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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Article titles and capitalisation 2	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	01 Aug 2025	15 Aug 2025
Transgender healthcare and people	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	11 Aug 2025	25 Aug 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Indian military history	18 Jul 2025

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Race and intelligence	none	(orig. case)	5 August 2025
Clarification request: Indian military history	none	(orig. case)	22 July 2025
Amendment request: PIA Canvassing	none	(orig. case)	31 July 2025
Amendment request: Venezuelan politics	none	(orig. case)	6 August 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131	132

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131	132

Clarification request: Race and intelligence

There is consensus among the responding arbitrators that this is covered by the Race and Intelligence CTOP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Sirfurboy at 12:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Sirfurboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Lewisguile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Diff of notification of Lewisguile [1]

Statement by Sirfurboy

Requesting clarification as to whether Grooming gangs scandal is covered by the Race and Intelligence CT, per the reasoning of Lewisguile, who wrote "Race and intelligence" doesn't just cover race and intelligence. Per the arbcom decision, it extends to the "intersection between race/ethnicity and human ability or behaviour". In other words, claims that ethnic group x is more likely to engage in behaviour y should be covered by that policy. [2]. The grooming gangs issue is described by one academic source [3] thus:

"Britain has seen a series of high-profile convictions of groups of men found guilty of child sexual exploitation. The vast majority of publicised convictions have been of British Asian men, which was quickly translated into the media-speak of the ‘Pakistani Grooming Gang’. This moral panic replayed familiar mythologies of the ‘gang’ – characterised by alien cultural practices, operating under a racialised honour code, and demonstrating an uncontainable deviant masculinity – and yet the spectre of the Pakistani grooming gang also added something new to the repertoire of both official and popular racisms. The far-right English Defence League rebuilt its crumbling organisation on the basis of revulsion to what they termed ‘rape jihad gangs’"

The recent Casey audit found poor data on ethnicity, which is being leapt on by some parties with claims of a cover up regarding the above narrative - unsupported by WP:BESTSOURCES at this time, which note failings relating to child safety and in ethnic data collection but no cover up. Clearly contentious around race and religion.

Supplementary to the answer, if "no, it is not covered" I would like to request amendment such that it is included, or else addition of a new CT, as it is clearly a contentious topic, having attracted multiple press coverage (on Wikipedia's coverage alone) and comment from Elon Musk that has yielded personal attacks on Wikipedia editors on and off-site (off wiki evidence available but cannot be linked owing to WP:OUTING concerns. Please let me know if and how that evidence should be submitted. On-wiki, please see [4]). Supplementary if the answer is yes, I'd like to request WP:ECR in this topic area owing to deliberate and sustained off-site disruption (the support of which will require me to supply off-wiki evidence with OUTING concerns, but which states explicitly that such disruption has taken place and been successful). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CarringtonMist A source that indeed sees this issue as a gendered crime is [5] although I feel GENSEX is still a push, personally. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a ping on this - so is it agreed the CTOP covers this? or can we get it made a new CTOP by motion, per SMarshall? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lewisguile

Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#List of contentious topics, the designated "area of conflict" for WP:R–I is described as "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour". This is restated in the final decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Contentious topic designation, with the clarification that this should be "broadly construed". So, despite its name, this would seem to cover any article dealing with the putative association/relationship between ethnicity and a given behaviour (such as a certain type of criminality that might be more prevalent among an ethnic group), and should cover Grooming gangs scandal as well.

In any case, the broader topic has been raised in a high profile alt-right publication by a self-described banned WP editor, and gets lots of edit attempts in the subject area whenever it hits the headlines (including in related articles, such as about UK politicians). Clarity on this issue would be helpful. In the last AfD within the topic, a number of editors with <500 edits added their !votes with very similar wording to that used by the magazine article in question. Some of those editors are also responding to other (non-formal discussion) threads with the same "oppose" wording, suggesting they don't really know what they're doing besides objecting. See here and here.

Previously, this subject was part of another "main" article that was merged into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom, after several debates about naming ("Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" was redirected to "Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom", before the merge). The last version of the main article had page protection, but because "Grooming gangs scandal" is a new article on the same topic, it hasn't been carried forward. This has potentially contributed to the issues at hand, but reinstating PP would, IMO, be a quick fix in the interim, as it will resolve most of the concerns about possible canvassing, tendentious editing, SPAs, etc. It may be that this can only be enacted after the ongoing RM on the page, since some people have already !voted, and that would probably allay complaints that this was done to skew the results (although there is an ongoing discussion above the RM which is likely more constructive, and is already reaching consensus per here, here, here, here, and here, so the RM is less essential anyway).Lewisguile (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @ScottishFinnishRadish, see above. If you read the responses detailed in the article (take the "Research" section, for example), you'll see that a large amount of space is dedicated to the argument in the media and politics that men of British Pakistani origin are particularly overrepresented among perpetrators of "grooming gangs". That's clearly a putative link between ethnicity and behaviour. See also the second paragraph of the lede, where we talk about the moral panic around Muslims and the claims made about British Pakistani men. The first clause of the first sentence of that paragraph isn't exclusive—it's intended to mean that media discussion has focused on ethnicity, as well as said ethnicity apparently impeding investigation. The second and third sentences of this paragraph state this more clearly anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @CarringtonMist, @Thryduulf, and @Riposte97, and the trickiness of CTOP categorisation in general:

I take the points about WP:GENSEX and rape/CSE, but WP:R–I seems more applicable. I agree IPA is perhaps also stretching things a bit too far, unless that were worded to cover people of Indian, Pakistani and Afghan descent.

I note that Race and crime, however, is explicitly covered by R–I, and that was why the wording was broadened here. I think the issue is that "Race and intelligence" suggests a certain narrow reading, which appears at odds with the broader topic designation. "Race and behaviour" might be better (or, in line with GENSEX, something much broader like "Race and ethnicity" in general, since all these topics end up being controversial in practice). I don't think an explicit link to such behaviours being inherited is necessary for R–I to apply, though, as the wording says "the intersection of" (i.e., where the topics meet), "race" is an invented social category rather than a purely biological one anyway, and "ethnicity" is cultural as well as lineal.

To Riposte97, specifically: if you read my statement above, I suggested that any PP that gets added could be done so after the RM to avoid any impression of discounting !votes. I think we all pretty much found consensus on there anyway, which included keeping the page and adding a new one, so I don't think it's fair to say this is about overriding any closure result. Rather, I think there is genuine concern among many editors about outside influence (which may be emboldened if it pays off/goes without challenge here), which has led to one editor being doxxed already, and accounts with <500 edits can be a symptom of that influence. In general, inexperienced accounts aren't advised to take part in contentious discussions, but I don't think it would have changed the consensus we reached on that page (as most editors were more experienced), which was more productive than a list of "support"/"oppose" !votes. Lewisguile (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CommunityNotesContributor

I added talk/edit notices for this, after previously thinking this was covered by IPA, but changed this to R-I based on assessment from Lewisguile. I'm here to understand what's what and get told off if necessary for making any potential mistakes. CNC (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CarringtonMist

Not to create even more uncertainty here, but couldn't this also be covered by the Gender/Sexuality CTOP? ...Not sure what the general etiquettte is for non-extended confirmed users and ArbCom commentary, but I've been semi-following this mess for the past few days CarringtonMist (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I'm in the minority here, but rape is a gendered crime, and I'm not sure it's so absurd to connect sex trafficking with gender and/or sexuality. And for the record, while I sympathize with the desire to impose a little more order on a very heated discussion (to put it mildly), my reading of R&I is such that it would be a bit of a stretch to apply it here, and I don't think India-Pakistan fits either. CarringtonMist (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hemiauchenia

I do think that the topic is covered by the current contentious topic wording: intersection between race/ethnicity and human ability or behaviour, because the central issue of the controversy revolves around whether British Pakistanis are more predisposed to group-based child sexual "grooming"-based abuse than other ethnicities, not just whether police did/did not act upon such gangs based on their ethnicity as suggested by SFR. See for example Cockbain and Tufail 2020: [6] "The central argument of the ‘grooming gangs’ narrative is, in short, that a ‘disproportionate’ number of Asian/Muslim/Pakistani-heritage men are involved in grooming (mostly) white British girls for organised sexual abuse. These claims are often substantiated with reference to a spate of high-profile prosecutions of so-called ‘grooming gangs’ in towns and cities such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Derby, Telford, Oxford, Huddersfield and Newcastle" Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: who was involved in protecting some of the redirects e.g. [7]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

I think the request here is to clarify that the race and intelligence case covers assertions that a certain race or ethnicity is particularly predisposed to crime, or to a specific type of crime. Loki (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

From the perspective of someone completely uninvolved, this topic being within the R&I CTOP area feels like a bit of stretch but I'm on the fence about whether it's too much of a stretch or not - I can see arguments both ways. A cleaner way of doing it would be to make the intersection of race and criminality a CTOP area. That could be done as a stand-alone designation or as an expansion of the R&I case designation (change the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, and to the intersection of race/ethnicity and criminality).

I think it is definitely not covered by the India/Pakistan CTOP, and nor should it be. Gender and sexuality is even less relevant here (imo) than India/Pakistan is. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Riposte97

It seems inappropriate to attempt to extend this CT to Grooming gangs scandal, whether by ruling that the current designation catches the topic or by extending it to do so, for a few reasons:

1. I have not seen anyone make the argument that any race or ethnic group is predisposed to committing the kinds of crimes described in the article, merely that British Pakistanis may be overrepresented. That says nothing about heredity, which is what the CT is really concerned with. 2. There is no evidence of disruptive editing in the topic area, and no explanation of how the expansion of the CT might help the encyclopaedia. 3. It is not clear how CT deignation would address the external attention this topic has gleaned, nor why that would even be an appropriate objective for Wikipedia to attempt.

The page in question was recently the subject of an AfD, which failed, and is currently the subject of an RM, which also looks set to fail. Left unsaid in this filing is that many of the editors in those discussions have been relatively inexperienced, and the request for ECR, if granted, might alter these outcomes.

Procedurally, I also note that most of the editors involved in the various discussions that Sirfurboy has contributed to or opened regarding this topic have not been notified of this filing. I only happened upon it by chance. Riposte97 (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman I don't really see how the examples you have cited justify CT protection. It seems like there is just disagreement about content. Riposte97 (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dimadick

If the matter concerns ethnicity, religious intolerance, and moral panics largely spread though the yellow press, "race" is an awfully misleading title to cover the topic. Is there any chance to draft a specific policy concerning ethnic tensions that does not use terminology from the Victorian era? Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LeChatilliers Pupper

Nowhere in the article or any talk discussion or any previous edit has anyone ever made a connection between grooming gangs and intelligence.

RS as I understand, have some uncertainty on ethnicity. RS are clearer on the role of a deregulated nighttime economy and also on state failure to investigate credible claims and support victims.

Further, I find the notion that intelligence would be connected to the propensity to commit grooming to be offensive, we have seen many examples in recent years of high-profile grooming behaviour from highly intelligent, successful people Epstein, numerous catholic church scandals were committed or covered up by people with pHDs in divinity.

S Marshall

It's not race and intelligence. It is about the allegation that paedophile rings in the UK are disproportionately likely to be South Asian Muslims -- an extraordinarily toxic matter, and one that would clearly benefit from the sysop scrutiny and the additional tools and protections that come from a CTOP designation.—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Later, after Primefac's contribution] No, look, Muslim isn't a race. Nobody is saying Hindus or Sikhs are paedophiles. This doesn't fit in Race and Intelligence. Give it a separate CTOP designation by motion, please.—S Marshall T/C 01:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If "Race and intelligence" has become so broad that it also covers the intersection of crime and creed, then its name needs changing.—S Marshall T/C 18:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Woshiwaiguoren

This seems inapt. The article and mainstream sources do not at all say that the so-called "grooming gangs" are inherent to the Pakistani ethnicity or to South Asians racially. But simply that it is an observable criminal phenomenon with a disproportionate ethnic representation. Ethnic affinity networks occur in many contexts, and indeed crime is one. The Mafia, the Russian Mafia, Albanian Mafia, etc. In none of these cases is an inherent disposition key to the topic.

There are fringe racist views that claim an inherent Islamic or Pakistani nature to the "grooming gang" phenomenon, but this hardly dominates the topic and hasn't featured prominently in the page discussions.

I also note that this request was submitted following attempted deletion and then renaming of this article (which failed or are likely to fail). While that doesn't affect the merits of the request, it is important context. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

I am divided on if there is no CTOP topic area that fully captures the core of this. Personally, I think Contemporary UK Politics should eventually become a ctop area, which would cover this topic nicely. on a sidenote, here is a tangentially related article [[8]] - significant right wing attacks on this article, corresponding to race (south asian/muslim) and UK politics Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom, seems that there had been an attempt to push race-based analysis for grooming gangs onto this article by @Kioj156 here [9], before it got reverted by hemiauchenia. of note, Kioj156 made the original Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom article here [10].

even before Kioj, there appears to be a biased article tag on the article since 2010. In comparison to Race and crime in the United States, which argues differences due to material conditions in the US, the UK version appears to blame disparities in crime on "cultural explanations", and does a lot to suggest that black and brown peoples are more predisposed to crime. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Since arbs seem to be leaning towards the CTOP covering this, should a rename for it perhaps be considered? If it covers both race and intelligence and race and crime (or race and behavior), a broader name might be necessary. Possibly something along the lines of a CTOP for scientific racism. It might be slightly tricky because ofc people will argue over whether something is scientific racism or not, but generally that's not a problem in practice because the existence of a serious dispute along those lines among high-quality sources would be enough to make something part of the CTOP anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

I don't think we should interpret ARBIPA as covering anyone of any of those nationalities anywhere in the world. It's already overbroad, and broadening it further isn't the fix for that. Gensex also doesn't really fit, since that's about gender disputes, not about responses to child sexual abuse. Race and intelligence is the closest, but I think that's targeted towards discussions of x race displaying y behavior, not a scandal about how law enforcement handled a situation potentially being affected by the ethnicity or nationality of the perpetrators. Race and intelligence isn't meant to cover anything involving race, ethnicity, or nationality. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed covers the article, as I think that the scope covers race x being allegedly more likely to do y; see the ARCA that introduced that language too, as the intent was to cover race and crime. I don't think that this is a real gender-related dispute or controversy (it would be one if the dispute was framed on the gender of the perpetrators instead of the ethnicity) and think that IPA would be a stretch (it would be covered if the location was in one of those countries instead of the UK), though maybe it could be covered by broadly construed.
@CarringtonMist: As long as the topic area does not have a extended-confirmed restriction (list of topics), you are free to participate here. As for whether one should be imposed, I would really need extraordinary evidence of our normal processes failing to contain disruption. I see very few logged enforcement actions regarding Race and intelligence this year and last year. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Riposte97: To be clear, I consider the designation to cover correlation and causation as intersection is a broad term. @LeChatiliers Pupper: I touch on this in my comment above, but while the case is called Race and intelligence, the current contentious topic designation is broader than that. I think that human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed can cover criminal conduct. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close this with a rough consensus that grooming gangs scandal is covered, but did not do so because of the last two comments. I don't think that there is any appetite to create a new contentious topic just for this issue. I guess I support changing the CT: maybe renaming it to "race and behaviour" would provide more clarity, since there has been obvious confusion. Given that there would be no change to the actual scope, only moving the subpage and updating its related templates etc, I assume that a motion isn't needed (for clarity, I don't support renaming the actual case, just the CT subpage). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original intent from the original amendment was to cover "race and crime", so if an article is having issues with the intersection of race and a crime then it logically stands that it fits the intention of the motion made to amend the (what is now a) CTOP. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the article's content does not cover race and intelligence, that's not all the CTOP covers. Specifically, the behaviour part of the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour does seem to cover much of the article's content and sourcing. - Aoidh (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sdrqaz, Primefac and Aoidh. Anything to do with "X race is said to engage in y behaviour" is covered under the CTOP, even if it is discussion of sources to dispute a claim of that nature. That doesn't mean articles can't discuss those topics: it means that editors have to abide by the CTOP and be extra careful when editing in that topic area. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually agree that the CTOP was definitely intended to cover an article like this – the original dispute seems to have center much more specifically around academic discourse related to race and genetics and ability, which is a little narrower. But I do think it's a borderline call as to whether it falls under 'broadly construed' and even if it didn't, on the balance, I'd for sure be willing to grant an extension to that effect. To clarify: I'm not going to hold this up and request a motion, I'm happy for this to close with consensus that the CTOP really does cover the intersection of race and ability, broadly construed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support moving and renaming as proposed by Sdrqaz here. I agree that the article that spawned this original request is covered by the CT. Daniel (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Indian military history

Initiated by Toadspike at 11:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Indian military history arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Toadspike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Toadspike

1. Does the Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction apply only to military history on the current (post-Partition) territory of the country of India, or does it include military history that took place entirely in another South Asian country?

2. If a conflict took place between a party in India and a party outside of India, does the extended-confirmed restriction apply? Does this depend on whether battles in the conflict took place within the current territory of India or not?

3. How do we treat AfC submissions that were written before the enactment of this remedy, but are only now being reviewed? If they are suitable for acceptance, can they still be accepted? If not, should they be deleted (from draftspace)?

These questions were prompted by the contributions of a specific editor. As this request for clarification is about the general principles, not that specific case, I have chosen not to name them here. If Arbs would like me to add them as a party, I will do so.

@ScottishFinnishRadish Thank you for your reply. ~~Does "India" mean the current territory of India or the current state of India?~~ What I'm really getting at is whether predecessors of India like British India also count as "India", since those entities included significant territory outside of the modern state of India.

The problem with wording like "if India was involved" is that nearly all of the conflict about "Indian military history" does not involve the modern state of India.

Statement by voorts

Since we're already here, does "Indian military history" encompass contemporary conflicts? If not, what's the cut off date or era? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Koshuri Sultan

I was planning to initiate this request per my comments on the case discussion thread.[11] Just as voorts asked above, you can see the linked discussion there, which also has no answer regarding the scope.

Does the scope of "Indian military history and the history of castes in India" cover times before the establishment of British Raj or the times before the foundation of India? Koshuri ^(あ!) 14:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: Reading the evidence and proposed decision of the case itself, it appears that only the diffs involving the events before 1857 events were found to be actionable for being within the case' scope.

You have made a mention of the United States, however, the DS regime covering this country also concerns its politics specifically after 1992.[12]

That said, I think a period should be thoroughly clarified. It would be reasonable to agree on events before 1947 as history because the period since 1947 is regarded as "contemporary India", not that of historical India also in scholarly sources.[13][14][15] Koshuri ^(あ!) 06:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting Tamzin and Rosguill to share their views here. Koshuri ^(あ!) 15:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding Tamzin and Rosguill. I would also like to know your views regarding "Indian military history", whether it covers the times before the establishment of British Raj or the times before the foundation of present India, or something else? Koshuri ^(あ!) 17:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Donner60

Please note that the military history project has an Indian military history task force shown at the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force. The page includes: "This task force covers the military history of India. This includes ancient India, medieval India, early modern India (including the period of British rule), and modern post-independence India." Many, perhaps even all, articles that gave rise to this proceeding are assessed B class or below. The task force page shows all of the articles within the scope of the project that are featured articles, former featured articles, featured lists, A-Class articles, good articles and did you know articles. This may provide some guidance as to the scope of Wikipedia articles considered as involving Indian military history. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

(pinged) To me, the logical scope of "Indian military history" would be

The military history of any entity, or vassal/proxy of an entity, based in
1. the present-day Republic of India and/or
2. territory that was at the time considered India
and/or
Any military activities by any other entity that took place in that region.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Koshuri Sultan: I think this answers the time question as well. But to be clear, no, I don't impute any time-based limit to this. Maybe hypothetically it wouldn't cover conflicts prior to the Indus Valley Civilisation, but honestly even there I'm not sure.

I also stopped to think about whether this covers actions by Indian-originating forces far removed from the region. I knew a woman who was the lone survivor of a Free French unit slaughtered by what she described as renegade British imperial gurkhas, but according to a historian I talked to were more likely soldiers of the Nazi Indian Legion. Should those fall under Indian military history? But then I thought, yes, they should, and Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose can speak for itself as to why. Ultimately, any aspect of Indian military history, whether it's from 10 years ago or a thousand years ago, whether it happened in Mumbai or Marseille, has the same tendency to be politicized by contemporary Indian political movements. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

also (pinged), I'd mostly agree with Tamzin's description, although I would add that when considering that it is "broadly construed", this would also include any topic that is centrally relevant to the wars historically fought in the Indian subcontinent, in particular definition of borders and ethnic/national/religious/caste claims to land in the Indian subcontinent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Tamzin's further comments on scope, including ancient history and operations by Indian military groups outside of India. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Indian military history: Clerk notes

