The Arbitration Committee has enacted remedies that apply to all editors who make edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict (the "contentious topic"). The contentious topics procedure applies to all pages and edits related to this contentious topic.
Additionally, the following arbitration remedies apply:
1RR – subject to the normal exceptions, editors may not make more than one revert (as defined in WP:3RR) per page in the conflict area per 24 hours.
Editors limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion – 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. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. This restriction expires on 15 November 2026.
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)
Last amended at 06:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Appeals only to ArbCom
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)
Word limits (1,000 words)
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. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. 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)
All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.
Administrators permitted to topic ban from a wider area
Based on an explicit finding that a topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict has been insufficient to prevent disruption, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may extend an existing topic ban to include other topics related to Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs. They should cite at least one diff pertinent to each area into which the ban is extended.
Passed 7 to 3 with 1 abstention by motion at 07:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Guidance for editors
Editors reminded
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
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)
Editors reminded (digital security)
Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
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 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.
{{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice}} can be used as a standard article talk page notice. It includes topic-wide restrictions and an information box for editors who are not extended confirmed about the rules for participating on the talk page.
{{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice}} can be used as a standard editnotice for this topic area. It includes topic-wide restrictions and an information box for editors who are not extended confirmed about the rules for participating on the talk page.
The following templates may be used in this contentious topic:
