විකිපීඩියා:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Transgender healthcare and people	(t) (ev / t) (pd / t)

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4

Initiated by Newslinger at 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

සැකිල්ල:RFARlinks

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#Definition of the "area of conflict"

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Newslinger (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) (initiator)
• Patternbuffered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• ScottishFinnishRadish (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)
• Long-live-ALOPUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification to Patternbuffered
• Notification to ScottishFinnishRadish
• Notification to Long-live-ALOPUS

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#Definition of the "area of conflict"
  • Change "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace" to "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of the editor's own userspace"

Statement by Newslinger

I recently encountered a user talk page discussion titled "Views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Gaza war", in which Patternbuffered said, "I was going to just revert, but I'll give you a day or so to clean it up", in reference to article content related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. As Patternbuffered was not extended confirmed, the extended confirmed restriction (ECR) of WP:CT/A-I prohibited Patternbuffered from performing the described revert.

Per current practice (e.g. ScottishFinnishRadish's warning of Long-live-ALOPUS in another discussion for violating ECR by posting another user talk page comment), my understanding is that ECR also prohibited Patternbuffered from starting the user talk page discussion in the first place. However, Patternbuffered pointed out to me that the wording of the clause in question excludes "userspace" from the "area of conflict" without additional qualifiers. Long-live-ALOPUS also interpreted the clause as it was written.

I do not believe it is the intent of the userspace exception to allow non–extended confirmed users to openly discuss the Arab–Israeli conflict on other users' talk pages in ways that are prohibited in other namespaces and restricted on article talk pages. I ask the Arbitration Committee to amend the clause to limit the exception to the editor's own userspace, which better reflects existing practice. — Newslinger talk 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The problem is that, in the lead section of WP:CT/A-I, the text "with certain exceptions as provided below" contains a link to WP:CT/A-I#ARBPIA General Sanctions § Notes, which does invoke the term "area of conflict" in the bullet point "Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict." An editor who is unfamiliar with the case history cannot be expected to know that ECR applies to the entire topic area (and not just the defined "area of conflict") after reading the WP:CT/A-I page. — Newslinger talk 14:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Patternbuffered

As I wrote on my talk page I was fine with the warning and just curious about an apparent loophole. I agree it should be addressed to mitigate future confusion or conflict; how that should be done I will leave in more experienced hands. Patternbuffered (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

While at first glance the simple change seems unproblematic, there does need to be some allowance for posting on other users' talk pages. The first scenario that comes to mind is:

• User:Example is not extended-confirmed. They make a good-faith edit to content related to the area of dispute on a page that is not ECP protected.
• User:Foo reverts this edit on the grounds that Example is not extended-confirmed
• User:Example posts on user talk:Foo seeking clarification (maybe they didn't understand jargon used in the summary)
• User:Foo replies
• User:Example posts a follow-up question (e.g. perhaps still not understanding, perhaps disagreeing that the content is related to the dispute)

As long as Example is not sealioning or otherwise acting in bad faith, we don't want to prohibit this sort of interaction yet a simple reading of the proposed language would do that. My first thought is a much-wordsmithed "this does not include discussion of actions taken regarding a user's own edits that takes place on the talk page of the user taking that action." While "discussion with the editor taking that action" is simpler, it would prohibit follow-up to a reply given by a talk-page stalker which I don't think would be desirable. Other things to consider are that good-faith, genuinely new editors are not guaranteed to know about pinging users to their own talk page, won't know how to determine whether some other editor is or is not extended-confirmed and if the queried actions relate to more than one editor (e.g. User:Foo reverted user:Example and user:Example2) it is better for all concerned for all discussion about it to happen on a single page. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

At WP:ARBPIA4#Definition of the "area of conflict" it says "For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing...edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace.". And the application of ARBECR to PIA is "The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict." (my bold). So, even if "topic area" at WP:ARBECR is more general than "area of conflict", the ARBPIA page explicitly exempts userspace from it.

To repeat myself, ARBPIA4 does not apply ARBECR to the PIA "topic area" but only to the "area of conflict", which is a defined domain.

If ArbCom wants to replace the motion, they should do so with a motion to repeal and replace it, as this is not the first time the issue has come up and it won't be the last unless it is put to rest.

Personally I think that there is nothing wrong with a general userspace exemption, but reducing it to own-userspace would not be a big problem. On the other hand, restricting non-ECs from making comments in their own userspace would seem to have no purpose whatever, as there are other mechanisms for handling disruption. What sense is there in allowing edit requests on article talk pages but disallowing the same on own talk? I think own-userspace should be a general exemption to ECR in all topics. Zero^talk 12:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• The userspace exception was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_128#Amendment_request:_Definition_of_the_"area_of_conflict"_Clause_4_(b) § Notes (July to September 2024), which was closed as having "currently no appetite on the committee to change the definition of the area of conflict". (See the two abandoned motions and comments by arbitrators about the exception.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

• The area of conflict language isn't found in Extended confirmed restriction – only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, with certain exceptions as provided below. 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. The most recent clarification and motion says The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions. The "area of conflict" language is just an artifact on that page because of older decisions. ECR applies to all edits related to the topic area, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, I think that falls under WP:BANEXEMPT#2, and that's how I've always seen it handled and handled it myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  Newslinger, yeah, that should probably be fixed. It looks like it's just a supplemental page so it doesn't need a full motion so if my views align with the rest of the committee it should be a simple matter to tidy up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, SilverLocust. I was about to search for the discussion where I had analyzed this and said it should be changed. Here it is. My comment from 11:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC) is still my opinion on this matter. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with ToBeFree immediately above, and their comments (that they link to) last time it was at this page. Daniel (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @ScottishFinnishRadish:, @ToBeFree: - this has been open for a while now. Are we good to make the change? Any volunteers? Daniel (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

    I think it requires a motion if we want to clear up the language. That's what ToBeFree did last time, anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

    It does seem to require changing the result of a case, so we'll probably need a motion. I'll try again ... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

    Done below, copied from L235's 2024 motion. I mean, as it previously failed to pass, I guess even if it normally didn't need a motion, it now does ... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Motion: Repealing primary articles/related content distinction

Remedy 4 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'") is amended to read as follows: For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.

Remedy 5 is amended by appending the following text: 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.

Remedy 6, Remedy 7, and Remedy 8 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case are repealed.

සැකිල්ල:ACMajority

Support

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Daniel (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
4. I'm not keen on expanding this restriction if not strictly necessary, but the ambiguity between the different pages is causing confusion amongst editors and resulting in editors being sanctioned for making edits they they believe they are permitted to make because of the way things are worded. I considered proposing a less vague wording that would make a userspace exception more clear, but having a different set of ECR rules specifically for this topic area is unnecessarily complicating the issue. Standardizing the wording to match ECR's scope is the best route towards uncomplicating this as much as possible. - Aoidh (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction

Initiated by Ahecht at 14:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

WP:ARBECR

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Ahecht (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) (initiator)
• GWWU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/1315940092

Statement by Ahecht

I am requesting clarification on whether contesting a speedy deletion on the talk page is considered an edit request for the purposes of WP:ARBECR. This issue originally came up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 224#User Intarface encourages actions that are against rules and can have unintended consquences for new users and was further discussed at Template talk:Db-meta#Modify Db-meta template to hide "Contest this speedy deletion" button to non-extended-confirmed users on pages with ARBECR restriction.. In the latter discussion, Primefac suggested that contesting an speedy deletion on the talk page could potentially be considered a type of edit request, while HouseBlaster was unsure whether we should prevent a non XC editor from contesting a speedy deletion altogether because the likelyhood of success is low, or whether we should modify the notice to instruct all non-XC editors, even if they're not the page creator, to contest on the talk page rather than trying to remove the speedy deletion tag themselves if the page is subject to WP:ARBECR.

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Contesting a CSD is not an edit request. If you can't discuss the deletion of an article you can't request a CSD be removed or added. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• Not an edit request in my opinion, which has a very narrow definition. Prohibited by ARBECR. Daniel (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter much. "Contesting" a speedy deletion is a non-formal process adding a mostly meaningless message to a talk page that, if we're honest, often won't even be read before deletion. It is not the start of a formal internal project discussion such as an actual deletion discussion at WP:AfD. And it is equivalent to creating a formal edit request for "Please replace {{the CSD template}} by nothing". To me, it doesn't matter if we explicitly forbid making the last protesting comment before the page and the comment are removed forever. We should perhaps clarify that blocking someone for clicking a button inviting them to do so, and de-facto for creating an edit request, would be rather inappropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  PS: I think the only reason why this blue button exists is to secretly discourage users from removing the speedy deletion template by letting them send a meaningless message, channeling their frustration to a place where it doesn't disrupt the process, instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Motions

WP:ARBPIA EC by default adjustment

Looking to adjust the WP:ARBPIA preemptive EC protection to be allowed rather than required. There's a pretty significant burden on RFPP and the patrolling admins caused by the requirement to protect articles that will likely never see disruption. The aim is to allow admin judgement on whether or not articles need to be protected while still explicitly allowing preemptive protection while standardizing the preemptive protection language between PIA and CT/SA.

WP:ARBPIA EC by default adjustment: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Motion: WP:ARBPIA EC by default adjusted from mandatory to allowed

Remedy 1 of the Palestine-Israel articles 5 case ("ECP by default") is rescinded and is replaced with Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:PIA when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.

සැකිල්ල:ACMajority Support:

1. I trust the judgement of our admins enough to give them the leeway to decide that although something may be covered by ARBPIA it doesn't need EC protection. This still allows preemptive protection when an admin believes there may be disruption. It also prevents someone dumping 60 articles at RFPP that technically must be protected. Lastly, it standardizes the language between the two topics that allow preemptive protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
2. I believe that this was one of our biggest mistakes this year, leading to a near-overwhelming amount of work to the point that the list of protections had to be split off from the main log. I wanted to repeal it entirely and leave the extended-confirmed restriction in its place instead, but I don't think that we would have a majority for that and pragmatically I think that this is a significant improvement over the status quo. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Daniel (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
5. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

   Primefac (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. When the idea was first floated, I assumed it was a somewhat procedural attempt to standardize wording. But this is instead an outright rejection of one of the central findings of PIA5: ECP is a must everywhere. We voted 13 to 0 to implement global ECP for PIA topics. It would be nuts for us to undo that. Sure it may have created some extra work, but once all PIA topics are protected, the work goes way down--folks can't create that many new pages in a day about it. If we need to do some technical work to fix the logs, lets do that rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most importantly, this restriction is aimed at raising the cost for socking. Before we implemented this, 13% of PIA edits were from non-ECP accounts, and 7% were from socks. By releasing pressure, we are only going to invite trouble in our most troublesome topic. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
2. In every article whose main topic is extended-confirmed-restricted, it is reasonable to believe that they will be the target of disruption. This is not a mistake, this from practical experience. The disruption led to five ArbCom cases about the same topic; it led to the existence of extended-confirmed protection and to the fine solution we have today. If someone requests page protection for 60 articles and these articles' main topic is actually part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, then someone has found 60 pages that should actually be protected. Protection will never be requested again for these 60 pages, contrary to pages whose protection is individually examined, declined and later proven necessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Per CaptainEek. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Per Eek. Unfortunately I don't think anything has substantially changed since the conclusion of PIA5 to warrant this change, which was shown to be necessary at that time. - Aoidh (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
5. I don't agree that this currently needs changing. Worm^TT(talk) 09:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

• Looking at the AE PIA log for this week alone, 33 articles had no human edits in 2025. Of those thirty-three: twenty-three were last edited by a human in 2024, five articles were last edited by a human in 2023, four were last edited by a human in 2022, and one was last edited by a human in 2021. Of the PIA protections this week, I already disregarded the many that had human AWB/JWB edits as well as those that had a single edit.
  When we actually look at what's happening at RfPP, I don't understand how all these articles being protected improves the encyclopaedia, don't understand how the PIA5 remedy is supposed to reduce workload, and don't see how we can say that the PIA5 workload was a one-off when this happened just this week. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Community discussion

Statement by Guerillero

I'm not sure that playing whack a mole with whatever Twitter, Bluesky, Reddit, advocacy orgs, etc. is unhappy about on any given day is preferable to the January status quo --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

