Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| North Africa | 14 March 2026 | 8/0/1 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 | none | (orig. case) | 28 February 2026 |
| Amendment request: Indian military history | Motion | (orig. case) | 13 March 2026 |
| Clarification request: Transgender healthcare and people | none | (orig. case) | 20 March 2026 |
| Amendment request: ECR extension: Articles touching the topic of ethnicity in Afghanistan | none | none | 22 March 2026 |
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!)
- 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 direct violation report of an editor who has violated a restriction directly imposed by the Arbitration Committee.
- 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.
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:
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5
| For the purposes of arbitration enforcement, the Iran–Israel proxy conflict should be considered a part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, and anything broadly related to it – including the 2026 Iran war – is part of the contentious topic area. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Initiated by Chaotic Enby at 23:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
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 EnbyDo 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 BushrangerRequesting 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) Statement by RosguillI 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)
Statement by Sean.hoylandI 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 IOHANNVSVERVSI 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)
Statement by VanamondeThe 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 YemenWhile 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)
Statement by ToBeFreePractice 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 BluethricecreammanAgree that iran-israel conflict should obviously be ECR protected and fall under PIA restrictions as well. Don't think a blanket ECR on all Israeli politics or all Palestinian politics, as I saw some folks above suggest, is a great idea, as that covers a large portion of ground. obviously most of it probably should be ECR, but not allthere are some editors who complain they cannot edit on topics they know due to overly restrictive ECR, and though I'm glad ECR covers and prevents most of the fire, if there is some part of the politic that somehow doesn't get covered by the conflict (i.e. Israeli income tax policy, Palestinian traffic governance, etc.) and editors don't attempt to even toe the line, it would be problematic for them to be stopped. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC) Statement by Nil EinneWhile the war isn't expected to end anytime soon, it would be useful for this clarification to come sooner than later. E.g. IMO it would help to manage the talk page if it was clear reports of Ali Larijani death by Israeli strikes are covered by ARBECR. But as the alleged defacto leader of Iran with a significant internal focus it's not clear at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC) Statement by SwatjesterFor the purpose of avoiding ambiguity, we should also specify whether content that solely relates to conflict between Iran and the United States is also covered under this provision as part of the "broadly construed" element, and whether that conflict is required to have some locus to Israel or not. To me, this seems to argue in favor of potentially carving out a new CTOPS area specifically for Iran (or perhaps Iran and geopolitical/military conflict), which could then cover both the Iran-Israel portion and the Iran-US elements of the conflict, without creating bizarre edge cases. For instance, it's clear that even under the present terms, Iranian missile strikes against Tel Aviv count. It also would seem reasonable that an Iranian missile attack against a U.S. ship as part of this conflict, would also count -- even if the tactical instance of the strike does not involve Israel, it sits within the broader lens of a conflict that does. But extending that further -- what about Iranian-sponsored Houthi missile strikes against US forces that occur just outside of the direct conflict? What about Iranian EFP attacks in Iraq against U.S. forces? What about Iranian cyberwarfare attacks against U.S. interests? None of these things are truly unrelated to the broader conflict between Iran and Israel, regionally. However on an individual basis, that connection may not be readily apparent, or may very attenuated. Moreover, I don't think there's likely to be less editing problems (behaviorally and otherwise) on an Iran-US CTOP than there would be in the Arab-Israeli one. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:30, 17 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
Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion
|
Amendment request: Indian military history
Initiated by EarthDude at 08:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- 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
- EarthDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- 2) The topic of Indian military history is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
- 2) The term "broadly construed" to be added.
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)
I support the potential motion. It's a pretty small fix which will help clear up the confusion. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:57, 21 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:
- The Arab-Israeli Conflict
- Biographies of living people
- Infoboxes
- Gender and sexuality
- Pseudoscience and fringe science
- Historical elections
- Yasuke
- Indian Military History
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 Gramix13
I am concerned about the draft motion's increased scope of the Zak Smith extended-confirmed restriction by inserting broadly construed
. My understanding (from an outside perspective) is that the disruption that lead to the motion was contained in the Zak Smith article, and so making it broadly construed might lead to articles who's subjects Zak had some involvement in, an in particular Dungeons & Dragons, would have to have the ECR applied to comply with the broadened scope of the motion (or preferably, at the very least, only when it pertains to Zak Smith). I don't think it would hurt to have the committee solicit feedback from those who've worked in the Zak Smith topic area (including some of those listed in the proposed parties of the case in September 2025) to see if such a broadened scope is necessary or not, especially as it is a restriction set to lapse after 30 September 2026 if no editor requests the committee to consider an extension. Gramix13 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- The Zak Smith designation is already broadly construed (WP:ECR, by its own definition, applies to
all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed
). The motion would just say so explicitly. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)- Ok so the motion would add extra redundancy by mentioning explicitly that they are broadly construed to make that more clear beyond the definition in WP:ECR. In that case, I have no other concerns with the motion, thank you for taking the time to clarify that. Gramix13 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Statement by The Bushranger
On the currently proposed motions, while I do understand that (a) the language establishing all CTs as "broadly construed" is in WP:CT and (b) there's a reasonable desire not to repeat things, I can absolutely see removing the "broadly construed" language from the individual CTs as opening the door for an unusual situation: good-faith Wikilawyering from editors who have only read the applicable CT for something they were sanctioned for and believe that what they were sanctioned for doesn't fall under a CT as strictly confused and, not having (yet) read CT itself, are unaware that all CTs are by default broadly construed. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 22 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
- aren't CTs broadly construed unless otherwise specified? I'd be fine clarifying that explicitly if there's a discrepancy, but I would default to saying it's broadly construed anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- They are, per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Contentious topic restrictions, and there's nothing about this CTOP that specifies otherwise. - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- WP:ECR is a separate restriction from WP:CT, but ECR likewise notes that it "applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed". (But yes, it is a tad confusing that one ECR subtopic of WP:CT/SA now says it is broadly construed while the other is silent.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- They are, per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Contentious topic restrictions, and there's nothing about this CTOP that specifies otherwise. - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- all righty, are we cool with just a clarification, or do we wanna amend? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think clarify is fine since it's broadly construed by default, but I wouldn't oppose if someone wants to amend. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- I do think we should amend our remedy. We owe it to the community to use clear, consistent language in our decisions, and it's a super easy fix. I've written a potential motion to address this more broadly; see below. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Indian military history: Draft motion
The following are all amended by inserting , broadly construed,
after the topic:
- Remedy 2 of Civility in infobox discussions ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1 of Gender and sexuality ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1.2 of Historical elections ("Contentious topic (with sunset)")
- Remedy 2 of Indian military history ("Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction")
- Remedy 1a of Yasuke ("Contentious topic (Yasuke)")
- The contentious topic designation for biographies of living persons
- The Zak Smith extended-confirmed restriction
Remedy 4 of Palestine-Israel articles 4 and remedy 14 of Pseudoscience ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'" and "Contentious topic designation", respectively) are amended by replacing the words broadly interpreted
with broadly construed
.
This motion is for the sake of consistent language only. It it not intended to substantively change what is covered by the above remedies and motions.
Thoughts on this? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- i'm good with that :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sure. -- asilvering (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- This seems unnecessary. According to our own procedures, CTOPs are broadly construed unless stated otherwise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sure. But people are confused, and it doesn't take much for us to clear up that confusion, so we should do that. -- asilvering (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- This seems unnecessary. According to our own procedures, CTOPs are broadly construed unless stated otherwise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- One of the things done deliberately in the 2022 remix of DS->CT was to remove broadly construed from contentious topics based on the expectation laid plain in WP:CT that such things are broadly construed. I haven't decided if that was a good idea. I do think it doesn't make sense for topics to be inconsistent, but I do think it makes sense not to repeat ourselves, so I suppose a motion is necessary, but I think probably the other direction, as it were: removing the terminology from where it is presently found. Izno (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- oh, good point – I'd be happy with that also. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also happy with this, and no preference towards one or the other. -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- oh, good point – I'd be happy with that also. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Motion: standardizing by adding "broadly construed" where it is not present
The following are all amended by inserting , broadly construed,
after the topic:
- Remedy 2 of Civility in infobox discussions ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1 of Gender and sexuality ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1.2 of Historical elections ("Contentious topic (with sunset)")
- Remedy 2 of Indian military history ("Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction")
- Remedy 1a of Yasuke ("Contentious topic (Yasuke)")
- The contentious topic designation for biographies of living persons
- The Zak Smith extended-confirmed restriction
Remedy 4 of Palestine-Israel articles 4 and remedy 14 of Pseudoscience ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'" and "Contentious topic designation", respectively) are amended by replacing the words broadly interpreted
with broadly construed
.
This motion is for the sake of consistent language only. It does not change what is covered by the above remedies and motions.
Support
- Slight first choice. I think this is a tad easier for people who don't want to read the entirety of WP:CT. But that's not a strongly held opinion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- No particular preference for one or the other. asilvering (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
Motion: standardizing by removing "broadly construed" where it is present
Because contentious topics and the extended-confirmed restriction are broadly construed unless otherwise specified, the following are amended by removing the words broadly construed
:
- Remedy 3 of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 4.1 of Abortion ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1.2 of American politics 2 ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended")
- Remedy 2 of Acupuncture ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 12 of Eastern Europe ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1 of Genetically modified organisms ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1 of Iranian politics ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1 of Kurds and Kurdistan ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 14 of Pseudoscience ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS")
- Remedy 5 of The Troubles ("Contentious topic designation")
- Remedy 7 of Antisemitism in Poland ("Extended confirmed restriction")
- Remedy 3 of Indian military history ("Caste-related topics in South Asia extended-confirmed restriction")
- The contentious topic designation in Horn of Africa
Remedy 4 of Palestine-Israel articles 4 and remedy 14 of Pseudoscience ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'" and "Contentious topic designation", respectively) are amended by removing the words broadly interpreted
.
This motion is for the sake of consistent language only. It does not change what is covered by the above remedies and motions.
Support
- Second choice. We should use consistent language, but I prefer being as explicit as possible. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- No particular preference for one or the other. asilvering (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
Clarification request: Transgender healthcare and people
Initiated by LokiTheLiar at 20:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Transgender healthcare and people 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:
- LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by LokiTheLiar
This specifically concerns point 5 of the new WP:AEPR restriction. My understanding of the intent of that exception is that it's supposed to cover the general case of posting diffs that are relevant to an ongoing AE discussion, and under that understanding I posted two article edits to a discussion under WP:AEPR. However, once I posted it was pointed out that taken strictly the wording of that exception is much more narrow. There's a possible reading where it doesn't cover posting any diff from after the enforcement request was filed, and it also doesn't seem to cover article diffs at all.
The same admin that pointed this out suggested I come here to clarify, and frankly I'm also curious. Was the wording of point 5 of the AEPR intentionally narrow or is it supposed to be broader? Loki (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPath
Should a separate amendment request be filled or are arbs able to consider amendment in this request? I think it's fairly clear what point 5 of WP:AEPR means. A better question is if that's how it should be. Is it beneficial to prohibit the posting of diffs which demonstrate ongoing behaviour which is directly relevant to the subject area for which an editor may have been reported? If it stays prohibited then the only way to address ongoing behaviour would be with the filling of potentially parallel reports at AE, which I don't think anyone would welcome. TarnishedPathtalk 08:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ps, I should probably clarify that I'm not suggesting that anyone should file a parallel report in the current circumstance, I'm more thinking of things going forward. TarnishedPathtalk 09:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- A new request wouldn't be necessary for an arb to propose a motion to amend. On the merits, I think #4 ameliorates that. Rather than filing a parallel request, a user can ask one of the admins (or on the talk page, though that's more likely to go without a response) for permission to provide the diffs. AEPR is for use when input from more users seems to be a net negative, but an admin can decide a comment should be invited. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 12:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- I was thinking that removal of the term "past" from point 5 may be beneficial. I understand that AEPR is brought in when admins think that there are too many editors pilling on; however, from what I've seen of the usage to date it's been applied when most of those pilling on are not adding anything by way of evidence. TarnishedPathtalk 13:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks 45dogs for some diffs confirming what I personally have seen, that the AEPR restriction has been imposed when there has been editors offering opinions and discussing with other editors in the absence of the provision of evidence and analysis thereof. TarnishedPathtalk 06:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ps, I didn't exactly state what I think should be changed above.
- Point 5 currently reads
Users providing links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization
- I think it would be beneficial to read Users providing links to relevant discussions, edits or administrative actions, without any editorialization TarnishedPathtalk 06:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks 45dogs for some diffs confirming what I personally have seen, that the AEPR restriction has been imposed when there has been editors offering opinions and discussing with other editors in the absence of the provision of evidence and analysis thereof. TarnishedPathtalk 06:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I was thinking that removal of the term "past" from point 5 may be beneficial. I understand that AEPR is brought in when admins think that there are too many editors pilling on; however, from what I've seen of the usage to date it's been applied when most of those pilling on are not adding anything by way of evidence. TarnishedPathtalk 13:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- A new request wouldn't be necessary for an arb to propose a motion to amend. On the merits, I think #4 ameliorates that. Rather than filing a parallel request, a user can ask one of the admins (or on the talk page, though that's more likely to go without a response) for permission to provide the diffs. AEPR is for use when input from more users seems to be a net negative, but an admin can decide a comment should be invited. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 12:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Statement by 45dogs
Adding on to TarnishedPath's proposal for reforming AEPR, there appear to have been 5 uses of the AEPR restriction. Those are:
- Riposte97 (Reason for enacting)
- Raskolnikov.Rev (No stated reason for enacting)
- إيان (Reason for enacting)
- Iskandar323 (Reason for enacting)
- Cinaroot (Reason for enacting)
It seems the most common reason for enacting is participants discussing amongst themselves, as that is why it was enacted for إيان and Cinaroot. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure many concrete conclusions can be drawn from 5 different instances of AEPR being invoked, but I think it may be helpful amending AEPR to require admins to give a stated reason why they are enacting the restriction, for both accountability and to help in reviewing if AEPR can be improved. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 06:58, 22 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.
Transgender healthcare and people: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Transgender healthcare and people: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I wasn't around then, but based on the text of WP:AEPR, it seems like the intent was to permit links to previous times an editor's behavior came under scrutiny—e.g. past discussions, the WP:AELOG, the standard block log—but to prohibit adding actual evidence. In the present case, adding those diffs would not be permitted. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- "Providing links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization" doesn't seem to leave much room for interpretation. The only links that can be provided by third parties are links to previous sanctions or discussions about the editor in question, like a diff where an admin informed them of a sanction or a previous noticeboard thread. If you want to present evidence, you would have to be invited by an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm happy to participate on this from either side of this header, but I'm curious to know if other arbs think my participation in the original thread on substance (plus a tongue-in-cheek comment on the procedure here) is enough that I need to recuse. Don't be shy about telling me to scram :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with HJM and HB. The two diffs are links to article edits, not "discussions", so AEPR #5 unambiguously doesn't apply. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Amendment request: ECR extension: Articles touching the topic of ethnicity in Afghanistan
Initiated by SdHb at 01:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- SdHb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia#Extension of extended-confirmed restriction (limited duration)
- Extend the extended-confirmed restriction to cover: (1) all articles related to ethnicity in Afghanistan, and (2) articles on provinces, districts, and major cities of Afghanistan where ethnic demographic content is present.
Statement by SdHb
Afghanistan-related articles covering ethnicity and demographics are subject to chronic, structural disruption by newly created single-purpose accounts that systematically alter demographic figures, delete sourced content without edit summaries, or insert unsourced claims in service of clear ethnic or political agendas. This is not episodic vandalism but an ongoing, large-scale problem rooted in real-world ethnic tensions between Afghanistan's major ethnic groups, namely Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and others, that shows no sign of abating.
The topic already falls under WP:CT/SA, which acknowledges its sensitivity. However, the existing framework has proven really insufficient. The pattern is consistent: a newly created account appears, makes dozens of edits across numerous articles without ever providing a single source, alters figures to serve a particular ethnic narrative, and disappears or is reported only to be replaced by the next account doing the same thing. Individual ANI reports treat the symptom, not the disease. Temporary page protections lapse. Good-faith editors cannot reasonably be expected to monitor and report disruption across hundreds of articles indefinitely.
Three recent cases illustrate the problem, and they represent only a fraction of what could be documented:
Afghanistan Mottahid made 81 edits since 31 January without providing a single source. They repeatedly deleted well-sourced content on Ethnicity in Afghanistan (Special:Diff/1336719606) and Herat (Special:Diff/1339423045, Special:Diff/1339423613, Special:Diff/1339423713) and inserted unsourced content (Special:Diff/1336719926). When reported at ANI, no action was taken because the account had gone dormant, illustrating exactly why reactive enforcement is insufficient.
ArashArianpour888 has systematically manipulated ethnic demographic figures across multiple articles, consistently downplaying Pashtun presence and inflating Tajik figures contrary to the academic consensus reflected in existing sourced content. Examples include edits on Mazar-i-Sharif (Special:Diff/1336696255), Ethnicity in Afghanistan (Special:Diff/1339992473), Tajiks (Special:Diff/1341947648), and Herat Province (Special:Diff/1342130664). When confronted at AN, the user dismissed concerns by appealing to personal experience rather than providing sources (Special:Diff/1340895422) which is a textbook case of WP:IDHT while continuing the same editing pattern.
Amir TJK repeatedly inserted slurs targeting ethnic Hazaras into Panjshir Province (Special:Diff/1295382319, Special:Diff/1295674375, Special:Diff/1295356324, Special:Diff/1294901327). The slurs remained in place for an extended period before being noticed.
Semi-protection (autoconfirmed: 4 days, 10 edits) is a trivially low barrier for motivated editors. Extended confirmed restriction (30 days, 500 edits) would filter the vast majority of mission-driven new accounts while leaving the overwhelming majority of established good-faith editors entirely unaffected, so exactly as it has functioned effectively for caste-related topics under the same CT/SA framework.
I am requesting that this committee extend ECR to cover: (1) all articles related to ethnicity in Afghanistan, and (2) articles on provinces, districts, and major cities of Afghanistan where ethnic demographic content is present. I am prepared to provide extensive further diff-based documentation upon request.
Prior discussions: ANI: AfghanMottahid, ANI: Amir TJK, ANI: ArashArianpour888, Village pump proposal.
Statement by The Bushranger
- @Asilvering: For the record I suggested it be brought here more as an amendment to WP:CT/SA overall, as opposed to strictly the SASG portion of it. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: Exactly; this proposal would be to create a third "sub-CT" of SA under ECR, I imagine. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not, but - given the overall CT - I thought it might be best to have Arbcom look at it; there is of course always the possibility of a community-imposed "overlay" as with KURD, AA, and EE/RUSUKR of course. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:41, 22 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.
ECR extension: Articles touching the topic of ethnicity in Afghanistan: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
ECR extension: Articles touching the topic of ethnicity in Afghanistan: Arbitrator views and discussion
- This is obviously a "contentious topic" in the non-Wikipedian definition of the term, and I agree that there is likely to be some merit in protecting some of these pages. But the case that led to WP:CT/SASG had nothing to do with Afghanistan's ethnic groups as far as I can recall. I agree with Bushranger that you've asked for a very, very broad list of page protections, and that your proposal is unlikely to be achieve consensus as written. But I don't agree with the suggestion that you send it here. -- asilvering (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger, Afghanistan is already part of WP:CT/SA. ECR is limited to WP:CT/SASG and WP:CT/IMH. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- All four
[p]rior discussions
are less than 24 hours old, so I don't see this asserious conduct dispute[] the community has been unable to resolve
(which is our mandate). The community can authorize ECR if it wishes, so this can be sorted at the village pump. Decline. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)