Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Initiated by L235 at 23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Noticeboard_scope_2

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.

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

• L235 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.
  • Expand the scope to a broader set of communtiy-imposed general sanctions

In 2022, as part of WP:CT2022, ArbCom authorized AE to hear requests or appeals relating to community-designated contentious topics, so long as the community wanted AE to hear those requests or appeals. A recent RfC has taken ArbCom up on this offer and now allows community-designated contentious topics (CCTOPs) to be enforced at AE.

In the process of writing the documentation at AE to implement this RfC, I have noticed that the current language has the potential to create its own confusion, because AE can only hear requests and appeals that arise from CCTOP enforcement and not enforcement of other community remedies like 1RR or ECR. To clarify what I mean, there are currently four buckets of community-authorized general sanctions:

1. Plain CCTOP designations without 1RR or ECR (WP:GS/UKU, WP:GS/PW, WP:GS/MJ, WP:GS/UYGHUR, WP:GS/ACAS);
2. CCTOP designations plus 1RR (WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and WP:GS/Crypto);
3. ECR to supplement an existing ArbCom CTOP (WP:RUSUKR, which imposes community ECR within the broader WP:CT/EE; WP:GS/AA, which imposes community ECR to supplement WP:CT/A-A; WP:GS/KURD, which imposes community ECR to supplement WP:CT/KURD); and
4. Plain non-CCTOP restrictions (WP:GS/PAGEANT, which authorizes indefinite semiprotections).

Now that the community has authorized enforcement of CCTOPs at AE, bucket #1 works great. But because the authorization for AE to hear community-imposed sanctions only applies to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure (emphasis added), buckets #2-4 face some confusion. In bucket #2, AE can hear enforcement requests and appeals for contentious topics in general but not 1RR violations. In bucket #3, the ArbCom CT portion can be heard at AE, but not the community ECR portions. And bucket #4 is wholly unaffected by the new RfC.

This state of affairs is quite confusing because some restrictions within a topic can be enforced (and some enforcement actions can be appealed) at AE, but not all of them. I can't think of a principled reason for this difference in treatment. I would therefore ask that ArbCom permit the community to designate AE as a place to hear enforcement requests and appeals for a broader set of topicwide restrictions.

Below I've included some suggested motion text, but the exact way this is done is of course up to ArbCom.

After such a motion is enacted, the community would then need to allow the use of the AE noticeboard in those cases, which it could do by RfC. Speaking personally, based on the results of the last RfC, I think such an RfC would pass fairly quickly.

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thank the arbitrators supporting the amendment and will note that such a change will likely need to be made by motion announced (with 24 hours notice) at ACN and AN in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Modification of procedures. Therefore, a rough consensus of arbitrators of arbitrators under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Closing is unlikely to suffice. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been over a week since the last action on this request, I would appreciate an update from the arbs. Thank you! Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: This may have been a bit camouflaged, but I included motion text in the statement above in case that's of interest to you. Thank you! Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before this gets archived, because I expect this ARCA will be linked at any forthcoming RfC to assess whether the community wishes to make this change, I wanted to address a couple points.

1. Regarding Snow Rise's statement:
   • (a) The community has indeed decided to permit CCTOPs to go to AE (see the recent RfC, question #2), but has not yet considered whether to hear non-CCTOP GSes at AE.
   • (b) Regarding the opposition to any community proposal which would seek to move appeals of a sole administrator's decision to apply such a sanction under the auspices of a community CTOP away from AN/I, the WP:CCTOP procedure already adopted by the community should alleviate this concern. The rules are clear that: An editor appealing a restriction may: [...] request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"). (emphasis added).^[a] This provision affirmatively guarantees that editors may appeal to AN, much like in a normal ArbCom-designated CTOP.
   • (c) Getting permission from ArbCom to use AE first is important because otherwise the community could not decide to use AE even if it reached a consensus to do so.
2. Regarding voorts's comment that ArbCom has previously said the community can opt to have any GSes enforced at AE, and now they they've done so: I agree that ArbCom should allow the community to have all GSes enforced at AE, and that the community should do so. As a drafter on WP:DS2022 (which is where the committee first authorized the community to use AE for CCTOPs), I disagree that ArbCom already has done so, because the current language refers to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure (emphasis added). And as the initiator of the recent RfC, I don't think the community has allowed all GSes enforced at AE, because the question was whether the community [should] authorize enforcement of community contentious topics at AE, not all community GSes. I expect to author an RfC to fix this on the community side once the motion is formally adopted.

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For editors who spend most of their wikitime in mainspace rather on the noticeboards and arbitration pages, the distinction between ArbCom-based contentious topics and community-based general sanctions, and the existence of different procedures for invoking or appealing them, takes time to learn about and can be a distraction. Anything that makes the procedures more parallel, and therefore easier to understand and implement, warrants serious consideration. The proposal would seem to fit into that category. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a good change, but I want to make clear that, for general sanctions other than contentious topics, the community has yet to assign those requests and appeals to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as the recent RfC was limited in scope to contentious topics. I hope that, if this change is adopted, the community will come to a consensus to make such an assignment. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But because the authorization for AE to hear community-imposed sanctions only applies to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure (emphasis added), buckets #2-4 face some confusion. In bucket #2, AE can hear enforcement requests and appeals for contentious topics in general but not 1RR violations. In bucket #3, the ArbCom CT portion can be heard at AE, but not the community ECR portions. And bucket #4 is wholly unaffected by the new RfC. I don't see why this is true. I read the recent change as the community aligning all GSes, past and present, with the CTOP regime. The fact that some CCTOPs have different restrictions (such as 1RR or ECR) does not mean that they can't be enforced under the CTOP procedures. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I still don't see what that has to do with whether it can be enforced at AE. ArbCom has previously said the community can opt to have any GSes enforced at AE, and now they they've done so. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: If you look at discussion in the RfC, it's disputed whether there is consensus to align community ECR (allowing constructive comments in addition to edit requests) with WP:ARBECR (which only allows edit requests now). Nothing in the opening statement mentioned the difference between ARBECR and community ECR, and the difference arose later, after the amendment made on this motion passed on 11 November 2023, not when DS was changed to CTOP. The text adopted here Wikipedia:Contentious topics (community-designated) doesn't mention anything about ECR either. A single editor in the !voting part about alignment mentioned ECR but even they didn't mention difference until later in the discussion part where the objection was raised. For that reason, I'd suggest the objections are reasonable and if we did want to align ARBECR with community ECR, a new discussion is needed where this is clearly specified. My impression is a lot of people don't even know there is a difference but also I recall when ARBECR was changed, at least one editor objected felt we didn't want such a strong requirement for community ECR. (Not complaining about people not knowing, I myself didn't know until just now that the community had already agreed to rename GS to CTOP back in 2024.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: No as highlighted by L235 they only said the community can do so when "community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure". I don't knew about 1RR but CCECR explicitly does not match the ARB CTOP as it still allows stuff ARBCOM have chosen to disallow on their version of ECR that is part of CTOP. ARBCOM could choose to change this here by motion but until they've done so their authorisation doesn't apply to current CCECR. Alternatively the community could choose to match ARB CTOP ECR then the authorisation would apply. But at least one needs to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that it would probably be better for ARB to clarify/amend because otherwise we could end up with the weird situation where the community has to work with ARBCOM to amend our ECR at the same time if it ever changes again or we'll end up with the weird situation we need to use some combo of IAR and NOTBURO to continue to hear such matters at AE until the community realigns. Alternatively the community would need to say CCECR is just community imposed ARBECR and the it always matches. 12:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Note community consensus was for a transition to occur from community-authorized discretionary sanctions (modelled on the arbitration committee discretionary sanctions framework) to community-designated contentious topics (modelled on the arbitration committee contentious topics framework). This is not a renaming of general sanctions, since general sanctions is a catch-all term for all editing restrictions that apply to all editors, versus a specific named individual. This is why an amendment to the arbitration procedures is required. The committee previously allowed the arbitration enforcement noticeboard to be used for requests to enact a restriction under the contentious topics framework, for community-designated topics, and for appeals to enacted restrictions. By design, these restrictions are enacted on the authority of one or more administrators, delegated to them by the community. However the community can also enact its own restrictions directly on a topic area, such as one-revert rule. The proposed amendment will allow the community, if it chooses, to use the arbitration enforcement noticeboard to request enforcement of such community-enacted restrictions, or to appeal them.

