Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February - The Big Five game case was another earlier tendentious appeal by Cinderella157 to override consensus and a close and downcase a title. Capitalization also figured in the tornado cases.
@Dicklyon: please remember to keep statements focused on whether or not the Arbitration Committee should accept this case; I have hatted part of your comment which does not do so. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Dicklyon, I would also note that you have twice now removed the {{ACWordStatus}} template at the top of your section; please make sure you do not do so a third time. Primefac (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
Have there been any attempts by the community to address Cinderella157's alleged behavioral issues? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a place where a group of adult humans believes they need a central arbitration committee to find a peaceful answer to whether the title of some articles should be capitalized or not. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
DeCausa, is it a content dispute now? I'm not saying this doesn't need administrative intervention, I'm just saying it shouldn't need arbitration. And if administration fails at a level of "we can't deal with people fighting about the capitalization of article titles", I personally fail to take the project seriously in this aspect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
This is hardly the first instance where a general policy is being used to override local consensus--and creating serious friction between local and general editors in the process. But if anything, that points to policy reform as the solution, not ArbCom intervention. I'm more than happy to extend the MOS CT to RMs by motion, and could even be convinced to tban Cinderella by motion if that would help put the issue to bed. But a full ArbCom case because some people are angry that some words are Slightly Bigger than others? That would surely go down as one of the Lamest ArbCom Cases of All Time, and I am very skeptical about accepting. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Sarek, I didn't realize we had heard a case about capitalization, with Dickylon as a party no less. I guess would make this case Capitalization II. How lame. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I think you mean CapitaIIs. this joke doesn't work as well in a sans serif font.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Accept The community wants us to take this issue. The various motions below suggest a more comprehensive solution is warranted, and I think evidence and workshopping would help make said solution robust. There are also several editors besides Dickylon whom we could examine; I am hesitant to relitigate Dickylon's case though and am open to ideas on how to ensure this doesn't become focused on him. I still think this case will be very LAME, and that the ultimate issue is a content decision, but folks are treating it like some sort of holy struggle, which makes it equivalent to the setup of the infobox wars case. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm thinking there are conduct issues here, but ArbCom can't solve the underlying problem, which is a philosophical dispute over whether we should follow a prescrptive guideline (which is normal in many publications but Wikipedia has tended towards a slower evolution of descriptive guidelines in most areas) or treat the guidelines as suggestions and allow editors or groups of editors leeway. That is an inherent conflict in the wiki model and not one that ArbCom can make go away. That's not to say that we can't look at the conduct issues but it's important to manage expectations from the beginning. HJMitchell|Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Accept. The motions are fine as far as they go, and I expect to support them, but I don't think they will do much to resolve the ill will and the feeling that one side isn't playing fair or playing by the rules which permeates every discussion related to capitalisation in article titles. I don't think we can kick the can down the road—there has already been one case about this issue and not only has the issue not gone away but it's festered and we're back here with several of the same participants. ArbCom is the best-positioned of our processes to evaluate long-term patterns of editor conduct and attempt to get to the bottom of the accusations and counter-accusations.I would still caution all those wanting a resolution, though, that ArbCom can't and won't declare one side or the other "right" or "wrong". We won't rule the MoS null and void, nor will we decree that all articles must follow a particular title format. But if editors are subverting consensus or bludgeoning the process (for example), that is something we can deal with. And in reply to Kevin specifically, ArbCom-mandated RfCs don't have a great track record but we can try and provide tools to keep the discussion on track. HJMitchell|Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
My first quick reading Robert McClenon is that an ANI has just concluded in which Dicklyon(talk·contribs) was sanctioned and Cinderella157(talk·contribs) was not and you'd like us to re-do the ANI 'til we come to an outcome you prefer. Am I missing something? Something that was not considered at the ANI? If it wasn't, why? Cabayi (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm of a mind to accept this issue, although I'm not settled just yet. The issue here is even if the topic is a CTOP, we're still asking AE to handle a long running dispute where some of the involved parties are long-term editors with significant social capital. AE has proven to be not-so-great at handled disputes with such editors in the past. It also, again, puts the committee in the position of handing off a complex case with quite a few parties back to a venue with fewer participants than the committee has. I've added the word limit remedies from ARBPIA below, as I think those would probably help out in this topic. I also think the committee should add the first impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions to the standard CTOP enforcement tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Accept, and the word count tool Kevin is putting together works great so far. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, as you said, the case is already going to be accepted so there's no reason to further expand statements at the case request. Your request for more words is declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
The proposed drafters are currently ironing out the specifics of the case, including the list of named parties. @Dicklyon: you mentioned that User:Andy Dingley, User:oknazevad, User:SnowFire, and User:Thryduulf have made unsupported behavioral allegations against me, and have been involved for a long time in the underlying content dispute over capitalization. Could you provide some diffs or links to discussions showing their involvement, especially as it relates to this case request (conduct issues in capitalization disputes)? As you're right at the 500 word limit, you may have an additional 200 words to respond. - Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Accept. My preference as noted below was to try and implement some editing restrictions and bludgeoning restrictions by motion, and give AE a chance to clean this up first; if that didn't work, I'd have been keen to accept a case on the basis that "everything has been tried". Developments in the past few days have seen my colleagues leaning towards accepting the case, and therefore I'll remove my support for two of the three preliminary motions in favour of joining them and assessing this as a full case, where that and other remedies can be considered in full. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
I am, somewhat hesitantly, in support of accepting this case request; I went to vote on what I thought was a singular motion and found three, and if we are at the point where multiple motions are possible we should probably take the time to actually look at the underlying causes (especially if some of them could have broader CTOP-wide implications). I do have some of the concerns expressed above about there being intractable issues that simply cannot be overcome, though. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Accept. I think ArbCom has something to say about how CTOP in topics like this: most admins know about CTOPs in topics areas like WP:PIA, WP:IPA and WP:R-I, but I think there are some lesser known CTOPs that we might need to address what to do about them. Also, if several admins and editors say that a case is helpful, I'm inclined to agree with them. I'll wait until the outcome of this case request is resolved before commenting on motions below, as the motions are moot if this is opened. Z1720 (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Accept reluctantly, with the expectation that ArbCom does conduct, not content, consequently that this will lead to sanctions on those unwilling to abide by consensus or playing IDHT, not that we'll say great things about capitalisation. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Motion: Replace CTOP designation
Replaced with a clearer wording. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The capitalisation of article titles, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic. The existing contentious topic designation for the Manual of Style and article titles and all active sanctions under it are merged into the new contentious topic regime. The new designation has no restriction preventing it from being enforced at discussions on the capitalisation of individual articles, and it does still apply to discussions on article title capitalisation policy.
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With one arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Putting the above idea to the test: CT/MOS hasn't been used in five years. It's both overly broad (the entirety of the article titles policy is not a battlefield anymore, let alone the entirety of the MoS) and overly narrow (limiting it to policy-based discussions makes it useless to address the actual hotspots we've seen in recent years). We should give admins the tools to address the problem in conjunction with the wishes the community has already made clear. It's not strictly necessary to change the existing designation, we could always just extend it, but I don't like the idea of building on top of a cracking foundation – this best be a teardown job. Full disclosure: I blocked Dicklyon last year for personal attacks as a non-CTOP individual admin action, although the conduct was related to this area. I'm of course recused as to the validity of that block, but I'm not involved as an admin or editor with CT/MOS overall. I did create the page on the Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate, though:) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Agree with leeky above. This was an ANI referral, not an AE referral, and I think the two are somewhat different in terms of how I weigh them as an assessment of intractability. I'm keen to give the AE/CTOP structure a chance to solve this before we dive into it, and this motion would be a neat way to do that. Daniel (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose:
On the right path, but the wording is imprecise. CTMOS already covered article capitalization, it just only applies in RfCs about policy itself, which is a good thing to have. The right approach here is to remove the restriction excepting requested moves and move reviews, while still excepting talk pages, so that we don't accidentally make every discussion about grammar on Wikipedia a CT. The merge aspect is the most unclear here, because capitalization and the MOS CT are different scopes, so it's unclear what would happen if we merged a broad CT into a narrow CT. Also, by keeping it under the broader MOS, we don't have to decide whether it's capitalization or capitalisation;) CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh, to clarify: the scope of CTMOS wouldn't appear in the new. I guess it'd be more accurate to say that existing sanctions under CTMOS are transferred to CTCAPS and then CTMOS is rescinded. Or that CTMOS is rescoped entirely to "capitalisation of article titles, broadly construed" – which i did want to be with a 'z', but unfortunately ArbCom already has precedent on that front
The reason I went for this instead of just striking text in the original CTMOS is that just removing the restriction would open up every requested move to CTOP restrictions, which is waaay broader than the scope of the case before us (the vast majority aren't about capitalization). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Procedurally, as it is looking more like we are going to have a case and will then be able to make a more informed decision regarding this question. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Wait and see where the case takes us. Cabayi (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
@Daniel, CaptainEek, and ToBeFree: I want to update the wording of the motion to clarify that the scope of CTMOS wouldn't be preserved in CTCAPS under this motion. Is that all right, or would y'all rather I write up a take 2? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)
Thanks for asking – I didn't analyze the motion that thoroughly because the dispute is too absurd for my personal liking yet I appreciate and wouldn't want to block the efforts of arbitrators who can take this more seriously than me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm easy with either rewriting, or alternatively (and maybe preferably, to keep things easy to understand for all) you could hat this motion and propose a v2 as a separate follow-up motion with fresh S/O/A section? Daniel (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
We may also want to consider if applying word limits might be of benefit, given the issue of alleged filibustering. Daniel (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Closing as no motion(s) achieved a majority, and the case is in the final stages of being prepared to open. Daniel (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The capitalisation of article titles, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic. The contentious topic designation for the Manual of Style and article titles is rescinded, but all active sanctions under it remain in force. The new designation has no restriction preventing it from being enforced at discussions on the capitalisation of individual articles, and it does still apply to discussions on article title capitalisation policy.
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Second try at the above motion, for largely the same reasons: CTMOS hasn't been used in ages and isn't equipped to address the problem here. Just tinkering with CTMOS to remove the requested move/move review restrictions would make every requested move and move review subject to CTOP restrictions, which is totally out of left field coming from a case request that represents only a small fraction of RMs. It'd also invite litigation about how much the restriction would apply in discussions that aren't RMs but are related to RMs. Starting over with a clearer and more enforceable CTOP seems like the best way to make sure the community has a way to address this going forward. (I can make a third motion that doesn't touch CTMOS at all, but again, I think it's important to build on a solid foundation and not leave old CTOPs around when they've served their purpose.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Per my support above. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Per my accept vote here, while my preference was to try a couple of motions in lieu of a case to explore alternative resolutions, it seems like we're going to be opening a case. At that point, I'd prefer we look at this in full at that time. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it's wise to remove the CTOPs designation from the MoS at the precise juncture that we're considering hearing a case on a closely connected issue. There's a risk that disruption will spill over from capitalisation of article titles into capitalisation within articles and other parts of the MoS, and it would be beneficial to have tools in place to deal with it if that happens. HJMitchell|Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I also don't think rescinding the MOS CTOP would be beneficial. - Aoidh (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Procedurally, as it is looking more like we are going to have a case and will then be able to make a more informed decision regarding this question. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Wait and see where the case takes us. Cabayi (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Abstain:
Comments:
Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the topic of article title capitalization. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
This has the potential to help address the bludgeoning issues, even if a case isn't accepted. - Aoidh (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose:
Procedurally, as it is looking more like we are going to have a case and will then be able to make a more informed decision regarding this question. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Wait and see where the case takes us. Cabayi (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Abstain:
For one, this assumes we're creating a Capitalization CT sans case, which I'm currently voting against. Second, I'd rather us take a case to see if bludgeoning is a problem before implementing this, but I agree that this is a generally useful remedy to add to the toolbox. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments:
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) related to the capitalization of article titles are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Per my comments above, filibustering and/or bludgeoning has been identified as an ongoing issue. Daniel (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Per my accept vote here, while my preference was to try a couple of motions in lieu of a case to explore alternative resolutions, it seems like we're going to be opening a case. At that point, I'd prefer we look at this in full at that time. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I have a hard time voting for this without seeing evidence. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Procedurally, as it is looking more like we are going to have a case and will then be able to make a more informed decision regarding this question. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Wait and see where the case takes us. Cabayi (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Abstain:
Comments:
Final decision
All tallies are based on the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
Principles
Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.
Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Role of the Arbitration Committee
2) The role of the Arbitration Committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the Committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated as contentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions. As necessary, the Committee may revisit previous decisions and associated enforcement systems in order to review their effectiveness or necessity.
Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Discussion of content
3) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. Finding common ground is essential when editors disagree, and editors should be willing and able to actively do so. Editors' participation in discussions should not simply be reiterating their own positions. Editors' own positions should be represented concisely to allow room in the discussion for consensus to develop.
Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Bludgeoning
4) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.
5) Wikipedia relies on the input of volunteer editors to maintain and produce its content, including managing its dispute mechanisms. The time editors can commit to this is one of its most precious resources. This resource should not be wasted pointlessly.
Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Maintaining perspective
6) Highly tendentious disputes over objectively minor issues hurt the Wikipedia project. They hurt the project by reducing editor co-operation, and can drive editors away from working in the areas of the encyclopedia in which they occur. The fact that something may contradict Wikipedia policies or guidelines is not enough to justify disruption that exceeds the harm caused by the underlying issue. Editors are expected to maintain proper perspective about the issues under discussion, and act to further the greater good of the encyclopedia.
Passed 9 to 2 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Findings of fact
Locus of the dispute
1) This case relates to conduct issues occurring in both editing of articles and discussions relating to article titles and capitalisation. This area was the subject of a previous arbitration case, Article titles and capitalisation, in 2012.
Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Contentious topic designation
2) Article titles and capitalisation designated "all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed" as a contentious topic. The scope of this contentious topic was limited, and explicitly excluded individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Disruption adjacent to the contentious topic designation
3) There has been extensive disruption, bludgeoning and battleground conduct in the editing of individual articles and in discussions adjacent to the contentious topic area. This included venues such as individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, and other venues at which individual article names were discussed. However, due to the explicit exclusion of these discussions from the scope of the CT area, the contentious topic restrictions were unable to be used to prevent the ongoing disruption, and normal administrative means proved largely ineffective.
Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Cinderella157
4) Cinderella157 has engaged in bludgeoning discussions (Robert McClenon's evidence, Jessintime's evidence), personalises, assumes bad faith about, and disruptively challenges move request closures (Jessintime's evidence, FOARP's evidence), and has treated the topic of article capitalisation as a battleground (Robert McClenon's evidence, Jessintime's evidence, FOARP's evidence).
Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Dicklyon
5) Dicklyon has engaged in bludgeoning (Robert McClenon's evidence, Jessintime's evidence), personalises disputes (asilvering's evidence, Jessintimes' evidence), disruptively challenges move request closures (Robert McClenon's evidence, FOARP's evidence), and engaged in canvassing (asilvering's evidence),
He has treated the topic area as a battleground (Jessintime's evidence, asilvering's evidence), has made moves he was aware were contentious without discussion (Jessintime's evidence, Adumbrativus' evidence), and edited the resulting redirects, making restoration to status quo difficult (SilverLocust's evidence). He has engaged in sockpuppetry to evade an earlier topic ban and violated his current topic ban (Adumbrativus' evidence), has engaged in edit warring (Adumbrativus' evidence, Bagumba's evidence), and refuses to listen or get the point (Dicklyon's evidence and workshop submissions).
Dicklyon was topic banned from [c]hanging the capitalization of any phrase in the encyclopedia, [m]oving or renaming any page or subpage in the encyclopedia, [and] [t]aking part in any discussion about capitalization, broadly construed, in the encyclopedia by the community in July 2025.
Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
6) Hey man im josh has engaged in edit warring (Adumbrativus' evidence, Bagumba's evidence).
Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
SMcCandlish
7) SMcCandlish has engaged in bludgeoning discussions (Jessintimes's evidence), assumes bad faith about and disruptively challenges move request closures (Jessintime's evidence, FOARP's evidence), and has engaged in battleground editing (SnowFire's evidence, FOARP's evidence, asilvering's evidence). SMcCandlish is under an Arbitration Enforcement civility restriction since March 2013 and was reminded to adhere to the restriction in March 2024 (AE Log).
Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Remedies
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.
Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended
Contentious topic restrictions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed. The scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
This text will be replaced by:
Contentious topic restrictions are authorized for all pages and discussions related to article titles and capitalisation, broadly construed. The scope of this remedy includes:
discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned
changing the capitalisation of a phrase when editing a page
changing the capitalisation of a page title by moving or renaming a page
individual requests for comment, move requests, move reviews, as well as discussions on article talk pages, user talk pages, or other venues, where the discussion directly relates to article titles and/or capitalisation.
All sanctions and warnings previously imposed under the previous scope (Manual of Style and article titles) remain in force. Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.
Contentious topic restrictions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed. The scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
This text will be replaced by:
Contentious topic restrictions are authorized for all pages and discussions related to article titles and capitalisation. The scope of this remedy includes:
discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned
changing the capitalisation of a phrase when editing a page
changing the capitalisation of a page title by moving or renaming a page
individual requests for comment, move requests, move reviews, as well as discussions on article talk pages, user talk pages, or other venues, where the discussion directly relates to article titles and/or capitalisation.
All sanctions and warnings previously imposed under the previous scope (Manual of Style and article titles) remain in force. Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.
Contentious topic restrictions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed. The scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
This text will be replaced by:
Contentious topic restrictions are authorized for all pages and discussions related to article titles and capitalisation. The scope of this remedy includes:
discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned
changing the capitalisation of a phrase when editing a page
changing the capitalisation of a page title by moving or renaming a page
individual requests for comment, move requests, move reviews, as well as discussions on article talk pages, user talk pages, or other venues, where the discussion directly relates to article titles and/or capitalisation.
All sanctions and warnings previously imposed under the previous scope (Manual of Style and article titles) remain in force.
Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within a specific contentious topic area. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.
Passed 9 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Cinderella157 topic banned
4a) Cinderella157 is indefinitely topic banned from the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Passed 7 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Dicklyon banned
5a) Dicklyon is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Passed 7 to 2 with 1 abstention at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Dicklyon topic banned
5b) The Arbitration Committee assumes the indefinite topic ban of Dicklyon. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Dicklyon topic banned from challenging closes
5c) Dicklyon is indefinitely topic banned from challenging or requesting a review of any closure within the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Hey man im josh warned
6) Hey man im josh is warned for edit warring.
Passed 7 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
SMcCandlish topic banned (titles and capitalization)
7c) SMcCandlish is indefinitely topic banned from the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Amendments
Motion: standardizing by removing "broadly construed" where it is present (March 2026)
Because contentious topics and the extended-confirmed restriction are broadly construed unless otherwise specified, the following are amended by removing the words broadly construed:
Remedy 3 of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 4.1 of Abortion ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1.2 of American politics 2 ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended")
Remedy 2 of Acupuncture ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 12 of Eastern Europe ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1 of Genetically modified organisms ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1 of Iranian politics ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1 of Kurds and Kurdistan ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 14 of Pseudoscience ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS")
Remedy 5 of The Troubles ("Contentious topic designation")
Remedy 7 of Antisemitism in Poland ("Extended confirmed restriction")
Remedy 3 of Indian military history ("Caste-related topics in South Asia extended-confirmed restriction")
Remedy 4 of Palestine-Israel articles 4 and remedy 14 of Pseudoscience ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'" and "Contentious topic designation", respectively) are amended by removing the words broadly interpreted.
This motion is for the sake of consistent language only. It does not change what is covered by the above remedies and motions.
Passed 8 to 1 by motion at 04:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Motion: Replacing awareness with warnings (June 2026)
An administrator should warn an editor whose behavior is not egregiously disruptive if the administrator believes the editor does not understand what editing in a contentious topic means. Otherwise, the administrator should issue an appropriate restriction.
To conform with these changes:
Wikipedia:Contentious topics §Warnings is amended by removing An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
Point (v) of Palestine-Israel articles 4 remedy 9, point (v) of Indian military history remedy 9, and point (vii) of GamerGate remedy 1.2 ("Available sanctions", "ARBIPA available sanctions", and "Sanctions available", respectively) are amended to read The contentious topics procedure permits uninvolved admins to use a wide variety of tools from the "standard set" to address disruption, including protections, blocks, topic bans, and revert restrictions.
Remedy 2 and remedy 3 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("DS Extended: SPAs" and "DS: Administrators Encouraged", respectively) are terminated
Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation") is amended to read:
All sanctions issued under the COVID-19 general sanctions are governed by the contentious topic procedure. Administrators who enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing this contentious topic.
Remedy 13 of Skepticism and coordinated editing ("BLP DS reminder") is retitled BLP contentious topic reminder and amended to read:
Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS") is amended by removing the second-to-last bullet point (beginning Editors aware of the previous contentious topic...)
Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended") is amended by removing Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.
Administrators are strongly reminded that warning before sanctioning is almost always best practice. This change only removes the formalities associated with awareness.
Passed 11 to 0 by motion at 02:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Enforcement
Enforcement of restrictions
0) Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.
Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:
ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the Committee, once the Committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction, who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever other period the Committee may specify.
Changing or revoking an enforcement action
An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
The restriction was issued more than a year ago.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:
a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:
the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
References
↑The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
↑This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.
