Template talk:Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice

1RR made bold

I made 1RR bold. I did not notice it at first. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Related template

There is another template here:

• Template:Editnotice IP 1RR --Timeshifter (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

How to add Editnotice IP 1RR to main pages??

I can't add it. Can only Admins add it or am I do something wrong. In any case, that should be explained on main page of this template. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a year later and still now guidance on this and I screwed it again, having forgot why gave up last time. See this edit on Chuck Hagel. It's stuck on the top of the article now. CarolMooreDC 20:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source just said only admins can do that and I'm adding to this project page. CarolMooreDC 23:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Editnotice IP 1RR. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Confusion

I'm confused. If this is related to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles, why call the template Arab-Israeli and hide the actual arbitration name inside wikilinks? Others might be confused to once they follow the links. I'm not saying title of template has to be changed, just that it has to be made explicit why that title is chose to link to that arbitration. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Template for another topic area under 1RR restriction

For comparison, study, history, etc:

• Template:Troubles restriction. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not clear: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty"

This is not clear:

"Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty"

The use of commas would indicate that vandalism and IP edits are one and the same, but I assume this isn't what it's trying to say (it's incredibly problematic if it is). So, I think it's trying to say that reversion of vandalism and reversion of drive-by IP edits are both acceptable exceptions. I will change it to reflect that, but could somebody confirm this? Thanks, --Quintucket (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "questionable edits by anonymous IP editors" better. CarolMooreDC 00:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that makes sense. I was a bit concerned about violating WP:EQUAL, but on Arab Spring for example, we have serious problems with new drive-by editors repeated inserting the same factually incorrect information. (It's not an Arab-Israeli issue, the ruling is only applied to the article because of two editors who decided to edit-war over the status of the Golan heights some months ago; but even then the rest of us were pretty good about reaching consensus over the heads of the vexatious editors.)

But we do distinguish between anon and autoconfirmed users, and this essentially makes it a lower form of semi-protection, allowing editors to maintain article quality, while forcing a discussion of another editor objects in good faith. I can think of at least four errors new IP editors consistently introduce; which all regular contributors are in complete agreement are just plain wrong, either verifiability or for being unverifiable.

I'm going to change the wording. If someone objects to Carol's interpretation, feel free to revert and discuss. --Quintucket (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted. Firstly, you can't just change a sanction arrived at by consensus as you please. Secondly, adding the word "questionable" just opens the door to more disputation, as admins will then have to decide whether an edit was "questionable" or not and therefore justified the revert. This clause was originally included to discourage ban evasions and I don't think anything should be done to weaken it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! So many things to learn and remember on wikipedia; so little time!!! And this is an issue where anonymous IPs pull all sorts of numbers! CarolMooreDC 03:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change the sanction in any way, I'm trying to understand what it means, and clarify it. Given that I've seen too-many cases of administrators blocking first and asking questions later (and I'm pretty sure nobody likes having their block logs tarnished), I'd like to know exactly what the ruling means. (Like I said, as someone who tries to avoid controversial topics, I'm really not happy with those two users dragged the AI conflict, sanctions and all, into the Arab Spring some months ago; but you can't unburn those bridges, even when someone else has set the fire.)

If you were involved in the discussion that reached these rules, can you explain it to me? As it currently stands it's confusing (or at least it is to me). What, if anything, do the commas indicate? Which, if any, non-vandalism (as going by a restrictive definition of vandalism that assumes good faith where it's even remotely plausible to do so) edits by IP users can be reverted?

Thanks, Quintucket (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know myself; there's probably discussion of this all somewhere. I think it's more permission to remove anything from an Anonymous IP that's at all questionable (and it happens frequently in I-P editing), without having to define that. If it's helpful or innocuous, it probably won't be removed. CarolMooreDC 05:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be my assumption too, however from my readings of WP policy and observations of proceedings at the ANI, assume good faith doesn't apply where bright line rules such as the 3RR or ArbCom rulings are concerned; it's the wikiquivalent of zero tolerance or three strikes. Which is why we have to be very clear about where the line is. --Quintucket (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where the confusion is - it seems pretty clear to me that the current wording allows users to revert any IP edits without penalty. What's confusing about that? Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The commas. If there were no commas, that would be the only and natural interpretation. But maybe I'm only confused because I've taught myself to read and write legalese ... --Quintucket (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not sure exactly what your objection is, but I've now rephrased the clause in such a way as to hopefully clarify its meaning. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, your edit makes it a lot clearer. I won't try to explain why it confused me, because I find myself confused when I try to explain. Either it violates some rule of comma use I vaguely remember from those foggy days of grade school, in which case someone else can explain; or I'm just confused, in which case no one can explain. --Quintucket (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's good. If the Anon IP revert is controversial, it will end up on talk page and others can put it back in if necessary. CarolMooreDC 14:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Good objection. I would suggest removing the word anonymous, because IP addresses are less anonymous then (short term created) accounts with (devised) names. 78.35.225.154 (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Should this be placed on redirects?