Requesting enforcement is likely to be uncontroversial, but appeals would shift authority for hearing the appeal from the community to administrators. For the contentious topic framework, this is intended to make enacted restrictions less likely to be quickly overturned. It's not clear to me, though, if this consideration is sought by the community for all general sanctions it enacts – perhaps just for general sanctions related to a designated contentious topic. isaacl (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: The primary advantage I see in the arbitration committee enabling the noticeboard to be used in this manner first (should the community choose to do so) is that the committee generally can come to a decision faster than the community on these types of matters. Thus the committee can clear the way for the community to hold its discussion, without any uncertainty regarding whether or not the committee will agree to a change. As I previously stated, I agree that while requests for enforcement aren't a significant concern, transferring authority to decide on appeals is a significant change. I am sympathetic to concerns that it's confusing for sanctioned editors, though, regarding the appropriate place to find information about an enacted sanction and the appropriate process to follow to appeal it. Perhaps there should be a common framework used to find information (such as logging) and to post an appeal request, while who responds to an appeal will depend on who has authority for the sanction. So a single appeal page can be used as the starting point for all appeals related to contentious topics, but the process followed will differ accordingly. (If desired, the appeal can be moved to an authority-specific page.) isaacl (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am not concerned about the community doing something simply because the arbitration committee said they are open to a given approach. Particularly with respect to enacting sanctions, historically the community has maintained its own independent rationale for its processes. isaacl (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ability to appeal at both the administrators' noticeboard and the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as discussed by KevinL (L235): currently the sanctioned editor doesn't have a choice but to appeal to the same body that enacted the sanction. Allowing for both approaches means the editor can choose to bypass a community-enacted restriction through a decision made solely by administrators. I'm not confident that the community wants this to be possible for any community general sanction, including those unrelated to any designated contentious topic area. isaacl (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L235 has noted (and I absolutely agree) that the community would need to authorize AE for the purposes of administering enforcement of community-designated CTOP actions, but I am curious: has this notion already been floated or formally proposed at any of the recent community discussions for harmonizing the ArbCom and community CTOP schemes, or is the idea to hold this discussion next? For what it's worth, I do believe the notion should have been debated before the community before getting ArbCom's authorization, but the most important thing is that both bodies authorize AE as an appropriate forum for this purpose, independent of the other.

Just forecast my own position, I think that there is a colourable argument to be made that the change to the distribution of authority will be minimal if all enforcement actions are permitted at AE, since ultimately an admin has to choose to act on any enforcement request, wherever it takes place. On the other hand, if any proposal sought to relocate appeals of sanctions made to individual editors under a community CTOP designation, I would have very serious concerns about that. CTOPs and community authorized sanctions are expanding at an alarming weight, and creating an absolutely fundamental seachange in the administration of the project and the distribution of authority between ArbCom, the administrative corps, and rank and file editors. It is absolutely essential that any decision by an individual admin to apply an editing restriction, block, or ban to a specific editor, under the special authority of community-designated scheme for a specific subject matter (whether that ends up being called discretionary sanctions or "community authorized contentious topics") remain appealable directly to the community.

So I would strongly oppose any community proposal which would seek to move appeals of a sole administrator's decision to apply such a sanction under the auspices of a community CTOP away from AN/I. To create a scheme where only admins have authority over review of such decisions would lead to knock-on effects that would completely unbalance the project. Administrator-applied sanctions taken pursuant to ArbCom CTOPS at least have ArbCom itself to appeal to (and if I am honest, I'd love to see ArbCom CTOPS and ERs made under them subject to community review, but I don't see that happening any time soon). Having an admin's unilateral enforcement decisions made under community CTOPS reviewable only by the admins who happen to be volunteering at AE at any given time would be problematic in the extreme. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl and Thryduulf: I agree that there is a certain economy in holding these discussions in this particular order, but my concern was that there might be a certain degree of fait accompli influence on ever aspect of the proposal once ArbCom endorsed the change. But I say "was" because L235's most recent comments above clarify that the recent community discussions did already authorize this change in fora, but also made an express carve-out retaining AN as a choice of venue for appeals, which I feel is by far the most important possible concern of a migration of the CCTOP process to AE. Thanks for the update, L235; I followed those harmonization discussions as they opened but lacked the time to keep up with them in recent weeks. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: The question being asked of the committee is "Can we do this?". If the answer to that is "no" then asking the community whether we want to do it would be pointless, but the Committee's answer to the "can" question is not dependent on the answer to the "want" question. Asking the questions in this order also makes the question to the community much simpler and will make it easier to keep the discussion about it focused and thus more likely to result in a clear consensus one way or the other. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• Yeah, that's fine. It's all called contentious topics, so I don't think it's that big a deal, but if people want to adjust language that's fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see an issue with the suggested change, or with making the process (slightly) less confusing. - Aoidh (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems reasonable to me. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems like simple-enough housekeeping and I support the principle of simplification/removal of duplication. It probably needs a motion as a change to the procedures, but that should be simple enough. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks fine in enforcing the Community's will (different people will have different opinions on whether AE is inherently better than AN), but I am more hesitant over the suggestion of using AELOG for Community-imposed sanctions. I think that the drawbacks from the confusion that may cause is greater than the minimal increase in convenience. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While sentiments on expanding scope seem clear, I think that we need more input on the AELOG issue. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reasonable to me. Hopefully we will get a motion soon. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @L235: I saw the wording. What I meant to say was I think this is getting stuck in the ArbCom black hole, and I want to get this unstuck with an official motion or by treating these bulleted statements as votes per WP:NOTBURO. Z1720 (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. Key word being "if". Daniel (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oh my. Thank you very much for organizing this, L235. It seems to be a lot of bureaucracy for "if the community wants to, they can use that noticeboard" to me. I'm fine with anything in that direction. The amount of formal RfCs and motions needed must seem comical to non-Wikipedians. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I wish changes like this could be done just based off consensus in the arbitrator comments section, but alas, it seems (per Kevin and Harry's comments) that this isn't currently possible. Might put it on the agenda for 2026... Daniel (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Z1720 (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. Aoidh (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. I agree with myself. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
8. Katie^talk 18:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
9. WP:CT2022 seems sooo long ago. I recall there being some discussion about the need to keep some clarity between CTOP & what is now CCTOP. I'd like there still to be some clarity as regards the distinction in the logging and the noticeboard. In regard to Daniel's comment, I see this as a step in the evolution, not necessarily the final step. Cabayi (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

• Noting that I haven't put forward the second part relating to AELOG, per s.q.'s comments - feels like practicalities need to be worked through and general sentiment needs to be better surveyed. Maybe this passing (if it does indeed pass) can prompt that discussion in the future. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by The Bushranger at 01:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log

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

• The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

So I have a conundrum regarding the requirement to log arbitration enformcement actions, with regard to unregistered IP addresses now that temporary accounts are a thing. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Now that we have temporary accounts, WP:TAIV notes Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed. I performed a rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 for GENSEX-related disruption; therefore, I need to log this. However that - necessarily - discloses the TAIV-access-provided IP address on this page. How does this circle get squared? (Note, I also blocked the most recent TA used by that range and logged it, for now, to deal with the reporting requirement until the above question is answered). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Ahh. Well, I did mark it as 'Arbitration enforcement', before going "and to log - hmmmm", but I'll keep that in mind in the future. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Appreciated. So, note it in the log, but without a link to the IP/range's Special:Contributions page then, I presume. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, after the discussion below, I've logged it per [1]. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are exceptions built into the policy for this kind of case. The issue does come to something like the revision deletion clause, which is clearly prohibitive. I suspect the people who wrote that into the TAIV policy actually just simply don't understand how revision deletion works (and that we'd have to revision delete... a lot... rather than I suspect the imagined "single revision" where the item was introduced). I put something in the ear of the WMF a couple weeks ago about that provision being dumb and needing rethinking, but this would be a good on-wiki use case specifically to reference. I agree that this all is also relevant beyond the "I need to block someone in the area" suggested above as enforcement also needs to consider "I need specifically to block someone using the powers prescribed in an arbitration case or in the contentious topic procedure" (consider as an example the old ban on Scientology IPs). Izno (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I think your analysis is the best way of looking at this. I'll note that I reached out to WMF Legal a few weeks ago about expanding the consecutive-block rule to all admin actions (after finding myself in a gray area on disclosure by unblocking an IP on request from a TA on that IP). Last I heard from Madi Moss (WMF), the plan was to change it to "blocks, unblocks, or performs other administrative actions", although I don't know where that plan stands as of now. Of course it's the current policy that's binding, but even by the current wording I agree there's no issue with consecutive logging at AELOG (and Madi did not seem inclined to de-TAIV me for my consecutive-unblock :P).

All that said, yeah, the "appropriate venues" clause should work here if for some reason consecutive logging isn't enough to get the point across; if someone wants to do that, I'll repeat the suggestion I included in a footnote at TAIVDISCLOSE that they do the disclosure on a transcluded subpage, so that it can later be cleanly revdelled without taking out a bunch of unrelated history. So something like I have also blocked the TA's IP range, {{WP:Arbitration enforcement log/TAIV disclosure/1}} <small>([[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE|intentional disclosure]])</small>, for 180 days. Then at the end of those 180 days (or later if there's continued IP abuse at that point), redact and revdel. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• Hello The Bushranger, the following premise is not factually correct: I performed a rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 for GENSEX-related disruption; therefore, I need to log this. You don't need to. Blocking someone for disruption, no matter in which topic area, is a simple administrative action that doesn't need logging. If you do something you could else not do, or if you don't want the rangeblock to be undoable without an appeal to WP:AN, then you can make it a formal contentious topics action. You can; you are not required to. The simplest practical answer to the question is thus "don't mark it as a GENSEX CTOP action". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's all good. To answer the actual question regarding IP addresses and logging, though: To my personal understanding, just as blocking an IP address creates a public log entry, it can't be a problem to log a ban or any kind of sanction on an IP address. Making a connection to specific edits would be a problem, even making a connection to a specific page may be, but simply stating that you are applying sanction X to IP a.b.c.d should be as unproblematic as the existence of a public log entry of a block on a.b.c.d. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Linking to a page that can only be viewed by people with the needed access should be fine too. I assume this is about Special:IPContributions. Linking to it doesn't provide additional information to the wrong people; try opening that link in a private tab. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That won't work because the contribs are gone in 90 days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Now we're mixing whether something is allowed from a privacy perspective and whether something makes sense from our ArbCom logging desires. If the logs are gone after 90 days, the logs are gone after 90 days and reviewing the IP block is tough. This is just one additional reason why applying CTOP sanctions to IP addresses, just as bans, was always an unusual and rarely meaningful thing to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Logging the IP or range allows quicker or escalating sanctions, and that's an issue that comes up with ECR enforcement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ScottishFinnishRadish, there are so many unrealistic assumptions that come with this ... including formal awareness through a CTOP template that had to be sent to the IP address before that IP address can be sanctioned for continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The editor has to be aware, not every IP address or temporary amount they use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah right. So if someone edits disruptively, we perform a checkuser lookup and log a sanction against their IP address range because that helps with escalating sanctions and they're known to be aware through non-public information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So yeah, even the concept of awareness is broken with IP addresses since the introduction of temporary accounts. Can we ... perhaps just apply sanctions to accounts only, and avoid placing formal CTOP sanctions on IP addresses? Because that's highly impractical? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At a quick glance I see a dozen logged sanctions on IPs and temporary accounts in ARBPIA this year. Seems like it works fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the currently-28 AELOG sanctions placed in November 2025 are against IP addresses. Temporary accounts are treated like accounts, their IP addresses might have been blocked in the background but not as logged formal actions. Which is fine. Beyond bureaucracy, academic privacy discussions and links to information that is now deleted after 90 days, there is no point in formally logging a sanction against an IP address obtained through TAIV, just as noone would have had the idea to do so for IP ranges obtained from checkuser results before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To provide a practical example, let's say temporary account ~2025-F has edited an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and similar edits came from ~2025-A, ~2025-B, ~2025-C, ~2025-D and ~2025-E. A quick look reveals that all of these accounts were created from the same /48 IPv6 range. All of the edits were in violation of the extended-confirmed restriction in this topic area and not otherwise problematic. The usual response is protecting the affected pages as a CTOP action. No measures against temporary accounts or IPs are needed. However, if an administrator wants to apply a sanction such as a formal CTOP block, they can do so to the latest account (or all of them, as a symbolic measure).
  The administrator can additionally {{rangeblock}} the /48 IPv6 range: admins are allowed to make blocks that, by their timing, imply a connection between an account and an IP.^{[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE]}
  And if all of that is really not enough and a formal sanction has to be applied to the IP address range, well then, that too can still be done and logged as before. Yes, it will create two log entries directly below each other with the temporary account's name and IP address. Just as the blocks did in the block log. It's completely avoidable and rarely helpful but not formally prohibited as far as I understand. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• While in this case it could have been a standard block it can't be for an ECR block, so this is definitely going to come up and now is a good time to stew our noodles on how to handle it. WP:TAIV says And when "reasonably believed to be necessary", exceptions can be made at appropriate policy-enforcement venues. Then it goes on to say However, the disclosure should be revision-deleted as soon as it ceases to be necessary. It's necessary to maintain a log of submission enforcement actions for a number of reasons so maybe we could sneak it in under that? What a clusterfuck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't like using AE sanctions against non-accounts either, but wouldn't forbid it . If the sanction is against an IP, log it with a link to the IP. If it's against a temporary account, log it with a link to the temporary account. That shouldn't result in an "extra" disclosure simply based on the logging action. Let me know if I missed something ... Sdrqaz (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Ideally, just log the sanction on the temporary account. It shouldn't normally be necessary to log a block of an underlying IP/range. The only reason I can think of is that you want to mark it as an AE block to avoid it being overturned without proper consideration, in which case I suppose it has to be logged and the exception applies, but I'm sure an informative summary in the block log would be enough to prevent that in most cases. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by The Bushranger at 00:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Indian military history arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

This regards the South Asian social groups portion of the IMH case (aka WP:CT/SA). Specifically it relates to the former WP:GSCASTE, which, absorbed into SASG, explicitly includes "political parties" in the defitintion of social groups that fall under WP:ECR. Recently at RFPP, it was stated that as elections involve political parties, they fall under the GSCASTE/SASG mandatory ECR. I can see the logic (per "broadly construed"), while at the same time seeing it as a variation of WP:NOTINHERITED, so I figured I'd come here and ask: are elections in the CT/SA defined area considered to fall uinder SASG for the purpose of extended confirmed restrictions? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• That's the kind of thing I'd let ride unless it was becoming disruptive. ECR was applied in this topic because of the disruption, so with broadly construed cases it's acceptable to invoke it, but let it slide if there's not disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with SFR. "Broadly construed" is a useful device for capturing disruption not confined to a small number of articles, but shouldn't be a bureaucratic burden. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]