Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Statement by AMbroodEY
User:Unre4L has been unnecessarily odefying some dumb statements i did make. I apologised to him for those statements and decided to wipe the slate clean and give the whole situation a new try. Yet User:Unre4L and his friends have continued on their confrontational attitude. Whats more they've engage in petty revert wars over talk-page tags. I've had a hard time convincing these guys that talk-page tags are not meant to signify page ownership.

User:Unre4L for his part has engaged in bltant genocide denial of my people, the Hindu Sindhis, during partition in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Given my personal and academic commitments it will be difficult for me to participate in this Arbitration case until mid-March. I request a continuation till 13th of March, as I believe in my absence my role in this whole business may be misrepresented.

Response to Nadirali: I'm nobody's associate. I'm here to write an encyclopedia not engage in nationalist flamewars. Wikipedia is not a battle ground. I'm always willing to co-operate on any article of mututal interest, whatever differences we may have on others.

 Amey Aryan DaBrood  &#169; 05:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dangerous-Boy
In response to Szhaider's comment I would like to note that I never removed any pak tag and I only added the india tag since pak and indian history overlap. Szhaider repeatedly removed the indain tag even though it was generally agreed that the tag should stay.--D-Boy 06:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to Szhaider's latest comment, those were honest mistakes since you get removing the india tags.--D-Boy 07:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fowler&fowler
I notice that the title of this Request for Arbitration has been changed to "Pakistani Nationalism." I think the new title unfairly tilts the balance in favor of the initiator, Rama's arrow. I am not sure if everyone knows that the RfArb was initiated by Rama's arrow at 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC), a full 16 minutes after (and therefore likely in reaction to) an incident at WP:ANI, against Rama's arrow (|See See here:"Admin abusing his privileges") filed at 16:43, 12 February 2007, by the other editors (Pakistani) now involved in this RfArb. As a neutral editor who has battled both sides in this dispute at different times and occasions, my own view is that nationalism exists on both sides of the Pakistan-India border and both sides are equally prolific in edit-wars on Wikipedia. In my perspective, Rama's arrow has been selectively aggressive towards Pakistani editors and, correspondingly, selectively benign towards Indian editors. I think the way that this RfArb is framed, Rama's arrow comes out looking as a concerned, but, perhaps, neutral administrator and his "interlocutors" as somewhat rabid nationalists. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk» 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have an alternate suggestion that does not involved naming particular editors (we try to avoid Tom and Dick vs Harry for example). Ultimately, however, the title is just a bit of necessary bookkeeping, and I have never seen a case where the title alone framed the outcome. Thatcher131 22:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, how about "India-Pakistan Nationalism" or "Pakistan-India Nationalism" or "South Asia Nationalism?" Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk» 00:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since "South Asian" and "India-Pakistan" nationalism indicate a sort of "united nationalism" between the 2 sides,I suggested that we rename it to "Indo-Pakistani" disputes.--Nadirali نادرالی
 * I'm thinking just India-Pakistan at this point. We'll see if it get a fourth vote to open. Thatcher131 03:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no competing nationalisms afoot. Just couple of irredentists demarcating 3000 yrs of shared history based on a 60 yr old line. Its not simple "pox on both your houses" as F&F tries to construe the situation.  Amey Aryan DaBrood  &#169; 13:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JFD
I've had disputes with Indian nationalists on Wikipedia and I can say with confidence that Rama's Arrow is no Indian nationalist.

He's the admin who slapped the indefinite ban on Hkelkar, the Indian Wikinationalist par excellence.

What I have noticed is that Wikinationalists throw around cheap—not to mention hypocritical—accusations of vandalism and bigotry with abandon.

Wikipedia is lousy with Indian nationalists, but Rama's Arrow is not one of them. JFD 06:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Outside Statement by Just H
I'm not sure if it's common to do so here, but I would like to offer to help mediate here. I have no prefence to India or Pakistan. Just H 03:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Amendment request: Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

 * Permanent link

Initiated by  Magog the Ogre (talk) at 20:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * Case affected :
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * , filing party
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Information about amendment request
 * Requested amendment: Standard discretionary sanctions may be placed on any editor by an uninvolved administrator, including revert limitations, civility parole, and outright topic ban. the wording from WP:ARBPIA is a good one: " uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."

Statement by Magog the Ogre
ArbCom previously denied a request to hear a new case. At the time, I opined that I thought this issue would remain unresolved, and it has. Since that time, numerous discussions, blocks, and threads on ANI have occurred, and yet the only difference between now and then is that both TopGun and Darkness Shines have received a 1RR probation.

It is my opinion the editor Darkness Shines is an unrepentant POV-pusher who sees the world through the lens of "us" vs. "them", an opinion echoed by other editors at ANI threads and other editors not involved in this dispute (cf. Talk:British Pakistanis). JCAla has been just as bad, but has not edited as much in the past several months. TopGun faces POV-pushing issues himself, as does Mar4d.

As you can see from the links below, this has been a huge drain on community time, and I respectfully ask Arbcom to amend the remedy of the case to allow the sanctions. All previous attempts at fixing the issue have failed, and the only reason RFC's have not been tried is that everyone knows they would fail. To not allow an amendment would leave the community once again to try to implement a fix, something which it has failed at before (cf. with the interaction ban, which was eventually lifted as ineffective).

The following has a link to the discussions that have occurred just revolving around a few different users, all attempts to get the parties in line with proper conduct (the noticeboard links are just the ones that have occurred since ArbCom's rejection of the case 6 months ago; there are more in the archive, if an arbcom member wishes to look at the link I provided above of the previous decline):
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Top Gun & Darkness Shines
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive739
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive740
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive741
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive741
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive750
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756
 * Darkness Shines block log and unblock request block 1 (expired), unblock request block 2 (expired), 3 unblock requests block 3, one unblock request block 4 (withdrawn), 2 unblock requests block 5 (last one accepted), 3 unblock requests block 6, 5 unblock requests block 7 (last one accepted), 1-34 unblock 8 (all denied) - note, these are all just in the past 6 months.
 * TopGun block log (I don't have the patience to go through all the unblock requests on this one too, but I assure you they are manifold; they can be provided upon request; otherwise, Arbcom is encouraged to look through the talk history here)

PS. I am willing to remove myself from any action related to any one or more of the above parties regarding enforcement if ArbCom, the community, or any non-involved party whatsoever thinks this is important. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

PPS. FPaS is entirely correct about filibustering: the common tactic I've seen in use is textbook WP:SOUP, and it has been marvelously successful at confusing ANI and pushing blocks ever further away. Also, I forgot to mention there is rampant sockpuppetry in the area (User:Nangparbat and User:Lagoo sab). Finally, you will note below the traveling circus of POV-pushers that FPaS speaks of which all find no fault in editors on their own side. But you decide for yourselves if this editor (DS), which everyone below maintains if a bastion of neutrality, is a POV-pusher: his requests for unblock are mostly denied, he's been blocked by other admins on several occasions, he would have been blocked by other admins at some points if I hadn't stepped in,, and he makes wildly POV-pushy edits like this one (which I'll note he still maintains was a completely legitimate and neutral edit). His and JCAla's tactic of claiming that I am biased (which is ludicrous, seeing as I give not a single fuck about the parties in this dispute; JCAla in his diffs below cherry picked the two admins who didn't support my block versus the ~9 who did.) and trying to leverage that into claiming I'm too involved to block has been employed against other admins (e.g., User:TParis), in an attempt to chase off anyone who looks closely enough into the area to recognize their WP:BATTLEGROUND agenda. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.
Yes, please, do something. The situation is out of control [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=0&redirs=1&ns0=1&ns4=1&search=TopGun+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=JCAla+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns4=1&redirs=1&profile=advanced][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=Darkness+Shines+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns4=1&redirs=1&profile=advanced]. Last time I suggested imposing discretionary sanctions on a community basis, the ANI folks couldn't agree on anything. Admins have been curiously reluctant to use their tools in a decisive fashion – people in this field can collect seven or eight blocks in a row for disruptive editing within a few months, but admins will still not escalate the block lengths beyond a week or two, when it's pretty obvious that indef would be the only rational response [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADarkness+Shines][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AJCAla]. The topic area is poisoned by the presence of a small number of determined, incorrigible agenda editors, whose constants fights with each other have led a larger number of associates/allies/enablers into joining the "travelling circus", conforming their own editing to that same "us-versus-them" mold defined by their ringleaders' obsessions. The ringleaders need to be taken out. Don't ask us to take them to RFC/U first – an RFC/U works only on the optimistic assumption that a person might be prepared to listen. These guys have known their editing is offensive for ages; if they haven't begun listening yet, what reasons have we for hoping they ever will? Don't ask us to wait for mediation between them – that's a colossal waste of time, serving only to pamper their egos and train them to become even better filibusterers. We are dealing with a number of people here who are deeply, fundamentally unwilling to accept or even to conceive of "neutrality" as a desirable goal to strive for.

Do something. No matter what: take a full case, or decide per amendment motion. Ban the central figures yourselves, or just impose disc-sancs. But do something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and before it gets forgotten, please make sure to include also Afghanistan in the scope of this; the disruption there is intimately related. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To SilkTork and Risker: if you see the mediation as a reason for holding off with the discretionary sanctions, please consider the following:
 * The mediation only attempted to deal with one highly limited content issue. After three months, it is nowhere near solving even as much as that. It's moribund, and has been so for a while. The last bit of dialogue between the parties on the case page was almost two weeks ago.
 * Meanwhile, the travelling circus is busy moving elsewhere. Currently it's at Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, India and state terrorism and no doubt several other pages I've not been keeping track of.
 * Parties are still engaged in personal squabbles, exchanging accusations and spurious warnings, block-shopping and all sorts of similar noise (e.g. here, here).
 * Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vibhijain
I have to disagree with Magog the Ogre's statement. I don't think that DarknessShines is a "unrepentant POV-pusher". Magog has blocked him many times, and this one specially raises concerns. So does this. As of TopGun, he shows serious neutrality concerns. Along with attacking editors on the basis of their nationality, he has a history of making highly controversial and questionable edits and reverts, citing WP:BRD; and when someone reverts him, he harasses him crying hounding. The sad point is that he also gets support for his false accusations. The main purpose of TopGun, while editing Wikipedia, is evidently to push Pakistani POV, and he is also supported by other editors. This, and even this, shows some signs of blockshopping. Another point which I noticed, is that this case case came when DS was all set to open a case against MTO. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On accusations of hounding
 * Anti-Pakistan sentiment Through Interwiki links (Template:Kashmir separatist movement > Pro-Pakistan sentiment > Anti-Pakistan sentiment)
 * I Protest through Template:Kashmir separatist movement
 * Kashmir Solidarity Day through Template:Kashmir separatist movement
 * State-sponsored terrorism Through Interwiki links (2008 Mumbai attacks > Pakistan and state terrorism > State-sponsored terrorism)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 29 It on almost every Kashmir related article; its obvious to catch my eyes.
 * Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War I reached there through DarknessShines' user page, and watchlisted it.
 * Talk:Operation Dwarka TopGun's talk page is on my watchlist, and since being a controversial article in a bad state, I preferred to comment there.

Now I hope that no one other will put such allegations, and still if he/she wants, then I will be more happy to solve out those too. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC) A user puts tons of sources in the favour of keeping an article, despite the fact that they have no mention of the topic, and when a user does nothing rather than blindly accusing me of hounding, I think I am supposed to term those comments as baseless. Also watching someone' talk page is completely allowed, and its not my headache if you are involved in every dispute of this topic's articles. TopGun’s accusation that I am following his DYK noms is another baseless one. Please note that I have around 20 DYK credits and various DYK reviews, I am an active contributor to the DYK page, and I have reviewed various dyk noms. 1, 2 and 3 to name a few. Most, or I should say all DYK noms by TopGun have highly non-neutral hooks, and the article also aren't different. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to TopGun's accusations

Statement by JCAla

 * 1) The editors in the mentioned content area are currently engaged in a mediation process. An arbitration process for these issues is currently not warranted because it would be a parallel process disrupting mediation efforts. There is no urgent dispute which would cause disruption going on currently. Editors are discussing content disputes on talk pages.
 * 2) This arbitration request was initiated by Magog the Ogre not because of any urgent need with regards to a specific content issue (as mentioned above, mediation is already proceeding as a means of dispute resolution). Instead this request was made because Magog the Ogre's administrative competence has been questioned just yesterday by Darkness Shines. This was, according to Magog himself, the "that's it" that compelled him to open this arbitration request.
 * 3) Both administrators asking for sanctions, Magog the Ogre and Future Perfect at Sunrise, are involved editors/administrators in the topic area. Uninvolved administrators have said that Magog the Ogre appears to be involved and to lack neutrality. Magog bears bad feelings towards one part of the editors which makes him take unbalanced actions. Future Perfect at Sunrise is himself involved as an editor in a content dispute.
 * 4) Conclusion from me: An arbitration process for the content area is currently not warranted as a mediation is in full process. During the mediation period any wrong behavior can be dealt with by uninvolved administrators according to normal policy and procedure as agreed on at ANI just a short time ago. If the mediation fails, arbitration can still be requested. On Magog, he keeps refusing to accept that he is neither considered neutral nor uninvolved by several editors and administrators. Starting arbitration to get an editor who has criticized oneself off wikipedia is yet another sign. There are plenty of uninvolved administrators who have successfully acted in the content area, which do not lack the appearance of being neutral. Please accept this. JCAla (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TopGun

 * Since back in around November since I edited the Taliban article, the two editors who disputed my edits there (DarknessShines and JCAla) now have a dispute with me in all the articles I edit after they followed me there one after another. I reported DS's admitted and unrepentant stalking/hounding which resulted in an IBAN, after the administrators failed to enforce the IBAN (through which the stalking continued with vios only being on DS's part), the IBAN was removed on the pretext that admins would act on normal vios to make decision making easy for them. Yet many many requests to deal with the situation of the editors have been rejected with the excuse that it is difficult to gauge hounding/stalking even after I've presented with hard evidence of diffs . Another editor Vibhijain has started hounding me soon after his interaction with DS and who did not back off after a civil warning  and is not being dealt with the very same way . This has gone a step further   and the editor continues to unambiguously follow me around to revert my edits or oppose me. The same was the case with DBigXray who now tries not to appear following me around but games my 1RR restriction when ever he can with edit summaries about some thing completely different . As noted in his SPI he has also been suspected of meat and sock puppetry and only got away with it because I was reporting him and had content/conduct disputes with him. This user also pretended to be an administrator clearly lying . Based on this and the subsequent administrative failure I very strongly oppose discretionary sanctions as admins have already shown that they've been extremely poor in enforcing sanctions with the filibustering that goes around in this specific dispute and support that either arbcom takes the fully case or asks admins to make swift blocks when provided with hard evidence of diffs and patterns of diffs. Also agree with Fut perfect that the Afghanistan topic is very much in the range of this dispute. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to DBigXray's statement
 * The editor never assumes good faith on part of any editors opposing his views and calls any allegations on him with diffs as "baseless" some thing that Vibhijain does too now. Whenever warned civilly for editwar aor any other matter he instead chooses to point out my blocklog in reply to the warnings which actually contains many reverted blocks.
 * The "Blockshopping" as being called here are actually formal reports to administrators as it was explicitly said at ANI that me and Darkness shines should better stay off that page after I reported an IBAN vio with diffs and it was turned into a thread for topic bans instead of acting out on the actual vios. The point being about the further sanctions instead of enforcing the previous ones. -- lTopGunl (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to Vibhijain's statement
 * So we have a second user who agrees he stalks (atleast) my talkpage and follows my disputes. All other incidents also still categorize in hounding as they have short time difference and all oppose my edits. Just more reasons to take a case rather than hand over the power of handing out sanctions to the administrators who couldn't enforce them before either. It is quite funny to find the allegations of POV pushing on me when I am trying to get an NPOV or a combination of all POVs in balance while these editors simply want to remove any views they don't like and state Indian POV as neutral. Something to do with WP:MPOV. -- lTopGunl (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to TheSpecialUser's statement
 * Last I checked, opposing something against the majority was not a reason to believe the editor had bad faith and neither is the wikipedia a majoritarianism. I discussed the edit more than any of the users who commented there and actually found agreement with atleast 2 users who initial opposed my edit at Talk:Pakistan Zindabad. Also funny that none of my blocks were because of incivility. Such false accusations make me doubt TSU's intervention here in the first place. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Darkness Shines
Regarding blocks


 * 1) His first block was for edit warring which was completely unfounded in policy. I had but one revert on that article, and it has been my first revert in four days.
 * 2) His second block was also a violation of policy, wherein he accuse me of hounding I explained that I had gotten to the article in question via an RFC which had been posted on a user talk page He ignored this and allowed the block to run it's course.
 * 3) His third block was again entirely wrong.  Accuses me of edit warring and stalking. I explained how I had gotten to the article in question via internal links and it was obvious an article on a non existent word would be deleted. There had been no stalking nor edit warring on my part at all.
 * 4) The fact the Magog so blithely calls me a bigot in his statement above shows he has not an ounce of neutrality towards me whatsoever, such a blatant personal attack is proof of his attitude towards me. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

On accusations of hounding

 * 1) . Edit wars uncited content into an article.
 * 2) Reverets in unsourced content.
 * 3) Other states of India:- Citation needed. Various editors arguing with TG over his edit warring uncited content into an article.
 * 4) When pointed out on his talk page his habit of reverting unsourced content into articles he says "Blah"
 * 5) Reverts out reliably sourced content. He did not like it.
 * 6) Files an AN3 report, even though 3R was never broken by myself.
 * 7) Misrepresentation of sources
 * 8) Battlefield mentality, talks of "sides"
 * 9) Inter-Services Intelligence was locked for two weeks due to TG edit warring, his first action upon the article being unlocked, He reverts again. I endeavor to use only the best of sources, all are from academic publishing houses.
 * 10) Taliban we have the same issue again, TG reverts out huge amounts of content, all of which is sourced to academic publishers. He quite simply reverts out content which he thinks sheds a poor light on Pakistan.

As I pointed out to Magog I began to look into TG's edits after the fiasco at the Taliban article per WP:HOUND Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. Magog ignored all the above infractions of policy by TG and focused on my actions for reasons known only to himself. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Salvio giuliano
Well, to tell the truth, I'm not sure discretionary sanctions will be particularly helpful in this case due to the peculiarities of the topic area. First of all, it has been plagued by constant blockshopping, with users complaining about their opponents' edits on the talk pages of many different admins disclosure: I have received several requests to examine somebody else's edits. This is the area where an interaction ban between two editors had to be lifted because it was creating more drama than it was preventing, after all. Furthermore, only very few sysops have acted in an administrative capacity and, on top of that, some, though not all, have not always appeared neutral when brandishing their mops disclosure: and in a couple of circumstances, I have commented to that effect on the blockee's talk page. This does not mean they were not neutral, merely that they did not appear to be. Besides, owing to the incredible litigiousness of all editors involved, the sanctions imposed have not always received the appropriate level of review by the community. Actually, the reaction on ANI has been either aww, jeez, not this **** again or a chorus of let's ban them all and be done with them. Moreover, the editors involved in this topic area are very few (fewer than ten). I realise that the ongoing disruption needs to be stopped; however, as I have already said, I'm not sure the imposition of discretionary sanctions is the best way forward. That said, if the Committee were to consider them unavoidable, I'd like to urge you to consider not imposing the standard set of discretionary sanctions, but to shape them in a way that takes into account the peculiarities of the topic area (particularly the litigiousness, lack of appearance of neutrality and blockshopping). Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by DBigXray

 * I was not a party to this case as the nominator Magog had only mentioned 5 names as involved users and TopGun has wrongly dragged me here by adding 2 more names to make this a soup and distract the case. This also comes after I was recently threatened by topGun for commenting at ANI. I hope the arbcom members will note this and remove the extra names as attempts to distract,  noting that  I have never been blocked or accused by any editor other than TopGun (who because of a few content disputes likes to take my name everywhere)
 * 1) User:TopGun (previously edited as User:Hassanhn5) keeps pushing Pakistani POV in Wiki articles (and can be clearly seen in his edits) using unsourced or poorly sourced (blogs, SPS) contents and is often met by resistance from other editors. In past I had disputes when he tried to disrupt (insert POV and remove sourced content) in india related articles under my watchlist. To get me out of his way he had desperately tried all attempts of getting me blocked by all possible means and failed in all of them.
 * 2) Its not easy for a such edits to go un noticed on wikipedia. And whenever the other editors complain of his behavior he prefers calling them Sockpuppets  and  . TopGun has made failed attempts to get me blocked by falsely accusing me for Sockpuppetry  . Inspite of the fact that I  was cleared and the case was closed, he keeps wrongly accusing me for his imaginary socks.
 * 3) TopGun has tried block shopping against me by canvassing on talk pages of admins and editors, ,(many more..) and called me a vandal and presented a content dispute at AIV for a quick block on me
 * On accusations by TopGun:


 * 1) TopGun makes controversial edits on articles and whenever the page watchers revert him he accuses everyone else (with whom TopGun has content disputes) of hounding. this observation has also been supported by Magog himself . In past  also TopGun tried to get me blocked my making a concocted report at ANI hoping that he might get me banned by incorrectly accusing me of "hounding", for editing my watchlisted articles and failed.
 * 2) In response to an 11 month old diff presented by TopGun above on accusing me of posing as admin where I was trying to warn a proven Vandal about Vandalism is yet another ill-intentioned attempt to show me in a bad light. I was new to wikipedia and was  trying to discourage  a vandal only account from vandalizing wikipedia. later on I learnt that there are templates to warn them so started using them. The very next day that account was blocked indefinitely for being a Vandalism only account. But the Arbcom members must also note that TopGun brings this incident with carefully worded phrases  every time he makes a complaint against me and here as well.
 * 3) The diff of the revert pointed by TopGun above was done by me in accordance with the talk page discussion here, when other editors had pointed source misrepresentation by TopGun.
 * Unlike TopGun who follows WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and has a block log filled with edit warring and disruptive editing,  I have never been blocked neither have I been warned for any issue.


 * It is to be noted that TopGun makes regular visits to Magog's page for block shopping instead of  taking the issue to the ANI as his attempts of block shopping have a much higher success rate at Magog's page than at Admin notice boards.

As it is evident by the diffs provided by the many editors here, this is more of a user conduct issue which could have been handled in a better way by uninvolved admins. The block shopping and subsequent blocks by involved admins have brought this here. It will not be appropriate to put up Discretionary sanctions to block any of the editors in this topic area, just by the wrong doings of individual users above. The action by Arbcom if any should be taken on the erring users and not the topic area as a whole.-- D<font color="#DA500B">Big X<font color="#10AD00">ray  17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It must be duly pointed out that block shopping at admin's talk pages need to end and if there is a genuine concern then it should be posted at appropriate noticeboards where "uninvolved" admins can take proper actions (or boomerang if appropriate). I am in complete agreement with Salvio's comment above. -- D<font color="#DA500B">Big X<font color="#10AD00">ray  07:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Request

Request 2
AS evident by the comments of admins User:Magog the Ogre and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise above, I will also request the arbcom to prevent these two admins from taking administrative actions against the editors in this topic area, as they are clearly involved and their admin actions are biased while dealing with few specific editors in this topic area. -- D<font color="#DA500B">Big X<font color="#10AD00">ray  19:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TheSpecialUser
I completely disagree when MTO calls DS an "unrepentant POV-pusher who sees the world through the lens of "us" vs. "them"". DS's edits may look controversial but none of them are disputing neutrality or using unreliable sources. As far as his reverts for TGs edits are concerned, TG's edits were controversial and subject to eventual talks or RFCs at talk pages or user talk pages. MTO being an admin has made few uncivil kind of personal attacks to DS. Especially this didn't look appropriate at all as the editor wasn't even warned or asked for clarification prior to the block. This isn't my main point at this statement. I will have to say that it is actually TopGun and at times Mar4d who have pushed POV and they seem to remove addition of any content that sheds a poor light on Pakistan. They have also been adding data which is not so in favor of Indian authorities at Jammu & Kashmir or related issues negatively. The best example of this "biased behavior" can be found at where TG and M4 introduced links (I Protest, Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and Media curbs and usage of social networking sites in Kashmir) which have no connection whatsoever to separatist movement. These links don't even have any content related to the movement and still get a place in the template. Another example is Pakistan Zindabad where TG removes data which is completely sourced with WP:RS and the incident is notable enough to have a mention but still it was removed just because it was proving a bad point for his country, I was totally shocked by such biased behavior (Pakistan Zindabad incident lead to a Talk:Pakistan_Zindabad where editors are in clear support of inclusion). This is nothing but clear POV pushing. He also accused Vibhijain of HOUNDING which was not a case there. HOUNDING says that edits that are intended to dispute or badger the editor in a wrong way is HOUNDING but addition of material and other fixes in good faith are not HOUNDING. Since long TG has accused people of HOUNDING and still does as he doesn't seem to understand what WP:HOUND is. Since long TopGun has followed such behavior and has faced many blocks due to incivility or personal attacks (hostile editing against Darkness Shines, improper calling of "sock") or breaking IBAN or Disruptive editing. He has since long continued to make this site WP:BATTLEGROUND and one of the instances can be found here. This dispute doesn't look like it is going to end. I believe that a ban from Indo-Pak related articles will be the best possible solution to this continued conflict.  — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 05:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Anir1uph
I have been an active Wikipedia editor for the past 6 months. I edit many articles, and that includes articles about my country, India. I have observed the process of edits, reverts and ANI proceedings from the sidelines for some time. I am here as an editor whose willingness to edit, add content and removed vandalism/violations from these articles has been diminished. This is because of two reasons:
 * 1) Fear of swift administrator intervention, due to a complaint against me by an opposing party. I am here to devote my time on Wikipedia's article space. Being caught up in ANIs, with a possibility of being handed out blanket bans is terrifying to me. I would not like to be dragged into an official mess for cases that ideally require more discussions on the talk pages.
 * 2) Distractions caused to regular editing, by users who hold opposite views but are reluctant to discuss them, and are willing to enforce them using tactics like talk page intimidation (as illustrated in the examples linked in the previous sections).


 * In my opinion,
 * 1) Placing blanket sanctions on the topic area will not be very effective as it won't solve the root of the problem, which, in my opinion is a user conduct issue here.
 * 2) Administrators on Wikipedia are like administrators anywhere. In all progressive democracies, there is a time-bound change of guard, of elected politicians and behind the scene bureaucrats. This i believe is done to ensure that an administrator appointed to a particular 'region' does not become all-powerful and start to 'intimidate' his/her subjects. Similarly, when an administrator on wikipedia remains associated with a disputed subject for a long time, any action by him/her that might even appear to be biased causes further agitation among opposing users. The problem is made worse by the fact that other/uninvolved Wikipedia administrators do not like to intervene on seeing an admin already 'handling business'. A vicious cycle is formed, which might discourage other editors from contributing to such articles/topics.

I would urge the ArbCom to ponder over these issues.

Thanking you all,

Anir1uph (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Strike Eagle
I completely disagree with Magog the Ogre's description of Darkness Shines as a unrepentant POV-pusher.Darkness Shines has been doing great service to neutralize the POV pushing that plagues many(most) of the Indo-Pakistani articles.Magog the Ogre was always involved in the dispute when he repeatedly blocked Darkness Shines.There was obviously some kind of blockshopping due to which Darkness Shines was indiscriminately blocked many times.MTO ridiculously accuses DS of Anti-Pakistani editing while he supports TG and Mar4d who openly push anti-india propoganda.


 * User:TopGun has always been trying in extreme magnitudes to push Pakistani POV in any article he finds..TopGun has been Templaring and warning regular and established editors as they stand against his pov pushing. .He regularly(and baselessly) accuses DBigXray and Vibhijain(sysop elsewhere) for hounding .TopGun has a good history of edit-warring due to which he was blocked quite a good number of times and was even stripped off his rollback privelages.It's ridiculous to see him accuse another established editor for edit-warring and hounding.

Mar4d's follows a different pattern of POV pushing where he pushes his point silently so that no one notices his edits.He doesn't appear on other user talk pages as frequently as TG but his effect on articles is quite high too.

I hereby request the ArbCom to take necessary action against TopGun and Mar4d-Discrete Sanctions or Ban.Darkness Shines and JCAla, who have been working for NPOV in the conflicted articles must be freed of the charges.Vibhijain and DBigXray who were dragged into the dispute by TG have no major role in it and hence I think must be removed from the list. Sincerely,  TheStrike  Σagle   13:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

On Accusations of POV Pushing by Mar4d
The only major POV dispute I have ever been involved was a userbox I created.Mar4d nominated it for deletion saying that it was not in use and unnecessary.Who is he to decide what is necessary here? Unfortunately(for Mar4d) the MfD was closed as keep with no delete !vote other than Mar4d's. perhaps his friends were off-wiki that time .It is clear that Mar4d accuses other users for POV pushing while he himself does it all the time.Hope this clears the accusation. Regards  TheStrike  Σagle   13:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Smsarmad
I don't know why my name was added here as none of the statements given up till now state my name. As I edit in this topic area so I will like to share my observation: that whenever an editor persistently pushes his/her POV in a topic area giving an impression that he/she is working on some agenda here at Wikipedia, the editors contributing to the same topic area how much neutral they may be but a time will come that they will be forced to push the opposite POV instead of coming to neutral ground. The problems in this topic area are so difficult to handle that most of the admins avoid using their tools in this area or even try to understand what the actual problem is and what is its cause? I have been viewing Darkness Shines’s (DS) edits in the Pakistan topic area, for the last 7 months. Per my observation he is continuously pushing his POV and disrupting any good effort put by most of the other editors working in this topic. I have raised this issue previously many times (some other editors also did this). Some of his edits that don’t need much explanation describing his POV:, , , ,

Not to mention his uncivil behavior, creation of article to piss other editors, hounding other editors, as they are separate and lengthy chapters.

On calling an admin involved I will just say that DS calls anyone involved/not neutral admin whoever supported Bwilkins idea of blocking him for six months,in the last discussion at ANI so that includes: Bwilkins,The Bushranger, Dennis Brown, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Magog. Though till now he has called only Bwilkins, Magog and Future Perfect as involved, with this argument but I don’t see it far that all the other admins who supported his block will be accused of being involved whenever they take some action against him. So I think an editor should not be given the right to call an admin being biased/involved just because he/she blocked or supported/upheld a block of that editor previously. It will set a bad precedence leading to problems for the administrators dealing with disruptive editors.

There is much more happening in this topic area that most of the outside editors are possibly not aware of, like creation of retaliatory articles, hounding, teaming up, defending an editor or his/her actions whenever an action is (or going to be) taken by an admin, accusing any admin who takes action of being involved/biased, accusing editors (including admins) of being friend of the other editor, giving barnstars to each other with inflammatory comments against other editors soon after a discussion is concluded, etc. All this is now increasing with more editors following the path of others who did this successfully and have become a role model. Also the frequency of these kind of disruptive activities is increasing. Actually this is one of the reasons that my contributions are declining too as I avoid these disputes as much as I can. That is why I think Arbitration Committee should take a thorough look into this (that unfortunately most of the admins avoid), that I guess is possible if a full arbitration case is taken. Apparently it looks like that discretionary sanctions will solve the problems in this topic area but it will not be plugging (only) the right hole, instead it is like plugging all the holes, that will have collateral damage to some extent as issues which arise in this topic area are so complex sometimes that it is difficult for an admin to act without thoroughly checking the lengthy history of the events, so sometimes they avoid using the (sysop) tools. So my only concern about giving admins the powers of discretionary sanctions is why ArbCom is leaving this case once again for the admins, majority of whom are probably reluctant to act in this topic. Besides I would like to mention about the more visible display of Battleground mentality .i.e. the addition of my name to the involved/affectee list that apparently looks like an "us vs them" approach. -- S M S  Talk 22:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Stfg
In addition to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, I suggest including Bangladesh in the list of countries covered by the motion. There has been extensive battling by the same editors over articles related to it. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend
Just ran across this by accident while looking for more context on the change-of-username motion; I'm not at all involved with Indo-Pakistani disputes. If this motion pass, does that mean that this arbitration decision would be binding on random people who dispute sports stats for Vijay Singh or who disagree on the US political aspects of business process outsourcing in India? Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring rules to respond inline here: see the discussion at the very bottom by the arbs. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by The Blade of the Northern Lights
Although I haven't been particularly involved in the situations leading up to this, I do have a lot of experience dealing in the closely related topic specifically covered already. I'm fine with adding discretionary sanctions, but I'm not sure how effective they'll be. Setting aside the problems that Salvio giuliano says above about experienced editors, anyone who's done any NPP or editing in the topic area will recognize the substantial problem created by new users as well. Many seem to treat Wikipedia articles as a place to practice their English, which wouldn't be a bad thing were it not for the fact that most of their English skills are atrocious and create another layer of communication problems; looking at Talk:Nair and its archives is fairly demonstrative of the problem. Discretionary sanctions can only do so much to solve those sorts of problems; what's needed is more admin attention, which from what I can see isn't forthcoming. So while I think discretionary sanctions will help, the underlying problem to me seems more like the lack of admins willing to head this off at the pass. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 21:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by user Fifelfoo
Arbitrators ought to be aware that there is an existing community sanction of general discretionary sanctions regarding caste and sub-groups. This community sanction will of course keep running regardless of your decision—some day you may reverse yourselves, correspondingly the community must reverse itself on its sanction that overlaps with this one to some extent. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek
Ugh. Usually I do an excellent job of avoiding controversy, contentious topics, disputes, and anything that remotely smells of "trouble" but it seems I have somehow stumbled into this, mostly because I began editing some articles related to Bangladesh out of a personal interest.

So.

First, whatever is done, you should add Bangladesh to the "India, Pakistan, Afghanistan" list since this stuff has already began spilling over there.

Second, I'm torn between, on the one hand, my established disdain for "discretionary sanctions" and the sincere belief that these often do nothing but pour gasoline on the fire - in many cases instituting "discretionary sanctions" is like exporting arms to war torn countries, it just provides another weapon for people to fight with - and, on the other hand, the obviousness that there's plenty of trouble going on here. So it's a sort of 60% Salvio Guiliano 40% Future Perfect kind of thing going on here.

What really would work at this point is involvement in the topic area of some knowledgeable, respected and diplomatic uninvolved editors. If you know of any, you should hire them. Or just record their existence, before that species goes extinct (again). In absence of that, discretionary sanctions *could* work as long as it's not just a "we'll put in the discretionary sanctions and then abandon the issue and pretend it's solved" ... kind of thing. If you do put in discretionary sanctions, be prepared to deal with follow up complaints, with a whole new slew of WP:AE reports (most of which, but not all, will be petty and stupid, and further proof that Wikipedia IS in fact a battleground) and more work for yourselves (which you can always evade by pointing out that the ArbCom is not concerned with content disputes).

Honestly, to deal with these perennial consanguineous areas you're going to have to start appointing "Tsars" (like the "Education Tsar" or "Drug Tsar") or at least "Surgeons Generals". Or maybe Consuls. And with the consuls, there was always two of them. So I nominate Salvio Guiliano and Future Perfect as the first two Consuls of the "India-Pakistan-Afghanistan-Bangladesh" topic area. With Fifelfoo as the tribune, just to watch over them.<font color="Orange">Volunteer <font color="Blue">Marek 03:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist
Were the relevant Wikiprojects notified (eg via noticeboards for related topics) - that you intend on putting this DS regime on anything related to these countries? Next, should we expect you to also put the entire project on DS without properly consulting community first? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by RegentsPark
Like Ncm above, I'm a little disappointed that we have arbs voting on sanctions without seeking wider input from the community that will be affected by those sanctions. However, if that's the way things are then that's the way they are.

I think discretionary sanctions are unnecessary. To the contrary, I think the problem in this area has been an excess of admin involvement and admin action. Punitive blocks applied at will, restrictions imposed on the various participants that are really not warranted, gratuitous lectures about behavior that are better suited to parent child interactions than to admin/editor interactions, stuff like that. This has lead to a poisonous atmosphere marked mainly by block shopping and a constant low grade complaining about other editors. My suggestions, perhaps too late since arbs seem to have already made up their minds, are the following:
 * 1) Remove all restrictions on all participants in these areas. This has more or less been done through ANI though there may be other restrictions on these editors that I am unaware off.
 * 2) Remind admins that they should use their tools minimally, only when there are clear transgressions.
 * 3) Remind admins that they should be sparse in their comments. Comment only on the transgression not on editors.--regentspark (comment) 16:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional note
Now that I've had the time to look at this further, I think Magog is overstating the "disruptive" nature of what is going on here. A look at the block log of both DarknessShines as well as TopGun shows that most of l the blocks were for violating one restriction or another. The restrictions were the problem and the predictably unfortunate effect of discretionary sanctions is going to be more blocks not less. The ANI cases were largely initiated by two of the editors, DarknessShines and TopGun, probably because block shopping on technical violations of the restrictions was, partly anyway, turning out to be an effective weapon against each other. I believe this is better handled on a case by case basis using the normal way of dealing with edit warring or tendentious editing rather than through adding to the bureaucratic overhead by placing more restrictions on both these editors (and, incidentally, on any other editor who may happen to be editing these pages). --regentspark (comment) 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Fowler&fowler
This very bizarre. Discretionary sanctions are being considered for India and Pakistan related pages, yet, none of the significant contributors to these pages (see, for example, here) know about this. No announcement had been made on WikiProject India, until NCMvocalist just made his. Most editors making statements above (who edit South Asia-related pages), on the other hand, seem to be relatively new users; all are seasoned at edit-warring and POV pushing; all know enough wikilawyering to template me for writing this sentence. <font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler <font color="#708090">«Talk» 16:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Recuse - I'm one of the two mediators in the RfM before the Mediation Committee. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Enacting the motion now. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Seems a good idea - a preliminary circuit breaker on pages with ongoing troubled history which can be installed with a minimum of effort for (hopefully) some settling of behaviour. I'm inclined to post a motion as requested but will wait for some more input. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that enabling discretionary sanctions for this topic area seems like a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur, and am fairly surprised it hasn't been done already, given the level of disruption that goes on in this area. Courcelles 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I think a motion is probably the best way forward. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this remedy, adopted in 2007 (before my time on the Committee) in a case involving India-related articles, could be viewed as a primitive phrasing of discretionary sanctions? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I detect a hint of nostalgia the good old days when we could have remedies calling for people to be hit on the head with sticks? Kirill [talk] 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the clerk in that case, and I remember asking the arbitrator who drafted the decision (Mackensen) whether I really had to post the decision with that in it. He said yes. At the time I was aghast. After four and a half years arbitrating, I understand now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues above, and have proposed a motion to that effect. Kirill [talk] 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Motion (India-Pakistan)
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

For this motion, there are 12 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.


 * Support
 * Proposed per discussion above. Kirill [talk] 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Added Afghanistan per the comments below. Kirill [talk] 03:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Necessary to maintain order. Courcelles 00:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Fut Perf's comment this should include Afghanistan as well. PhilKnight (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * + Afghanistan too Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed (though not surprised) that discretionary sanctions for these topics were recently proposed as a community measure at ANI, but failed to achieve consensus. It is so obviously needed. AGK  [•] 13:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * There are a number of statements saying that this is not needed, and there is a call to wait until the Mediation case has finished. If the community are in the process of resolving this dispute, then it is too soon for the Committee to be stepping in. <font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  19:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with SilkTork - we should not be acting while this is being actively discussed in a lower level of dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * I support the intent, but shouldn't this be limited to pages or edits concerning national, ethnic, or similar disputes between or within India and Pakistan? I wouldn't think the discretionary sanctions would be needed for every single article relating to India or Pakistan. (At least I hope not!) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Our other geographic discretionary sanctions are purely region-based, with no reference to the specific nature of the edit. Given how disputes of this nature can pop up on otherwise seemingly uncontroversial articles, it seems more straightforward to authorize discretionary sanctions for the entire area rather than requiring administrators to individually add articles once a dispute flares up. Kirill [talk] 02:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Kirill--on non-controversial pages they shouldn't have any effect, but can be applied broadly and quickly in case of flare-ups. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
Initiated by  Darkness Shines (talk) at 21:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Principle 1
 * 2) Finding 2
 * 3) Remedy 3


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Mar4d (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)


 * Information about amendment request


 * Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
 * Details of desired modification

Statement by Darkness Shines
During this initial case mention was made of how editors should not restore edits by sockpuppets. I recently discovered that a motion was passed by the committee regarding this behaviour on articles pertaining to R&I I request an addition to the arbitration enforcement be laid down for the India-Pakistan which is the same. "no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor" As recently edits made by the banned user:Nangparbat are continually being restored. And there have been others previously. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to the The Devils Advocate, I am not trying to chip away at anything. Sockpuppets have been a bane on the topic area for years. If nobody can restore their edits it is one less reason for them to sock. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I should also like a motion passed that editors may not remove suspected sockpuppet tags from suspected sockpuppet user pages as is also being done Darkness Shines (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Really? Under which policy would that be then? I have already reported that sock to Elockid who is now keeping an eye on it for when it returns. If I suspect a sock I will tag it as such. Or would you have blocked me for tagging these I believe I have had a few wrong, and self reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * O shit tim, I did it again Really. what a wanker I am, I accuse people of being socks, ask yourself, how often am I wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
This appears to be an issue for AE to decide based on the principle that an editor restoring edits by a banned editor takes responsibility for those edits, as well as the issue of edit-warring. If Darkness objects to these edits and Mar restoring them repeatedly then it should be examined in that respect and not be used as a way to slowly chip away at the exemptions allowed in WP:BAN through bureaucratic fiat.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets are typically a bane in every topic area.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mar4d
The analogy present here is incorrect; any user who restores a sock's edit does so on their own behalf and it is usually when he/her feels that this edit was valid. What if a sock revert vandalism, will you revert that too? Furthermore, an amendment like this will not go down well because Darkness Shines has a history of targeting innocent IP editors 86.x, 109.x, 39.x IP ranges who were not related to a sock. There are hundreds of people using these ranges and if this gets passed, then DS will pretty much revert anyone whom he thinks to be a sock on hindsight without evidence, as he is doing with another long-established User:Jozoisis using his poor judgement. He is kind of topic banning all editors from editing using the sock label even when usually in those cases there is nothing to suggest that this particular editor may be a sock.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 01:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Richwales
Per WP:BAN: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban....  This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor....  When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons.  Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content."

The above general policy has, admittedly, been made more stringent by ArbCom in the Race and Intelligence topic, where they have enacted a blanket prohibition of all reinstatements of edits by banned editors. The Race and Intelligence motion was, as best I can tell, passed in response to a particularly troublesome situation which was originally dealt with in an arbitration case. Quoting from the originally enacted remedies in that case: "[T]his topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment."  While I understand Darkness Shines's concerns over endemic sockpuppetry on India-Pakistan-related articles, I don't see any similar finding in the India-Pakistan arbitration case comparable to what happened at Race and Intelligence, so I believe that leapfrogging to a similarly draconian regime in this topic would be premature at the present time.

Regarding tagging of suspected sockpuppets, I am strongly inclined here to agree with Mar4d — if you (Darkness Shines) are going to accuse someone of being a sock, you need to also report the suspect at WP:SPI, and you need to present " clear simple evidence " supporting your suspicion — see the "Important notes" section at the start of the WP:SPI page. And since you presumably have such evidence readily at hand (you've got no business tagging someone as a suspected sock in the first place if you don't have evidence!), you should present your evidence at SPI first — or, at the very least, simultaneously with the user page tag. You cannot simply do a drive-by sock tagging, and then object to people removing the tag because you have said "an SPI is underway" but have not actually shown anyone any evidence yet. I looked at the SPI page for Highstakes00 (the puppet master who you allege is behind Jozoisis), and I don't see any report from you there to back up your suspicions — so as best I can tell, you have not yet provided any evidence, and Mar4d was right to quote policy and challenge your tag on Jozoisis's user page, and you should not have reverted him, but you should instead have put your evidence together and presented it at SPI.

Finally, I would remind Darkness Shines that edit-warring / revert-warring is not appropriate even in situations where you are convinced you are right and others are wrong. — Rich wales 04:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Following up on the above, Darkness Shines [ posted a comment on my talk page] saying: "The SPI is being done off wiki as this particular master is highly proficent at evading detection. That is all I am willing to say on the matter."  Since (as I said) he posted this to my talk page, I am not violating any confidences by reposting it here.


 * Even in a case like this, something should still have been mentioned at WP:SPI — even if only to say something like "evidence has been e-mailed to ArbCom owing to its sensitive nature". If the situation is so sensitive that you don't even believe you can post something as vague as that at SPI, then (in my opinion) it would be better for you not to say anything at all publicly — not even to leave a tag on the suspected sock's user page — and instead leave the tagging to be done later, by the SPI clerks, once your evidence has been followed up on.  Again, people have a right (per policy and common sense) to expect substantiation of any public allegation of sockpuppetry; and if you publicly accuse someone of being a sock while at the same time refusing to say anything about your reasons (not even saying that you have evidence and have communicated it off-wiki), then no one has any reason to accept your allegation, and you have no grounds to be surprised or upset if others cite policy and take down the tag which you are declining to back up with any evidence.  —  Rich wales 05:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @T.Canens — In DS's defence, I will note that the sockpuppet (or sock) template does include a default option which advises that "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet". Since this option still exists, I assume it is still permissible to use it — if that is no longer considered appropriate, then someone needs to revise the template and remove this option.  I will stick to my earlier statement that if one is going to tag a user as a suspected sock, this action absolutely must be accompanied by appropriate evidence (or notice of an off-wiki submission of evidence) on the accused sockmaster's SPI page.  Additionally, IMO, a "suspected" sock should not have his edits reverted on sight, on the grounds that they are the work of a banned user, until and unless said suspicion is confirmed through the SPI process.  Anyone who accuses another editor of being a sock, starts reverting that person's edits on this basis without bothering to wait for SPI, and reverts/rebukes others who object to such misbehaviour, needs to stop right now — and if I were to observe someone doing such a thing, I would give them a final/only warning (if they hadn't already been warned) and then block them.  —  Rich wales 06:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @DS — Replying to [} this notice] on your talk page, I did not say I would block you (or someone acting as you've been doing) "for using a %^€*!%@ template for the reason it is there". I said I would block someone for the combination of using the sock template to accuse someone of being a sock and not submitting evidence to SPI (or giving notice that said evidence had been submitted off-wiki) and reverting the accused's work without waiting for an SPI determination and publicly objecting to other people not accepting all this.  That's not making up policy AFAIK, it's following policy.  I'm sorry if I've offended you by explaining why I don't think what you've been describing is in keeping with the policies — and if the consensus turns out to be that I've seriously misinterpreted the relevant policies here, I'll readily offer an apology — but this is what I currently understand would be the only appropriate way to handle such a situation.  Have faith in the SPI process; if your evidence is clear, the socks will be definitively labelled as such soon enough, and you or others can clean up their mess at that time.  —  Rich wales 07:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I also brought up a related general question at WT:SPI (see Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive12) — people contributing here might also want to comment there. I should probably have mentioned that other discussion here earlier; sorry about the delay. — Rich wales 19:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TC
If there's to be an restriction here, it needs to be on DS, who had been restricted from filing SPI requests related to Nangparbat because it was getting disruptive.

So what did they do? Why, reverting edits by new accounts as Nangparbat socks, of course. Tagging them, too. The catch is, they've done all this without any actual case or checkuser done, as far as I can tell. In fact, the account he reverted as a sock remains unblocked to this day. This is, to put it simply, not how things are, or should be, done.

It is simple common sense that sockpuppet tags should never be placed on a user page, unless the sockpuppetry is established and the account is blocked. Twinkle used to have an option to tag accounts at the time of filing an SPI report; that option was removed and for a very good reason: tags when socking has not been established provides virtually no benefit, yet alienates innocent editors and clutters the tracking categories. I fully intend to block DS the next time he tags an account as a sockpuppet that is not currently blocked. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by DeltaQuad
I was the administrator who put the original restriction on DS because of there being issues of baseless SPIs being filed. One of the conditions was that DS may not file against Nangparbat. This is now worse off than it started, we are going from baseless SPIs to not even presenting evidence, but making a closed decision on who's a sock of who. While I admit (although I haven't looked for the behavior to verify it, i'm trusting the administrator's judgement) that DS has done some correct reverts like User:109.145.251.152 which was blocked, reverts and tags like those to User:Desiray09 are not appropriate as there is no trail of evidence to link this to the master, and it's one edit. If there is a block or something because DS emailed another admin or something, that's fine. It shows a second step in the process which is critical, especially when users can present bias from editing in the subject area. This is why a ruling that "editors may not remove suspected sockpuppet tags from suspected sockpuppet user pages", as requested by DS, would be problematic. It also creates a horrible restriction if people are wrong and need to remove the tags, which i've had to do in my wiki-lifetime a few times.

On to the actual request for clarification, the request for a restriction that "no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor" actually undermines the policy at WP:BAN in which the community policy says that editors take responsibility for any edits restored. While I agree it's not optimal to restore banned editors contributions, if it's a good improvement, then why should we chuck it out the door? Were already blocking them, or protecting articles, making it harder for them to edit, it's not like we are giving too much attention to the issue. I haven't specifically looked over the R/I ArbCom motion yet, but as Rich stated above,. There has been no presented evidence to indicate that this area is hostile, and further more, I don't see the extensive disruption. So there is no precedent to go on, and it undermines community policy in a way that would hurt it, not help it. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  09:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Smsarmad
Now that this issue has been brought here I request attention of people (who allowed administrators to issue discretionary sanctions in this topic area) to look how this (current) issue began. About a month back a probable sock of Nangparbat removed this massive POV links from the see also section, which was reverted by User:Darkness Shines. Just take a look at pre-sock edited version (I am referring to note at the top of the page and links in the see also section) and tell me how effective Discretionary sanctions are to stop disruption and POV editing in this topic area. Edit war still continues on this issue at multiple articles by some editors avoiding the talkpage discussion. -- S M S  Talk 17:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Elockid
Tagging suspected socks even before they blocked or confirmed is not an uncommon practice. However, I do not advise in tagging socks until there is sufficient evidence to warrant a tag. By sufficient evidence I mean something usually in the case of more than one edit though there are exceptions. In the particular case where DS asked me to take a look a suspected while subsequently tagging it, I feel that perhaps tagging the account was a bit early. It might be possible that the suspected account is indeed a sock but I feel the evidence isn't really there at the moment. Was the tagging inappropriate? Some would say yes, some would say no. IMO, there really isn't an established standard on when to tag socks. I believe that DS is helpful in the aspect that he's reporting suspected socks to me, however as I said previously, greater caution should be taken.

@DS This isn't NP. That's if memory serves me right.  Elockid   ( Talk ) 14:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark
Commenting on the narrow clarification and amendment request by DarknessShines. It is true that these areas are plagued by socks of banned editors and that DS is good at detecting their presence and therefore we should cut him some slack for the occasional error, but that doesn't mean he gets a free ride to template at will. However, since these banned editors are merely here to cause disruption (as Elen writes, this is unlike in the R&I case where the banned editors are committed agenda driven pov pushers), I think that we need only assert a couple of principles that are already self-evident rather than escalating it with revisions or extensions of the original sanctions.
 * 1) It is true that any edit by a banned user is subject to reversion, however useful it may appear to be. But, a corollary to this is that if a banned user's edit is restored by an editor in good standing, with an explanation as to why the content is useful, then that edit may no longer be considered to have been made by a banned user and inclusion or exclusion of the material should be determined solely on its merits. However, as a matter of prudence, I'd suggest getting consensus on the talk page before attempting to restore the material.
 * 2) If someone restores a banned editor's content addition then, rather than getting into an edit war over the material, ask for help from an admin. These topic areas are under discretionary sanctions and any uninvolved admin can take whatever action (blocks, protection, topic bans) that is necessary to restore order.--regentspark (comment) 15:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * I've asked the clerks to delist this request as declined after 24-48 hours, absent any change in the balance of arbitrator opinion in the next section (or objection to archival from my colleagues). AGK  [•] 01:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Without a clear pattern of abuse and disruption, and evidence of the community trying and failing to deal with that disruption, ArbCom would not get involved. ArbCom are not the Wikipedia police, nor any form of authority - we are a group of fellow Wikipedians who have volunteered to temporarily act in a committee which by agreement of the community makes final and binding decisions in cases of dispute which the community have been unable to resolve. The nature of our role is that we do not step in too early. This request appears to be too early. <font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  11:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Race & Intelligence case, a set of banned editors were continuing to cause a great deal of problems with wholly disruptive edits being restored by editors in breach of their own topic bans. The evidence doesn't suggest that we are at this stage yet in this area. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the request here demonstrates that the former prohibition should be appropriately narrowly drawn: since edits relating to a topic made by a banned editor and later removed would be considered edits on that topic, editors topic banned from that particular topic would be in breach of that topic ban by restoring them. Blanket prohibitions on non-sanctioned editors restoring banned user edits would foreclose the ability of editors in good standing to proxy the useful contributions of banned editors, an option the committee has extended to banned editors in the past. Full disclosure: I did not support that motion, for this reason and other concerns. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would decline this amendment request, per my three colleagues above. AGK  [•] 09:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with my colleagues - I think we should decline this amendment request. PhilKnight (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the commenters and with my colleagues that we should not act on this request. With regard to the more general issue, the observations by Richwales and the other administrators who have commented are generally sound. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: Ancient History of India-Pakistan (January 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Robert McClenon (talk) at 17:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * §Standard discretionary sanctions
 * §Standard discretionary sanctions

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

Statement by User:Robert McClenon
There are currently multiple WP:ANI threads concerning the hypothesis that the Indo-European languages originated in India, as opposed to the hypothesis accepted by most scholarship that these languages originated to the west of India and spread both east into India by migration and west into Europe by migration. They include Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. My question is whether tendentious and disruptive editing about this aspect of the ancient history of India is subject to WP:ARBIPA, in which case discretionary sanctions are applicable, or whether WP:ARBIPA only applies to the modern history of the subcontinent. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise
No need for clarification: of course DS applies. The ideological fight over the origins of the Indo-Aryans is a classic hotspot of modern nationalist discourses in India, and the backdrop of modern Hindu nationalism is the one thing that keeps these disputes alive on Wikipedia and makes them so much politically charged. This is precisely what the DS are for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
I am surprised to see this asked. The sanctions are exactly what they say. Time is not of the essence and, as Fut. Perf. notes, the particular issues being referred to are a well-known hotspot on WP, certainly in part because of what is often descrived as the Hindutva "revisionist" approach to history. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}
< !-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

Clerk notes

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

Ancient History of India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed." No time frame is given, or in my opinion, implied.  If it was desired to limit the DS to the modern era, the remedy would say so.  And I think a time-frame would be a horrible idea, one cannot disconnect the long (even ancient) history of this region from the modern states.    Agree with FPaS on his interpretation. Courcelles 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty straightforward. The discretionary sanctions apply here and to all related pages, whatever period they cover. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues. By way of comparison, topic ban restrictions in the Argentine History, and Fæ cases are explicitly time-limited so there is no reason to presume that a time limit is implied here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with my colleagues above,  Roger Davies  talk 19:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no time limit to the DS --<font color="#0b0080">Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  18:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Same here. This request can be archived at any time as solved now. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen (July 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Soham321 at 20:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * | Bishonen
 * | Ogress
 * | Sitush
 * | Mohanbhan
 * | SpacemanSpiff
 * | Ms Sarah Welch


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
 * Removal of the Arbitration Enforced 6 month topic ban on all India related articles which has been imposed on me by Bishonen

Statement by Soham321
Bishonen accuses me of "battleground editing","tendentious editing", and an "aggressive discussion style" while imposing the ban. With respect to the first two accusations, i will point to Jawaharlal Nehru; all my edits have been accepted on this page even though it is a very disputed page and even the major political parties in India have commented on the editing on this page. I will also point out that even though i earlier had some personal friction with and  i now have cordial relations with both of them. With respect to Sitush, one may see the talk page on Eckankar where we have interacted in a very civil way. Regarding one may see the talk page of Two Truths Doctrine where i express confidence in her editing and she endorses a source used by me in the main article. Bishonen's claim that i have an aggressive discussion style is totally undercut by my two responses to two different editors as per this diff: [| diff1]. Additionally, with whom i have collaborated on some WP pages has argued that Bishonen's action against me was completely unjustified: [| diff2]. In the present case, there is an editor who repeatedly called Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya a fringe source on the talk page of Carvaka and proceeded to delete content in Carvaka that was sourced from Chattopadhyaya. Mohanbhan and i have repeatedly pointed out to her that Chattopadhyaya is not a fringe source in the talk page of Carvaka giving various pieces of evidence. I showed her that has endorsed Chattopadhyaya's scholarship. When Sarah Welch continued with her tirade against Chattopadhyaya in the talk page of Carvaka and also on my talk page i referred her to lacking in competence and mentioned that i would be henceforth referring to  lacking in competence if she continued her tirade against Chattopadhyaya. This resulted in Bishonen imposing a 6 month ban on India related articles on me.

One clarification: Regarding diff1, one notes that Sitush had thrown lacking in competence at me when i had simply expressed disagreement over whether the book India as a Secular_State is 'outdated' or not. , declaring himself to be an uninvolved Admin, has expressed the view that i deserve a one year ban for my present infraction. SpacemanSpiff, who is occasionally found exchanging friendly exchanges on Sitush's talk page, will i am sure reconsider his clearly biased opinion when comparing Sitush's behavior with mine and studying the provocations involved. I will also point out that Spaceman cannot declare himself to be an uninvolved Admin considering our somewhat rough interactions on my talk page, and considering  his comment concerning me to another Admin  on Dennis's talk page which he later retracted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_35#Caste_system_in_India). Spaceman, Bishonen and others are welcome to cherry pick my edits to portray me in a poor light; what cannot be denied is that i happen to be a content creator, and content creators need to be respected and protected.Secondly, i would like uninvolved Admins to compare my behavior towards other editors with the behavior of the highly experienced editor  towards me (prior to our new friendship as revealed by the recent editing on the talk page of the Eckankar page). The diff that i gave (diff1) is fairly typical of my interactions with Sitush (prior to our editing on the Eckankar page)--leaving aside my tiff with Sitush when i was a new WP editor. I have almost always been at the receiving end of Sitush's barbs, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jawaharlal_Nehru&diff=671007963&oldid=671007789 If no action is being taken against Sitush for behavioral issues, and concurrently action is taken against me, then the process smacks of double standards and hypocrisy. Bishonen had earlier created a unique pseudo complaint generator to protect Sitush: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Clueless_Sitush_complaint_generator So many complaints came up in this complaint generator--complaints of a serious nature as revealed by the history of this page--that the page had to be shut down. This is further evidence of double standards and hypocrisy and not treating all editors as equals.

Bishonen had earlier insinuated that i was editing anonymously using an IP address and when i protested against this she had withdrawn her accusation and even deleted the edit summaries, and from what i can tell even her edit. Please see Link1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soham321&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history ; and do a Ctrl-F for Bishonen. When i was new to WP, i had been involved in an ANI dispute. Not knowing WP rules I wrote a review of the discussion together with my thoughts on my talk page and Bishonen deleted my comments with what i thought to be an unduly harsh edit summary considering i was new to WP. This edit summary may be seen in Link1 (if you do a Ctrl-F on Bishonen ). There were also some harsh words exchanged on Bishonen's talk page relating to her insinuation or accusation that i was using an IP address to do editing (which she later retracted after my strong protest), but since this was on her talk page it will take me forever to retrieve the diffs. But as evidence for this one may see this diff containing two separate comments of mine: [| diff3], one of them in reply to. Bishonen mentions the one year topic ban on Digvijaya Singh imposed on me by Kim Dent-Brown;my answer is that i was new to WP at the time and didn't know the rules. I also respected the topic ban and didn't approach Kim for a review after 6 months even though he offered to review my topic ban in 6 months. Finally, i am pinging, , and since i have done collaborative editing with them. Soham321 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

i thank for the prompt response. I just wish to clarify that he is wrong when he says he did not have access to the full source when editing the Sach Khand article. The paraphrasing was being done from only one page of the book and he did have access to that page when he placed the close paraphrasing tag since he gave a link to the same book and same page (viewable online through google books) which i was using to make my edit: | diff1

So my exasperation was as to why he was not paraphrasing himself when he had access to the source, and instead preferred putting paraphrasing tags. It is true also that initially he put two tags of non-neutrality and POV ( | diff2 ) and then seemingly abandoned the discussion on the talk page which i initiated to try and resolve the tagging issue. In the one response he had given me as to why he had put the POV and non-neutrality tags, his rationale was coming across as being puerile.

This was when i told him that he has to continue participating in the talk page because of the POV and non-neutrality tags he had placed else we can opt to go for Dispute Resolution. I will point out, incidentally, that the article Sach Khand was created by me. I will also state that had i not been proactive the tags could very well have been in place in the article as of today. I also wish to refer to what Agtx had written on the talk page of the article (| diff3): "That looks a lot better, thank you for doing that. You're definitely more knowledgeable on this topic than I am. I went ahead played around some with the language and cleaned up some formatting.Should add that if my changes made anything inaccurate, obviously please feel free to fix it."

And finally, i will state that the changes Agtx made to the Sach Khand article (after i had condensed and edited it further after my discussion with Agtx)--as can be seen from the edit history of the page-- ended up making the article inaccurate because of which i had to do further editing on the page. I explained why i had to make changes to Sach Khand, after Agtx's editing in the talk page of the article. (Essentially, Agtx had introduced inaccuracies into the article.) To his credit, Agtx yielded to my corrections and did not place any further tags on the page. Soham321 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to do any trimming which is suggesting i do. I am allowed 1,000 words in my appeal on this forum as per the rules and i wish to take full opportunity of discussing my case while respecting the 1,000 word limit. Soham321 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have two points to make in response to 's post. First, it is inevitable to have a point of view and to therefore be "tendentious" when it comes to philosophy. But the fact that i have not let my point of view affect my editing on philosophy articles is seen when i have edited the Carvaka page presenting the Charvaka point of view and also the Sach Khand page (i created this article) presenting the Sikh point of view. The view of Sach Khand has nothing to do with the view of the Charvakas since the former is a spiritual view and the latter is a materialistic view. With respect to mentoring, there is only one Admin who has spent time mentoring me and that is. However, the maximum mentoring i have received is from my interactions with the veteran editor Sitush since Sitush is the editor i have interacted with the most ever since i started editing on WP. Soham321 (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to Ogress's most recent post supporting sanctions against me, slamming Mohanbhan, and talking of "gang editing". I had mentioned in my appeal that Ogress and i had had some initial friction before we started enjoying cordial terms as is evident from the talk page of Two truths doctrine where i express confidence in her editing | diff1 and she had endorsed a source i had used in editing this page | diff2. I wish to now refer to the initial friction i had with Ogress--about which i mentioned in my appeal without giving details-- prior to our having cordial relations. These pertain to Ogress undoing an edit of mine from the talk page of Carvaka with the following edit summary: "Deleting personal attack. DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS." | diff3. Ogress's undoing of my edit was in turn reverted by Mohanbhan with the following edit summary: "It is not a personal attack, he is stating a grievance, do not censor wiki by using strong words" | diff4. The conversation had not remained confined to the talk page of Carvaka since Ogress saw it fit to take it to my talk page: | diff5 and | diff6. Prior to this Ogress and i have had issues pertaining to the Caste system in India article. None of my edits were being allowed to be inserted into the main article because of what i considered a collusion of around five editors who seemed to be working in tandem on this page; one of these editors was Ogress. I had mentioned Ogress by name and referred to the collusion taking place here: | dif7. To protect myself as to why i took up that case on that forum (in which i mentioned Ogress by name and the collusion taking place in Caste system in India) i give this diff of an edit written by me and addressed to one of the Arbs: | diff8. The peculiar thing was that i was not the only person who felt like this. This is writing about this collusion and mentioning Ogress by name: "I again reverted and user Ogress came and reverted. No engaging on talk page." | diff9. And this is and  discussing the collusion that was taking place in the Caste system in India article: | diff10 (i had also subsequently participated in this discussion and so had Sitush).Soham321 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to Salvio for clarifying the procedure in place. I was hoping to show that the fact that earlier i had unfriendly relations with Ogress but subsequently i had developed cordial relations with her (and likewise in the case of Sitush) would be something taken in my favor. But if the Arbs, in their wisdom, find my defense worthless than so be it. Soham321 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish to make one more point about Salvio bringing up WP:ASPERSIONS in reviewing Mohanbhan's criticism of Sarah. WP:Aspersions says that "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence." But here, Mohanbhan is casting the aspersions on Sarah on the basis of WP:CIR, specifically when WP:CIR talks of 'bias based'. Here, contrary to all available evidence, like the scholar Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's scholarship being endorsed by giants like Joseph Needham and Louis Renou, Sarah was continuing to launch constant tirades against Chattopadhyaya and repeatedly destroying content in the Carvaka page which used Chattopadhyaya as a source--without any consensus on the talk page. Three editors, Mohanbhan, Ogress, and me--had endorsed Chattopadhyaya's scholarship.I am mentioning this because i had brought up WP:CIR before Sarah on two occasions and this has resulted in what i believe to be an unreasonable 6 month ban on all India related articles on me. Even if i made a mistake, the quantum of punishment is surely disproportionate. And if you want to go by past history, even then it is disproportionate. Soham321 (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

My response to Ms Sarah Welch: With respect to Joshua Jonathan, it is my genuine belief that the article Two Truths doctrine was becoming worse because of his editing since in my opinion he did not understand the content because of which he was introducing inaccuracies into the article. (This is similar to what happened after Agtx did some editing in the Sach Khand article--after i had condensed it following our discussion-- and introduced inaccuracies into it ). I explained why i felt this way, in the talk page and first asked suggested that we let Ogress do the editing, and subsequently pinged every person who had ever edited that page after Jonathan continued to edit on the page and continued to introduce more inaccuracies when doing so. I did not do any editing on this article after i had pinged every person who had ever edited this page. has written a comment on the talk page addressed to Joshua which to my mind reads like a polite request to him to refrain from editing the article: | diff1. On the Adi Shankara page there was a content dispute was over whether it can be mentioned in the main article whether Shankara borrowed/plagiarized certain arguments that had been first invented by Mahayana Buddhists. I gave in the talk page of the article references to various scholars (extracts from books) who maintained this. But Joshua, Sarah Welch and Abecedare were not willing to accept the introduction of the plagiarism accusation even after i posted the book extracts from three different scholars on the talk page in this connection. Sarah Welch was claiming here also that Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya cannot be used as a source, claiming he is a fringe source and an unreliable source and she was also raising a question mark on the book's publisher. I then gave her evidence of Chattopadhyaya's scholarship: Unreliable sources I also wanted an introduction into the main article a reference to a section of Adi Shankara's philosophical rivals calling him a demon. My source for this was the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Demon accusation However, since i was unable to gather consensus with my respect to my edits i did not force the issue and simply left editing this page. I had made my points on the talk page, and some day someone could see them and place the content in the main article.

With respect to edit warring with on the Eckankar page, first Sarunfeldt was simply reverting without even leaving an edit summary initially and secondly Sarunfeldt had a COV because he had declared he is member of the clergy of this religion. So it was his prerogative not to do any edit warring and instead have discussions with me on the talk page. I will point out though that i have not attempted to put back into the main page any of the content on Eckankar which i had placed and which Sarunfeldt had deleted (although i gave details of this content on the talk page of Eckankar) after Sarunfeldt was temporarily blocked although i had an opportunity for doing so. I was waiting for him to appear on the talk page of the article and have a discussion before attempting to place the deleted content back into the main article.

With respect to Ogress, my comment was after she had deleted my edit on the talk page of Carvaka, which was subsequently reverted by Mohanbhan and then taken it to my talk page claiming i was making personal attacks which i maintained i was not. I got tired of the personal attack accusation and hence i made the comment which Sarah Welch mentions. However, subsequently i apologized for the comment to Ogress on my talk page and told her to bury our differences and work together on enriching the Encyclopedia (i have already given the necessary links in my second rejoinder to Ogress) and i will point out again that Ogress and I had developed cordial relations.

Blade of the Northern Lights and Dennis Brown issued warnings to me with respect to my editing on the highly disputed Caste system in India article about which as i have mentioned earlier there were other editors who had expressed unhappiness about the collusion that was taking place in editing this page. I respected the warnings, and i refrained from adding any content on the main article after i received the warnings confining myself to the talk page of the article. They then had a problem with my comments on the talk page of the article also--this was after i gave a quote of the Harvard scholar Michael Witzel slamming "revisionist scholarship" for a second time-- and Dennis said i should consider taking a break from the talk page also, which i did. In fact i have not edited that article at all (not even the talk page) since Dennis asked me to consider taking a break from it.

SpacemanSpiff's warning to me was immediately after my conflict with Ogress. He essentially wanted me to be more civil with other editors. It is true that i had made a comment to Ogress belittling her after she posted an inflammatory edit summary when undoing my edit on the talk page of Carvaka (which was reverted by Mohanbhan) and after she continued accusing me of making a personal attack which i believed was untrue. But then i had also subsequently apologized to Ogress and appealed that we should bury our differences and work collaboratively. We even developed cordial relations. I do not believe i have been uncivil with Sarah Welch since she has repeatedly questioned Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's scholarship on one ground or the other--despite being shown ample evidence that her assessment of Chattopadhyaya was incorrect-- and repeatedly sought to destroy any content sourced to his writings. On the Carvaka page she was doing this without consensus which is when i pointed out WP:CIR to her. Soham321 (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to Joshua Jonathan for contributing to this discussion. With respect to Two truths doctrine, i have already explained on the talk page of the article why Joshua was introducing inaccuracies into the article through his editing because he did not understand the content in my opinion: | diff1 The fact that  politely requested Joshua to abstain from editing this article on the talk page gives additional credence to my assessment: | diff2 Finally, i have never edited this article after i pinged every single person who has edited this page after my content dispute with Joshua. With respect to the plagiarism allegations against Adi Shankara i had given references, links, and book extracts from the writings of three different scholars for this claim on the talk page of the Adi Shankara article.. These were Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Surendranath Dasgupta and Fyodor Shcherbatskoy. With respect to the Caste System in India article, five editors(,, , , and myself) have expressed a viewpoint differing from the five editors who were not allowing edits by others into this page-- on the talk page of this article, on Kenfyre's talk page or in ANI discussions. With respect to the Carvaka talk page, it is true that Abedecare had initially sided with Ms Sarah Welch but this support was conditional. Ms Sarah Welch did not want Chattopadhyaya to be used as a source at all; Abedecare was fine with using him as a source providing this sourcing was done with some discretion. After Mohanbhan wrote that Chattopadhyaya was making hermeneutic claims about Indian philosophy which cannot be refuted, Abedecare did not refute Mohanbhan suggesting that he agreed with Mohanbhan. Also, Abedecare stopped providing any support to Ms Sarah Welch's claim about not using Chattopadhyaya as a source possibly because he was persuaded by Mohanbhan and myself to consider Chattopadhyaya as a legitimate source. On Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's talk page, Abedecare had sided with Mohanbhan and me against Ms Sarah Welch. Soham321 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a belated response to 's comments. Mohanbhan, commenting on Ms Sarah Welch provoking me, writes: "When she repeats her "Chattopadhyaya is not a valid source" comment for the third time, Soham says this, "Your repeated tirades against Chattopadhyaya have exhausted my patience. Whenever you declare him to be a fringe source i reserve the right to point out lacking in competence to you."...He has been provoked to lose his cool, and he should not be punished for it."

is completely right that i did lose my cool. However i would like Arb to compare my reaction when i lost my cool with when Bishonen had earlier lost her cool and was subsequently blocked by. Bishonen, as an Admin, had written to an editor: "Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo!"

for which Jimbo Wales had blocked her as per this diff: | diff1

Bishonen had subsequently successfully appealed against the block. I am mentioning this because in any quasi-legal or quasi-judicial decision making it is valid to show precedence. Soham321 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to the Talk Page Etiquette link which has now been added in Joshua Jonathan's comment. The background to this is that on the talk page of Adi Shankara Joshua Jonathan was was moving edits on the talk page--his and also mine--from one section to another. Section headers were being deleted by him, new section headers created, and edits being transferred from one section to another. Secondly an edit written in response to a comment was transferred and made to appear as if it is a response to some other comment.This was creating a lot of confusion and so i simply started reverting him on the talk page asking him in the edit summary and also in the talk page to stop doing what he was doing since it was becoming impossible to have a discussion on the talk page. We were unable to come to an agreement. I then took him to ANI (simultaneously he also appealed against me on a page related to India asking for an Admin to take action against me--i will have to find the diff for this). An admin closed my appeal asking me to sort it out with Joshua. I went to the talk page of this Admin and said i have tried discussing with Joshua, and we are not being able to come to an agreement. I then specifically asked him: is there any intervening authority before i approach ArbCom since my appeal had been denied in ANI. He replied in the negative. I then posted on his talk page that i am taking it to ArbCom which i did. (I should add that Joshua rearranged the edits in their original form in the talk page of Adi Shankara after the matter went to Arb.) I gave the background to this to one of the Arb members with the request that this should not be held against me and he said 'it was an error of inexperience' and he would not be holding it against me. And this is the diff: | Diff1 Soham321 (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to Floquenbeam. I have strictly followed the rules of this forum. I respected the 1000 word limit in the initial appeal. There is, however, no restriction on the word limit when it comes to replying to other editors. I have not violated any rule. In any legitimate quasi judicial or quasi legal decision making you cannot make up new rules once an appeal has been filed. Soham321 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to. I would specifically like to highlight that Abecedare and i have been involved in content disputes on the talk page of Adi Shankara and Carvaka. In the Adi Shankara talk page, i gave references (including links and book extracts) to the writings of three different scholars who claimed that Shankara had borrowed philosophical content from Mahayana Buddhists in his writings. This included an extract from a book by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya which included the following words about Adi Shankara: "What is really not so indisputable about him is his actual philosophical ability. Though he reinterprets Upanishadic idealism in a really advanced form, there is nothing practically worthwile in this reinterpretation that is not borrowed from the Mahayana Budhists. This fact of large scale borrowing is sought to be concealed by Shankara himself with the demonstration of a great deal of contempt for these Budhists, often accusing them of preaching precisely the same views which he himself wants to preach with great gusto...The usual defense of Shankara by his modern admirers is that he admits the truth or logic as well as of the material things from the standpoint of practical life: but this very distinction between "two truths" is an innovation of the Mahayana Budhists, from whom Shankara borrows it only with some terminological alteration."

Abecedare's response to the above quote includes the words "What we are objecting to is the use of the word "plagiarism" that you introduced, which does not make any sense when applied to classical philosophical ideas and is not used by any of the sources you quote."

To which i responded with the words: "I am truly amazed that you are unable to see the plagiarism accusation. I would have imagined Chattopadhyaya at least makes the point very clear. I am glad i am giving the full quotes of these scholars instead of giving summaries or paraphrasing, so that at least other editors can see what you claim you are unable to see."

I leave it to Arb to judge whether i was civil or not with Abecedare.

And this is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adi_Shankara#Shankara_and_Buddhism

Abecedare and i have had two or three conversations on my talk page, and also in the talk page of Rigveda, where when i point out that an authority he is citing--Klostermaier-- is regarded a fringe historian (please see the Reception section of Klostermaier's WP page), he responds by saying he often mixes up Klostermaier with Elst who is another fringe historian as per Elst's WP page. (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rigveda#Reference_to_Hinduism ) I do not believe i was uncivil with him in these conversations. Soham321 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to who is mischaracterizing my position in my opinion. My position is not that the problem lies with other editors; my position is that unless you are ok with the quality of several important WP articles (which are of a disputed nature) remaining mediocre and inaccurate (serving thereby to discredit the reputation of WP as a whole), you have to be prepared to tolerate a certain amount of friction and "heat" due to the inevitable intellectual debate that takes place in the talk page of the article and also occasionally in the main article through reverts with associated edit summaries. Soham321 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Link from Bishonen
Here's the conversation on my page from 2013 that Soham321 mentions above. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Ogress
Soham321 has been a tendentious and difficult editor. He also has been improving, albeit slowly, and I think one day might be a very solid editor. He has shown to learn from his mistakes, albeit slowly on some occasions. I do not know that this statement impacts a temporary ban on India-related editing.

, if your temporary ban is upheld, I hope you will take the time to continue to edit Wikipedia in other places. Admins have been extraordinarily patient with you - perhaps you do not realise how much mentoring you have received, I think I got about zero - and I urge you to learn the same patience. Also, pretty much everyone has suffered bans of one sort or another. Continue to improve your skills in areas where distance from your subject might help you improve as an editor; you are nothing if not committed to passionate editing on topics you are committed to, which can sometimes actually be a hindrance, especially to new editors who are learning. You are, as I said above, continuing to learn how to Wiki, and I would be lying if I said it came naturally to anyone. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 03:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am going to add more content. I am deeply troubled by the long responses by both and, who are using this discussion to continue a very inappropriate attack on other users such as , most particularly Mohanbhan, whose entire response is a tirade against Ms Sarah Welsh.


 * I am disappointed and angry that this is being turned into a forum to point fingers at Ms Sarah Welch and others. I have changed my position from neutral to support sanctions - although this is not a vote - as I think this very Arb request is being used as another chance to continue what is a grudge match.


 * I would also like to point out that the behavior of has been very particularly inappropriate both in and outside this Arb board as well. I'm not sure why his behavior has not been examined more closely as he has been posting in a manner not befitting a Wikipedia editor.


 * Lest anyone think I am partisan in this situation, I wish to be clear that Ms Sarah Welch and I are on the opposite side of disputes most of the time, even on the very article Carvaka that is being dragged around, and not in a minor disagreement kind of way. I have avoided editing pages she is involved with in order to avoid conflict with her. I nonetheless find the ongoing gang editing direly troublesome and extremely distasteful. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 08:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mohanbhan
This is Sarah Welch's revert to the Charvaka article. There is no doubt that Soham's contribution to the article had enriched it, making the article a systematic exposition of Charvaka philosophy. Charvaka philosophy itself is unrelentingly critical of the Vedas and Vedantic thought, which, as I have suggested on Charvaka talk page, may have ticked off Sarah Welch who usually edits pages related to Vedantic philosophy. She has made it her one-point agenda to denigrate and exclude references from the greatest authority on this topic Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. Whenever I have edited or tagged the article she has shown a tendency to make the argument personal by adopting an aggressive hysterical tone, positioning responsible editors as vandals, and herself as the custodian of the page. Instead of discussing the cited references objectively and responding to the specific objections she repeatedly makes statements like "'The book @Mohanbhan likes' is not Wikipedia's definition of RS". She also quotes selectively and distorts the sources to push her POV, as can be seen in the discussion. She also uses the word "tainted" to refer to Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's dialectical materialist/Marxist viewpoint, and in spite of our objections repeatedly uses theis word] to refer to Chattopadhyaya. She is explained here that Chattopadhyaya is a philosopher who has made hermeneutic claims about Charvaka philosophy, and, as such, his work can't be said to be dated. After this discussion on 9th July Sarah Welch stops her disruptive edits and the article is substantially improved with sourced content. She shows up again on 20th July and starts haranguing about Chattopadhyaya as an unreliable source in spite all our previous explanations. She indulges in disruptive edits and her edits are reverted by Soham when she has no consensus for her view on the talk page. She then continues her rant on Chattopadhyaya, which I ignore, but which Soham responds to by advising her to read WP:CIR. But Sarah Welch repeats her rant, calling Chattopadhyaya "controversial and fring-y", citing non-existent "abundant evidence and review summaries" on the talk page. When she repeats her "Chattopadhyaya is not a valid source" comment for the third time, Soham says this, "Your repeated tirades against Chattopadhyaya have exhausted my patience. Whenever you declare him to be a fringe source i reserve the right to point out lacking in competence to you."

Soham has contributed constructively to the article, his content is cited and includes direct quotes from sources -- and he has used sources other than Chattopadhyaya like Bhattacharya and M Hiriyanna -- to avoid disputes about POV, and his arguments for their inclusion have been erudite and sophisticated. Sarah Welch, as can be seen on the talk page, has distorted the sources and pushed a POV; she has also indulged in disruptive editing, canvassed against me when her edits have been challenged and her rationale refuted, and has generally adopted an inflammatory tone, denigrating certain sources for their viewpoint instead of discussing the content and sources objectively. Given all this, I think it is Sarah Welch who is to be blamed for edit-warring and being disrespectful to other editors rather than Soham who has contributed constructively to the article. He has been provoked to lose his cool, and he should not be punished for it. I sincerely hope that ArbCom takes an impartial view of the matter and does justice to Soham. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio: I am not casting aspersions on anyone; everything I have written is supported by links to the Carvaka talk page. I have found Sarah Welch's actions disruptive, and not constructive, and I have stated that with evidence. I have always avoided making content disputes and disagreements personal, and I have avoided that even on this page. I have also chosen to ignore Ogress's personal and inflammatory remarks about me. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur with Twobells' statement that "2 or 3 ideologically like-minded editors have 'taken over' the articles and proceeded to go to any length to undo any independent editors attempt to introduce neutrality and balance to said articles." The same has happened with Carvaka article as can be seen by looking at the revert mentioned in the first line of my statement. There has been a systematic attempt by these editors at historical revisionism as is evident from this discussion on Template talk:Hindu philosophy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like the arbitrators to please look at this discussion to see how some writers whose work is critical of Brahminical and far-right Hindutva ideology are being systematically excluded from wiki articles. Please notice how the other editor indulges in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by repeating again and again that 1. the books of Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, S.N. Dasgupta and Scherbatsky are more than 100 years old 2. that Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's book What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy is self-published and 3. that DC is not a reliable source -- all of which are false. People's Publishing House, a very prominent publishing house in the 1960s and 70s, has its website hosted on blogspot; this is being pointed out to claim that its books aren't "peer-reviewed", but Permanent Black, one of the most respected academic publishers in South Asia, is also hosted on blogspot. So spurious and silly reasons are being cited to keep out certain writers from wiki articles, and a far-right ideology is being forwarded through these articles. Soham is the victim of this cabal of ideologically motivated editors and their tendentious editing of articles related to Hinduism and Hindu philosophy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SpacemanSpiff
I did not want to post on here earlier, but as Floq brought up the length issue I'll slightly modify and transfer my post from the RfAr filing that preceded this to provide a summary and some general info.

Soham321 has been issued multiple warnings by multiple admins and other editors for various forms of disruptive behavior as well as on ARBIPA sanctions. He has had a topic ban in the past, yet the disruptive behavior has not stopped. The warnings and disruptive behavior have dated to at least as far back as mid to late 2013 by my checking. While demeaning other editors is part of the disruption, it is not the only one. There's a refusal to accept any form of feedback as well as misrepresenting opinions(including here where he says in the complaint above that I retracted something while I was just saving the ever so polite Mr Brown the necessity of replying.)

(Pinging, , , , , as some of the warnings/notes have been from them in the diffs listed above.)

A little over two weeks back, I was ready to issue an AE block and six month topic ban, but switched to a warning instead, thinking that some of the input he has received will have some impact. Despite his response I expected that the warning will probably cause an impact. However, that has proved to be not the case. Today, I was ready to issue an ARBIPA one week block and a one year topic ban from India articles and was getting the explanation and diffs ready, but Bishonen beat me to it with a lighter sanction.

The issue here is Soham321's behavior, which has been disruptive over the course of two years. He has received blocks, topic bans, and numerous warnings. The question for this appeal is should other editors have to spend time and effort on this going forward as that is essentially what the ARBIPA sanctions are for. It's still a light sanction as Floq says, but that's what's on appeal, and I think ArbCom should decline that.&mdash;<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman <font color="#2B18BA">Spiff  12:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by agtx
Soham321 placed a message on my talk page asking for my commentary, presumably because of our brief interaction editing Sach Khand. I would say that if Soham is reaching out to me to show an example of collaborative editing on an India-related topic, then he needs to do some work on his collaborative editing skills. I tagged the page in question first because it was presenting Sikh views on religion as though they were true, and then because it was a close paraphrase of a book (something about which Soham had already been warned). I would characterize our interaction as following along the lines described in Bishonen's talk page post imposing sanctions. Four talk page posts and less than 36 hours into the discussion, Soham was accusing me of abandoning the discussion, and threatening to invoke dispute resolution. When I pointed out the copyright problem, Soham's response was to tell me to fix it myself instead of tagging it, even after I said that I didn't have access to the full source.

To Soham's credit, after the initial interaction, which I would characterize as relatively unpleasant, things got more productive. He did change the article so as to avoid the close paraphrasing, and he edited collaboratively after that. No further accusations followed, and while the article needs expanding, I think it's not an unreasonable stub at this point. Soham obviously is knowledgeable about the topic, and he was able to fix errors that I introduced in clean up (because my grasp of Sikhism is, to put it mildly, tenuous).

From my interactions, I think that Soham is capable of contributing productively here, and I think he has a desire to get things right. However, I also think that he gets angry (or what others perceive as angry), and makes changes and comments rashly. Further, I think that he has trouble understanding Wikipedia policies, like copyright and reliable sources, when they don't align with his views. I also understand that some of these edits are in a heated topic subject to discretionary sanctions. Between my personal experiences, Soham's previous topic ban, and Soham's participation in the discussion at Talk:Cārvāka, I think the sanctions imposed are warranted. I hope that Soham will take these six months to edit articles in other areas to which he has less emotional attachment, so he can understand the kinds of talk page discussions and consensus building that are productive here. agt x 22:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ms Sarah Welch
Allow me to skip an analysis of the content @Soham321 has recently tried to delete, replace or add to various wiki articles from RS, NPOV and other wiki policy perspectives.

In this admin-issued-sanction arbitration matter, allow me to focus on: Are there facts to persuade that the admins of wikipedia in recent past have been reasonable? Is @Bishonen's latest sanction in this matter reasonable? My answer: "Yes, abundantly". Here is some of the recent evidence relating to @Soham321 sanction:
 * 1) Edit warring with @Joshua Jonathan, despite @JJ request to stop edit warring in early July here, here and here
 * 2) Edit warring with @Sarunfeldt in mid July here, here and here
 * 3) Edit warring warning by @Shrikanthv here
 * 4) Uncivil behavior and personal attack on a wiki article's talk page against @Joshua Jonathan here in Carvaka article, and more recently here in Two truths doctrine article; Quote of edit summary:  "Joshua Jonathan's editing is making this article worse as i have explained in the talk page. The more he edits, the worse this article becomes in terms of clarity, accuracy, and cogency. - @Soham321"
 * 5) Uncivil behavior and personal attack against @Ogress here; Quote: "I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. - @Soham321"
 * 6) Uncivil behavior and personal attack against me, see links here
 * 7) Request to be civil with other wikipedia editors by admin @Abecedare here
 * 8) Warning in June 2015 by admin @Dennis Brown here
 * 9) Warning in June 2015 by admin @The Blade of the Northern Lights here
 * 10) Warning in July 2015 by admin @SpacemanSpiff here

How has @Soham321 responded to recent comments and warnings? @Soham321 has been combative with admins as evidenced here, and to requests by @Sitush here. Quote: "Soham, I am trying and trying to show you how to write well and you simply keep fighting it at every opportunity. I'm not known for a saint-like patience and sooner or later I will snap unless you start to come to your senses. - @Sitush"

Summary: The veteran members of the Wikipedia community have been patient. Admin @Bishonen's sanction on @Soham321 was reasonable.

FWIW, when I began considering evidence for this statement, my intent was to request reduction of the 6 month sanction to a 3 month sanction on @Soham321. But, after looking at @Soham321's pattern of behavior with numerous wiki editors over the recent months, I now feel that @Bishonen has already been kind and generous. The evidence points to a stronger case of WP:NOTHERE than what I felt a while ago. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Twobells
edit. In response to Joshua Jonathan's comment The situation couldn't be further from factual truth, I sourced (please see my Caste System In India and British Raj diffs) numerous up to date citations on the latest works, however, these were based on empirical and priori evidence rather than ideology and for this they were removed along with their conclusions. Unfortunately, what has happened on the British Raj and Caste System in India articles is that 2 or 3 ideologically like-minded editors have 'taken over' the articles and proceeded to go to any length to undo any independent editors attempt to introduce neutrality and balance to said articles. Essentially, what we have now are two articles so biased that they fail to stand up to independent review and display what can only be termed as a dogmatic and misguided attempt at historical revisionism. In closing, as they stand I would call these articles Examples of Morton's Demon At Work, regards. Twobells''t@lk 10:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a real shame I have not had the time to develop my Rfc on the Indian articles, perhaps then Soham321's patience would not have been quite so tested. I have found he has demonstrated a clear and concise willingness to present a neutral, balanced edit doing so with good manners and a clear methodology, however, he is energetic, a state some might wish to use against him. In my experience he has the patience of a saint when dealing with Sitush and others who have shown themselves to be prejudicial, labelling other editors as incompetent if they do not agree with their dogmatic position and quick to suggest bad faith. I have found Soham to have been a victim of combativeness rather than as presented a perpetrator, particularly on Indian history articles. With that in mind, together with my experience collaborating with Soham who has been a study in Wiki best practice, I would recommend you approve his appeal. Twobells''t@lk 18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In response to Floq's Comments: Hello, pleased to meet you. With respect, are you aware of the issues pertaining to the articles concerned? Trust me, when I say an in-depth response such as Soham321's is required in order to give the neutral observer a proper background into what has been going on over there. A situation, which can only be described diplomatically as counter to best wiki practice, regards. Twobells''t@lk 15:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Joshua Jonathan
After the reply by Soham321 to Ms Sarah Welch, I think it's time for me to respond too. All in all, I've seriously been wondering if Soham321 just doesn't understand at all how to work at Wikipedia (I put it friendly here), or that he is simply trolling. I'm still not sure that it is a lack of understanding. I had refrained from responding here so far, since I've had my share from POV-pushers and the like. But now that he also mentions me, I felt I had to respond too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At the Carvaka talkpage, Ms Sarah Welch has explained her doubts about Chattopadhyaya as a source, and suggested that he should appended with more up-to-date sources, a proposal which has been endorsed by Abedecare. neither Soham321 not Mohanbhan has seriously responded to this proposal; instead, MSW has been accused of "incompetence." Given the quality of her edits, this is a gross misqualification.
 * Caste System in India: five editors agreed that the Caste System in India, as it exists today, was shaped by the British. This was based on reliable sources. And, as Sitush mentioned, also to our surprise. Yet, Soham321 and TwoBells kept insisting that this wa suntrue, and that we were biased. Despite repeated requests, they were unable to present reliable sources which gave a different opinion.
 * Adi Shankara: Soham321 introduced a section on "Allegations of plagiarism." A wildly anachronistic qualification. Abecedare and I immediately responded, see Talk:Adi Shankara. We responded so soon, very short after each other, that I hadn't even noticed that Abecedare had already responded, and I opened a new thread. When I found out, I merged the sections, to the dismay of Soham321, who wrote he became confused. He reverted me twice at the talkpage, meanwhile removing my comments twice. Incredible. Anyway, it ended with Soham opening an ArbCom-case on "talkpage etiquette (yes, serious!).
 * At the Two Truths Doctrine article, Soham321 made a series of edits, based on one single source, in a writing-style which was difficult to follow. I smoothed his contributions; Soham321 reverted them en masse, with the statements he's already been given. At this point I'd already given up to discuss with him; it's impossible. Soham321 doesn't discuss, he makes statements, and seems to be incapable to understand what other editors are saying. And to say that I don't seem to understand the topic - well, had he taken the care to check my edit-history, he would have known that I'm one of the top-editors on Buddhism-related articles. Or just User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources.

Further response: Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * " i have already explained on the talk page of the article why Joshua was introducing inaccuracies into the article" - incorrect. The Madhyamaka theory was already described; you doubled it, which was unnecessary. When you pinged dozens of editors (including B9Hummingbird Hoovering, who's been indeffed years ago already, as I'd already told you), you forgot to explain what the "content dispute" is about;
 * "he did not understand the content in my opinion" - read WP:ICANTHEARYOU;
 * "The fact that Shrikanthv politely requested Joshua to abstain from editing this article on the talk page gives additional credence to my assessment: | diff2" - Shrikantv wrote "not supporting anyone in particular", and further wrote "would suggest to abstaining from concretising philo/spiritual concepts but rather giving only an Idea or a possibility (giving the reader to decide or finding out on his own) would be a better way of going ahead ". To read this as "politely requested Joshua to abstain from editing this article" is a misinterpretation. Read WP:OWN;
 * Plagiarism: none of these authors uses the term "plagiarism." It is a wildly anachronistic term here. It's astonishing that you don't get that;
 * "Ms Sarah Welch did not want Chattopadhyaya to be used as a source at all" - that's not true; she proposed to supplement him with additional sources;
 * Talk Page Etiquette - I merged two sections, which was completely reasonable, as several admins have told Soham321. If you had simply said "Hey, please keep these two sections separate, it's confusing to me!" and simply reinserted the header, I'd said "Of course, fine." Instead, we ended the day at ArbCom...

Response #3 - "ideologically like-minded editors" - usually I get the heat from Vedic POV-pushers; this time I'm apparently considered to be in the other camp, of those Vedic sympathisers. That's nice, for a change. And "the patience of a saint" - where? And no, I'm not going to mentor Soham321. I've wasted enough time on official mentoring. He's welcome, though, at my talkpage, if he needs any help. thanks for your thrust, of course; hoghly appreciated. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Floq
I saw yesterday that Soham321 had squeaked in just under the 1000 word limit. However, counting responses, he's now up to 4100 words. If "Decline - TL:DR" is a legit vote, that's what I would suggest. 6 pages (single spaced, 11 pt type), with no sign of stopping... if that's what people he's editing with have had to put up with, then getting off with just a topic ban is generous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by shrikanthv
I would suggest Soham321 would be better put under a mentorship with an admin or senior editor related to topics he is editing, I see that he edits with passion and sometimes(most of the time) steps on wrong foot ! with some exp he could be well off rather than banning him ! would suggest JJ as mentor for him Shrikanthv (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Abecedare
I see my name mentioned a few times, so here are my 2c, based on my interactions with and observations of Soham321 since July 2nd, when I first came across the editor.

Soham's article space edits have some problems (reliance on a single and often dated source; quote-farming; undue weight; (good faith) misinterpretation of sources etc), but these are routine issues that are typically handled easily through talk-page discussion. The main problem is that Soham doesn't react well to even the politest of feedback and responds by All this makes collaborative editing with Soham321 virtually impossible, and I'm afraid the issue is unlikely to be confined to India-related pages covered by the current topic ban. Frankly Soham's statement above, by itself, provides ample examples of IDHT/TE/Battleground conduct that led to the topic ban, and the fact that the editor doesn't even realize this is not a promising sign. As I have recommended a couple of times earlier, and as Shrikanthv advises above, Soham should consider getting a mentor who they trust and can consult, because unless their conduct changes drastically, I see a perma-block or site-ban coming a few months down the line. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * insulting other editor's intelligence, good faith, ideology etc,
 * endless repetition and filibustering (eg, see Talk:Cārvāka, or just the ARCA section above),
 * continual editor/admin/forum-shopping and needless escalation. This being the classic example; also note the number of totally unconnected editors/admins Soham contacted about this ARCA appeal alone. Another example here in which Soham (IMO, pointily) pinged >50 editors.
 * refusal to concede even the tiniest of errors. For example, Soham's insistence that Bishonen misguided them into originally filing this appeal at the Arbitration Request page (the error itself was of course minor; I am only pointing to failure to simply say "oops" and move on). Also note the number of editors, admins, and arbcom members who told Soham that they were wrong about the issue of the previous arbitration request; yet Soham repeats the complaint unchanged. Ditto for the claim of an 8th century philosopher being guilty of "plagiarism", which Soham again repeats on the page (won't bore the audience of this page with the details, which can be read here).

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.

Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen: Clerk notes

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



Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * that's rather a large wall of text you've written there. Could you please trim it down to focus on the essentials, thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per Seraphimblade below and Floq above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of those who may be unfamiliar with our procedures, I'll clarify that the standard of review employed by ArbCom when dealing with appeals against discretionary sanctions is "was the action we are reviewing reasonable?", rather than "would I, under the circumstances, have imposed the same restriction". In this case, Soham, examining your conduct, I do see a pugnacious approch to editing and disputes and some tendentiousness to top it off; for that, I find the sanction reasonable and vote to decline your appeal. Incidentally, Mohanbhan, please note that casting aspersions on other editors is disruptive and sanctionable. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per Salvio - I also see a pugnacious approach as well as a failure to AGF which suggests that removing the sanction would not benefit the encyclopedia. Mohanbhan, you need to pay attention to what Salvio has said. Doug Weller (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. Soham321, if your approach to editing bears any resemblance at all to your approach during this appeal, I would rethink it, quite quickly. Pugnacious is if anything an understatement. I would also strongly echo Salvio's point regarding casting unsupported aspersions, and all who have raised that you need to make your point reasonably concisely. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline Soham321's response to the topic ban (to fight it tooth and nail in any available venue, and to argue from the outset that the problem lies with other editors) is for me ample indication that this was a sensible call by Bishonen. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Euryalus (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline, per Yunshi and Seraphimblade  DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline L Faraone  20:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: India-Pakistan (September 2015)
Original discussion

Initiated by Soham321 at 19:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Link


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * diff of notification Bishonen
 * diff of notification EdJohnston
 * diff of notification Dennis Brown
 * diff of notification JzG
 * diff of notification Future Perfect at Sunrise
 * diff of notification Gamaliel
 * diff of notification Rich Farmbrough


 * Information about amendment request
 * Link
 * Waiver on the Voltaire page, and other waivers as described in my appeal

Statement by Soham321
I have argued my case at WP:AE: Link. The banning Admin (Bishonen) and other Admins have given their views on this venue. 's views on my case (diff) in the WP:AE discussion encourage me to ask for a second opinion on the decision taken by WP:AE. I have nothing to add to what i have stated at WP:AE except to reiterate that i am seeking the exemption under WP:NORULES, and that i now seek exemption from the WP pages related to not just Voltaire but all European philosophers. These include pages of European philosophers like Immanuel Kant, René Descartes, and George Berkeley. The reason is that i would like to add a section on the WP pages of the European philosophers giving parallels with respect to their thoughts and opinions with their Indian counterparts. For instance, it has been argued that Kant's philosophy has similarities with the philosophy of Adi Shankara (see for example Will Durant's "Our Oriental Heritage"); and Descartes's framing of the Dream argument has a clear parallel with the treatment of this subject by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (see "Kumarila's refutation of the Dream Argument" by John Taber). This would add an extra dimension to these WP articles in my opinion. Here is an example of the source material i might use in editing the pages of the European philosophers: Link.

One might argue--why not wait the ban out (4 months more) and then put the material in. My response is that i am moving to another city in the next few months and i may not have the source material (specifically the books) with me anytime soon after my move.

Reply to : as a sign of good faith i am offering to not go beyond 1RR in any edit where i do the comparative analysis that i mentioned in my appeal. Soham321 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply to since he gave a cogent reason why he is declining my appeal: First, i accept that i did lose my cool with Ms Sarah Welch, but my defense is that i was provoked. Mohanbhan has given my defense more adequately than i could in my previous appeal: diff. Even then i accept i was in error for losing my cool. The ban is not necessary in my opinion because i have not demonstrated any evidence of "Battleground editing" or "Battleground behavior" after my first appeal was declined to the best of my knowledge and recollection. I have never gone to 3RR to the best of my knowledge and recollection on any page after the topic ban was imposed on me. I have had many differences with Sitush in the past, and had i really been guilty of exhibiting battleground behavior i would have happily joined in when some other editors were criticizing Sitush on my talk page, but i did not do so. Please see the posts of Rabt man and Mohanbhan here: Link; and the post of Twobells here: Link. I may have *exchanged* some personal comments with Sitush earlier, but i have not done so after my earlier appeal with one exception. That is this comment: diff. I made my comment in the belief that Sitush was bullying a new editor. I have discussed this issue, and a related issue of IP editor(s) posting on my talk page, at ANI and i accepted the Admin Swarm's view/comment/advice since it sounded reasonable to me and requested that the thread be closed. This was Swarm's analysis of the issue: diff. The last time i have done joint editing on any article with Sitush was on the talk page of Eckankar. One may examine this page to see that the joint editing was being done in a collegial way, and not a battleground way. Soham321 (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
These permanent links to Soham321's previous requests may be useful: Bishonen &#124; talk 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Dennis Brown
As I concluded there, the sanction appeared to be reasonable when looking at the totality of the editor's edits. My opinion hasn't changed. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
In my opinion, Soham's rationale for amending this sanction lacks any substance. Soham's reason for allowing edits in this area appears to boil down to not much beyond the fact that xe really really wants to. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
@ Floq.

There is no compulsion to comment on Soham's requests - or even to read anything Soham posts.

@ Soham

I think it's worth reading what I wrote a little carefully. My objections were not endorsements of you. or your editing of the Voltaire talk page. Rather I respect the opinions of those who said that giving you this latitude was likely to cause problems. Pragmatically denying you the ability to make these edits may well be in your best interests (in terms of further conflict and sanction), as others hold - though the heightened scrutiny may mean that problems will be headed off before it comes to that.

My objection was I suppose to some extent a procedural or conceptual one, in that the area you wished to discuss on Voltaire seemed (to my not particular well informed ear) sufficiently divorced form the subject that you were sanctioned on for a good faith request for an exemption to be granted.

This argument does not support your broader request to compare European philosophers to Indian philosophers.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Floq
If we're invoking WP:NORULES, does that mean I can just block this guy as a timesink if I think it would improve the encyclopedia? That was mostly a rhetorical question - I suspect it would suddenly become very important to Soham that the rules be respected - but here's a serious one: when ArbCom rejects this, as I am sure they will (AE was closed 5-0 against revising topic ban) could Arbcom please shut this guy down, and shut him down hard, so he doesn't waste quite as much of everyone's time after this? For example, forbidding future appeals in any forum for the duration of the topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
Soham321, in your reply to Yunshui you offer not to exceed 1RR. Unfortunately, past history suggests even that will not avoid timesink issues. Bishonen is pretty conservative (imo) when issuing sanctions and there is little doubt in my mind that such issues will have played a part in her decision. She may, of course, disagree but the very fact that you have appealed again immediately after the AE appeal was closed rather supports the point even if not my assumption regarding Bish's thought processes. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2015 (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.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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



India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline There's no substance here; it boils down to, "I want to make edits that I'm not currently allowed to make." No indication that the original reasons for the topic ban have been considered and addressed, no suggestion that previous behaviour will be avoided - just a complaint that the TBAN is inconvenient. This is not a reason to amend or rescind it. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 21:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick decline --<font color="#0b0080">Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline, no reason has been provided as to why the ban either shouldn't have been applied or is no longer necessary. "I really want to do it now" is not a valid reason to overturn a topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline and quite frankly, I don't think this sanction should expire. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. I see no reason to overturn the consensus at AE. It is also worth noting that exhausting the community's patience can lead to blocks that are not often overturned. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline If anything, this seems to show that the sanction is required. Doug Weller (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: India-Pakistan (October 2015)
Original discussion

Initiated by Js82 at 09:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Topic banned from edits in any namespace and any pages related to Indian religions, broadly construed


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * diff of notification SpacemanSpiff


 * Information about amendment request
 * Topic banned from edits in any namespace and any pages related to Indian religions, broadly construed
 * revocation of the sanction

Statement by Js82
UPDATE OCT 18 20:41 Greenwich Time: I am deciding to withdraw my amendment request. I do however wish to retain this application and my below statement as a means of having officially lodged a protest, and to appeal to the committee members to consider removal of Sikhism and other religious pages from the purview of India-Pakistan arbitration clauses.

If this is not acceptable, please let me know. Thank you.

---

A 6 month sanction has been imposed, related to Indian religions, broadly construed, citing "disruptive editing and an inability to collaborate with other editors". I feel this is completely unjust, and motivated by a deep-rooted desire to subdue a voice that does not conform with the personal views of some of the editors who overwhelmingly "control" these pages, and mostly act in groups to harass and torment new/differing view point editors.

On the actual pretext of "disruptive editing and inability to collaborate": I had joined Wikipedia in Aug 2015, and I understand that my edits for some period of time appeared disruptive (which Wikipedia itself agrees may happen with new editors). However, after I was blocked for a week last month, I have been careful and understanding of Wikipedia policies. In fact, over the last 25 days, I have only made very few edits (restricted to Sikhism page only), and have not engaged in any edit-warring. If anything, I have presented my views on the talk page, and moved away from a discussion where no headway seemed possible, rather than persisting with my POV. How can this be construed as "disruptive editing and non-collaboration" ? In the one case where there were differing views, it was actually one of the other editors (Ms Sarah Welch) who edit-warred. See Here. In the most recent instance, again, I had made only one edit, following which I have been engaging only in talk page discussions. Again, the user Ms Sarah Welch has made numerous edits within the past 24 hours itself, without getting any consensus at all. See Here. And the end result is, I am banned for "inability to cooperate" ? Citing an issue that has been discussed for less than 24 hours yet, where I gave no indication whatsoever of not being open to collaboration ?

My main interest here has been to improve Sikhism related articles. I feel that barring someone from editing Sikhism articles, under the pretext of an "India-Pakistan Arbitration" is highly contentious. India Pakistan may have territorial conflicts on Kashmir, etc, (which I presume is the reason for the arbitration powers), but what has that got to do with Sikhism? Further, Sikhism is in no way restricted to India and Pakistan (more than 5 million Sikhs live outside India), so how can this be justified ? One purpose it does serve though is to provide admins and editors with a Indian/Hinduism background or interests (who are present aplenty here, as opposed to those from Sikh background) the discretionary powers to shoot out and subdue voices that do not conform with their own POVs about Sikhism.

Finally, I have issues with even assuming Mr. Spiff to be an uninvolved admin. Right from the day I joined Wikipedia (when I had no idea how it works), he has been hounding and harassing me. Till very recently, he has been bringing up my actions from the first few days as evidence of my disruptive editing. How dishonest is that. Further, last month, he instigated an inquiry into my actions, based on false accusations, as I had exposed Here and Here. He never bothered responding to these false accusations, despite my repeated prompting. End result was, I was blocked for a week for personal attacks.

I would like to conclude by stating that the committee would likely see a barrage of negative posts here from some of the editors who dominate India/Hindu/Indian religion related articles. These should be treated with caution, as these editors are hand in glove in their ulterior motives to get me banned.

Js82 (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Salvio and other members: You state that "Unfortunately, South Asian topics have, historically, ...". This is precisely my point: The entire Sikh religion (and for that matter Buddhism Jainism etc) should not be construed as South Asian topics. I understand there is historical and cultural relation, but that's about it. In the contemporary world, it does not seem reasonable at all to limit these global religions to India/South Asia. If anything, these should be included in a arbitration under some "religion related" clauses (I am assuming one exists here). And to reiterate what I said above, covering all these religions under the purview of India-Pakistan discretion only gives editors and admins who are active in India/South Asia pages unjustifiable powers to tacitly impose their own views and POVs on these otherwise global religions. What this does in effect is make any new editors (like myself) who join Wikipedia with an honest intention of improving articles on Sikhism feel suffocated and hounded in face of these unjustified discretionary powers.


 * To quote, from the very same first reference that has been used to actually even justify the the term "Indian religions"




 * As an example, to further point out the flaws and the misleading nature of such geographical prominence, I quote:




 * I hope that all the members here would debate my amendment appeal critically.  Js82 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not to belabor the point further, but again, as another example, because of this "India-Pakistan" arbitration sanction, I am unable to edit articles like Gurudwara (a Sikh place of worship) ? What have editing privileges for a Gurudwara article got to do with an India-Pakistan arbitration ? And coming to my particular case, the last topic we were debating just before sanctions were imposed was to do with the revelatory nature of Sikhism (Please see relevant talk page discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sikhism#Revelation_again_and_WP:BRD). Again, what has this got to do with an India-Pakistan arbitration. Editors and admins who have very limited knowledge, at best, of religion have unjustifiable powers to impose sanctions on topics related to religion, simply because they are active in India/Pakistan topics ?
 * The more I think of all this, the more unjust all of this seems. I do hope there would be a redressal here. Js82 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SpacemanSpiff
This isn't new, it's been happening since day 1, and a classic case of WP:IDHT. I came across this on WP:AN3 -- Sardarji joke where Js82 (as an IP first and then as an account) was editing against consensus and blocked the IP and then the account. Point in time snapshots of the user talk page show the various warnings on issues spanning copyright violations, edit warring, original research, NPOV, personal attacks etc across multiple articles. I have sought a second opinion from in the past regarding this as I have been unable to get through to the user, but sadly that doesn't seem to have helped either. There has been an enormous amount of discussion at various talk pages (,, -- the full page from those sections provides the necessary context). Today it was this response to a critique of sources. Given the editing pattern and behavior since creation of the account, unless the editor shows that they can adhere to policies and guidelines in other areas, this sanction is necessary. Please ping me if you need any clarification. &mdash;<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman <font color="#2B18BA">Spiff  10:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Rich Farmbrough: Islam and Christianity would not be included but Islam in India and Christianity in India would be, this is per the AC motion listed at WP:ARBIPA. &mdash;<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman <font color="#2B18BA">Spiff  04:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough (IPA)
I do encourage User:Js82 to withdraw the request, and take the six months to learn about how Wikipedia works. There is every chance that had the topic ban not been considered available a similar length block would have been used.

But I am concerned with the interpretation of "broadly construed".

"Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed."

If we are to include the major religions of the region, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam and Christianity, we are including 98% of all our religious articles, at a guess. And that is only one facet of knowledge

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 19 October 2015 (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.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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



India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline Indian religions are in the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorization. Based on the information provided, the sanction in question seems appropriate. "They started it", even if true, does not give one a pass on civility or disruption. L Faraone  20:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The appeal has been withdrawn, so there is no need to focus on that issue. On the other hand, concerning the request to amend the original case, to unauthorise discretionary sanctions for edits relating to Sikhism and other religions, I am not inclined to accede. Unfortunately, South Asian topics have, historically, proven to be rather contentious and to flare up unexpectedly (for the best example of this, see the articles about castes), and that is why ArbCom was forced to authorise discretionary sanctions in the first place. In light of that, I'm not really in favour of limiting the scope of DS in that area, as I don't see how that would possibly be beneficial. And, though many Sikhs may not live in India today, the (historical and cultural) link between India and Sikhism is strong enough that, in my opinion, it justifies the inclusion of the topic among the ones covered by WP:ARBIPA. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio. Sikhism is clearly covered as things stand today, and I don't see a good reason to change that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Formal decline although I see the request is withdrawn. Doug Weller (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No comment on the appeal, as that has been withdrawn. Decline the amendment request re Sikhism per Salvio. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV (India-Pakistan case) (April 2018)
Original discussion

Initiated by MapSGV at 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828410043&oldid=828409525


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828410043&oldid=828409525
 * Consider the block and topic ban as invalid; removal of topic ban.

Statement by MapSGV
I have spent some time evaluating policies and practices. Given the many problems with the sanction, I am finding that this sanction should be appealed.

Sandstein first blocked me indefinitely and then unblocked and topic banned me from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan by finding sense in a frivolous report filed by a ban evading sock who was already going under an SPI investigation for being a suspected sock of an editor who is himself indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan. It was also clear the the user was going to end up getting blocked per WP:DUCK. The version of the SPI report at the time when Sandstein sanctioned me clearly shows that the user has a long history of deceiving, harassing, wikihounding, filing frivolous reports and he even trolled on SPI by claiming that CheckUser absolved him. Clearly, Sandstein shouldn't have relied upon report filed by this sock without identifying the motives and background first.

In place of removing that report per WP:G5 or just blocking the reporter as a sock and also for filing a frivolous report, or at least waiting until the SPI was sorted per GoldenRing's suggestion, Sandstein claimed that the report is actionable, and the didn't even checked statements of anyone, nor he checked the diffs properly. WP:ARE clearly says that, "Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale," and "your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it." But Sandstein also ignored these policies throughout this report. Here is the accurate analysis of all those "18 diffs" that Sandstein has frequently pointed to justify his actions.


 * diff 1: User was a sock, who was earlier calling me a sock without evidence. No violation.
 * diff 2: same as above. No violation.
 * diff 3: same as above and when the user is WP:WIKIHOUNDING your contributions to violate WP:COPYVIO, WP:EDITWAR, misrepresent sources you would obviously see it as agenda. There is nothing wrong with using the word "agenda". There was recently an ANI thread with this title "Political agenda editor", and no one questioned the OP. No violation.
 * diff 4: outdated diff from 20 February. No "personal attack" involved, although next editor had falsely claimed the reliable sources to be "WP:FAKE" which is clearly sanctionable. No violation.
 * diff 5: outdated diff from 20 February. Though there was some incivility but I was not the one to start but next editor who was continiously making personal attacks even after I told him to "focus on content". No violation.
 * diff 6: outdated diff from 20 February. The message made in response to a false off-topic accusation, so that editor can talk about the content. No violation.
 * diff 7: outdated diff from 20 February. Clearly no violation here.
 * diff 8: outdated diff from 20 February. It was response to a problematic comment that read "I see is a concerted effort to push WP:POV into a longstanding article, and a POV that is being caused in part due to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of sources",[] contrary to WP:V, WP:RS, I was a little but blunt, but I had soon realized I had to be better. But still, no violation.
 * diff 9: outdated diff from 21 February. It was a response to "replaced by the horrible POV and OR edit", despite it was correctly sourced. No violation.
 * diff 10: outdated diff from 21 February. It was made in response to personal attacks (and misleading accusations of being SPA) by other user that read "time you drop your POV stick, because an SPA whose first edits involve adding contentious OR and POV". Though incivil, but both sides, but no actual violation from me.
 * diff 11: outdated diff from 21 February. Made in response to frequent personal attacks and false accusations such as "''You are not only a POV warrior, but an WP:SPA whose only purpose is to cause disruption. And you are definitely not a new user'" . Since I have edited subjects about multiple continents in last 4 years and yet I was seeing an years old editor making frequent false allegations of socking and being SPA. As usual, no violation.
 * diff 12: removal of WP:COPYVIO, self-published sources/opinion pieces, unreliable sources and what Wikipedia is not, recently added by an editor with unusual edit summary. No violation.
 * diff 13: same as above, and this time removal of misrepresentation of source too. Where did the source was "10.2 million" or "recording a growth of 15.9%"? Source said "10 million" and 12%. (though 12.49 should be corrected to 12.36 and I didn't got chance following these sanctions) No violation.
 * diff 14: when next user provides you self-published, unreliable, outdated sources for making claims as though the problem is prevailing, you happen to let them know why the article has been rid of such information to this day and we need better sources, WP:RS, for inclusion. No violation.
 * diff 15: per WP:DENY, I removed RfC tag of the RfC started by this obvious sock after the seeing the convincing SPI where I was pinged. No violation.
 * diff 16 same as above.
 * diff 17 same as above.
 * diff 18 not even under scope of Arbitration sanctions and otherwise no violation.

I responded to Sandstein, highlighting both sides and the credibility of this report. Sandstein made a response and closed the report in just 16 hours and blocked me indefinitely by making disparaging remarks about me in his comment, and also making contrary claims like " rather than convince us that it will not reoccur", despite he never even asked, and "incivility by others is no excuse for incivility of one's own", however, when a user is reported to WP:ARE, conduct of all parties is observed so it is necessary to highlight conduct of others when allegations have been made against you.

In short words, there was not even a single diff for which I could be sanctioned. Anyone can misrepresent more than a dozen of diffs about any user but admin's work is to properly judge them and Sandstein failed there. If the user was not a sock then still, Sandstein had to remind all involved parties of the dispute about relevant policies of conduct than singling me out and blocking me in violation of blocking policy. Since I had no earlier sanctions or blocks, he had to leave a note per WP:BEFOREBLOCK and make it clear that it should not happen. What Sandstein deemed as "incivility" didn't even involved any use of the seven dirty words, nor I think you will find anybody else on Wikipedia getting blocked over that. Sandstein also topic banned me from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, despite I never even edited Afghanistan. Given all these problems, I request Arbcom to consider both the block and topic ban to be invalid and request Arbcom to remove the topic ban. MapSGV (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein you are still misrepresenting me and my edits to justify your unwarranted actions.

18 diffs do not make "10%" of "223". None of the diffs involved any violation. Are you saying that if I had 1000 edits then you wouldnt be sanctioning? Which policy says that higher edit count can save you from getting sanctioned? Many of my edits have nothing to do with this subject hence I am not SPA but you are falsely claiming me to be. You seem to be asserting that users can be topic banned from whole India, Pakistan and Afghanistan but not any one of them, which is also wrong. WP:NOTTHEM is for unblock requests and here it is relevant to give details on background. MapSGV (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, Sandstein never gave me a single warning and indeffed me right away. I never had a warning from any other admin or user either. MapSGV (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein, Siachen conflict was improved because of me and there are chances it will be improved when I will be able to edit it again. All diffs from Siachen conflict were outdated and not one sided. Leave out a couple of messages with petty civility issues, have you read my most messages there? Majority of editors there agreed with my scholarly accepted WP:RS based content. Is that is why you topic banned me from there or you see something that no one else can see? There's no reason why you should single me out. MapSGV (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to prove my edits as "stronger than desired POV"? Evidence suggests that my edits were agreed by most editors and they are backed by scholarly WP:RS. That's not a POV, but representation of mainstream academic view. – MapSGV (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You should look into the problem with the sanction that is being appealed. Since you have read a discussion on talk page, you must have also seen that most editors supported my comments. "how you present that perspective" is immaterial to the policy (WP:NOPOV) when you are talking about "POV". It will be a POV only if it contradicts any of the points mentioned at WP:NOPOV and none of my edits contradict any of the points mentioned there.
 * By reading the discussion on talk page, you must have also seen one editor frequently calling verifiable references a fake, and one other editor frequently making personal attacks on multiple editors, falsely accusing of socking, putting his personal opinion over reliable sources. If these users were not sanctioned for their much worse conduct despite past blocks concerning same subject, then there is no way I have to be singled out, and Sandstein had the opportunity to look into this, he had to see the root of the problem and also see that who was being undoubtedly offensive and disruptive, but Sandstein didn't. That's why the "personal attacks" that you are referring, they were not one-sided, nor I am the one to start them and instead I tried to avoid them despite I was being attacked. The diffs from Siachen conflict also seemed outdated, no action had to be taken. Rest of the reported diffs involved a ban evading disruptive sock who was harassing, edit warring, misrepresenting sources and violating copyrights.
 * Except these important reasons, sanctions are unwarranted also because I never even had a prior warning. All of this has been already clarified by other arbitrators. – MapSGV (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
At Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive227 I outlined my reasons for what was initially a non-AE indef block and which I later changed to a topic ban. Specifically, MapSGV had then made only 223 edits, and of these, some 10% had been problematic as reported in the AE thread. This is not an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio, especially in a high-tension topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. I concluded then that MapSGV's contribution to this topic area is not a net benefit to Wikipedia.

What is being submitted here on appeal does not make me change this view. The discourse about supposed socking by others is beside the point because the conduct of others is not relevant to sanctions imposed on MapSGV; see WP:NOTTHEM. The comments on the individual diffs are also immaterial, because it is the number of problematic or at least questionable edits by MapSGV, in proportion to their other editing, that made me impose the sanction, and not the particulars of any one of these edits. Afghanistan is included in the topic ban because it is part of the real-world conflicts affecting the topic area.

Moreover, the fact that MapSGV has not made any edits unrelated to the sanction since being sanctioned 18 days ago indicates that they are not interested in productive editing outside of issues related to the conflicts in India and Pakistan. We do not need more WP:SPAs dedicated to ethno-nationalist conflicts.

I therefore recommend that this appeal be declined.  Sandstein  17:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Newyorkbrad: The conduct at issue was mainly about Siachen conflict, a conflict between India and Pakistan. I suppose one could omit Afghanistan from the ban, but a frequent practice at AE is to make the scope of topic bans correspond to the DS topic area to avoid issues of boundary-testing, gaming, etc.  Sandstein   19:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You ask me to comment on whether "the block is no longer preventative". The block has already been lifted. What is being contested here, insofar as I understand it, is the subsequent topic ban. In my view, MapSGV's edits linked to in the AE request indicate that they would not be a net benefit to Wikipedia if they were to continue to contribute to articles related to India-Pakistan conflicts. I would therefore prefer to maintain the topic ban until MapSGV has demonstrated substantial productive editing in other topic areas, but would be open to restricting its scope further if MapSGV intends to edit uncontroversial India- or Pakistan-related articles.  Sandstein   15:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In response to your question on my talk page, I have taken note of the comments made so far but do not have anything to add to what I wrote above.  Sandstein   15:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lorstaking
Most of the diffs concerned a ban evading sock who was on verge of getting blocked, hence the credibility is not just limited with reporting but the evidence itself. SPI showed that the sock was Wikihounding every page that had been edited by MapSGV, and had the tendency of Wikihounding other editors and then calling them a sock for justifying his harassment and he was calling MapSGV a sock as well.

As for other diffs, anyone can point out a number of diffs about just anyone from a heated content dispute where a couple of editors are engaging in original research, making personal attacks and disregarding reliable sources. You need to read what MapSGV was replying to, and he tried not to fall into their level at first. I don't see any "personal attacks" for which he could be sanctioned by any other admin and Sandstein himself refuses to take action against users engaging in long term pattern of egregious personal attacks, misrepresentation of sources, gaming of system, edit warring, and other forms of disruption as seen in these two recently closed AE reports. One of them directly involving a user who had offensive interactions with MapSGV as well as other editors not only on Talk:Siachen conflict, but also an AfD. If other users are allowed to scot-free for their egregious personal attacks and long term pattern of problematic editing, then MapSGV should not be singled out just for trivial civility issues.

Later on, MapSGV had interactions on AfD of Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan, where the AfD result ended up supporting MapSGV's opinion and not his opponents. Here, MapSGV was again attacked by the same user but MapSGV remained civil.

WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL describes how to make judgement on incivility and MapSGV couldn't be sanctioned in this regard if we go by the policy and standards.

Again, I have also never seen anyone getting sanctioned like MapSGV has been and without even a single warning. That's why this topic ban as well as the block lacks any merit and contradicts the policies and standards. Lorstaking (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by D4iNa4
Blocking and then topic banning a well-meaning editor over small civility issues (that weren't one sided) without even a prior warning and solely relying on report lodged by disruptive ban evading sock is objectionable and also out of process. Sandstein should've considered making a discussion with MapSGV first and had to make similar discussion with other involved users that engaged in incivility.

Most editors agree with MapSGV's contributions to Siachen conflict, because they were important and his edits brought back focus on result of the battle, which is also emphasized by scholars and academics. MapSGV's edits contradicted the long term POV version that was pushed by FreeatlastChitchat, and MapSGV became target of FreeatlastChitchat who would abuse his sock to harass MapSGV and then file an AE report after failing to get his POV on articles. Since incivility is judged after reviewing entire incident and MapSGV was clearly provoked by others who made false accusations against him, there was no way he had to be singled out while leaving others. The AfD pointed out above is a good example, where MapSGV was again attacked but he was civil. FreeatlastChitchat always had a tendency of filing frivolous complaints and he had done same with me with his main account. Talk:Roti also ended up supporting MapSGV's opinion, hence MapSGV should be allowed to edit this subject since he happens to be correct with his edits, unlike those who engage in disruption to right great wrongs.

In all fairness, Sandstein is clearly incorrect and his failure to understand the errors with his actions is concerning. This is not happening for the first time but just another time, despite issues have been raised before about his mishandling of AE reports, and given Sandstein's disappointing responses here, I am inclined to think that Sandstein's mishandling of AE reports is going to create problems in future. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing
Although I disagree with this sanction in the sense that it's not what I would have done, I think it was within administrator discretion and would be unlikely to be overturned on appeal at AE (I would certainly opine that way in an appeal there). I still think it would have been better to let the SPI play out before taking action on this request, because although it is true that we expect editors to behave calmly and civilly even with socks of disruptive editors, and the fact they were responding to disruption does not excuse or give them license for being disruptive themselves, it should IMO be taken as a mitigating circumstance when deciding a sanction for that disruption. To do otherwise is to be seen to be enabling harassment. I would therefore urge Sandstein to commute this to time served plus a warning not to respond to disruption in kind. GoldenRing (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2018 (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.

DS appeal by MapSGV: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse see above. GoldenRing (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

DS appeal by MapSGV: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I am reviewing this appeal, bearing in mind the discretion accorded to administrators in AE/DS areas. As I read the history, however, the sanction against MapSGV was based primarily on incivility and allegations (at least some of which proved correct) that other editors were socking. As the sanctioning administrator, Sandstein, himself recognized while unblocking MapSGV, the editor has agreed to improve his level of civility. I see no prior warnings and there is no prior block history, and the sanction does not seem to have been based on substantively improper content editing. A lengthy topic-ban based primarily on first-offense civility concerns strikes me as an unusually severe sanction. ¶ In addition, I note that while Sandstein has expressed concern above about MapSGV's editing on "the conflicts in India and Pakistan" and about MapSGV's failure to edit on other subjects since being sanctioned, the scope of the topic-ban goes well beyond "the conflicts in India and Pakistan." Rather, the topic-ban specifically bars MapSGV from any editing about "everything related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan." (Emphasis added.) That scope goes far, far beyond a topic-ban from editing about conflicts between India and Pakistan. (The equivalent in scope might be my being topic-banned from "everything related to the United States," or Sandstein's being topic-banned from "everything related to Europe.") I would ask Sandstein to comment on whether, even assuming a topic-ban is otherwise warranted, the one imposed is overbroad in scope to the extent indicated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've belatedly modified the title of this request, for clarity. I invite Sandstein to provide any further input in light of the comments added since he last posted to this page. As a general response to another arbitrator's comment, a decision to overturn a particular discretionary sanction is not a "rebuke" of the administrator who issued it, but merely a disagreement with a particular judgment call. Admins are not expected to take things personally when there's a consensus on ANI to lift a block or on DRV to restore a deletion, and this situation shouldn't be any different. On the procedural issues, please note the current discussion on the motions subpage; I hope editors with thoughts on the proposed motion, particularly admins active on AE, will comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As the discussion seems to have come to rest, and Sandstein has indicated he has no further comments, I've proposed motions below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I consider the issue with the block and its duration to have already been addressed; MapSGV was blocked, concerns were primarily raised about the duration (not about the validity), and the block was changed by the blocking admin. Any remaining complaints about administrative misconduct should be deferred back to the community at the appropriate venue. If the community is unable to reach a consensus to address the issue, it may be continued in the form of a case request to ArbCom, although, I expect the community deems this aspect already resolved.
 * In regards to AE/DS, the primary basis of MapSGV's request relies on two arguments: the filing was done by a disruptive party and the diffs used should be deemed "stale". It is not uncommon at AE, ArbCom case, and AN/ANI requests, to continue to be reviewed by administrators or the Arbitration Committee if there are merits to the request. The Arthur Rubin case as a recent example. As for whether the evidence submitted to AE is inadmissible, the operative word "may" in the instructions means possibility, not absolute requirement. Using such a technicality to argue "there was not even a single diff for which I could be sanctioned", when it comes to personal attacks and disruptive editing, is not reasonably going to extricate the party from sanctions. I see a troubling pattern of behaviour where MapSGV fails to acknowledge their part in the dispute with comments such as "... I am confident that I was blocked for no reason", despite a lengthy list of personal attacks listed at AE. The topic ban expires after 6 months of problem-free editing. I welcome other comments from the community, but I am inclined to uphold the sanction. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 22:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the sanction probably shouldn't have been imposed. A block was imposed, and the editor promised to correct their behavior. That's usually the time where we let them show us they will correct their behavior or won't, after which we can act accordingly. This is especially relevant where most of the problematic behavior was directed at a now-blocked sock. To be clear, the block does not excuse incivility, but if most of the behavioral problems centered around a now-removed editor, it's very possible that continued sanctions are not preventative. Having said all that, I see nothing here that makes me think this goes beyond something that can/should be handled by the community. I think ArbCom's role in appeals should be as a final venue to correct gross misuses of administrator discretion. While I may not agree with this particular sanction, I don't think it's indefensible. There was disruptive behavior here, and an admin made a difficult decision in a difficult area. Without taking a negative stance on his use of discretion here, I would ask to read this and reflect on whether there's a good chance the block is no longer preventative because the locus of it has been blocked. If he were willing to reduce or remove the sanction, I think that would be best, especially if he was willing to keep an eye out on new activity after the easing of sanctions to see if they should be replaced. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the topic ban; typed my comment relatively quickly due to an engagement I had to get to. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I had hoped not to address this as a Committee, but accept. Yes, the behavior wasn't good. Personal attacks are not okay, though it's worth noting that they were directed at a sock who was rather clearly goading him. The editor received zero warnings followed by an indefinite block. That block was clearly disproportional and has already been lifted by the blocking admin, but it was replaced by an indefinite topic ban that is itself rather dubious. It is the burden of the sanctioning admin to show their sanction is preventative, and with zero warnings prior to the sanction and zero chances for the editor to change their behavior, that burden can't be met here. I would like to remind that, while arbitration enforcement is unique in many ways, it's not unique in the sense that editors should generally be given a chance to correct their behavior before being sanctioned for it. There are some exceptions for short-term sanctions needed to put an immediate stop to active disruption (e.g. a 31-hour 1RR violation block, if edit-warring is ongoing), but long-term sanctions should almost always occur only after at least one warning that the specific problematic behavior needs to change. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While there's nothing wrong with bringing this here, it probably could have been more efficiently handled by appealing directly at AE. (Arbs are slowpokes, after all.) The disputed block has already been undone, so I gather this is intended as an appeal of the topic ban. Now, I don't like that decision at all; it's much too heavy-handed for my taste, and made worse by the fact that the original complainant was a sock. MapSGV has not responded very gracefully to this outcome, but that's common and unsurprising when someone feels that a member of the community with more 'power' has treated them poorly. All that said, I do think this decision was broadly within administrative discretion; "not to Opabinia's taste" isn't a violation of anything. I think this would be better off overturned, but as a gesture of good faith, not as some kind of rebuke on anyone involved. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with OR. I don't think the topic ban was necessary although I understand why it was placed. I too think it would be better overturned, or at the very least, reduced in scope to cover only the India-Pakistan conflict rather than everything about India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, as NYB suggested. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to concur with some of my fellow arbs here. The topic ban I feel was a bit on the heavy handed side, and should be at the most reduced to cover the I/P conflict, if not removed all together. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , here is not the venue to re-visit specific details of a content dispute. I have been reading through Talk:Siachen_conflict, and my conclusion is that sometimes it is not about the perspective you present, but how you present that perspective. Reading through this particular discussion, I see several instances of personal attacks that makes it difficult to revoke the topic ban, regretfully. Alex Shih (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Motion 1
The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained, and the topic-ban imposed on MapSGV on March 2, 2018 is lifted. MapSGV remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies.

Enacted -  Mini  apolis  17:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Per discussion above. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) First choice. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) First choice. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Let's give this a try. Of course, granting this appeal does not mean similar sanctions can't be re-imposed if there are further problems. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) only choice.  DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Neither option offers the option to reduce the sanction duration as indicated by several Arbs as one possibility. In that absence, I prefer Motion 2. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  04:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  Doug Weller  talk 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * 1) Alex Shih (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussion by arbitrators


 * Community comments

Motion 2
The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained to the extent that the topic-ban imposed on March 2, 2018 is modified to provide, "MapSGV is topic-banned from editing regarding conflicts between India and Pakistan until September 2, 2018." MapSGV may edit regarding other topics involving India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, but remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies.


 * Support
 * 1) Per discussion above. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Second choice. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) First choice. It can't harm the encyclopedia for the topic ban to continue and allows MapSGV plenty of articles to edit. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) First choice. I disagree with some of the justifications for this topic ban, but for a contentious area like conflicts between India and Pakistan, MapSGV certainly edits with stronger than desired POV; the modification looks fine to me. I have a feeling that first motion will pass, and ideally I would like to support both; although if I was to make a choice, I would prefer to make a weak support for this motion instead. Alex Shih (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  04:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Too elaborate  DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Abstain


 * Discussion by arbitrators


 * Community comments

Amendment request: India-Pakistan (June 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by MapSGV at 18:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=841350919


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * GoldenRing
 * NadirAli
 * MBlaze Lightning
 * Capitals00
 * TripWire
 * Mar4d
 * SheriffIsInTown
 * D4iNa4
 * Raymond3023
 * Sdmarathe


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=841350919
 * Removal of topic ban

Statement by MapSGV
My topic ban was removed by Arbcom from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan on 7 April for appropriate reasons. Since that Arbcom action, I have made barely a couple of edits in relation to these subjects, and my last edit to this subject  is from 11 April, which helped gaining consensus.

Even if they banned me only for editing the subject, it is still a frivolous ban because WP:ARE clearly says that "Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale". I also received a malicious threat of "indefinite block, without further warning" which is totally baseless. Do someone really sanction people based on personal assumption or thoughtless predictions? Or I am worse than a vandal now?

I was inactive for over 12 days from Wikipedia and last time I edited an article about the subject in question was about 33 days. I was not even notified in the TLDR report or my talk page. No evidence had been posted that why I have to be topic banned. My name was being blindly endorsed on proposed list of topic banned users. WP:AE is too dysfunctional because it allows admins to abuse tools or there is a serious problem with the tradition of handling these issues. This is very concerning since this has happened for another time and this time it was absolutely worse than it was before. — MapSGV (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I had appealed the ARE decision, I have notified all other affected users. — MapSGV (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * GoldenRing you should not misrepresent my comments for finding a justification solely because you are lacking it. You are not doing yourself any favor by claiming that only because I had participated in the subject that is why I am as culpable as others. Are you really saying that if one editor is frequently goading other editor then both should be topic banned? Are you really saying that if one editor is arguing other editor by engaging in policy violation (WP:OR, WP:TE, WP:SYNTH) then both should be topic banned? Do you really believe that if one editor has commented on a space where other editor with behavioral issues has also commented then both should be topic banned? Arguments happen everywhere in the world including Wikipedia. You can have a look at current version of WP:ARE, WP:ANI, etc. and you will discover that many editors are arguing similarly or worse. To justify the topic ban by citing mere existence of the argument is a flawed logic. — MapSGV (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * These comments including "I support what GoldenRing did... I support their statements", "fully support what Golden Ring... get my support", "I endorse GoldenRing... I agree" are not doing any favor either per WP:NOTAVOTE. Ivanvector below fails to define how the topic ban is "justified" but refers my "recent participation" as evidence, despite my actual edits in this subject were policy based and I had made them 33 days ago before the topic ban. — MapSGV (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Rehashing weak evidence from AE won't make it better. I was not a participant in any of those "discussions", and those editors didn't deserved to be topic banned because of those discussions at all. To me this looks nothing more than wheel-warring when one admin takes action over something where other administrators have already acted and the original "discussion" was already closed/archived. 3/5 of the links mentioned by GoldenRing suffer from that defect, and I am not counting one which was just a duplicate link as discussion was moved (from copyrights board to article talk page). You have misunderstanding about subject restrictions. They are exclusively made for judging the policy violation and for the smooth running of the project. Your statements, like that of others lack evidence obviously because you haven't even made efforts for the betterment of the situation. But nevertheless, editors have picked up that approach which is admirable and I support it. — MapSGV (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I remind those users that two wrongs make a right, who are defending the sanction by saying that decision involved multiple admins contrary to previous topic ban that involved only one admin (Sandstein). It can be also argued that Sandstein is more experienced compared to admins like GoldenRing, et al., when it concerns WP:AE and even after being so experienced he was wrong with what he had done. That's why such justifications are not convincing when it is clear that this AE decision was a mistake. — MapSGV (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised with GoldenRing's badgering in this ARCA. Looks like he has also planned how he will indefinitely block the editors. His comments show he is trying to prove how he might be correct with his assumption of bad faith and misrepresentation of other's statement. He continues to give weight to frivolous requests of "indefinite blocks" for justifying his clear-cut policy violating topic bans that he largely placed for petty civility issues that are not actually "sanctionable" according to his own opinion either, let alone 100s of admins that observed the same comments weeks before him. In which sense it is a sanctionable conduct if someone is calling out disruption on an administrator board? It is understandable that why GoldenRing has to falsify evidence to defend himself, for example, he claims that D4iN4a was "arguing that everyone they disagreed with should be banned", so far D4iN4a's own statement only reads that "you had to be blocked indefinitely", that's totally different to what GoldenRing has been claiming. GoldenRing is ignoring the specifics that who is right and who is wrong, he just thinks that as long as you have been a participant you should be topic banned. GoldenRing is not addressing that who is the offender and who is the victim, he is treating both things as same. In real, GoldenRing himself doesn't see any of these comments as sanctionable. A perfect example is this AE report, where the violation of 1RR and personal attack was reported but GoldenRing asked the user to "strike" their comment while adding that he he wants to see main article edits to be disruptive by saying there is no "problem on either side in the article space edits given". However, GoldenRing is here deliberately misusing the policy on civility, while ignoring WP:IUC which is a fundamental part of policy on civility. Goldenring's own lack of prior efforts for the betterment of situation speaks a lot.

It is not surprising that GoldenRing is failing to recognize the errors with his actions. GoldenRing has poorly handled arbitration enforcements before in his short tenure. He has previously engaged in endlessly arguing over unwarranted sanctions he issued, even after being told by other admins and editors that he is wrong. This has happened earlier both on WP:ARE and WP:AN, and even after all that GoldenRing has shown no improvement. Finally, it is also evident that GoldenRing has deliberately wheel-warred ArbCom by taking action on same weak evidence that was already reviewed and rejected by ArbCom in the appeal where he himself participated and opposed the topic ban. An admonishment is clearly warranted. Admonishment will further help improve the tradition of handling these issues. MapSGV (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the motion. I agree with your earlier comment that exact group wasn't chosen correctly. I am hoping to help out with that.


 * Issues have been raised here, whether all are disruptive or some are disruptive. We can acknowledge that we wouldn't be here if no one was disruptive. Similarly, we can also acknowledge that if everyone was disruptive then this appeal would've been rejected long ago and there would be no filibustering because disruptive editing can speak for itself.


 * and Bu Rob13, I have taken the liberty to analyze the issue and I can back up my analysis with diffs. I would simply summarize for now that after going through the statements posted on ARE, I find evidence of edit warring, copyright violation, source misrepresentation, forum shopping, harassment, misrepresentation of policies, etc. for multiple editors of Group 1 (Mar4d, SheriffIsInTown, TripWire, NadirAli, JosephusOfJerusalem), but due to lack of any such evidence of policy violations for Group 2 (Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023, D4iNa4 and me ), at least half of the topic bans appears to be entirely unwarranted because half of the editors are far from the misconduct that warrants a topic ban. Their participation is nothing more than engagement in the area that was being dominated with disruption of others. I was not present in any of the disputes.


 * One editor is engaging in disruption while other one is only replying in order to convince other editor otherwise. I don't know why both should banned. It is also apparent that admins have often refused to take action in order to avoid the impression that they are taking sides in disputes and now we are seeing equal amount of topic bans on both groups for avoiding that same impression. However such doctrine is not encouraged by any policy of Wikipedia.


 * In the whole list, only TripWire and NadirAli have been sanctioned in this area under discretionary sanctions before. Why other editors are topic banned indefinitely? It is giving a misleading impression that some editors require more warnings while some should be sanctioned right away. While topic bans from Group 2 should be vacated, I think warning should be tried for SheriffIsInTown and JosephusOfJerusalem, because they had no past blocks or sanctions. I had hoped I could say the same for Mar4d but it seems that he has thwarted me for saying such because he has already breached his topic ban multiple times. — MapSGV (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have never seen you before this ARCA and you don't have to filibuster if evidence exists. Why can't you provide diffs for the violations in place of repeating the unfounded speculations in violation of WP:ASPERSIONS? I noted that only TripWire and NadirAli were topic banned "under discretionary sanctions" and evidence exists that why they should remain topic banned. It's not something where you have to trying finding loopholes unless you can reject it entirely with evidence. I can understand that you have disputes with a number of editors here but it looks awkward when you are this hell-bent on keeping them sanctioned that your replies are much larger compared to those from the sanctioned parties despite your lack of involvement in these disputes.


 * I haven't supported topic ban on you, but now I am curious to know why you are defending others and asking for the evidence for the obvious? It is well known now that I am getting banned every time for the problems that were caused by editors like TripWire, Mar4d. I had added verifiable content on Siachen conflict, which was referred as "WP:FAKE" by TripWire and "complete mockery" by Mar4d and it continued to get worse despite present version supports my edits. It is clear their disruption evolved overtime and having them in the area has proven that "a rotten apple spoils the barrel". You had participated in the entire ARE, you must have read this and this. Evidence exists for backing the points that I have made above and I have myself discovered some more evidence that I would provide later. Mar4d has mentioned Chuck Yeager, by highlighting his career ("1971 to 1973") which was mainly about Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and concerned destruction at PAF Base Nur Khan. The base had also played a role in Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, and Mar4d edited about the base at least two times. That's a topic ban violation. — MapSGV (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You are getting it all wrong there. Are you really saying that Elektricity was being truthful when he falsely claimed that CheckUser has absolved him? WP:ARE clearly states that "diffs older than one week may be declined as stale", so I am correct there. Are you really saying that people should be topic banned only because they had edited the page over a month ago and made 100% accurate edits? There are no "disputed categories" because Siachen lies in India as a result of its victory in Siachen conflict. By calling it "disputed" you are misrepresenting the geography and history. As for the rest, Mar4d has been harassing me from the beginning by asking multiple admins to block me and he was still requesting a block on me and Capitals00 in this diff that you have added in place of getting over the accurate decision. I was pinged by Ivanvector to that discussion. I had clearly said to Mar4d that he "should find some other hobby", but in place of dropping the WP:STICK he opened an ANI to get me blocked and made personal attacks like calling me "WP:NOTHERE". He never notified me or SPI clerk or anyone else involved about the ANI and grossly misrepresented statements of both CheckUser and SPI clerk in the ANI to get me blocked.
 * What really made you believe that I am responsible for this mass disruption by Mar4d? I am not! You can't punish editors only because they have disputes with other editors and somehow their kind efforts to improve Wikipedia has provoked disruptive editors to cause more disruption. That's simply not how the things should work. MapSGV (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pointing out confirmed sock puppetry of a user who is falsely accusing you of sock puppetry for 3 months is not "accusing someone else being a sock". And how replying to long term harassment after being notified of the discussion is a justification for topic ban? One needs to prove disruption on the content space for it. One can put one-way interaction ban on Mar4d for his harassment, but so far there is no reason to put a topic ban on me only because he was harassing me because he couldn't get his unrealistic POV accepted on Siachen conflict. Which "unchanged attitude" are you talking about? Read my above response for knowing more. Why I should be punished for mass disruption of someone else? I am not the one who filed frivolous SPI and I am not the one who forum shopped for the SPI after it was rejected. Are there any past examples of people getting topic banned because of disruptive behavior of others? By permitting such a non-policy basis for topic bans, we are only encouraging harassment and disruption since every editor is likely to respond to the messages or call out on disruption and then find themselves sanctioned only for pointing it while letting people scot-free who engage in mass disruption(edit war, BLPvio copyvio, IDHT, harassment). When there are no policy basis for topic banning, the topic ban should be removed. That's what the policy suggests. They are not to be preserved only for creating false balance for avoiding the impression of taking sides in a dispute. To me it seems as if admins actually waited for the rotten apple to spoil the barrel by allowing disruptive editors to cause so much disruption that everyone would become fed up of it and then confuse editors with disruptive ones. The evidence GoldenRing came up after 20 days shows he doesn't understand the Arbcom ruling and he also lacks understanding about this India-Pakistan conflict because he refers Siachen as "disputed". How can you really rely on judgement of someone who don't even know simple basics of the elements involved? Can he accurately judge what is a topic ban violation or what is a disruptive edit in this subject? Evidently not. — MapSGV (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by being "part the problem"? AE admins didn't provided even 1 diff about me. I didn't asked anyone to violate a policy and neither I have and if my actions have encouraged others to act more disruptively for making their point then why I should be punished for that? I think we will soon see people reverting vandalism/BLPvio getting blocked only because they are "part the problem". — MapSGV (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not even close because my last edit to the area was 33 days before I got topic banned. Why you should be sanctioned only because your opponent is engaging in mass disruption and had some dispute with you in the past where they were 100% wrong? I opened this appeal for reviewing the ARE decision, I didn't opened it for hearing what went there. I have already asked if there is any policy or past examples of people getting topic banned just because of disruptive behavior of others and I am still not receiving any answer about it. — MapSGV (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is well known that many people are going to misrepresent things in favor of admins because they are more familiar with those admins. Let's forget he is an admin, it is also agreeable that a lot of times, understandings are construed depending on the popularity of the person. You, as an arbitrator, was selected for dealing with such type of difficulties that users continue to face because of poor administration. Contrary to that, you have only referred ARE decision and now you are referring to comments of others. The diff you are linking is not doing anything more than showing harassment by an editor (Mar4d) who didn't dropped the WP:STICK even after the SPI closure and getting answers on talk page discussion. He went to continue the harassment by opening an ANI that he opened without notifying and grossly misrepresented statements of both CheckUser and SPI clerk and made personal attacks and after that ANI thread was closed he still continued the harassment even in unrelated venues. It is clear that Mar4d was goading me and provoking me all the time but I only made 1 reply to his harassment and it was only because I assumed that he could convince the reviewing admin just like GoldenRing has convinced you and a few others about the sanctions he imposed, despite half of them are based on disruptive behaviors of others. Punishing me for someone's intended harassment/disruption is not how the things should work. Where I am responsible for all that disruptive forumshopping and harassment carried out by somebody else? I am not. I had expected GoldenRing to cite disruptive editing related to the content for which topic bans are imposed as per the policy, but that's totally missing here. I can only urge you to change your vote based on the evidence. — MapSGV (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing
First, some formalities: I have received an appeal by email from SheriffIsInTown which I haven't processed in detail yet. My apologies for the delay. Also, as far as I am aware, MapSGV was not notified of the AE discussion and there is no requirement that they be notified, only that they be formally aware of DS, which they were (documented in the AE discussion).

To the substance of the appeal, this ban was not particularly directed at MapSGV, it covered ten editors who, between them, have turned subjects related to the India-Pakistan conflict into a battleground and MapSGV is clearly part of that battle. I realise that much of the evidence on which I included MapSGV in the ban comes from before their recent successful appeal here; nonetheless, reading back through the committee's comments on that appeal, they seem to have been of the opinion that the ban Sandstein issued was too broad, not that it was unwarranted, and it seems fairly clear that their basic approach hasn't changed (eg diff - a significant part of the problem here is editors constantly lobbying to get each other banned). MapSGV tried in their last appeal to argue that diffs older than one week were inadmissible; the suggestion was shot down then and their trying the same argument now is not impressive. Every admin who made a substantive comment on the AE report - me, Seraphimblade, Bishonen, Drmies, Sandstein, Ivanvector and Vanamonde93 (the last being INVOLVED) - agreed that the sanction was necessary. For completeness, NeilN commented without supporting, to say that he had not the time to investigate. Several editors (both admin and not) complained that the sanction I proposed was too lenient. The sanction was not indiscriminate - it took some convincing from others for me to include MBlaze Lightning and some argued for the inclusion of Lorstaking as well, which in the end I thought was not justified.

MapSGV is as culpable as any other editor for the mess that India-Pakistan conflicts have become and banning everyone but them on procedural grounds would be both manifestly unjust and to the detriment of the project.

If a clerk could please notify the admins involved at AE of this discussion, I would be grateful.

I would like to comment on MBlaze Lightning's statement below. It is extremely disingenuous of them to claim I obviously haven't read the threads I linked because MapSGV didn't participate in them; while that is true, one of them is an SPI investigation of MapSGV and another is an ANI review of that SPI. Although the SPI was closed with no action on socking grounds, both present diffs of MapSGV's battleground attitude. It is also difficult to square their statement here that I highly appreciate the approach of these users. In view of the statements above, it is apparent that we all are willing to work together and put all grudges aside with his arguing not three weeks ago that Mar4d should be indeffed because Such a long term disruption clearly warrants an indef block. I expect no return without a topic ban from South Asia subjects, because of his lack of competence (diff); accusing JosephusOfJerusalem of a glaring lack of understanding of the very policies that he [sic] citing and gross battleground mentality (diff) and filed an SPI against them with evidence such as both using phrases "there needs to be a", "a conclusion not", "policy based arguments", "strengthens my", "it does not matter", "I am afraid", "for a long time", "into the article" and "this comment is" (see here - Capitals00 chimes in with even more ludicrous evidence which in any other context I would suspect of being satirical); accused SheriffIsInTown of serious WP:CIR issues (diff); accusing Mar4d of defending a bogus SPI filed in bad faith [that] speaks only about the filer's misconduct (diff); it really is quite the turnaround, but I think the above amply demonstrates the need for the ban, in their case.

TripWire's statement below is also hard to take seriously; I would indeed urge the committee to read that discussion as it includes gems from TripWire like This WP:IDHT attitude wont get you anywhere and You sir are a text-book case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It's also simply not true that that is the only one of the pages I linked where TripWire participated; they also commented on the Capitals00 SPI case (diff), where they took the opportunity to accuse MBL of frivolous Witch hunting, and to accuse Kautilya3 of off-wiki collaboration with a banned editor on ridiculous evidence. He doesn't deny that it's a problem, it's just all those other editors baiting him with their battleground mentality.

Capitals00 below argues that ARE has no jurisdiction on those boards but this is simply not true. Use of administrative noticeboard reports to carry on a dispute is classic battleground behaviour and squarely in the domain handled at AE. Otherwise, I'm not sure what to make of their comment; apparently, sanctions I impose are unjustified... and should be replaced with a different set of sanctions they've devised? Anyone who thinks that there are no problems related to Donald Trump should not be devising AE sanctions.

JosephusOfJerusalem seems to think that as soon as a boomerang appears, he can avoid it by withdrawing the complaint. It says in the big red box at the top of AE, If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. It's fairly clear that the "unnecessary trouble brewing" that he saw was sanctions proposed against himself. I explained their inclusion in the ban here and don't see a particular need to expand on that.

NadirAli claims here that in all that discussion no evidence was provided by the sysops that I had done any sort of misconduct yet there were clear examples of edit-warring presented which led to full protection of Princely State. In retrospect, I wish I'd looked at the edit history of that article as it would have been a pretty good shortcut to most of the names that ended up banned.

I will close this statement by saying that these are all capable, competent editors who need to go and find something else to do because their interactions on this topic has become so toxic that there have been repeated calls for them to all be indeffed. I think that would be a loss to the project. The ban is not infinite, it is indefinite, with a specific recommendation that it be lifted after six months of productive editing elsewhere. GoldenRing (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I trust that the irony of JosephusOfJerusalem turning up here to berate me for imposing sanctions when I "should assist cooperation instead of neglecting genuine issues and then punishing people after for problems they could have themselves easily averted" is not lost on anyone - it was him who brought two complaints to AE with the comment "a very long block is in order" and arguing that "that the problems are entirely one-sided." I know he thinks he answered the accusations against him satisfactorily, but that's rather a different thing.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's entirely up to the committee, of course, but I think my preference would be to deal with this as an appeal en masse. Seven of the ten sanctioned editors have indicated that they wish to appeal here, so dealing with them piecemeal is going to create a lot of work, both for you and for me.  As far as I can tell, there is no realistic defect in the process here; all the editors involved were aware per the terms of WP:AC/DS and this was carefully documented in the AE case.  The sanctions were duly logged and editors notified of them.  I was not INVOLVED and no-one has alleged that I was.  Are there any other process questions?  If not, then the appeal comes down to whether the sanction was warranted, and that I think is a question better dealt with en masse, as the evidence is largely the same in each case and reading through the evidence will give you a pretty good idea of the reasons the sanctions were imposed and the culpability of each editor.  If this approach is taken, the clerks should notify the remaining sanctioned editors who haven't commented here (Raymond3023, D4iNa4 and Mar4d) that their participation is invited in this appeal.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I structured the ban as I did to avoid waiting it out; I agree that a ban from all things IPA would effectively end the careers of some of these editors and I didn't want that, and that is indeed why I chose the scope of ban I did (though some at AE argued for a full IPA ban, and others elsewhere have argued for indefinite blocks). My reason for not giving the ban an automatic expiry is that the problem is not one-off, egregious behaviour but long term, mid-level disruption.  If we had an automatic expiry with further disruption leading to an indefinite ban, I think there is a fair chance that the first sign of disruption would be the filing of an SPI, ANEW, AE or similar complaint.  Almost any such complaint from these editors, especially against each other (but in general against anyone who is active in the IPA area) would amount to further disruption; but it would not be obvious to someone who is not familiar with the situation that six months absence, a bit of only-slightly-disruptive editing and a noticeboard complaint (which might itself, on the face of it, seem plausible) is justification for an indefinite topic ban; I think in this case the community's time would be wasted to a large extent on meritless appeals.  Essentially, I'm saying I prefer a positive appeal, on the basis that they've demonstrated six months of positive collaboration on other topics, to a negative appeal, that what they did didn't really merit an indefinite ban.  Perhaps this is overly cynical of me, but on balance I think the history of noticeboard complaints, in particular stupid SPI reports (see the examples above) justifies it.I would also like to comment briefly on D4iN4a's text below.  The idea that I merely "cited [their] particpation" in the topic as justification for the ban is risible.  Their involvement at AE was pure battleground, arguing that everyone they disagreed with should be banned and that everyone else was as white as the driven snow; their participation at here includes such wonders of collaborative editing as Are you out of your mind or just making up to distract from your long term copyright violations by making up fairy tales? and These lousy attempts of yours to rescue disruptive editors are becoming hilarious everyday, I also agree that NadirAli is trying everything "possible under the sun" to get himself blocked; their comment on this SPI is also well worth a read; their comment here includes What about your way of responding to a sensible revert, after changing longstanding content without an edit summary[46]? But you sure use edit summary when you believe you can organize a WP:BATTLE; this was all cited as evidence in the AE case and I could go on but I think the point is clear.  On this basis, the statement I admit that I have been critical a couple of times in participation but at the end of the day it was also apparent that it didn't took me long to restore the collegial atmosphere should be sanctionable in itself.I am sorry to disagree with someone with as much experience as Newyorkbrad; but, while I see various claims here that the editors are willing to work together in a spirit of collegiality, I don't see much of the salutary result on[sic] focusing some of these editors on the problems with their editing.  What I'm seeing is essentially a lot of editors saying, "Problems, what problems?  We're all ready to play nice together, just like we've always done."  The only thing they can agree on is that the ban should be lifted, despite most of them arguing in the very recent past that the other half should be subject to just such a ban (in the cases where they didn't instead argue for an indefinite block, which are admittedly few and far between).  GoldenRing (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have so far avoided compiling lists of diffs concerning each editor in this appeal. In making the decision at AE, I relied on a list of discussions, not specific diffs (which I can only suppose is where the mistaken accusation that "no evidence" was advanced comes from) and thos same discussions have been linked to again here.  Other editors have advanced extra bits of evidence here, in particular with regard to MapSGV.  If the committee want, I am prepared to compile specific lists of diffs regarding each editor, but it will be a major investment of my time.  I am generally not active at weekends so I would begin this on Monday and likely wouldn't finish until mid-next-week.  Would you like me to do this, or are you happy to evaluate the appeal on the basis of the evidence already presented?  GoldenRing (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose a ban on noticeboard filings. Although battleground-ish filings have been a significant problem, what really kicked off this particular episode was the dispute over the Siachen Glacier article and the related History of Balochistan. The behaviour on the talk pages of those articles is just atrocious. IMO allowing this group to continue editing the topic but not make any reports will change a situation where article talk pages and noticeboards are toxic to one where article talk pages are toxic and there is no way for this to come to the attention of administrators. I'd rather the disruption happened on noticeboards than on articles. GoldenRing (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding your statement that If you'd like to do so [appeal at AN/AE], you're welcome to withdraw from this appeal (as is any other editor), is there going to be some sort of limit on this? NadirAli initially joined this appeal, but less than four hours after the first bolded denied vote appeared, they have decided to withdraw from it.  As this seems a fairly obvious tactic for other editors to follow, how does the committee propose to deal with it?  Also pinging User:L235 to get the clerks' attention.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

MapSGV
Prior to Sandstein's topic ban Here's a selection of their editing approach from this year:
 * Attacking other editors' motives / accusations of trolling:
 * Accusations of incompetence:
 * Wikilawyering / misrepresentation of policy (to put it kindly): (the "diffs older than one week" nonsense)

Although the above is all prior to the overturning of their TBAN at ARCA, it is important background.

Since the ban was overturned
 * Their third, fifth and sixth edits after the ban was overturned were to resume the Siachen Glacier dispute. The response from someone who "remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions" should not be to jump straight back into a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan and start removing disputed categories.
 * This edit is continuing the battleground approach, accusing other editors of incompetence and bringing up 3-year-old socking to sling mud at another of the group.

Those four edits on their own wouldn't move me to impose a topic ban; against the backdrop of the their editing before their previous appeal, it seems clear to me that they are part of the problem pattern in this topic and need to stay away from it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

And, as Opabinia regalis has noted, their contributions above are rather proving the point. They are part of the battleground. GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SheriffIsInTown
I have been editing Wikipedia for close to four years now and contributed significantly across a lot of different topic areas. I never had a significant sanction like this before. I was never warned in WP:ARBIPA area for any misconduct before, the admin just went straight for topic-banning as they were banning all others, they tried to create a false equivalence (was noted by another editor commenting on that AE) by banning five editors each from both decks not regarding who was at fault and who was not. As for MapSGV, the case was same for me that they used stale diffs (over a week old), at least that is what they showed. The diffs used to ban me were not from WP:ARBIPA but rather from an ANI discussion involving myself and few other editors with whom I did not have any significant interaction prior to that discussion. That discussion was archived with no action while that forum (ANI) is monitored by many admins daily. Even if my comment there was objectionable, I did try to remove the comment which was reverted by an admin Bbb23 telling me to strike it which I did. I also showed the remorse for my actions during the AE discussion which was all ignored.

There is also a case of another editor who was never notified about the discussion and never participated in the discussion and who was completely dumbfounded by the decision to topic ban him thus it is evident that this whole case was mishandled, decision was hastily made, and users were banned to create a false equivalence.

Citing all these anomalies, I appeal that the ban should be overturned for everyone who was banned in result of that AE.  Sh eri  ff  |  ☎ 911  | 21:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not appealing for myself, I am claiming that the whole process had a lot of flaws and as editors were banned wholesale, the ban should be overturned wholesale as well, from everyone as if it never happened.  Sh eri  ff  |  ☎ 911  | 22:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is both but on the appeal side it has become more of an appeal on that whole case with the way it was mishandled, if the bans cannot be overturned otherwise then they can be overturned in lieu of the ammendments proposed by Capitals00 to which everyone seemingly agree except that consensus and status quo is a shady area. I propose that admins who so willingly go for such harsh and overreaching topic bans should come forward to decide WP:STATUSQUO when there is a disagreement on that otherwise proposed amendments look good to me. Kudos to for coming up with such brilliant idea.  Sh  eri  ff  |  ☎ 911  | 08:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have provided a lot more evidence if it was a general appeal against the whole decision but since committee is going for a collective appeal yet making independent decisions, I will leave it to the committee to raise any questions/concerns regarding my conduct and behavior. I have provided the counter narrative for the only known diffs which affected GoldenRing to include me in the list and willing to provide any rebuttals necessary for any other issues. I will further note that I almost had a clean slate until this ban and consider this ban as a stain on my editing record. I was just being bold and playful with my comments and did not know that I would end up getting banned in result of those comments. Most if not all of the questionable material came from outside of WP:ARBIPA topic area. I would also note that I am currently and I was in last few months mostly filling out bare references. I was only occasionally editing that topic area. The reasons to get that ban invalidated are number 1 that I consider that a bad thing for my editing record and number 2 although only occasionally but I would still like to keep editing that topic area. Please ping me if you find my behavior questionable so I can explain.  Sh eri  ff  |  ☎ 911  | 13:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like at least two of the arbitrators ( & ) are relying on AE admins decision/feedback and assuming that since multiple admins were involved in that discussion thus this ought to be a right decision. We are here in front of arbitration committee, the highest body on Wikipedia, we want your independent decision, not that you (Newyorkbrad) ask the AE admins about the outcome. We are here because of their decision and we are appealing against their decision, they are party to this dispute, you should not be asking an involved party for their opinion about what ARBCOM should decide. From the onset, this looked like that the AE admins are fed up of these requests and they opted to cut the root by banning everyone. These bans were without merit. It looks like they do not want to see WP:ARBIPA requests anymore and who is going to file them anyway in future if the result is going to be like this then why not scrap WP:ARBIPA if it cannot be enforced with merit, that would be the best easy way out for admins. Some of these admins have been saying things like “let’s ban everyone” for some time, whenever a request came for arbitration enforcement. These were generalized statements then and these were generalized statements now and without merit. People were rounded up to issue the bans, some of them not being aware of the proceedings and unable to defend themselves. As explained above, equal number of editors were chosen from both decks as admin knew who was on which deck since they kind of accepted that by saying "clear the decks of one side in a dispute" in one of their comments.


 * Talking about the admin roles, this idea to ban everyone was thrown by Vanamonde through one of their iconic lines plague to both of your houses, again that was a generalized statement and without merit. Vanamonde has been in extensive conflict with some of the users whose bans were being discussed. They know their word carries an extra weight as an admin, they should have kept themselves away from these proceedings but they came out as an original proponent of these en masse bans causing others being caught in the collateral damage and they are still trying to influence the proceedings here at ARCA as well.


 * Some of the admins mentioned filing of SPIs by this group of people as part of the problem but on the contrary most SPIs filed by this group of people ended up in users being banned, this is wikidefending at best, others can defend their SPIs but here are the SPIs filed by me which ended up users being banned (total 10 filings resulting in 21 users being banned) and the ones which did not end up in similar result, they had enough evidence in them to merit a CU or a behavioral investigation and that is what is required to file an SPI, I do not understand why filing of SPIs being mentioned as a problem by Ivanvector and Bbb23, could that also be a case of admins being fed up of these filings and wanting a break (but why at the expense of destroying other editors record)? The filer can never say for sure if those users are actually socks or not, we can only go by the evidence representing user traits. Filing of SPIs should not be seen with criticism instead it should be seen with an applause. SPIs should not be a merit to propose or root for topic bans as was done by Ivanvector at AE and ARCA both and by Bbb23 here at ARCA.


 * Highlighting all these problems, I will still urge the committee to vacate all bans as when it is proven that even one of the bans were without merit in a multi ban case, it should invalidate the whole decision. If committee does not want to go that route of vacating all bans then they should evaluate each and every editor’s conduct separately and without relying on input of the AE admins as they have already given their decision and if we would have accepted their decision we would not be in front of the committee in just a fortnight. We are in front of you to get your independent decision without any influence or bearing from admins involved in AE and admins who have had clear conflicts with some of the affected. If the committee cannot evaluate each and every editor’s conduct (in case of not deciding to vacate all bans) then I will like to pull out my appeal and maybe appeal later on when I can get undivided attention of the arbitrators as I do not want my fate to be decided as one of many.  Sh eri  ff  |  ☎ 911  | 16:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Phew, where to begin! Well, I will begin by saying that my only motive was to defend my own SPIs and I did not intend to attack you per se. While defending my record, I wanted to understand why SPIs are being mentioned as a problem area and being linked to these topic bans while evidence points to the contrary as far as this group of topic banned users is concerned. You linked several SPIs while responding to mainly me and that makes onlookers feel that all those SPIs were filed by me so I would hereby list who actually filed those SPIs so there is no ambiguity left:


 * Capitals00 is D4iNa4 filed by Zanhe


 * I don't like the answer, so I'll ask again filed by Terabar (blocked sock)


 * Still no? Well it's been four months, let's check again filed by Terabar (same blocked sock)


 * I'm really sure this time. Ok, not D4iNa4 then, so Capitals00 must be Razer2115 filed by Casktopic (blocked sock)


 * D4iNa4 is Raymond3023 filed by Vanamonde93 (an admin involved in this very discussion and at AE as well)


 * Capitals00 must be MapSGV filed by me and it did not start from that topic area so why used SPIs as an excuse to propose topic bans


 * SheriffIsInTown filed by Spartacus! inactive for long


 * MBlaze Lightning filed by Sardeeph (blocked sock)


 * If you see above, almost all of the SPIs you linked were not opened by anyone from this topic banned group, that is what we have been yelling, screaming, begging and pleading all through the AE proceedings and here at ARCA as well that please do not ban everyone just because of the fault of some or even fault of outsiders and that is where the fault lies and that is what we are pointing, this en masse topic ban is the result of the anger and frustration built up inside admins for past few years which is being taken out by an en masse topic ban instead of merit so thank you very much for proving me right on that front.


 * I take an exception to your statement Importantly, the archives show that these reports were investigated anyway and the vast majority found by a variety of clerks and checkusers to be at best inconclusive, rather than summarily dismissed as SheriffIsInTown seems to want everyone to believe. – No, I do not want anyone to believe as you implied I want


 * The folks accused in any of the SPIs have no problem evidently as per their statements on this page so why does it matter now?


 * Finally I thank you for considering me one of the more reliable “frequent filers” at SPI but I am not a frequent filer by any means, actually last SPI I filed was filed after close to two years break.  Sh eri  ff  |  ☎ 911  | 21:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not go to AN and AE since I genuinely thought that this whole decision was wrong and my genuine belief was that there is no other forum to turn this over in its entirety except ARBCOM or is there? I thought if I went to AN or AE and even if I am able to get it turned over, that would still bring a stain to my editing record in form of firstly the acceptance of the ban being valid and then getting that valid ban turned over through an appeal. My belief was that when ARBCOM will turn over the whole decision, it would mean it was invalid to begin-with thus having no bearing on my editing record. If currently there is no way to challenge an admin’s decision in its entirety especially when there are multiple users banned then it would be a good idea for ARBCOM to come up with such mechanism, that way if the whole decision is validated, individual users will not lose their normal right to appeals for the normal appeal process (AN, AE, individual appeals at ARBCOM) that is if multiple users are banned together. Since I was invited by MapSGV to join the appeal, I genuinely thought from the onset that this is going to be a collective appeal against the entire decision and the decision would be turned over as there is plenty of evidence that even if all bans were not wrong, some were definitely wrong and ARBCOM (being the last appealing body) will never set a precedent of validating a decision where multiple users fate is decided this way when some of the users never knew about the proceedings, never participated in them and never got an opportunity to defend themselves, where slogans like “plague on both your houses” were raised without consideration of individual behavior, where admins were worried about time investment in these proceedings. I only joined in the appeal in the hope of all bans being vacated.


 * That being said, I was in the middle of preparing more evidence (when I saw your note) in regards to how most of the admins involved at AE are worried about investing time in these proceedings (i.e. admin burnout) thus prefer to bunch things together. I will like to ask your permission to post that, rest assured I will try to be very polite as I have been during all this process. :)  Sh eri  ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * (@The Condemned Band of 10) If admin burnout is the concern then I will like to propose that all these 10 editors should promise to voluntarily stay way from filing any reports at AE for minimum of six months. Or maybe ARBCOM can instruct something like that in lieu of lifting these bans.  Sh  eri  ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have come thus far, I will stay in now. I will embrace whatever comes.  Sh eri  ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not going to comment anymore but this is kind of important. I will like to remind the committee about admin.not provision number 5 under Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, it reads like this While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not....repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate sanctions or issue a grossly disproportionate sanction. (with emphasis on the part after Or). I am not suggesting or assuming anything, it's for you to decide whether banning 10 people together falls under the definition of disproportionate. I am just bringing attention.  Sh eri  ff  |  ☎ 911  | 17:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will like to commend you for your great suggestion regarding replacing these topic bans with a restrictions on noticeboard filings by any of these 10 editors against any of 10 (although I would like to avoid any ban as not being banned previously). You have struck at the root of the problem. If we are going that route, please add copyvio board as part of your banned list. SPIs are not a big issue, although there might have been some of them purely retaliatory but most of them were good and resulted in net positivity for Wikipedia (in form of socks being banned), I suggest leaving SPIs out of your banned list. Also, dispute resolution boards such as WP:3O, WP:DRN and RFCs should also not be banned. Actually, this group should be availing more of these to resolve content disputes instead of bickering and edit-warring. I will also like to note that AE has been particularly a bickering hotbed out of all boards. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 10:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators, since you are deciding all individual appelas, I would request you to please let me know what made you to uphold the decision regarding me. The diffs on which the decision was based on was struck by me a long time ago before AE was opened. I respect your decision whatever it is but at least let me know what outstanding problematic behavior on my part made you to uphold the original decision (at least that is where you are heading)? <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 13:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JosephusOfJerusalem
Its clear that the entire process became a bird shooting game, with an insincere and indiscriminate dishing out of sanctions. As the OP of both requests, I tried to withdraw the complaints when I saw the unnecessary trouble brewing in the situation. Yet the withdrawal attempt was ignored? What is Wikipedia's rule about that? Am I or anyone else not allowed to withdraw complaints? I don't see it as a rule that editors must appeal separately especially when the ARE decision can be appealed here.

Per WP:NOTBURO, I believe that brief statements from the involved parties is not going to harm since they can significantly contribute in changing the flawed ARE decision. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I never received any sort of sanction before nor have I ever been reported. In light of that fact this topic ban that I got was extremely harsh. I repeatedly asked GoldenRing to point out the diffs where they thought I misbehaved but they kept on bringing up diffs which I had either already explained in their proper context, or which were stale and were from before Bishonen's advice to me, or were no different to an average Wikipedian's ordinary conduct. This demonstrates that the administrators performed badly and inefficiently.


 * I appreciate the positive approach of SheriffIsInTown and Capitals00. Along with them, I also oppose all these topic bans and give my wholehearted support to lifting them from all the editors. The subject restrictions Capitals00 is forwarding are more than sufficient to ensure there will be a smooth running of the topic area. The topic bans are entirely unnecessary. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , thank you for proving my point that you haven't found out any policy violating edits in my part, and not especially those that would concern the main page articles. The diffs you have cited for evidence about me here were already answered satisfactorily by me at the ARE. How did discussions at a copyvio board warrant a topic ban on mainspace editing in the India-Pakistan conflict area? The dots just don't connect.


 * You also took no action in the ARE despite complaints from users about an editor who repeatedly broke their aspersions restriction and made personal attacks, threats and accusations. That inaction on your part demonstrates everyone's point here that the whole process was flawed and unfair to begin with. Therefore, the decision to topic ban all ought to be invalidated and everyone ought to be given a fair chance.


 * By locating the burden of evidence and accountability on other editors, despite you were the one who took action you are not fulfilling your admin responsibilities correctly. Your attempts have so far only shown that you have been making things worse for us rather than cooling the things down. I am finding it hard to assume that if you hadn't reminded us of the collaborative approaches then why in the world we would be engaging in any battles. Not only you are clearly ignoring our willingness to collaborate in good faith but you are also failing to agree that you had to instead try better methods of making things better than simply forcing us to leave the subject.


 * For example, to justify your banning of NadirAli, you cite the ″edit war″ at Princely state, disregarding that all those who did reverts were involved in the discussion on the Talk:Princely state, each side genuinely believed that their version was the real WP:STATUSQUO (while the content dispute was ongoing) and no one broke WP:3RR. I had to request page protection for that page. But had the administrators intervened earlier and decided which version was the real WP:STATUSQUO (while the discussion could have continued at talk) there would have been no misunderstanding from anyone.


 * That's not how our administrators should handle the things. They should assist cooperation instead of neglecting genuine issues and then punishing people after for problems they could have themselves easily averted. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already said what I had to, I am committed to the modified approach of collaborative approach with the editors with whom I may had issues (in the past) but now after hearing positive reactions from them I am optimistic about them. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could provide diffs in support of this claim "I find evidence of edit warring, copyright violation, source misrepresentation, forum shopping, harassment, misrepresentation of policies, etc. for multiple editors of Group 1 (Mar4d, SheriffIsInTown, TripWire, NadirAli, JosephusOfJerusalem)". These diffs you have provided for Mar4d "violating his topic ban" are not even related to any India-Pakistan conflict. And while it is true NadirAli and TripWire had been sanctioned before, this time around, virtually no evidence was provided by the AE administrators to justify NadirAli's ban and still has not been provided. And as several uninvolved users have pointed out, a user whose behaviour was reported at AE was not given any deserving action. So that is why your initial point is agreeable that the exact editors who should have been banned were not banned, thus making this decision flawed. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will once again appeal that diffs for my alleged misconduct be provided so I can answer about them. I still feel that individual examinations of each user's conduct has not been taken. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Capitals00
The links mentioned by GoldenRing were not sanctionable in ARE, since admins had already acted upon them. ARE has no jurisdiction on those boards and chances are nil when there was no discussion of content related to Indo-Pakistan conflict in those links. In place of finding a solution, GoldenRing went to hand topic bans without making it sure that he is correctly banning the users or not, or his evidence is credible enough to justify the topic bans.

I was not sanctioned or warned ever before neither any of the 10 diffs presented from last 4 months were good enough for sanctions or even a warning because none of those diffs evidenced actual violation and those diffs only proves that there is no smoke without a fire. Indefinite topic bans are tried when reminders, warnings, temporary sanctions have been failed. GoldenRing didn't even read my response nor he came up with a solution.

I am also supporting removal of everyone's sanctions. We can agree that these editors are an asset to Wikipedia. They make 100s of edits and likely a couple of those edits happen to be disruptive but they are capable of avoiding it if they have been properly told.

The correct solution of this problem is to impose further restrictions on the subject of India-Pakistan conflict. I would urge everyone to read the following and let me know if they agree my proposed additional restrictions:-


 * 1RR imposed: No more than 1 revert under 24 hours.
 * This will end the revert-spree.


 * Consensus required: so that no one can restore the removed content unless it has clear consensus.
 * Currently the editors describe their preferred version as "STATUSQUO", and a lot of problems have been caused due to a lack of this restriction. This restriction will encourage editors to abide by consensus.


 * Civility restriction: Obviously any personal attacks. It should be clarified that "any allegations based on the user misconduct, credibility, including the concerns about incompetence, sock puppetry, should be made on appropriate noticeboards or any admin".
 * Mostly because it is often difficult to decide what really constitutes as a personal attack. It would be best to forbid all remarks about the editor on content pages, especially when they are negative.

These sanctions have worked on Donald Trump. They also used to work on India-Pakistan conflict subject but later on, 1RR was changed to 2RR, and civility restriction was removed. There was no "consensus required" restriction before. I am 100% confident that restoration of past subject restriction as well as addition of "consensus required" restriction will improve things.

Overturning sanctions of all users and imposing the new subject restrictions would definitely work. It is time to move on from everything that happened and give a new start. Capitals00 (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Having described my case above, I have added my name to the list. I further agree that the appeals should be judged as independent from the analysis that was done in ARE because the decision on ARE was distorted given the severe issues with notifications, evidence, scope, and the total duration from the proposal to implementation of the sanctions was also very small. I am pleased to see that I have received support for subject restrictions that I proposed. This positive response from the editors who were a party in disputes is a further indication that we have managed to find a solution. Capitals00 (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * BU Rob13, I had asked GoldenRing to discuss the topic ban, though I never received any response. I have not appealed anywhere else. I assumed that enough admins on ARE must have already seen the decision and they wouldn't disagree anytime soon. After observing this appeal since I was notified, I thought that a making a brief statement regarding the topic ban and it's validity as well as proposing a resolution would be fine for now since the decision was being disputed here. After I had already made my statement here I thought that I should just stand by my participation also because of the positive reception of my comments by the editors that were involved in disputes and after that I felt assured that I don't have to try multiple routes to get the topic ban overturned. That's why I lodged an appeal here. Capitals00 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NadirAli
I have been a productive editor on Wikipedia ever since I have been allowed to edit again. The AE requests which were behind the topic ban were badly mishandled. In all that discussion no evidence was provided by the sysops that I had done any sort of misconduct. It appears my name was dragged in unfairly, without basis and became accepted in the list of sanctioned users through unquestioned repetition.

I had broken no 3RR nor done anything sanctionable in itself. In short, the sysops handed out an unfair blanket ban on me without even explaining what exactly they were sanctioning me for. I agree with Capitals00, SheriffIsInTown and JosephusOfJerusalem that the proper approach should be that these sanctions should be lifted off all the involved editors and the ban can be replaced with their proposals. That will be a better substitute if the encyclopedia is to be improved.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just want to state that I am quite saddened to see that the arbitrators have not as of yet performed an individual assessment of each editor. The editing behavior of some editors should not be regarded as the behavior of all. No recent policy violation has been alleged of me and my history in the original ArbCom case is now no longer relevant. So I believe I should be let off.

I would also like RaviC to be estopped from making aspersions against users who have history on that article even before they themself were ever active there. What I said on Owais Khursheed's talkpage was friendly advice to RaviC and not an entry into the topic area.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MBlaze Lightning
Having spent considerable time in the consideration of the above matter, I have decided to appeal the indefinite topic ban imposed on me. First off, I want to start off by saying that I agree with my colleagues that the ARE case in question was mishandled by admins; in particular.

GoldenRing in his first statement said that he had read through this, this, this, this, this and this, but clearly that wasn't the case, because if he had actually read those pages, let alone reading thoroughly, he would have known that, had, in fact, not even participated in those discussions. Also worth noting here is that some of the pages linked by GoldenRing, such as Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980 were totally outside the scope of the "conflict between India and Pakistan".

It is worth mentioning that GoldenRing in his list of editors that he proposed to sanction, but subsequently included me without any valid reason. I couldn't believe that I received an indefinite topic ban without any prior warning or sanction, but what was even more unbelievable and upsetting was that GoldenRing provided no evidence whatsoever that I engaged in battleground conduct or that might support the inclusion of my name in that list, and this failure to provide evidence against me clearly makes the sanction imposed unreasonable.

I won't go into details; what kind of evidence was provided to GoldenRing and who he was hearing, because the indefinite topic ban imposed is still not going to make any sense. I don't see how it benefits the encyclopedia when you topic ban multiple editors who have made thousands of edits in military subjects over many years and adhered to core Wikipedia policies.

I highly appreciate the approach of these users. In view of the statements above, it is apparent that. I am also in agreement with the removal of sanctions and installation of subject restrictions proposed by as the appropriate solution.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 07:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I will keep this statement concise and to the point. Like I said above, GoldenRing never provided any evidence whatsoever demonstrating sanctionable conduct on my part, as he had ought to, but merely relied upon the misleading statements of certain users, which GoldenRing himself admits, when he says, "it took some convincing from others for me to include MBlaze Lightning". By failing to do so, GoldenRing not only showed complete disregard of WP:ADMINACCT, but also deprived me of the opportunity to defend myself.

Needless to say, the evidence that GoldeRing cited here to merely prove that he was right in the first place in imposing an indefinite topic ban on me is extremely weak, and is far from "amply" demonstrating the necessity of the indefinite topic ban. I fail to see how merely pointing out the obvious: that the OP demonstrated a lack of proper understanding of the policies and/or guidelines (WP:NOTTHEM, etc) they cited in their statements, seeking sanctions for legit reasons could be grounds enough for imposing an indefinite topic ban. Regarding my participation in Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00/Archive, I don't see any sanctionable conduct here on my part either; it was closely observed by the CheckUser (Yunshui) and the SPI clerk Ivanvector's comment shows that I was absolutely right with my assessment that the SPI was greatly unconvincing.

Finally, I want to reiterate that the indefinite topic imposed on me is wholly unwarranted. I believe it's worth saying that I have made thousands of positive contributions in this topic area. I have played an important part in achieving consensus on some of the most contentious articles in the "conflict between India and Pakistan" area; Talk:Siachen conflict (#Recent_Edits), Talk:Point 5353 (#Kuldip_Singh_Ludra's_evidence), just to name a few examples. These are subjects that many don't want to touch even with a ten-foot pole. It is also pertinent to note that many if not all the editors who received indefinite topic bans are prolific content creators; speaking for myself, I have several GAs and DYKs under my belt—and surely this speaks volumes that I am here to build the encyclopedia.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 04:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * One more thing: being honest with myself, I acknowledge that I've lost my cool on a couple of occasions of late while responding to comments that were not adhering to policies (for example, Talk:India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present)), but I believe I've never crossed the line. Though such happenings can be avoided.
 * Also, of all the SPI reports I've filed until now, including the Sardeeph one, I've never argued, never disagreed or objected to the outcome.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 13:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have also planned to voluntarily stay away from all the administrative noticeboards for some time, unless I am reporting vandalism or BLP violation, and during this period. Lastly, I'd like to thank the committee for considering my appeal.   MBlaze Lightning  talk 13:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't appealed the ban anywhere else, prior to coming here. I had decided to retire sine die upon seeing my name being dragged into the list, as I was upset with the way my contributions were being represented at ARE. My account was inactive for ten days, prior to my statement here, and during this period of time, I was considering whether I should appeal the ban or not. MapSGV had left a message on my talk page on 23 May, stating that he had filed a appeal at ARCA "regarding the ARE decision that affected you". Upon seeing some of my fellow editors here appealing their bans, I decided to do just the same.
 * Having come this far, and having looked at the option of staying banned, I don't want to step back. I will accept wholeheartedly whatever the committee decides.
 *  MBlaze Lightning  talk 13:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I'm confused: this says it's an amendment request, but it looks like an appeal. Which is it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * BU Rob13: Thanks for the clarification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TripWire
Apart from the fact that I was unaware of the AE discussion for almost its entire duration, only later came to know about it when someone mentioned me (the decision for T-banning was almost finalized by then), and I didnt participate even then, I would like to further point out that GoldenRing in his first statement said that he had read through this, this, this, this, this and this, out of which I had only participated in this (more specifically this particular discussion, and was not connected to any of the remaining this's). Even in the thread (reviewed by GoldenRing in which I had participated), I fail to see how could my conduct there could have been sanctionable? I would urge the reviewers to go through that thread and point me out any instance which they think was objectionable. Asking other editors to focus on the current discussion and pointing out applicable WP policies - how can this conduct be sanctionable for a blanket T-ban? I can see above that other editors are willing to collaborate more and hence would request that this ban is lifted. However, certain other restrictions must be placed instead.

P.S. I was T-banned in the past, during my younger days. I believe I am not the same person any more. I was also recently blocked for 48 hrs for no fault of mine (see the discussion with the blocking admin). So, let's just get that out of the way.— <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 09:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @GoldenRing, Re:
 * This WP:IDHT attitude wont get you anywhere and You sir are a text-book case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH: Sir, I would really appreciate if you could also take regard and provide the context in which it was said for making it easier for the readers to better judge. Still, how the quoted text is sanctionable? May be there's a policy I am unaware of?
 * They also commented on the Capitals00 SPI case (diff), where they took the opportunity to accuse MBL of frivolous Witch hunting: When a user presents WP's default settings, that a double dash (--) before signatures of suspected socks is credible evidence in an SPI (diff), what else should be said?
 * Accuse Kautilya3 of off-wiki collaboration with a banned editor on ridiculous evidence: I can dig better evidence if required. But that's not a case here.— <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 12:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , just pointing out for the record that by unnecessarily bringing in the "us" VS "them" debate, you are only making it difficult for yourself, and not to mention others (include myself).— <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 08:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bharatiya29, 'thanks' for bring the writing on the wall to Admins' attention, which obviously they would have missed had you not drafted a reply here.— <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
I support what GoldenRing did as being the absolute minimum needed and as having consensus, and I support their statements above. That the topic banned people are now piling on here with ludicrous statements etc is just more evidence that they are tendentious and cannot let it go. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I have for some time been concerned that there might be off-wiki co-ordination involving some of the people involved in the "conflicts" fracas. I say that because of timings of edits but, obviously, I cannot prove it. However, we now have people commenting here who (a) haven't actually edited much and (b) haven't edited regularly, yet are keen to see the topic bans removed. Eg:. I'm sorry if this sounds like an assumption of bad faith but it is odd. Perhaps it is just the meds I am on? - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Blow it. It is odd and has been odd in the past but it is probably just my bent brain. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * lack of evidence? Really? Did you read the original thread where the topic bans were enacted? - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93
Commenting to make it clear that I'm aware of this, but honestly, I don't have too much to add here; the evidence I presented at AE covers most of it. These editors have demonstrated a pattern of battleground editing that makes it near impossible to build consensus. Problematic aspects of their behavior include edit-warring, making blanket reverts where those are not required, constant low-level incivility and personal attacks, sock-puppetry on the part of at least five of the principals (admittedly in the past), and constant attempts to get folks they don't liked sanctioned at any cost. A perfect example of the last phenomenon is Sdmarathe, who made a grand total of 21 edits between opposing my RFA in September 2016 and attempting to get me sanctioned in the AE case under discussion here. Their evidence? Claims that I filed a frivolous AE (which had in fact resulted in a warning ) against an editor who was duly topic banned for the same behavior a brief while later. I believe the sanction GoldenRing eventually imposed was, if anything, lenient, and uninvolved folks who make it through the reams of evidence will come to the same conclusion. Vanamonde (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "many of the other editors banned with no warning about their behavior" There aren't many such. MapSGV and TripWire are the only editors t-banned who did not participate in the AE discussion. Moreover, all of the t-banned folks who did participate there were advocating sanctions against other editors, and so should have expected scrutiny of their own behavior. I recognize the value of following due process, but surely it is a bit excessive to suggest that if all the t-bans are examined as a group, then they must all be vacated for procedural reasons: and if we're that keen on following the process, I'd much prefer that this be treated as an appeal for MapSGV alone, and the others be required to appeal separately. Vanamonde (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While I still maintain that the appeals of all editors who wish to appeal should be considered en masse, it does seem that we're going from collective appeal to general mudslinging rather quickly. Is an appeal the right place to even consider sanctions against other editors? If we are to consider such sanctions, surely the format needs to be different, ie a full case? Aside from the fact that this is precisely the sort of time-wasting stuff that AE is supposed to prevent, it seems to me that if it's considering anything aside from appeals, ARBCOM should clarify that ASAP, and the clerks should deal with comments appropriately. Vanamonde (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just had the chance to read through the restrictions suggested by Capitalso00 which are being supported by several of the sanctioned editors. I would advise against them very strongly. The heart of this matter is the battleground attitude: everything else is a symptom. One of the most unpleasant symptoms with respect to the rest of the community is the constant attempt to get opponents sanctioned. "Consensus required" and civility restrictions are a recipe for disaster in this respect. Topic bans are clear, and short of site bans or indefinite blocks (neither of which I advocate) are the only way to keep drama manageable. Also: I agree that part of the problem here is the constant proliferation of conflict; but that is precisely why we need to rely on ARE rather than ARBCOM. There is no "once and for all" solution here. New editors will always be popping in to fight a proxy war on one side or the other. The DS system works, when it is implemented with the intent of cutting out drama and promoting the interests of the encyclopedia; which I believe is what happened here. Vanamonde (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you would consider me an AE admin given that I'm involved with respect to some of these folks. That said: I would advise against setting an expiration period for this ban. These behavioral problems are long-running, deep-seated issues with the way some of these editors approach the topic. They will not be addressed by a cool-off period; lifting the ban should, IMO, require that the editors recognize the problems with their editing and offer concrete evidence that they will behave differently. Since the ban was imposed, the activity of most of these folks has dropped off, and much of it has been limited to reverting socks and IPs. Even so, there is evidence that some of them are unwilling to step back and recognize issues with their editing: see this discussion, which was started after this ANI (I don't offer the ANI thread as evidence of wrongdoing, only as context). Virtually none of the editors who have offered statements here have recognized that they may have overstepped. All they do is to assert that they did nothing wrong. I am less opposed to reducing the wait-before-appeal period. An early appeal only places an extra burden on AE admins/arbs, which isn't great, but not on the community, which is the important thing. As such, that really should be up to the AE admins, I think; if they think early appeals are likely to be a waste of time, then the current restriction should not be modified. Vanamonde (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm getting rather annoyed by all of the mud being slung GoldenRing's way. Do the appealing parties realize that although GoldenRing imposed the sanction, it was entirely supported by two uninvolved administrators, supported in principle by two others, and opposed by none? Also, since nobody seems to have bothered to alert Seraphimblade (do we have no active clerks?) I'm going to go ahead and ping them, as they are the only admin who commented on the substance of the sanction at AE but has not commented here: your views would be welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * MapSGV's last statement demonstrates perfectly why his topic ban was necessary though it may have stretched the process a bit. He finds policy violations from Group 1 (conveniently, a group whose members all disagreed with MapSGV in the disputes that started this) but the folks from Group 2 (who agreed with him) are of course pure as the driven snow. None of these editors were innocent in the disputes which required this sanction, as is adequately demonstrated with the links in the AE discussion. MapSGV is also quite incorrect in his assessments of past sanctions. Raymond3023 has also been sanctioned under ARBIPA discretionary sanctions, and his sanction is still in force. Furthermore, Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Mar4d, and D4iNa4 all have lengthy blocks for sockpuppetry, which would ordinarily not be relevant, but become relevant if we're examining past misdeeds. TL;DR: MapSGV is applying an ideological filter in his analysis above, and in doing so is displaying exactly the sort of us-vs-them attitude that made their topic-ban necessary in the first place. Vanamonde (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for wading through this morass. About making this a topic-ban with respect to reporting others to admin noticeboards; from my ringside seat, my impression is that such reports are more a symptom, and less of the problem itself. As such it would reduce the administrative burden in the area, but not reduce conflict overall. Vanamonde (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth
I'll just chime in here that I had read the original discussion (and all the various supporting bits) and fully support what Golden Ring imposed. I was just too busy to get my support of the topic bans into the original AE action before it closed (since reading all the stuff involved took a while). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I gotta say, BuRob's statements here certainly don't make ME want to even think about stepping into enforcing ArbCom remedies. Sure looks like they are basically cutting GoldenRing off at the knees and abandoning them to the sharks. And people wonder why admins aren't tougher on enforcing sanctions... well, look at what happens when an admin (with backing from other admins) takes a tougher line to enforce ArbCom remedies in an area that's just plain nasty. They get hauled before ArbCom and an ArbCom member doesn't support them at all. Sure makes it seem a lot easier to just ignore ArbCom remedies and not expose yourself to the headache. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector
As I did in the ARE case which led to the unusual mass topic ban, I endorse GoldenRing's statement here. I think that each and every one of the editors sanctioned in that discussion are capable of contributing constructively, but they have all demonstrated that they prefer treating the topic area as a battleground, pushing the boundaries of existing restrictions in order to "score points" (my words), and repeatedly pursuing bans for their opponents for behaviour that they themselves also engage in. Furthermore their activities draw other editors into their conflict, and since the bans were imposed I have observed several of these editors engaging in the same battleground behaviour in areas not covered by the ban, for instance the recent edit war at Ogaden War. This broad ban gives the disrupted topic a chance to cool down and have the conflicts addressed by uninvolved editors, and gives the sanctioned editors an opportunity to demonstrate that they will edit collaboratively if allowed to return, or as some are demonstrating instead that they will continue to treat Wikipedia as a battleground no matter what topic they edit. I commend GoldenRing for the conservative decision when several others have been calling for the lot to be indefinitely blocked instead.

As for MapSGV's appeal, I agree that including them in the sanction was justified given their recent participation, and that unbanning is not in the interest of Wikipedia.

The Committee should also be aware that Capitals00 and D4iNa4 (at least, probably others in this group) are being harassed by sockpuppets of. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed with the characterization of there being "very few diffs", though I may be misinterpreting your comment. The archived enforcement thread numerates one hundred and ninety-one diffs, plus many more un-numbered which I did not attempt to count. In their initial comment GoldenRing linked to the following discussions:    , before suggesting a list of users who might be sanctioned. This course of action was endorsed specifically by three administrators (including myself though I did not comment in the result section) and endorsed in principle by two more (as endorsements for a topic ban without mentioning specific users) (and also not counting Vanamonde93). The list of users recommended for bans changed throughout the discussion however the only editor who ever suggested MapSGV should not be included was , as they've already stated here, and for the same reasons that MapSGV is now appealing. What I mean to point out is that this was not one administrator's knee-jerk reaction which also reversed an Arbcom decision (MapSGV's earlier appeal) but a group of (mostly, referring to myself) uninvolved and neutral administrators reviewing a complex situation and recommending/endorsing a complex but necessary solution. Furthermore it was a thoughtful and reasoned approach to a situation where many more editors (and admins) have been calling for the entire lot of users currently sanctioned, plus others, to simply be sitebanned.
 * As for Capitals00's suggested replacement of the topic ban with specific restrictions, the topic area already has specific restrictions, under WP:ARBIPA. Experience has shown that this group of editors perceive violations of those restrictions by their opponents, and refer to those perceptions as justification for their own violations of the restrictions, or else pollute the administrative discussion boards with frivolous complaints. Additional restrictions to be gamed are not a solution here - these editors have shown repeatedly that they cannot work together, and a mass interaction ban would be completely unworkable.
 * The arbitration enforcement result is a good one, and I remind the Committee that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There is no modification to the result that the Committee can enact here that will not result in more conflict, likely immediately. I do not wish for that result and I hope that you also do not. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The new comments by previously uninvolved (in ARE) editors pointing out the misbehaviour of even more previously uninvolved editors I think only shows that the topic ban ought to be expanded to include even more editors, if anything. But I think if we do, then we'll just see more genuinely new editors coming to fill the void and perpetuate the conflict. Someone (was it MapSGV) suggested that GoldenRing "cherrypicked" recent discussions and suggested sanctions based on the editors who participated in those battles, without really reviewing the entire situation. And other editors (Ealdgyth? ?) have observed that this widespread-on-Wikipedia conflict seems to follow the battle lines of the real-world India-Pakistan political battle, and I agree. On reflection, while I still commend GoldenRing for the solution, I am in favour of vacating the topic bans en masse but only if a full arbitration case is immediately opened to review the situation further; respectfully, I do not believe that the solution to this will come from the editors already involved in it.
 * Perhaps there are some editors here who are deliberately or inadvertently bringing their real life conflicts to Wikipedia and behaving in a way that they should be individually sanctioned or banned from editing, and perhaps there are others who have attempted to remain civil and neutral but have been worn down by the disruption of the first group and have responded in kind. We should all be able to see evidence of this by the numbers of editors and administrators who are commenting on this page that they will not touch the subject, and as I've said before in the Palestine-Israel case, failing to do something about this goes against the spirit of WP:ANYONECANEDIT because editors who want to participate can't because of the toxicity of the preexisting factionalized combatants. That case led to the development of extended-confirmed protection; I don't know where this is heading. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Since it seems all of the arbitrators commenting here are intent on finding any reason they can to undo the sanctions, I don't know why this is being left open to be filled with more invective from all sides, but on the other hand it's aptly animating the battlefield, isn't it? I was not intending to comment further but I ought to respond to the specific attack that has just posted against my motivations as a sockpuppet investigations clerk. I find the attack disappointing, as I've said numerous times that I take reports seriously, even when the filers clearly have motivations other than "defending Wikipedia". Yes, I am frustrated by a number of SPI reports that are obviously frivolous and retaliatory, often with long rambling lists of extremely vague examples, and even longer narratives attempting to clarify the extremely tenuous connections.  Capitals00 is D4iNa4. I don't like the answer, so I'll ask again. Still no? Well it's been four months, let's check again, I'm really sure this time. Ok, not D4iNa4 then, so Capitals00 must be Razer2115 and D4iNa4 is Raymond3023! Also a miss, Capitals00 must be MapSGV then! And on and on and on and on and on; compare the archives for SheriffIsInTown, NadirAli, Kautilya3, MBlaze Lightning, TripWire, D4iNa4, Sardeeph, and probably dozens of others - almost the entire lot are mostly baseless accusations against opponents in content discussions. Importantly, the archives show that these reports were investigated anyway and the vast majority found by a variety of clerks and checkusers to be at best inconclusive, rather than summarily dismissed as SheriffIsInTown seems to want everyone to believe. It's pretty likely that any named account that has made more than a handful of edits to ARBIPA topics in the last three years has had CheckUser run on them at least once.
 * This pattern of trying to get content opponents sanctioned for anything plays out on many noticeboards including on this one right now, and this is why I'm wary of relying on restrictions or throwing in even more restrictions to manage disruption where these editors are involved. I fear they will just use these restrictions to hound their opponents, trying to game each other into minor violations so they can play Defenders Of The Wikipedia and Punish The Wrongdoers. I fear this because they have repeatedly demonstrated it. I don't think they know how not to do it, and at some level I believe at least some editors here are more interested in getting rid of opponents than building an encyclopedia. What started out here as an appeal by one editor of one restriction has very quickly turned into a mudslinging competition, with several editors (even some who are not apparently involved) listing out all of the ways that somebody else but not them should be sanctioned. It's only a matter of time before somebody commenting on this page accuses myself and Bbb23 of being sockpuppets of one of these editors, because we've repeatedly "defended" the accused at SPI.
 * The part that is the most disappointing by far is the Committee's implicit endorsement of this long-term disruption, through consistently undoing the good-faith actions of any administrator that attempts to intervene, and not in any way because the interventions are flawed but because of silly "boxes not checked" style bureaucracy. Why should we bother trying? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Also adding, for the record, that I consider SheriffIsInTown one of the more reliable "frequent filers" at SPI, and don't mean to suggest that they are deliberately filing frivolous reports. I scrutinize their judgement in reports involving editors they are in conflict with, but I would do so for any editor. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
I endorse GoldenRing's statement in all particulars, and urge BU Rob13 to recollect that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Are we really going to have to do this ten times, with ten topic banned editors weighing in each time to complain about their own bans, and all the admins explaining over and over the benefit of the bans, and specifically of giving the disrupted topic a rest by topic banning these editors together? As for the mass topic ban violations you mention, inasmuch as the topic banned editors are commenting on another's appeal, we can hardly blame them on that score, since MapSVG listed them as involved and alerted them.. I don't actually blame MapSVG for doing that, either; I suppose they thought this could be handled at one go, without being crushed by the full weight of the rulebook. Mass banning is certainly unusual, but where nationalist timewasting and disruption is concerned, there's a logic to it. Is it not possible for ArbCom to deal with this case in a simpler way? How about a motion of some kind? Bishonen &#124; talk 16:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC).
 * about your suggestion that the bans be modified to have a specific expiration date, because it'll be such a business to evaluate up to ten appeals come autumn; I'd rather not. I'm dubious of time-limited bans in general, because I've seen too many people simply wait out their three months or six months and then return to the area where they were previously disruptive, with an unreconstructed bad attitude. You may have perceived a resolve to improve in some cases, but I'd like to see that resolve tested for six months. (Or three months; I'm not personally dead set on waiting six months before they can appeal.) Having the sanctioned warriors write an appeal where they demonstrate not just good intentions, but also that they've been constructive and collaborative in other areas, would be more promising for the future IMO. Having the old fires re-ignite in six, or three, months would be worse, and cause more admin burnout, than evaluating ten appeals. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC).

Statement by Jbhunley
Why not just hear the appeal collectively and then make individual judgements for each editor? There is no reason to tie the outcomes together nor is there a reason to present the same/similar evidence ten times. Much of the disruption which resulted in the TBANs arose from the collective interactions between and among these editors, not just from individual behavior in isolation so examination of one's behavior will, often, necessarily lead to the examination of at least one other's behavior who was in the same events. Jbh Talk  15:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG

 * I, for one, completely endorse Golden Ring's mass T-Ban per Ivanvector's reasoning(s) over here and the evidence presented in the original AE thread. shall probably consider lucky enough to have escaped a TBan.Going by his net contributions, umm........
 * --Can you please expand upon no serious transparent review of their conduct...no/very few diffs...?
 * And, umm....your candidature statement said:--We need less courtroom.Surely:) ~ Winged Blades Godric 16:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I would prefer an en-masse appeal per Jbhunley's reasoning. ~ Winged Blades Godric 16:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would advise strongly against the implementation of restrictions suggested by Capitalso00. In an area, where every editor tries to brand all other opposing editors as sockpuppets/meatpuppets and utilizes each and every opportunity to get other editors sanctioned, unnecessarily convoluted restrictions like Consensus Required will spell a disaster and open avenues to more wiki-lawyer-ing. And, no Civility restrictions please.Those have seldom worked and experience tells that they won't.... ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @--Have you missed the original ARE thread, by any chance? ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki
I specifically noted the problem with MapSGV's sanctions in this diff, and feel that it would be reasonable for the committee to only lift MapSGV's sanctions.

If the committee feels that other sanctions from that discussion are also problematic, I think the only feasible option is to vacate the entire action, with the understanding that if disputes continue, the next discussion will be a full ARBCOM case. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Razer2115
A number of statements here are as misleading as they were in the concerning AE. There were a couple of users who were seeking sanction against all editors, and they had to be sanctioned similarly if seeking sanction is really a justification for imposing indefinite topic bans. FWIW, what I have read from the statements of sanctioned users that at least they are not asking for sanctions on each other now and showing their willingness to collaborate by opposing sanctions, yet some are still asking for sanctions. MapSGV, TripWire, Mar4d,, Raymond3023, NadirAli, were not notified and they weren't even editing when case was being established, though NadirAli came before the near end but clearly his comments were ignored, which is another issue, but still it doesn't means that he was notified. What about others who were being discussed yet weren't notified? Process was completely flawed.

I urge Arbcom to vacate all bans at one go and implement the subject restrictions as proposed by Capitals00. The ARE decision was faulty since it lacked necessary process and evidence as a whole was largely unconvincing when compared with the actual outcome or anywhere close to that. I don't see how it will benefit encyclopedia that we should be observing harassment of each of the 10 experienced editors on daily basis by those who are not willing to get over a faulty ARE. <font face= "Nexa" color="Darkblue"> Razer (<font face= "Nexa" color="black"> talk  ) 17:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kautilya3
The arbitration committee is well aware that ARBIPA is a system of discretionary sanctions, whereby uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits to the topic area. No prior warning or notification is necessary other than. But in practice many of the sanctioned editors have received additional reminders too. did not go by just the complaints made in the ARE case, but took the trouble to read entire discussions on the relevant talk pages and come to his own judgement about the editors that needed to be sanctioned. There were several other editors involved in these discussions who did not receive any sanctions. Other than me, such editors included, , etc.

As far as this appeal is concerned, it makes sense to treat the appeals from and  separately, on the grounds that they did not participate in the ARE case and, therefore, did not have an opportunity to present their side of the picture. All other appealing editors were part of the ARE case.

In my view, MapSGV merits special consideration because he is a newish editor, his overall contribution has been positive, and his apparent combativeness in the talk page discussions is mostly reflective of what he himself received.

On the big picture, I would like to submit that, for the first time in the last year so, I am able to spend time on other important matters, like, e.g., the ongoing GA nomination of Shivaji, instead of getting bogged down with daily fire-fights on India-Pakistan conflicts. Many of us are breathing a sigh of relief. GoldenRing is to be commended for his bold and decisive action. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

makes some incisive comments, many of which I agree with. I agree the admins have been lax in enforcement in the past. If some action like this had been taken six months earlier, the damage could have been lesser. Left to their own devices, the editors have had to raise their voices more and lower the levels of debate. But at the end of the day, discretionary sactions are subject to admin discretion. They represent a low-cost method of enforcement compared to full arbitration cases. Several admins have participated in the ARE case and they more or less agreed with the sanctions that have been imposed as well as those that were not imposed. 's input in particular is highly valuable. They are one of the few frontline admins that are willing to police the India-Pakistan conflict pages from close quarters and their judgement is highly respected, despite their frequent leniency.

As to my conduct, several complaints have been made at the ARE, which I answered, and, at the end of the day, the admins judged that no sanctions were warranted. I see that several editors are not satisfied. So, in the interest of fairness, I am requesting the ARE admins to waive whatever restrictions may be in place, and allow a fresh case to be brought against me. I will be happy to answer the complaints there. This does not seem to be the right place for them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark
--regentspark (comment) 22:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been following the India-Pakistan conflict mess for a while (for example, I imposed the restrictions that Capitals00 mentions above) and I think GoldenRing did an excellent job in identifying the root of the problem and the solution they proposed was just the right one. The crux of the problem is that these editors are fighting a proxy India Pakistan battle on Wikipedia. Some of them are good and useful editors who just lose it when it comes to the conflict (Mar4d, Capitals00, perhaps others), while it is less clear about others. GoldenRing took a surgeon's scalpel to the problem and crafted a narrow topic ban that should help separate those editors who are here with broader agendas from the ones that are narrowly focused on the India-Pakistan conflict. Six months of editing on other areas (both India as well as Pakistan are underserved on the pedia) and then ask for the topic ban to be lifted. This was explicitly supported, both in content as well as in procedure, by other admins and, clearly, discretionary sanctions and AE worked exactly as they should. This issue is consuming the spirit of neutral editors on Wikipedia, is dispiriting for admins in the area, and the long term consequences of overturning the ban are not going to be good.
 * About MapSGV. They are not quite correct in their activity summary post ARCA overturning their topic ban. While they have not edited much in the India Pakistan conflict area, they actually have barely edited elsewhere as well (approx 8 edits in the conflict area out of a total of 17 or 18 over the space of a month and a half). This edit illustrates the very "who won the battle" and "go after the other guys" attitude that is at the root of the problem. GoldenRing was, imo, justified in including them in the topic ban.
 * MapSGV mostly stayed away editing in all areas after their topic ban was lifted but, of the 19 edits they made between the lifting of the ban ( and the filing of this appeal, 7 were related to the contentious area (plus 1, on your talk page, asking for record amnesty). Almost all the other edits relate to a prod that they removed from an article. I'm not sure if the India-Pakistan edits were contentious or not but that's not exactly staying away from the area. --regentspark (comment) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by 1990'sguy
I think the comment above by RegentsPark is disingenuous because it seems that every time an issue was reported, he tried to rescue the reported editor in violation of WP:INVOLVED, even when the issue was very clear that sanctions on the reported editors were definitely warranted. RegentsPark cites a user talk page discussion that only shows continued harassment from Mar4d that could have been avoided had RegentsPark made efforts to curb reported disruption or simply stayed out of the reports but RegentsPark has been himself a part of the problem, as my diffs show. RegentsPark seems to be using his own failure to handle the issue as evidence of escalation though without admitting his own guilt. Similarly, GoldenRing has has failed to act on the reports where the topic ban was the obvious solution, but now he has to confuse one editor's behavior with other to justify a large number of problematic bans and that speaks of nothing but problems with his own actions in this case.

is right -- the problem here is that 10 concerning editors are being treated as same by GoldenRing. Cherrypicking ten editors and handing them same sanction only for editing the subject makes no sense. GoldenRing in his statements has only proven the existence of the editors in the subject, however, disruption is limited only with two or three editors, not more than that. According to GoldenRing, if one editor refutes other editor's argument with accordance to policy and other editor begins to engage in blatant policy violations, then we should ban both editors because there would be no such situation without both. There is an article on False equivalence that I think GoldenRing would benefit to read.

I also believe that even if GoldenRing's philosophy is correct, his list was still largely incomplete. You missed Kautilya3 who has been a party of the disputes and has engaged in edit warring, incivility, and advocated WP:SPS. I see no reason why you left out Adamgerber80 who misrepresented sources, and edit warred on Sindhudesh (3 reverts), Indian Line of Control strike,   India–Pakistan border skirmishes, and more. False balance is a bad choice. Since there was no particular analysis of everyone's behavior and it took sanctioning admin less than a day to sanction 10 editors in good standing for mostly outdated issues and without even notifying half of those editors, it would be better if the same sanctions are removed in this appeal for lacking necessary evidence and procedural basis. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Adamgerber80
I wish to emphasize one thing before I make this statement, that I am only making one because (a) I was mentioned in this discussion by and (b) I subsequently discovered that another editor had raised some concerns with some of my edits. I don't have a strong opinion on the WP:ARE which took place or this subsequent appeal. A discussion on my talk page which incidentally occurred before the entire WP:ARE discussion represents my view on this entire situation. In general, I wish to stay away (and have made an earnest attempt to do so) from the numerous WP:ANI, WP:ARE, WP:SPI, and other discussions that have gone down in the past six months. My attempts have been to ensure that constructive discussion occurs and here are some recent edits which represent that. (, undoing incorrect closure,talk page discussion). , You have very right to question and raise issues about my edits but I would implore you to assume WP:AGF and to please have a look at my respective discussions on the talk pages of those articles to understand the complete picture. Second, it is common courtesy to at least ping/mention the editor such that they are notified about the concerns one has raised. In my opinion, it would have been nice if you had indeed extended me that courtesy here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by DarSahab
Enforcement was based on clearly weak evidence, mainly stale diffs (often outside scope) and topic bans were recklessly imposed. I am failing to find any evidence of main page disruption from the editors. It is worrying  that many editors were not notified as evidenced by Razer211. If someone was disruptive then smaller sanctions (warnings, reminders) had to be tried first but I am not seeing any previous attempts to deal with the editors and forced breaks including blocks are contrary to Wikipedia policies per WP:COOLDOWN, let alone handing topic bans.

I also agree that there was no reason not to consider Kautilya3 and Adamgerber80 as suited editors for topic bans when they caused more disruption than nearly all named editors.

To show you the frivolity of the entire topic bans, I will say that there was a classic display of admin favuoritism. The administrators totally ignored evidence that several users had shown of Kautilya3's misconduct such as his incivility and his breaking of the aspersions restrictions which he is under. GoldenRing did not even consider all that but somehow found this conduct from JosephusOfJerusalem deserving of sanction. I will leave that up to you to decide whose behaviour was worse. You should note that admins have let Kautilya3 off the hook before too despite his abusing multiple accounts and edit warring. And this supports my idea that this the entire process had favouritism and selectivity all over it.

To support my point that the evidence was really weak I will show you another example. GoldenRing's evidence of TripWire's supposed misconduct are what he calls these "gems"; "This WP:IDHT attitude wont get you anywhere" and "You sir are a text-book case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH." But how is that any different to this sort of "gem" from Vanamonde93 "TripWire, you're digging a hole for yourself here."? Either both are bad or neither are bad.

We can undoubtedly agree that whatever ideology was being used for justifying the ban, it's use was totally incomplete and the result was too unsound.

Since the entire mechanism was abused like a joke I believe it's better to overturn these bans and implement the subject restrictions (as Capitals00 proposed)  as per agreement between most editors here. They describe where the problems exist and how they can be easily avoided. DarSahab (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Obaid Raza
I must applaud the spirit of conciliation which has come about on this appeal between the T-banned users. This willingness to let go of past grudges and work cooperatively in future is not something I have ever seen here before and should not be ignored either as it sets a good precedent for the encyclopedia. We must give them a chance to demonstrate their friendship and collaborative attitude. The subject restrictions will be a good substitute for the T-Bans. I support the idea that the T-bans be lifted en masse from everyone.

I would not only suggest that these t-bans be lifted but I would advise that they be supplemented with proper and more stern administrative action for Kautilya3's misconduct. I advise more stringency in their case because most of the topic banned users here were not already under an indefinite ARE sanction. Kautilya3 was. As a user who was restricted from casting aspersions this sort of verbiage: "don't make deceptive POV edits again","your soapboxing for Pakistan", is quite across the end of the line. This is also the case with his ethnicity claims restriction which he is which he is noted to have violated. The only solution is that User:Lord Roem's warning be made true and a due block be served. As an administrator myself over at Urdu Wikipedia I don't know what the administrators here have been doing. It is apparent that these topic bans has given them a false sense of self-righteousness and superiority over other users. This conversation does not make for pleasant reading. Kautilya3 calls one edit, involving the removal of large amounts of unsourced text, a month after the last major edit, an "edit war" and refers to NadirAli's sanction in what clearly looks like a bullying attempt.--Obaid Raza (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lift topic bans and give Kautilya3 the penalty for breaking their ARE sanctions: To those arguing that this is not the right place to bring it up, this is ARCA. Amendments are requested and made here to fix whatever deficiencies there were from the ARE in question. Since violations by Kautilya3 of his ARE-restrictions were repeatedly brought up (and ignored) at that ARE, that failure now has to be corrected here. I would advise English Wikipedia administrators to complete here the action that was missed at ARE. Of course, the original failure to do so also now raises question marks over the credibility of the original decision, which is another reason why the mass topic ban should be lifted. Obaid Raza (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can a motion be passed to take some sort of action on Kautilya3's misconduct? If you go through the original ARE report and even the diffs regurgitated here, its clear that that user's behaviour has been worse than the rest. They also violated their own ARE sanctions. Ignoring his behaviour which was reported at that same ARE is one of the main reasons the original decision was so faulty. It let the prime wrongdoer off the hook, and this user has been given too much leeway already by English Wikipedia administrators (abusing multiple accounts, edit warring, you name it).Obaid Raza (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SpacemanSpiff
For the sake of my own sanity, I do not admin in this particular area, except for blocking known socks and the like and therefore did not participate in the ARE. With that out of the way, I agree with NYB below that this should be held as a mass appeal. It's far simpler for all involved. There's no reason why individual issues can't be evaluated in a mass appeal. That said, I'm not sure where this "single/individual admin" imposing a sanction comes from (from BU Rob13 below and some others above the line). This was imposed after a discussion and at least three admins (in the uninvolved section) agreed and came up with the final sanction while two others agreed with the general principle. In fact many of those appealing the sanction here were vociferously supporting the same or stiffer sanctions for some of the others in that same discussion, just the fact that all their opinions were taken into consideration, evaluated, and all of them sanctioned seems to be an inconvenient outcome for them. I think NYB has hit the nail on the head with "" and we shouldn't forget that the WP:ARE outcome was taking into consideration what was best for the encyclopaedia. As for the other comment on why some others were left out, well, they seem to have been considered and deliberately left out of the sanctions. As for MapSGV's appeal, right after the ARCA appeal this edit which plays into the tag teaming aspect within the sanctioned topic area. So, while I do agree to an extent with power-enwiki's statement above reg there being very minimal contribution since the ARCA appeal, that kind of contribution is actually just "ARBCOM has accepted my appeal, now I'm untouchable", so in effect suggesting that 's original sanction there was warranted. (Note: In the interest of unnecessary notifications, I've only pinged those not already participating this discussion.) &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bbb23
Briefly. My knowledge of these topic-banned editors is only at SPI. Without analyzing each one separately, on balance, SPI would be better off without their largely disruptive factionalized back-and-forth on many cases. It's true that some are worse than others, but to the extent this ban prevents them from filing reports, I'm in favor of it. As an aside, I agree with 's preliminary procedural statement. Separating this would be an unnecessary nightmare.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Uanfala
tldr: Ban good, proposed alternatives bad.

I edit in the normally anodyne periphery of this topic area, and I haven't looked at most of the events that led here. But I've witnessed other, similarly toxic, discussions between the editors concerned, and I've followed the recent AE reports. I can say I agree with Goldenring's selection of editors to place restrictions on and I believe that these restrictions were long overdue. Further noting that the narrow topic ban is probably the most lenient of all the options that were considered in the last AE request.

Regarding Capitals00's proposal for a new set of editing restrictions in this topic area, this doesn't seem to be gaining traction, but I think it's worth emphasising why it might not be a good idea. This is likely to have a disproportionate effect on new editors (who will not be familiar with the strict letter of this new law), and it won't do much to solve the underlying issue with the currently t-banned group of editors. I don't see the relevance of either 1RR (the problem was the constantly horrible environment on talk pages and noticeboards, not so much the occasional instance of mild edit-warring), and I don't see how the proposed civility restriction could work: I don't remember ever seeing civility proper to have been a major problem (and two of the worst offenders banned are the poster childs of WP:Civil POV pushing). If civility is defined broadly enough to encompass all the neutrally-worded recriminations or the polite, but persistent, mutual litigation that we had become used to, then the definition will be too broad to make it enforceable.

Starting a full-blown arbitration case was recently suggested, but I don't see how it could help at this point. What is the way forward from here? These editors have been banned from the major heat source – the India–Pakistan conflict – but they remain free to edit in the wider subject areas of India and Pakistan. These topics have been an area of conflict between some of those editors in the past, but if this time round they show they can work constructively and collaborate, they can follow the standard path of individually appealing their topic bans after six months. If the battleground behaviour carries on, then stricter restrictions can be selectively imposed on the those responsible.

Maybe MapSGV's topic ban could be overturned, in the interest of fairness, because of their overall low level of participation in the most recent skirmishes. – Uanfala (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Spasage
I have worked with few of these editors and had my share of agreements and disagreement. We can debate about their behavior being good or not. But their contributions to articles speaks volume about their commitment and hours they have put in. Thus, I highly oppose this hasty and heavy handed topic ban, that was clearly put in place without any consideration or considerable proof of disruption. For example all the (stale) evidence used to ban Mar4d was rehashed from an AE of two months ago, then dismissed as a "wall of minutia", so it should not have been actionable at all. I thank the rest of the editors for their productive contributions, I also thank Capitals00 for a good set of good-faith proposals, and look forward to work with them. I wish them best of luck with this appeal. --Spasage (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Desmay
Nothing is actually wrong with banning multiple editors but such action still requires firm evidence of disruption and that is badly missing here. I condemn such approach of banning anyone without following the right procedures. Given the lack of evidence, no implementation of preventative measures and justification through misleading conjectures, I oppose the topic bans and request committee to undo the damage by overturning all bans.

Disagreements are a part of daily life but to punish someone over common disagreement is simply unjustified. ARE must not be used as a tool for clearing feuds of your favorite editor. desmay (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by D4iNa4
According to the policies and general understanding, the topic bans are imposed after failure to abide by the warning issued for clear evidence of disruptive editing which most importantly includes problematic main article edits, failure to abide consensus, personal attacks, etc. however, none of that can be discovered anywhere in my editing record since I have joined Wikipedia.

No evidence of sanctionable editing had been produced that concerned me. Looking at time when the list of bans was proposed and implemented, it is evident that I never got the opportunity to defend myself as my contribution history shows. GoldenRing cited my participation but that is really not enough and I have never seen anyone before being sanctioned for such. So far, I have never engaged in any edit warring, canvassing, personal attacks, bludgeoning or any kind of sanctionable conduct. My participation showed by the links provided by GoldenRing involved the instances that were either outside scope or they were no longer actionable. If GoldenRing found them to be actionable, still, my overall motive was all about working on improving the credibility of Wikipedia and abide by its core policies. I admit that I have been critical a couple of times in participation but at the end of the day it was also apparent that it didn't took me long to restore the collegial atmosphere.

We are ought to be building a collegial atmosphere and after hearing the reactions from the involved users with whom I had disputes, I am happy that they are also ready to collaborate in building a collegial atmosphere and I welcome their commitment as a net benefit to encyclopedia. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems that NadirAli was not mentioned in the comments made below that brought me here. I would also like to request NadirAli's section to be moved below the one belonging to Capitals00 because NadirAli commented 2 hours after Capitals00 had already commented. Maybe clerks can do the needful? Thanks. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware that appeals can be made on ARE and AN prior here, but the reality is that those options largely depend on the popularity of the appealing editor. It has been frequently observed that even if an editor has carried out gross violations of policies, he would get away with those violations with reviewing admin citing the consensus among editors/admins and at the same time if an editor has not carried out any violation or even participated in the diffs used for banning then the sanctions are still going to be endorsed only because the appealing editor have a low bar on popularity, like we have already seen here in the case of MapSGV. At first I was avoiding this ARCA because I had doubts whether multiple editors can appeal or not. After receiving your ping I decided that this should be treated as most likely as the only venue that nonetheless has highest chances of making a fair review of the decision at AE. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Raymond3023
Thank you for allowing me to appeal.

GoldenRing notifies the people whom he has mentioned in his ARE comments, but this time GoldenRing failed to notify the people he mentioned. I was one of them who weren't not notified about being sanctioned, and my name was added without any consideration and there was no evidence provided by anyone to backup the topic ban proposal. At first, GoldenRing didn't agreed with the idea of including me in the list,[ however GoldenRing suddenly added my name without providing any reason to topic ban me neither any evidence was provided to him.

To this day, I have never engaged in disruption and whenever anyone told me about a mistake that I have made, I realized it and made the improvement. I had been temporarily topic banned before by NeilN, who swiftly removed the topic ban on appeal but put me under temporary restrictions and 3/4 of these temporary restrictions were successfully appealed on 18 April, after I had cited the evidence of lack of disruption and the faults in the evidence that had been used for putting me under restrictions. However this indefinite topic ban from India-Pakistan conflict is overtly unwarranted and there are no reasons why I had to be banned when I have not disrupted this area or in fact any other area at all.

My overall view of this issue is that it can be easily resolved and it has already begun to be resolved. The unanimous agreement between involved editors to allow implementation of subject restrictions from protecting the area from disruption is a positive sign. Furthermore, I would like to thank JosephusOfJerusalem that he has countered a sock who keeps disrupting my contributions. This is an evidence that we are contrary to what the admins had assumed, that we will move conflicts to other areas but clearly we haven't done that at all, instead we have evidenced the fact that we can collaborate together. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence of me being disruptive? I was not even a part of most of these disputes. To me this sounds more like a sanction for only having involvement than violating any policies or engaging in this disruption that is necessary before getting topic banned. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
As I wrote in the AE thread, I have not reviewed the evidence with respect to each individual sanctioned editor, but support the general approach by GoldenRing. Nothing submitted here on appeal makes me believe that the sanction was completely outside the discretion granted to administrators by the discretionary sanctions provisions. Even if with respect to individual users other admins might have come to different conclusions, or indeed even if the one-size-fits-all approach might be perceived as not equally reflective of the degree of culpability of each sanctioned editor, in the aggregate I believe these sanctions will help quell battleground-type editing in the area of conflict.  Sandstein  15:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
, thanks for letting me know about this. There's an awful lot to wade through, but I'll try to get a statement put together tonight. It would indeed seem to make sense to notify admins who participated in the AE review of an ARCA appeal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So, my thoughts. I agree very much with here, that it would be quite demoralizing for ArbCom to second-guess GoldenRing's decision. Every one of the editors who was banned had, in some way or another, been behaving poorly and disruptively in the area under sanctions. I am absolutely not one who's okay with a "ban everyone who was in the general area" type remedy (and as some arbitrators might recall, harshly criticized ArbCom when they once proposed such a thing), but that's just not what we've got here. These editors really did, each and every one, behave in a way that earned them their sanction. I supported GoldenRing's decision at AE, and nothing said here changes my mind about that. For ArbCom to review a discretionary sanction, the standard should not be "Is that exactly what I would have done?", but "Did the sanctioning administrator act within reasonable administrative discretion?" If the answer is yes, the sanction should be upheld. I see no reason to believe that GoldenRing acted outside the bounds of reasonable administrative discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RaviC
No comments on these appeals yet. I should note however that I had requested Doug Weller due to his heavy involvement with a few editors listed in this request. Whilst Doug Weller has not disagreed that he is involved, he seems to be refusing to recuse. --RaviC (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Adding here that the topic ban violation brought in by JosephusOfJerusalem about 2 days ago has been now restored by an account that has been re-activated after more than 6 months and his last edit 6 months ago was to allege  and  of being sock puppets of each other, though the SPI was closed by  as "insufficient evidence".


 * I must note that something is very fishy going on here. Also linking an ARE report that concerned NadirAli, highlighting the alleged meatpuppetry. --RaviC (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And now (who I have already mentioned) has violated his topic ban by misrepresenting the edits on Kashmiris, from where he is topic banned. RaviC (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like you really don't understand what a topic ban is. Since you referred to talk page (Talk:Kashmiris) you must have been aware of this message by GoldenRing. You are not allowed to refer to any edits that are related to your topic ban, but given that you have violated your topic bans and have been blocked, I don't think that this is something particularly new to you. RaviC (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bharatiya29
I had looked into this request sometime before but didn't commented then because I couldn't really make up my mind at that time. But having now read through the statements at AE and here, I feel that at least three topic bans should be preserved since these three editors have caused massive amount of disruption, and as pointed above, that if they had been topic banned at the right time as the result of the strong AE reports against them, there would be no such collateral damage that we are seeing now. 1) TripWire: he says here that he was topic banned during his "younger days", and then was eventually "blocked for 48 hrs for no fault of mine", which is a clear misrepresentation of the credibility of his block that was imposed because he himself violated 2RR. has surprisingly omitted the ARE report from July 2016, where I had participated as well. This ARE resulted in a 3 months topic ban on TripWire from entire Balochistan subject, not to mention that TripWire is currently still under a "casting aspersions" sanction as a result of that ARE.

2) NadirAli: needs no introduction. He was site banned as result of the original ARBIPA case and topic banned, which he later appealed. He claimed here that "I had broken no 3RR", while technically true, the statement is unconvincing to defend his record, given his 3 reverts on Princely state well under an hour.

3) Mar4d: his actions include source misrepresentation, edit warring on 2016 Indian Line of Control strike while misrepresenting established consensus as no consensus, harassment of MapSGV, poor AfD nomination and then he went on to tag the article with CSD A10 while the AfD was still running, in fact, no longer than a few hours before the ARE was filed. His disruption is clearly highest among all other editors. Add to this: the topic ban violations as pointed above in this edit further leaves me with no doubt that the topic ban ought to be preserved in Mar4d's case.

At present, this is my stance regarding this case. <font color="#FF9933">Bharatiya <font color="#138808">29 09:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by My Lord
This is the situation where you have to select between what is right and what is easy.

I was aware of these bans but not this request that I got to know only after following up events related to JosephusOfJerusalem, after he violated his topic ban multiple times, for restoring pseudohistory/fringe content that never had consensus. At this moment, I would just mention that the necessary details of background are missing that can significantly decide the outcome of this request. It is necessary to tell that this kind of frivolous ARE reports submission citing insignificant issues to get away from own mass disruption dates back to January this year. One side has tried almost every way to engage in disruption for the sake of POV pushing, while other side has only attempted to fix the problems created by other side or helped them clearing their misunderstandings of policies and content disputes. I know that I am saying this is a one-sided disputed, but this is not a new thing. Same was the case in the original case where only one side was sanctioned and NadirAli was a part of it, just like he is in this case.

Situation has not changed. I would bring unwarranted admin leniency into attention that widely exists here and it's existence has been further proven post-topic bans. Interestingly, Mar4d and JosephusOfJerusalem have violated their topic bans multiple times but they haven't been sanctioned even after the clear logged warning agreed by several administrators that any violation will lead to "either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning."

Should I just say that no one should be reporting topic ban violations? Because nothing happens as it has been already proven and if anyone tried to report the violation, then the reporting editor would be instead blocked/banned for "battleground mentality". If the reports of topic ban violation increased then one side will falsely accuse other side of topic ban violation and then all editors will get blocked indefinitely or topic banned from whole subject only for being "part of that battle", even if most editors never violated the topic ban. I mean, this is what has happened here that half of the editors have been sanctioned for disruption caused by others and apparently we are moving there again. I know that would be wrong if it happened and I would definitely advise against such practices.

I will expand my comment with relevant diffs soon. My Lord (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just noting here that I have my evidence ready for proving my above statement. I feel it is important because such evidence has not been mentioned here by anybody yet. At this moment, it appears that several members of the committee have already made their votes. I guess I am probably late. Please ping me if you are interested. My Lord (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much clearer the things have to be than they already are now. Along with JosephusOfJerusalem, Mar4d it seems that NadirAli has now also joined the list of topic-ban violators with this edit. As expected, these editors engage WP:IDHT even after being told about very obvious topic ban violation, but they deny it, just like they used to deny copyright violations in the disputes that has led to topic bans.  I don't think we should be disregarding the decision made by you and other by admins on AE that topic ban violation will lead to indefinite block or topic ban from entire area. Or we are waiting for other side to violate topic bans too then impose block/ban on both sides for maintaining the balance? Sorry, but it is natural to have many confusions over the things that could be well avoided if things were sorted out in a copybook manner from the beginning. My Lord (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2018 (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.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse obviously. GoldenRing (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Recuse --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Please link the diff where MapSVG was alerted of the AE discussion before he received sanctions. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, at the moment, this is only an appeal from MapSVG. Anyone else who desires to appeal should do so separately. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As noted above, we look at appeals from each editor individually. If you wish to file an appeal at ARCA, you'll need to submit another request. Considering appeals for ten editors in one discussion is just too complicated to end well, since each editor's circumstances and behaviors are different. I'm not trying to give you the run around, just trying to make sure we are set up to reach the best decisions for the community. If you want to just copy what you wrote over to another ARCA thread, that's perfectly fine; no need to duplicate effort. (As a side note, seriously consider whether you want to appeal straight to ARCA instead of to AE/AN first. If you do that, you lose your ability to later appeal to AE/AN over the legitimacy of the original ban.) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to reiterate this clearly. This is an appeal for MapSVG and only MapSVG. If others wish to appeal, do it separately. I've half a mind to close this procedurally and start over, because we simply cannot process 10 different rationales for appeals from 10 different editors in one ARCA. Further, this is turning into mass topic ban violations, as a topic banned editor may not comment on the appeal of another editor banned in the same topic. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, appeals are submitted as amendment requests. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If we’re going “all or nothing”, then I’ll have to vote to vacate all the topic bans, as at least MapSVG’s topic ban is grossly improper. After a successful topic ban appeal, it appears he had virtually no further activity in the topic area, and certainly none close to the time of the ban. Reimposing the topic ban under those circumstances looks a lot like reversing the Committee’s decision. An individual admin can’t do that, and it isn’t fair to MapSVG for their ban to be reimposed without new behavior warranting one. I also have process concerns here. There is technically no requirement to notify an editor of a report involving them at AE, but when an AE discussion starts talking about banning ten editors with no serious transparent review of their conduct (no/very few diffs, in many cases), we have to apply some common sense. MapSVG should have been allowed to defend themselves, as should many of the other editors banned with no warning about their behavior. I’d rather have one properly-banned editor unbanned than one improperly-banned editor banned, so if I’m forced into that choice, I’d vote to accept. That’s not optimal. Some of the banned editors should certainly stay that way, and I hope the Committee is willing to put in the effort to make those determinations, which are best made in separate discussions. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose we're hearing this collectively yet making independent decisions. After discussion on the list, I've removed all parties except the original filer and GoldenRing. If you want to be part of this appeal, please re-add your username to the list of parties. This is how we are determining who wishes to appeal their sanction as part of a collective appeal. Please note that, if you join this appeal, you will no longer be able to appeal the validity of your sanction at AE/AN (see important note #2). ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)  Messed up the pings to you, so re-pinging. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Each of the editors have now joined the appeal, and we are deliberating. I would ask all of the appealing editors to pull back on the criticisms of . No, he isn't being admonished. Several admins agreed with the general concept of topic-banning en masse at AE. Maybe that wasn't ideal, and maybe the exact group chosen wasn't exactly correct, but it's clear that the action was taken in good faith after discussion among several uninvolved admins. Right now, you're trying to convince us that you don't have a battleground mentality that makes working with you in this topic area difficult. Continuing to make unwarranted or polemic attacks on an administrator who acted in good-faith just seems to indicate GoldenRing got it right. In short, calm down a bit and give us a chance to talk over your appeals. This may take a while, since there are so many of them. I would like each appealing editor other than to answer the following questions: Did you already file an appeal to the community at AN or AE? If so, please provide a link. If not, why did you come straight here? (You may wish to read my statement here for context.) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can absolutely appeal the validity of the topic ban at AN/AE first. If you'd like to do so, you're welcome to withdraw from this appeal (as is any other editor). ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would very much like to see diffs specifically related to . I don't think they're as necessary for others, though I may come back and ask for diffs of others later on. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline all but MapSVG. For the other editors, I see no significant overstepping of administrative discretion. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The time to withdraw from the appeal has long passed. No, editors cannot withdraw after arbs have started voting. I offered it for those who may wish to withdraw at the very beginning due to a misunderstanding of process, not for those wishing to game their way to an extra future appeal. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry we seem to be a little bit uncertain about procedure here. Speaking for myself only, I think it will be easier to have just one discussion relating to this group of topic-bans rather than up to ten separate requests, which would result in (for example) the admins who participated at AE having to either post the same thing several times, or cross-reference from one request to another. That does not mean that we would need to overturn or modify either none of the topic-bans or all of them; they could still be reviewed on an individual basis. On the merits of the appeal(s), I sympathize and empathize with the concept of "let's clear out a whole group of editors who have become overly contentious in the topic area and have some fresh blood, although some of the editors have misbehaved worse than others." I was one of the drafting arbitrators in a case a few years back where we suggested "don't take it personally, but the lot of you edit something else for awhile" as a possible remedy&mdash;but at that time the community reacted very negatively to the idea of topic-banning anyone who hadn't been shown to have misbehaved fairly seriously. The trade-off, really, is between procedural punctiliousness toward individual editors versus the best outcome for the encyclopedia-building process as a whole. In this regard, some of the admins who supported the group topic-ban in this case are ones who freely speak up when they believe an editor has been sanctioned unfairly, which gives me some comfort that the sanction here was applied carefully rather than reflexively. To be continued. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to allow a couple more days in case any of the other sanctioned editors want to add anything. I must say that my initial reaction to this request was that the topic-ban seemed harsh as to a few of the editors, and was subject to our taking a hard look at it as we did on MapSVP's appeal a couple of months ago. Having read again through everything, however, I lean toward accepting what appears to be a strong consensus of the regular AE editors that drastic action was necessary to improve the atmosphere in this topic-area. I also note with approval that the scope of the topic-bans was limited to the conflict between India and Pakistan (as opposed to all editing about India or Pakistan, which in the case of an Indian or Pakistani editor could destroy their ability to contribute). That being said, the topic-ban has already had the salutary result on focusing some of these editors on the problems with their editing and to resolve to improve them. For this reason, I'd be interested in whether the AE admins believe a shortening of the six-month term might be appropriate (my feelings won't be hurt if they say "no.") Also, as currently written the topic-bans extend until each editor makes a successful appeal, which means that come the autumn, there will be up to ten appeals that have to be submitted and evaluated. Would it be more sensible, in this case, to modify the bans to have a specific expiration date, with the understanding that renewed misconduct once they expire would lead to their being reimposed indefinitely? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As a starting point let's agree to hear this as a collective appeal. We could do that as a general appeal against the decision, or as a collective appeal by the editors who have posted above, who have idnciated they are lodging an appeal on their behalf (Sheriff and NadirAli, your intentions aren't clear on this score). This doesn't bind us to having the same appeal outcome for all of the above, but it avoids asking people to post multiple very similar ARCA's. Happy to support a motion to that effect if required; otherwise let's move forward with it as is. And as NYB says, to be continued on the substance though I do note the general community endorsement of the outcome on this page so far. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with on moving this forward and hear this as a collective appeal. I also want to note that as far I am aware, 's sanction was implemented carefully with the consensus of the administrators that participated in the enforcement request. So any allegations on that the decision was made hastily is unfair in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline, for now. For what it's worth, the patterns on display in the commentaries at this very appeal is precisely the reason why the discretionary sanction by GoldenRing, enacted with consensus and within their discretion, should be upheld. It would be inaccurate, in my opinion, to interpret our previous motion to overturn the topic ban on MapSGV as if MapSGV should not have been sanctioned, and certainly not as an excuse for MapSGV to return to their problematic editing behaviour. The diffs provided by GoldenRing is more than sufficient to affirm this decision. As for Kautilya3's editing behaviour, this will need to be addressed in a separate thread. Alex Shih (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with . There should be no more withdrawals from this appeal as deliberations have already begun. Alex Shih (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree with handling this as a collective appeal.  DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding that I agree in the handling of this as a collective appeal. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Like Rob, I would also like to see GoldenRing's diffs for MapSGV. Of all the TBANs issued, it's MapSGV's that gives me pause - the rest were based on recent/ongoing misbehavior, but MapSGV has been largely inactive since the repeal of his earlier TBAN. It seems unfair to issue a sanction to an editor who has been largely inactive lately, even if they have been problematic in the past. Statements from a multitude of parties make it fairly appearent that the existence of these TBANs in general has significantly reduced infighting and disruption in the India-Pakistan area, including reducing the burden at SPI, which is often backlogged. I would like to see the diffs for MapSGV before I make a final decision, however. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks for providing those diffs. I'm now reasonably convinced that there's no basis to exclude MapSGV from the at-large topic ban. The diffs of them returning to editing in the area are not as problematic to me, but the one on IvanVector's talk page where MapSGV jumps back to accusing someone else of being a sock, etc, is pretty telling of their unchanged attitude. I believe the mass ban overall ought to be upheld and the appeals denied. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm generally in agreement with what Newyorkbrad has said except for the suggestion of a specific expiration date. I do not believe that vacating the bans would be in the interest of the encyclopedia, so decline the appeals with the exception of MapSGV's. I can see grounds for revoking the ban but, but MapSGV's statement have not convinced me that there will be no problems if the ban is simply vacated. I'll come back later with a proper wording, but I'd like to propose a six months suspension of the ban, which will then expire if there have been no problems in the topic area. As I've said, I need to think about the wording, particularly how the ban can be reinstated if there are problems. Doug Weller  talk 13:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed this before your post and have reinstated him. Once voting and discussion starts, it's too late to withdraw. Doug Weller  talk 10:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have changed my mind about MapSGV. I now decline all the appeals, given the current evidence. Doug Weller  talk 10:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been intending to look at this "tonight" for days now, and the growth in text volume has been outpacing me. Having now waded through it all (I think), a few observations, not necessarily in any particular order:
 * There's a ha-ha-only-serious joke about arb spaces being venues in which people demonstrate the behavior that got them there in the first place. That's very much in evidence here - there's a lot of commentary to the effect of "I didn't do anything wrong, but those nasty other guys did!" Reading through this, the AE thread, and the various preceding or linked discussions very clearly illustrates the point made by several people here about a pattern of people involved in this dispute using dispute resolution as a weapon to get opponents sanctioned. (Please, nobody respond to declare that their own noticeboard threads/SPIs/etc have all been necessary but some other jerk is a chronic complainer who should be sanctioned.)
 * There's also an unnecessary degree of vituperation about GoldenRing in particular, who only enacted a sanction supported by others in the AE thread. This doesn't help anybody's case. On the other hand - and I think we've tried to make this point every time it's come up - if an AE sanction is appealed and then is modified by arbcom at ARCA, that doesn't mean the original decision was wrong, the admin was wrong to use it, etc.
 * I don't quite know what to think about the idea of mass topic bans at AE. I know that a similar "clear out the topic area" approach has been tried in arbcom cases in the past, and I don't think it worked out all that well, for reasons similar to what you can see here. That is, there's a lot of distraction about process and "fairness" and did I or did I not get my due. Of course, the whole arbitration edifice is supposed to be about practical solutions and not about procedural perfection, but that doesn't help the person who (pick one) was unfairly sanctioned/is using procedural complaints to continue their battleground behavior.
 * On the suggested alternatives: "consensus required" is a hell no, we tried that in another area and it caused no end of problems. Put that in the Bad Idea Bin with civility parole and time-limited bans.
 * On MapSGV's previous appeal: maybe this should have been clearer at the time of the appeal, but that should have no impact whatsoever on subsequent decisions regarding his editing. A successful appeal should not be interpreted by the appellant as "I can get away with anything now!", and by the same argument, if more problems arise, admins shouldn't hesitate to sanction someone who'd previously appealed. This seems to have been a distraction in some of the comments above.
 * Given the very clear pattern that emerges from reading all of this about abuse of noticeboards and complaint processes, I wonder whether this could be partially replaced with a "topic" ban prohibiting the members of this group from reporting each other at AN, AE, SPI, etc. That might also address some of the concerns that the squabbling among this same group has spread to peripherally related topics. It might also be a pain to remember who's allowed to report who, so maybe that's too complicated. I don't love the idea of settling this by letting MapSGV off the hook and otherwise doing nothing, but I'm not opposed exactly either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Like OR, I've taken an awful long time to read this and digest it all. I'm not going to go into depth about my thoughts, besides simply saying that none of the participants have covered themselves in glory. Indeed, it seems the India Pakistan area has spiralled out of control again, and all names on that list have been involved in some form in making that happen. The admins (plural) at AE came up with a solution, removing the participants for 6 months - that is well within their discretion, and enacted by GoldenRing. This wasn't unilateral, it wasn't overstepping the bounds and quite simply the solution is acceptable, if not optimal. As such, I would deny the appeal in toto. In addition, I'd like to concur that NadirAli should remain part of the appeal. He added his name on 30 May, and Rob gave him (and others) a chance to remove their names and appeal at AE first on 1 June. Today is 7 June, and NadirAli has removed his name, after the first denial vote. Deliberation and voting is happening, it's too late to remove names from the appeal. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * By "part of the problem", I am talking about the area as a whole, which has degraded over time, with similar in-fighting, snarky comments and out-right personal attacks, and each person named has been part of that degradation. The consensus of admins at AE is that the parties should be removed for 6 months. You are able to edit elsewhere on Wikipedia, but in this area which has a history of difficulties, the topic ban across all parties is an acceptable solution. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , there are number of people who have complained of you "wikilawyering" in the thread. To be clear, this dispute has clearly been carrying on for a few months prior to the AE report and I do not accept that you were not involved in the larger dispute. The damning diff was this one, May 3rd, 9 days before the AE report was filed. You made zero edits between the May 3rd and AE report and have been editing at low rate, so I have no reason to think you had moved on. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

India-Pakistan: Motion
The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained, and the topic-ban imposed on MapSGV on May 15, 2018 is lifted. MapSGV remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies.


 * Support
 * (Now moved to oppose) Proposing this to start chipping away at the outcomes here. The wording is the exact same as last time (with an updated date of sanction). MapSGV is saying this in a rather polemic way, but he's essentially correct. His topic ban was removed by ArbCom, and then GoldenRing replaced it even though he had almost no involvement in the topic area between the time he was unbanned and the time the ban was reinstated. He seems to have greatly reduced his participation in the area in response to the warning issued when the previous appeal was sustained, and I simply don't see any disruption in his post-appeal contributions to justify a topic ban. We can't have an admin overruling an ArbCom decision, and even if that wasn't the intent, I think it's the practical effect of letting this topic ban stand. proposed a suspended topic ban above, but that's not needed here. In the past, we've suspended ArbCom remedies instead of lifting entirely because we wanted to provide some mechanism for admins to sanction the editor if they resumed acting disruptively. Here, the active discretionary sanctions in this topic area already provide that mechanism. `~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm currently weighing whether I still hold this stance after the diffs from . I don't appear to have to think very hard on it, since the consensus is likely against either way, but I probably am also leaning decline now. On one hand, those diffs would not be enough to topic ban someone without considering the wider disruption in the topic area and past conduct. On the other hand, it probably pushes things well into administrator discretion territory, which is the same reason I'm agreeing to decline the other appeals. I will note that, regardless of outcome, those diffs probably should have been provided prior to the ban being placed. A topic banned editor has a right to know the exact reason for their ban, which is usually necessary both to defend their conduct in the original discussion and to formulate an appeal. The specific diffs/evidence of wrongdoing shouldn't be coming out only multiple weeks into the appeal process. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I oppose this motion. I will expand my comment later. Alex Shih (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's no longer necessary for me to expand the comment as I have voted to decline the collective appeal for now based on the latest diffs and rationale from GoldenRing. Alex Shih (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't agree that this should be vacated for MapSGV, he was part the problem, and this is the solution agreed by admins at AE. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  Doug Weller  talk 10:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) The later evidence presented by GoldenRing shows a need to oppose this now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) After further consideration, moved here. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Discussion by arbitrators

Clarification request: ARBIPA topic ban clarification
Initiated by Ivanvector at 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
 * SheriffIsInTown (among others) topic banned from "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan"

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * diff of notification SheriffIsInTown
 * diff of notification DBigXray

Statement by Ivanvector
I am seeking clarification on whether the article on the geographical feature Siachen Glacier is covered by the scope of the aforementioned sanction in its entirety because it contains a section describing the Siachen conflict (actually two sections) which itself is a dispute between India and Pakistan. This is in response to DBigXray posting a note to SheriffIsInTown that their semi-automated filling of a reference within the description of the conflict  was a violation of their topic ban, which they acknowledged and self-reverted. While nobody here disagrees that this specific edit was strictly a topic ban violation, I've been challenged on my interpretation that hypothetical constructive edits to the significant portions of the article which do not concern the conflict would not violate this sanction, and so I am seeking clarification on that point.

I'd also like to point out that I restored the ref-fill edit as it was clearly constructive. I was then referred to the "banned means banned" section of the banning policy, which does not state that edits made in violation of a ban must be reverted; on the contrary it states that "". And I'd also like to draw the reviewers' attention to an essentially concurrent discussion in which another editor was sanctioned for attempted frivolous enforcement of this same decision. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you, that was a silly omission on my part. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SheriffIsInTown
Although, I am thankful that 's message on my user talk allowed me to remediate the blunder I made in form of an inadvertent violation of my ban, I am bit disappointed in the choice of language in their message. There is quite a bit of assumption of bad faith in their comment when they put it like "I saw that you are still editing Siachen Glacier", it conveys as if I was a long term habitual editor of that article and I am still continuing to edit that article in defiance of my ban but in reality that was my first ever edit on that article. I never ever edited that article in good ole days of freedom to edit any article on Wikipedia then why I would knowingly and willfully violate my topic ban just to fill a reference so assuming good faith, the message could have better read as "I see that you might have inadvertently violated your topic ban in this edit, please be careful in future as your ban is broadly construed and it does not matter whether you are fixing a reference or adding content about actual conflict." No matter the disagreements or different backgrounds, why cannot we give space to our fellow editors by assuming good faith towards them when we have a choice between both (good or bad). While we are here and being thankful to the admins to give me a leeway, my question to them and more specifically to ARBCOM members is that would not it be a good idea to exclude purely technical edits such as the one I made out of the scope of such topic bans. I am unable to see what could be the risk of such edits spiraling the conflict out of hands or starting an edit-war or battleground editing pattern which could be risks when an edit is truly content related. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 15:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Fetchie Mankala
I think that in this case, the entire article is subject to ARBCOM rulings. It's clear from looking at it that the conflict is more than a mere mention in this article.

Statement by Thryduulf
Before I looked at the article I was expecting to opine that the parts of the article related to the geographical/geological/environmental/etc aspects of the glacier would be fine to edit. However, after having read the article it seems that everything is intimately tied up with the conflict, or its origins, history or effects. I would recommend topic banned users give this article a miss in its entirety.

Ivanvector is correct though regarding reinstating the self-reverted edit. WP:PROXYING is the relevant policy here - "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." [emphasis in original]. The edit in question was clearly productive, and there is no suggestion that it was performed at the direction of anyone else. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG
I do not have an affinity for boundary-testing-experiments but IMO, if Sheriff can manage to edit the article excluding anything tangential to the conflict, there's no problem.

The entire second paragraph of lead, etymology-section and drainage-section ought not be any related to the conflict.

I would advise against the seemingly-innocent section of Environmental issues courtesy that they are caused by the presence of forces et al, which links up to the conflict.

The rest of the sections are a.

I concur with Ivan's restoration and commend him for rising above petty process-wonkery. Whilst I agree that this particular edit violated Sheriff's T-Ban, I don't have any idea as to why DBigXray asked for a revert; a plain note of caution would have been sufficient. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Adamgerber80
I agree with the current action taken by Ivanvector and believe that this was a constructive edit. IMO, as long as we are here, there is an issue with this topic ban from the point of view of it's scope. Just to be clear I am not arguing for or against the ban or trying to dig into the reasons behind it. My intention here is to clearly list what is allowed and what is not allowed under this topic-ban, for the sake of the editors who are under the ban and other editors who edit in the general area. When the ban was crafted there was some degree of ambiguity to it (not certain if that was deliberate or not) which has led different administrators to derive different interpretations from it and impose it per their view. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to maybe make a small list of gray areas to remove procedural overhead of people reporting each other and leading to more discussions. I would present two scenarios which happened recently because of the aforementioned ambiguity. There was a WP:ANI discussion about an editor who was involved in the area and some editors who participated in the discussion were briefly banned since this was considered a violation of their topic ban. Another scenario which is currently playing out on another talk page discussion where there was a discussion about inclusion/exclusion of countries (along with India and Pakistan). I don't have a strong opinion in either of these cases or other gray areas but feel listing no-go zones and okay zones might be easier for all of us. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2018 (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.

ARBIPA topic ban clarification: Clerk notes

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


 * , just a heads up I added the diffs of your notifications for you. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * no problem! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

ARBIPA topic ban clarification: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * General comment: I should know better to ask this after almost nine years on the ArbCom, but is it altogether impossible for common sense to govern this sort of question? My thanks to those who have already employed this underutilized dispute-resolution tool. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We run into this issue quite a bit and may times where the intent is not innocent. In those cases, we have taken a hard line stance on the wording of "broadly construed", especially if it is apparent the editor in question has difficulty disengaged and continuously tests the waters. In this case, broadly construed was also used in the discretionary sanction and editors were expressly warned that "testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block". That being said, it appears the intent was accidental and immediately reverted their actions once they were notified. No block was issued and I think it was handled reasonably well by both involved. We allow administrators to rely their judgement when enforcing discretionary sanctions on a case-by-case basis. In this case a notification was a measured and appropriate response. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  20:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As Mkdw says, this is an issue which comes up a lot. Technically if the edit has absolutely nothing whatsoever (note the broadly construed) to do with the conflict between the two countries then it would be okay. However, administrators and the Committee have taken a fairly hard line in interpreting what is and what is not covered by a sanction. There are a number of things which need to be considered when determining whether an edit is a violation of a sanction and what, if any, action should be taken, these include the history of the editor and sanction, conflict on the article in the past, what exactly is edited and what, if discernible, the intent of the edit was. In this case, I believe that the correct action was taken and nothing more needs to be done. SheriffIsInTown reverted their edit when they where alerted that it might be a violation of the topic ban rather than fight about it (which is another factor in deciding what to do). Looking at the article, I believe that it would be difficult to edit much of it without the edit being at least tangentially related to the India-Pakistan conflict so it would be best to not edit the article at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Mkdw. I could expound and sound important, but he’s put it as well as I could. Katietalk 01:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh Mkdw is good. I agree. Doug Weller  talk 05:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Mkdw. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Piling on the Mkdw bandwagon. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree with MKDW. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: IP conflict

 * Case or decision affected
 * Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
 * Some editors "indefinitely banned from edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. "

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Orientls
Would it be a topic ban violation if an editor topic banned from "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan" edits Regional power with the purpose to debate the status of India or Pakistan?

The description of India and Pakistan in the context of regional power heavily focuses on conflicts between India and Pakistan. Reliable sources largely emphasize on conflicts between two countries in this subject when they discuss their "power". Some more factors including "regional power" that falls within the India-Pakistan conflict area are mentioned by this reliable source.

Historically we have considered subjects like Khalistan movement, Insurgency in Balochistan to be a violation of this particular topic ban since these subjects are also tied up with conflicts between India and Pakistan.

Even if an editor edits such subjects without actually making mention of India-Pakistan conflict, then still it could be still considered a topic ban violation because India-Pakistan conflict is among the major factor involved and ultimately the coverage of India-Pakistan conflict is significantly affected. Orientls (talk)


 * This is not about a particular editor but clarification concerning  treatment of this subject (Regional power) when the editor is editing this subject with purpose to debate the status of India or Pakistan as regional power.
 * Topic banned from India-Pakistan conflict or not, both types of editors treat the subject as a part of India-Pakistan conflict. This question was also raised by Adamgerber80 above as "scenario which is currently playing out on another talk page discussion". FWIW, I have presented both sides that those who don't consider this subject to be a topic ban violation (from IP conflict) would only claim that "I made no mention of any India-Pakistan conflict", while influencing the very same conflict by editing this subject.
 * I don't know if topic banned editors (and how many of them) could be named as party since they are not the ones seeking clarification or raising any demand for one. Non-topic banned users have shown no interest in seeking clarification either. Given these uncertainties, I saw no need of naming anybody as a party unless they had shown interest anywhere. Nevertheless, I also believed that anyone interested can ask clerks if they want to be a party to this request. Orientls (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't we use ARCA instead when there is uncertainty over the scope? Reporting an edit without being sure if it constitutes a violation or not would likely result in sanction on the reporting editor and that is what we need to avoid. Orientls (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
I am generally suspicious of these generic "I won't tell you who I'm asking about" questions. ArbCom should decline to answer without background info. Doing it this way denies the targets of the filing the opportunity to comment. If ArbCom doesn't decline, someone should notify all the editors in the linked enforcement log addition. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2018 (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.

Clarification request: IP conflict: Clerk notes

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



Clarification request: IP conflict: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is ultimately a decision for the community, in my opinion. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Floq makes a good point. Is this about you, Orientis? If it’s not, you should name the editor about whom you’re concerned. Katietalk 01:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with Rob and Katie here. I don't think ARCA should be used to make such granular decisions in the absence of any specific context. If you're reporting an edit you believe is a violation, report it at AE and see what the admins there think. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jumping on the bandwagon. Not here, AE. Doug Weller  talk 05:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely a matter for AE to handle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We review most things on a case-by-case basis. I would need to review the editor's past history and the edit itself before making any decision. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 22:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Topic ban (April 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by SheriffIsInTown at 18:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASheriffIsInTown&type=revision&diff=841345083&oldid=841015004


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASheriffIsInTown&type=revision&diff=841345083&oldid=841015004
 * Requesting the ban issued in this clause to be lifted

Statement by SheriffIsInTown
I was issued a topic ban from India-Pakistan conflict pages almost ten months ago on 15 May 2018. I am requesting this ban to be lifted now as a lot of time has passed since this ban and I have contributed in other topic areas since then. I have made a determination to change my behavior to avoid conflict when editing India-Pakistan conflict pages by engaging in discussions more and avoid the language or behavior which can make the editing more toxic which was the primary concern when the ban was issued that the participation of many editors in this topic area was making the environment toxic and the conflicts were spilling out to other areas/noticeboards.

Personally, This ban has affected me deeply as it was the first ever ban or block issued to me and I blame only myself for getting this stain on my editing. This ban has also affected my editing deeply as well, as it being a broadly construed, i could not improve those articles as well which were not conflict related, for example I was looking into splitting Nawaz Sharif into multiple articles but I could not do so as the foreign policy section contained content regarding relations with India. Similarly, I started First 100 days of Imran Khan's prime ministership and Prime Ministership of Imran Khan after Imran Khan assumed power but I could not improve those articles especially when it came to content regarding relations with India and a lot has happened regarding these relations since Khan took helms of affair in Islamabad.

Thus citing these hardships and time which has passed since the ban was issued, I will like to request the committee to repeal this ban. I promise to be more careful when editing this topic area as iterated by me above. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 18:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No, as there was an amendment request in June 2018 already and I was under the impression that once there was already an appeal at ARCA, then we can only file subsequent appeals at ARCA and not any other forum as we lose the right to appeal at lower forums such as AE or AN. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 19:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I will like to continue with my appeal if it is not too big a hassle for the committee since there is no requirement that we must appeal on other forums before appealing to the committee. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 00:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This is in reply to the statement by 1990'sguy. I accept that I forgot about my first topic ban at the time I was writing this appeal. It was not a purposeful omission. That was a one month ban and by the time I was done reviewing all the relative material and policies before I could appeal the ban, the ban was already over. So, when I said that this ban has affected me deeply, I meant that.

I did not think it was necessary to mention the Judaism topic ban and interaction ban while appealing this ban. I do not think it was in the context of this appeal as these bans were already repealed.

The first topic ban violation was a misunderstanding as not just me but some other editors had this misunderstanding as well. The block which was issued was reverted after a couple of hours due to a successful appeal. The second topic ban violation was accidental in which I fixed a bare reference, the matter was brought in front of the committee and the committee opined on it with a lot of members concurring with the way the matter was handled. These violations and the AN report which they mentioned are 5 to 9 months old.

The statement by 1990'sguy seems to be giving a perception that I have been only editing using the reFill tool and that I should be editing 6 months to an year more the other topic areas without using the reFill tool. If that perception is correct then I will like to clarify that during my topic ban I have created hundreds of articles and I have also done extensive editing on the topic of Pakistani general election in 2018 in addition to fixing bare references. In fact, my editing is so diverse that I was recognized as one of the top ~ 250 medical contributors for year 2018.

They also stated that I pretend that there are no problems with my editing but rather that impression is incorrect as well, as I clearly stated in my appeal that I only blame myself for this ban.

Finally, I would like to state that I have done many wrongs and I was reprimanded for those wrongs. I have also promised in my statement above that I am determined to change my editing approach to the effect that it involves more discussion and less conflict. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 01:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I will like to answer some of the points raised by Uanfala. First, another editor tried to convey the message that I have been only editing using the reFill tool when I countered that with replying that this impression is not correct and that I have created hundreds of articles since this ban was enacted. Now, Uanfala is making a point that we accept that you created the articles but those were all stub so I would like to counter with the argument that most of the politicians become notable the day they get elected as their election makes them notable. I create the articles the day they get elected or in near future after that. The only content for which the reliable sources are present at the time are the sources which discuss their election so only a stub can be created at that time but that is not all at all, all the articles which I have created were not stubs and Tahira Safdar (first women chief justice of any court in Pakistan), First 100 days of Imran Khan's prime ministership, and Humaira Bachal (an internationally renowned Pakistani philanthropist and female education activist) are just a few of those articles which were not stubs and that is simply because there was more content available which would suffice a full fledge i.e a non-stub article so here they are wrong in giving an impression that I only created stub articles. I did whatever I could do best while remaining in my interest area. I kept the candle burning even in hardships of multiple topic bans and an interaction ban. I kept contributing to and improving the encyclopedia wherever I could. I would also like to state that contributions and improvements no matter how minor they look on the surface should not be discredited but I have been seeing over and over that my attempts on fixing the bare URLs has been a source of criticism on the basis of my use of reFill tool to do that. My answer to those critics is that you can take a few minutes to fix a reference or you can use the tool and fix it in few seconds but nonetheless it's a contribution which do require someone's personal time and I have been putting a lot of it into Wikipedia whether I was using reFill or creating articles on politicians and judges or adding the 2018 election results on Pakistani constituency pages. Now, I recognize that India-Pakistan requires more scrutiny, thoroughness, and research and I think I have five years of editing experience behind me to put my efforts into that. This topic ban or the behavior which lead to this ban does not define my editing. I have edited that topic area in the past and it was not all bad if it would have been all bad then I would not have gone banless in that topic area for over four years. Yes, there were problems, yes, thing got out of control and I said or did things at times which were not worthy of my editing personality and I regret that. Those episodes of less than perfect behavior earned me the wrath of community and I did not remain unscathed. But again, that does not define me as an editor and I have done good in that topic area previously and I am willing to and offering to bring that goodness back into the topic area while changing approach which lead me to this ban. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 00:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I have too much going on in real life but I will like to address the concerns of BU Rob13 and AGK in a detailed statement. I need some more time for that unless if the committee wants to completely turn over the ban in the meantime which I would welcome! <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 00:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please allow me to address your concerns. The real life event started on February 14, it reached its peak on February 27 and it has fairly died down by now so as Ivanvector and SilkTork rightly pointed out that the long term dispute between both countries is not going to go away in near future. And, it is possible that when I come back six months later for another appeal, there might be another standoff flaring up by then so there is never going to be the right or wrong time if we just go by the external political situation between these two countries. Furthermore, lifting of this restriction completely is going to allow me to edit the topic at my own leisure because it is not necessary that if you lift the restriction now then I will just start editing this topic right away but if you just allow me to edit 2-3 articles for one month then it is quite possible that I might not be able to edit those articles in that one month period. My appeal to get the TB lifted was in part to just get the clear slate so I do not have to worry about violating this ban anymore and not just to barge into the topic area and start editing as soon as the ban is lifted. With TB in place, I have to worry about the violation with every edit I make.

Not to contradict myself but just as a food for thought, let me throw another point of view in the mix here. For example, here is a thread which was recently opened at AN complaining about new editors fighting over the content on recent standoff. My point of view is that I can become a voice of sanity, in this case coming fresh off of the TB, I am going to be more careful but new editors did not taste the taste of the ban yet so they do not know how bitter it is 😉, that is why they will keep fighting but the editor who has already tasted the bitter taste of the ban would be more careful, so If allowed to edit, I can be a source of peace and sanity in that topic area. Furthermore, if you do not allow me to edit at a time when I can really contribute since there is something to contribute then what's the point of allowing it when there is nothing much left to contribute because articles about historical events in that topic area are already in a state of consensus so there is nothing much to change there.

Another food for though is that if you do not want to lift the ban in its entirety and your concern is the recent standoff then why not restrict it to the recent standoff i.e reduce the topic ban to the articles discussing 2019 India-Pakistan standoff.

But, if despite all the explanations, assurances and points discussed above, you still must restrict me to 2-3 articles then I will suggest First 100 days of Imran Khan's prime ministership (not much to contribute there regarding the conflict between two countries but sparing that article would at least allow me to not "test the edges of the ban" when I work on the foreign policy section), Prime Ministership of Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif (I want to split the article in three and will touching the section related to relations with India), Prime Ministership of Nawaz Sharif (new article will be created where edges of the ban will be tested when foreign policy will be discussed although summarily), and Foreign Policy of Nawaz Sharif (new article which will discuss the relations with India).

The Judaism topic ban and relative interaction ban are over four months old and I think four months are good enough to test an editor. During those four months I have contributed constructively in different topic areas on English Wikipedia. I request you to consider those four months of constructive editing as a measurement of good behavior (without disruptive editing) which should help you to rest your fears of me wreaking havoc in ARBIPA topic area thus helping you to make the decision of lifting this ban in its entirety. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 21:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope the committee is not waiting for anything from me at this point. They can go ahead and make their decision. I will be more than happy to accept whatever it is. Thank you all in advance for your consideration! <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 14:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
No opinion on this request, but for those (like me) who vaguely remember SIIT's request for a topic ban removal a week or so ago, it was for a different subject, and is found here:. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing (SIIT)
I am the banning administrator. I have not kept a check on the contributions of SheriffIsInTown and, for various reasons, don't have the capacity to go digging. But, absent any evidence of poor behaviour in other areas, I support lifting this restriction. I think the recent lifting of an unrelated restriction by the community speaks well to this appeal also. GoldenRing (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by 1990'sguy
I would recommend declining this appeal for the following reasons:

SheriffIsInTown's claim that "This ban has affected me deeply as it was the first ever ban or block issued to me" is false, as SIIT was earlier topic banned from "Muhammad" in 2016.

Similarly, he has failed to mention his multiple topic ban violations and topic ban from Judaism and one-way interaction ban.

It was barely 8 days after the decline of a previous WP:ARCA appeal, that SIIT was subject to a report on WP:AN for his disruptive editing: Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive300.

The first topic ban violation occurred when SheriffIsInTown was misrepresenting sock puppetry by one of the sanctioned user in this area who was getting site banned for his socking. Once SIIT saw he is not getting his way, then he went ahead to derail a sensible site-ban proposal against that editor by disrupting WP:AN and seeking sanction against others. SIIT was blocked and later unblocked for this topic ban violation.

The second topic ban violation was obvious since SheriffIsInTown edited Siachen Glacier. Soon this issue was brought to WP:ARCA for clarification. Per SIIT's statement on that ARCA, we can see that SIIT assumed bad-faith towards other editor instead of being thankful that the editor didn't reported SIIT, and SIIT asked for leeway towards topic banned editors like himself instead of promising to be more careful.

I am also surprised that SIIT confirms right above that he still doesn't understand the very basic procedure that he could appeal on WP:AN or WP:AE before appealing here.

In light of these incidents, I find it very unfair of SIIT to pretend that no problems with his editing existed before or after this topic ban.

The very fact that SIIT has continued to engage in same WP:BATTLE and WP:DE that originally resulted in sanctions and caused more problems, it seems that encyclopedia won't benefit from removing topic ban from this editor. I would instead recommend SheriffIsInTown to edit (which is more than just using the refill tool) for another 6 months -- 1 year without violating a topic ban or being subjected to more sanctions before appealing this topic ban again. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector (SIIT)
Note that of the incidents described above by 1990'sguy, the most recent occurred five months ago. Though 1990'sguy misrepresents that it was an "obvious" violation, see the full discussion where there was not a consensus that the specific edit nor the page in its entirety were off-limits under the restriction. Furthermore most participants agreed that SIIT's edit to that page (which I had taken flak for restoring) was constructive. The arbs mostly declined to comment as SIIT had already self-reverted. It should also be noted that the dispute between SIIT and the editor who advised them of the violation was already resolved by the time I stuck my ignorant nose into it and escalated it here.

Everyone here I'm sure knows that ARBIPA is a very contentious topic where no editor can expect to operate free of thorough scrutiny of their edits. If this handful of minor incidents is all that SIIT's opponents can come up with, then Sheriff has done a very good job of generally abiding by the restrictions. In addition, SheriffIsInTown's response to various unrelated minor incidents over the past year have shown a willingness to accept criticism and to improve as an editor. I'm confident there will be no further problems and I support unconditionally lifting the restriction. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * echoing SilkTork's comment: if not now then when? How long is long enough? Shall we wait until India and Pakistan have fully resolved their border dispute, and give it even more time as a buffer so that the topic on Wikipedia is less contentious? I don't think that date is coming any time soon, to be honest. Is it fair to continue restricting an editor based entirely on external geopolitical events when they've made an honest effort to demonstrate improvement? Sure there have been some bumps in the road, but in the fallout from those incidents there is only evidence that SheriffIsInTown has learned from their mistakes (note for example that the Judaism topic ban imposed in November 2018 was successfully appealed only three months later, in the one other topic that is as contentious as this one). As of this edit you've got the banning administrator and four other editors who frequent the topic endorsing lifting the restriction, against one mostly neutral comment and one obviously ideological oppose.
 * If recognition of the problem, demonstrated effort to improve, and broad endorsement by exposed parties are not good enough for the Committee, perhaps the objecting members can come up with a satisfactory rehabilitation plan for SheriffIsInTown to follow, so that if we have to revisit this in six months at least he can have some idea of what to expect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the restrictions not being removed from the log is obviously an oversight which I have now corrected. It's hard to argue with your view about the "asterisk" implied in the appeal conditions; for what it's worth I'll offer my opinion again that time-restricted appeals are inherently punitive. Regarding loosening the restriction: I've typed something out a few times now but I can't get my head around how to carve out an exemption from India-Pakistan conflicts that will suit an editor wanting to contribute to articles on Pakistani public figures - there's going to be a lot of grey area, and it's difficult to enforce restrictions in this topic area already due to gaming and brigading and "pragmatic interpretations" on both sides without the restrictions themselves being unclear. The only way to fairly loosen this restriction is to remove it completely, and if the Committee is not comfortable going all the way there then imposing a period of probation seems fair. But if that's the way this goes, I strongly suggest the Committee direct that any further incidents should be brought to WP:AE for review; if it's left to the community it won't be long before we have another AN trainwreck like the NadirAli site ban from not really that long ago, which individual admins are ill-equipped to handle. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * we should chat about time-based appeal restrictions some other time, probably. Your proposal seems workable to me. Maybe can suggest a few articles they intend to work on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Uanfala
I really didn't want to comment here as I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I don't feel like enough of substance has been said so far. On the one hand, it's great to see that after the massive ANI thread that resulted in the topic ban from Judaism, SIIT has managed to stay out of trouble whilst continuing to edit at a good pace. He's created a large number of stubs about politicians, both from the US and Pakistan, and he certainly deserves praise for this work. But on the other hand, there is huge gap between creating articles consisting entirely in content like "So-and-so is a politician from such-and-such party who won that many votes in the election of year N", and navigating the enormous body of literature and the cacophony of contradictory sources about one of the world's most intractable conflicts.

I don't think there's anything in his recent experience that is comparable to what he might face in the India–Pakistan area. His very strong views on these matters, and the severity of the past problems (some distant echoes of which can be seen in two more recently raised issues, minor though they are), make it seem to me that starting to edit there again might be risky. And I really don't see a way to tell whether SIIT has indeed fundamentally changed his ways, or he simply recognises that being contrite is the only way he can get rid of an editing restriction which he sees as a stain on his honour.

And one minor point: being recognised as one of the top medical contributors is based on an automatic process that counts edits to medicine-related articles; I should be corrected if I'm wrong, but all, or almost all, medicine-related edits that SIIT has made consist in expanding bare urls using the semiatomated tool reFill.

In case the topic ban stays in place, I think it will be perfectly alright to add an exception covering the Imran Khan articles if SIIT is interested in working on them. – Uanfala (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93
There has been an interesting variety of responses to last year's mass topic ban. Some editors, from both "sides", have drastically reduced their participation on Wikipedia; others have focused almost exclusively on anti-vandalism patrol and AfD; still others have continued to contribute content, including in contentious areas. SIIT is one of those; he has also engaged in considerable self-reflection. If the appeal is granted, he will also obviously be on a tight leash, because there's a very large number of people watching him. makes a good point, but I think it's a little too much to ask that an editor dive into a different but equally contentious area before an appeal; work in Pakistani politics is good enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean ARBIPA, surely? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WBG
I concur with Vanamonde and will urge the committee to grant the appeal. He knows that his editorial activities will be immensely scrutinized and shall he return to his previous ways; the ban would be re-instated in a jiffy. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 09:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark
I concur with Vanamonde above. One of the purposes of a topic ban is to allow an editor to demonstrate that they aren't narrowly focused on one area and that they do have the broader interests of Wikipedia at heart. Sheriff has more than adequately shown that and we should grant this appeal. It would be wrong, given their history of aggressive editing, to say I'm not concerned, but I'm sure that they know they're on a tight leash, so let's see if something positive can come out of a topic ban. --regentspark (comment) 01:23, 11 March 2019 (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.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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



India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Have you appealed at WP:AE? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any confusion. Once a sanction is appealed at ARCA, you lose the ability for further appeal on the substance of the block (e.g. its validity) at other venues. Per WP:AC/DS, such an editor "may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed" at AE/AN. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm very hesitant to lift topic bans in this area right now, given the real-world events currently surrounding India and Pakistan. The conflict is heating up, and this area is today more contentious than it was when the appealing editor was topic banned. This seems like a profoundly bad time for an experiment in whether editors have sufficiently changed their editing habits to edit productively in this area. It's almost setting them up for failure. At the same time, I recognize it may not be fair to hit the pause button on all sanctions in a topic area based on real-world events. I do think SheriffIsInTown's editing in Pakistani politics shows growth. I'm decidedly conflicted and will await thoughts from other arbitrators. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Decline from me. I'm pushed over the line to decline by the topic ban from Judaism imposed in November 2018. As the community felt strongly that SIIT was editing disruptively in another contentious topic area fairly recently, I don't feel now is the right time to lift restrictions. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Those restrictions are still logged at WP:RESTRICT, which led me to think they were active at the moment. I'll need to rethink a bit if they aren't. My general thoughts are that "appeal in six months" has a big asterisk next to it implying "appeal after six months without disruptive activity". There was disruptive activity here warranting a topic ban and interaction ban. Add that to the original conduct and the extremely heated nature of this topic area at the moment and I'm not at the point of accepting. I wonder if there isn't some alternative loosening of restrictions here. For instance, perhaps we should specifically allow SIIT to edit the articles related to Imran Khan as an exception to the TBAN and see how that goes. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking carve out a narrow exception to 2-3 articles about Imran Khan, set a very small (one month, probably) timer for the next appeal, mostly just to ensure there's enough time for the community to scrutinize the edits as needed, and see how that goes. I don't see time-restricted appeals as punitive, but rather as time-saving. If we know that we want at least X months of good conduct before we would seriously entertain the idea of lifting a sanction, it saves both the sanctioned editor and us the time of submitting and declining an appeal that is too soon for us to feel there has been sufficient time for growth to occur. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Judaism topic ban was lifted three days before this request was filed. We've seen that you are able to edit constructively in non-contentious areas when you are topic banned from the areas you have difficulty in over the last four months, sure. We have not seen that, once a topic ban is lifted, you can return to a contentious area where you editing had previously been disruptive and edit constructively. I'd like to see that in either the Judaism topic area or in a small portion of the IPA topic area (via the type of compromise loosening of the topic ban I alluded to above) before giving you free reign. (And if you can't get to those 2-3 articles in the next month, that's fine. You can edit them when you're able to, wait a couple weeks to see if anyone takes issue with your edits, then appeal. No deadlines, etc.) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read over the comments here, and SIIT's most importantly, and feel that lifting the TBAN may be fruitful. I would support lifting the ban, with a time period of "probation", that is extra scrutiny on SIIT's edits, to ensure they will not violation the terms of ARBIPA. If they are able to do that for say a 90 day period, then I'm confident no further scrutiny would be needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I think I NEED an IPA now, thanks for that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would decline the request. Coming hot off another appeal, I would prefer to see more time productively contributing and dealing with points of contention before restoring appellant's access.  I am also sensitive to the real-life dimension raised by Rob.   AGK  &#9632;  23:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The timing of the appeal given the heightened tension in the topic area is unfortunate, but the reality is that there has been tension since Partition, so there is unlikely to be a right time in the near future. Given SheriffIsInTown's good works on Wikipedia since the TB was imposed (not just using reFill, but creating articles such as Humaira Bachal), and an appeal which shows reflection, I feel the TB should be lifted. Indeed, if we're not going to lift it now, when and for what other reason would we lift it? The TB has served its purpose, and SheriffIsInTown is now less likely to indulge in the behaviour that led to the TB in the first place. SilkTork (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a little close to the lifting of the other restriction - these things usually go more smoothly if you appeal one thing at a time, and at a sedate pace that leaves enough time to judge the effects of each change. But these topics and the circumstances of the bans are different enough that it might not be very informative anyway. I think probation is a reasonable next step. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be alright with lifting the ban and going to probation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion: India-Pakistan



 * Support
 * SilkTork (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am willing to lift the restriction, but not unconditionally. I am in favour of probation as suggested by OR and GW. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Probation works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As proposer. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 15:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Per my above comments, I think this is premature given the very recent topic ban from another unrelated topic area. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * AGK &#9632;  22:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators

Amendment request: India-Pakistan (July 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Shashank5988 at 16:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) AE Appeal of Mar4d


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Mar4d
 * RegentsPark
 * El C
 * Black Kite
 * Bishonen
 * TonyBallioni


 * Information about amendment request
 * AE Appeal of Mar4d
 * Appeal's result should be overturned

Statement by Shashank5988
As WP:ARE comes under the jurisdiction of Arbcom and Arbcom has the authority to overturn and/or modify any of the enforcement made on WP:ARE, I am bringing to your attention a case related to a topic ban appeal by User:Mar4d at the above-mentioned board, in which the evidence of a number of violations was not taken into consideration while granting the appeal.

It is important at the outset that I clarify that there are no issues with the closing admin's closure, as he merely carried out the agreement amongst administrators.

However the problems, which are major in nature, pertain to the way the appeal was handled, which I deem to be not in consonance with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I shall enumerate them below:


 * To begin with, the very first sentence of the user's appeal was not borne out by facts. It read, and I quote: "I would like to humbly appeal for lifting a topic ban restriction which dates back to May 2018. The restriction in question was applied collectively amongst at least nine other editors at the time, with the option to appeal in 6 months' time, which I did not choose to exercise until now." (emphasis mine) The veracity of this statement was never tested or questioned and the user was taken at his words despite there was a glaring prevarication in what he stated because Mar4d was amongst the users who had collectively appealed their sanctions to Arbcom on WP:ARCA, and was notified of the subsequent rejection thereof. This revelation was never made in the appeal and the user thereby committed open perfidy; the failure of the admins to see through this betrayed a lack of due diligence on their part.


 * Several instances of unambiguous topic ban violations, misrepresentation of sources while adding text to articles committed by the user were bought to the attention at AE, none of which were addressed by the admins who took part in evaluating the appeal.


 * Two edits by Mar4d were mentioned on AE which dealt with the subject of Partition of India, per here, here, and here.
 * A page move of Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, a subject which is much about 1971 Bangladesh genocide and Bangladesh Liberation War was also mentioned here, and here.
 * Misrepresentation of sources in the recent edits by Mar4d was also brought into attention on here, here, here as per these edits by Mar4d: where the sources do not support the controversial information added by Mar4d.


 * Note that the topic ban concerns "conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed" and "any further disruption or testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block". WP:BROADLY is very clear in this topic ban from the beginning.


 * The very first comment under the section devoted to the "uninvolved admins" was made by RegentsPark, an involved party who commented in the aforesaid section in disregard of WP:INVOLVED, and even when the same was pointed out to them they didn't pay any heed to it and nearly all other admins who commented based their views on Regentspark's comment.

The fact that the user deliberately omitted any mention of past appeals, and in fact denying having appealed in the past at all, coupled with a series of topic ban infringements, among other issues, and the failure of administrators to address these issues before granting the appeal makes this case ripe enough to be considered by the Arbcom. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mar4d
Please take a look at the closure of the said appeal dating to June 2018, of which gives the impression that I was substantially involved in. Of all the editors who received the TBAN, I was the only user who didn't lodge a single statement there or verbally challenge the sanction. I could have easily chosen to get involved, but that's besides the point. Shashank5988 only got one part right, I did indeed add my name to the "List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request", and even that was a procedural edit and because the filer had left a message on my talk a week earlier. That was my only edit to the "appeal". Shashank5988's claim that I "committed open perfidy" is laughable at best.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, , , , , , etc.: In my ten plus years of editing, I have had virtually zero direct interaction with this user (Shashank5988) across a single article, discussion, you name it, anywhere. That hasn't stopped Shashank5988 from appearing first at an ARBIPA-infested ANI thread in December 2018 to oppose me, then at my recent arbitration enforcement appeal out of nowhere, and if that wasn't enough, this fresh ARCA despite the admin who closed my AE advising them otherwise. Given this won't be the first or last time I've been frivolously hounded (to wit), I just don't understand why can't we topic ban this user already for wasting everyone's time? I hope I haven't committed blasphemy by suggesting so. I'm not even touching yet the other deliberate, obfuscating accusations. I've been largely patient, honestly.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 19:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your closing view. In my comment above, I had expressed concerns regarding possible hounding from the filer. Could you advise what would be the correct course of action if this pattern were to continue in the future? Many thanks,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * : Noted, thanks.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark
I don't consider myself involved re Mar4d but do apologize to Shashank5988 for not seeing their comment on the AE page (I see a ping in there, which I somehow missed, so the fault lies with me). Regardless, doubtless the other admins did look into the various allegations I see on the AE thread and made their decisions independently. I don't really see a big issue with not removing the ban from Mar4d. As I said on AE, they've complied with the spirit of the ban and we can't ask for a whole lot more from an editor. --regentspark (comment) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El C
I don't really have much more to add beyond my evaluation at AE. The risk of further disruption by lifting the ban seems low enough to be worthwhile. El_C 17:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how some previous interactions with Mar4d make regentspark an involved party. That assertion has not been established to my satisfaction. El_C 17:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Black Kite that the basis for this request could be viewed as problematic. The Committee may wish to impose sanctions on the filer themselves for making a frivolous request. El_C 19:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
Just a thought, but perhaps the admins at AE did actually look at the alleged "several instances of unambiguous topic ban violations (and) misrepresentation of sources while adding text to articles committed by the user" and decided that they either weren't violations or were very minor? And perhaps they did look at the claim that User:RegentsPark was WP:INVOLVED, and dismissed it? As I said at the AE, I take a very dim view of people that spend a significant amount of their time on Wikipedia trying to keep ideological opponents banned from articles, something which the filer of this (and a number of other editors in this area) have done recently - though I certainly didn't expect them to double down on it by taking up many people's time with an ARCA request as well. It suggests to me a battleground mindset rather than one that is dedicated to actually improving an encyclopedia. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
puts it so well I can only agree with every word he says. Plus a technicality: sorry, but it itches me to see apologising for "missing" Shashank5988's ping, when the ping wasn't correctly done and therefore didn't work., please see Help:Fixing failed pings for how to fix a faulty ping. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC).

Statement by TonyBallioni
I’ll just say what I said on my talk page: I don’t think there are any procedures allowing the committee to overturn a successful appeal of a discretionary sanction if there’s actually consensus to do so (I guess I could see it if the closing admin badly misread, but this was unanimous.)On the merits, this was an older sanction and there was consensus to lift it to give them another chance. I’m typically very anti-ROPE and think any argument that relies on it is usually a bad argument, but here we had a user who was generally constructive and demonstrated that the potential benefits outweighed the known risks. That’s my standard, which I think was met here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Surely the simplest thing is to let matters stand, and move for another ban should Mar4d resume disruptive editing in this area? If Mar4d is as deceptive as Shashank5988 says, surely they will be back at this board in short order, with past sanctions being taken into account. Guy (help!) 17:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mar4d@undefined note the word "if" in the above ;-) Guy (help!) 20:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector
The original topic ban should be extended to Shashank5988 for this bad-faith request, which has no purpose other than to harass someone they perceive as an ideological opponent. What else could possibly be the point of this admin-shopping request? We have ARBIPA DS and WP:GS/IPAK general sanctions to stamp out exactly this sort of drama-mongering and battleground behaviour, which has plagued this highly contentious topic area for years and years; we should use the tools available to us here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
Arbcom could theoretically impose the same exact sanction as the one lifted at AE as a sua sponte action of the committee, but that is the only way, under the current procedures, that a lifted sanction by a consensus of AE admins can be reversed by the committee. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear
This is already heading the general way I agree with, so I just want to make a more specific aspect: I question whether ARBCOM have the right to overturn appeals made on the grounds of misapplied factual judgements, as opposed to incorrect cited policy or a poor close. Still, that aside, I would generally say that ARBCOM not only should lead most judgements to AE but a higher limit must be reached before they start overturning successful appeals than either overturning blocks or unsuccessful appeals. That's somewhat on a reading of the applicable appeal policy but also on a sense of balance. The arb comments seem to suggest that it's hardly a bizarre viewpoint. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2020 (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.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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



India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I trust the consensus of the five very experienced AE admins who reviewed the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Decline. There is nothing to clarify or amend here. While I do not think ArbCom is completely barred from overruling AE as an ultima ratio, the whole system is designed to not have ArbCom interfere in the day to day operations. There is no evidence presented that was not already mentioned (and rejected) at the AE that would require us to step in and revert the consensus of these very experienced admins to lift the restrictions. Plus, as Guy mentions, lifting a topic ban does not mean it cannot be reimposed swiftly if the editor in question again displays the kind of behavior that lead to the first ban. Regards So  Why  07:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you believe there is a conduct issue, WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE outlines the possible steps to address this. As a last resort, you can request arbitration. Regards So  Why  17:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason for ArbCom to get involved. The appeal got plenty of attention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If there was some indication that the appeal was mishandled, it might make sense for us to review it, but with multiple experienced admins reviewing the appeal in detail I see no reason for us to step in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing this as falling within the admins bounds for decision. Decline. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There would have to be a very compelling reason for us to overturn a consensus from AE, and I'm just not seeing it here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: India-Pakistan (April 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Interstellarity at 11:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Standard discretionary sanctions
 * This clause concerns India-Pakistan sanctions. I would like the arbitrators and the community to consider loosening the sanctions to a certain year like we just did for WP:AP2. For example, we could only sanction post-1996 politics which was 25 years ago. On Wikipedia, we try to keep sanctions to a minimum. I hope this move would be positive to Wikipedia so we can maximise editing freedom.

Statement by Interstellarity
moved from the arbitrators discussion section. This comment is in reply to Primefac's comment in that section. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the first date we should consider should be 1996. I think this date marks the balance between current events and history. If that date is too late, we could consider a early date. I am also open to listing this at DS community consultation. Interstellarity (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SpacemanSpiff
Just chiming in as I saw NYB's comment pop up on my watchlist. I don't think a scope reduction is needed. The scope was increased because the disruption wasn't restricted to just the India-Pakistan dispute, and also general sanctions from the community (e.g. WP:GS/Caste) were added under this for the sake of convenience. To answer NYB's point about sanctions being too broad, please see the log at Arbitration enforcement log for 2020 or 2019 and you're likely to see only very narrow sanctions except for a few cases. I was one of those who complained when the scope was increased from just the dispute to what it is now, but I'm quite happy to say that I was wrong that time and the current scope of ARBIPA is actually beneficial to the 'pedia. I believe that most of us who admin this particular area keep the scope of sanctions to the level necessary and do not just apply a broad brush unless it is absolutely necessary. It would be good if a bot could notify those who admin this area so that you get more opinions on this. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
I urge arbs to look at the DS log instead of the 14 year old case when determining the scope for DS. As for broad topic bans, sometimes it is best to remove an editor from the entire area than to play whack-a-mole across topics -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear
Normally I'd agree with this, as well as perhaps slightly narrowing the constraints (or enabling either a narrower or the broader one to be used), I do think given we have an ongoing DS consideration, it should be limited to there. Even if it delays it by a month or two, best to handle it cohesively. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by MJL
Just wanted to note for the record that are having an ongoing discussion about this specific DS authorization here. I also wanted to ping Chess to ensure this. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Uanfala
I only occasionally venture into those topic areas, but my impression has been that the disruption is not at all restricted to events of the last 25 years. The bloodbaths that take place over current events are the same sort of bloodbaths that occur over the Kashmir War since 1947, which are the same as the ones occurring over Mughal history, the same as the ones occurring over the events around the advent of Islam over a millennium ago. It's not the current relevance, it's the cultural significance that works people up. – Uanfala (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Chess
I'd like to thank for pinging me here.

The biggest issue with the sanctions as currently written is they apply to ALL articles relating to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to putatively address the India-Pakistan conflict. It's far too overbroad and it's evidence of a double standard. For example, despite the numerous conflicts and issues in the US or primarily based there, there is no authorization of DS for all US related topics broadly construed. Instead there's September 11 and post 1992 US politics because it would be considered overkill to put the US under discretionary sanctions broadly construed. Same for how with the Northern Ireland conflict sanctions are limited to only that conflict and the Arab-Israeli conflict has its sanctions limited to just that conflict.

We need to narrow these sanctions significantly in where they are authorized, although not remove them entirely as they're still necessary for some areas. MJL over at DS review gave a good wording of what the sanctions are meant to apply to (political, geographical, ethnic, religious, sociological, and cultural disputes related to those countries) and that would definitely be a more preferable wording to broad sanctions over all India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan related articles.

While currently there appears to be a norm (according to the discussions I've had at least) of only applying discretionary sanctions to conduct actually relating to the aforementioned disputes (let's call it PCREGS since we need more acronyms), I don't believe that's a good implementation of discretionary sanctions. First of all, we shouldn't have singular admins deciding by fiat what topics discretionary sanctions needs to be applied to. That's the job of ArbCom or alternatively the community (in cases of community authorized discretionary sanctions). Secondly, relying on unwritten norms to decide what topics are "actually" under sanctions is unfair, unjust, and goes against the fundamental principle that editors should be aware of what discretionary sanctions are before they are enforced against them. It can lead to problems when enforcing administrators have different ideas of what the unwritten norms are as well.

If it turns out later that discretionary sanctions need to be broadened or there are areas not covered by the existing wording, there is nothing preventing an amendment request or asking the community for general sanctions on whatever topic needs it.

For what it's worth though, I disagree with adding a fixed cutoff date for Indian and Pakistani politics. Many current conflicts stem from ancient historical disputes, for example the Babri Masjid where one of the primary justifications for its destruction was the belief that an Indian temple existed on that site before the mosque was built. There's still a lot of tension over things that happened thousands of years ago. While in the United States "old" disputes aren't really that controversial in India and Pakistan many still are. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 04:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on what I've seen at DS review I've noticed that some admins have raised the point that it can be difficult to craft narrower topic bans due to a lack of experience editing in the area. While I wish I was able to say this at DS review, I think it would be a good idea to standardize some sort of phrasing for narrower topic bans so rather than admins being left to individually craft narrow sanctions (done unevenly and sparingly; admins have often demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to do so) they could instead choose some kind of ARBCOM approved wording of the areas in question. Even if arbs are unwilling to reduce the area of the DS authorization admins would likely benefit from being able to apply prescoped tbans. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shankargb
I would oppose this request and recommend declining it.

Just like all pages related to Eastern Europe and Balkans and all pages related to Horn of Africa are under Arbcom sanctions because their histories date back to thousands of years ago, there is nothing surprising about keeping India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan under the same sanctions. Shankargb (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with Guerillo. Also re:scope of ARBIPA bans, I would note that users find it easy to describe the scope of bans in this area including the ones listed here. Shankargb (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde
Widespread, persistent, and exceptionally disruptive behavior of the sort that requires discretionary sanctions occurs on a far greater range of topics than content related to the last 25 years. Within the scope of current ARBIPA DS, these topics include, at a minimum; the Indo-Pakistani conflict (1947-present, arguably beginning earlier); religious violence (spanning many centuries, if not millennia); caste-related matters (likewise, spanning centuries, if not millennia); and content about the origins of humanity in South Asia (a very long time indeed). The scope of the current DS regime is certainly very broad, but unless ARBCOM wants to craft a number of different DS to replace the current regime, the current scope seems entirely appropriate to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , the final decision in this case authorizes discretionary sanctions for "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan", not just "Indian AND Pakistan". I find your statement quite confusing. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We're in agreement that messing with these sanctions at the moment would be the wrong thing to do. My point was that day-to-day implementation does not focus on the Indo-Pakistani conflict. It's the most well-known sub-topic, but if you look at the enforcement log, content directly related to that conflict is at issue only in a minority of cases. Caste-related conflict and Indian politics unrelated to Pakistan both require a lot of sanctions, and there's other minor topics, too. I say this not to change your decision here, but because if we're considering revisions, ARBCOM needs to be aware of the entire spectrum of disputes these sanctions cover. For the record, I've already made this point at the consultation page. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Sure. I suggest 1947, since that's when the trouble kicked off. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:43, 26 April 2021 (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.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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



India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * , is there any particular date range that you want us to look at, or are you just throwing out an idea and seeing if there's interest? Primefac (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Awaiting statements. As a preliminary observation (which I have made before), it may be that a better change might not be to change the authorized scope of these discretionary sanctions, but how they are applied in particular cases. For example, imagine an editor who consistently has trouble editing neutrally regarding disputes between India and Pakistan. That editor might, if a warning proved unsuccessful, be topic-banned from editing about disputes between India and Pakistan. Instead, these days that editor might find himself or herself topic-banned from "all editing about India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, broadly construed." That topic-ban might be broader than necessary, as it bars the editor from vast numbers of articles that are about India or Pakistan but do not implicate disputes between them. As a comparison, imagine if editors sanctioned under "American Politics" were typically banned from "all editing about the United States, broadly construed" which might exclude virtually every topic that editor is knowledgeable about or wishes to edit about. Just a thought for the admins who, as I appreciate, take on the not-easy task of implementing these sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with moving this discussion to the current DS review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am certainly open to this idea but think discussion, at least for now, should happen over at the DS community consultation where there has already been discussion about the scope of this sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am open to the idea of adjusting the scope of this DS topic area, as it seems to be considerably broader than the actual disruption. Reading through the case, the disruption appears to be limited to religious and cultural nationalism in these two countries – if that's the case it doesn't seem to make sense that topic bans would automatically apply to all aspects of these two countries. Rather than moving this discussion over to the broader DS consultation, I would prefer to gather more input here as to the scope of this particular remedy and whether it remains suitable. – bradv  🍁  13:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I echo the call for this to be raised at the DS review or handled afterwards. Even if this specific DS topic is not discussed in depth at the DS review, the outcome of the review could have an impact on (for example) the scope of DS authorizations or other issues that have a bearing on this request. (It also might not, but the timing right now is somewhat poor.) Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would decline this request for now without prejudice. Thank you to all for your comments here. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with NYB's thoughts here. The topic area is about dispute between India AND Pakistan, not India OR Pakistan. So I think being careful how the sanctions are applied may be the more useful solution. I don't think limiting the date range would be as helpful as in AP2, given that the issues are fairly recent (and the very existence of the nations is recent). I don't see that there is any part of India-Pakistan relations that is not still highly contentious. Given that, and our re-examination of DS in general, I decline to change it at the moment. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Afghanistan is part of the case, yes, but I read this clarification as focusing on the India-Pakistan part, and the day-to-day implementation focuses on that part. Regardless, even considering Afghanistan, my conclusion is the same: the date range feels appropriate, the issues are all very contentious, and I see no benefit in trying to create more tailored sanctions over broad sanctions. And DS are up for reform anyway, so I think now is the wrong time to expend energy on trying to change this particular DS. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Amendment request: India-Pakistan (October 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by RGloucester at 16:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) WP:ARBIP


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * WP:ARBIP
 * Addition of the new extended confirmed restriction as found at Arbitration Committee/Procedures, replacing the existing community-imposed 500/30 rule at WP:GS/IPAK.

=== Statement by RGlouce omnibus motion, I would like to request that the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee consider taking over the community-imposed 500/30 restriction in the India/Pakistan topic area (WP:GS/IPAK), and incorporating it into the existing ARBIP case as a standard 'extended confirmed restriction'. The reasons for this are as follows. Firstly, in the interest of reducing red tape, it makes sense to adopt the new procedure in this topic area, rather than leaving the old IPAK restriction as an isolated example using different and outdated rules. Future community-imposed EC restrictions will most likely mirror the new ArbCom standard, negating this problem, but given that an existing ArbCom sanctions regime exists in this topic area, it seems to make a lot of sense to take this opportunity to simplify enforcement overall. I think most will agree that standardisation, rather than fragmentation, is desirable. I have filed this request for amendment at [httpsime and consid
 * Personally, I think this is a very strange opinion on the part of the Committee. If there is anything that the community wants, it is to break free from overlapping jurisdictions with separate rules and overwhelming complexity, creating grounds for conflict as was seen in the ARCA that led to the recent omnibus motion. Who does it benefit to have separate ArbCom and community general sanctions regimes, with different rules, in the same topic area? It benefits no one at all, and is strikingly convoluted. ArbCom has the ability to prevent future conflict and simplify thiss alike, but instead, it seems that the members here are reluctant to be seen as 'heavy-handed'. If anything, I think, the community would prefer if it could propose sanctions regimes through its own processes, and then submit its proposals to ArbCom for ratification and enforcement under the existing processes, rather than having a parallel infrastructure, but I suppo5:19, established a process by which community consensus for ArbCom intervention in a community sanctions regime can be demonstrated. You cannot reasonably ask that I put such a consensus on display, when there is no established method by which this can be done. Instead, perhaps consider the numerous, numerous comments you received in the recent DS consultation about the complexity of the present system, and the words of the esteemed Newyorkbrad at the recent omnibus motion. RGloucester  —, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if this proposal fails, I will propose an amendment at WP:AN as such. However, even if such a change is enacted, it will not eliminate the problem of separate ArbCom and community regimes in the same topic area. This is a problem that only the Committee can tackle. If there were no such overlap, I would of course not be proposing this here. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, no amount of community consensus can eliminate the problem of having the ArbCom DS regime established by WP:ARBIP and the WP:GS/IPAK community ECR regime co-existing together in the same topic area. Only ArbCom can solve this problem. There is currently no process by which the community can appeal for ArbCom to take over a GS regime other than ARCA, and there is also no process of any kind by which the community could take over the ArbCom GS regime. It shocks me that to either a power grab by ArbCom, or an attempt to subvert consensus. In practice, this change would only be a formality. The community's regime would function as before, in line with its intent in establishing the regime, the only difference being that it would be incorporated into the package of existing ARBIP restrictions so as to avoid confusion and overlap, which has been demonstrated to cause problems numerous times. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Considering the statements by other editors here, I think that, rather than have ArbCom take over this sanctions regime, it would be better to have a wholesale community review of its function and necessity. In practice, the regime is not functioning as was intended, and it is not clear if the community still supports its existence. Therefore, I hereby withdraw this request. I will open a section at AN to consider the future of this regime. If the conclusion of that discussion suggests that the regime should continue to exist, I will open a new ARCA. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;fo September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've opened a community review at WP:AN. While it is not certain yet, the general consensus thus far is that it would make sense to abolish WP:GS/IPAK and relog those few pages that are ECPed under GS/IPAK at WP:AEL under WP:ARBIP. I would like to confirm, since the question arose in that discussion, that the Committee would not object to the closing admin relogging these EC page protections in this manner if consensus reaches such a conclusion. [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#00ember 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear
I have to oppose this proposal, and do so on a couple of grounds. Firstly, I concur that this is a very heavy way to acquire a change - raising a request at AN either to change this specific GS in nature, or update all GS, would be the logical route. Doing so would not be particularly onerous, and as such I'm genuinely confused why *this* would be the logical route. Beyond that, while ARBCOM has an exemption to consensus, that is within its own remit. As such my own personal viewpoint is that ARBCOM doesn't have any grounds to strip GS in any regular set of circumstances (it can, of course, layer DS on top as it sees fit). My preference would be, in the recent cases where we've seen them remove it, would be to add DS and then ask the Community to remove GS as not necessary, and see if the Community agrees. Not remove it themselves. That said, even if that particular position is not felt to be accurate, I believe most would agree that wherever possible, consensus should be the form taken, and it must be fairly clear that discarding it is necessary for ARBCOM to exercise their exemption. As such, doing so without a case would be heavily insufficient in terms of vetting - and, per the above, still unneeded. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * per General sanctions, the relevant line is Requests for amendments, clarification, or revocation (if sanctions are no longer required) should also be discussed at the administrators' noticeboard.. Wanting it to be subceded to ARBCOM DS would be a form of amendment, and therefore should be raised at WP:AN to get a consensus. While it would be an interesting jurisdictional question to determine whether the Community could directly add an additional topic to DS, in practical terms the arbs could just hold this motion as pending while the Community then discussed it. Probability approaches unity that the arbs would gladly supercede the GS into a single DS should the Community request it. To say that we don't have a mechanism for this to me requires such a strictly literalist interpretation of the text that it should also rule out the method currently being attempted. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity's sake, obviously this has been resolved, gordian-knot style Nosebagbear (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
The philosophical aspect (that the community should be able to pass remedies without ArbCom's help) is not really supported by the evidence. Community-authorised discretionary sanctions ("GS") are, per the GS logs, often ineffective. That's presumably part of the reason this Committee took over the COVID GS, and that has been more effective since it became a DS. The reasons why are speculative, the common idea that it's due to access to AE is not supported IMO --

The IPAK remedy is identical to the Israel-Palestine 30/500 restriction. Except, there are literally thousands of pages protected under the auspices of the Israel-Palestine ArbCom sanctions (regardless of actual or potential disruption, which for many of these protected pages is zero). In contrast, there are ~25 pages protected under WP:GS/IPAK. Unless we think Wikipedia only has 25 articles related to any conflict between India and Pakistan, it's pretty safe to say this is a largely unenforced GS, and in practice protections are more or less ECP protections under admin discretion (i.e. DS).

This amendment is probably not just clerical. If the Committee takes over this restriction, it will probably be enforced better. In part because more admins will be aware of its existence (how many know GS/IPAK even exists?). So on the topic of community control, this poses the question whether the community really wants it enforced better? I imagine an AN section to revoke this authorisation would fail, but at the same time I doubt there's community support to actually enforce the restriction the community passed, nor do I think proper enforcement would improve the project. The remedy just seems questionable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark
I don't think this is a good idea. Community sanctions tend to be passed by a small group of editors and don't receive the level of scrutiny that a full arbcom case does (Disclosure: I was one of the few editors that opposed the ECP sanctions). In this particular case, the facts on the ground (so to speak!) are that very few pages are actually under ECP and the level of disruption is, at best, minimal (many pages see hardly any traffic at all). A wholesale ECP protection would not be in Wikipedia's best interests. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_C
Arbitrators, I've tentatively closed the discussion at AN (perm link) that saw consensus to dissolve the IPAK GS regime, with the view that ARBIPA suffices. Please review my work. Thank you. El_C 15:36, 1 October 2021 (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.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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



India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I would prefer that the community do this instead of us. Is there anything preventing the community from modifying its restriction to mirror the new language? It seems a bit heavy-handed to exercise the authority of the committee to overrule consensus when there seems to be a much less intrusive way (go to WP:AN, start a thread, and get consensus to change it, which probably wouldn't take much effort at all). ArbCom's authority, and ability to overrule consensus, is justified by us focusing on disputes that the community is unable to resolve, which is less present here. (And this doesn't quite parallel the practice of superseding community-authorized DS ("GS") when it's not working, because when we authorize DS we bring enforcement over to AE.) Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 00:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, the community seems more inclined to abrogate its 500/30 restriction than to ask us to assume it . Assuming that's how it ends up, I think this can be closed without further action. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There could be (and currently is) substantial opposition at Administrators%27_noticeboard. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 15:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kevin. I don't want to absorb a community-enacted sanction simply because we changed the language of our own similar sanction. Katietalk 14:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that community led "general sanctions" are a Good ThingTM and should be encouraged - it's yet another way that the wider community has managed to deal with long term problems without going through Arbcom. The last thing I want to do is subsume them into DS. I understand that it's sometimes necessary (as part of a wider Arbcom decision), but I'd rather not. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above and also will note my more general desire to see a way for GS turned into DS as a community request. Doing it as part of a full case, like we had for IRANPOL, seems OK but we've also done it by motion owing to a desire to access AE. In this latter case I wish there was a way we could show actual consensus, rather than just some people showing up to ARC, before making such a change. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * in terms of your assertion about what the community wants, I would suggest that getting that consensus first might lead to a different sense of perspective here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am taking NYB's comments seriously. It's why I am reluctant to add more instructions in places that we're not already responsible for. As I see it, either community GS works, in which case ArbCom should only rarely be turning them into GS and considering our overall caseload 3 times this calendar year doesn't strike me as rare, community GS doesn't work, in which case I would prefer to see this gain consensus through a community process rather than an ArbCom process, or community GS works sometimes but not others, in which case I think the community is just as responsible for identifying the distinction between working/not working as ArbCom if not more so. In this particular instance there is nothing stopping you, or anyone else, from proposing an amendment to the community GS, through a community process, to bring the wording into alignment with what ArbCom did. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in general skeptical that many indef protections under DS need to be indef so I would, as I noted at AN, prefer to see the ones needed moved over. But if others think we should bring them all I would support the motion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that subsuming GS into DS is a good idea which allows us not only to respect the will of the community but also streamline our very confusing sanctions bureaucracy. I remain firmly of a mind that GS should share the same processes as DS, except that the community may will them into being at AN. RGloucester's idea is a good one. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I also believe that community GS should follow the same rules as DS. Except that I don't think it's up to me, or ArbCom, to force those rules on the community. To RG's point above I do think the committee could use our expertise/experience to draft a model statement that the community could use when adopting GS - something along the lines of "General sanctions will be imposed on Foo topic area, broadly construed. These sanctions will follow the same procedures as DS, including any subsequent changes/updates." But just because it's easier to get 7 Arb votes to do cleanup than a real community consensus doesn't mean that the cleanup falls with-in ARBPOL, in my mind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A maze of overlapping sanctions benefits no one, and we passed the new language about extended-confirmed restrictions in order to streamline procedures and reduce bureaucracy. According to those same principles, we should grant 's request. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  18:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with CaptainEek and bradv here. Having too different sanctions regimes for the same topic area is unnecessary confusing and taking over the GS as DS seems a good way to make it less so. Regards  So  Why  12:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also more of the opinion that requiring a separate community motion to do this would be overly bureaucratic. If I had any thought that there could be significant opposition to the idea, I'd be much more inclined to recommend a separate discussion. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kevin. Hadn't considered that there would be such strong support for a third option. I suppose that leaves us nothing to do here. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I gather that this matter is now resolved. Does anyone disagree? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The use of this topic to cover all Muslim related conflicts in India?
I'm just continuing about why the Ram Mandir article as been classified under Afghanistan/Pakistan/India? I understand there is controversy about the situation of a mosque and mandir on the same site, similar to Temple Mount in Jerusalem. But why is this placed into a conflict between Pakistan and India? It's related to Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus. There's no particular reason why Pakistanis care more about this mosque than Arabs or Indonesians, they have a kinship over religious beliefs.

This idea that all Indian Muslims have some affiliation Pakistan, Persians and Arabs needs to be put to bed. The friendliness is almost purely over shared Islamic heritage that you can also find with Indonesians for example.

How does it cover Afghanistan and Pakistan in particular? It's controversial among a section of Muslims throughout the world, but especially India. It's no more controversial to Pakistanis and Afghanis, than it is to Arabs, Indonesians or Bangladeshis. The dispute is almost entirely within the realms of Indian politics. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Amendment request: India-Pakistan (March 2024)
Original discussion

Initiated by Robert McClenon at 23:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACossde&diff=1214440521&oldid=1212446773

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APetextrodon&diff=1214440584&oldid=1212279589

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOz346&diff=1214440640&oldid=1210896395

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUtoD&diff=1214440697&oldid=1214316349


 * Information about amendment request
 * Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation
 * Add Sri Lanka to list of countries within scope of contentious topic.

Statement by Robert McClenon
Sri Lanka has a common cultural history with India, and a common political history with India including British rule in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century and resistance to British rule.

Disputes over Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan Civil War are common
I have just failed a dispute at DRN over an atrocity that was a prelude to the Sri Lankan Civil War:
 * Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

Declined Arbitration Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1159486635#Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam (10 June 2023)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1158663393#Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces (5 June 2023)

Archived Disputes at WP:ANI
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151


 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069


 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1113

Archived Disputes at WP:DRN
 * Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_205


 * Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_205


 * Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_215


 * Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_147


 * Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_107


 * Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_135


 * Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_128

Explanation and Clarification
I thank User:Oz346 for submitting an RFC to resolve the question of language in the article about the 1977 pogrom. The RFC and this amendment request are independent of each other, to address a specific content issue and a general problem of disruptive editing about Sri Lanka, resulting in too many disputes. The purpose of this amendment request is to identify Sri Lanka as a contentious topic, which will authorize administrators at Arbitration Enforcement to deal proactively with disruptive editing with sanctions such as topic-bans. I have also initiated one RFC concerning the UN report on the Sri Lankan Civil War, and am about to initiate another RFC concerning the reported sexual abuse by Sri Lankan peacekeepers in Haiti. The frequency of content disputes about Sri Lanka illustrates a need for a contentious topic designation. I could have submitted a Request for Arbitration, but it seems less difficult to expand the area of the existing designation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I thank User:Pharaoh of the Wizards for mentioning WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. I see that that project says:  This WikiProject has served its stated purpose and is now defunct.  I think that any conclusion that the project has been successful is premature.  I do not mean that the project has been a failure, but that declaring victory and going home was premature.  I think that the contentious topic designation can be and should be used concurrently with other efforts at reconciliation.  Any reconciliation project is voluntary.  The contentious topic procedure is binding.  The editors who do not participate in a reconciliation project are the editors who should be topic-banned.  The admins at Arbitration Enforcement can and should make a distinction between editors who work for reconciliation, and those who do not.  It will take longer for peacemaking editors to revive the reconciliation project than it will take for the arbitrators to expand the scope of a contentious topic by adding another South Asian country.  As User:Vanamonde93 points out, the colonial histories of Sri Lanka and of India were separate, but the modern histories of the two countries are entangled. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Cossde
I thank Robert McClenon for attempting to reach a resolution in the DRN. This is not a decision I take lightly and hence I took some time to think it over and I feel I agree with Robert, Sri Lanka needs to be designated as a contentious topic and the on-going disruptive editing about Sri Lanka needs to end. Cossde (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, the need to designate Sri Lanka as a contentious topic and include it in arbitration has been made evident in recent edits by editors mentioned here. Edit waring has taken place in Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka and List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, where WP:NAT editing is taking place where editors are removing cited content and adding highly controversial content with sources that have not been established as RS and have refused to demonstrate verifiability of sources per WP:CHALLENGE. Funny enough government commissions that have had question on biasness by these editors in RfC have been cited as RS. This only emphasises the need to designate Sri Lanka as a contentious topic.Cossde (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Oz346
Due to the failure of this discussion: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

I have opened up a RFC. I believe that RFC have a much higher chance of solving these disputes, due to the input of multiple voices, and will be probably be less time consuming for all involved. Oz346 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by UtoD
The Sri Lankan Civil War directly involved India which initially supported the LTTE and later carried out a military intervention where Indian forces clashed with the LTTE resulting in the LTTE assassinating the Indian Prime Minister. The presence of the Indian forces within the country was also a major cause of the Marxist uprising in 1987 which happened alongside the Civil War. It is certainly related to India and Pakistan in the greater context. - UtoD  17:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards
I thank Robert McClenon for trying to resolve disputes in this area and Oz346 for submitting a RFC to resolve a dispute. But having edited in this area for years.I do not see it at having raised at this point to the level of the need for Contentious_topic_designation.WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation has taken care of disputes in this area for years and think we can revive it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Further the issues with Sri Lanka are distinct from the issues for India/Pakistan.Sri Lanka was never part of India during British Rule even Burma Province  or Myanmar was part of India, British separated  from British India on 1st April 1937.But Sri Lanka has always been separate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde
I have not read the specific disputes linked above, but I want to note that as a consequence of Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War, and the subsequent Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, a substantial portion of this conflict (though by no means the entirety) is already covered by the ARBIPA CT designation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Swatjester
There appears to be sufficient evidence of Sri Lanka being a (lowercase) contentious topic, as evidenced by Robert, that should warrant it officially becoming a Contentious Topic; whether that's as part of an existing India-Pakistan coverage or it's own independent CT, is rather immaterial given that the India/Pakistan CT doesn't have any additional topic-wide restrictions beyond the standard ones. 21:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith (2)
As stated by, a substantial portion of this topic area overlaps with WP:ARBIPA already. I'd also like to note that parts of it are also covered by WP:GS/CASTE, which includes political parties and other social groups in Sri Lanka. It might be worth a review to see if these topic areas can be rolled into one umbrella case, similar to WP:GENSEX. If Sri Lanka is designated as a separate Contentious Topic, we could have articles covered under the new CTOP plus WP:ARBIPA, WP:GS/CASTE and WP:BLPSE at the same time. That may create more confusion than it would to just merge them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Abhishek0831996
I would recommend against inclusion of Sri Lanka to ARBIPA. Sri Lanka is not as controversial compared to Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. Whenever disruption is happening in Sri Lanka-related topics, we can easily deal with them under our general guidelines like WP:DE. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
This might be resolvable with a time-period inclusion, along the lines of "modern American politics": Include Sri Lanka under that CTOP regime (or create a new similar one for it), but only for the period of British rule to the post-colonial present. This would avoid making thing about Sri Lanka/Ceylon be CTOP-covered. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:59, 1 April 2024 (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.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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



India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * While there is geographical proximity to India, and obviously the shared British Colonial rule, the issues with Sri Lanka strike me as distinct from the issues for India/Pakistan. As a shortcut to this Sri Lanka appears 4 times in our India article, while Pakistan appears 29 times. So I'm initially inclined to say it would not fall under that umbrella and would need its own evidence to justify the creation of it as a contentious topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Barkeep49; this might need a case (or a CTOP motion similar to WP:HORN if things are straight-forward enough) but expanding IPA to include Sri Lanka does not appear to be an appropriate step. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed with my colleagues above - this would need a motion supported by independent evidence. firefly  ( t · c ) 09:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan contentious topic area already covers – broadly construed – edits related to Sri Lanka as long as they are also related to India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. If I understand correctly, the request is about widening WP:ARBIPA so that Sri-Lanka-related content that has nothing to do with India, Pakistan or Afghanistan is additionally included. However, the reason provided for this request is that "Sri Lanka has a common cultural history with India [...]", which appears to be irrelevant to the request, as that aspect is already covered by the contentious topic. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that we would need some evidence phase before expanding the scope of this contentious topic designation. Maxim (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On going WP:NAT based edit waring in Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka, List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces and other articles associated with Sri Lanka. Cleary its time to make contentious topic. Cossde (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sri Lanka should not be included in IPA as it deals with different concerns. I think CTOP or something similar is needed, it will need its own case or motion. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)