Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case opened and suspended on 07:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched

To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

WP:ARBPIA4WP:ARBPIA4

Main case page (talk) — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Case clerks: SQL (talk) & Cthomas3 (talk) • Drafting arbitrators: Joe Roe (talk) & Premeditated Chaos (talk) & Worm That Turned (talk)

Case unsuspended on 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Case closed on 06:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 19:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Case clarified by motion on 18:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 10:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Case amended by motions on 04:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 06:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 16:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 00:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.

Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee.
Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

Preliminary statements

Statement by Nyttend

This is not some sort of complaint/argument/etc. Just trying to get an authoritative statement on this decision's scope.

Airbnb is a US-based company that acts as a broker for people who have spare rooms in their homes and people who want to rent those rooms. Apparently there was some controversy related to Israel-Palestine and this company, so the article has a section on this issue. Ymblanter recently protected the article under ARBPIA following some disruptive editing to this section. I questioned this action, saying basically "did you accidentally protect the wrong article", and Ymblanter responded basically "I protected it intentionally, because the disruptive editing was related to Israel-Palestine". His response mentions some consultation with Galobtter regarding the duration.

So the question...are this decision's stipulations on page protection meant to apply to all articles that have bits related to Israel-Palestine, or is it only intended for pages to which Israel-Palestine is an integral component? This article is definitely the first — one can understand the company quite well without a tiny Israel-Palestine section sourced only to news reports and an advocacy organization. By the latter, I'm talking about Israeli politicians, places in the West Bank, events in the history of Gaza, etc. The situation here reminds me of the "weather" situation at WP:TBAN — if we had similar sanctions on the topic of weather, I suppose we'd not consider all articles with "climate" sections liable to ARBWEATHER protection.

If we assume either Ymblanter's perspective or mine, there's no room for dispute over whether this is an appropriate protection; if Arbcom meant to include all pages with Israel-Palestine sections, of course this is an appropriate protection, and if you didn't mean to include pages like this, obviously this should be treated like any other victim of disruptive editing rather than an Israel-Palestine issue. So once again, no hard feelings exist yet, and I don't envision them arising in the future; I just want the scope to be clear.

if the result of this clarification request is that only dedicated articles can be extended-confirmed protected (or anything else) this is perfectly fine with me says Ymblanter. I agree — if the committee intends ARBPIA to apply to articles in an Airbnb-type situation, that's fine with me. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, at User talk:Ymblanter#Protection of Airbnb, Ymblanter said I am not sure I can now so easily remove or lower the protection. I do not think we have a mechanism of lowering ARBPIA protections. If an admin levies an ARBPIA sanction and then changes his mind, is there something preventing the admin from self-reverting? If this is indeed the case, and it's specific to ARBPIA (I don't know; I don't do WP:AE), it would be helpful if you implemented a mechanism for lowering ARBPIA protections or allowing other self-reverting. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

The consultation with Galobtter which Nyttend mentions is at my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#Protection of Airbnb. Concerning the issue itself, I indeed interpret the decision such that if an article contains a significant part (in the case of Airbnb, this is a dedicated section) the discretionary sanctions apply. However, I do not hold strong opinions here, if the result of this clarification request is that only dedicated articles can be extended-confirmed protected (or anything else) this is perfectly fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Huldra: Without giving my opinion of the motion you mention, if someone compiles a list of articles where the notice must be placed I volunteer, after a reasonable check, place the notice to all these articles (which obviously is going to take time but it is still better than nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: Yes, it is time to conduct review of all remedies. We are slowly moving towards professionalizing of AE in general and PI in particular, when one first needs to study for five years and then run an internship in order to be able to act there responsively. This is not really good.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

Hello everyone, I know this has been a bit quieter lately. I wanted to provide an update on case management for the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case, which has been the subject of active deliberation. The specifics are being worked out, but when we open the case, it's likely to be suspended for a period of time before we start the evidence phase. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

Sometimes we can bogged down with the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The intention of DS is to prevent disruption; if there is material on Wikipedia which is likely to lead to disruption, then it is appropriate for us to monitor that material. If the DS wording inhibits us from appropriately preventing disruption then we may look to change the wording rather than allow the disruption to take place due to unclear wording. The material in this case, Airbnb#Delisting_of_West_Bank_settlements, does fall under the Palestine-Israel tension. It is currently neutral and factual, and we would want to keep it that way, so applying DS to that material is appropriate. (For me the greater debate is should that information be in the article on Airbnb, or in the article on Israeli settlement. But that's an editorial decision, not an ArbCom one.)

I think I'm comfortable with the template wording as is so we don't need to be fiddling with "page/article/section/material". If someone feels that there is significant enough content which falls under a DS topic on a particular page/article then they can place a DS template. If another person doesn't agree, the matter can be taken to AE for discussion and consensus. While the template is in place, any inappropriate edit to any part of the page would be liable for sanction - that would be to prevent, for example in this case, anyone deliberately vandalising Airbnb to reflect badly on the company in retaliation for their actions on the West Bank.

In short, I think we're fine as we are, and nothing needs to be done. Disagreements about siting of templates can be taken to AE. SilkTork (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Zero0000. My understanding is that a DS notice goes on the talkpage to let people know that the article comes under DS, and if someone edits that article, and it appears they are not aware that DS applies to the article, they need to be informed on their talkpage before sanctions can be applied against them. I understand that an editnotice can also be added, but does that mean a talkpage notice cannot be placed, and a user cannot be informed? Has there been a rule change which says that we are no longer using talkpage notices, and no longer informing users? I wouldn't have thought an ~~talkpage notice~~ editnotice is sufficient notice alone before sanctioning someone because, lets be honest, most people don't read ~~talkpage notices~~ editnotices. But they do read notices left on their talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Huldra, I see what you are saying. Though the rule regarding editnotices has been in place since January 2018: . I think the intention was to ensure that users get warned by having editnotices placed on appropriate articles. But it has created a limbo loop hasn't it? The rule to place editnotices should be separate from the general rule on warning. That is, an editor who meets the general criteria for being warned, should not be able to escape sanction by wiki-lawyering that there was no editnotice in place. It looks like Rob intended or hoped that a bot would be created that allowed editnotices to be created if there was an appropriate talkpage notice in place. I think AGK is right - it would be helpful to conduct a review of the remedies. SilkTork (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Huldra - Hah, yes, I was a member of Mensa in the Seventies, yet my mind glazes over when faced with some ARBPIA stuff. But, truth be told, IQ tests only test how good someone is at solving IQ tests, they don't measure the ability to handle arcane Wikipedia bureaucracy created by an ever changing committee. SilkTork (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration remedies applying to the Arab–Israeli conflict seem to have grown confusing and patchworked. Is it time to conduct a review of all remedies? I'd like to hear from editors and enforcing administrators who are active in this topic area. Among other questions for a review, we should look at whether 1RR is effective – both in general and under the current rules of notification. AGK ■ 10:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

More information Retired arbitrator ...

Retired arbitrator

Airbnb is rather obviously not "reasonably construed" to be within the topic area of an international conflict, though it is "broadly construed" to be. That would mean discretionary sanctions are in force, but 1RR and the general prohibition do not apply. As for calls to review the entire topic area's sanction regime, I consider that unhelpful. There are some editors, admins even, who seem like they just simply won't understand anything we throw their way in this topic area. Further tweaking is highly unlikely to change that, because we've tweaked these sanctions about a dozen times already to try to solve such issues, and the repeated changes have never helped. If anything, they've made things more confused because we aren't just settling on one set of sanctions and sticking with it.
What we have now is discretionary sanctions on articles "broadly construed" - meaning any article that's even tangentially related to the topic area. Additionally, we have 500/30 and 1RR on articles "reasonably construed" - meaning any article where one could not talk about the article subject at the top level without delving into the topic area. That really isn't that complicated or confused.
The one positive clarification we could make here is to set forth a formal definition of "reasonably construed". I would suggest what I wrote above. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- My thinking on this has changed rather sharply after the recent Huldra/Sir Joseph kerfuffle, especially the admin response at AE. It has become clear that the current sanction regime, in total, is not working. I think we need another ABRPIA case to review the entire situation. As a potential road map, I'd like to consider a removal of blanket 500/30 in favor of implementing 500/30 where disruption occurs as a discretionary sanction, with a remedy explicitly noting that the Committee would like it to be used liberally but not unreasonably. Blanket 500/30 is a relic of a bygone era when 500/30 could not be applied by technical means in case-by-case scenarios. Existing protections could be automatically converted to discretionary sanctions appealable at AE like any other sanction, so no "mass-unprotecting" during a switch. I also think we need to rethink the awareness requirements of 1RR and its applicability. In particular, we could change the DS notice to include mention of 1RR and then allow a consensus of administrators at AE to enforce 1RR in cases where a reasonable editor who had received the notice would be aware the article was covered in addition to being able to enforce it where edit notices exist. In other words, edit notices would only be truly needed to enforce the requirement on articles that are difficult to tell are reasonably construed to be within the topic area, but not on those articles that are obviously related. Plus I think a look at the long-term contributors in this area would be useful to determine where there are issues that have not been solvable by the community. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Zero0000: Read carefully what I have written. I have not proposed removing 500/30. I have proposed removing blanket 500/30 of "reasonably construed" pages in favor of discretionary but liberal use of 500/30 to combat abuse across all "broadly construed" pages. I have proposed zero removals of existing protections, stating all existing protections should remain if we were to make such a switch. In fact, such a proposal may increase some protections by eliminating from our vernacular this "reasonably construed" language that is proving hard for admins to parse. The current rule is clearly causing some issues, given the protection of Airbnb, which I believe is rather plainly not intended by our sanctions, and I no longer think the benefits outweigh the harms of removing administrator discretion from the equation in this remedy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: We are trying to reach a consensus, so placing comments by a retired arbitrator into {{Hidden}}. AGK ■ 11:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

PIA ARCAs make me want to hide under the blankets, and it seems I'm not the only one. Frankly I'd love to see this topic area get a rules overhaul, but I don't have the time to do it. A number of these repetitive requests on PIA issues have centered on this point about "what if it's just a small section in a larger and mostly-unrelated article" and I've generally held the view that such things should not be included in all the warning/templating/etc infrastructure. I don't see any reason this should be an exception to that general view. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's more to be said here - but I've been lax at ARCA, so I thought I'd pitch in. In my opinion - the discretionary sanctions can be applied where the disruption occurs - hence the broadly construed nature of that. I would hope that the sanction would be as light as possible in areas that are more tangential to the case, be it through time limitation of the sanction or through a tailored sanction which hits as small an area as possible.
I like the idea of re-doing ARBPIA, similar to OR, I'd want to hide under the blanket! Worm^TT(talk) 08:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Motion to open

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

Proposed:

The committee opens proceedings on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, naming it Palestine-Israel articles 4. Proceedings will take place in the normal form. Evidence (and related submissions, including at the Workshop) must remain within the proceedings scope. The following matters will initially be within scope:

Trends in disruptive editing of related pages, but not the specific conduct of any editor.
Difficulties in Wikipedia administrative processes, particularly arbitration enforcement (AE), with regard to related pages.
Currently-authorised remedies under any arbitration decision that affect related pages.
Prospective amendments to, or replacements for, existing remedies.
Other general matters relating to the ease with which Wikipedia keeps order on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

Proposed. We don't have a lot of bandwidth right now, but we seem to agree that it is time to formally review these decisions and look into why participating editors and uninvolved administrators alike seem to be discontented. This motion proposes a low-fuss path towards conducting such a review, and hopefully matches with what colleagues were thinking. AGK ■ 11:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to, because these discussions are sprawling and polarising. I don't know how we are going to fit it in, with our other workload. However, I do agree that this is probably the right time to do this, it needs tidying up. What's more, if the committee itself can let this stall so long, it appears that we don't have a clear way forward and that's what we're here to try to sort out. I do like the proposed scope, making this a bit more meta and might make things a bit more manageable, good job AGK. Worm^TT(talk) 12:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I have been meaning to do a motion on this for a little while now, but never got round to it, so thanks to AGK for taking the initiative, and for giving thoughtful shape to the proposed proceedings. SilkTork (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I support this in principle, and agree with the above, thanks AGK for tackling this. But I don't know that we have the bandwidth for this right now. One possibility would be to schedule the opening for a specific time in the future after we've moved through some of the current business. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
It's daunting to think about redoing ARBPIA, but it looks like there is fairly widespread agreement among editors in that topic area and administrators trying to enforce remedies in that topic area that the restrictions there are in bad shape. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
With the caveat that we get the big thing on our plate out of the way first. Katie^talk 16:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Per everybody else - inescapably necessary, but let's deal with our other priorities first. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Sadly necessary. Courcelles (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain/recuse

Comments

Final decision

Principles

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the three previous cases related to Palestine-Israel articles: Palestine-Israel articles, West Bank - Judea and Samaria, and Palestine-Israel articles 3.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia

2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality and sources

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

5) Editors should contribute from a neutral point of view. Single-purpose accounts can create the impression that an editor is following their own agenda with a non-neutral focus on a single topic. Editors operating such an account should take care to ensure that their edits are compatible with the project's broader goal of writing an encyclopaedia.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

6) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there are several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

7) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

At wit's end

8) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) This case relates to behavioral issues occurring around articles relating to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This area has been the subject of three previous arbitration cases, the Palestine-Israel articles case, West Bank - Judea and Samaria case and Palestine-Israel articles 3 case.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Confusion over remedies

2) Editors working in the topic area have expressed concern that the rules governing editing and sanctions for pages relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict (summarized at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles) have become overly complicated and confusing, making them difficult to enforce effectively.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Scope of sanctions

3) Drawing a distinction between pages "broadly construed" and "reasonably construed" as relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict has been unintuitive and unhelpful, particularly for pages where only a portion of the content is relevant. (Ymblanter's evidence, paragraph 3, and )

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Remedies

Condensing of remedies

1) For the sake of easy referencing, the following existing remedies are vacated (with the intention of replacing them elsewhere in this decision):

ARBPIA:

Editors reminded
Editors counseled
Standard discretionary sanctions (for "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages")
General 1RR restriction

ARBPIA2:

ARBPIA3:

General Prohibition (of users not "extended confirmed")
Sanctions available

Existing enforcement decisions relying upon these remedies are not vacated and will be appealable as if this remedy had not carried.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Amended by motion at 19:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Editors reminded

2) 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 making use of dispute resolution where necessary.

Wikipedia cannot resolve the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian people or any other real-world 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 real-life conflict parties. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.

Passed 5 to 1 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Editors counselled

3) 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 counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may wish to 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 that they become 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 5 to 1 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Definition of the "area of conflict"

More information Amended by motion, Superseded version ...

Amended by motion

Superseded version

the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.

4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 06:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 16:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

ARBPIA General Sanctions

More information Superseded version of item A ...

Superseded version of item A

A: Discretionary sanctions: Standard discretionary sanctions are activated for the area of conflict. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing the area of conflict whilst aware.

Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

More information Superseded version of item B ...

Superseded version of item B

B: 500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

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 methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, 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 created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

5) The following set of sanctions will be considered the "ARBPIA General Sanctions".

Contentious topic designation: The area of conflict is designated as a contentious topic.
Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.
One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the extended confirmed restriction 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.

The {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} editnotice and the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} talk page notice should be used on pages within the area of conflict. When only parts of a page fall within the area of conflict, if there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarified by motion at 18:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 10:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 15:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 06:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Standing sanctions upon primary articles

More information Rescinded by motion ...

Rescinded by motion

6) All primary articles will be subject to the ARBPIA General Sanctions. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} should be added to the talk page of affected pages, and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} should be added as an editnotice to affected pages. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles. The templates may be added to primary articles by any user, but may only be removed by an uninvolved administrator. Users who lack the appropriate permissions to create an editnotice should place the talk page template as normal, then make an edit request for someone with permissions to create the edit notice.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion at 06:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

General sanctions upon related content

More information Rescinded by motion ...

Rescinded by motion

7) All edits made to related content (i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict) will be subject to ARBPIA General Sanctions.

When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} on the talk page and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} in the editnotice to do so. If there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on related content. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator. Users who lack the appropriate permissions to create an editnotice should place the talk page template as normal, then make an edit request for someone with permissions to create the edit notice.

Editors should apply the ARBPIA General Sanctions templates to related content only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools. Administrators should only utilize the ARBPIA General Sanctions to reduce disruption caused by edits related to the conflict area. Problematic edits made to unrelated content on the same page should be handled by normal administrative means.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion at 06:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Disputes about scope of conflict area

More information Rescinded by motion ...

Rescinded by motion

8) In the case of disputes regarding whether or not an article is a primary article, or whether a portion of content is related to ARBPIA, editors should use normal dispute resolution methods to come to a consensus.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion at 06:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Available sanctions

More information Amended by motion, Superseded version ...

Amended by motion

Superseded version

9) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
The contentious topics procedure permits full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
The contentious topics procedure permits uninvolved admins to use a wide variety of tools from the "standard set" to address disruption, including protections, blocks, topic bans, and revert restrictions.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 00:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Amendments and Clarifications

Amendment (December 2019)

Remedy 1 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case is amended by inserting, at the end of the list titled "ARBPIA", the following list item:

General 1RR restriction

Passed 5 to 0 by motion at 19:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarification (July 2021)

The phrase "other internal project discussions", as used in Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions"), shall be construed to include requested moves.

Passed 7 to 1 by motion at 18:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Amendment (September 2021)

Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:

Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.

Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 10:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

21) Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom (November 2024)

When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 04:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Motion 2b: Word limits (November 2024)

Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 04:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Motion 2c: Word limits (November 2024)

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.

Passed 6 to 3 by motion at 04:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Motion: Repealing primary articles/related content distinction (October 2025)

Remedy 4 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'") is amended to read as follows: For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.

