Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
More information Request name, Motions ...
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Tag-teaming in North African topics   14 March 2026 2/0/1
Close
[edit]
Open cases
More information Case name, Links ...
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Pbsouthwood (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)
Close
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

More information Request name, Motions ...
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 none (orig. case) 28 February 2026
Amendment request: Indian military history none (orig. case) 13 March 2026
Close

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Use this page 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!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. 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.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

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-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • 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 request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

Initiated by Chaotic Enby at 23:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 5 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:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Chaotic Enby

Do conflicts between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, that do not directly involve Arab countries, fall under the scope of the extended-confirmed restriction? I've recently seen several PIA-related actions in that regard (most recently, this protection of Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei), and, while I see the connection if we are considering the topic as broadly construed (given the indirect role of Iran in the conflict through its proxies), having an explicit clarification one way or the other could be helpful.

To clarify, I'm not requesting any action against The Bushranger (whose action only happens to be the latest example I've seen of this), just wanting to clarify the limits of where ECR applies.

Statement by The Bushranger

Requesting removal from the case as a party per the OP's statement. On the position itself: the limitations of the search function mean I can't find it to link it right off hand, but this did come up at ANI or AN recently (during 2025) and agreement was that the Israeli-Iran conflict falls under it; of course it's entirely possible Arbcom may see otherwise! - 00:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Removed as a party. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I think that some arbs are displaying a lack of familiarity with the subject matter at hand when they express doubt that this should be covered, or that this is a post-1979 concern. Prior to the 1979 revolution, agitation around the Pahlavi monarchy’s ties to Israel and their policies towards Palestinians was a central element of the ayatollah’s polemics against the monarchy (see the Timeline section of Iran–Israel relations, particularly the two subsections about the Pahlavi period focusing respectively on Pahlavi’s policies and the activities of the Islamic opposition). The current Iranian government’s claims to legitimacy (as in, how it justifies its rule to its population) are directly tied to its opposition to Israel, and Israel’s own hostility to Iran following the 1979 revolution is based on the reciprocal recognition of this ideological commitment by the Iranian government. Military confrontations between the two are thus deeply intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole, at least for as long as the Iranian and Israeli states continue to exist in their current forms. signed, Rosguill talk 05:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that the suggested rescoping of the restriction to cover "Israeli politics" would also be workable, although I would amend that to "Israeli politics and/or Palestinian politics", since the political activities of Palestinian factions should be covered by the topic even when it's not something immediately impacting Israeli politics. In a sense, the "Arab-Israeli conflict" framing is an atavism of the 1930s-70s when it could be said almost without exaggeration that there was a general conflict between Zionism/Israel and the whole Arab world. Successive peace treaties with Arab governments, as well as the expansion of the conflict to non-Arab states, complicates the designation of "Arab-Israeli". signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I think the statement "It also armed the terrorist proxies around us in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Judea and Samaria, and it shed our blood." from "Read Netanyahu's full statement on Iran attacks" is probably enough to designate it as "Part of the Arab–Israeli conflict". Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

I don't think the Israeli-Iranian conflict is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it should definitely be considered a contentious topic anyway of course. Perhaps just make it simple and clear that Any military action or violence by or against the State of Israel is designated as a contentious topic on Wikipedia. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Per Guerillero's comment, if Iranian politics and American politics are CTOPs, probably so too should be Israeli politics. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
In fact, maybe instead of the Arab-Israeli conflict being a CTOP, PIA (Palestine-Israel articles) should be slightly rescoped to be simply PIP: Palestinian and Israeli politics. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The current hostilities are certainly "related to AIC" per leekycauldron, and are certainly "deeply intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict" per Rosguill, but that doesn't make them wholly "part of" that conflict.
The entirety of the State of Israel and its very existence is inseparable from the Arab-Israeli conflict, so really anything to do with Israeli politics should be ECR unless that's too restrictive. In which case something like the "national and international politics of Israel" or "Israeli foreign policy" should be ECR. That way local/small-scale/municipal/minor Israeli politics and the like wouldn't be ECR, which would be the drawback to applying the restriction to all of "Israeli politics" in general. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

The Iranian government is deeply embedded in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran's support for Hamas is frequently cited as the rationale for hostilities between Iran and Israel. I don't see how the Israeli-Iranian conflict would not be covered by PIA. Broader Iranian politics may fall outside it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Abo Yemen

While I believe that the Iranian-Israeli conflict is a CTOP, I do not think that it should fall under the name of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran is not Arab. See also Rosguill's statement. I think that there should be a rescope 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

In reply to @CaptainEek's suggestion that the definition should be extended to the '"Israeli-Middle Eastern" conflict' (which is technically a wrong wording, since it isn't everyone in the Middle East but Israel against Israel), I suggest that all post-1948 Middle Eastern politics be designated as a CTOP 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by ToBeFree

Practice is a bit faster than process here. I've already placed some protections based on the statements here on this page after initially saying "Iran is not an Arab country". Rosguill's statement above is very helpful. I think it would be time for a formal close or perhaps ideally even a motion amending WP:CT/A-I similarly to the current "Clarifications and amendments" section of the South Asia contentious topics page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

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.

