Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Arbitration motion regarding German war effort

Original announcement

EytanMelech unbanned

Original announcement

I am unsure if this is the right venue for clarification, but since User:EytanMelech's topic ban from ARBPIA articles is still in place would that encompass the recently created Jerusalem Archaeological Park? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I was told to avoid the Arab-Israeli conflict. The archaeological park is an article about the history of the land, and has nothing to do with the conflict. Listing an archaeological excavation museum has nothing to do with fighting between eitherr side.

I was told to be cautious and make my own judgement, but I was told by arbcom member HJ Mitchell "Speaking for myself, I would not consider articles about Israeli (or Arab/Palestinian) society, culture, or history to be in scope [of the ban] provided they don't touch on the conflict."

Although I found sources relevant to the article about complaints from the waqf and the sensitivity of the excavation near the Temple, I explicitly avoided making edits related to them since my ban because I didn't want to tread on that topic. I believe that J.A.P. falls under "society, culture, and history." EytanMelech (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an arb (and I mostly stay away from arb enforcement stuff), but my reading of WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBPIA4 shows that both of those documents are explicit about only applying to the conflict, and even with the "broadly construed" language, I don't see how this article has anything to do with the conflict. RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

After reading some of the comments below, I've stuck part of my statement. RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah... I didn't even say a country that Jerusalem belonged to. Only time I recall using the word "Israel" is in the nationality of an excavation team. EytanMelech (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In view of the academic literature, I think archaeology and related topics in the region are absolutely, closely tied to the conflict (e.g. [1], [2]). The above example from EytanMelech further illustrates the pitfalls of trying to separate archaeology or history from the conflict: a ban scope that compels them to create an article about the archaeology, but not the Waqf's complaints or the site or its sensitivity with relation to other sites of political importance, is essentially a ban scope that exclusively allows for the whitewashing of the topic; such a scope is nonsensical. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If they want me to refrain from any archaeological articles I will do so, but from what I was personally told via email through my arbcom appeal made think that "history" separated specific articles about disputes from isolated articles about specific archaeological artifacts and the study of them, as long as I did not make any edits that discussed any politics related to the topic.

You can also tie pretty much anything to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I wrote an article about a highway in Israel. That could also fall under the conflict because infrastructure could be argued to be discriminatory towards people who are stuck in the oasises in the West Bank who have to go through checkpoints. Again, if they decide that this is part of the ban, I will abide by that going forward, but I really didn't think it would be an issue. EytanMelech (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If the "highway in Israel" affects "people who are stuck in the oasises in the West Bank who have to go through checkpoints" then it clearly does come under ARBPIA as you are claiming the West Bank as part of Israel. DuncanHill (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Mine doesn't go through the West Bank I don't think. It is entirely within non-West Bank Israel, but it connects to the Israeli Highway System, which, in some parts, does not give equal access to people living in some Palestinian territories. I'm saying that lots of stuff can be connected to the conflict but it wasn't clear that people had concerns regarding these types of articles and what the topics could 'imply' if one thought about more than what was in the article. If they want me to avoid all of this, I will, but I, as stated above, have quoted what was told to me by ARBCOM. EytanMelech (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from there, though I myself would incline to a stricter interpretation than you do. It would probably be helpful if @User:HJ Mitchell and Arbcom as a whole were to tell us what they actually meant, instead of leaving us all to guess. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for ArbCom without a vote so I can only give you my personal opinion, which is what I gave EytanMelech when I enacted the motion to unban him. I think an editor with an interest in Israel should be able to write articles about Israeli topics without writing about the conflict. However, if there's honest disagreement over whether an article is in scope, we can go to AE or ARCA for a ruling by a group of uninvolved admins or ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an arb either, but I was one of the drafters of WP:ARBPIA4 and also an archaeologist of the southern Levant, and I would also say that the history and archaeology of Israel/Palestine is absolutely part of the conflict – even narrowly construed. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the relevant sources would know this, so the comments above from EytanMelech (who I haven't encountered before this), and the fact that immediately after being unblocked he requested undeletion of a draft on an Israeli-controlled archaeological park in occupied East Jerusalem (funnily enough not mentioned in the article), which was funded and managed by the highly controversial Elad Foundation, should be major red flags. – Joe (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I requested this draft be undeleted because my work on it had lapsed due to G13 inactivity during my ban. I didn't know anything about the Elad Foundation (googled it, they are apparently the Ir David Foundation now) other than that they used to have control over the park. I only knew about the park because I had been working on an article about the new organization that worked to restore the park and didn't actually find sources or look at any regarding the Ir David foundation.

And again, I know that *some* archaeology can be controversial but the majority of my article is about a road from the Roman-empire period. This article was mostly just me adapting content from the Hebrew Wikipedia in a translation and I didn't even translate all of their article. The only outside research I did was using keyword searches to find articles related to facts that I had written in the article, and if I couldn't verify the uncited claims from the Hebrew article, I deleted them. Was not aware of specific controversy with this park. EytanMelech (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Come off it, in what world would an archaeological site slap bang in the middle of Old Jerusalem not be politically sensitive? You're not an innocent road enthusiast that blundered into this topic; you have an ARBPIA topic ban and just came off a site ban. It's your responsibility to see the boundaries of that topic and steer well clear of them. – Joe (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@EytanMelech I’m happy to chalk this one up to a good-faith lack of understanding on both our parts. I wasn't aware of the political sensitivity of something normally as innocuous as archaeology but I've been educated (thank you, Joe and Selfstudier). I trust that you will take this feedback to mean that you should avoid that article and similar ones. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. I will be more cautious with what the definition of broadly-construed means. EytanMelech (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

We have been down this track (trying to split history from conflict) in relation to another Elad venture, the City of David. Follow the disambiguation to see how it ended up. In general tho, Israeli run parks and what not anywhere in the West Bank and not just in East Jerusalem are all literally part of the conflict, broadly construed. Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

To me personally, "does topic ban X encompass Y", when asked with genuine uncertainty, can almost always be answered with "yes; we call this 'broadly construed'". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Change to the Functionary team

Original announcement

• Thanks to the committee for their fast work with this request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)