Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
t e

Case Opened on 04:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 15:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Case Amended (by motion) on 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Case Amended (by motion) on 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Case amended by

on 06:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at

subpage.

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

.

• Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MeteorMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brewcrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Requests for comment

• Talk:Israeli settlement#RfC: Should Wikipedia avoid the terms "Judea", "Samaria", and "Palestine" when describing "Israel" and the "West Bank" in Wikipedia's "neutral voice"?.

Before getting into any specifics, I would like to make clear that this is not a content dispute, but rather a somewhat extreme case of

), would resolve the above problems.

The underlying naming issue is the use of the names "

and although it flowed-over to a number of other articles, the main arguments were discussed there. For those unwilling to read the pages and pages of talk there, these are the main arguments for and against:

• Pro Judea and Samaria: The terms are used by a number of academic and non-academic sources within and outside of Israel (for sources from both sides see Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources).
• Contra Judea and Samaria:
  WP:NCGN
  and should not be used on Wikipedia.

As I have said above, this is about

or stating that there was no consensus on said page.

This did not happen on articles explicitly dealing with

User:Nickhh

got blocked.

A lot of

edit-warring

could be avoided if we could get a binding decision on which terminologies are acceptable and which should be avoided. To my knowledge, the different terminologies used so far have been

• Judea/Samaria (alone, no mention of West Bank)
• northern/southern West Bank (alone, no mention of Judea or Samaria)
• Judea/Samaria area of/in the West Bank (and several variants thereof)
• Judea/Samaria (West Bank) (West Bank in brackets in case J&S not clear)
• Judea and Samaria
  ) (J&S in brackets in case West Bank not clear)
• northern/southern West Bank (also refered to as Judea/Samaria) (explicit alternative naming)

I personally would avoid any use of Judea and/or Samaria unless the context is explicitly related to alternative terminology.

Many thanks, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:26

Reply to FloNight

There was an RfC, as pointed out above and some unofficial mediation by

- 25.02.2009 14:03

Additional Comment

It's interesting to notice how the proponents of the

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

displayed and discussed above.

To put it more bluntly, I assume the proponents of the

edit-war

over a concrete solution is definitely not in the best interests the encyclopaedia.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 26.02.2009 09:58

Reply to ROGER DAVIES, Jaakobou

I smell the first attempts at painting other editors as

are used outside of said Israeli/Jewish circles. This kind of innuendo is of no help in this discussion.

As for who started it or who was more involved, I had added all editors involved to the discussions on Talk:Israeli settlement to this request, so they're all here. I don't think pointing fingers will get us anywhere, so I won't opine on who's to blame for whatever -- that's not important. We've got a problem, let's just solve it and get on with it.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 27.02.2009 15:54

• No other online reference works use the disputed terminology ("Samaria"/"Judea"). [1]
• No news media outside Israel use the disputed terminology. [2]
• No official bodies outside Israel use the disputed terminology. [3]
• No sources have been presented that say the disputed terminology is in current use anywhere outside Israel. [4]
• Scores of sources have been presented that say the disputed terminology is not in current use outside Israel. [5]
• WP:NPOV
  expressly discourage using terms that are not widely used in English, used by only a small minority, or by only one side in a conflict.
• The standard terminology ("West Bank") is not disputed and universally regarded as neutral. Both sides in the conflict use this term, predominantly or exclusively, and all neutral sources use it exclusively.

This should be enough to close any case. Not so on Wikipedia. Undaunted by the lack of sources and support in policies, the pro-J+S side has engaged in a four-month war [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and employed every type of wikilawyering in the book, stonewalling, edit warring, attempts to get other editors banned, accusations of anti-Semitism, and staggering amounts of

that would result from accepting this kind of behavior from a small group of editors is detrimental to the credibility of the project in the long run.

If the disputed terms should be used at all (and there are occasional places where they make sense, for instance in the articles about themselves), they should be accompanied with a note that they are Israel-specific:

• northern/southern West Bank (also referred to in Israel as Judea/Samaria) (explicit alternative naming with usage note)

MeteorMaker (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jaakobou

This is probably the exchange Jaakobou is referring to. The out-of-context claim, with its inevitable connotations, that "sources such as 'international bank' were [rejected and] deemed 'Israel/Jewish-connected'" is exactly the kind of misrepresentation of other editors' arguments that have poisoned this discussion. Even more annoying is the fact that these claims from Jaakobou are persistent [15][16][17] despite the fact that the context has been explained several times [18][19][20][21][22].

The fact that other involved editors have done it too (small sample here [23][24][25][26][27][28]) is no excuse. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, this is a dispute over terminology between Palestinian and Israeli nationalists and their respective supporters (I have not taken sides, for the record, but have acted in an advisory capacity on

have already been applied. Because the dispute is fundamentally a content dispute, it is not within the Arbitration Committee's remit. It has also not undergone any prior dispute resolution as far as I am aware. I therefore recommend that the case be rejected.

I will however repeat what I have said on

]

In a nutshell, this is a dispute over terminology between Palestinian and Israeli nationalists and their respective supporters'

Dead wrong. There are no Palestinian, as opposed to Israeli, nationalists involved. It is a clash between those (Israeli and Jewish editors) who support a restricted number of Israeli naming conventions, of a distinct and proven nationalist colouring, for an occupied territory 83% of whose population is Arab, and those who support neutral international usage. It is a conflict therefore between international naming conventions, as opposed to unilateral nationalist naming. If there are no guidelines that privilege the former over the latter, there is really no point in editing I/P articles. The only imaginable compromise excludes Palestinian usage, for it would secure parity between a specific set of words in Israeli usage (excluding as it does Palestinian/Arabic usage) with the conventional names preferred by the overwhelming majority of international bodies, academic sources, and the mainstream media, as well as by Israeli and Arabic sources. This is not a dispute between Palestinian and Israeli usage: were it so, this would have been resolved long ago by parity accords. 'The West Bank' is the international default term for the area, reflected in both Hebrew usage and Arabic usage (HaGadah HaMa'aravit/aḍ-Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä) etc.etc. It is therefore an Israeli POV of a particular kind. In Hebrew there is a perfectly neutral calque for 'West Bank', just as there is in Arabic. The editors, or rather one editor holding out, holds out for a set of expressions introduced by settlers and their political supporters in the last three decades, a set of terms which define politicial allegiances in Israel itself, and which many native Israeli speakers of Hebrew prefer not to use. These expressions are intended to substitute the standard Hebrew words for 'West Bank'. These editors are pushing, in short, for 'Judea/Samaria' to replace the more neutral HaGadah HaMa'aravit phrase equally used by native Hebrew speakers, one that accords with international usage. Not so much a matter of a'content' dispute, but of what formal rules apply here to secure NPOV in wiki articles. Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Ynhockey. This has been exhaustively discussed, in several venues, and now boasts substantial archives. In terms of documentation, we have a virtual monograph on reliable sources concerning these terms. No one in the I/P area could fail to note it, since the terminological crux affects several dozen wiki pages. We are being asked to recycle a huge amount of argument, each time, for each page, and re-undertake months and months of intensive analysis. There is absolutely no movement towards consensus. Consensus indeed seems impossible. Everything imaginable has been said, noted, discussed, rebutted. Point us to any venue, as long as it offers us the prospect of closing what is becoming an infinite stall of Sisyphean proportions. Not deciding anything is an open invitation to seduce editors into further rounds of edit-warring, accusations of bad faith, gaming the system to drive editors off, all of which means nagging administrators with better things to do etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. I would appreciate you reviewing your extraordinary comment about my putatively finding fault with Jewish or Israeli editors. Most of them never even, understandably, touch these pages.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve. I was not, as implied by two editors, finding fault with an ethnic or national group. I was taking up ChrisO's ref. to 'Israeli nationalists' (a subset), and, quite simply, (since not all of those holding the position pushed on Samaria and Judea are Israelis, but rather Jewish), I added this for clarity (again a subset' vis.'those'). It is quite clear from my 'those' that I am referring to a minority view shared by some Jewish people and some Israeli nationalists. Perhaps I would be more sensitive, if my interlocutors were less sensitive. I've never been offended by being called of Irish Catholic extraction, and it is perhaps a congenital defect of my principles that I regard precision in language as more important that meandering one's way nervously through a thousand witch's hats of politically correct phrasing that occludes clear analysis. Still, this fact is immaterial to the conceptual issue at stake, though it is material to understanding why immense difficulties have cropped up as we have striven to resolve the crux, which is commonplace with wiki pages where national interests are perceived to be at stake in naming. I'm happy to drop it.