I like this change for coming around to the "discretionary" part of what we use to call discretionary sanctions: admins are not compelled to protect, but we can do so at the slightest sniff of disruption, which strikes the right balance in my view. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Amakuru

Huh? I'm baffled by the motivation for this. The blanket restriction seems to be something that's worked well, from what I've seen around the place. The temperature at discussions around Israel/Palestine is markedly lower as a result of having only experienced editors present and reasoned decisions can be made without noise from canvasessed groups and other partisan interests. As Guerillero says, this is just going to mean admins have to cast around disabling disruption when it's already happened in a whack-a-mole fashion rather than us simply being able to apply restrictions everywhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru, the remedy being amended only applies to articles and the extended-confirmed restriction would continue to apply to discussions (and articles) regardless of whether this motion passes. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But does that mean non-EC editors will be allowed to edit articles that haven't been protected, even though they can't participate in discussions on the talk page? If they're still prohibited, why would we not want to apply the protection to the page? It sounds like a recipe for confusion and potentially disrupting the relatively lower level of trouble we've had since the restrictions of the last big Arbcom case. I think I am of the same mind as CaptainEek here, it seems like we're risking increased disruption and increased potential for socks to cause damage, for largely bureaucratic reasons rather than because it's a good idea. If there's too much bureaucracy around applying ECP then we should address that, not roll back protections and hope for the best. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Say we have an article on Settlement X. Sixty years ago it was the site of a battle that was part of the Arab/Israel conflict, and discussion of that battle is half of the article prose. The article has existed for 18 years and has had fewer than 100 edits with no disruption. Non-EC edits have been related to demographics and geography.
Right now, that article must be protected. Someone could find 60 such articles and dump them all at RFPP and they cannot be declined. What this change does is let an administrator use their judgement to determine if there is enough likelihood of disruption to protect it. The protection can still be preemptive, without any existing disruption, if the admin believes that there could be disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

I saw SFR's statement in Amakuru's section [1]. I think I've seen less shenanigans in general in the topic area, possibly due to the automatic ECR. I think if arbcom gave some guidance to confirm what they expect should always be protected vs. where admin discretion matters, it could be helpful. Maybe any page created within the last two years or so is given automatic ECR and the rest is admin discretion? The newest articles are the most prone to scatter fire, while older ones will have enough history to be properly judged as necessary for protection or not. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc

This seems like a good fix for something that always seemed strange. It always seemed a odd that ArbCom would compel rather than empower volunteer admins to do something even when their experience (and in some instances the page history and specific subtopic noting SFR's example in response to Amakuru) tells them it's unnecessary and the admin policy says that they are never required to use their tools. While I understand why having the same wording as IPA might be useful if there's a stronger desire for ECP to be used here perhaps "(strongly) encouraged" instead of "permitted" would still leave it to discretion but be a little stronger. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

When a PIA editor makes the effort to list a page at RFPP it is because there is either trouble existing or trouble likely. The resolution doesn't force any particular admin to run around protecting multiple pages, but the principle that an editor in good standing can have a PIA page protected by asking for it is a valuable one that helps to keep the temperature down. This protection only prevents edits from people who are already not allowed to make them. Zero^talk 11:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The argument that the resolution forces admins to do things doesn't seem to follow from the wording of the resolution. The resolution says what the "default" state of PIA articles should be, not who is compelled to make them that way. Also, protecting an article takes much less time than studying recent activity there to decide whether future disruption is likely. Zero^talk 11:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that it's clear that the Committee entrusts the power of arbitration enforcement in administrators, especially since only they have the ability to protect pages. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Smallangryplanet

As someone who is active in this CTOP and frequently submitting articles in it to RFPP I think the workload from not enforcing this provision would be far more substantial than continuing to enforce it. We see a substantial number of contentious edits in even protected articles, and when an article pops up that is not protected, either a new or long standing one, it invariably becomes a hotbed of BLP / NPOV issues. This is a heavily-canvassed topic area and the quality of edits, even contentious ones, increases dramatically when articles within it are protected. Maintaining this provision better respects both editor and administrator time. Thank you. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions