Wikipedia talk:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict

Old Artifact?
- figured I'd start with just a QUICK question before starting the onerous Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment process. Any chance there is just a summarization issue with this page that can be adjusted? Specifically there is still a call out to explicitly requiring logged-in users with at least 500 edits and 30 days tenure in the lead section, vs the general requirement to be a member of the extended confirmed group later on. — xaosflux  Talk 16:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Xaosflux, did my latest changes fix this? Thanks Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dreamy Jazz yes, thank you! — xaosflux  Talk 17:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dreamy Jazz What's the difference between this page and Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles? They seem to serve the same purpose? Also that page also needs to be updated since the actual WP:ARBECR restriction doesn't mention 500 edits/30 days anymore. Galobtter (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is a subpage of the contentious topics procedure, and is aimed at providing information about this contentious topic.
 * For that other page it existed before the WP:DS2022 process and is aimed at providing information about all the decisions related to this area which include contentious topics. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Lack of oversight/moderation
There seems to be a significant lack of administrative oversight in this topic area.

For example at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard recently there has been a lot of WP:Battleground behaviour, WP:Tendentious editing, and WP:Bludgeoning, revolving around these discussions specifically: Finkelstein, Middle East Monitor, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_it_time_to_re-evaluate_the_ADL? ADL], Al Jazeera

I brought this up on the talk page of one of the few (the only?) administrators who tries to moderate this topic area here and was only told to go to AE. (Someone else brought the same issue up there as well here) Also note that this admin appears to be overburdened with and excessively relied on for requests for moderation/oversight in this topic area.

I'm not asking that anyone be punished/sanctioned but I think that a number of warnings/reminders to "the usual suspects" (as another editor put it) would go a long way towards resetting the expectations in this topic area. I think that a larger discussion here about how to move forward with making improvements to this topic area is much needed and could be very productive. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This may be obvious, but it should perhaps be noted that formal warnings, optionally logged are one of the possible outcomes of requests at WP:AE. Informal warnings can be placed by anyone, just as anyone can use uw-test3 to inform newcomers about possible consequences of continued test edits in the main article namespace. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not an administrator and also pretty heavily WP:INVOLVED in the topic area to be giving out warnings, although opening discussions with users on their talk pages regarding policy/guideline violations is something I've been trying lately. I tried giving an informal warning recently regarding my above concerns here with little effect. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

If there isn't one already, perhaps there could be a list of administrators who are willing to be contacted to provide moderation in this topic area.

The reason I mention this is because the only admin I'm aware of who is open to requests for moderation in this topic area is ScottisFinnishRadish, who as I mentioned appears to be overburdened / excessively relied on in this topic, and who, being only one person, is not always available.

I also recently posted to the administrator's noticeboard requesting oversight of a conduct dispute and was not responded to here, and a random administrator from the list of active admins who I reached out to regarding said conduct dispute did not answer here.

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Page missing extended-protection
Hi all, not sure if this is the correct page to link this or not but I have a hard time navigating this side of Wikipedia.

I noticed the page History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict doesn't have Extended user protection rights enabled, I dunno if that's intentional or just something missed since there are so many pages on this topic.

Anywho good luck! Galdrack (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A large proportion of the articles within scope of the WP:ARBECR rules don't have extendedconfirmed protection enabled. I don't know why. Apparently, the rule still applies to the articles and there should be a 'WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES' on the talk pages to notify people (although that is often not the case either - when you become extendedconfirmed you can add the template yourself). In practice, the way it seems to work is that articles are protected if there is disruption, with requests going via Requests for page protection. Sometimes admins will just protect articles in response to something happening there. Things look pretty calm over at History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)