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

Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion

1. Only India or related to India.
2. Yes, if India was involved it doesn't matter where the conflict took place.
3. They can be accepted.
This is obviously just my view, but it seems fairly clear-cut. #1 does get at one of my concerns about the grand unified CTOP, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tamzin's description is pretty apt. Trying to narrow it down or draw explicit lines around it won't work with how broad the topic is. If someone is unsure if a particular subtopic, article, or piece of content is covered they can ask about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings on what "Indian history" means for arbitration enforcement because we need to balance the need for the definition to be easily understandable against the historical reality of the term.
In my opinion, we indicated in "Breadth of topic bans" that Indian history also includes history prior to the Partition. Just as how Chinese history spans the various dynasties prior to the PRC/ROC (even if it wasn't called China at that point) and how American history doesn't just begin in 1776, I think that Indian history covers the current republic as well as clear predecessor states like the British Raj and Mughal Empire, even if they go beyond the current republic's borders. The term "India" was used before the Partition as well: the Raj was commonly called "India" and the term was used for many years prior to the current republic's creation. Hopefully that also answers Koshuri Sultan's question as well and I otherwise agree with SFR regarding Toadspike's Q2 & Q3.
Voorts: I don't think that there is a good place to cut off when history begins – aren't we all creating history now? – so would rather that we kept contemporary conflicts as well. If enforcing administrators wish to sanction people from (eg.) pre-Modi Indian military history instead of the entirety of Indian military history, they would have support in doing so. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: PIA Canvassing

Initiated by Dovidroth at 06:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Motions: PIA Canvassing (January 2024)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § Dovidroth topic ban

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

Dovidroth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § Dovidroth topic ban
- I wish to appeal the topic ban

Statement by Dovidroth

Dovidroth's statement contains 669 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Hello.

I am humbly submitting an appeal on my topic ban in ARBPIA.

In the last year and a half since my tban, I have taken great pains to reflect upon what happened, as well as reaffirm to the wiki community that I can once again be considered a trustworthy and valuable contributor.

The period in which the proxying happened was in the days after October 7th. Emotions were very high, and the PIA space was as combative and high tension as it ever has been. We were all being bombarded in many directions, and I made a grave mistake by copy pasting a couple unsolicited requests on a topic I personally agreed with that had come in via email. I would also like to admit that I did what I did because I felt the situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors. I am glad that ARBCOM has taken steps to deal with this.

I had always taken great pains to strenuously avoid any type of prohibited edits.

I recognize that during the proceeding I was not forthcoming regarding the proxy editing. Many people were subject to constant scrutiny and false reports, and I was very much afraid that if I had admitted to what really happened (which was a couple isolated isolated instances), I would be rolled into larger accusations being thrown around at the time of wider potential editing efforts, which I am not a part of and have never been a part of.

Furthermore, I should have been more forthcoming about what happened when asked about it, but I genuinely was scared and did not feel I would have been judged in accordance with my transgression. For the record now, I wish to apologize for both the couple edits, as well as the omission.

Since being unblocked almost a year ago, I have continued to contribute in other topics, having done well over 1,000 edits. Among my edits, I have created a new article (Rabbinic period) which was featured as a DYK and for which I received a barnstar from another user. I also received a "nice work" comment from another user for work that I did on another page. I have also contributed substantially to Kiddush Levana, which I have nominated for GA status, and it is awaiting review.

More than a year has passed since the closure of the Arbcom case, and I have been very careful not to touch any topics related to the conflict. I would appreciate another shot at ARBPIA, and hope that Arbcom will consider my case favorably, or at least establish a path or timeline to restoration of full edit status.

Firefangledfeathers - The original ARBCOM case was here, my appeal of the site ban was here, and I filed one appeal that I later realized was prematurely that I withdrew.

Firefangledfeathers - There was ban on restoring content from banned users. I never appealed this. And there was a previous 3 month topic ban, for which I opened an appeal, but it was closed due to the ARBCOM case. Dovidroth (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to questions from other editors, I fully intend to follow the rules fully. If there is any cited violation of rules in ARPIA, it would be fair to return the TBAN. Dovidroth (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to recent comments, I want to clarify my comment that I was not indicating that I would treat ARBPIA in a combative way. Despite mistakes I made in the past, I am requesting another chance at the area, where I believe I have contributed positively, and I would like a chance to prove that I am a healthy member. I will once again state that if there are any substantial complaints against my behavior, I think reinstating the tban would be fair. Dovidroth (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223 - I never justified my behavior. I was trying to explain how I made a mistake which I deeply regret and will make sure not to repeat. Dovidroth (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

TarnishedPath's statement contains 77 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

That Dovidroth states that their conduct was in part based on a "situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors" does not fill me with confidence that they won't engage in the same behaviour again if they feel that others are at fault. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223, just to clarify, they didn't canvass. They made edits which a banned editor requested they make. The behaviour was WP:MEATPUPPET and WP:PROXYING. TarnishedPath^talk 22:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Firefangledfeathers's statement contains 150 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Dovidroth, to make it easier for others to review your appeal, could you please link the discussions that led to your past and present sanctions, as well as any failed or successful appeal requests? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dovidroth, any other PIA-related sanctions or appeals? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a decline. I don't think Dovidroth is accurately conveying the extent to which they were being dishonest and manipulative in the PIA Canvassing Arb discussion; in particular, I think "omission" is seriously misleading. Emotions continue to be very high in this topic area, and most everyone expects that there will be major emotional moments to come. We are more likely to accurately and neutrally cover the topic area if we don't include editors who make major misconduct mistakes and then follow those up with dishonesty and manipulation. The loss of trust takes longer than this to heal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

starship.paint's statement contains 115 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I find it puzzling that in a PIA topic ban appeal to ARBCOM, the appealing editor says that I am glad that ARBCOM has taken steps to deal with this ... disruptive behavior of experienced editors (I shifted the quotes around). So essentially the appealing editor is praising ARBCOM for, I believe, topic banning other editors from PIA in a recent case. Well, if ARBCOM is doing a good job at topic banning editors from PIA, then why should they reverse this topic ban then, given that disruptive behaviour has been admitted by the appealing editor? starship.paint (talk / cont) 05:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

Simonm223's statement contains 151 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I think this request should be declined. In particular I find the excuse of their actions being immediately after October 7 to be tone-deaf at minimum. This is a topic area where very upsetting things happen every single day and if their response to one very upsetting thing is to canvas to manipulate the narrative then they probably should not be editing in this space. Furthermore I share concerns expressed by other editors that they said I felt the situation was so distorted and biased by consistent distortions of disruptive behavior of experienced editors as if this justifies canvassing at all. I have no faith they won't fall back into old patterns the next time something upsets them and they believe they need to stop playing fair to compete with other perceived misbehaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPaththank you for the clarification. As far as seriousness that seems about the same level. Simonm223 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

PIA Canvassing: Clerk notes

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

@Dovidroth, you are currently above the word limit. Please request an extension if you wish to add more. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PIA Canvassing: Arbitrator views and discussion

For ease of reference: April 2024 announcement of successful appeal against site-ban (sanction was handed down at the same time as the topic ban). Daniel (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've topic banned them in the past, so if anyone thinks I should recuse on this appeal feel free to let me know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If having topic banned Dovidroth in the past would be a problem requiring recusal by itself, the entire committee of 2024 would have to recuse, so... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit different when sanctioning as an individual admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline, emotions [are] very high, and the PIA space [is] as combative and high tension as it ever has been. It's a fairly small topic area and off-wiki coordination/POV pushing is too serious an issue to let someone back while the conflict is still active. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per SFR. Daniel (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - Also per SFR. - Aoidh (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Primefac (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Venezuelan politics

Initiated by WMrapids at 04:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Venezuelan politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#WMrapids banned

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

WMrapids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#WMrapids banned
- Request to appeal indefinite ban

Statement by WMrapids

WMrapids's statement contains 156 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

After this time off, I want to return to my first passion on Wikipedia; providing images and information about local locations and places visited. This can be seen with my recent uploads on Commons (including my first quality images! [16][17]), which I wish to place on Wikipedia. I have no interest in Venezuelan topics or certain interactions, so please keep the two-way IBAN and topic ban in place to leave those problems in the past. Overall, I'm eager to collaborate with others on Wikipedia again and learn more along the way, like I have on Commons. Thank you for your consideration! --WMrapids (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, apologies! Due to word counts, I kept things brief for ArbCom. My other account created for privacy (which I still recognize/recognized was created improperly) was blocked and no other account has been created. I'm fairly certain ArbCom wouldn't consider an appeal if my IP showed up elsewhere during this time.--WMrapids (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

WMRapids was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and was banned by ArbCom to recognize the CheckUser block. This request does not address the abuse of multiple accounts, which is an issue of trustworthiness. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223 (Venezuela)

As WMRapids is willing to return with the topic ban and the iban in place and as they have accounted for the sock puppetry issue and have committed to not repeating that mistake I think we should support allowing them to return. Simonm223 (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Venezuelan politics: Clerk notes

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

Venezuelan politics: Arbitrator views and discussion

I find this request persuasive and am currently inclined to support it, retaining the interaction and topic ban. Keen to provide the opportunity to potentially hear from other interested members of the community over the coming few days, before proposing a motion. Daniel (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same as Dan. Inclined to support lifting the ban with the iban and tban in place, would like to hear from those who were party to the behavior that led to the ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (arbitrators only)

All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against a previously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

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.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or 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 a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or 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.

^ 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.

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

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 longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358

Anpanman11

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Anpanman11

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sybercracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Anpanman11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/SA — WP:ARBIMH

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Copyright violations over two articles.[18][19][20] even after warnings copyrighted content still exists as 70.9%.[21]
After the previous violation of the 3rr rule,[22][23][24][25][26] still edit warring against default sorting.[27][28]
Calling good-faith collaborative edits as disruption.[29][30]
For creating new articles he merely provides quotes, page numbers from the sources.(Here, Here, Here) And mostly using outdated primary sources.
For removing or adding content, he merely provides any edit-summaries.[31][32][33]
Battle ground mentally and with false allegations hoax fillings.

I believe this user has a competence issue he doesn't know how to cite sources properly with pages quotes per WP:V, basic policies like Copyvio, Edit war, 3rr, and what is not vandalism/disruption. Sybercracker (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see User talk:Anpanman11#Introduction to contentious topics)

User_talk:Anpanman11#c-Rosguill-20250714185600-Introduction_to_contentious_topics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Anpanman11 These are not the answers to the issues raised here; you have violated copyright on multiple occasions, violated 3RR, still edit warning, and still have sourcing issues (you often cite sources without providing pages, quotes & outdated/unreliable sources). After doing this, all you're not accepting these mistakes showing negligence.[34]

Even after Copyright violation on Muslim-Gujars you created article "Fazal Ali Khan" and directly copy-pasted content from the sources when Lovkal tagged page for revdel you removed tagged adding further new copyrighted content then he restored the tag again. But now copyright content still exist as 22.5% It clearly show your competence issue.
There is also another issue of WP: Owning on many occasions you said I created this page and why 'Syber' or other editors are editing this page? You're also not aware that on Wikipedia any page or content is not your personal property.
No, you don't have to revert other's edits violating 3RR rule and edit war. You violated 3RR on Muslim Gujars then still you're edit waring on Yahya Khan (Lahore) against improvements.[35][36][37][38] British census reports are outdated and unreliable for ethnic/caste claims in the Indian subcontinent.
I believe edit summaries are mandatory for removing content & sources from pages or replacing pre-existing content with new content that you were doing.
I didn't accuse you of sockpuppetry. I raised a concern that the page, Yahya Khan Bahadur was created 2-3 times by socks and deleted under G5 then the reviewing admin said the content is different from the previous sock's versions.[39] Sybercracker (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anpanman11 All issues mentioned in this report were also of concern to an admin. He said there were sourcing & copyright issues and you need to provide pages, and quotes from the sources.[40] Other editors also gave you warnings for disruption. You're not accepting your mistakes when you know you committed them, and you're not in the mood to listen to anyone. I think you'll repeat all these mistakes purposely If you'll be allowed to go unsanctioned.
In your comment you said "I'm not your father...?" I believe It is WP:UNCIVIL.
There was a clear copyright violation. Sybercracker (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: @CoffeeCrumbs: After ECR reminder Indian military history social group.[41][42][43][44] Sybercracker (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User_talk:Anpanman11#c-Sybercracker-20250727220400-Notice

Discussion concerning Anpanman11

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Anpanman11

Moved into own section in reply to filer. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I already discussed the matter with @Diannaa and she restored my edit

2. I had to revert your edit as it cited wrong figures with unreliable sources claiming here are 33 million Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan. British census data put the number of Gujjars at around 2m only.

3. Those were unnecessary edits on a page you knew nothing about. You added nothing to the page itself. You merely used it to increase the number of your edits.

4. Unlike you, I always quote authoritative and contemporary or semi-contemporary sources. The fact you're calling these "outdated" tells a lot about your knowledge about how historical sources work.

5. Edit summaries aren't mandatory.

6. You're the one who accused me of being a sockpuppet. You're the one who came up with false allegations.

Also, it's impressive that you've learned how to launch discussions, complaints, accuse someone of being a sockpuppet etc. all within a month of joining Wikipedia. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just recently you mentioned Abdullah Khan Alakozai (a page I created) as a Mughal subahdar. Had you read the very first line of the article you would've known he was an Afghan and had nothing to do with the Mughals. It seems you're the one who has basic reading competence issues. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved into own section again: I believe this one is a reply to Sybercracker (below). Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't teach me what sources to use, I know better. You have reading issues and you're trying to teach me my expertise.

1. There was no copyright violation on Muslim Gujjars, that's why my edits were restored.

2. I know it's not my personal property, just as I'm not your father that you have to follow me.

3. Sorry, your edits don't add anything to Yahya Khan (governor).

4. That's your opinion, which doesn't matter.

5. You launched Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anpanman11 a week before the page Yahya Khan (governor) was created. Anpanman11 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Sybercracker's section, again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I edited that page & copyright went from 75 to 22%. Will still edit more if required.

