To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Makeandtoss ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement

Administrator imposing the sanction

Primefac ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[2]

Edit notice template should be removed as the page is not protected as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The page should also not be protected to be part of the Arab-Israeli conflict as it is illogical to do so. Jordan gathers around 6,000 views/day-it is a high level article. 5 out of 95 paragraphs in the article discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict, and this somehow makes it part of the conflict? If we want to apply the same criteria here then why aren't the United Kingdom and United States articles protected? The protection is intended to quell disruption, which does not exist on the Jordan page. The protection would only prevent IPs and new accounts from contributing to the article-which is what I am mainly concerned about. I was advised to take this issue here by @ Alex Shih: after an amendment request on Arbitration. Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Sandstein: why not apply the same criteria to UK? The country that gave rise to the conflict, or the US that is nowadays directly involved? Makeandtoss ( talk) 15:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@ TonyBallioni: Isolated incident that could take place in any article. Again the question that everyone here avoids, why not also UK and USA articles? If the protection wouldn’t be accepted there then it should not be accepted here. Makeandtoss ( talk) 16:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In general I have no opinion on this matter, but as background I did ten of these requests in a relatively short timeframe, and all ten seemed reasonable (and still seem reasonable). Given how much nonsense was thrown around at the time (with certain admins quitting over DS notifications) I figured it was better to err on the side of caution and place (and later keep) the notices. It's not a hill I feel the need to die on, though, and I'll respect any consensus reached. Primefac ( talk) 11:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In hindsight, I should have asked Makeandtoss to get a consensus somewhere, as is usually my reply; I'm not in the habit of making an edit for one editor, then immediately reversing it because another asks (i.e. I don't edit war with myself). I suppose Maile66's responses kind of did that. Primefac ( talk) 11:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I just want to comment narrowly as an arbitrator on this. Discretionary sanctions are applied to the topic area "broadly construed". None of the restrictions in that edit notice are discretionary sanctions, so we don't need to talk about that anymore. All the restrictions in that edit notice are only applied to the topic area "reasonably construed". This difference in wording was very intentional. Since these restrictions are more draconian, they are intended to apply to a smaller set of pages than the discretionary sanctions. It is ultimately up to uninvolved admins to decide what "reasonably construed" means. Whereas you only need to look for some connection to the topic area, however small, to meet the "broadly construed" standard, you should ideally be evaluating an article more holistically for "reasonably construed". The exact placement of the line is ultimately up to you. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I'd decline the appeal, which I understand is directed against the existence of the edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Jordan. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 provides that restrictions apply to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Jordan is an Arab country that borders Israel. The countries have been officially at war until 1994, see Israel–Jordan peace treaty, and I understand based on our article Israel–Jordan relations that bilateral relations remain shaped by the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. In my view, therefore, Jordan is very much an article that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the edit notice is correct. Probably extended confirmed protection should be enabled also, as provided for by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Sandstein 11:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Incidentally, Israel also has the edit notice and the protection, which also appears correct. Sandstein 11:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ideally, the template should be excluded from the Jordan page because the Arab-Israeli conflict is, presumably, only a small part of what defines that country. With apologies for editorializing, this is the problem with blunt instruments like the DS notice requirement. A few edits in the sanctioned area that could easily be handled by templating users becomes a big notice on a peripheral article that probably scares away legitimate editors. In this case, I say toss out the notice. -- regentspark ( comment) 14:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Per Sandstein, the 500/30 prohibition applies regardless of whether or not ECP in enabled, and we will block editors for violating it repeatedly on numerous articles that are unprotected. In terms of ECP, I think our recent practice has been to enable when there has been a violation of the restriction that is noticed. This would seem to qualify. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, per Seraphimblade below, if we find that the article is not part of ARBPIA, and I can see an argument either way on that, the template should be removed with all of the restrictions removed, not just 500/30. If it is within the scope, then I think ECP should be applied as this is a confusing situation for new editors as to whether or not they can edit an article, and comes from the difficult situation we are in with this area now, where protection isn't mandatory but the restriction as worded applies whether or not protection does.
    In terms of the article itself, while I did link the above issue, I'm not currently sure as to whether or not it is reasonably within the scope. As Sandstein noted, until 1994 they were at war, but tensions have died down recently, and the majority of the article isn't about it. The tricky thing here is that the prohibition applies to pages, not sections. How to enforce that is a difficult question. From a philosophical standpoint, I don't like the idea of entire countries being under ECP. From a pragmatic standpoint, I'm not sure how you enforce something like this on a section by section basis. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @ Makeandtoss: I actually think your point re: the USA and to a lesser extent the UK are valid, and were one of the main reasons along with Seraphimblade's comments that I expanded further here. I'm less convinced that the diff I linked above could happen in any article. Having reread the article I'm inclined to say that the article as a whole falls outside the scope both given the developments since 1994 and the fact that the article is not, as pointed out below, primarily or solely within the conflict area (i.e. Jordan is currently at peace with Israel and it covers the conflict as a historical part of the country rather than being devoted to the conflict itself.) To go off a point being made at the ARCA, this falls within the sanctions broadly construed, but not necessarily reasonably construed, and after further thought, I'd be inclined to remove the template and rule that the article about the country as a whole falls outside of the scope (which, in my mind, would also mean the 1RR bit would not apply). TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • A final note here: if no consensus is reached or if consensus is that this is part of the scope, I support restoring ECP immediately. I think the current situation we have in this topic area of "Wait for disruption until protection, it might bite the newcomers, but we'll block your for editing articles we knew were eligible for protection if you aren't extended confirmed and you continue to do it." is ridiculous and is one of the most confusing parts of the Arab-Israeli conflict from both an enforcement standpoint and for new users. As I said above, I'm leaning that the article on the entire country is not in scope, but whatever the case, the status quo should not stand. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• I think, generally speaking, to apply discretionary sanctions to an article like that, the article should be primarily or solely within the conflict area. A geographic area certainly could fall within ARBPIA in that way (I would certainly say, for example, that Gaza Strip almost certainly would), but I'm not so sure in the case of Jordan. Reading through the article, I'm trying hard to find very much in it that falls under ARBPIA, but I certainly wouldn't say the majority of the article content does. There's information on Jordan's structure of government, an outline of its legal and justice system, history from antiquity to present, climate, whatever else have you. I think application in this case is too broad, and that we should instead handle editing problems on the covered sections of that article as such. So I'd lean toward granting the appeal insofar as "300/50" has been applied to the entire article, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'm undecided whether I think Jordan should fall under the "reasonably construed" language of the remedy or not. In a sense, every nation is involved in this conflict in some way, as they all vote on UN resolutions etc. There is a spectrum of involvement, from Israel itself, through to nations whose only involvement is voting on non-binding resolutions at the UN. At some point on that spectrum, a nation becomes "reasonably construed" to be related to the conflict. On the one hand, Jordan's geographical proximity to Israel; the historical war between them (formally ended more than two decades ago); and Jordan's ongoing involvement in the relations of Israel and the Palestinian Authority (our article Israel–Jordan relations describes peace between them as a "major priority" of Jordan) are factors arguing that Jordan should be included. On the other hand, Jordan is one of only two (out of 21) Arab League members of the UN who recognise Israel and maintain diplomatic relations; Jordan has given up its claims to territory lost in the 1967 war; Jordan has historically co-operated with Israel, even when a formal state of war between them existed; there is considerable economic co-operation between them; and so on. I'm still thinking about where in all this the line should fall. GoldenRing ( talk) 09:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• On reflection I would accept this appeal. Some edits to Jordan may still fall under ARBPIA DS and related articles (such as Israel-Jordan relations) should be subject to the general prohibition and the general 1RR restriction, but Jordan should not. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)