Use this page to requestclarification oramendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)
Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Guidance on participation and word limits
Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general.Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs.During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the{{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailingclerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (seeWikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on therendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor orword count tool).This internal gadget andthis report may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.
General guidance
Arbitrators andclerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
So I have a conundrum regarding the requirement to log arbitration enformcement actions, with regard to unregistered IP addresses now that temporary accounts are a thing. PerWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log,All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Now that we have temporary accounts,WP:TAIV notesPublicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed. I performed a rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 for GENSEX-related disruption; therefore, I need to log this. However that - necessarily - discloses the TAIV-access-provided IP address on this page. How does this circle get squared? (Note, I also blocked the most recent TA used by that range and logged it, for now, to deal with the reporting requirement until the above question is answered). -The BushrangerOne ping only01:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are exceptions built into the policy for this kind of case. The issue does come to something like the revision deletion clause, which is clearly prohibitive. I suspect the people who wrote that into the TAIV policy actually just simply don't understand how revision deletion works (and that we'd have to revision delete... a lot... rather than I suspect the imagined "single revision" where the item was introduced). I put something in the ear of the WMF a couple weeks ago about that provision being dumb and needing rethinking, but this would be a good on-wiki use case specifically to reference. I agree that this all is also relevant beyond the "I need to block someone in the area" suggested above as enforcement also needs to consider "I need specifically to block someone using the powers prescribed in an arbitration case or in the contentious topic procedure" (consider as an example the old ban on Scientology IPs).Izno (talk)20:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: I thinkyour analysis is the best way of looking at this. I'll note that I reached out to WMF Legal a few weeks ago about expanding the consecutive-block rule to all admin actions (after finding myself in a gray area on disclosure byunblocking an IP on request from a TA on that IP). Last I heard fromMadi Moss (WMF), the plan was to change it to "blocks, unblocks, or performs other administrative actions", although I don't know where that plan stands as of now. Of course it's the current policy that's binding, but even by the current wording I agree there's no issue with consecutive logging at AELOG (and Madi did not seem inclined to de-TAIV me for my consecutive-unblock:P).
All that said, yeah, the "appropriate venues" clause should work here if for some reason consecutive logging isn't enough to get the point across; if someone wants to do that, I'll repeat the suggestion I included in a footnote at TAIVDISCLOSE that they do the disclosure on a transcluded subpage, so that it can later be cleanly revdelled without taking out a bunch of unrelated history. So something likeI have also blocked the TA's IP range, {{WP:Arbitration enforcement log/TAIV disclosure/1}} <small>([[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE|intentional disclosure]])</small>, for 180 days. Then at the end of those 180 days (or later if there's continued IP abuse at that point),redact and revdel. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)03:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
HelloThe Bushranger, the following premise is not factually correct:I performed a rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 for GENSEX-related disruption; therefore, I need to log this. You don't need to. Blocking someone for disruption, no matter in which topic area, is a simple administrative action that doesn't need logging. If you do something you could else not do, or if you don't want the rangeblock to be undoable without an appeal toWP:AN, then you can make it a formal contentious topics action. You can; you are not required to. The simplest practical answer to the question is thus "don't mark it as a GENSEX CTOP action".~ ToBeFree (talk)01:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. To answer the actual question regarding IP addresses and logging, though: To my personal understanding, just as blocking an IP address creates a public log entry, it can't be a problem to log a ban or any kind of sanction on an IP address. Making a connection to specific edits would be a problem, even making a connection to a specific page may be, but simply stating that you are applying sanction X to IP a.b.c.d should be as unproblematic as the existence of a public log entry of a block on a.b.c.d.~ ToBeFree (talk)01:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to a page that can only be viewed by people with the needed access should be fine too. I assume this is aboutSpecial:IPContributions. Linking to it doesn't provide additional information to the wrong people; try opening that link in a private tab.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're mixing whether something is allowed from a privacy perspective and whether something makes sense from our ArbCom logging desires. If the logs are gone after 90 days, the logs are gone after 90 days and reviewing the IP block is tough. This is just one additional reason why applying CTOP sanctions to IP addresses, just as bans, was always an unusual and rarely meaningful thing to do.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish, there are so many unrealistic assumptions that come with this ... including formal awareness through a CTOP template that had to be sent to the IP address before that IP address can be sanctioned for continuing.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right. So if someone edits disruptively, we perform a checkuser lookup and log a sanction against their IP address range because that helps with escalating sanctions and they're known to be aware through non-public information.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So yeah, even the concept of awareness is broken with IP addresses since the introduction of temporary accounts. Can we ... perhaps just apply sanctions to accounts only, and avoid placing formal CTOP sanctions on IP addresses? Because that's highly impractical?~ ToBeFree (talk)02:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the currently-28 AELOG sanctions placed in November 2025 are against IP addresses. Temporary accounts are treated like accounts, their IP addresses might have been blocked in the background but not as logged formal actions. Which is fine. Beyond bureaucracy, academic privacy discussions and links to information that is now deleted after 90 days, there is no point in formally logging a sanction against an IP address obtained through TAIV, just as noone would have had the idea to do so for IP ranges obtained from checkuser results before.~ ToBeFree (talk)03:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To provide a practical example, let's say temporary account ~2025-F has edited an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and similar edits came from ~2025-A, ~2025-B, ~2025-C, ~2025-D and ~2025-E. A quick look reveals that all of these accounts were created from the same /48 IPv6 range. All of the edits were in violation of the extended-confirmed restriction in this topic area and not otherwise problematic. The usual response is protecting the affected pages as a CTOP action. No measures against temporary accounts or IPs are needed. However, if an administrator wants to apply a sanction such as a formal CTOP block, they can do so to the latest account (or all of them, as a symbolic measure). The administrator can additionally{{rangeblock}} the /48 IPv6 range:admins are allowed to make blocks that, by their timing, imply a connection between an account and an IP.[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE] And if all of that is really not enough and a formal sanction has to be applied to the IP address range, well then, that too can still be done and logged as before. Yes, it will create two log entries directly below each other with the temporary account's name and IP address. Just as the blocks did in the block log. It's completely avoidable and rarely helpful but not formally prohibited as far as I understand.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While in this case it could have been a standard block it can't be for an ECR block, so this is definitely going to come up and now is a good time to stew our noodles on how to handle it.WP:TAIV saysAnd when "reasonably believed to be necessary", exceptions can be made at appropriate policy-enforcement venues. Then it goes on to sayHowever, the disclosure should be revision-deleted as soon as it ceases to be necessary. It's necessary to maintain a log of submission enforcement actions for a number of reasons so maybe we could sneak it in under that? What a clusterfuck.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)02:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like using AE sanctions against non-accounts either, but wouldn't forbid it. If the sanction is against an IP, log it with a link to the IP. If it's against a temporary account, log it with a link to the temporary account. That shouldn't result in an "extra" disclosure simply based on the logging action. Let me know if I missed something...Sdrqaz (talk)03:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, just log the sanction on the temporary account. It shouldn't normally be necessary to log a block of an underlying IP/range. The only reason I can think of is that you want to mark it as an AE block to avoid it being overturned without proper consideration, in which case I suppose it has to be logged and the exception applies, but I'm sure an informative summary in the block log would be enough to prevent that in most cases.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?00:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have a policy that might infringe upon a global policy. It might make sense, until we get clarification from Legal, to amend our procedures to explicitly keep IP blocks out of the log (e.g. amend the quoted statement above to"All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections andIP blocks, must be...".Primefac (talk)15:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a swerve on the AE aspect initially, and unpacking the issue from the other end, what confidentiality do we owe Temporary Accounts? For regular accounts the user is givenanonymity which can only be seen through by checkusers (ArbCom appointed,NDA required). Temporary accounts can be seen through by Admins and byviewers, neither group needing to sign the NDA. For us to protect TAs to the same extent as user accounts, and to allow the two-handed case handling of CU blocks, in which one CU blocks the user account and another CU blocks the IP, we'd need an NDA-controlled forum for admins and TAIVs to discuss the connections openly. That doesn't exist, nor(AFAIK) has the foundation even hinted that they'd like us to go that route. Until/unlessMadi (or someone else in Legal) tells us otherwise, we don't need to escalate the privacy of an artificial account generated by the Wiki software to the same level as the privacy of a human-generated account which may contain PII in the username. To return to the AE aspect, we're primarilyhere to build an encyclopedia, aprinciple that ArbCom has long upheld, andour social policies are not a suicide pact. If it's necessary to log TAs and their IPs at AElog (e.g. an IP user burning through multiple TAs to a disruptive end), and the logging is well considered, I'm not going to criticise or censure.Cabayi (talk)11:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This regards theSouth Asian social groups portion of the IMH case (akaWP:CT/SA). Specifically it relates to the formerWP:GSCASTE, which, absorbed