
|
---|
|
Existing enforcement decisions relying upon these remedies are not vacated and will be appealable as if this remedy had not carried.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ In a July 2020 ARCA and in a July 2021 motion, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy.