Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: The Troubles	none	(orig. case)	15 May 2018
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3	none	(orig. case)	23 May 2018
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	23 May 2018

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Clarification request: The Troubles

Initiated by Swarm at 00:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

The Troubles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Statement by Swarm

Greetings. So, WP:TROUBLES#Guide to enforcement contains a 2011 provision that places all pages in the topic area under a blanket 1RR page restriction that is specifically enforceable without warning, provided {{Troubles restriction}} has been placed on the talk page. This directly contradicts the current awareness criteria for enforcing page restrictions, and it's unclear to me whether that provision is exempt from, or has been superseded by, the modern awareness criteria that were implemented in 2014 and 2018. In spite of the contradiction with standard practice, it continues to be advertised as an active sanction on many articles, which is apparently validated on the case page. However, there's no apparent record, anywhere, of an intentional exemption to ArbCom's now-standardized procedure regarding awareness. It also claims to derive its authority, at least in part, from a community decision, but there is no record of such a restriction at WP:GS or on the case page, so it's unclear as to whether the "no warning" provision is actually the will of the community. Thanks in advance.

Statement by T. Canens

The 1RR restriction originated from an AE discussion in 2008 and was clarified in an ANI discussion in 2009. It's not clear whether the 2011 motion superseding "all extant remedies" actually superseded these restrictions, since these aren't actually arbcom remedies, but looking at the history of User:Coren/draft this appears to be the intent.

Additionally, it is not clear whether and how the later changes to the DS system impact a page restriction imposed in 2011 given the provisions in WP:AC/DS#Continuity (Nothing in this current version of the discretionary sanctions process constitutes grounds for appeal of a remedy or restriction imposed under prior versions of it. and All sanctions and restrictions imposed under earlier versions of this process remain in force.). T. Canens (talk) 08:51, 21 May 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.

The Troubles: Clerk notes

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

• By its own terms, the motion applies only to page restrictions placed as discretionary sanctions and does not apply to restrictions directly imposed by the Committee, such as 1RR from The Troubles or the General Prohibition from PIA3. As far as I remember, comments from arbitrators from the original motion supported that interpretation. Similar interpretation at the ACN talk thread. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC) I'm not recusing because this is a procedural clarification request per Jan 2018 precedent (mailing list login required). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I misread this. Community consensus was apparently here: permalink. Looks like it was at AE, though, so it probably doesn't really count as a community-imposed sanction. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It also appears that if the community did impose 1RR, it may have been rescinded by ArbCom in this motion, which superseded "All extant remedies of The Troubles" with the intention of "Clarity and complying with general expectations", as arbitrator David Fuchs said. In any event, this ends up beyond the clerks' pay grade in interpreting ArbCom decisions. Hope the links help. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• The general 1RR in the area was placed as a discretionary sanction by an administrator, so it is subject to the awareness criteria while enforcing it. This includes the requirements for page restrictions, as individual administrators cannot supersede the awareness requirements set by the Committee. (They could theoretically make them more stringent, but not less.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: Do you find the answer here clear? If so, I'll have a clerk archive this. If not, I'll prod additional arbitrators for comment, but I strongly suspect it will be more of the same ("Yes, notifications should be made").
  • @Euryalus: The 1RR without warning was placed as a discretionary sanction, not by the Committee. Does that change things for you? Are you suggesting discretionary sanctions placed before our change of awareness criteria go by a different set of rules? If so, that has major implications for page restrictions, etc. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• The concept of giving a warning, before blocking or sanctioning an editor for innocently violating a DS restriction, originated in a comment I made in a 2008 case that it would be unfair to penalize an editor for doing something that is generally allowed, but isn't allowed on a page covered by DS. The intent was certainly not that this observation evolve into a complicated rule-set of "awareness criteria," in parallel with the rules-creep that continues to take place all over the wiki (as observed in this essay by a community-elected WMF trustee). The importance of reasonable warnings is reinforced when we periodically get AE or ARCA appeals from editors who are blocked or topic-banned for a DS breach and respond in good faith along the lines of "I didn't know there was any such rule" or "what the heck are you talking about?" To me, "warn before sanctioning if it isn't clear the editor knew (or clearly should have known) he or she was violating a restriction or acting improperly" remains a basic precept of wiki proportionality, fairness, and common sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Late to the party, but for what it's worth I agree with NYB. Arb-related sanctions are a topic with so much rules creep that I understand why this question was asked, and yet I also want to think we as a community can manage to warn people before sanctioning them even if WP:OMGWTFBBQ#RTFM paragraph 3 line 2 says you don't technically have to. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• The DS warning system is a poor attempt to codify what should be commonsense. Prefer the approach outlined by NYB, where we don't actually mandate a slew of warnings and alerts before doing anything, but nonetheless have the courtesy to let people know if they've done the wrong thing before applying sanctions. FWIW, I reckon the without-warning-1RR technically still stands despite the later implementation of other processes, but its existence suggests we should again go through these older cases and review the surviving sanctions to see if they're worth updating or even keeping at all. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Makeandtoss at 16:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. "All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are subject to discretionary sanctions: Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial notification."