into SASG, explicitly includes "political parties" in the defitintion of social groups that fall underWP:ECR. Recently at RFPP, it was stated thatas elections involve political parties, they fall under the GSCASTE/SASG mandatory ECR. I can see the logic (per "broadly construed"), while at the same time seeing it as a variation ofWP:NOTINHERITED, so I figured I'd come here and ask: are elections in the CT/SA defined area considered to fall uinder SASG for the purpose of extended confirmed restrictions? -The BushrangerOne ping only00:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the reasoning of why election articles in India are not typically fraught in the same way that caste groups are, but I would urge arbs to consider amending the scope so that it’s actually comprehensible to new editors. It’s honestly a bit ridiculous to expect editors to internalize the meaning of “broadly construed” but then assert that elections are not in the domain of political parties, despite essentially exclusively concerning the activities of parties. My vague recollection is that the inclusion of “political parties” in the definition of GSCASTE was due to repeated disputes over the characterization of RSS (and maybe also Tamil nationalist groups?). I can’t say that I’ve noticed nearly as much disruption recently in that vein, with most SA disruption being instead in the area of caste descriptions, wars, and Kashmir. If it’s true that political party related disruption is no longer a pressing issue, I think it would be much more reasonable for ARBCOM to amend CT/SA language to no longer highlight political parties, or to craft wording that specifies the parts of political parties that tend to be contentious (ie classification of their political orientation, esp the inclusion of nationalist/fascist/etc or not), rather than asserting that political parties are ECR but their primary activity somehow isn’t.signed,Rosguilltalk21:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Along the lines of Primefac’s comment, I would suggest dropping political parties from GCASTE. If there’s ever disruption, they’re still part of SA so protection can be liberally applied, but we don’t need to preemptively declare them to be ECR.signed,Rosguilltalk17:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second Rosguill's request to strike the wording about political parties. My understanding is that their inclusion in the original scope of GSCASTE was a consequence of some political parties having an explicit or implicit caste association in the Indian subcontinent. However, the areas in which caste intrudes into politics is already covered by the "broadly construed" language. And although the history and activity of political parties is a matter of considerable contention, they not a frequent subject of non-EC disruption because the set of pages is small, and largely already EC-protected. Conversely, election pages are an area of surprising harmony, possibly because of their purely factual nature, and the frequency of elections in India mean there is a large number of non-EC accounts working on such pages. I don't think we should be prohibiting this activity, and I don't think we should be in the habit of making rules we intend to be enforced selectively. The application of ECR to social groups and military history is sufficient. Arguably this should be a separate request on my part, but this is a reasonable opportunity for ARBCOM to clarify whether "social groups" covers religion. My understanding is that the "social groups" wording is used to encompass the many uses of the wordcaste and related concepts, including theJāti/Varna distinction, and theOBC/SC/ST designations used by the Indian government. I don't believe it was originally intended to cover religious groups, but perhaps I'm wrong. Religious conflict is of course a major flashpoint within CT/SA, and I'm personally genuinely undecided if religious groups also need to be covered by ECR. But the difference in scope would be enormous, and I think it is worth ArbCom making it official one way or another.Vanamonde93 (talk)18:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
That's the kind of thing I'd let ride unless it was becoming disruptive. ECR was applied in this topic because of the disruption, so with broadly construed cases it's acceptable to invoke it, but let it slide if there's not disruption.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)00:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per others; elections shouldn't necessarily be included. I would be fine with rewording the topic area designation to clarify this, but not seeing a pressing need either.Elli (talk |contribs)02:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection of the GS/CASTE wording is similar to that of Rosguill, in that it was the parties themselves that were the issue (similar to related controversies over the castes); the vandalism atthe article in question does not necessarily seem to be about the parties themselves and more about CRYSTAL predictions/complaints about the election results, so protection under CTOP (in my opinion) is not fully valid (though the protection in and of itself is perfectly fine).Could an election article require protection under this CTOP? Very likely, per the arguments already stated here, but I do not think we should make a blanket statement thatall election articles are automatically under the "broadly construed" umbrella. I am not sure how best we could clarify that wording without getting too verbose, but potentially something like "political party characterisation" or similar?Primefac (talk)14:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Elections"? Election campaigns are political, definitely in scope. Election results are factual and per other comments, it would be officious to apply restrictions. Efforts to contest results (thinkJan 6) are once again political and in scope. 2¢.Cabayi (talk)11:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
. If the sanction is against an IP, log it with a link to the IP. If it's against a temporary account, log it with a link to the temporary account. That shouldn't result in an "extra" disclosure simply based on the logging action. Let me know if I missed something ...Sdrqaz (talk)03:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]