2. Irrelevant

3. If there was a clear copyright violation in your opinion why did the extended editor restored my edits after a discussion? Copyright of old books (1920s) is expired so it can't be a copyright violation. Anyways, you should discuss this with the editor who restored my edit instead of wasting my time. I'm explaining it for the third time now. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from CoffeeCrumbs' section. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any such thing. The pages are not locked. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from admins' section. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think you should elaborate. I don't see Shams Khan page locked. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why are they protected now? What else can I edit? This was my expertise. Anpanman11 (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeCrumbs, "India" historically referred to a broad and vaguely defined region. The people of Hazara are different from Indians and don't consider themselves Indians. In fact they'd feel insulted being lebelled as such. They have a separate identity, a different language, values, culture, and code of conduct. India usually referred to the lands beyond the Indus, and Amb being to its West is excluded. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amb was an independent state. It wasn't part of the Sikh Empire. NWFP was just one of the many administrative units created by the British in South Asia just as Burma for example. Both aren't part of India. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I didn't in this case. All the territories west of the Indus river weren't part of India. This region is historically called Hazara or Pakhli, and it was part of Pakhtunkhwa, Roh, or Afghanistan. The British included it in India just as they did with Burma and other regions. Both are racially, civilizationally, culturally, ethnically, morally, and linguistically distinct regions from India. Anpanman11 (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

Just want to note that Anpanman is continuing to edit the area covered in the recent Indian military history case [45]. I'm not sure how aware they are, though, of the consequences of the very recent arbitration case that placed this area under ECP protection. Anpanman11, can you confirm whether or not you are aware that editing Indian military history topics now requires an editor to have WP:ECP status? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I think my biggest concern is that Anpanman11 has stopped engaging about this, and in fact, their response to others making it clear what extended-confirmed protection meant was to continue making those edits, with no acknowledgement they understand what the problem is. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand he's back and editing in the same area [46], [47], [48], [49]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hazara region is not in India. It's Afghanistan/Pakistan. Anpanman11 (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Indian military history" does not mean simply things that happen within the post-1947 India borders, nor did the case focus on that. This is an absurd level of Wikilawyering to edit in areas you're not supposed to be editing. And for the millionth time, reply to things in your own section not in those of others. This rapidly becoming an instance of WP:IDHT. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering, just to note, the Sikh empire some of the edits were talking about encompassed parts of the Maratha empire, which was one of the focal points of the arbitration case. I fear that if "Indian military history" just means "the modern state of India, only within the post-1947 borders of India" it's going to be a mess. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the very first sentence of Mir Jehandad Khan explicitly notes that this was in British India. I don't think it's a stretch to call a military leader fighting the Sikh Empire in British India something related to military history. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anpanman11 Yes, a broad and vaguely defined region, which you may not edit the military history of while you're not extended confirmed. Frankly, while it seemed a stern warning to stay out of this area until you are extended confirmed was appropriate two weeks ago, given that you do not respond to warnings or even a temporary block, I think a topic ban from South Asian military history, broadly construed, is appropriate, and would urge the administrators evaluating the case to consider that action. I do not believe that you take this community's policies and guidelines or the community's concerns about your behavior seriously. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anpanman11, the restriction is not to military history only specifically "called" India within the modern borders of the state of India. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that a battle in Canada during the American Revolution is not part of American military history. In any case, I believe that administrators have more than sufficient evidence to form a decision, so I have nothing more to add. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement and question by Robert McClenon

I just closed a dispute at DRN between Anpanman11 and Sybercracker that appears to have been related to this dispute, but I have a question. Sybercracker is concerned that there may continue to be a content dispute with Anpanman11. Is Anpanman11 permitted to edit in this topic area? Exactly what articles within the South Asia contentious topic are subject to extended-confirmed restriction? If I should ask this question somewhere else, please let me know where to ask it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZDRX

The filer has been blocked as a sock puppet.[50] THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 04:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anpanman11

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Without commenting on any of the more specific allegations here, @Anpanman11, you have to understand that Indian military history and South Asian social groups are now under an extended confirmed restriction. This means that until you have made 500 edits, you cannot create or edit articles like Shamas Khan, Yahya Khan (governor), or Abdullah Khan Alkozai, as these people are primarily known for their military roles. I've draftified the latter two articles as an arbitration enforcement action. Going forward, do you understand this rule? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anpanman11: Please read WP:ECR. You may not edit about any topic covered by an ECR, whether or not there is a page protection in place. If a page is all about Indian military history, you cannot edit it at all. If parts of a page are about Indian military history, you cannot edit those parts. Also, please only reply in your own section. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Anpanman11 for 72h as ECR enforcement over Special:Diff/1303999381 and various borderline violations. Is this sufficient for now, or do others feel something beyond that is necessary? FWIW I do also spot another copyvio here (cf. [51]), although it's not egregious. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs: My philosophy on ECR enforcement for people who seem to truly be ignoring the ECR as if it doesn't exist at all, is that the first block is an AE tempblock and the second is a non-AE indef for DE/CIR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding CIR, the fact that various people have had to move Anpanman11's submissions into the correct section five times suggests that they aren't exactly showing competence or reading ability at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're now editing on Pakistan milhist, which... -- asilvering (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs yeah, I'm aware. @Anpanman11, please meditate on the words "broadly construed". -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have reading issues and you're trying to teach me my expertise. 1. There was no copyright violation on Muslim Gujjars, that's why my edits were restored. Yeesh. In view of the attitude over the copyvio and this kind of mindset, I'm not sure about their compatibility on the site overall. Copyright indefs kick in at 5 clear instances; you can have a minor instance if the rest are egregious. 3/5 of the way there is not great. When this 72h block ends I'm not optimisitc about further actions being unnecessary. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mikewem

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Mikewem

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mikewem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Zionism: 27-July-2025 they restored their changes while making a claim about copyvio and commenting about some unrelated minor changes.
Zionism: 27-July-2025 they admitted that they are violating the rule that says "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page", though their explanation for doing so is baseless (as you shall see in the additional comments section).
Zionism: 14-July-2025 they removed the section about the Haredi (while falsely claiming that it's not about “anti-Zionism”).
Zionism: 27-July-2025 they removed part of the Haredi section (this time claiming that it's fringe).
Non Jewish victims of Nazi Germany: in two successive edits, they removed the estimate death toll of the non Jewish civilians (while claiming that it's the "Most common description") and then, they removed more content (while claiming that "Modern scholarship says not to focus on this kind of numerical total"). A few days later, they removed the sources and the content about the death toll of non-Jewish civilians.
Double standard: 27-July-2025 they restored unsourced content while falsely claiming that "lots of sources call [the early Muslim conquests] colonialism". This is an editor who doesn't hesitate to remove what they think is FRINGE (as evidenced by this edit on the Zionism article). Struck as withdrawn. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

User_talk:Mikewem#October_2024_2 blocked for edit warring on the Zionism article.
User_talk:Mikewem#October_2024_3 indeffed for WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and clear intent to ignore WP:PIA. Their unblock appeal was accepted by ScottishFinnishRadish and Rosguill.
User_talk:Mikewem#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction they were subject to an arbitrary enforcement sanction because of their edits on the Zionism article (again).

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Regarding diffs 1 and 2: after an IP left a comment on the Zionism talk page about a possible grammar error, Mikewem took the opportunity to completely change the paragraph (while claiming to address the raised issue). I reverted their edit, addressed one of the issues that was raised by the IP and left an explanation on the talk page. Mikewem restored their edit while making a baseless claim about copyvio (something that even if true, wouldn't justify all the changes). When challenged to prove their claim (I was very specific), they gave a non answer. When I insisted, they made a completely baseless claim about copyvio and ignored the rest of my comment. When I asked them (again) to self-revert, they provided this reply (which ignores what I said). The rule of not restoring challenged material (mentioned at the top of the article's talk page) has served us well and kept the disruption to a minimum, so for them to deliberately ignore it is disruptive at best.

diffs 3 and 4 are more or less about the same rule that they obviously have no respect for.

The other diffs are self-explanatory. M.Bitton (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikewem: ignore 5 and 6 (per SilverLocust). M.Bitton (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Mikewem

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Mikewem

I’m not sure I can give an initial response before receiving more clarification. I don’t understand how diffs 5 and 6 relate to PIA enforcement, so I feel like I must be misunderstanding some important aspect of this report or of PIA. I’m sorry for asking @M.Bitton:, but would you be willing to provide a more detailed explanation for your inclusion of 5 and 6? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewem (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cdjp1

As I have looked into and commented on a couple of the edits identified here, I’ll add what I found for the recod.

On the claim of copyvio, Mikewem argues that the phrase "notion of being a nation" is a copyvio of the lyric "notion of a nation" from the song "Non-stop" from the musical Hamilton. If we do a quick Google Scholar search for the exact lyric, we find it appearing in 1,270 results prior to 2012, which is prior to the first public showing of what was then the Hamilton Mixtape in 2013. Or if we want to go prior to 2009, when Miranda has stated he started working initially on Hamilton, the results are 1,010. This should be more than enough to show that the exact lyric is a common enough phrase in academic discussions of things like nationhood to not be a copyvio of a musical that came about after the scholarly sources looked at. We can then move on to how "notion of being a nation" is a different phrase to the lyric "notion of a nation". To put it bluntly, I very much believe any claim of copyvio is fallacious and is being used to justify the removal of a sentence that Mikewem doesn't like.

Secondly on "lots of sources call [the early Muslim conquests] colonialism", they later added a reference to support the claim, which was a single unpublished paper, that was written by Craig S. Wright, a person who only has degrees in computer science, works in financial technology, has no history of publication in relevant topic areas, and was found by UK courts to lie about what he has done/achieved. This is a potential indicator of a poor ability to assess the validity and references of sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Absolutiva

Mikewem also involved by changing short description for The Holocaust to include dates as it fail WP:SDDATES, this was frequently discussed on Talk:The Holocaust#Short description. But I attempt to change this short description before it was changed or reverted by Mikewem (1, 2, 3). Absolutiva 01:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mikewem

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

On diffs 1 and 2, that looks like a clear consensus-required violation. The "affirmative consensus on the talk page" requirement does need to be via discussion on the talk page – not merely citing (implicitly) things like the WP:COPYVIO policy, MOS:CAPS guidelines, or the WP:UCR essay. (And the asserted copyright violation is not remotely a copyright violation.)
On diffs 5 and 6, I think Mikewem is correct that those edits are not within WP:PIA. The subjects of victims of Nazi Germany and early Muslim conquests are not generally within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Absolutiva: Likewise, those edits regarding the Holocaust are not in the WP:PIA topic area. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am having a lot of trouble assuming good faith on the copyright removals. A four-word phrase from an unrelated work, not even identical to the five-word phrase used on-wiki? Seriously? Editors do get weird ideas sometimes about how copyright works (partly because our copyright-related policies intentionally exceed, and also sometimes unintentionally misstate, copyright law, I say with a cough in the direction of WP:COPYLINK), but there's only so much AGF I'm willing to extend given the history of sanctions here. The minimum outcome I can see here is a balanced editing restriction (noting that per N95 Mikewem is currently at 74% [133/180] PIA edits in the past 30 days), but at this moment I lean more toward a full TBAN. We do not need editors in this topic area weaponizing policies to gain the upper hand. As with most PIA sanctions, I favor making this thread's outcome, whatever it is, appealable only to ARCA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally sold on a full TBAN here, depending on further replies from Mikewem, but I agree that the first two diffs appear to violate the consensus required requirement. (That's a ... weird mouthful). And I find the "alleged" copyright violation to be so much of a reach that I'm having trouble assuming good faith on Mikewem's part for putting it forward. The fact that Mikewem was already indeffed but unblocked less than a year ago is not exactly encouraging. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Stix1776

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Stix1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Stix1776 (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: I was given a topic ban of on circumcision.

Administrator imposing the sanction: The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: sorry it's late, my job keeps me very busy

Statement by Stix1776

Since the ban, the other editor in the conflict has has a litany of blocks, topics bans, and finally a indefinite ban for sockpuppetry. I understand Wikipedia needs to be careful of outing, but this user was almost certainly creating a fake profile on Reddit to claim that the other side was "canvasing", something he often does [52] [53] to edit war.

It should be noted that the previous Outing policy in April 2022 did not include a mention to external sites. This was fixed in January of last year. I was not the only editor to find this confusing. Before the topic ban process started, I was genuinely surprised yet apologetic. I am sorry that I did an outing, but this situation is quite confusing.

Since my topic ban, the other contentious account and their socks had multiple blocks for edit warring, something I tried very hard to explain in my AE defense. Since the ban, I've had zero behavioral issues, and the other editor and his socks have had 10+. It's almost comical comparing this user's behavioral history and his socks and more socks and more socks and more socks after I was topic banned. Stix1776 (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Edit: may I add that an admin decision was made on my topic ban BEFORE I had a chance to post a response. As other editors have noted, most of the complains in the AE report were for things BEFORE I got warned for DS. Reading the original AE report, most of the "personal attacks" that I was blamed for, including accusations of sockpuppetry and a future block for edit warring, in hindsight are fully correct.Stix1776 (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to The Blade of the Northern Lights

Jesus hell. So we're not allowed to argue, with a preponderance of evidence, that the topic ban was a massive mistake? How about that KlayCax and his socks have edited 20% of the page?

As noted, this admin has been a lock em up and throw away the key judge, literally making a decision before I even responded to the AE post. This is shameful.Stix1776 (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also KlayCax wasn't the filer, he was the one I was blamed for for "complaining".Stix1776 (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Pppery

I literally apologized several times throughout this process.Stix1776 (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was rushed as hell.Stix1776 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights

Just to note I'm aware of this, I don't think I'll have a lot to say but I know whatever I do say will probably be tomorrow, RL today has been absolutely relentless. Admins (and anyone else who has input), feel free to weigh in before any statement of mine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent I have anything to say, I note this appeal almost entirely focuses on the conduct of the filer at the time. Stix1776 hasn't picked up any other additional sanctions, and KlayCax has engaged in subsequent misconduct, and still nothing about this appeal is stating what the benefit would be for Stix1776 to be allowed to edit this topic area again. If there's a followup statement forthcoming I'm open to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Stix1776

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Stix1776

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Decline this entire appeal per WP:NOTTHEM. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much as my sympathies would normally be on Stix's side, their last few edits to this page suggest that lifting the topic ban at this time might be unwise. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stix, if you want this to end in your favour, some advice: back up. Way up. Start again, from the beginning. Explain the circumstances that led to your tban in a way that would make sense to someone who is reading about you for the very first time. Explain why you think the ban is no longer necessary. Focus on your own conduct, not that of others. If you think your conduct was perfectly fine and AE admins erred previously, go ahead and make that case - but focus on your conduct, not someone else's. Promise not to repeat whatever led to the tban, even if you think that's kind of stupid. And restrict yourself to one edit to this page every 24 hours. -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stix1776, please put any comments and replies only in your own section. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the blocking admin for KlayCax, I'm pretty open to this appeal, and I don't like the idea of declining an appeal merely for having a bad attitude int he appeal itself, but I agree with asilvering that Stix needs to back up and restart. Frankly I'd be fine with them just collapsing what they've written so far and starting the appeal fresh. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree re: collapsing. And I know I beat the "for Pete's sake, 500 words!!" drum around here a lot, but I would happily ignore all of the words written thus far and not consider them in any count. -- asilvering (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskar sunsari

By AE consensus, Bhaskar sunsari (talk · contribs) is TBANned from south asia social groups, broadly construed. Additionally, they are indefinitely blocked with the first year being an AE action and then converting to a regular admin action. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Bhaskar sunsari

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: CoffeeCrumbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bhaskar sunsari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/SA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

15:12, 27 July 2025 Addition of material to a caste group in Nepal, inappropriate attack on others in edit summary please don't remove any sourced data doing fake edits here in Wikipedia won't change your status in society
15:25, 27 July 2025 Addition of material to a caste group in Nepal, in appropriate warning to members of a caste Removed manipulated content added by yadav editors like prominent
01:47, 31 July 2025 Removal of section related to an ethnic group on Nepal, borderline personal attack on editor editor should learn editing first

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14:27, 31 March 2025 Blocked two weeks for persistent disruption and addition of unsourced content
10:26, 22 April 2025 Blocked for two months and 29 days for persistent distruption and addition of unsourced content
17:17, 22 April 2025 Talk page access removed during block due to making personal attacks on talk page
09:17, 22 July 2025 Extended-confirmed status removed.

Notified editor on talk page in plain text that they no longer had extended-confirmed access and provided a link to WP:CT/SA. [54] Editor at least acknowledged that this was read and gave no indication that anything was misunderstood. [55]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I notified this editor last week in the hopes that they would stay out of an extremely sensitive area until they had their extended confirmed rights restored. This was ignored, and given that these edits in this area have inappropriate edit summaries, I didn't think another warning was inappropriate. Given the attacks on people who are members of a caste that they appear to have a poor opinion of, and the relevant block history, I would have filed this even if the editor did have extended confirmed access. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Bhaskar sunsari

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Bhaskar sunsari

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bhaskar sunsari

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

That's pretty clearly a violation. Given the past history, I'm inclined to a topic ban and/or block ... two months blocked doesn't seem to have gotten the point across, not sure a topic ban would be better. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ealdgyth. Pending a response, I'm leaning on a TBAN + AE indef at the moment. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my colleagues. This is a straightforward case. AE indef + GSCASTE TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merline303

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Merline303

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Merline303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Final decision

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

4 August 2025 Creation of a page with unreviewed and hallucinated AI-generated references, such as:
- Gombrich, Richard & Obeyesekere, Gananath (1988). Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka. Princeton University Press. pp. 39–42., which is used to cite a paragraph on British colonial policy but the relevant pages concern Buddhist spiritual doctrine
- Roberts, Michael (1994). Exploring Confrontation: Sri Lanka—Politics, Culture and History. Routledge. pp. 42–45., which is used to cite a paragraph on the aftermath of the Uva Rebellion but the relevant pages are unrelated
- Pfaffenberger, Bryan (1994). “The Sri Lankan Tamils.” In: Spencer, J. (ed.) Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict. Routledge. pp. 148–150., which is a chapter that does not exist in a book that does.
1 August 2025 Creation of a page with unreviewed and hallucinated AI-generated references:
- Wijeyaratne, U.; de Silva, N. (2011). "Forest Use and Poaching under Conflict Conditions". Environmental Conflict Review. 6.
- Vithursha, K. (2019). "Impact of Indian Trawler Poaching on Northern Sri Lanka". Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences.
- Jayathilaka, R.; Maldeniya, R. (2017). "Status of sea turtle nesting in Sri Lanka". IOSEA Marine Turtle MoU.
- de Silva, Rohan (2009). "Ivory Trafficking and War Economies: The LTTE Case". Sri Lanka Wildlife Review.
25 July 2025 Creation of a page with unreviewed and hallucinated AI-generated references:
- Richardson, John M. (1979). "Socialist Experiment in Sri Lanka". Asian Survey. 19 (6): 547–564.
- Fernando, Ralph (1982). "The State and the Media in Sri Lanka". Media Asia. 9 (4).
- Perera, L. A. (1982). "Religious Education and the Takeover of Schools in Ceylon". Ceylon Journal of Historical and Social Studies.

And so on and so forth across 19 articles created in the past two months and goodness knows how many others edited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 18 April 2025 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thought AE would be simpler than ANI. Suggest an immediate block, draftification of all their article creations (or CSD if you want to anticipate the RfC that looks close to a SNOW close), and reversions, as far as possible, of their other edits. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Voorts, and for the RfC close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Merline303

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Merline303

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Merline303

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I've blocked Merline as a regular admin action. The block is without prejudice to a consensus of admins at AE taking further action, but I don't see another admin unblocking this editor unless they demonstrate an understanding of how to edit without using LLM-hallucinated garbage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Initiated by IdanST at 10:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

User_talk:IdanST#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban

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

IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
I followed step #1 (contacting the administrator), which was rejected, and I'm now following steps #2 and #3.

Statement by IdanST

Hey,

Since I was topic banned nine months ago, I’ve made over 500 substantial edits on English Wikipedia, as well as more than 18,000 edits across Wikimedia projects.

I apologize for my past behavior and acknowledge that I wasn’t ready to contribute constructively to contentious topics at the time. However, I now believe I’m better prepared and could contribute more effectively if the topic ban were lifted.

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.

Arbitrator response from when this was originally filed at ARCA

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

IdanST appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

@IdanST: the Arbitration Committee generally isn't the right body to appeal a CTOP restriction to, if it's on the basis of changed behavior. We only overturn CTOP actions under very narrow circumstances, usually having to do with the CTOP action being problematic when it was placed. Like the sanctioning administrator said, a better place to plead this case would be at WP:AN or WP:AE, if that's the path you're looking to take. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with leeky above; Wikipedia:Contentious topics#On community review (ie. AN or AE) allows for an appeal on the grounds that "the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption" which seems to best align with the purpose of this appeal, while the three criteria ARCA can consider does not include this. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recused, as I placed this sanction. I do agree with what was said by my esteemed colleagues though, which is why I said to appeal at AE or AN in my response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning IdanST

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[a]

[b]