1) The current WP:ECP process lacks the necessary direction to provide effective and efficient oversight for WP:ARBPIA articles as well as others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Every time we apply ECP, it detracts from our mission, "The Encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and should be reserved for extreme necessity

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Until the 500/30 rule was introduced, sockpuppet editing by banned users caused huge disruption and wasted effort in the ARBPIA area. The introduction of 500/30 meant that editors with little regard for editing within the rules couldn't simply start editing under a new account each time they were banned. The introduction of the new ECP process weakened the protection. I should think that most editors in the area don't care about whether there's an automatic mechanism to prevent editing of articles by non-autoconfirmed users or not. But they would like to continue to be able to carry on deleting contributions by those editors if they consider it to be deleterious.     ←   ZScarpia   09:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3) Applying ECP is an extreme measure and should be treated with seriousness and due diligence to ensure adequate and clear oversight is as manageable as possible. Leaving incomplete/unclear/vague edit summaries or failing to log such actions obfuscates an already difficult process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Struck and replaced by #5

4) Most issues of disruptive editing can be handled by blocks of individual users and/or semi-protection. ECP should be used as a last-resort when these methods fail

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) Applying ECP is an extreme measure and should be treated with seriousness and due diligence to ensure adequate and clear oversight is as manageable as possible. Leaving incomplete/unclear/vague log summaries or failing to log such actions obfuscates an already difficult process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Remedy suggestion: ArbCom directs that when ECP is applied to a page, it must only be done

• After semi-protection has proven ineffective and
• A block of a user would not solve the problem (such as in cases of persistent sockpuppetry)

-OR-

• Discretionary Sanctions or an ArbCom ruling applies.

In order to reduce confusion, the most recent log summary should have a rationale that is analogous to one of these criteria:

• Persistent disruptive editing by multiple parties; Regular semi-protection ineffective
• Arbitration enforcement of <insert name of case here with link>

Admins may add to these two options as they see fit Buffs (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm of a similar opinion to Xaosflux. ECP is now an optional level of protection which has been ratified by the community and is used in multiple areas beyond ARBPIA. I don't believe the committee should be curtailing it's use outside ARBPIA if the community feels it is the right thing to do. Worm^TT(talk) 11:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The arbitration committee should only be "directing" the mechanics of protection actions when applicable to arbitration remedies or enforcement. General mechanics and applications of protection actions fall under community managed policies. Additionally, there seems to be a bit of mismatch between "edit summaries" and what is likely meant to be "log summaries" above. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit" vs "log" fixed (struck #3; replaced w/ #5). Good catch. Thanks!

As for whether ArbCom has jurisdiction, they established the criteria for ECP usage in April 2016:

C1. Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.

As such, IMHO, they have jurisdiction to further clarify the manner in which ECP is applied. Buffs (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted here, I disagree. This is out of scope of ARBPIA EC protection, which is the only thing the Committee ought to look at here. El_C 04:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, ArbCom rulings are inextricably linked to ECP application. I've already spoken with people about this and they've said it's impossible to approve anything on a communal basis with ECP unless ArbCom approves it first as such rulings pre-empt anything the community wants. Now ArbCom members are claiming the opposite is true. This puts us in a Catch-22.

Further example, looking through WP:AN discussions for ECP, the first one involving an ARBPIA article was Semiramis Hotel bombing. ECP was applied in January 2019, but it isn't logged as it should be. The only way to readily determine whether an article has been ECP'd properly (actually deserves such protection and logged as applicable) is to enforce an adequate summary. Right now there are 1900+ pages under ECP. Of those, a solid quarter are ARBPIA-related. Without an adequate summary for those that do and don't fall under ARBPIA, it's nearly impossible to tell. Buffs (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I see no instance here where such use would be "curtailed". I'm only asking for specificity as to the rationale for such usage so we can tell why ECP was applied. I'm sure we all can agree the most recent entry for this page has an inappropriate rationale for ECP. Right now, many rationales are vague and don't let us know why a page is actually protected (see evidence page). Such specificity is needed to understand the protection of ~1900 pages. Buffs (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, I think the workshop dispute here is that you want all uses of ECP to specifically log if they are not for arbitration enforcement so that it is not otherwise assumed that they are for AE correct? As this protection level has matured and become community adopted, I'd think the better use would be to assume it is a community action unless remedy enforcement is otherwise explicitly declared just as we would for all other administrative actions (e.g. full protection vs AE fp; a block vs an AE bock; a talk notification vs an AE talk notification). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you want all uses of ECP to specifically log if they are not for arbitration enforcement so that it is not otherwise assumed that they are for AE correct? no, I want them marked one way or the other so there's no need for an assumption of any kind. "It's blank...so let's just assume it isn't AE" is a terrible assumption. Likewise, "It's blank and from a guy who usually handled AE matters...it's probably AE, so I'm not even going to look into it." is just as terrible. We're completely left guessing as to the reasons why ECP is applied in some cases. Was it for WP:AE? Was it for WP:DE? Was it actually a combination (persistent DE on a page where discretionary sanctions apply)? At last count 57 had no listed rationale whatsoever. Unless we address it, it will only get worse. Buffs (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2) Remedy suggestion (In order to better gauge support/offer alternatives, I'm splitting option 1 into 2 parts. Perhaps one may find more support than the other): ArbCom directs that when ECP is applied to a page, it must only be done

• After semi-protection has proven ineffective and
• A block of a user would not solve the problem (such as in cases of persistent sockpuppetry)

-OR-

• Discretionary Sanctions or an ArbCom ruling applies.

Buffs (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Remedy suggestion: In order to reduce confusion, the most recent log summary for articles under ECP should have a rationale that is analogous to one of these criteria:

• Persistent disruptive editing by multiple parties; Regular semi-protection ineffective
• Arbitration enforcement of <insert name of case here with link>

Admins may add to these two options as they see fit. The intent here is to clearly distinguish between cases that fall under ArbCom rulings and those that do not. Buffs (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Should an admin fail to follow the proscribed manner of documentation and procedure, warnings and subsequent corrections should be made as soon as is practicable. Repeated failures to follow these listed procedures will be treated as disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) As mentioned, here, an edit notice that permits the application of 1RR without EC protection should be made available. (Refactor: some more context). El_C 04:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Am I a party now? Anyway, wow, I forgot how counterintuitive the Arbitration workshop process is. No wonder hardly anyone participates (unless they have to). El_C 04:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I usually disagree with El C...I see no problem with this. Nice add. Buffs (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly need something like this. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. The 1RR and 500/30 rules worked well in the ARBPIA area when they were introduced, the former cutting down edit-warring and the latter chronic abuse using sockpuppet accounts. There obviously was confusion about how the rules applied, principally in how to interpret the terms broadly-construed and reasonably-construed, though that confusion probably increased, rather than decreased, the effectiveness of the rules. Since introduction, the effectiveness of the rules has been hit by the introduction of the unified WP:ECP system. The rules originally automatically applied throughout Wikipedia. Now they only apply on pages where notices are posted by users with special privileges and arguments about whether protection is actually needed occur. Illustrative of the clash is the following text from the section explaining ECP in WP:Protection policy: "Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred." When it was introduced in the ARBPIA area, the intention of the 500/30 rule was exactly to try to forestall future occurences of disruption that was then endemic.

I think that really the way that the WP:ECP system currently works in the ARBPIA area needs to be examined. Just introducing another type of notice would seem to me like applying a tweak that would complicate the system still further. The ECP system is a bit of an unreactive sledgehammer. I would like to see an examination of how the 500/30 rule could be applied in the ARBPIA area outside the ECP system, so that ARBPIA content on pages whose topic extends far beyond the ARBPIA area is protected and so that there isn't a huge notification rigmarole involved.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC) (apologies if I've breached any word count limit rule)[reply]

2. For further evidence of the clash between the new ECP system and the operation of the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 rule, look at the wording of the ARBPIA General Prohibition:

• Under the WP:ECP system, protection does not apply unless a notification template has been added to the page by privileged editors and it is not supposed to be used as a preventitive measure ("Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred.").
• The ARBPIA General Prohibition says: "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters." Under the General Prohibition therefore, all editors with less than the requisite experience are prohibited from editing covered articles, no matter whether disruption has occurred. Note that it says that the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} may be used, but it doesn't say that their use is a necessity. That is curious, as the instructions which go along with the editnotice say that editors cannot be penalised for breaching 1RR unless the notice has been added.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3. Up until this point, I had the impression that the new ECP system had removed the 500/30 and 1RR protection which automatically operated in the ARBPIA area. While writing my second comment, it began to look to me as though, in actual fact, the ARBPIA General Prohibition and 1RR rules are still in place, meaning that the automatic protection exists, even if no editnotice template has been added to pages. What appears to have changed is that it is now possible, by adding an editnotice, to make it impossible for non-confirmed editors to make changes to articles. Perhaps somebody could confirm whether that is correct or not?     ←   ZScarpia   01:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Measures which prevent editors from editing according to an automatic rule (rather than a ruling on that editor specifically) should be designed to (1) apply to text related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and not to text unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict; (2) not unnecessarily hamper the work of good-faith editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) There are extremely many articles which have a section, or even just a sentence or two, dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Under present arrangements, it isn't possible to put that section under ARBPIA without putting the whole article under ARBPIA. A recent example was the Airbnb war, where an article section dealing with properties in the Israeli-occupied West Bank was fought over by editors whose interest is A-I conflict related. Most articles on localities in Israel/Palestine have this nature in fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree, and I've seen numerous problems in such sections. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded.     ←   ZScarpia   16:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Thirded. Buffs (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Apply ARBPIA to any text whose subject is reasonably related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (I'm not sure of the best wording here), not only to whole pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) See the currently open PI amendment request concerning the removal of an ambiguity in the wording of the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 rule. The request was made by Zero0000. A small change in the wording was agreed upon, but deferred due to the proximity of the start of the ARBPIA 4 case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) In the currently open ARBPIA3 amendment request, it was pointed out that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 says, "Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required," which is a bit ambiguous.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) A small change should be made to the wording of the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 rule: "Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) For the sake of easy referencing, the following existing remedies are vacated (with the intention of replacing them elsewhere in this decision):

ARBPIA:

• Editors reminded
• Editors counseled
• Standard discretionary sanctions (for "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages")

ARBPIA2:

• Area of conflict
• Lifting of restrictions
• Suspension of restrictions

ARBPIA3:

• General Prohibition (of users not "extended confirmed")
• Sanctions available

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Administrative comment: I wholeheartedly support the replacement of the past 3 cases with updated wording. The fact that we have to have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles to figure out what is active is a travesty. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This remedy and remedy 3 are restatements of the two from ARBPIA1 vacated in the clean slate of remedy 1, simply to have everything in one place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, I think Zero0000 has a good point. In any case this isn't intended to be an enforceable remedy, simply a reminder to everyone about the difficulties involved in editing in such a contentious area. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZScarpia, I don't disagree, but I also don't think this remedy is in conflict with what you're saying. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Should it be "universally accepted reliable sources" of an alternative formulation? Currently, every side is using sources they think are reliable, but sometimes the other side does not.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the symptom, I don't agree with the cure. Each side could block a source just by claiming that it is not "universally accepted" as reliable because they don't accept it. To put it another way, it would turn "I don't like it" into a valid argument. Zero^talk 13:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In many ARBPIA topics, there are conflicting narratives, often more than one per 'side'. In Wikipedia terms, you're often dealing with points-of-view rather than 'facts'. The problem then becomes allowing the fair representation of different versions.     ←   ZScarpia   16:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC) [@PMC: The proposed remedy isn't in conflict with what I was saying, which was a response to Ymblanter's suggestion about using "universally accepted reliable sources."][reply]

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 counseled 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

... may wish to devote... Guy (help!) 10:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. AGK ■ 19:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

maybe use gender-neutral language? Zero^talk 05:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, good catch. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objections to the wording as such, but I'll make a couple of comments on editing in the ARBPIA area for others to chew over if they want. As far as editing from a neutral point of view goes, if multiple people are working on an article and you find that you have more sympathy with a particular point-of-view, I think that it frequently then becomes a case of granting broad latitude and permitting editors with opposing views to get on with the job of preseting their 'side'. Problems come when editors interfere excessively with the expression of viewpoints they don't like. I'd say that the worst problems don't occur in articles about events such as wars, as in the example, but in biographies or those about books. There, some editors have a tendency to throw as much ordure as they can find over the subject matter. If you really strongly hate the subject of an article, I think it's better to stay away or only contribute on the talkpage.     ←   ZScarpia   16:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

a) the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and

b) edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Comment by Arbitrators:

The purpose of this wording is to abate the confusion that has arisen from the distinction between "broadly" vs "reasonably" construed. Now you either have pages that are related, or content that is related. This allows administrators to issue sanctions based on disruptive edits made to ARBPIA-related content on any page, rather than having to determine whether or not a page is "reasonably" related to ARBPIA before they can use the ARBPIA tools. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, the intent was to cover the possibility of disruption in other spaces, not just on articles. I'm not sure how often it occurs, but I was thinking of disruptive edits occurring at XFDs, content review (DYK/GA/FA), and similar backstage process areas. But I'm open to rewriting if people agree that's not the best wording. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should simplify b), which removes the loophole ST47 is pointing out. Suggest b) edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces ("related content"). AGK ■ 19:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I've changed b) over to AGK's wording. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, remedy 7 (for related content) as written is intended to be applied to disruptive edits within the conflict area. If someone is busily drafting good ARBPIA-related content in their userspace, discussing the area on their talk page, or making constructive comments at AE, then great. But if they're causing a problem with these edits, then sanctions are available to handle the disruption. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra and Zero0000, I've added an exception for userspace. I still don't think it's necessary, but I defer to your experience in the area. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Point b might be better rewritten without using the word "content". (Are talk page discussions "content"?) ST47 (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: well, exactly. any edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict... would cover those kinds of things, but commenting at an AfD is arguably not an "edit to content". ST47 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, but I'm a bit concerned that someone disagrees. In any case, this is the sort of thing I've been hoping for. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller, AGK, and Premeditated Chaos: I think that AGK's edit has simpler wording and a better scope. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"all namespaces" includes user pages, no? I don't think that someone's edits on their own user page or user talk page should have the same restrictions, and I'm not sure about other users' talk pages either. Also consider noticeboards like WP:AE. Zero^talk 20:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Zero0000; the place "to vent" is your own user-page, or the user-page of another editor (who haven't told you to stay of their user-page). Also, I have frank and open discussions with editors I disagree strongly with, say Davidbena.... and I think that is a healthy sign (it is those I wouldn't bother discussing with (read:socks) who are the real problem :/) I certainly wouldn't want an admin to sweep down and sanction us over an open, frank, even heated discussion on a user-page with someone I disagree with.

Article -pages (including talk), and of course all WP:AE, WP:ARCA etc, etc is a totally different issue: there editors should be made to act with a certain amount of "decorum", IMO.

On your user-page: you can just ask editors to stay off, if you have had enough of them. Obviously, you cannot do that on article -pages, etc., and that difference merits different rules, IMO. Huldra (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Please explain if I'm misreading, but it seems to me that the proposals as of this moment apply the ARBPIA General Sanctions to edits on one's own talk page. We will be able to take editors to AE for breaking 1RR on their own talk page, which is an absurdity. Nor should non-EC editors have more restrictions on their own talk page than EC editors have. I urge you again to exclude user talk pages from the General Sanctions. Zero^talk 01:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5) The following set of sanctions will be considered the "ARBPIA General Sanctions".

a) Discretionary sanctions: Standard discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. Any uninvolved administrator may apply restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing the area of conflict, after an initial alert.

b) 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:

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, noticeboard discussions, etc.
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.

c) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The wording of the 500/30 exception has been updated per the request recently archived at WP:ARCA. It's also important to note that application of ECP is not mandatory for enforcement of the 500/30 Rule, even on primary articles. If ECP is not necessary or not feasible for some reason, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other means. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my delay in replying here. I appreciate the comments - I really wanted this to be scrutinized and checked over so I'm glad people are doing that. In order:

ST47, you're right, the wording should be consistent between the bullet points. I've rewritten b) per your suggestion.

Seraphimblade, the "first offence" wording is taken wholesale from the remedy as it currently exists (see WP:ARB/I/PIA). Initially the remedy didn't require any awareness or warnings. In March we amended it by motion so that it does require awareness, but we left the "first offence" warning in there. IIRC there wasn't any discussion about removing it, and I copied it over when I copied this over, but you're right that it does feel a bit redundant now. ST47, as to your comments here, I didn't want the clutter up the actual rules of the sanctions package with details about templates etc; that stuff has been moved to remedies 6 and 7 (which also require some tweaking, which I will do).

isaacl, I've changed it to state "any of the methods listed in paragraph b)".

Zero0000, RfCs are now listed explicitly.

PS Guerillero apology accepted, I actually kind of love that little piece of wiki-history :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter and Zero0000, I've added Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, I'm not sure that's needed. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed states the request for the right will likely be denied if it is not a known alt. The archives at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Approved bear that out - over 2019, a total of 13 requests for EC were approved. 10 were for alt or bot accounts for people who already had the right. In one case, the person had already obtained it naturally. Another was a restoration of rights after an unblock ([1]). The last was for a hu.wiki sysop so they could edit an en.wiki SPI that was under ECP ([2]). The hu.wiki sysop was specifically told not to edit ARBPIA articles despite their new technical ability to do so. So a) it's not occurring enough to necessitate a rewrite and b) precedent seems to be that being given ECP prematurely shouldn't let one bypass the 500/30 restriction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It would be helpful if parts b and c had the same wording, instead of any content that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict vs content within the area of conflict. Point b could be rewritten as All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any content within the area of conflict. Unless the two points are intended to have some semantic difference. ST47 (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "even on the first offense" included here? Does that mean the usual rules of awareness don't apply? Generally, under discretionary sanctions, a sanction can be applied even on a first violation, provided the editor has been made aware of DS prior to their violation, so otherwise that would seem redundant. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade:, the 1RR restriction under PIA currently does not require the recipient to be "aware" via {{ds/alert}}, but it does require the page to have the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} as an editnotice. It looks like they intend to remove even that requirement. (FWIW, the SCW/ISIL 1RR is the same way, it does not require any notification or editnotice.) ST47 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods, I think this will generate discussion on what the "above methods" are. Can it be reworded to be more precise, even if that just means "by standard administrative actions and actions authorized under ARBPIA General Sanctions"? isaacl (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Administrative comment: I never thought my weird proposal to break the back of this conflict in 2015 would be on its fourth version by now. I apologize to all of the arbs who have had to sort out what a few arbs and myself came up with late one night on IRC over the past four years. I never thought it was going to pass --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One place where non-EC socks can be disruptive is RfCs. Please consider mentioning RfCs explicitly in the list "AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions". Zero^talk 05:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Zero0000: That seems non-controversial to me. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In (b), if the restrictions can be imposed by, in particular, reverts, it might be reasonable to indicate that reverting non-ec confirmed users editing this content is not edit-warring, and 3RR rule does not apply.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Zero^talk 13:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Administrators have the power to add or remove the extended-confirmed right to users, and there are several good reasons. This means that the set of editors with EC rights is not exactly the same as the set of editors satisfying the 500/30 rule. However this text, and also below, is written as if they are the same. I propose that the 500/30 condition be moved to an explanatory note and that the remedies be written in terms of EC rights only. Zero^talk 02:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Zero0000, I've made the clarification. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

xaosflux, good catch, and your concern will apply to remedy 7 as well. Hm. I can see a couple solutions, although I'm not sure which is best. Option one is adding something like "if the user lacks the permissions to place the editnotice, they should ask an uninvolved administrator to place it as soon as possible" (possibly at RFPP? not sure). Option two is for a bot to maybe post at AN anytime it notices a templated page lacking a corresponding editnotice, which editors with permissions could then take care of manually. Option two is for a bot to automatically create the editnotice on any page that's hit with the enforcement template but lacks an edit notice. Of course, in either two or three someone would have to script the thing and run it, and I'm not capable of that, so it would be dependent on someone being willing to write that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, I didn't even think of an edit request, that's probably the most sensible way to do it, and it doesn't require a bot.

I think as long as we're mandating awareness prior to the enforcement of DS-style sanctions, the talk page notice and the editnotice are useful in that they show we're at least making an effort to warn people they're editing in a topic area with more restrictions. I'm not sure how else to fairly attempt to warn people to behave, unless we abandon the idea of mandating awareness before sanctions (which I'm not entirely against, given how bureaucratic the DS structure has become, but that would probably require a whole different case). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we being overly prescriptive about "awareness" in this remedy? It gets very messy when we go on like this: "pages in set A must get template X and pages in set B must get template Y". I think we should authorise standing sanctions and leave administrators to determine whether enforcing in any given case is appropriate. AGK ■ 18:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm all for tearing down bureaucratic "awareness" requirements, but I didn't think that was a reasonable change to make solely in this area, given the requirements for awareness of DS that exist across other areas. It would make ARBPIA simultaneously the most restricted (300/50, 1RR, and DS) and the least signposted DS topic area, which I'm not sure is reasonable in comparison to other topic areas. Like I said in my reply to Xaos, I think DS awareness reform might be best handled in its own case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Please clarify whether presence of these notices is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced. Zero^talk 05:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note regarding the "may be added by any user" part - not "any user" can create an editnotice due to project restrictions, so if you are going to require both of such notices to be placed it requires privileged users to accomplish the notification. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: if someone else needs an edit notice created the best venue would be with an edit request on a talk page, those get worked pretty quickly. As far as bots go, some potential issues: (a) the owner of a bot is responsible for all of its edits - and such an owner might not want to take this responsibility (b) no bot should ever be expected to make another edit, that is any bot could stop for any reason at any time and there is no resource if it never edits again. I'm not trying to design the best way to deal with this issue, just pointing out some tech issues. Unfortunately there are more, and you may want to reconsider when an edit notice (while it can be very useful) should be mandatory: as more and more editors move to mobile editing (include via the WMF application) it should be noted that these notices may not be presented to them at all. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that bot-created edit notices are not a good idea, for a variety of reasons.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7) All edits made to related content (ie 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-related}} on the talk page and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice-related}} 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

ST47, the idea here was to avoid forcing the preemptive application of Arbcom templates on thousands of unrelated articles that may have some related content but don't have a history of ARBPIA-related disruption. Think something like...a biography that has a paragraph describing a trip some person took to Israel and the West Bank in 1996. If nobody has caused problems about it, there's no need to preemptively invoke the DS package. But if someone decides to start an edit war about it, then it should be templated as ARBPIA. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, you want to discourage people unnecessarily putting an editnotice on any article that happens to mention Israel - exactly. I want to give people the ability to make use of the sanctions if issues arise without having to fight about to what degree exactly a page is related, but I also don't want to suddenly upgrade ARBPIA to cover millions of pages preemptively which are not suffering disruption.

I've made your suggested change to the first sentence; I think it gets closer to what I'm trying to do. The second sentence was meant to apply to admins using the sanctions package; I've reworded it to be more clear on that (to use my biography example again, if someone edit-wars about the Israel trip, an admin can use the sanctions, if someone later edit wars about the person's pet rabbit, they can't use the sanctions).

