Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Case Opened on 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 18:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 08:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 07:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 22:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 23:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

The battles that are going on at Palestine/Israel articles are now getting out of hand and the community is no longer able to handle them. The history of Saeb Erekat is an ideal example of the problems we’re faced with here. Despite there being discussion on talk pages, the parties insist on edit warring with Jaakobou continually changing the article to his version – despite it being arguably a BLP violation (Jaakobou has basically been trying to label Erekat a liar). Other articles paint a similar picture (Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Palestinian Fedayeen, Second Intifada, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Allegations of Israeili apartheid, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Arab citizens of Israel, Pallywood (Note:This is not an exhaustive list)). What it boils down to is severe ownership issues from certain members of the dispute, and an unwillingness for parties to make compromises and stick with consensus. I realise there are no user RfC’s in this dispute, the problem is, who to create an RfC for? We’ve had many previous threads on AN/I about this, a previous arbitration case which was closed without action and now all parties seem resigned to getting their point across through edit warring and other disruption. A quick look at the block logs of a number of the participants show that they have no respect for some of our editing policies and guidelines. Any further efforts at attempting to stop the dispute other than arbitration are simply going to add gasoline to the fire and will act solely as a stepping stone to arbitration at a later date. I hope the arbitrators will accept this case to look at remedies including editing restrictions and/or article/topic probations. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by PalestineRemembered

  • Nobody need be intimidated by this case, because it's not really so complex. In my humble opinon, all the problems come down to just two three factors:
  1. One or two semi-literate editors, who cannot process the information in front of them properly.
  2. Occasional cases of straight-forward cheating, deliberate insertion of falsehoods – or removing good material on frivolous grounds, to the severe aggravation of scholarly editors.
  3. "Disciplinary cases" that have been poisoned by malice aimed at witnesses, and evidence been interfered with. A severe chill has been induced by an expectation of victimising.
  • These problems will not be difficult to identify and score/judge. Unless we need barristers to demand answers for straightforward questions like this:
  • Question to Jaakobou – have you ever operated any sock-puppet accounts, and, if so, have you operated them abusively? PRtalk 19:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Eleland

I urge ArbCom to accept this request. While it stems primarily from good-faith content disputes, the manner in which these disputes have been conducted has been seriously disruptive across literally dozens of Wikipedia articles. Admins recognize the problem and the problem users, but generally don't go beyond brief 3RR blocks because the subject matter is so touchy, and they don't want to be seen as favouring one side. Actually, that's the problem here; we're clearly thinking in terms of sides. Normal dispute resolution has succeeded occasionally (the lists of Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, finally removed from their politicized context as an Israeli-only List of massacres committed during the al-Aqsa Intifada, being a case in point) but more commonly failed miserably (Saeb Erekat, the never-resolved Battle of Jenin slugfest, etc, etc.) The buck has to stop somewhere, and ArbCom is it. <eleland/talkedits> 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, in addition, there may be some parties who ought to be named additionally. Offhand:
Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Itzse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Tewfik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
And surely others. <eleland/talkedits> 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ThuranX

Not really sure why I'm considered an involved party. I watch AN/I and I like reading through some of the cases and chiming in when I think that wider community input is useful, or the opinion of a third party editor can help. I've got all of three article space edits to any of the relevant articles (two to The Palestinian Fedayeen, one to the definitions of Palestinian). I'm not particularly into edit warring about these articles, but I have acted in these few instances when I think I can help. One was corrected (the Def. of Palest-ine/ian), and the other two probably got lost in the edit warring there fast. For me, wider involvement in Wikipedia, via AN/I, has just been a way of expanding my awareness here, by getting me into new subject areas. Although it's possible some here think I've got a 'side' going because i happen to be Jewish, not the case. I've been reading the cases and reviewing them, and anyone who looks at my contribs to AN/I will see I kibbitz in lots of cases, sometimes to some particular help, other times, it goes silently ignored. Either way, fine by me. I've got no particular interest in this entire situation beyond being frustrated watching the project resources being squandered on the cyclical fighting, and in noting who I think has been responsible for violations of policy and creating problems. Do I have opinions about the topic? yes. I keep them out of the cited facts, because frankly, I suspect most of the editors of these articles write more from personal assumptions and POV, and I'd rather see cited facts I disagree with than not. Cited facts make me rethink my own attitudes.) Do I have opinions about who is at fault here? Yes, and they're already stated in the relevant AN/I threads about Jaakobou and Eleland. In summary, no clue why I'm here, not an edit warrior on here, just an uninvolved third party. ThuranX (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by G-Dett

I'm glad this has been brought forward; many thanks to Ryan for doing so. Two other editors who might be included here are 6SJ7 and of course Jayjg.

I have two suggestions and will keep them both brief. One is that User:HG be included somehow. He is a very unusual editor in that he's widely trusted by both sides. I'm sure he has real-life views but they are no more detectable in his Wikipedia presence than is his body odor. He seems to be drawn to resolving intractable debates, as if they were 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzles and he some kind of savant.

Ideally we could have a mini-cabal but frankly I don't know who else would be on it (Durova?). Part of HG's success has been that he never tells anyone they're talking balderdash, even when they are; he's more of a facilitator of mildly Socratic dialogue. There are many other intelligent and non-aligned editors, who however through very occasional and understandable flashes of intellectual impatience have been branded partisan.

My second suggestion is that we have some sort of moderated ME-related forum where inter-article balance issues could be discussed as they arise, and loose working principles formulated. There are certain policy-interpretation memes that come up regularly in editing disputes, and even when they're semi-resolved there's no take-away. I know "other stuff" isn't supposed to exist on Wikipedia, but it certainly does exist on ME pages, and the fact that we're not supposed to talk about it has just forced it underground into "strategy," often of a passive-aggressive sort.--G-Dett (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by CJCurrie

Arbcomm intervention on this file is long overdue. The controversies on pages having to do with Israel/Palestine can no longer be described as simply "content disputes"; many of these pages have become completely dysfunctional, due in large part to the reasons identified by Ryan and others.

Further comments:

  • The list of involved participants seems to have been chosen in an arbitrary fashion. User:Jayjg strikes me the most noteworthy omission, though I'm certain that others have been left out as well.
  • I would recommend that this ArbComm case be restructured so as to encompass pages that do not specifically address the Israel/Palestine conflict, but rather address related matters and involve many of the same participants. New antisemitism strikes me as a particularly relevant example, in light of ongoing discussions on its talk page.
  • I do not accept Ryan's assertion that "all parties seem resigned to getting their point across through edit warring and other disruption". While it's undeniably true that both "sides" in this dispute are guilty of edit-warring, there are some participants who have tried to persuade "the other side" with rational arguments … the difficulty is that this approach seldom leads to discernable results.
  • While it may prove necessary to admonish or sanction certain editors for their behaviour on these pages, this will not solve the underlying problem. It could even be counter-productive, if editors who are not sanctioned (or like-minded editors who are not named in this particular RfA) continue the larger pattern of tendentious editing once arbitration is finished. Wikipedia's articles on Israel/Palestine have been an embarrassment for some time, in no small part because meaningful debate on substantive editing issues has become almost impossible. We need is method of ensuring that future disputes can be resolved in an open and civil manner -- anything short of this will just be window dressing on one of the project's most serious problems. (The suggestion of appointing an ombudsman has its advantages, though I wonder if this task could prove too large for any one editor to take.)

CJCurrie (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC), with 02:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to reiterate my view that this RfA should be expanded to address relevant articles that do not specifically address the Israel/Palestine conflict, and should address the larger problem of a poisoned atmosphere on all of these pages.
If this RfA only addresses issues of behaviour on a small number of pages, I'm quite concerned that it could (i) selectively punish some participants while allowing equally culpable parties in the larger dispute to escape sanction, (ii) further poison the atmosphere on these pages by creating the appearance of selective prosecution, and (iii) do nothing to resolve the larger and more pressing problem of factionalism on these pages.
By the way, I think 6SJ7 has raised an interesting point regarding the time frame. I'm a bit concerned that this RfA could have the unintended consequence of allowing tendentious editors who've kept a low profile in recent months, but were prominently involved in past POV disputes, to re-emerge if and when restrictions are placed on their "opponents". I don't believe this (plausible, if remote) turn of events would create either the appearance or reality of fairness.
To improve the quality of these pages, this RfA must take a proactive role in establishing terms of behaviour for articles on Middle East issues. We don't need to examine every dispute, but we most certainly do need to ensure the situation on these pages improves. User:Sm8900's "general comment" was well-intentioned, but I fear it his/her remedy would take this process in entirely the wrong direction, and focus on minutiae rather than the bigger picture. CJCurrie (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Pedro Gonnet

I am listed as a party to the edit-war on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My last edit to the page (here) or to the talk page (here) predate the page-protection by 12 and 14 days respectively, which makes me an unlikely candidate for that war (I am, however, involved in Gilad Shalit, where a nice solution was found, and on Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, which went stale). The discussions on that Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (the wildest one is regarding the use of the term "occupied" when referring to the Israeli-occupied territories) are symptomatic of the way certain editors work: insert POV/unsourced/tendentious material or delete sourced material, start a revert war, call for an RfC, flame anybody who participates in it, drop out of the discussion and when a compromise is reached between other editors, block and/or ignore it.

As I have mentioned on the WP:AN/I thread, this is not about a content dispute, but about the willingness to start literally hundreds of content disputes based on bogus material, simply to deadlock or seriously degrade most -- if not all -- articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The main protagonists are not interested in verifiability, NPOV, avoiding undue weight and such, but in inserting their own, generally anti-Palestinian WP:POV at any cost. For these editors , there is never a compromise, never a mutually agreed solution and as such, never an end to an edit-war.

As you may have guessed, my main problem is with User:Jaakobou, with whom I have locked horns on several occasions. I have yet to see him end an edit-war, accept a compromise or back down from any of his positions or edits. This is not about tough discussions -- I have had many with User:GHcool and User:Sm8900 and in most cases reached a solution and/or compromise, of which I am somewhat proud -- but about fruitless discussions being used as a mere pretext to drag an issue on an wear out all participants. This kind of behaviour is extremely disruptive, time-consuming and just plain annoying -- and does not contribute to the encyclopaedia.

Please, accept this RfA so that we can all get back to normal editing. pedro gonnettalk – 9 January 2008 08:02

Statement by RolandR

I welcome the fact that ArbCom is to look at this area, and I hope that they will come up with some helpful guidelines. In particular, I support the suggestion by CarolMooreDC above for a style guide or naming convention. As Pedro Gonnet notes, there is constant dispute over the use of the term "occupied" to describe the territories which came under Israeli rule in 1967. There are also disputes over the term "guerilla"/"terrorist", over the placing of an "Antisemitism" category tag on many articles, and other similar issues. This could all usefully be addressed.

However, I question my own inclusion, and indeed that of most editors named above (including some with whom I have clashed in the past), on this list. The problem is not, in most cases, the individual editors, but the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the absence of clear guidelines here. Some of us may have been guilty of occasional tendentious editing, and there is one editor above whom I have recently accused of incivility; but these are issues which can be -- and indeed are being -- dealt with by regular procedures. They do not amount to disruptive editing, and do not in themselves require the involvement of ArbCom.

If there is to be a named list of editors to be looked at by ArbCom, then there are several more who should be included. For a start:

Amoruso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Screen stalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Hertz1888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
6SJ7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

and I'm sure there are many more. If Isarig was not currently under a one-year topic ban, he also would be included. In short, it is invidious to pick out just the editors named above, since there are countless others acting in a very similar manner.

Having said that, I do think that there should be a specific inquiry into the behaviour of Jaakobou, identified by several editors above and elsewhere as a particularly problematic and uncooperative editor. My history with him includes an ANI regarding his use of racist language and another following his posting of libellous comments about me on a talk page. On that occasion, Jaakobou so thoroughly angered other editors (not previously involved in this area) that he was extremely lucky to avoid a lengthy community block. RolandR (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jaakobou

My own conduct hasn't been ideal, I realize and I took upon myself to change my editing habits since my recent block (arguing on a number of articles and 3RR breach on one of them) and have obtained mentorship to address that and help diffuse problematic cases.

I ask the committee to defer arbitration at this time in favor of some communal observation resolutions/declaration of intent.

I also believe there is a serious need for formal mediation on Second Intifada and Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I believe full blown arbitration should always be a last resort and that my suggestions will help everyone involved to improve their policy understanding and conduct and will also open the door for new editors who'd be kicked out in the current state of affairs. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If the Committee does decide to accept this case, then I request that the following names be added to the list – Nishidani, Stingray86, NSH001, Sanguinalis, Gatoclass, Timeshifter, Ian Pitchford, Nickhh, ChrisO, Abu_Ali, Paul kuiper NL, Timb0h, RomaC, Editor54321, JaapBoBo, Burgas00, Bless sins, Liftarn, and, who are certainly involved in these conflicts as much as anyone else, and some moreso than the listed or suggested parties.
My apologies if I forgot someone. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorted for comfort

-- JaakobouChalk Talk 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC) , added another on 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tiamut

First off, I would like to thank Ryan Postlewaithe for being bringing this case to the attention of Arbcomm. The problems besetting Palestine-Israel articles are chronic, long-term problems that have not received the attention required to resolve them.

I second Number 57's suggestion that Beit Or (talk · contribs) be added to the list and the suggestion of other editors above that Jayjg (talk · contribs) also be included. The former has a habit of pile-on reverting and even wikistalked me to five different articles one day, just to revert my additions. (See related discussion here, here, and here). The latter, while having taken a brief sabbatical between August and November, was (and still is) deeply involved in editing Palestine-Israel articles, and as an admin, set the example to many of us on how to approach editing at such articles (for better or worse – arbcomm can decide that). Though his involvement is recent, I would also add Eternalsleeper (talk · contribs) here as well, since he jumped into the dispute at Second Intifada to drive-by revert twice, before even engaging in any discussion.

Having learned a lot over the last year and half about Wikipedia policies, I like to think that the quality of my editing contributions and my ability to work with others with vastly differing viewpoints has greatly improved. This is of course not true across the board. There are some editors who engage in tendentious and disruptive editing with whom I have not been able to construct a satisfactory, collaborative editing relationship. I often get the sense that the goal of these editors is simply to disrupt a page where sourced edits representing a viewpoint they don't like are being added, until the page is protected and no further additions can be made.

Regarding my own block log, I have been blocked four times for 3RR. The first block was placed SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) for editing at Arab citizens of Israel, where in the midst of multi-participant edit war over how (or for some whether) to include a piece of sourced information regarding the status of Palestinians in Israel as an "indigenous people", involving many of the editors listed here, Isarig reported me for 3RR and I was blocked. Many fellow editors took issue with the block, which they believed was unfair, given my involvement in discussion in the talk page and the attempt in my edits to find alternate phraseology acceptable to everyone. The subsequent two blocks were placed after reports filed (again) by Isarig (who in all three cases was edit-warring with me at the time, but was not himself sanctioned). These two were lifted before they expired after Isarig's own history of edit-warring was brought to the attention of admins by other editors. It was around this time that I began to see how detrimental edit warring was to the project. I am certainly not making excuses for my behaviour, only outlining an evolution. The last block was placed by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) after I filed a report against Egyegy (talk · contribs). While I had not violated 3RR and had not lowered myself to responding to Egygey uncivil and personal attacks on me, I admit that I was edit warring, and Tariqabjotu blocked me for a lengthy period. The block was overturned by Mangojuice (talk · contribs) long before it expired after I recognized that fact. (Note that Tariqabjotu refused to lift the block when I requested that he do so by email). That was my last block (in September 2007) and I have had no blocks since.

I do try to avoid edit-warring. It is however, deeply challenging. Particularly when you spend days working to add reliable sourced and relevant scholarly material to an article, only to have someone come by and mass blank your additions, and then have someone else come and drive-by revert them away again after they are restored by you or others. I think Arbcomm needs to know that this is not about a content dispute. It's about a style of editing that centers on disruption to do away with facts that cannot argued away. It's about some editors letting WP:IDONTLIKEIT be the key determinant to whether an addition remains in an article, rather than adibing by core Wiki policies like WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. I don't think I am one of those editors. Though I do have a strong POV on the issues which no doubt influences what information I add to these articles, I do try to be self-conscious about it and I don't delete relevant reliably sourced information representing opposing viewpoints, even when I think it's a total load of crap.

I think the arbcomm should focus on identifying specific behaviours that are unhelpful here (e.g. drive-by reverting to delete sourced material without sufficient engagement in talk) and the editors who use them. Without a specific work agenda here, this arbcomm is likely to end up unfocused and end without resolving anything (as did the previous one on Allegations of Israeli apartheid). Tiamut 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. Regarding Tariqabjotu's statement that Tewfik (talk · contribs) (among others) shouldn't be lsited in this case, I have to disagree (about tewfik specificially). Tewfik regularly engages in the kind of behaviour I have described above. His mass blanking of material Second Intifada after one version enjoyed stability for two weeks, prompted a series of edit wars that led to the page being protected. In my opinion and that of other editors at the page, he did not sufficiently explain these edits. Tiamut 12:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Isarig is no longer with us

This is to inform all involved parties here that Isarig (talk · contribs) have exercised their right to vanish and are no longer active as a Wikipedia contributor. It should be noted that both their mentors (User:Avraham and myself) have agreed to that according to WP:RTV. The user have been explained not to come back editing again as per WP:RTV, a thing they agreed to. The 'right to vanish' request has been accepted by OTRS members and a notice has been sent to the ArbCom mailing list. As a consequence, all edits by User:Isarig have been deleted from their main account and transfered to an account place holder known to the ArbCom, OTRS members and their mentors. This same notice has been cross posted to WP:AN. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

