Editing restrictions for new editors: 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.
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert.
All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are subject to discretionary sanctions: Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial notification.
The exceptions to the 500/30 restriction 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.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Shuki is trying to make many inappropriate changes. For instance add the claim "The report is not a binding document." What does that mean? It is a report regarding information requested by the prime minister. You keep changing "illegal" to "unauthorized". The reprot is very clear that it discusses many illegal operations by government and local officials and other people. The whole stuff starting with "The report states that there are certain aspects in order to establish a community in Judea and Samaria or its expansion:" is really not well written and not in Wikipedia style. Mashkin (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Shuki claims that "unauthorized" is a better translation of the Hebrew, but the "illegal" usage seems more common in the English press. Factsontheground (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I see he is also removing category tags from individual settlements. Factsontheground (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Mashkin and ground, did you even read the report? The cover page itself states that it is an interim report about unauthorized outposts. There is also absolutely no use of the term illegal in the entire 343 page report. Please stop introducing fictitious terms into wikipedia articles to push your POV on the subject. --Shuki (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Shuki, if you object to the name of Category:Illegal Israeli outposts a more constructive response would be to propose a name change rather than trying to delete it completely, since it is (or was) used on articles dealing with illegal/unauthorized settlements. Factsontheground (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you attempting to assume that we have a short memory? since it is (or was) used on articles - You created the dubious cat only last week, it was not used on any articles. And it's not my obligation to find a solution to POV pushing or ignorance of the issues. If you want to bring up the subject of what is the difference between settlement and outpost, I wish you luck because it seems that all anti-settlements editors view all these localities as settlements. While some might try to differentiate between established villages and new outposts, there is no objective standard I am aware of to justify this. Many say that outposts are all the settlements created after a certain year though with no consensus on which year. Frankly, no legal definition exists. There is one undeniable fact on the ground - even the Sasson Report does not use the word 'illegal', only reporters out of ignorance or POV. -Shuki (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The policy if avoiding weasel words is perciely the reason to use the term "illegal" for what the Sasson report describes. It talks a lot about various illegal activities but does not attach the term to the outposts. To clarify that it does not use the term I am using the sentence "illegal (or unauthorized in the report's language)". The stable version has just plain illegal, so if you don't like my version, please revert to plain illegal until the end of the discussion. Mashkin (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That is the definition of WEASEL. Read the guideline article. The word illegal in this article about the report is explicitly false and POV. It simply does not belong. You are attempting to insert this word that the government report itself does not use or accuse. That is also your WP:OR --Shuki (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)