Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Submissions are limited to 500 words of rendered wikitext, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly include (a) why you need additional words and (b) what you hope to discuss in your extended submission.
You may only edit your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (See Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration § Responding to requests.)

Clarification and Amendment (

)

1

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5

There is consensus that the preemptive protection of articles does not apply to templates. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Staraction at 18:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Staraction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Toadspike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Rsjaffe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Staraction

Over at WP:BATCH, Sean.hoyland has requested extended-confirmed protection for some templates whose topic is strictly within the Arab–Israeli conflict. Protection for some of the pages requested was previously declined by Toadspike since they were not articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area [emphasis added]. Subsequent discussion revealed disagreement between several administrators regarding whether relevant templates fell under the extended confirmed restriction, with a general sense of ambiguity (Pppery, Toadspike, rsjaffe).

TL;DR: Do templates whose topic is strictly within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area qualify under WP:CT/PIA's extended-confirmed restriction?

I concur with Toadspike & rsjaffe below in that I worded this last line incorrectly, apologies. It should read: "Do templates whose topic is strictly within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area qualify under WP:CT/PIA's extended-confirmed protection by default remedy? [emphasis added] Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I've added template transclusion counts to the request for convenience/consideration. Note that the counts will be 1 less than the transclusion counts from 'What links here' because I've excluded the template talk pages from the counts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question that might be worth considering at the same time - is a redirect to an article that qualifies for ECP by default an article that qualifies for ECP by default? For example, 1948 war -> 1948 Palestine war Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toadspike

My comment here summarizes my perspective. Staraction's question isn't quite correct: It's obvious that templates fall under the extended-confirmed restriction; the real question is whether they fall under the ECP by default remedy. I have no opinion on whether they should, I'd just like clear guidance either way. Toadspike [Talk] 18:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pppery

Statement by Rsjaffe

The question I'd like answered is slightly different: should templates strictly within the A-I topic area be ECP by default?

The committee decided that 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. However, if you look at the votes and discussion at that link, you see arguments that appear just as applicable to templates as to articles. This makes me wonder if the scope of the remedy was insufficient as written. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Bushranger

@Toadspike: Regardless of whether or not they are mandated for ECP by default (which the consensus of arbs seems to be "not"), the fact of the matter is that ECR, when an entire page (regardless of namespace) falls within the topic and thus the entire page falls under ECR, is de facto ECP, as no non-XC editor is allowed to edit the page; applying the protection is simply changing that to de jure. IMHO there's no reason to ever not ECP a page that falls fully within an ECR topic area. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

Yes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Post-clarification, yes ECR, no protection by default. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The templates definitely fall under the extended-confirmed restriction as part of the topic area, but they are explicitly outside the terms of ECP by default which is limited to only articles. That means that protecting them is at administrative discretion. Daniel (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- rsjaffe, I see the limitation to articles only as intentional, albeit I sit on the just-under-half of the Committee who would prefer to see ECP by default reduced (October 2025 & January 2026), so naturally I would say that. Daniel (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What they said. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What they said. I'll throw in the monkey-wrench that templates and modules are special under Wikipedia:High-risk templates, and I'd consider being within the scope of PIA to be a (non-dispositive) argument in favor of protection. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with others, particularly HouseBlaster. Clearly within the topic area, though they're not articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I actually disagree with the others. If a template consists of content for articles (only in the template space because it is to be transcluded in several articles), as these do, then it should be treated as article content/portions of an article and (if strictly within the topic) be extended confirmed by default. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 18:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HouseBlaster, though if we wanted to explicitly and unambiguously protect them by default, I'd support that too. - Aoidh (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the monkey-wrench, and am sympathetic to SilverLocust, but I think the relevant remedy is unambiguous in applying only to articles. I especially agree with Bushranger. I am minded to propose an amendment of some sort targeting transcluded content to add to the mandatory ECP to enforce the already-mandatory ECR in the topic area. Izno (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Direct violation report: Skitash

Initiated by SuperPianoMan9167 at 14:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Restriction being violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb#Skitash topic banned

User being reported, and confirmation that they are aware of the report

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Skitash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the user is aware of the report

Special:Diff/1359309197

Statement by SuperPianoMan9167

Skitash altered info relating to Libya in this edit, which is a violation of their topic ban from "the Maghreb region, broadly construed". @Bananakingler has already reported this at WP:AE#Arbcom Maghreb violation, but ARCA is ~~the preferred~~ a suggested location for reporting violations of sanctions directly imposed by the Committee per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Direct violation reports. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Skitash: Avoiding editing Libya- or Maghreb-related articles is not enough. Your topic ban is "broadly construed", so you cannot make any edits relating to the Maghreb region or any of its constituent countries anywhere on Wikipedia. WP:TBAN says Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed".

Removal of info related to the 2011 military intervention in Libya is certainly within the scope of your topic ban. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the out-of-process change of venue. I made the decision to switch to ARCA based on the discussion at User talk:Asilvering#Correct forum. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skitash

Greetings. I am topic banned from the Maghreb, not from United Kingdom–United States relations. The edit I partially reverted was a large addition of unsourced material about the 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2011 NATO intervention in Libya that had been placed in the lede of that article about US-UK bilateral relations, which in my view constituted WP:UNDUE weight and off-topic bloat. My intention was not to edit anything about Libya, and I have not edited any Libya- or Maghreb-related articles. Skitash (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that my topic ban is broadly construed, and my revert fell under that scope. I have made a mistake in this case, and it won't happen again. Skitash (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samuelshraga

Arbcom adopted a finding of fact that explicitly included Libya within the Maghreb. That makes this edit unambiguously a topic ban violation. However, I don't think any of the evidence in the case was about Libya, and Skitash's comment suggests they're not aware that they're topic banned from any content about the Maghreb at all, not just Maghreb-related articles. I suggest if they signal that they are aware of this now and that they will refrain going forward, this need not go further. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by rsjaffe

Even though this could have been handled at AE, since the substantive discussion is occurring here I closed the AE report as a duplicate to avoid confusion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Skitash: Clerk notes

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

Skitash: Arbitrator views and discussion

ARCA is the preferred location the section does not say that, it says they may be sent here. Izno (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't have been brought here, as there's (even to this minute, still) an active AE report about this. Further, and as Izno correctly notes, the operative word here is "may" rather than "preferred". On the substance, I note Skitash's mea culpa and think this can be closed as 'editor acknowledges violation, has committed to not making mistake again'. Daniel (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone gets one and they now understand the topic ban is broadly construed and what that means so I think we're done here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a tban violation, and no, we don't need to do anything about it beyond this warning. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the points that the above arbs have made, and I don't believe anything further needs to be done at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]