Having first hand experience with repeated reports on matters too complicated to handle at AE , and with a consensus of admins referring, I see this as our responsibility. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Indian military history and related caste issues sounds good to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Ivanvector, do you think that a full on IPA case has any possibility of not getting mired down in every conflict, especially if there is bleed-over into ARBPIA. Although WP:ARBPIAIPA and WP:ARBIPAPIA would make the PIA/IPA confusion even confusinger, I don't know if that would make it possible to have any decent outcome. I'm not totally opposed, but I think smaller bites are easier to chew, swallow, and digest, and I'd rather see 2-4 narrower cases than one grand megacase. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I am considering recusal; I am a top contributor on Sambhaji, as I tried to help improve the page when the issue first arose. I'll recuse if folks think I should. Otherwise, I have made only limited edits to the military side of IPA, Battle of Ichogil Bund is the only one that comes to mind. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate the various folks who weighed in on whether I should recuse, no one suggested I ought, and so I will be active on this. We should accept a case here based on Indian military history, although my preference would be pre-Raj, lest this become an India-Pakistan issue. I believe we should be happy to accept cases when AE refers them; I have repeatedly tried to send the signal to AE that we will take what they give us and that they should give us things if they are unable to resolve them. The AE admins are the forces on the ground and they have the sense of where the real issues and pressure points are. Procedurally speaking, in the past we've opened cases from ARCA via motion, although I'm not seeing why we couldn't net-four a case from here? CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Strongly inclined to accept as a full case, to consider largely public but also some private evidence, with the scope proposed being Indian military history and related issues. Daniel (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Support hearing a case on this; not sure on what exact scope is best. Also strongly encourage Eek not to recuse; having Arbs with more of an understanding of the details/context here will be very helpful. Elli (talk|contribs) 04:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Having thought on this, my ideal name/scope would be "South Asian military history and related caste issues"; fine with "India" as well. Elli (talk|contribs) 02:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Accepting a full case seems (regrettably) to be the way forward. I also echo Elli's request that Eek not recuse. Cabayi (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Also in support of accepting a case. - Aoidh (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
@Extorc: It wouldn't be the first time that an issue temporarily died down when ArbCom starts looking into the matter. There is also the private evidence aspect User:Daniel mentioned, which also needs to be examined. The question for me isn't if a case is needed, but that the exact scope should be. - Aoidh (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
We have three drafters who are currently working on looking through the AE threads and private evidence to determine the named parties for the case as well as establishing criteria for adding new parties during the evidence phase in the event that evidence is provided to warrant such inclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Just as a matter of housekeeping, are we planning on focusing strictly on Indian military history, or will this be WP:ARBIPA2? Primefac (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I am supportive of Indian military history only (and not IPA2) as per my comment above, and am aligned with V93's comment here. Name "Indian military history", scope 'Indian military history and related caste issues'. Daniel (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed; it is easier to widen the scope if necessary than be drowned by a firehose of information tangentially related to the initial concerns. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Support full case, with scope as named by Daniel above (Indian military history and related caste issues) or something similar. I do not think this needs to be a full ARBIPA2, but not against expanding the scope (or opening an ARBIPA2 case later) if that's where the evidence leads. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Sounds like we need a full case. Support per Daniel. WormTT(talk) 09:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I started reading this with the inclination to open a case but I'm reminded of ARBPIA5: lots of people saying "something must be done", admins saying "we can't cope". ArbCom caved there and opened a case with a huge scope. After a few months, we issued some topic bans which were largely foregone conclusions and that was that. No systemic changes. No site bans. Nothing else. Of course, where we have a core group of editors making a topic area unmanageable, clearing out the "regulars" can be a useful thing to do, if only to give AE admins some temporary respite. But we don't need a months-long case with its attendant procedures and thousands of words of evidence to issue a handful of topic bans—the contentious topics procedure was created precisely to allow for disruption to be addressed quicker and with less bureaucracy. So my question is, why can't this be handled at AE? I believe the admins who tell me that AE is struggling, having been an AE admin myself, so is there something ArbCom can do to help in that respect? Or, to approach it from a different angle: what could ArbCom do here that AE isn't empowered to do or can't reach a conclusion on? What outcome are people looking for other than identifying a few troublemakers and banning them? As with Israel-Palestine, the Wikipedia conflicts are a microcosm of real-world politics and will ebb and flow with trends that are outside of anyone's control. HJMitchell|Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
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 encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 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 12 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee
3) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over conduct on the English Wikipedia and retains jurisdiction over all matters previously heard, including associated enforcement processes. While the Arbitration Committee may take notice of behavior outside of the English Wikipedia, it cannot restrict behavior which occurs outside of the English Wikipedia.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is not an editorial board
4) The Arbitration Committee rules on conduct, not content. It does not dictate the content of any article.
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement
5) Arbitration enforcement (AE) is the noticeboard, set up by the Arbitration Committee and staffed by administrators, for editors to report suspected breaches of arbitration decisions. When enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators act as delegates of the Arbitration Committee: in that role, they review the facts and take action if necessary.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement-imposed sanctions
6) In enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment. Administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance (1) the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers, and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with (2) the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and other disruptive behavior to a minimum.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring
7) Edit warring is disruptive and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three-revert rule are still edit warring.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
8) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.
10) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of their own.
12) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as email, messaging apps, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that would be inappropriate on-wiki is also improper.
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Presumption of coordination
13) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view – especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute – it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases needs to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion – especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Flooding of Wikipedia processes
14) Many of Wikipedia's processes, including articles for deletion and arbitration enforcement, require significant time from uninvolved editors to work effectively. Flooding of these processes within a short period of time can disrupt their proper functioning, even when each individual action is not problematic.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Findings of fact
Locus of the dispute
1) The locus of the dispute is military history and related caste issues on the Indian subcontinent.
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry is common
2) Sockpuppetry is common in the topic area, with many current editors previously blocked for sockpuppetry. Accusations of sockpuppetry, both supported and spurious, are also common. (Tamzin's evidence, Ivanvector's evidence, private evidence)
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Off-wiki coordination takes place
3) Off-wiki coordination through email and other communication mediums has taken place in the topic area. (Private evidence)
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Accounts have been used by multiple editors
4) Individual accounts have been used by multiple editors to evade scrutiny and influence consensus-establishing discussions. (Private evidence)
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Battleground editing is common
5) Editors in the topic area often demonstrate a battleground mentality. Many editors seek to use dispute and conduct resolution forums to target opponents. (Ivanvector's evidence, Tamzin's evidence, Capitals00's evidence, Akshaypatill's evidence)
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Editors are unwilling to compromise or collaborate
6) Many editors in the topic area have demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise or collaborate, instead targeting opponents and seeking disciplinary action. (Vanamonde93's evidence, Ivanvector's evidence, Tamzin's evidence, private evidence)
Passed 9 to 2 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Recidivism is common
7) Recidivism is common, and many editors in the topic area have prior sanctions for sockpuppetry and other disruption in the topic area. (Tamzin's evidence, Ivanvector's evidence)
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Administrators unfamiliar with the topic
8) Only a few English Wikipedia administrators are known to live in or hail from South Asia. Administrators adjudicating disputes often lack the baseline familiarity with the topic area that they might have regarding European or American history, making it difficult to tell when a position is fringe or ahistorical.
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Abhishek0831996
9) Abhishek0831996(talk·contribs) has engaged in battleground editing (Tamzin's evidence, Ivanvector's evidence). In April 2025 they were warned to AGF, respect word limits, and not file frivolous complaints at WP:AE in April 2025. (AE Log) They were blocked for 72 hours in 2017 for disruptive editing. (Tamzin's evidence)
Passed 10 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
AlvaKedak
10) AlvaKedak(talk·contribs) has engaged in battleground editing (Ivanvector's evidence, Capitals00 evidence), has cast aspersions about canvassing (Capitals00 evidence), was advised to go slow in CTOPs in March 2025 (Tamzin's evidence), and was warned for email canvassing in April 2025. (Capitals00 evidence)
Passed 10 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Akshaypatill
11) Akshaypatill(talk·contribs) was warned for edit warring in April 2025 (Tamzin's evidence), has made personal attacks, and has engaged in battleground editing. (Ivanvector's evidence, Capitals00 evidence)
Passed 10 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Capitals00
12) Capitals00(talk·contribs) has been sanctioned in the past, including a block for sockpuppetry in 2013 and a topic ban from the India/Pakistan conflict in May 2018. (Tamzin's evidence) Capitals00 has engaged in battleground editing after that sanction, edit warring, and attempts to get opponents sanctioned. (Capitals00's evidence, Akshaypatill's evidence, Ivanvector's evidence)
Passed 10 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Dympies
13) Dympies(talk·contribs) was issued an AE reminder about civility, has engaged in sockpuppetry, and was blocked for edit warring. They were topic-banned from Rajputs (June–December 2023) and WP:ARBIPA (December 2023–August 2024) and had the IPA topic-ban imposed again in May 2025. (Tamzin's evidence) They were indefinitely topic banned by Bishonen from WP:ARBIPA in May 2025. (AE Log) They have several minor violations of their current topic ban, which they have apologized for. (Capitals00 evidence, Extorc evidence)
15) Ekdalian(talk·contribs) was warned for personal attacks and canvassing in February 2025 (Tamzin's evidence) and has engaged in battleground editing. (Tamzin's evidence, Ivanvector's evidence)
Passed 10 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Extorc
16) Extorc(talk·contribs) has engaged in battleground editing, including refusal to drop the stick and stonewalling. (Akshaypatill's evidence, Extorc's evidence, Tamzin's evidence, Ivanvector's evidence)
Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Koshuri Sultan
17) KoshuriSultan(talk·contribs) was blocked for sockpuppetry from June to December 2024 (Tamzin's evidence), was warned in April 2025 for failure to assume good faith at WP:AE (AE log), and has engaged in battleground behavior, including mass nominations at AfD and targeting an editor's articles for deletion. (asilvering's evidence, Tamzin's evidence, Ivanvector's evidence)
Passed 10 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Maniacal! Paradoxical
18) Maniacal!Paradoxical(talk·contribs) was blocked for sockpuppetry from June 2024 to January 2025 (Tamzin's evidence) and was indefinitely topic banned from WP:ARBIPA in May 2025 as a result of their behavior at WP:AE. (AE log)
20) RevolutionaryPatriot(talk·contribs) was partially blocked in March 2025 for not engaging at WP:AE as the subject of a report while continuing to edit. They were unblocked 17 days later. (Tamzin's evidence)
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Shakakarta
21) Shakakarta(talk·contribs) has engaged in edit warring (Capitals00's evidence, Tamzin's evidence) and has mass-nominated articles for deletion. (asilvering's evidence, Capitals00's evidence)
Passed 10 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Shinjoya
22) Shinjoya(talk·contribs) was indefinitely blocked in July 2021 as a standard admin action by Bishonen for being a net negative to the encyclopedia. (Block log)
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Srimant ROSHAN
23) SrimantROSHAN(talk·contribs) has used a sockpuppet to edit war and was blocked for sockpuppetry for one week in June 2021. (Tamzin's evidence)
Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
SurajMal sir
24) The Arbitration Committee received private evidence that the account SurajMalsir(talk·contribs) was shared by multiple individuals. The Committee verified this information and blocked the account. (Private evidence)
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Remedies
Note: Remedies that refer to WP:GSCASTE apply to social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, even though GSCASTE was rescinded and folded into the contentious topic designation of South Asia.
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.
Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS
All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics §Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a 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.
Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics §Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a 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.
Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics §Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
5) Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.
Extension of extended-confirmed restriction (limited duration)
6b) A consensus of admins at WP:AE may extend WP:ECR to subtopics of WP:ARBIPA if such a sanction is necessary to prevent disruption. Such extensions must be of a limited duration, not to exceed one year.
9) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by contentious topic designation in the original India-Pakistan case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
The contentious topics procedure permits full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
9) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by contentious topic designation in the original India-Pakistan case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
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.
Passed 7 to 0 with 3 abstentions at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
10b) Abhishek0831996(talk·contribs) is admonished for their behavior in the topic of Indian military history and related caste issues.
Passed 8 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
AlvaKedak indefinite topic ban
11a) AlvaKedak(talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, 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 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Akshaypatill indefinite topic ban
12a) Akshaypatill(talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Passed 9 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Capitals00 indefinite topic ban
13a) Capitals00(talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Passed 9 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Dympies reminded
15) Dympies(talk·contribs) is reminded to avoid breaches, even minor, of their topic ban.
Passed 9 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Ekdalian admonished
16b) Ekdalian(talk·contribs) is admonished for their behavior in the topic of Indian military history and related caste issues.
Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Extorc admonished
17b) Extorc(talk·contribs) is admonished for their behavior in the topic of Indian military history and related caste issues.
Passed 7 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Koshuri Sultan indefinite topic ban
18a) KoshuriSultan(talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Passed 9 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Shakakarta indefinite topic ban
22a) Shakakarta(talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Passed 9 to 0 at 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Breadth of topic bans
24) Administrators are reminded that, when possible, topic bans should only be as broad as necessary to stop disruption. Some possible subtopics related to WP:ARBIPA are:
Specific time periods in Indian history, such as before or after the establishment of the British Raj or before or after the foundation of the Republic of India
Human activity in India
Indian entertainment, generally or in a specific language
Indian political, ethnic, religious, and caste topics
Remedy 3 of Indian military history ("GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction") is retitled Caste-related topics in South Asia extended-confirmed restriction and amended to read:
Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 22:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
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 16:22, 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 02:52, 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.