Remedy 5 is amended by appending the following text: The {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} editnotice and the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} talk page notice should be used on pages within the area of conflict. When only parts of a page fall within the area of conflict, if there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator.

Remedy 6, Remedy 7, and Remedy 8 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case are repealed.

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 06:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Motion: standardizing by removing "broadly construed" where it is present (March 2026)

Because contentious topics and the extended-confirmed restriction are broadly construed unless otherwise specified, the following are amended by removing the words broadly construed:

Remedy 3 of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 4.1 of Abortion ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1.2 of American politics 2 ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended")
Remedy 2 of Acupuncture ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 12 of Eastern Europe ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1 of Genetically modified organisms ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1 of Iranian politics ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1 of Kurds and Kurdistan ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 14 of Pseudoscience ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS")
Remedy 5 of The Troubles ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 7 of Antisemitism in Poland ("Extended confirmed restriction")
Remedy 3 of Indian military history ("Caste-related topics in South Asia extended-confirmed restriction")
The contentious topic designation in Horn of Africa

Remedy 4 of Palestine-Israel articles 4 and remedy 14 of Pseudoscience ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'" and "Contentious topic designation", respectively) are amended by removing the words broadly interpreted.

This motion is for the sake of consistent language only. It does not change what is covered by the above remedies and motions.

Passed 8 to 1 by motion at 16:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Motion: Replacing awareness with warnings (June 2026)

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a second paragraph:

An administrator should warn an editor whose behavior is not egregiously disruptive if the administrator believes the editor does not understand what editing in a contentious topic means. Otherwise, the administrator should issue an appropriate restriction.

To conform with these changes:

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by removing An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
The part of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Enforcement of restrictions beginning However, breaches of a page restriction... is amended to read However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if the restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template).
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope is amended by removing the word aware
Point (v) of Palestine-Israel articles 4 remedy 9, point (v) of Indian military history remedy 9, and point (vii) of GamerGate remedy 1.2 ("Available sanctions", "ARBIPA available sanctions", and "Sanctions available", respectively) are amended to read The contentious topics procedure permits uninvolved admins to use a wide variety of tools from the "standard set" to address disruption, including protections, blocks, topic bans, and revert restrictions.
Remedy 2 and remedy 3 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("DS Extended: SPAs" and "DS: Administrators Encouraged", respectively) are terminated
Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation") is amended to read:
1) COVID-19 is designated as a contentious topic, replacing the community COVID-19 general sanctions.
All sanctions issued under the COVID-19 general sanctions are governed by the contentious topic procedure. Administrators who enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing this contentious topic.
Remedy 13 of Skepticism and coordinated editing ("BLP DS reminder") is retitled BLP contentious topic reminder and amended to read:
13) Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation from the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case. Administrators should give serious consideration to issuing contentious topic restrictions to editors named in this decision in the event of further misconduct.
Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS") is amended by removing the second-to-last bullet point (beginning Editors aware of the previous contentious topic...)
Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended") is amended by removing Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.

Administrators are strongly reminded that warning before sanctioning is almost always best practice. This change only removes the formalities associated with awareness.

Passed 11 to 0 by motion at 00:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

More information 0) Appeals and modifications ...

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:

ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); or
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the Committee, once the Committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction, who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever other period the Committee may specify.

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[1] or is no longer an administrator;^[2] or
The restriction was issued more than a year ago.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review

On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify an arbitration enforcement action on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:

the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

References

[1]
The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
[2]
This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

Statement by Nyttend

Statement by Ymblanter

Statement by Galobtter

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion to open

Principles

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

Purpose of Wikipedia

Role of the Arbitration Committee

Neutrality and sources

Single purpose accounts

Sockpuppetry

Tendentious editing

At wit's end

Findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

Confusion over remedies

Scope of sanctions

Remedies

Condensing of remedies

Editors reminded

Editors counselled

Definition of the "area of conflict"

ARBPIA General Sanctions

Standing sanctions upon primary articles

General sanctions upon related content

Disputes about scope of conflict area

Available sanctions

Amendments and Clarifications

Amendment (December 2019)

Clarification (July 2021)

Amendment (September 2021)

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom (November 2024)

Motion 2b: Word limits (November 2024)

Motion 2c: Word limits (November 2024)

Motion: Repealing primary articles/related content distinction (October 2025)

Motion: standardizing by removing "broadly construed" where it is present (March 2026)

Motion: Replacing awareness with warnings (June 2026)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

Appeals and modifications

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

Standard of review

On community review

On Arbitration Committee review

Enforcement log

Related Articles