| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
This is an archive of the results of all cases completed by the Arbitration Committee in 2025.
- More recently-closed cases on top
 | |
| 2025 | ||
| 2024 | ||
| 2023 | ||
| 2022 | ||
| 2021 | ||
| 2020 | ||
| 2019 | ||
| 2018 | ||
| 2017 | ||
| 2016 | ||
| 2015 | ||
| 2014 | ||
| 2013 | ||
| 2012 | ||
| 2011 | ||
| 2010 | ||
| 2009 | ||
| 2008 | ||
| 2007 | ||
| 2006 | ||
| 2005 | ||
| 2004 |
2025
[edit]2 cases.
December
[edit]November
[edit]October
[edit]September
[edit]August
[edit]July
[edit]- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Final decision closed 18 July 2025 (AN notice)
- South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as
All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
- The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
- The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
- All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
- Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.
- Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
- The topic of Indian military history is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
- WP:GSCASTE is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
- Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.
- A consensus of admins at WP:AE may extend WP:ECR to subtopics of WP:ARBIPA if such a sanction is necessary to prevent disruption. Such extensions must be of a limited duration, not to exceed one year.
- Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by contentious topic designation in the original India-Pakistan case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
- Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
- Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
- There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
- Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
- The contentious topics procedure permits full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
- Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs), Ekdalian (talk · contribs), and Extorc (talk · contribs) are admonished for their behavior in the topic of Indian military history and related caste issues.
- AlvaKedak (talk · contribs), Akshaypatill (talk · contribs), Capitals00 (talk · contribs), Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs), and Shakakarta (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of these remedies, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Dympies (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid breaches, even minor, of their topic ban.
- Administrators are reminded that, when possible, topic bans should only be as broad as necessary to stop disruption. Some possible subtopics related to WP:ARBIPA are:
- Specific time periods in Indian history, such as before or after the establishment of the British Raj or before or after the foundation of the Republic of India
- Human activity in India
- Indian entertainment, generally or in a specific language
- Indian political, ethnic, religious, and caste topics
- Hindu nationalism and opposition thereto
- India–Pakistan relations
- Indian WP:BLPs or biographies
- Remedies that refer to WP:GSCASTE apply to
social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal
, even though GSCASTE was rescinded and folded into the contentious topic designation of South Asia.
- South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as
June
[edit]May
[edit]April
[edit]March
[edit]February
[edit]January
[edit]- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5#Final decision closed 23 January 2025 (AN notice)
- All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
- AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
- Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
- WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each:
Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
- Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
- The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
- The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
- Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
- Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
- In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
- This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
- Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
- They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
- This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
- Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.
- In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
- If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.