Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope | Motion | none | 4 November 2025 |
| Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log | none | none | 22 November 2025 |
| Clarification request: Indian military history | none | (orig. case) | 26 November 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Use this page to requestclarification oramendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.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.
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.~~~~).General guidance
| Amended.~delta(talk •cont)19:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||
Statement by L235[edit]In 2022, as part ofWP:CT2022, ArbComauthorized AE to hear requests or appeals relating tocommunity-designated contentious topics, so long as the community wanted AE to hear those requests or appeals. Arecent RfC has taken ArbCom up on this offer and now allows community-designated contentious topics (CCTOPs) to be enforced at AE. In the process of writing the documentation at AE to implement this RfC, I have noticed that the current language has the potential to create its own confusion, because AE can only hear requests and appeals that arise from CCTOP enforcement and not enforcement of other community remedies like 1RR or ECR. To clarify what I mean, there are currently four buckets of community-authorized general sanctions:
Now that the community has authorized enforcement of CCTOPs at AE, bucket #1 works great. But because the authorization for AE to hear community-imposed sanctions only applies to This state of affairs is quite confusing because some restrictions within a topic can be enforced (and some enforcement actions can be appealed) at AE, but not all of them. I can't think of a principled reason for this difference in treatment. I would therefore ask that ArbCom permit the community to designate AE as a place to hear enforcement requests and appeals for a broader set of topicwide restrictions. Below I've included some suggested motion text, but the exact way this is done is of course up to ArbCom.
After such a motion is enacted, the community would then need to allow the use of the AE noticeboard in those cases, which it could do by RfC. Speaking personally, based on the results of thelast RfC, I think such an RfC would pass fairly quickly. Best,KevinL (akaL235·t·c)23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Newyorkbrad[edit]For editors who spend most of their wikitime in mainspace rather on the noticeboards and arbitration pages, the distinction between ArbCom-based contentious topics and community-based general sanctions, and the existence of different procedures for invoking or appealing them, takes time to learn about and can be a distraction. Anything that makes the procedures more parallel, and therefore easier to understand and implement, warrants serious consideration. The proposal would seem to fit into that category.Newyorkbrad (talk)17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by RGloucester[edit]I agree that this is a good change, but I want to make clear that, for general sanctions other than contentious topics, the community has yet to Statement by voorts[edit]
Statement by Nil Einne[edit]@Voorts: If you look at discussion in the RfC, it's disputed whether there is consensus to align community ECR (allowing constructive comments in addition to edit requests) withWP:ARBECR (which only allows edit requests now). Nothing in the opening statement mentioned the difference between ARBECR and community ECR, and the difference arose later, after the amendment made onthis motion passed on 11 November 2023, not when DS was changed to CTOP. The text adopted hereWikipedia:Contentious topics (community-designated) doesn't mention anything about ECR either. A single editor in the !voting part about alignment mentioned ECR but even they didn't mention difference until later in the discussion part where the objection was raised. For that reason, I'd suggest the objections are reasonable and if we did want to align ARBECR with community ECR, a new discussion is needed where this is clearly specified. My impression is a lot of people don't even know there is a difference but also I recall when ARBECR was changed, at least one editor objected felt we didn't want such a strong requirement for community ECR. (Not complaining about people not knowing, I myself didn't know until just now that the community had already agreed to rename GS to CTOP back in 2024.)Nil Einne (talk)09:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by isaacl[edit]@Nil Einne: Note community consensus was for a transition to occur from community-authorized discretionary sanctions (modelled on the arbitration committee discretionary sanctions framework) to community-designated contentious topics (modelled on the arbitration committee contentious topics framework). This is not a renaming of general sanctions, since general sanctions is a catch-all term for all editing restrictions that apply to all editors, versus a specific named individual. This is why an amendment to the arbitration procedures is required. The committee previously allowed the arbitration enforcement noticeboard to be used for requests to enact a restriction under the contentious topics framework, for community-designated topics, and for appeals to enacted restrictions. By design, these restrictions are enacted on the authority of one or more administrators, delegated to them by the community. However the community can also enact its own restrictions directly on a topic area, such as one-revert rule. The proposed amendment will allow the community, if it chooses, to use the arbitration enforcement noticeboard to request enforcement of such community-enacted restrictions, or to appeal them. Requesting enforcement is likely to be uncontroversial, but appeals would shift authority for hearing the appeal from the community to administrators. For the contentious topic framework, this is intended to make enacted restrictions less likely to be quickly overturned. It's not clear to me, though, if this consideration is sought by the community for all general sanctions it enacts – perhaps just for general sanctions related to a designated contentious topic.isaacl (talk)18:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Snow Rise: The primary advantage I see in the arbitration committee enabling the noticeboard to be used in this manner first (should the community choose to do so) is that the committee generally can come to a decision faster than the community on these types of matters. Thus the committee can clear the way for the community to hold its discussion, without any uncertainty regarding whether or not the committee will agree to a change. As I previously stated, I agree that while requests for enforcement aren't a significant concern, transferring authority to decide on appeals is a significant change. I am sympathetic to concerns that it's confusing for sanctioned editors, though, regarding the appropriate place to find information about an enacted sanction and the appropriate process to follow to appeal it. Perhaps there should be a common framework used to find information (such as logging) and to post an appeal request, while who responds to an appeal will depend on who has authority for the sanction. So a single appeal page can be used as the starting point for all appeals related to contentious topics, but the process followed will differ accordingly. (If desired, the appeal can be moved to an authority-specific page.)isaacl (talk)19:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the ability to appeal at both the administrators' noticeboard and the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, asdiscussed by KevinL (L235): currently the sanctioned editor doesn't have a choice but to appeal to the same body that enacted the sanction. Allowing for both approaches means the editor can choose to bypass a community-enacted restriction through a decision made solely by administrators. I'm not confident that the community wants this to be possible for any community general sanction, including those unrelated to any designated contentious topic area.isaacl (talk)00:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Snow Rise[edit]L235 has noted (and I absolutely agree) that the community would need to authorize AE for the purposes of administering enforcement of community-designated CTOP actions, but I am curious: has this notion already been floated or formally proposed at any of the recent community discussions for harmonizing the ArbCom and community CTOP schemes, or is the idea to hold this discussion next? For what it's worth, I do believe the notion should have been debated before the community before getting ArbCom's authorization, but the most important thing is that both bodies authorize AE as an appropriate forum for this purpose, independent of the other. Just forecast my own position, I think that there is a colourable argument to be made that the change to the distribution of authority will be minimal if all enforcement actions are permitted at AE, since ultimately an admin has to choose to act on any enforcement request, wherever it takes place. On the other hand, if any proposal sought to relocate appeals of sanctions made to individual editors under a community CTOP designation, I would havevery serious concerns about that. CTOPs and community authorized sanctions are expanding at an alarming weight, and creating an absolutely fundamental seachange in the administration of the project and the distribution of authority between ArbCom, the administrative corps, and rank and file editors. It is absolutely essential that any decision by an individual admin to apply an editing restriction, block, or ban to a specific editor, under the special authority of community-designated scheme for a specific subject matter (whether that ends up being called discretionary sanctions or "community authorized contentious topics") remain appealable directly to the community. So I would strongly oppose any community proposal which would seek to move appeals of a sole administrator's decision to apply such a sanction under the auspices of a community CTOP away from AN/I. To create a scheme where only admins have authority over review of such decisions would lead to knock-on effects that would completely unbalance the project. Administrator-applied sanctions taken pursuant to ArbCom CTOPS at least have ArbCom itself to appeal to (and if I am honest, I'd love to see ArbCom CTOPS and ERs made under them subject to community review, but I don't see that happening any time soon). Having an admin's unilateral enforcement decisions made under community CTOPS reviewable only by the admins who happen to be volunteering at AE at any given time would be problematic in the extreme.SnowRise let's rap01:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Thryduulf[edit]@Snow Rise: The question being asked of the committee is "Can we do this?". If the answer to that is "no" then asking the community whether wewant to do it would be pointless, but the Committee's answer to the "can" question is not dependent on the answer to the "want" question. Asking the questions in this order also makes the question to the community much simpler and will make it easier to keep the discussion about it focused and thus more likely to result in a clear consensus one way or the other.Thryduulf (talk)20:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by {other-editor}[edit]Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope: Clerk notes[edit]
Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]
Motion: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope[edit]Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope 2 is amended by striking the last list item and inserting in its place the following:
Enacted –~delta(talk •cont)19:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
Initiated byThe Bushrangerat01:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
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.
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]
admins are allowed to make blocks that, by their timing, imply a connection between an account and an IP.[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE]
And when "reasonably believed to be necessary", exceptions can be made at appropriate policy-enforcement venues.Then it goes on to say
However, 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]
. 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]Initiated byThe Bushrangerat00:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
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]
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.
