Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict

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)

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)

4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

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

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

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

Last amended at 15:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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

Last amended at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the standard set of restrictions in this topic area for up to one year. Additionally, they 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.

• sitewide and partial blocks,
• topic bans and page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic),
• interaction bans,
• revert restrictions,
• word limits per discussion

• page protection,
• revert restrictions,
• the "consensus required" restriction,
• the "enforced BRD" restriction,
• word limits for all participants in a specific discussion

When alerting an editor who has never received an alert for any contentious topic, the following template must be used to alert them:

• {{subst:Contentious topics/alert/first|a-i}}

When a page has active page restrictions, the following template must be used as an editnotice:

• {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice|a-i}}

The following templates may be used in this contentious topic:

Alerting editors after their first alert

• {{subst:Contentious topics/alert|a-i}}
• {{subst:Contentious topics/alert/DS|a-i}}

No page restrictions editnotice

• {{Contentious topics/editnotice|a-i}}

Talk page notices

• {{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}}
• {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|a-i}}