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishidani. I understand your thoughts and reasoning on this. I do understand that your phrasing was simply a legitimate means to refer somewhat validly to the groups in question, without any negative intent on your part. I have seen your past postings enough to know that is extremely credible . I really appreciate your helpful reply. (I'm keeping my comments here a bit brief and to the point since this is an RFAR proceeding; sorry if they sound a little bit terse or anything). thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Actually, I thought it helpful to contextualise this in the way I do, for another reason. It is wholly natural for anyone of Israeli/Jewish background to think those two terms (Judea/Samaria) uncontroversial, since they are thoroughly assimilated into a specific linguistic and cultural matrix where this is accepted as normative. I can fully appreciate this. To my knowledge, no one hailing from any other background has edited to endorse this perspective, for the simple reason that those two words, to the broader anglophone world, do primarily connote religious/biblical/historical realities, and it is customary for nearly all these other groups to refer to the same area by the standard neutral term 'West Bank'. I tried this for the umpteenth time this morning on a niece with a degree: she couldn't pin down Samaria, but knew where the West Bank was. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Roger Davies' query below. I think that naming people would only lead to a recriminatory atmosphere, since both sides would have grievances. If we do indeed receive closer supervision, as many hope for, the occasion would, I think, be jumped at as an opportunity to start afresh, with the air cleared, in the confidence that we could now work efficiently towards an encyclopedic end, put aside past conflicts under the assurance that no personalising of issues would be permitted, and only strict muster and analysis of evidence, rules and logic allowed. The evidence is there: all we need is flense it out of the massive conflictual whale of a thread in which it has been embedded, leaving the bones of personal contentiousness to the archives. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Arthur Rubin. Actually, the Palestinians had nothing to do with coining 'the West Bank'. Western usage, informed by colonial administrators familiar with Latin, distinguished Cisjordan and Transjordan. 'This side' of the Jordan, and 'that side' of the Jordan. The distinction still holds in archeological studies of Palestine before the emergence of the Jewish kingdoms. After the 1949 armistice, Jordan took control of the area, and renamed its own state the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (no longer Transjordan), and translated the latinate 'Cisjordan' into Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä, the 'West Bank' of what the monarchy considered a united kingdom, thus denying the residual Arab population of former Palestine resident there an independent existence or nomenclature. This determination was accepted by Israelis themselves when referring to the area down to 1967, when they conquered it. If anything, historically, the term connoted a territorial unity with Jordan, and an alien kingdom. The preferred Palestinian term is 'Palestine'/'Filastin'. We all agree that 'Palestine' is not acceptable, since it is a partisan designation without full legal authority internationally (just as Judea/Samaria). The world, its deliberative bodies, international court etc., has stuck with the Jordanian term, which has, however, lost the brief resonance of affiliation to Jordan it had under Hashemite rule. Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of indifferent as to which WP route should be taken to deal with this, but it does undoubtedly need to be dealt with. It's an issue which has spread across up to 30 pages now, and has generated an inordinate amount of edit warring and talk page debate over what should be a relatively simple and trivial point. There was in fact I believe at least one RfC started in respect of it, however I acknowledge the points being made that there are other dispute resolution methods that might be better looked to first. The only thing I would say in response to that is that it needs some kind of binding decision, which has real enforcement teeth, so that we can finally put this little thing to bed. And it's as likely as not we'll end up here anyway given the experience of other similar debates, for example the one over "Disputed" vs "Occupied" territories, which has been through numerous RfCs but which nonetheless gets dragged up again every six months of so, such that everyone is back to square one again. As a couple of side notes on the substance of the dispute itself -

• I second Nishidani's point that this is not about "Israeli" POV/terminology vs "Palestinian" POV/terminology. It is about whether WP should use a narrow and minority-use Israeli nationalist terminology, as opposed to the standard international terminology used in most media, official and other sources around the world, including within Israel as it happens. None of the editors on this side of the debate are Palestinian or in any way involved in the underlying conflict, as far as I'm aware. And tellingly perhaps, what Palestinians (or the Palestinian Authority) might actually choose to call specific areas of the West Bank has never in fact even entered into the debate that I've noticed.

• Yes there's a place for compromise here, but let's be careful of suggesting that there is some middle way on this one where we use all the terms interchangeably or simultaneously. One version is standard usage, the other is not. The page on
  George W Bush
  does not say he "also known as Dubya" as if it is an equivalent alternative name, although the article will of course note this at the appropriate point, and explain it as being a nickname. Equally if one or two editors start arguing that he is in fact a woman, we do not "compromise" and label him a hermaphrodite.

--

]

I don't believe ArbCom should be involved in resolving content disputes, which this surely is. This is especially true when very little formal

]

The situation here is very basic indeed. Each side in the (real-world) Israel-Palestine conflict has its preferred geographic terminology, which it employs in an effort to confer authority, inevitability, etc. upon maximal territorial claims. So partisans on one side refer to all the land between the river and the sea using the historical term "Palestine"; meanwhile partisans on the other side refer to the land between the river and the Green Line using the Biblical terms "Judea" and "Samaria."

This might sound like an insoluble pancake for Wikipedia, but it isn't. Because fortunately for us, there is a third terminology, distinct from either of the above, and it's used by the overwhelming majority of mainstream reliable sources, academic and journalistic. According to this terminological consensus – which is truly vast and stable, as everyone familiar with the conflict knows – the territory between the Green Line and the sea is called "Israel," and the territory between the Green Line and the river Jordan is called the "West Bank." In addition to consistently employing this standard terminology, this vast, overwhelming consensus of mainstream reliable sources regularly addresses the ideological implications of both minority terminologies ("Palestine" and "Judea"/"Samaria"), explicitly describing the partisan motivations for the use of each.

So the content issue really could not be simpler. It's the behavioral issues that are truly out of hand and need to be addressed, in my opinion by Arbcom. The level of deliberate stonewalling, bad-faith editing and argumentation, and gross misrepresentation of source material is almost as poisonous and extensive as it was during the "Allegations of apartheid" hoax several years ago. Ordinarily I would say kick this over to DR. But in this case the content question is so minor and obvious, the behavioral issues so vexed, and the atmosphere of mutual trust and respect so disastrously frayed, that there would be little to no chance of successful or even meaningful mediation. Arbitration helped resolve the Allegations of apartheid mess, and it can help to resolve this.

Three important final clarifications:

1. This dispute is mischaracterized as one between "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" editors. There is in fact no group of editors trying to normalize the partisan term "Palestine" for all the land between the river and the sea. There is however a team of editors trying to normalize the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" for the land between the river and the Green Line. Their opponents are arguing only for the use of standard, accepted terminology.
2. A standard strawman argument – you're almost sure to see it on this page – consists of saying that editors are trying to "expunge" the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" from the encyclopedia. That's nonsense. "Judea" and "Samaria," like "Palestine," are historically significant terms, and their use was not always partisan in the past. "Palestine" became controversial after Israel was created in 1948; "Judea" and "Samaria" became controversial after Israel took control of the West Bank in 1967. There are even valid contemporary uses: mainstream sources often refer, for example, to a future state of Palestine, and the collective singular term "Judea and Samaria" is appropriate in certain technical or administrative contexts, since it is an official Israeli military-administrative term. In short, there are many, many appropriate uses of all of these terms on Wikipedia, but in its contemporary neutral voice Wikipedia should not refer to the southern and northern West Bank respectively as "Judea" and "Samaria," nor to the land between the river and the sea as "Palestine."
3. User:MeteorMaker has been invaluable in his collocation of excellent secondary sources attesting to the partisan use of Biblical terms for present-day territories. For this constructive work he's been greeted with personal attacks, strawman arguments, and endless wikilawyering. But he has been misguided in one minor respect. He has focused in some instances on the nationality of sources who use these partisan terms – e.g. in formulations like "Israel-specific terminology." The Israel-Palestine conflict is the world's political football; though terms like "Judea," "Samaria," and "Palestine" are obviously nationalist terms (a fact MM and others have sourced to the nines), they are used by partisans holding a variety of passports. It's a minor point, and one easily corrected, but it's offered his opponents endless opportunities for obfuscatory red herrings.--G-Dett (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be involved in this discussion a few months ago but havn't really looked at it recently. What bothered me at the time was that sources such as 'international bank' were deemed 'Israel/Jewish-connected' and, to be frank, I could find no way around that. I still feel it is a bit too early for Arbcom intervention and think it would be preferable to try dispute resolution methods first. Certainly, a few minor misconducts have occurred but mothing which merits major community deliberation as it's still more of a content issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to ROGER DAVIES's question

From my personal experiance, User:MeteorMaker has been at the core of this dispute 10 months ago (Rev against consensus, 9 months ago) when I took sincere interest in trying to find an agreeable consensus. I've had the chance to review our past discussion through his link to the Judea archives and I don't see how my argument, that he rejects sources on the account that they are Israel/Jew related, to be incorrect.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC) clarify timing. 15:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC) move sample. 15:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk Note: Threaded discussion from original request was moved to the talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/1/2/1)

• Comment. Awaiting more statement before voting. I want to hear the reason that this dispute needs ArbCom attention. Why will the existing methods of dispute resolution or prior remedies available for this topic not work to settle this specific dispute? Have they been tried and failed? FloNight♥♥♥ 13:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to help resolve the conflict in a manner that will achieve stability for the articles in questions. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept; to look at the behavior of both parties and examine ways out of the dispute. I've seen the wide-ranging repercussions of this dispute, and many of the participants (on both sides of the issue) appear unwiling to compromise or even discuss the issue seriously. I have little hope that dispute resolution would to much more than delay the return of this dispute in front of the committee, and we might be able to provide guidance for a workable way forward. — Coren ^(talk) 18:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am strongly inclined to decline this request. Currently, I see no indication that this is beyond the will or ability of administrators and the community to resolve. There are still quite a few options available for both the content and conduct aspects of this disagreement. Due to the nature of the area, I will wait for further comments before making a final determination. In particular, Elonka has intervened in the course of this dispute and has been very helpful in dealing with conflicts in this topic area. Her perspective of this situation would be very valuable. (It's been noted to me that Elonka is on wikibreak.) Vassyana (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. There appear to be conduct issues best reviewed and addressed by ArbCom. There also appear to be elements of the years-long dispute in the topic area, beyond the run-of-the-mill disputes in the area. I believe ArbCom can help restore some sanity to the area in this situation, allowing policy and dispute resolution to resolve remaining disagreements. Vassyana (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. It seems to me that the battlelines are already drawn and everyone is thoroughly entrenched. It will probably be easier and more expedient for ArbCom to deal with it than to ask the community to try again. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: A couple of things that are unclear from the statements ... Which editors have consistently been the main barriers to consensus? And have they all been made parties? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. It is clear that what started as a content dispute has extended into the behavioural field and I do not think that other methods of dispute resolution would be successful. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Per Sam, Roger, Coren and Flo, all of whom have summed up things I was thinking upon reading some of the diffs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Risker (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Wizardman 17:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline - substantially similar to the Ireland naming case, though the behaviour seems worse. Shouldn't need a whole new case just to reiterate what was said there. Would encourage the involved parties to find mediators to establish a way forward here, using similar cases as a template. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, however per
  chat) 11:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Accept. I think Durova is right for most partisan disputes, but this one is historically intractable. Attempts at non-binding resolution would be, if anything, counter-productive. Cool Hand Luke 15:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction

1) Due to his repeated failure to abide by reasonable standards of conduct in arbitration, Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing the pages of this arbitration case. He may, at his discretion, send his comments directly to the Committee via e-mail. Enacted on 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Passed 6 to 0 at 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) 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, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 13 to 0, 15:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor conduct

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; 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, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0, 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building

, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally.

Passed 13 to 0, 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring

4) Edit-warring, whether by

does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Passed 13 to 0, 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Common sense

5) Not every aspect of Wikipedia activity can be exhaustively prescribed by written policy; experienced editors are expected to have a modicum of common sense and understanding, and to act in a constructive manner even if not explicitly forced to do so.

