Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Site-wide rulings that effect the Military history WikiProject

While the Military history WikiProject is by rights one of the best run WikiProjects on Wikipedia, it is still part of the English Wikipedi and therefore still subject to certain decisions and consensus made at the site-wide level. These rulings directly impact the ability of the project members to edit freely in a given area, and it is important that a MILHIST coordinator be aware of rulings on these matters in order to implement a proper response.

Similarly, certain editors are considered hazardous to Wikipedia's health and have been unilaterally blocked/banned from Wikipedia. Despite this, determined editors will find a way to disrupt Wikipedia in order to add their content, and it is important that a coordinator have a passing understanding of which editors and what subjects to watch for in order to spot and alert the project to potential issues.

What follows is a brief summary of rulings as they related to areas and editors within MILHIST's scope. This is not intended to be a complete list, and information here is likely to be greater use to Wikipedia's Administrator corps than it is to the average Wikipedia Coordinator.

Arbcom

Wikipedia's Arbitration committee serves as a board whose goal is to address certain problematic issues and editors by ruling on given matters. An Arbitration decision effects both editors and the subject, although the extent to which these are effected depends on the ruling in question. This section therefore lists arbitration rulings that directly or indirectly impact the Military history WikiProject and give a brief explanation of the ruling. More detailed information may be found on the relevant arbitration page.

Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions

Appropriate procedures described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