I also made some other wording tweaks, particularly about the need for an in-markup comment. Having thought about it some more, I'm not sure it will always be necessary, so I removed the provision that it "should" be done, and instead made note that it "may" be done if necessary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47,   Done re: the template requirement. As for the editnotice permissions thing, I responded to Xaosflux above - not sure exactly how best to resolve that, but I laid out some ideas. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There's a contradiction between this and remedy 5. In remedy 5, the 50/300 rule and 1RR apply to all "related content" (any content that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and any edits made to content within the area of conflict). In this remedy, the general sanctions may be applied only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools. Perhaps this remedy should state that ARBPIA Discretionary Sanctions may only be applied when disruption creates the need? ST47 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: so, would it be correct to reword the last paragraph like: Editors should apply the ARBPIA General Sanction templates to related content only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools. The ARBPIA General Sanction templates should only be applied to reduce disruption caused by edits within the conflict area. Problematic edits made to unrelated content on the same page should be handled by normal administrative means. Because my reading of remedy 5 is that all the related content is under 1RR, but you want to discourage people unnecessarily putting an editnotice on any article that happens to mention Israel? ST47 (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Okay, that answers most of my questions. I'd add in an explicit statement that the editnotice and talk page template are required in order to enforce 1RR, like in remedy 6. Maybe it would be best to state that in remedy 5 to avoid repeating yourself. And as Xaosflux noted above, only a handful of user groups can create editnotices for arbitrary pages, so "any editor" is probably incorrect. WP:EDN says it's admins, page movers, and template editors. ST47 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Zero0000, I didn't want to start spelling out possible steps of what editors could do, or else it gets taken as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Asking an uninvolved admin is part of normal dispute resolution and is certainly one of the numerous options available for settling this kind of thing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Or allow an uninvolved administrator to decide? Zero^talk 06:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) 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;

(v) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is an unaltered restatement of a remedy from ARBPIA3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

isaacl, done. Guerillero, yup, in the grand tradition of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

On a minor copyediting note: can other applicable policy in (i) be changed to "any other applicable policy"? isaacl (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Administrative comment: As the original drafter of this, I would like to point out that this is all pro forma and just restates what is available. I shameless stole this from Gamergate   --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning." is so non-specific as to be subject to gaming--in both directions. any admin could decide on their owwn that some unusual restriction is appropriate, and getting this replaced by a more normal sanction can become very difficult. It amounts to IAR, that no other admin can revert, no matter how peculiar. There are places for IAR, and they do not include individual decisions on sanctions. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions have been in use for a significant period of time (around 12 years) and been the basis for issuing thousands of sanctions. The issue you raise is an important one: how best to balance user fairness with effectively regulating edits to the encyclopedia? But we accepted the principle long ago that this system does not work until administrators can apply broad discretion when solving article problems. Any sanction that is not in Wikipedia's best interests may be appealed. I would oppose any change to the language, which per Guerillero only restates an existing procedure. AGK ■ 10:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were necessary 12 years ago, when some admins were quite willing to revert one another without good reason. The problem now is different--admins who are willing to use the coverage provided for them by an arb case to act in idiosyncratic ways, knowing how difficult it is to revert them. The way people interact in WP has changed, as is evidenced by the much smaller number of relatively straightforward problems that need to go to arbitration. That we adopted a rule 12 years ago is a very weak arguement for our needing the rule today. I expect discussions of this to continue. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It seems that in recent times, the most controversial articles related to ARBPIA have not been articles directly about the area, but proxy disputes related to Western politics. We've had several controversial articles and RfCs:

• Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party: RfC 1, RfC 2, RfC 3, RfC 4, discussion whether the topic is under ARBPIA, RfC 5, RfC 6
• Ilhan Omar: RfC 1, RfC 2
• Corbyn wreath-laying controversy

etc. The scope of these articles fall on double or triple discretionary sanctions. Something to consider. --Pudeo (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo, I haven't had any luck discovering what double or triple discretionary sanctions are. Could you explain?     ←   ZScarpia   12:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I think he means instances where WP:DS could apply for multiple reasons, such as a Prime Minister of Israel could be for BLP and PIA. Buffs (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. Re-reading the statement in the light of your comment, I'm surprised that I was struggling with its meaning so much.     ←   ZScarpia   00:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]