Passed 12 to 0, 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption

6) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Passed 13 to 0, 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Recidivism

7) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 13 to 0, 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors with privileged access

8) Editors, such as arbitrators and operators of the CheckUser and Oversight tools, who hold positions of public trust or privileged access within the project are expected—more so than even other administrators—to serve as examples of good conduct for their fellow editors, to uphold the high trust placed in them by the community, and to avoid engaging in conduct unbecoming their positions.

Passed 12 to 0, 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Locus of conflict

1) The conflict centers around the use of certain disputed terminology (notably "Judea and Samaria") in articles, and is an outgrowth of the broader disputes prevalent throughout the entire area of articles dealing with aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Passed 13 to 0, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

2) All articles involved in this conflict are subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of the Palestine-Israel articles case.

Passed 11 to 0, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey

3) Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33]).

Passed 13 to 0, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

G-Dett

4) G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ([34]), as well as repeated and extensive edit-warring ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46])

Passed 13 to 0, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

G-Dett and Jayjg

5) G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unduly followed Jayjg's edits, and by doing so has aggravated and escalated the present dispute ([47]).

Passed 12 to 1, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg (I)

6) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]).

Passed 13 to 0, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg (II)

7) During discussions with other editors, Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has conducted himself in a manner unbecoming his position ([62], [63], [64], [65]).

Passed 7 to 3, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg in arbitration

8) Rulings regarding Jayjg's conduct were previously made in CharlotteWebb, where he was "reminded to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue"; Israeli apartheid, where he was "admonished not [to] use [his] administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute" and "reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur"; Yuber, where he was "reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission" and "advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts"; and HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg , where he was placed under an editing restriction.

Passed 13 to 0, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

MeteorMaker

9) MeteorMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([66], [67]) and has attempted to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national, ethnic, or ideological lines ([68]).

Passed 10 to 0, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh

10)

).

Passed 11 to 0, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani

11) Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([71], [72]), as well as incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ([73], [74], [75]).

Passed 13 to 0, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

NoCal100

12) NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([76], [77], [78]).

Passed 12 to 0, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pedrito

13) Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([79], [80]).

Passed 13 to 0, 15:35, 12 May 2009 (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.

Area of conflict

Canadian Monkey restricted

2) Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Passed 12 to 1, 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

G-Dett restricted

3) G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. She is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Passed 13 to 0, 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg restricted

4) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Passed 12 to 1, 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Amended by motion, 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

MeteorMaker restricted

5) MeteorMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Passed 10 to 3, 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh restricted

6)

) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Passed 10 to 3, 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani restricted

7) Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Passed 13 to 0, 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Amended by motion 8 to 0, 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

NoCal100 restricted

8) NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Passed 11 to 2, 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pedrito restricted

9) Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Passed 11 to 2, 15:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg stripped of status and privileges

10.1) Due to behavior inconsistent with holding a position of high trust, Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access; namely:

(a) His access to the CheckUser tool and the checkuser-l mailing list;

(b) His access to the Oversight tool and the oversight-l mailing list; and

(c) His access to the functionaries-en mailing list.

Jayjg is also thanked for his years of service.

Passed 10 to 3, 15:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lifting of restrictions

Suspension of restrictions

Community asked to come to a consensus on the preferred names

13.1) The community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case, without further disputes or rancor. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on

. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement. Any editor who makes disruptive edits risks having their contributions ignored and being barred from taking part. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.

Passed 12 to 0, 17:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user violate a topic ban or an editing restriction imposed in or under this case, that user may be briefly blocked, up to one week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 11 to 1, 15:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

1) In view of his compliance with Remedy 11 of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, the editing restrictions placed on Jayjg (talk · contribs) in that same case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Jayjg is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

Passed 12 to 0, 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

2) The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

Passed 8 to 0, 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Condensing of remedies (December 2019)

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:

• Area of conflict
• Lifting of restrictions
• Suspension of restrictions

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 in the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 19:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• T) 16:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Blocked for 48 h for checkuser-reported ban evasion, per AE report.  Sandstein  16:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User:NoCal100 blocked indefinitely for using sockpuppet User:Hadashot Livkarim to evade restrictions. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• G-Dett (talk · contribs) blocked for 48 hours for violating her editing restriction.  Sandstein  21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]