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Yes, to my understanding the general conflict between Iran and Israel (Iran–Israel proxy conflict) is considered "Part of the Arab–Israeli conflict". That's what the main article on the topic says, and many articles about it are placed under EC protection as being within PIA. As to why, my understanding is that the origin of the enmity between Iran and Israel after the 1979 Islamic revolution is mainly the Arab–Israeli conflict (particularly the Palestine–Israel conflict/the dispute as to the legitimacy of the State of Israel). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'd be inclined to extend the CTOP (not the ECR) to other content about either Israel or Palestine. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes, I believe it does. Daniel (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Iran is not an Arab country, so I am hesitant to say that the Iran–Israel conflict is entirely covered by the Arab–Israeli conflict ECR. Parts of Iran–Israel conflicts are covered via the broadly construed clause, but I don't think there is a blanket rule. (On a related note, for contentious topic actions, Iranian politics is probably more applicable.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

    The Arab–Israeli conflict is our most fraught topic area, and it has a long history at ArbCom. Five PIA cases, plus many related cases (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13), plus the innumerable times we have considered PIA-related ARMs and ARCAs (not least the most recent fiasco).

    We are well past wit's end in PIA. Consequently, we have consistently employed our most bitter medicine to the topic area. Anything that PIA touches is a contentious topic, and subject to 1RR, and subject to ECR, and (until November) all formal discussions have a 1,000 word limit. We created a bespoke restriction which forces editors to spend time not touching the cesspit. We depart from WP:PREEMPTIVE—a policy that comes from our bedrock principle of anyone can edit—by mandating that ECR be enforced automatically, without room for admin discretion. Upon PIA misconduct, we allow admins to issue restrictions with and severely limit the right to appeal, and we permit broadening topic bans beyond PIA.

Before broadening PIA, I would want evidence that we need all of that to quell disruption. I agree with leeky when she said I don't agree that all conflict between Israel and Iran is inherently AIC, it should be case-by-case; but I do agree that the current hostilities are broadly related to AIC. I disagree we should expand all of PIA before we try less extreme measures, such as expanding just a contentious topic (either PIA or IRP). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  • The present conflict absolutely does. -- asilvering (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I would argue that the most recent strikes do fall under the ECR. WP:BROADLY specifies that Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. In other words, anything that falls under the topic area is always covered by the CT, broadly construed or not; but when a CT is broadly construed, anything broadly related to the topic area, which necessarily includes being broadly related to key subtopics of the topic area, is also covered by the CT. While it's debatable whether the most recent strikes fall under the CT – like House said, Iran isn't a direct belligerent to the Arab–Israeli conflict, Israeli wars with Arab proxies notwithstanding – they are very closely related to the Gaza war and the proxy conflict, and as such I would say the strikes are covered. I think the spirit of the rule also supports this interpretation: this topic area is going to see a lot of the same disruption that the Arab–Israeli conflict area normally gets, because of that close relation to PIA, and I think it only make sense that admins will be able to address the same disruption with the same set of tools. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    To be clear, I don't agree that all conflict between Israel and Iran is inherently AIC, it should be case-by-case; but I do agree that the current hostilities are broadly related to AIC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • It probably isn't under a plain reading of the text passed by previous arbcoms. Iran isn't an Arab state. However, it is clear that between IRANPOL, AMPOL, and PIA this should be covered due to all of those topic areas touching the current conflict to some degree. To limit confusion, we should pass a motion explicitly stating that this is covered by one to three of the three existing CTs. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Guerillero, it's clearly covered by IRANPOL and AMPOL. But PIA has ECR, so it's important whether it's under this one specifically. -- asilvering (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    I am willing to vote that the scope of CT, ECP, and topic bans for PIA explicitly includes conflicts between Iran and Israel. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I admit that for some reason I'd always thought of Iran as being Arabic, although I realize it is more properly considered Persian. In a technical sense, Iran isn't really an Arab state; it has only a handful of Arab speakers. But it is part of the middle east, and obviously has a long history of conflict with its neighbors and also Israel. Iran also supports the proxy conflict between the Arab Hezbollah and Israel, which is obviously covered under Arab-Israeli conflict. I would support expanding our definition to "Israeli-Middle Eastern" conflict, if that would help cover the current conflict. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    I would also support amending the scope :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    I would also support amending it, it seems necessary given the present circumstances. - Aoidh (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Although a strictly literal reading would say no, the current conflict is undoubtedly an extension of the ongoing Gaza War and Israel-Iranian relations in general overlap considerably with the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm not sure I'd say historical conflicts/relations between the two would automatically be covered by the CTOP but some will and current events certainly are in my opinion. As others have noted, aspects are also covered by the CTOPs for American and Iranian politics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Amendment request: Indian military history

Initiated by EarthDude at 08:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Indian military history arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. 2) The topic of Indian military history is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by EarthDude

The inclusion of the term "broadly construed" here would align with the August 2025 ARCA request regarding scope of IMH. According to the linked request, IMH is already supposed to apply in a "broadly construed" manner. With WP:CT/CASTE now including the term, it would only be confusing and misleading for editors if the other subtopic is also applied as broadly construed in practice, but not stated as such. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to comment that the main reason I bring this up is due to the discrepancy regarding the usage of the term "broadly construed" when it comes to CTs. For instance, as @45dogs has highlighted, many CTs include the terms "broadly construed" or a variant of it, as is the case with WP:CT/PIA and WP:CT/CF. Out of the 23 contentious topics (including the two subtopics of WP:CT/SA), 17 explicitly state either "broadly construed" or the aforementioned variation. If such a practice is widespread but not uniform, then new coming editors or editors who don't fully know the workings of CTs are bound to misled over the scope of many of these, such as IMH as I've brought here. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by 45dogs

This does seem to be a larger discrepancy than just IMH. The list of CTOPs that don't specify broadly construed are:

PIA and CF are unique in that they specify broadly interpreted, rather than broadly construed. From my check, all the other CTOPs specify broadly construed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 07:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Indian military history: Clerk notes

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

Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI