|
[[Category:Wikipedia arbitration]]
[[Category:Wikipedia requests]]
== Clarification request: Indian military history ==
{{hat|There is consensus that Tamzin's explanation is spot on. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)}}
'''Initiated by''' [[User:Toadspike|Toadspike]] '''at''' 11:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Indian military history}}
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard [[WP:AC/CN]]-->
*{{userlinks|Toadspike}} (initiator)
=== Statement by Toadspike ===
1. Does the Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction apply only to military history on the current (post-[[Partition of India|Partition]]) territory of the country of [[India]], or does it include military history that took place entirely in another South Asian country?
2. If a conflict took place between a party in India and a party outside of India, does the extended-confirmed restriction apply? Does this depend on whether battles in the conflict took place within the current territory of India or not?
3. How do we treat [[WP:AfC|AfC]] submissions that were written before the enactment of this remedy, but are only now being reviewed? If they are suitable for acceptance, can they still be accepted? If not, should they be deleted (from draftspace)?
These questions were prompted by the contributions of a specific editor. As this request for clarification is about the general principles, not that specific case, I have chosen not to name them here. If Arbs would like me to add them as a party, I will do so.
: @[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] Thank you for your reply. <s>Does "India" mean the current ''territory'' of India or the current ''state'' of India?</s> What I'm really getting at is whether predecessors of India like [[British India]] also count as "India", since those entities included significant territory outside of the modern state of India.
: The problem with wording like "if India was involved" is that nearly all of the conflict about "Indian military history" does not involve the modern state of India.
=== Statement by voorts ===
Since we're already here, does "Indian military history" encompass contemporary conflicts? If not, what's the cut off date or era? [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 14:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
===Statement by Koshuri Sultan===
I was planning to initiate this request per my comments on the case discussion thread.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=1301627410#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian_military_history_closed] Just as voorts asked above, you can see the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=1301627410#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian_military_history_closed linked discussion there], which also has no answer regarding the scope.
Does the scope of "Indian military history and the history of castes in India" cover times before the establishment of [[British Raj]] or the times before the foundation of India? [[User:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold;">Koshuri</span>]] [[User Talk:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;"><sup>(あ!)</sup></span>]] 14:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Sdrqaz}} Reading the evidence and proposed decision of the case itself, it appears that only the diffs involving the events before 1857 events were found to be actionable for being within the case' scope.
:You have made a mention of the [[United States]], however, the DS regime covering this country also concerns its politics specifically after 1992.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1001485112#Motion:_American_politics_2_(1992_cutoff)]
:That said, I think a period should be thoroughly clarified. It would be reasonable to agree on events before 1947 as history because the period since 1947 is regarded as "contemporary India", not that of historical India also in scholarly sources.[https://books.google.com/books/about/Contemporary_India.html?id=yQLvoAEACAAJ&redir_esc=y][https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2019.1571414][https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contemporary_India/rYfotwEACAAJ?hl=en] [[User:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold;">Koshuri</span>]] [[User Talk:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;"><sup>(あ!)</sup></span>]] 06:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
*Inviting {{u|Tamzin}} and {{u|Rosguill}} to share their views here. [[User:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold;">Koshuri</span>]] [[User Talk:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;"><sup>(あ!)</sup></span>]] 15:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:*Thanks for responding {{u|Tamzin}} and {{u|Rosguill}}. I would also like to know your views regarding "Indian military history", whether it covers the times before the establishment of [[British Raj]] or the times before the foundation of present India, or something else? [[User:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold;">Koshuri</span>]] [[User Talk:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;"><sup>(あ!)</sup></span>]] 17:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Donner60 ===
*Please note that the military history project has an Indian military history task force shown at the page [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force]]. The page includes: "This task force covers the military history of India. This includes ancient India, medieval India, early modern India (including the period of British rule), and modern post-independence India." Many, perhaps even all, articles that gave rise to this proceeding are assessed B class or below. The task force page shows all of the articles within the scope of the project that are featured articles, former featured articles, featured lists, A-Class articles, good articles and did you know articles. This may provide some guidance as to the scope of Wikipedia articles considered as involving Indian military history. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 04:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Tamzin (IMH) ===
{{pinged}} To me, the logical scope of "Indian military history" would be {{ordered list|list_style_type=upper-alpha|The military history of any entity, or vassal/proxy of an entity, based in {{ordered list|list_style_type=lower-alpha|the present-day Republic of India and/or|territory that was at the time considered India}}and/or|Any military activities by any other entity that took place in that region.}}<span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 15:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Koshuri Sultan|Koshuri Sultan]]: I think this answers the time question as well. But to be clear, no, I don't impute any time-based limit to this. Maybe hypothetically it wouldn't cover conflicts prior to the [[Indus Valley Civilisation]], but honestly even there I'm not sure.{{pb}}I also stopped to think about whether this covers actions by Indian-originating forces far removed from the region. I knew a woman who was the lone survivor of a [[Free French]] unit slaughtered by what she described as renegade British imperial [[gurkhas]], but according to a historian I talked to were more likely soldiers of the Nazi [[Indian Legion]]. Should those fall under Indian military history? But then I thought, yes, they should, and [[Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose]] can speak for itself as to why. Ultimately, any aspect of Indian military history, whether it's from 10 years ago or a thousand years ago, whether it happened in Mumbai or Marseille, has the same tendency to be politicized by contemporary Indian political movements. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 17:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Rosguill ===
also {{pinged}}, I'd mostly agree with Tamzin's description, although I would add that when considering that it is "broadly construed", this would also include any topic that is centrally relevant to the wars historically fought in the Indian subcontinent, in particular definition of borders and ethnic/national/religious/caste claims to land in the Indian subcontinent. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 16:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:I fully agree with Tamzin's further comments on scope, including ancient history and operations by Indian military groups outside of India. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 17:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Sohom Datta ===
While I nominally agree with Tamzin's statement and definition of "Indian military conflict", as person who has infrequently worked on the topic area of the Indian freedom struggle (and other areas), I feel like this net is waay to wide for a ''extended-confirmed'' sanctions by default. If [[Subas Chandra Bose]] is included, would almost any article documenting any of the various parts of the Indian freedom struggle/conflict be considered part of this restriction? -- [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(0.3deg)">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 13:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Swatjester ===
I want to emphasize that it's vital for the scope to cover modern day (including current-events) Indian military history and the portions of related articles thereof. Since the [[2025 India-Pakistan conflict]] there's been widespread nationalist edit-warring and propaganda pushing on articles relating to the military equipment involved in the conflict -- particularly the aircraft, missile, and air-defense systems involved (as these by convention usually have a section for "Operational History" documenting their usage). Additionally I want to reiterate that the scope needs to encompass military actions conducted in India even by non-South Asian actors. For instance, during the hunt for Bin Laden in the early 2000's, both the [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us-uk-special-forces-seek-laden-in-jk-report/articleshow/1835047.cms U.S. Delta Force and British Special Air Service conducted operations in Kashmir against a Pakistani militant group] in which intelligence sharing was conducted with the Indian government while said Indian government issued public denials; references to this event should presumably be covered (both because of the intelligence sharing arrangement with the Indian military, and due to the geographic ___location being within the scope of coverage). As far as I can tell Tamzin's interpretation covers both these concerns but I wanted to raise my concerns if other interpretations prevail here.[[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
=== Indian military history: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*
=== Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*# Only India or related to India.
*# Yes, if India was involved it doesn't matter where the conflict took place.
*# They can be accepted.
* This is obviously just my view, but it seems fairly clear-cut. #1 does get at one of my concerns about the grand unified CTOP, though. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
*:I think Tamzin's description is pretty apt. Trying to narrow it down or draw explicit lines around it won't work with how broad the topic is. If someone is unsure if a particular subtopic, article, or piece of content is covered they can ask about it. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
*I have mixed feelings on what "Indian history" means for arbitration enforcement because we need to balance the need for the definition to be easily understandable against the historical reality of the term.{{pb}}In my opinion, we indicated in "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Breadth of topic bans|Breadth of topic bans]]" that Indian history also includes history prior to the Partition. Just as how Chinese history spans the various dynasties prior to the PRC/ROC (even if it wasn't called China at that point) and how American history doesn't just begin in [[United States Declaration of Independence|1776]], I think that Indian history covers the current republic as well as clear predecessor states like the British Raj and [[Mughal Empire]], even if they go beyond the current republic's borders. The term "India" was used before the Partition as well: the [[British Raj|Raj was commonly called "India"]] and the [[Names for India|term was used for many years prior to the current republic's creation]]. Hopefully that also answers Koshuri Sultan's question as well and I otherwise agree with SFR regarding Toadspike's Q2 & Q3.{{pb}}Voorts: I don't think that there is a good place to cut off when history begins{{snd}}{{small|aren't we all creating history now?}}{{snd}}so would rather that we kept contemporary conflicts as well. If enforcing administrators wish to sanction people from (eg.) pre-Modi Indian military history instead of the entirety of Indian military history, they [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Breadth of topic bans|would have support in doing so]]. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 01:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
*I'd say Tamzin's definition could be used in a textbook. That's exactly what I would have said, in many more words. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:var(--color-base);">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 08:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*What {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} and {{u|Worm That Turned}}/{{u|Tamzin}} said. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 13:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
== Amendment request: Venezuelan politics ==
*I find this request persuasive and am currently inclined to support it, retaining the interaction and topic ban. Keen to provide the opportunity to potentially hear from other interested members of the community over the coming few days, before proposing a motion. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 10:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
*Same as Dan. Inclined to support lifting the ban with the iban and tban in place, would like to hear from those who were party to the behavior that led to the ban. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Put me at support, with the tban and iban still in place and with the understanding that the committee can't prevent people from putting 2 and 2 together when it comes to other accounts and account restrictions. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 10:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*As long as the iban and topic ban remain in place, I'm not opposed to accepting this appeal. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 12:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
*I'd also like to hear from the parties in the case, but if we do accept, can we add a single account restriction to the mix? One of the issues was misuse of multiple accounts, so we should make it clear that's not even potentially ok. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:var(--color-base);">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 08:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*Based on some private discussions that have taken place, while I am okay with an unblock (keeping the existing other restrictions in place) I am uncomfortable doing so unless we limit WMRapids to using a single account. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 22:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*I was [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Proposed decision#WMrapids unblocked with a one-account restriction|the only one who thought that a site ban was unnecessary]], and I still believe that. Robert, please see my and Barkeep's comments there regarding use of multiple accounts (and at {{slink|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan_politics/Proposed decision#Use of multiple accounts|nopage=y}} too). [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 01:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
* Please consider me provisionally inactive on this thread unless I come back to cast a vote. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 18:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 ==
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[diff[Special:Diff/1307665655|Notification of notificationto Patternbuffered]]
*[diff[Special:Diff/1307665686|Notification of notificationto ScottishFinnishRadish]]
*[diff[Special:Diff/1307665700|Notification of notificationto Long-live-ALOPUS]]
; Information about amendment request
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#Definition of the "area of conflict"]]
I recently encountered a user talk page discussion titled [[User talk:Theofunny/Archive 1#Views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Gaza war|"Views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Gaza war"]], in which {{u|Patternbuffered}} said, {{xt|"I was going to just revert, but I'll give you a day or so to clean it up"}}, in reference to article content related to the [[Arab–Israeli conflict]]. As Patternbuffered was not [[WP:XC|extended confirmed]], the [[WP:ECR|extended confirmed restriction]] (ECR) of [[WP:CT/A-I]] prohibited Patternbuffered from performing the described revert.
Per current practice (e.g. {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}'s warning of {{npu|Long-live-ALOPUS}} in [[Special:Permalink/1296036037#Introduction to contentious topics|another discussion]] for violating ECR by posting [[Special:Diff/1292926915|another user talk page comment]]), my understanding is that ECR also prohibited Patternbuffered from starting the user talk page discussion in the first place. However, Patternbuffered [[Special:Diff/1307594945|pointed out to me]] that the wording of the clause in question excludes {{xt|"userspace"}} from the {{xt|"area of conflict"}} without additional qualifiers. Long-live-ALOPUS [[Special:Diff/1292930723|also interpreted]] the clause as it was written.
I do not believe it is the intent of the userspace exception to allow non–extended confirmed users to openly discuss the Arab–Israeli conflict on other users' talk pages in ways that are prohibited in other namespaces and restricted on article talk pages. I ask the Arbitration Committee to amend the clause to limit the exception to the editor's own userspace, which better reflects existing practice. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
: {{re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} The problem is that, in the lead section of [[WP:CT/A-I]], the text {{xt|"with certain exceptions as [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#ARBPIA General Sanctions|provided below]]"}} contains a link to {{slink|WP:CT/A-I#ARBPIA General Sanctions}}, which does invoke the term {{xt|"area of conflict"}} in the bullet point {{xt|"'''Extended confirmed restriction''': The [[WP:AC/P#Extended confirmed restriction|extended confirmed restriction]] is imposed on the area of conflict."}} An editor who is unfamiliar with the case history cannot be expected to know that ECR applies to the entire topic area (and not just the defined {{xt|"area of conflict"}}) after reading the [[WP:CT/A-I]] page. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 14:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Patternbuffered ===
As I [[Special:Diff/1307594945|wrote on my talk page]] I was fine with the warning and just curious about an apparent loophole. I agree it should be addressed to mitigate future confusion or conflict; how that should be done I will leave in more experienced hands. [[User:Patternbuffered|Patternbuffered]] ([[User talk:Patternbuffered|talk]]) 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish ===
=== Statement by Long-live-ALOPUS ===
=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
While at first glance the simple change seems unproblematic, there does need to be some allowance for posting on other users' talk pages. The first scenario that comes to mind is:
*User:Example is not extended-confirmed. They make a good-faith edit to content related to the area of dispute on a page that is not ECP protected.
*User:Foo reverts this edit on the grounds that Example is not extended-confirmed
*User:Example posts on user talk:Foo seeking clarification (maybe they didn't understand jargon used in the summary)
*User:Foo replies
*User:Example posts a follow-up question (e.g. perhaps still not understanding, perhaps disagreeing that the content is related to the dispute)
As long as Example is not sealioning or otherwise acting in bad faith, we don't want to prohibit this sort of interaction yet a simple reading of the proposed language would do that. My first thought is a much-wordsmithed "this does not include discussion of actions taken regarding a user's own edits that takes place on the talk page of the user taking that action." While "discussion with the editor taking that action" is simpler, it would prohibit follow-up to a reply given by a talk-page stalker which I don't think would be desirable. Other things to consider are that good-faith, genuinely new editors are not guaranteed to know about pinging users to their own talk page, won't know how to determine whether some other editor is or is not extended-confirmed and if the queried actions relate to more than one editor (e.g. User:Foo reverted user:Example and user:Example2) it is better for all concerned for all discussion about it to happen on a single page. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Zero0000 ===
At [[WP:ARBPIA4#Definition of the "area of conflict"]] it says {{tq|"For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "'''area of conflict'''" shall be defined as encompassing...edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace."}}. And the [[#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions|application]] of ARBECR to PIA is {{tq|"The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the '''area of conflict'''."}} (my bold). So, even if "topic area" at [[WP:ARBECR]] is more general than "area of conflict", the ARBPIA page explicitly exempts userspace from it.
To repeat myself, ARBPIA4 does not apply ARBECR to the PIA "topic area" but only to the "area of conflict", which is a defined ___domain.
If ArbCom wants to replace the motion, they should do so with a motion to repeal and replace it, as this is not the first time the issue has come up and it won't be the last unless it is put to rest.
Personally I think that there is nothing wrong with a general userspace exemption, but reducing it to own-userspace would not be a big problem. On the other hand, restricting non-ECs from making comments in their own userspace would seem to have no purpose whatever, as there are other mechanisms for handling disruption. What sense is there in allowing edit requests on article talk pages but disallowing the same on own talk? I think own-userspace should be a general exemption to ECR in all topics. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 12:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
=== Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
* The userspace exception was previously discussed at {{section link|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_128#Amendment_request:_Definition_of_the_"area_of_conflict"_Clause_4_(b)}} (July to September 2024), which was closed as having "currently no appetite on the committee to change the definition of the area of conflict". (See the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_128#Definition_of_the_"area_of_conflict"_Clause_4_(b):_Clerk_notes|two abandoned motions]] and comments by arbitrators about the exception.) ~ Jenson ([[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]]) 20:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*
=== Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* The {{tq|area of conflict}} language isn't found in {{tq|Extended confirmed restriction – only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, with certain exceptions as provided below. 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.}} The most recent clarification and motion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1184641744#Motion:_Edit_requests_only says] {{tq|The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions}}. The "area of conflict" language is just an artifact on that page because of older decisions. ECR applies to '''all edits related to the topic area, broadly construed'''. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 10:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*
*:{{u|Thryduulf}}, I think that falls under [[WP:BANEXEMPT]]#2, and that's how I've always seen it handled and handled it myself. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{u|Newslinger}}, yeah, that should probably be fixed. It looks like it's just a supplemental page so it doesn't need a full motion so if my views align with the rest of the committee it should be a simple matter to tidy up. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
==Review of Indian military history extended confirmed restriction==
{{hat|In a stunning, unexpected development the editor requesting a slackening of ECR was blocked as a sock of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidWood11]]. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)}}
;Case or decision affected
[[WP:ARBIMH]]
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
[[WP:ECR]]
=== Statement by Umar Halid ===
Indian military history topic was placed under an Extended Confirmed Restriction . While I fully respect ArbCom’s authority, I wish to raise a concern about the scope of enforcement.↵At present, the restriction appears to bar nonEC editors from all participation including talk pages and RFC's. This excludes good faith contributors. My concern is about ensuring that talk pages remain open to discussion.
Requested Amendment:↵I respectfully request ArbCom to consider allowing non EC editors to continue participating in TP discussions, so that good faith contributions by non EC editors can be evaluated. [[User:Umar Halid|Umar Halid]] ([[User talk:Umar Halid|talk]]) 14:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Jéské Couriano ===
:Barring editors from participating in talk pages (other than [[WP:EDITREQ|legitimate, simple, and sourced edit-requests]]) is part of the point. I don't think this is going to see any sort of change. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 15:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
=== Review of Indian military history extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
=== Review of Indian military history extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
{{hab}}
| 