  • Accept, primarily to consider the overall situation in this topic area. Kirill 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept per Kirill. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept to look out the best way to handle heated conflicts related to this topic and examine involved parties disruptive conduct. FloNight (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept. There's no doubt this case must be accepted but the scope needs to be kept fairly tightly defined and this case has already started to sprawl. The decision is not going to have any effect on the balance of views present in articles about the Israel/Palestine conflict. The committee will only be looking at user conduct issues. The wide number of users involved is likely either to make this case among the most protracted ever seen, or to a deliberate decision to pass enforcement to uninvolved admins. The latter is the more likely. Can I make a plea for brevity in the evidence? Generally the pithier a submission, the more impact it makes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision


Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 11 to 0 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 11 to 0 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Passed 11 to 0 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

4) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

Passed 11 to 0 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Area of conflict

1) The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Palestinian-Israeli conflict, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict (see, in particular, the prior Arbitration cases regarding Allegations of apartheid, PalestineRemembered, Deir Yassin massacre, Israel-Lebanon, Israeli apartheid, Zeq, and Yuber). Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to the project; deep-seated and long-standing real world conflicts between the peoples of Palestine and Israel have been transferred to Wikipedia. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted.

Passed 11 to 0 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions

1.1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, 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. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Passed 11 to 0 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Superseded by an alternate sanction passed 14 to 0, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Appeal of discretionary sanctions

2) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Passed 11 to 0 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Superseded by an alternate sanction passed 14 to 0, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Working group

3) The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The membership, structure, and procedures of the group shall be subject to the approval of the Committee. The working group shall be free to develop recommendations of any form, including those requiring Committee action and those requiring community adoption of new or changed policies, at its discretion. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception.

Passed 10 to 0 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors reminded

4) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian people or any other real-world ethnic conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.

Passed 11 to 0 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors counseled

5) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may wish devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Side X and who finds himself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Side X and Side Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Side X.

Passed 10 to 0 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Standard discretionary sanctions

6) All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles pages, 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 14 to 0 by motion, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Amended to change "articles" to "pages"

Passed 7 to 1 by Motion, 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Logging of sanctions

1) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 11 to 0 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrators

2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

Passed 8 to 2 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


General 1RR restriction

Superseded versions

*All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. **Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty. **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 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. (Passed 9 to 1 by amendment on 18:44, March 10 2012 (UTC)) **Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Amended on 18:44, March 10 2012 (UTC)
Rescinded and replaced on 07:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Amendment, March 20 2012

  • The text in WP:ARBPIA section "Further remedies" is modified from "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" to "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 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." As identical text is used in an active sanction related to The Troubles case, the same substitution of wording shall be made there.
Passed 9 to 1 by amendment on 18:44, March 10 2012 (UTC)
Rescinded and replaced on 07:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Amendment, January 6 2016

  • 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. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this 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.
Amended by motion on 07:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 22:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Amendment, December 26 2016

  • 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.
Amended by motion at 22:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 23:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Amended by motion at 23:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The template {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} may be employed on the talk page of Arab-Israeli conflict related articles.

Per community discussion and decision at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles

Syrian civil war articles

In March 2013, an administrator notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. A request for clarification or amendment has now been filed raising the issue of whether the topic-area of the Syrian Civil War falls within the scope of the Arab-Israeli topic-area for purposes of arbitration enforcement.

The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic.

However, the administrator action extending discretionary sanctions and the 1RR limitation to Syrian Civil War was taken in good faith. Several editors have commented that the restrictions have been helpful to the editing environment and that they should remain in effect. No one has requested that the Arbitration Committee open a full case to consider the issue.

Accordingly, the existing sanctions and restrictions applied to Syrian Civil War and related articles will continue in effect for a period not to exceed 30 days. During that period, a discussion should be opened on the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN) to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. If a consensus is not reached during the community discussion, any editor may file a request for arbitration. In the interim, any notifications and sanctions are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.

Passed 10 to 1 by amendment on 08:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Motion: ARBPIA (December 2016)

The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:

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.
Passed 7 to 0 by motion at 22:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Log of notifications

On 3 May 2014 Arbcom established a new method of notifying for discretionary sanctions which is explained at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. All notices given prior to the May 2014 cutover date will expire on 3 May 2015. New notices are to be given using {{Ds/alert}} and they expire one year after they are given. No new notices should be logged here.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

2011 notices

2012 notices

2013 notices

2014 notifications

Log of blocks and bans

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.