Should this be placed on redirects talk pages? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of this template on Category talk pages

Currently this template is used on a small number of pages in the Category talk namespace (e.g. Category talk:Haganah). It causes the page to be incorrectly categorized (e.g. in Category:Haganah). The template should be changed to detect that it's being used on a Category talk page and hence (1) link to the category page correctly (with an extra colon character) and/or (2) display a message saying that it's not for use on category talk pages. DexDor ^(talk) 22:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I added Template:Category handler to try to fix this. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The bit of code you changed wasn't what was causing the problem. I've fixed it now. The use of Template:Category handler can probably now be removed. DexDor ^(talk) 20:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Technical question

Hello,

Does someone know how many articles are concerned by this ArbCom decision ? In other words, on how many articles can the template be found ?

@Oncenawhile: would you know ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pluto2012, according to Category:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles it is 1,148. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: Thank you! Pluto2012 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits made to reflect recent motions

Pursuant to two motions enacted by the Arbitration Committee, I have added additional information to the template. These are not "for the Arbitration Committee", but please let me know before reverting them. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 December 2017

Please fix the Missing end tag lint error by inserting </p> after (see [[WP:ARBPIAINTRO]]). The current restrictions are:
Anomalocaris (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the <p> instead. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

Please add wikilink for edit request to show as [[WP:EDITREQ|edit requests]]. Reason: Editors should be referred to policy as to how they can go about effectively and constructively making an edit request. This will also allow their requests to be attended to faster and reduce the need for another user to add the {{edit semi-protected}} template for them. Best, Waddie96 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done good idea — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 August 2018

Please add to the template, 'Note that a lack of this template is not an indication that the article is not subject to the restriction.' Reasoning: It appears on the template documentation under Usage but not on the template itself. The current template's wording is not as clear, 'All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are subject to discretionary sanctions.' which can be misconstrued to mean that the template, itself appears, on All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages. I myself thought this was the case for many years and have seen other editors who were under the same impression.

The wording used in the template documentation, as suggested above, or something similar would eliminate this ambiguity consequently reducing the number of infractions. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Reasonable suggestion but for any highly sensitive template like this I'd like to see a consensus Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

On what page should this consensus take place? On this page? Thanks. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This page is fine, WT:ARBN may be a reasonable place to notify for participation Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

WT:ARBN has been notified as suggested. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I accept that the proposed wording still does not address situations where the template does not appear. However, when editors do come across it on a page, the new wording will facilitate a clearer understanding of the policy without having to go to the template documentation page itself. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

Syntax error in this line:

Reports of violations any of these restrictions should be made to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Proposed fix:

Reports of violations of any of these restrictions should be made to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Better yet, change from the passive to the imperative mood. That leads to shorter text. Eg:

Use the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard to report restriction violations.

Thank you!
— Black Walnut ^talk 23:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Revised as "Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard." I wanted to avoid starting the sentence with a command, since reporting is not mandatory. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Nicely done!
— Black Walnut ^talk 19:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Done

Template-protected edit request on 12 September 2021

Please change WP:A/I/PIA to WP:PIA, which is much easier to remember. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Onceinawhile (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done firefly ( t · c ) 10:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 August 2022

Could the page break immediately following the categories please be removed? I think it may displaying on some pages. Thanks, Graham (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Examples? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Talk:Arab–Israeli peace projects. Graham (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Good one, and  done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Template is confusingly worded

I think the wording of this template is really confusing. It is put on article talk pages, and it says "Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this page" – what is "this page"? The article or its talk page? It says "the following rules apply when editing this page:" – and since it is on the talk page, it is reasonable to assume "this page" means the Talk page – "You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days" – okay, so even though the talk page is not extended confirmed protected, non-EC editors (such as myself) are not allowed to edit it. That seems like a reasonable interpretation, doesn't it? Then I expand "Further information" and it says "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments..." – does that mean I am allowed to edit the talk page after all? What does "not eligible to be extended-confirmed" mean? I'm not yet extended-confirmed, but surely I'm still eligible to be, since I just need to get my edit count high enough and then I will be. I think, whoever wrote it, is likely an admin who is very knowledgeable of Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and doesn't realise how statements which may have a single obvious meaning to them may be much less clear to readers who lack that knowledge.

Can you change it, on article talk pages, from "this page" to "this article"? I think that would make it much less confusing for people. I realise that would require a modification of the base template Template:Contentious_topics/page_restriction_talk_notice_base – but I think, let's discuss the problem, and then if people agree with me the current wording is confusing, we can talk about the mechanics of solving it. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Dreamy Jazz who did the contentious topic updates - this template used to clearly specify that the remedy was about the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's entirely clear as you say in the old wording. The restriction in that bullet point says prohibited from editing any page which to me implies that it applies to more than just the article (such as the talk page), even though the first paragraph says it applies to the article. The further information box saying it's an exception to the rule also implies this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

However, as this notice has been and continues to be information about the article (and not the talk page) I'll see what I can do to update this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the template. I think the usage of {{main other}} was incorrect as it would only display "article" if it was included in mainspace. As this is a talk page only template, this likely was instead to use the word "article" when the namespace is "Talk:" and page for other non-mainspace talk namespaces. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As part of this update I've also clarified using custom text for this template that the 1RR and extended-confirmed rules apply more broadly than the article (as that is what they actually do). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the updates! Yeah, the old template wasn't that great either, but the word "article" was definitely needed somewhere. The rules are always going to be a little confusing for new users but this helps. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

And with respect to the rule itself, it applies to all pages (including talk pages). This rule has exceptions which allow users who are not extended confirmed to make constructive comments. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 4 February 2025

Edit Template to be More Comprehensible By non-EC Editors

I am an editor with fewer than 500 edits. I was recently blocked for a week as a penalty for my misunderstanding of the rules on the Talk page for Casualties of the Gaza War. I will argue here that language that should have easily made me understand that there is only ONE thing I can do on this page is simply absent in the present template.

First -- it should be self evident that the primary target of the template needs to be non-EC editors, as we can presume they are far less familiar with dispute resolution, penalties, and other administrative considerations at WP.

As it is, when one browses to a Talk page like this, the language is close to incomprehensible. The words "Warning: active arbitration remedies" requires the reader to understand WP arbitration, WP remedies, and then understand that the fact that they are "active" on this page is somehow very pertinent to them.

After failing to decipher these, a good faith editor will then, based on the "warning," seek to understand why there do indeed seem to be some flashing red lights here.

He then reads the paragraph that advises him that this is a "Contentious Topic." But when he then reads that page, he finds most of the information and rules there relate not to editors, but to admins. For editors, the message is only: be extra careful, we really really really watch these pages. But if they intend to only edit the Talk page, they are not very worried, because this warning is explicitly tied to the "article," and by obvious deduction, NOT to the Talk page.

"The contentious topics procedure applies to this article."

The next consecutive sentence then reinforces this view, as it too, references only the "article."

"Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict..."

Yes, the final paragraph, which was probably subject to some ample of amount of editing decades ago, could, potentially include the Talk page:

"If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered."

BUT, given what precedes this, most readers would insist that the "page" is in fact the "article."

I suggest we consider dumbing this down in a big way. The next generation of editors is coming. Why discourage them with ambiguous language?

Diff:

−

Warning: active arbitration remedies

+

STOP: You may not edit this Article, or this Talk page unless you are an [[Extended Confirmed users|Extended Confirmed]] Editor. If you are not EC, the only edits you may make are on the Talk Page using the format prescribed by [[WP:EDITXY]]. This Article, and its Talk page relate to [Topic]. Wikipedia’s Contentious Topic policy has been applied, and edits to these pages have are limited to EC editors. Some pages and talk pages have EC protection systematically enforced, but others rely on manual enforcement. The presence or absence of iconography is not determinative. The basic test is does the page, or section of page relate to the contentious topic, broadly construed.

Last, I think this warning needs to be the very first thing that appears on the Talk page. As it is, the general Talk page advisory is the top level notification. Thanks to anyone who reads this. (Yes, I'm a bit chippy for being of good faith and having been blocked. But rest assured I've now gotten it all out.) Cheers. Johnadams11 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. A fundamental rewrite of this notice would have to be done by a vote of after a consulation with the Arbitration Committee, so this is not suitable for an edit request. Regarding your one-week block in January, you had previously been warned about this restriction in September, and a one-week block is a very limited impediment. You are welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia, you just cannot make edits about the Arab-Israeli conflict on any page (including talk page comments, with the exception of non-controversial edit requests), whether the page has been marked with this notice or not. SilverLocust 💬 04:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply. Given that we each share an interest in improving Wikipedia, perhaps you could comment on the merits of my argument, and perhaps also direct me to resources that would explain how such a discussion would rise to the appropriate jurisdiction. Thanks again. Johnadams11 (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

First, let me correct one thing I said. There wouldn't necessarily need to be a vote, but a significant rewrite would need to be proposed to the Arbitration Committee for discussion. After consulting with the Committee, an arbitrator or arbitration clerk could update the notice, but that would only happen if the consultation leads to a consensus to make the change (or if an absolute majority of the Committee agrees to make the change).

I'll get back to you with some comments on your suggestion, but one point I want to emphasize is that a contentious topic restriction is only to be enforced with a block if the editor has been made aware of the restriction (such as with the comments on your talk page that the restriction "applies to the entire topic anywhere on the English Wikipedia" and that "even discussion on talk pages about the topic is forbidden"). Editors aren't presumed to be aware simply from the presence of a talk notice. SilverLocust 💬 06:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again for the reply, and I look forward to your comments on the merits.

Separately, I would argue that the test of the soundness of these templatized notices should not be whether someone might or might not get blocked for a violation. It should be whether they soundly communicate the intended message, especially on a platform that I assume is aimed at accuracy more generally.

On the block, I really don't wish to litigate it any further, but given it seems you have some interest in legal matters, I would tell you that I have very reasonable defenses to your argument about my warning. (If you were interested in hearing them, we can chat on my Talk page.) Thanks again. I am most interested in your thoughts on the merits. Johnadams11 (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Johnadams11! Another clerk here. My thought process against making your proposed change is that the very first bullet point states, quite clearly (in my opinion), You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive). And the real enemy we are fighting here is banner blindness; you appear to be one of the few people who reads the manual before jumping in to edit. The conventional wisdom on Wikipedia is that nobody reads the directions. Each additional warning we add makes it less and less likely that the thing will be read.

However, I have a counter-proposal, which I think you will find preferable. We have a handy template, {{if extended confirmed}}, which displays something different depending on whether you are extended confirmed. Perhaps we could wrap this entire template in that template an display a more applicable message stating something to the effect of "you may only make edit requests because your account is not extended confirmed"? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster Hello! Thanks so much for engaging on this. Much appreciated. Before getting to your proposal, I would love to find alignment on our respective views of the present language. Yes, the quote you added above is of course there. But it is contained in a bulleted list that follows an entirely distinct lead paragraph and the sentence "Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:" Hence, to me, the deduction that this language refers only to mainspace is very logical -- especially to new users, AND especially when the padlock icon is not present on the talk page they are reading. Also, given our agreement that people don't like to read, can't we also agree that all words become progressively less meaningful the deeper they are into the notice?

On your proposal, I favor almost any systematic solution that doesn't require editor understanding of the rules. So yes, I like your idea. Ideally, non-EC editors would be presented with a series of form fields, each of which contains limits and validations on the inputs. Thanks again. Eager to see progress! Johnadams11 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

My experience (which is not exactly peer-reviewed science!) is that people like bullet point lists and as such tend to read those first. However, I get your point. I should have some time to work on this over the weekend; I have sent a message to the clerks' mailing list to formally consult with ArbCom about using {{if extended confirmed}} per the procedures mentioned by SilverLocust earlier in the conversation. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster Thanks so much for listening. I'm happy to help in any way I can.Johnadams11 (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

There is now an additional message box shown to non-extendedconfirmed editors before the usual one. For reference, since it is not shown to extendedconfirmed users, it looks like this:

Extended content

SilverLocust 💬 01:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@SilverLocust: this is shown to everyone, including extendedconfirmed editors. M.Bitton (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Oops, I removed the classes for that example above and apparently removed it in the live edit too. SilverLocust 💬 01:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)