Case	Applicable area	Type	Sanction (quoted from case)	Notes
American politics 2 (June 2015)	All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people	Discretionary sanctions	Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.	This may apply to articles on flag officers (such as Dwight D Eisenhower) who were military personnel before being elected or appointed to office.
Article titles and capitalisation (March 2012)	Manual of Style and article titles policy	Discretionary sanctions	"Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed."	This may be applicable in cases in which editors have repeatedly clashed over the capitalization and titles (or lack there of) of articles. It maybe applicable in certain page specific issues
Civility in infobox discussions (March 2018)	Discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.	Discretionary sanctions and infobox probation	1.1) Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction per remedy 2. That user will be indefinitely restricted from: adding, deleting or collapsing infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. For clarity, an editor under probation is permitted to edit an already existing infobox, but should be cautious of giving the appearance that they are attempting to game their probation as this may lead to more severe discretionary sanctions. They may, if they wish, add an infobox in the same edit or series of edits when they: create a new article; or convert an article from a redirect. The user under probation may also participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction. 2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.	This can be particularly important to our project since nearly all articles concerning military hardware and any type of conflict have an infobox summarizing the material. Of particular note in this case are the conflict tabs for "belligerents" and "results", which have in the past attracted debate in cases wherein the results were decisive (such as the Battle of Midway), conflicting (such as the Battle of Jutland), or where there have been multiple parties to a conflict (such as World War II). This should be regarded as a last resort option, but if needed coordinators can appeal to project admins to look at the matter and decide if this option should be implemented.
Eastern Europe	Topics related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly defined	Discretionary sanctions	Articles which relate to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. Passed by motion, 27 July 2008 Amended by motion to incorporate Balkans sanctions, 17 February 2019.	This impacts a large selection of articles in primarily in the former Eastern European area, a region which has been politically unstable for some time and frequently sees armed clashes of government and ethnic/religious groups. This case dealt with the use of the Wikipedia by editors who were editing to emphasize political or ideological struggled and took to harassing editors who rightly removed the content, which defines this case as one primary dealing with ethnic/religious aspect of the region, however the ethnic/religious aspects have occasionally migrated to conflict pages. Instances of this behaviour should be removed on site and taken to the talk page.
Gun control	Governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues	Standard discretionary sanctions	Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, gun control.	In some nations which permit citizens to own and operate weapons there exists an overlap between the civilian and the military versions of a given firearm. Care should be taken with implementing this case in a MILHIST article, most gun control issues are social in nature and do not directly involve a specific weapon, whereas our project is primarily concerned with the specific weapon and its history. Additionally, this applies only to weapons which civilians may be reasonably expected to own or operate, and not to larger military weapons (such as artillery or nuclear ordinance) which are under the exclusive jurisprudence of government agencies.
India-Pakistan	All pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.	Discretionary sanctions	Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Passed by motion	Like the Balkans, this is a persistent area of conflict, and like the Balkans, the area sees frequent clashes of ethnic and religious minorities. Like the Balkans case before it this case dealt with the use of Wikipedia by editors who were editing to emphasize political or ideological struggled and took to harassing editors who rightly removed the content, which defines this case as one primary dealing with ethnic/religious aspect of the region, however the ethnic/religious aspects have occasionally migrated to conflict pages and these should be removed on site and taken to the talk page. Additionally, any attempt in a MILHIST article concerning India/Pakistan to make use of Wikipedia for political propaganda should be removed unilaterally.
Palestine-Israel articles	The entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted	Discretionary sanctions and 1RR	Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. (full text).	Perhaps the longest running ethnic/religious conflict. Pages under the jurisprudence of the Palestine-Israel rulings sport a {{Editnotice IP 1RR}} template outlining the restricted nature of editing these pages: editors must be signed in. Additionally, this ruling and the one below have since 2013 been applied to the ongoing Syrian Civil War (as noted here). Articles that concern the Syrian Civil War (broadly construed) may carry a {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} edit notice to advise editors of the need to edit with caution.
Palestine-Israel articles 3	Any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict	Editing restriction	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. The sole exceptions to this prohibition are: 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 above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc. 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 by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. (full text).	{{Editnotice IP 1RR}} (As Above)
The Troubles	Pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.	Discretionary sanctions	Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed. As a standard discretionary sanction, a one revert restriction (1RR) is applied to all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Enforcement, with notifications to be posted, at a minimum, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and Talk:The Troubles. Amended by motion 02:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)	This a generally quite area within our project, however the presence of the IRA and the SAS in battle and the use of infoboxes for major incidents has on occasion lead us to be caught in the crossfire for articles under this case's jurisprudence. For the most part, this tends to work itself out off our pages, but in the event an issue should flare up on a MILHIST page this case should be kept in mind when working to resolve the issues.
Antisemitism in Poland	Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland	Sourcing expectations	The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action.	A case that rather directly effects the project. Any source in an article under this case's jurisprudence that has been question should be brought up for discussion. This is particularly important since Poland housed the six officially recognized "death camps" established during World War II.
German War Effort	Biographies relating to the Wehrmacht, and to a larger extent, German participation in the Second World War	Sourcing Expectations	All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources. Editors should always try to use the most reliable sources available for any given topic, with the editorial oversight, fact-checking and bias within the source taken into consideration. Depending on the context, non-neutral or biased sources can be used if they are the best sourcing for information held on a subject. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight and should not be used for citing contentious claims. Where the use of questionable or biased sources is agreed to be appropriate, information about their nature should be indicated so that readers can judge their value.	This case is particularity important for two reasons: 1) The Arbitration Committee specifically defined the function of WikiProjects as existing to "...facilitate and improve editing in a topic area." They further opined that "Popular WikiProjects like the military history WikiProject may have a group of coordinators that have been selected by approval vote of the project community. Their role is to maintain the internal structure and process of the project, and do not have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers." 2) Our project coordinators were specifically advised in this case that "...project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems."

Community-authorised sanctions

Occasionally discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard or a Request for Comment results in the adopts of sanctions for a group of articles. At the moment, only one given sanction directly effect the project.

Decision & Log	Applicable area	Type	Sanction (quoted from discussion)	Date effective	Notes
Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant AN discussion (WP:GS/SCW&ISIL)	Pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant	Community-authorized discretionary sanctions and 1RR that mimic WP:ARBPIA	WP:ARBPIA-equivalent discretionary sanctions and 1RR are in force on "all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed". Notifications and sanctions must be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.	31 August 2013	This is a community sanction passed by discussion and with consensus to indefinitely implement discretionary sanctions. This ties in with the above noted 2013 ruling that the sanctions in the Israeli-Palestinian ARBCOM cases should extend to the Syrian Civil War and in this case explicitly names the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a party to the discretionary sanctions.