Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Cleanup of old remedies: Clerk notes

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

Cleanup of old remedies: Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by automatic template check at 18:53, 16 March 2026.

More information Motion name, Support ...

Motion implementation notes

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Israel-Lebanon	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Israel-Lebanon
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Johnski	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Johnski
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Lyndon LaRouche	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Lyndon LaRouche
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Midnight Syndicate	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Midnight Syndicate
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Race and intelligence special appeals procedure	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Race and intelligence special appeals procedure
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Regarding The Bogdanov Affair	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Regarding The Bogdanov Affair
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Sathya Sai Baba	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Sathya Sai Baba
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Scientology	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Scientology
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
The Hunger Project	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading The Hunger Project
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
User:PolishPoliticians	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading User:PolishPoliticians
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Yoshiaki Omura	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Yoshiaki Omura
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Automatic sunset (contentious topics)	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Automatic sunset (contentious topics)
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Abortion (contentious topic)	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Abortion (contentious topic)
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Abortion (other remedies)	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Abortion (other remedies)
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Climate change (contentious topic)	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Climate change (contentious topic)
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Climate change (special noticeboard remedy)	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Climate change (special noticeboard remedy)
1	0		Cannot pass	Cannot pass because a contradictory proposal is passing
Climate change (alt special noticeboard remedy)	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Climate change (alt special noticeboard remedy)
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Gun control (contentious topic)	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading Gun control (contentious topic)
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
The Troubles (contentious topic)	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading The Troubles (contentious topic)
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
The Troubles (1RR)	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading The Troubles (1RR)
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
The Troubles (terms of probation)	?	?	?		?	Error: Found 0 sections on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions with heading The Troubles (terms of probation)
0	0		Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".

Close

Notes

Israel-Lebanon

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. These are really showing their age. The first is not good practice and the second is not necessary given the present broader CTOP. asilvering (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

   Also axing the enforcement provision in favor of the standard WP:CT. Courtesy pings to @Izno, Asilvering, and SilverLocust. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

2. Remedy 1 allows blogs to be used as sources, which is a content decision. Remedy 3.1 allows admins to ban editors from a particular page if they edit war there, which is wholly redundant to WP:CT/PIA. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Re Remedy 1: I see the allowance of blogs here as fitting into the same sphere as allowing the reliable sources restriction in the context of contentious topics, and so from this perspective it does not actually mark itself as a content decision. I.e. we are not mandating some content be (dis)included, we are simply permitting the use of blogs. The real reason it should be removed is because blogs are rarely WP:RS and certainly in the context of PIA we should even more rarely be entertaining anything that whiffs of less than professionally edited work. Remedy 2 just is strictly unnecessary today as superfluous to either the contentious topic designation or policy and practice behind WP:EW continuing to evolve since 2 decades ago. Izno (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

   And now that I'm looking at it, I wonder if we should chuck remedy 2 also. What a message to send about editing in PIA. Izno (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

   co-signing. -- asilvering (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

   Agree; added. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

4. Unhelpful or redundant. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
7. Aoidh (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
8. This has the practical effect of nullifying all of Israel-Lebanon, but I believe Arab-Israeli conflict covers the issue in a better, more modern approach. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
10. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Johnski

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. Admins can handle disruption of this nature through normal processes just fine. asilvering (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Remedy 1 authorizes admins to semi Dominion of Melchizedek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been unprotected since 2007. It also allows admins to indefinitely block Johnski or their sock/meatpuppets. Neither of them need special rules to do so. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Per House. Izno (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
7. Aoidh (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
10. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Lyndon LaRouche

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. These remedies let admins... issue proportional blocks for misconduct. The contentious topic designation for American politics also encompasses "closely related people", such as LaRouche. Bye. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Not needed as specific remedies. asilvering (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. We have WP:COI and WP:NOR these days, among others. (Though just looking at these remedies I am reminded of WP:ARBSCE.) Izno (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. No longer needed, and not how we would handle remedies these days. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
7. Aoidh (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
10. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Midnight Syndicate

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. These remedies were suspended for 90 days in 2009. When I initially raised this on-list, there was some confusion over whether the suspended remedies are now in effect or not. This motion ends that confusion; Midnight Syndicate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is quiet. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. No comment on whether the involved editors' contributions are any good, and no prejudice against any editor reporting any of the involved editors at WP:ANI for any future or ongoing disruptive editing. I just don't think we should keep a tban on the books that everyone forgot about for more than 15 years. asilvering (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. I hear what Izno is saying, but per asilvering above, support rescinding. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
5. I tend to think that if nobody notices a restriction is in place, it is effectively lapsed. Any future disruption can be handled by admins through processes that are well-established these days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
6. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 15:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Somewhat moral opposition, since both of the users named in remedy 1 have been flagrantly ignoring the ban, but I expect the committee to tend toward the practical. Izno (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

   And just to be clear, the relevant users and activity are IDd at the below discussion. Izno (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Race and intelligence special appeals procedure

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. This motions says you should contribute to the featured content processes if you want to be unbanned. While feature content is always welcome in an appeal, there are myriad things besides featured articles that demonstrate you can edit productively. It's just generally WP:CREEPy. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Per House. Izno (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Odd and unnecessary. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Aoidh (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Partly per Eek, partly because I disagree with HB's interpretation, partly because I'm sensing some contempt for the featured content processes that I obviously disagree with but which isn't relevant here. I see nothing problematic or "creepy" in providing a route map for an editor to return to good standing, nor with explicitly encouraging engagement with high-quality articles as one possible path towards rehabilitation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
2. per eek --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I agree that its a weird provision, and I don't see a historical explanation for the bespoke remedy. But...some of those banned editors are still giving us trouble. I wouldn't allow them back without them "demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors" and proving that they can actually make useful content. So, while I think the default process can handle them just fine, the standard expressed is instructive. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Regarding The Bogdanov Affair

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. Bogdanov affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is quiet and does not need special restrictions on WP:COI editing. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Izno (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. asilvering (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
7. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
8. Not sure this is necessary or helpful but it doesn't do any harm. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
9. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Sathya Sai Baba

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. Honestly, these remedies are a bit confusing to me. I do know they are content decisions which can safely go into the dustbin. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. What these remedies are is WP:BLP in its infancy. I have no objection to removing them as such since we now have BLP. Izno (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. per Izno. asilvering (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
7. Again, not sold on the utility but I agree with Izno that the more-mature policy framework of 2026's Wikipedia makes these redundant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
8. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Scientology

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. These remedies make open proxies super-duper-ultra-mega-banned in the topic area, even if you requested WP:IPBE because you need to edit with a proxy. They also create special rules about socking, and give admins pseudo-CT authority to issue topic bans (even though we removed the CT designation four years ago), and create a novel definition of WP:INVOLVED. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

   Turns out scientology also has the FA clause. Added that to the list of things to remove. Courtesy pings to @Izno, Asilvering, Daniel, and Elli. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

   Fine with me, confirming still supporting. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

   Same. -- asilvering (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

2. We haven't heard anything since removal of CT designation. So. 5.1/8/6: I think the existing normal machinery is sufficient to handle (COI) POV-pushing here, and it's not like we can control whether named accounts use proxies (only block them when we identify misbehavior). EP2: Basic involved is fine, yes. Izno (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Indeed, disruption in the topic area can be handled just fine without any of these specific remedies. -- asilvering (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Aware that Scientology has been a perennial hot-button issue on the Internet in general but I agree with my colleagues that the standard mechanisms should be sufficient for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
7. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 14:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
8. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

The Hunger Project

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. The Hunger Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is quiet, and these remedies also get a little too close to content decisions for my liking (especially remedy 2, determining the circumstances in which negative information can be included). Remedy 2 also has a carve-out to 3RR for reverting information lacking a reliable source, which would still be disruptive (see WP:STOPIT and WP:BLUESKY). Remedy 3 says that, with remedies 1 and 2 in place, the Committee has determined that editors with a COI are clear to edit, which makes no sense without remedies 1 and 2. Remedy 5 is also unnecessary; ARBPOL says The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time. We won't reopen that case by motion, so we shouldn't retain the invitation to ask us to. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. 5 is fine to toss. Similar comments to my previous about 1/2 and having policy/guideline now to account for these issues without need for a standing 'remedy'. 3 being tossed is subsequently fine. Izno (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
6. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 14:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

User:PolishPoliticians

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. asilvering (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. ECR and civility parole are two of my least favorite things. This combines them. Yuck. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Per House. Izno (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Not sure what purpose is served by revisiting a case older than several sitting arbs, but I don't see a reason to oppose this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
7. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 14:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
8. Per HJ Mitchell. - Aoidh (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
9. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Yoshiaki Omura

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. This remedy asks admins to play whac-a-mole discovering more people with the same disruptive pattern. This topic is also covered by WP:CT/CAM. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. This one overlaps with WP:SOCK esp. WP:MEAT. Izno (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Can be handled through the CTOPS procedure if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
6. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 14:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
7. Aoidh (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
8. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Automatic sunset (contentious topics)

Support:

1. CT gives admins an expansive set of tools. If those tools are not being used for everal years, there is a strong chance that normal community processes will be able to handle any new flare ups. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I think this is a terrible idea. If future arbcoms want to sunset CTOPs that haven't been used in some time, they can always do that by motion when they think it's appropriate. An auto-sunset will just lead to confusion and won't actually save any effort for future committees, since someone's got to do the work of checking whether there are logged actions and formally writing up the revocation of the CTOP anyway. Not to mention that lots of blocks happen with CTOPs as an aggravating factor without actually being logged as AE enforcement blocks, so just checking for logged actions doesn't give a full sense of how the CTOP designation might be being used. -- asilvering (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Per Asilvering. Izno (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Better to have the Committee in the loop rather than a static rule. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
4. What Asilvering said. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
5. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 15:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
6. It makes sense to check individual CTOPs from time to time (e.g., an ARCA request or internal discussion), but checking each CTOP every year isn't ideal. - Aoidh (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
7. I don't think this will lead to arguments about what was or wasn't covered—the change happens at the stroke of midnight on January 1, regardless of when our truly fantastic clerks do the paperwork. (And given the speed at which they work, I doubt that will be much later than January 2.) I am concerned this will make it harder to remove obsolete CTs which consistently get, say, a logged warning every other year ("just wait for the standard provision to kick in"). I also take the feedback below seriously, that there might be extenuating circumstances for particular contentious topics. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
8. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I am not totally opposed to this for specific CTOPs in very specific circumstances (which should be considered at the time of voting for it), but I don't think it's a good idea as a blanket for all. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

I'm not sure I actually support this motion, but I think it is worth considering. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I take the feedback from the community seriously; at the same time, I'm not going to spend time improving the wording if it has no chance of passing in any form. Heck, I'm still not sure I support this concept. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Abortion (contentious topic)

Support:

1. Redundant to AMPOL. Yes, it remains highly contentious, but that contention on Wikipedia seems to be limited to the United States given where this topic has been used in the past few years. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
2. I don't see any recent conflict outside of AmPol --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Abortion remains a highly contentious topic irl and has the potential to flare up in the news again. That its getting occasional use is reason enough to keep it around, even if it had no actions last year. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Agree with Eek. Some of the disruption might be contained by the American Politics CTOP but the heat around abortion is not limited to the United States. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Prefer 'Abortion (other remedies)'. Daniel (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
4. In favor of "Abortion (other remedies)" - Aoidh (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Weakly. If there is no more enforcement actions in the next ~18 months, I would have little trouble supporting removal. For now, I can get behind the below proposal instead. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I think my low bar is hit here for retention, but I think that's also a low bar, so I'll leave others to decide. Izno (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

There were three page protections plus a custom 1RR in 2022, three bans in 2023, four actions (all page protection and all covered by AMPOL) in 2024, and nothing in 2025. I am weakly in support (this is quite minimal disruption), but I am open to persuasion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Abortion (other remedies)

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ, for bringing this up! I am throwing in the IP editing remedy as well. The remedy is silent on whether Editors in good standing who wish to edit such topics under a single additional account not linked to their identity may do so under the provisions of WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. was supposed to expire after three years; if it expired, it doesn't hurt to remove it; if it is still on the books, WP:SOCK is sufficient. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Sure. Izno (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. asilvering (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
5. I don't see a problem with 2.1 (but I suppose if a move can only be made by an admin, there is an expectation of consensus these days). Binning 1 is fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
6. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 14:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
7. Daniel (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
8. Aoidh (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
9. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Climate change (contentious topic)

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. Nothing in 2022, one protection in 2023, another protection in 2024, and nothing in 2025. Two actions (both of which could occur without a CT designation) in four years; adios. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. I agree with the assessment that neither of the actions done under ARBCC here needed ARBCC's power of enforcement. There were 5 actions in 2020. 2 editors were restricted and both later indefinitely blocked, and the other three were protections that I would have been comfortable making without ARBCC. Nothing in 2019. I think the scientific opinion is clear, which makes any other attempted science writing fall under WP:FRINGE. I can imagine some WP:CIVILPOV pushing type thing in this area, but that's not something that doesn't happen elsewhere either. I think this one can be removed, either for having sufficient support in policy or a few other remaining CTs (AMPOL, BLP). Izno (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
3. In the 15+ years since this was originally passed, our policies have matured, admins have been expected to get more hands-on, and the science is even more settled. -- asilvering (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
5. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Aoidh (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
7. I don't see any recent conflict outside of AmPol --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
8. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The controversy is not quite dead so the dispute could flare up again, though I think a lot of the noise is coming from the United States so the provisions on American politics might be sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Climate change (special noticeboard remedy)

Support:

1. Not needed; the community can create noticeboards if it wishes. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Noting Asilvering's point but I don't think we lose anything by rescinding this, regardless of whether the CTOP stays or goes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
3. I made the suggestion to toss this in drafting these motions and still support that. The sub-community writing in this area is more than free to (re) stand up a noticeboard to deal with climate change issues, but I anticipate the broader community would look unkindly upon it being used for conduct resolution (given the general dissolution of noticeboards in that regard). Izno (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

   And even from the content perspective WP:FRINGEN and WP:NPOVN remain available. Izno (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

4. Second choice to the alt below. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. In favor of the alternate. - Aoidh (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
2. I perfer the alt --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Same. asilvering (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

• I don't understand the point in revoking this? It's a statement about a particular moment in time. It's not saying "we can never have this board again" but "the board that exists now shall not any longer". -- asilvering (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  The second sentence (Any future sanctions requests should be based on the discretionary sanctions imposed above and the other remedies in this decision, and discussed in the standard location, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement (AE)) is no longer true if the CT is gone. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  In that case, I think a more targeted remedy is needed than just revoking the whole thing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've proposed something below at § Climate change (alt special noticeboard remedy). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)

Climate change (alt special noticeboard remedy)

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. Equal choice with the original motion about the special noticeboard remedy. Open to wordsmithing. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
2. First choice. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
3. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Equiv. Izno (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Why not, I guess. asilvering (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Aoidh (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
8. Sure. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Gun control (contentious topic)

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. The part of gun control that is super contentious on Wikipedia is covered by AMPOL. I'm not disputing that this is a hot-button issue, or a political issue in other countries, but the stats tell a clear story. There were zero actions in 2022, a handful of protections in 2023 (obviously, admins can protect pages without a CT) plus one ban which was covered by AMPOL, a single protection and ban of an IP(?!?) in 2024, and nothing in 2025. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

   After a brief conversaion with the blocking admin, the IP address ban has been revoked as out of process. I would recommend ignoring it in judging the usefulness of this CT.

   Without it, we have a total of five logged actions in as many years: Four protections plus one block covered by AMPOL. Of those actions, one was in the last 2 years. I think that it has clearly outlived its usefulness. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

2. Narrowly, I think. I appreciate the point of view which is "this CT is preventing disruption without direction action" a bit more than House I suspect, but I also think it's worth trying removing the CT here. Neither 2020 nor 2021 had actions also; the first major year we hit was 2019 (2019 is a common year for a lot of actions in reviewing the batch of motions here, I wonder why...). Izno (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
3. I don't see any recent conflict outside of AmPol. The Nazi Gun control stuff seems to have passed us by. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
4. This was a borderline call but per Izno. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
5. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Per HB. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I've seen disruption in this topic area spread to articles about specific shootings, types of firearm, and other articles that aren't obviously in-scope for AMPOL. Speaking as an admin who was active at AE before being elected to ArbCom, the topic area is quiet at the moment largely because of robust enforcement enabled by the CTOP and previous DS structures. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Aoidh (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
2. asilvering (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

• A ban of a what in 2024 -- asilvering (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The Troubles (contentious topic)

Support:

Oppose:

1. I think it would be wiser to take this in stages; see my vote on the following motion. -- asilvering (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. To be revisited in the not-too-distant future if everything remains calm even without 1RR. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
3. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Per asilvering. Daniel (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Sure. There's enough non-protection activity here that a trial seems fine. Izno (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
6. I'm fine taking this in stages. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
7. In favor of the 1RR motion. - Aoidh (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
8. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Recuse. My editing interests include articles covered by this CTOP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Stats: a couple of bans in 2023, a warning for socking, a page protection, an indefinite block, and something covered by BLP in 2024, and one semi in 2025. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The Troubles (1RR)

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. Removing this additional restriction but retaining the CTOP designation looks to me like a good way to test if the CTOP designation is required at all. -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Per asilvering above and myself below. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Daniel (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Per House at minimum. Izno (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
5. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 01:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
7. Aoidh (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
8. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recuse per previous motion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

I am leaning towards supporting this remedy and keeping the CT designation so admins can respond to problems (in what I consider to be the unlikely event that problems recur). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The Troubles (terms of probation)

Enacted – GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. Reverting IP/TA editors counts as a revert. Or, at least, should count as a revert. What this enforcement provision called probation is what morphed into the topic-wide 1RR, so it's unclear what this provision is currently doing. Assuming it is a carve-out to the blanket 1RR restriction, it is superfluous if 1RR goes away, and even more crazy if we keep 1RR on the books. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. asilvering (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 15:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Daniel (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Aoidh (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
7. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
8. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recuse again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Arbitrator views and discussions (Cleanup of old remedies)

• These motions are designed to take a step towards reducing WP:CREEP by taking old, unused restrictions off the books. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  • I'm going to restate my general position on largely-unused contentious topics: the "it's preventing invisible disruption" argument gets trotted out pretty much every time we remove a CT/GS designation, and I respectfully disagree with that view. Every time it turns out the fears were unfounded.

    Consider the 2022 removal of discretionary sanctions (the predecessor of contentious topic designation) for images of Muhammad. There were concerns that, without DS, the issue would flare up. Images of Muhammad is certainly a small-c contentious topic in the real world. ArbCom even delayed the implementation of its motion by two months to give the community time to replace it with its own GS regime. And what happened as soon as the motion passed? Nothing. I can't find any community discussion on creating a GS. In my time lurking at AN(I), I don't think I have seen any nasty discussions about Muhammad images. The designation was just dead weight.

    CT is a very particular tool. It isn't magic pixie dust that makes everything Better, or we should designate the entire encyclopedia as a CT. It wasn't making Muhammad articles better. It wasn't making Scientology articles better. It wasn't making Landmark Worldwide articles better. Or Falun Gong articles, or drug prices, or the other former contentious topics in Category:Historical contentious topic summary pages. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

    Not a comment on any particular set of CTOPs but it's worth taking a longer-term view. Some topic areas go dormant for years at a time then explode, usually in connection with real-world events—even ARBPIA has had peaks and troughs over the years. In other cases (gun control being a good example), the main combatants have been removed through CTOP sanctions but that's not to say that others won't take their place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Something that is surprising for me, reviewing some of these uses of CT, is that I would have issued some or several of these protections without invoking CT. Am I wrong to think they were within ordinary admin discretion? Is this the case in other CTs when invoked as part of the CT (e.g. not ECR in PIA/IMH/CASTE)? :) Izno (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Community discussion (Cleanup of old remedies)

• I have a few initial comments:
  • There is a small error in the Race and intelligence motion - Bans from the may be appealed in the usual way at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. is obviously missing at least one word, but I'm not sure if "from the" is correct either. I suspect this was incompletely rephrased at some point during Arb's pre-discussion.
  • My gut reaction is surprise at the Gun Control CT designation being rescinded, but I haven't yet investigated if my gut is just out of date.
  • If The Troubles CT designation is rescinded, there might need to be a consequential amendment to the motion that rescinded Remedy 1.1 of Great Irish Famine.
  • If almost any of these motions pass, I'm going to have to spend some time updating User:Thryduulf/Arbitartion amendments after a decade! Thryduulf (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
    • Thanks, fixed the typo. I don't see a need to modify the motion about the mentorship of the Great Irish Famine; when we amend remedies that were previously amended, we are amending the remedy, not the previous amendment motion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I was surprised to see Gun Control on the table as well but I suppose it hasn't been front and center for the past few years.

  When I was more active in that area around 2018, the conflict centered around the inclusion of negative information like mass shootings in gun articles. We had editors who presumably had a strong American Politics motivation arguing about whether gun articles should cover an Australian or European shooting.

  I'm wondering whether this falls within the broader scope of American politics, or whether we may be at a point where CT is no longer needed. –dlthewave ☎ 17:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think they'd be considering removing the CT designation if it didn't fall within the broader scope of American politics. JHD0919 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  More or less. Evidence throughout the CT's history (including its inception at the case) indicates the majority of the issue falls into AMPOL.

  Now, whether that means arbitrary page about a gun model also falls into AMPOL I'm less certain, and I know those are susceptible to edit warring (common I would suspect is assault rifle which doesn't necessarily have AMPOL tones even if I would suspect most editors warring in this way are doing it because they're, uh, of the American-conservative bent), but I would also guess most of that fits into behavior which can be remedied without a CT present in the area. Izno (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Always good to see these. Another one I noticed recently that could definitely go is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Administrators instructed. Whatever the situation was in 2011, we now have fairly clear expectations on undiscussed moves, so this poorly drafted (does it really apply to all moves, however uncontroversial?) and long-forgotten remedy isn't serving any useful purpose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, added a motion to that effect. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Every January 1, any contentious topic designations not used in the preceding two years (except for protecting pages) are automatically terminated. Contentious topics designations may not be automatically removed in this manner until they have existed for a full year. Seems like this is trying to say that a CTOP needs two years of inactivity to expire. So perhaps the second sentence should say two years instead of one year. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  No designation can be used before it exists, so all CTOPs start with not having been used for two years. Perhaps it is intentional that new CTOPs expire at one year, but old ones that have actually been used require two years to expire. Toadspike [Talk] 09:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Toadspike has it correct; the thought process is that CTs which were literally never used are treated a bit more strictly than other CTs. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  For clarity, I suggest separating these two cases. For example: "Every January 1, a contentious topic designation is terminated if any of the following conditions hold for the contentious topic in question: (a) if there has never been an administrative action placed under the authority of the contentious topic framework since the designation was made at least one year ago; (b) if no administrative actions have been placed for the contentious topic under the authority of the contentious topic framwork in the two preceding years." isaacl (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think it can be simplified further: Every January 1, the log of each contentious topic designation placed at least one year ago is examined. The designation is terminated if either of the following conditions are met:

  1. There has never been a logged administrative action placed under the authority of the designation, or
  2. No logged administrative action has been placed under the authority of the designation in the preceding two calendar years.

  Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Skinny McGee and GuardianZ don't appear to have been notified about the motion affecting their bans (#Midnight Syndicate). I'll do that now as the former has at least edited a month ago, and violated their ban as relatively recently as December 2025. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  GuardianZ has a sock identified in the log as Ebonyskye who edited the topic in 2020 and other times before that. There's merit in reminding them even if (or perhaps when) the AC removes the topic ban above that they should be avoiding topics with which they have a known and clear conflict of interest. Izno (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Because reminders have helped so much in the past. I can't really complain in response to the only oppose-voting arbitrator but without even an appeal, the main reason for the topic ban removal appears to be that its violations have been belatedly noticed. As long as WP:BMB exists, I don't think "let's remove the ban without even notifying, let alone asking the affected users for a statement", and burying that under a load of seemingly-uncontroversial maintenance motions, is a good response to "we just noticed someone ignoring a ban for years".
  If the users want to continue editing about the topic they were banned from, they can appeal the ban at WP:ARCA at any time, preferably not just two months after a decade-long series of ban violations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'm confused as to why an IP TBAN is so jaw-dropping, especially given the battleground editing and POV pushing behavior noted in the log. JHD0919 (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Did you post this in the right place? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Almost certainly this refers to @HouseBlaster's comment at #Gun control (contentious topic) a single protection and ban of an IP(?!?) in 2024. If so then JHD0919's comment is in the right place. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thryduulf is correct. I consider logging t-bans & blocks of anonymous users under arbitration enforcement to be normal (in fact, a temp account was indeffed recently) so I don't understand why House and ASilvering were so surprised. JHD0919 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  We block IPs and TAs all the time. We rarely ban them. (See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding automatic termination of contentious topic designations: I agree the proposal could benefit from some details on how it would be practically implemented. Since clerks or arbitrators will have to update the appropriate pages and templates to remove the designations, will they be able to prepare the changes and then make them as close to the threshold date as possible? Or will the termination only take effect once the pages are updated? isaacl (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  For article talk pages, would it make sense to hide the template or set it to some sort of placeholder status in case that CT is reinstated? –dlthewave ☎ 17:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  The talk page notices could be changed so that they will be hidden for expired designations, and then gradually removed from each talk page. Personally I wouldn't suggest keeping them around indefinitely on the speculation that the designation is reinstated in future. But should this proposal pass, perhaps delaying removal for some period of time should be considered, to help mitigate the effort should the automatic termination approach not work out. isaacl (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe allow a fast-track restoration by request to the committee within say 6 months of an automatic sunset (e.g. in case the possibility of CT sanctions was providing a deterrent effect), with the talk page notices hidden until that period expires and then removed afterwards? Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Anything like that would only be a fast track to trouble, when an editor disrupts a recently expired topic area, leading to a mess of wikilawyering over whether or not CT was in effect at the time of disruption. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  If we have to have even one conversation like this, an auto-sunset will have caused more trouble than it could ever have saved. -- asilvering (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  My comments were related to logistics only, and not a suggestion regarding the desirability of the concept of reinstating a designation. I appreciate a tension between balancing the effectiveness of a contentious topic designation and reducing the number of designations by the arbitration committee as much as possible, to leave it up to the community to decide how to handle disputes. I don't think I favour a procedure to re-instate a designation on the basis of a simple request. I think I agree that if this is deemed necessary, I would prefer to instead revisit the automatic expiry procedure and adjust the criteria, or drop the procedure. However, although there has been some experience with dropping discretionary sanctions authorizations/contentious topic designations, I'm not sure there's enough data to understand the effect of a sunset provision. isaacl (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  There's only one that we've had a significant tail on, and that's MI. The other two with baked-in sunsets (HE and YSK) haven't had those kick in yet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• The Midnight Syndicate motion has a grammar error. It should say something along the lines of All topic bans issued in accordance with both remedies are also rescinded. JHD0919 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Only the second remedy allowed admins to place additional bans. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Then that should be clarified in the motion. JHD0919 (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I can do that. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• When was the last time Richardmalter (talk · contribs) or any sockpuppet thereof edited? This would be like revoking the (frankly weaksauce) sanctions in WP:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis simply because the user was globally banned and then forced to take a break by court order. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Principle 3 says that remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. This motion makes the remedy target identity rather than behavior. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  My reading of it is that the behaviour marked the identity. See also LFM#Temporary injunction, which is predicated on the same argument. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• From my own reading of the matter, any and all Sathya Sai Baba-related BLP remedies are void due to the subject being dead since 2011; BLP only covers decedants for two years at most postmortem. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think the reason Inzo referred to it as "BLP in its infancy" was because Sathya was still alive at the time the remedies under scrutiny here were handed down. Comment stricken due to me misreading Jeske's. JHD0919 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Both remedies 2 and 3 remain ongoing since there remain organizations affiliated with him even after his death. Izno (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• For those wondering why User:Igor B. isn't amongst the people in the ban list for ReBA above, the Bogdanovs died Dec. 2021/Jan. 2022 due to COVID-19, and Igor's account was globally locked at that point as deceased. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I noticed that as well. While I don't necessarily object to this, I do wonder if consistency would be preferable. There are a number of other deceased users under ArbCom sanctions, including Sk8erPrince (ArbComBlock), Abd (IBAN), and Doncram (suspended IBAN). If ArbCom wants to create an across-the-board policy of removing sanctions on deceased users (even, making it something clerks can do without need for a vote upon stewards confirming death), I think that could be a good idea, but I don't know if it makes sense to just unban one of several users who've died post-sanction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  The thing is, the motion doesn't say that those not named in the revised Remedy 1 would be unrestricted from editing that page. So I'm not sure if Igor's editing restriction would be removed as a result of the revised remedy. JHD0919 (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I would consider any ArbCom sanction on a user who has since died as de facto void/rescinded since, barring some form of necromancy or convoluted tax evasion scheme, there'd be no way for the sanctioned user to potentially breach it or cause the issues to recur. Same as with the BLP-related Sathya Sai Baba remedies above (since they relied on the article continuing to be a BLP/BRDP). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  This was an opportunity taken since we were looking at Old Ones. I agree that a systematic approach is probably better than piecemeal removing remedies etc. should we continue to consider the issue. I do think it's probably worth having a procedure around it. Izno (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think the easiest way to handle it is that any sanction on a user whose death has been verified is automatically rescinded. Igor isn't the only user so affected; Beckjord comes to mind as well (although he passed within a year of his case closing). And, as mentioned above, User:Sk8erPrince and User:Doncram would also easily fall under such a blanket and commonsense rule. (Abd was community- and later global-banned, so any IBAN would be superseded by those to begin with.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  When people are under a CBAN and a lesser ArbCom sanction, lifting the CBAN doesn't automatically lift the ArbCom sanction, so while the sanction is redundant I wouldn't say it's superseded. What does supersede both sanctions, ofc, is the death of the sanctioned party. I wonder if the solution to this would just be an addition to WP:BAN § Other considerations, something like All local bans, sitewide or partial, terminate upon the death of a user. If a banned user's death is confirmed (usually by a steward at the time of locking their account), any present-tense indicators of the ban—such as userpage banners or entries at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions—should be removed. Courtesy blanking of historic discussions may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  FWIW I contacted the WMF in relation to Abd, who was banned by the foundation, when we learned of his passing. They stated they have no objection to whatever decision the community takes regarding the userpage and user talk. Fortuna imperatrix mundi (under their previous username) reinstated their talk page but left their user page with the ban notice pending further discussion, which never actually happened (see Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Archive 3#Abd). It seems likely that this would also apply to other foundation-banned editors who we learn to be deceased, although this was not made explicit (I didn't ask a more general question, so this is not a criticism). Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  That may be true for the community ban, but the global ban to me is a different kettle of fish, given that interdicts even logging in. How many global bans have been successfully appealed? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive365#JiruAuriverde is a CT/TROUBLES request from this month that, in all honesty, I indeffed as a regular admin action to save myself the paperwork. The recent disruption that led to me making a DE block was 100% Troubles disruption. You can interpret this how you will, as I don't have an opinion to share, but AE is still seeing a rare request amongst the PIA parade. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• I'd like to express my strong opposition to the Automatic sunset proposal. (I have no problems with any of the ideas about specific remedies.) For me, this isn't a matter of needing to revise it; it's just a very bad idea. First of all, there is no need to make this automatic, because it's not going to be something happening on such a large scale that ArbCom cannot deal with it case-by-case. Similarly, there's nothing substantial to be gained by letting it happen automatically, but with a fast-track to reinstatement. The fact that a given topic area has quieted down might mean that it no longer needs protection, or it might mean that the hiatus is only going to be temporary, and will spring up again in response to a new development in the real world. A good example of this problem would be the GMO topic area, where I was the filing party to the original case. After a flurry of AE actions in the year or so after the case, the topic area became blissfully quiet for quite a few years. (This was because the original bone of contention, whether GM foods were dangerous to eat, has become a matter of settled science, and is no longer particularly controversial.) But in the past year or so, a new dispute has emerged in the subtopic of agricultural chemicals, because the science may be changing about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, and there has been external commentary criticizing Wikipedia, leading to a Signpost article that led to some heated talk page discussions here. Fortunately, those discussions eventually worked out in a positive way, without needing any admin actions, but it was a close call, and this could come up again any day. I know this was discussed by some Arbs just a little while back, and I'm happy (and relieved!) to see that GMOs are not listed among the motions here. All of that is by way of saying that there is no good way to deduce automatically from some particular amount of quiet time whether or not a particular CT is still needed. And ArbCom should figure this out manually, case-by-case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• @HJ Mitchell: When you said there are arbs younger than the User:PolishPoliticians case, who are you referring to? JHD0919 (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  @JHD0919 that case will be 22 years old this year. I don't think it's a secret that not all arbs are that old but it certainly wouldn't be my place to conduct a census. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Well, PP was decided in the first year of ArbCom's existence. Given how relatively simplistic the 2004 cases are relative to today's cases (hell, WIK painfully obviously predates the concept of WP:3RR), I wouldn't expect much more changes to them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)