 | This page documents and supplementsdecisions of the Arbitration Committee concerning acontentious topic. |
The Arbitration Committee hasenacted remedies that apply to all editors who make edits related totheArab–Israeli conflict (the "contentious topic"). Thecontentious topics procedure applies to all pages and edits related to this contentious topic.Additionally, the following arbitration remedies apply:
This page documents the topic-wide remedies adopted by the Arbitration Committee. Remedies in the first three cases –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(ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t), andPalestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) – have been superseded by remedies in thePalestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). These remedies have been augmented by motions and thePalestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t).
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.
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.
4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is theArab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.
5) The following set of sanctions will be considered the "ARBPIA General Sanctions".
The{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} editnotice and the{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} talk page notice should be used on pages within the area of conflict. When only parts of a page fall within the area of conflict, if there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisiblecomment. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator.
9) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in theoriginal Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
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.
When imposing acontentious topic restriction under theArab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to thecommunity review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.
Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These word limits are designated as part of thestandard set of restrictions within theArab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. This motion willsunset two years from the date of its passage.
All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
16) Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. Thedigital security resources page contains information that may help.
Within this topic area, thebalanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
Any uninvolved administrator may impose the standard set of restrictions in this topic area for up to one year. Additionally, they may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals atARCA according to thecommunity review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.
{{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice}} can be used as a standard article talk page notice. It includes topic-wide restrictions and an information box for editors who are not extended confirmed about the rules for participating on the talk page.{{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice}} can be used as a standard editnotice for this topic area. It includes topic-wide restrictions and an information box for editors who are not extended confirmed about the rules for participating on the talk page.When alerting an editor who has never received an alert for any contentious topic, the following templatemust be used to alert them:
When a page has active page restrictions (other than page protection), the following templatemust be used as an editnotice:
The following templates may be used in this contentious topic:
Alerting editors after their first alert
{{subst:Contentious topics/alert|a-i}}{{subst:Contentious topics/alert/DS|a-i}}No page restrictions editnotice
{{Contentious topics/editnotice|a-i}}Talk page notice
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}}