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

• Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• "All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are subject to discretionary sanctions: Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial notification."

• Add:"An administrator may only add the protection template to the article relating to this case after having clearly demonstrated how the article is likely to witness edit-warring." or .."after having gotten a consensus from users and other admins"

Statement by Makeandtoss

Jordan for example, a high-level article with around 6,000 daily views, is held under the Arab-Israeli conflict arbitration template. No IPs or new accounts are allowed to edit the article, and a minor edit-war over content that may not even be related to the conflict will trigger harsh discretionary sanctions. 5 out of 95 paragraphs in the article discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict, and this somehow makes it eligible for the harsh sanctions. Another suggestion would be to make two sanction templates, the existing one for directly related articles to the conflict, and another 'diluted' form that allows IPs and new accounts to edit but restricts reverts to 2 and has less harsh sanctions. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Are they working as they are supposed to? Are the templates added to all the articles remotely relevant to the conflict, or do they only apply on some? Can't see any templates on US, EU, UN, UNSC, UK, Henry Kissinger, Gamal Abdul Nasser, Harry S. Truman? They all can be "related" to the conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:44, 23 May 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.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

• No. That’s not how discretionary sanctions work. They are interpreted broadly for a reason. I will also note you’re actually asking us to also modify several other remedies related to this topic area (1RR and ECP), not just the discretionary sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. The sanctions are working exactly as they are designed to do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• No. As Rick says, this is the way we designed them to work. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Decline, per above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Disagreeing in part with my colleagues above, I would be interested in exploring whether we can accommodate this request at least in part. The 30-500 rule is a serious departure from our "welcome newcomers, anyone can edit" model. I understand why it has been adopted in the IP topic-area, but the effect is to bar a new editor for weeks or months from aspects of articles not part of that area. That being said, applying sanctions to only parts of articles raises significant awareness and line-drawing problems of its own. Does anyone recall whether this type of issue has come up before and how it was resolved? Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: India-Pakistan

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

Case or decision affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• MapSGV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• NadirAli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TripWire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raymond3023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sdmarathe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.[1] Since that Arbcom action, I have made barely a couple of edits in relation to these subjects,[2] and my last edit to this subject is from 11 April,[3] 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.[4] 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 my name 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)

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, @BU Rob13: 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)

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 TripWire 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. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: 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. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Beyond My Ken: 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 Capitals00 for coming up with such brilliant idea. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:51, 24 May 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[5] 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)

GoldenRing, 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[6][7] and made personal attacks, threats[8][9] and accusations.[10] 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.[11] 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)

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)

Statement by Capitals00

The links mentioned by GoldenRing were not sanctionable in ARE,[12][13][14] 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"[15][16], 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,[17] and civility restriction was removed.[18] 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)

Statement by MBlaze Lightning

I have spent considerable time in the consideration of the above matter, and 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; GoldenRing 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 MapSGV, had, in fact, not even participated in those discussions. Also worth noting here is that some of the pages linked by GoldenRing, such as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Article_about_Hookah_and_sources were totally outside the scope of the "conflict between India and Pakistan".

It is worth mentioning that GoldenRing had not initially included me in his list of editors that he proposed to sanction, but subsequently included me without any valid reason.[19] 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 we all are willing to work together and put all grudges aside. I am also in agreement with the removal of sanctions and installation of subject restrictions proposed by Capitals00 as the appropriate solution. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 07:10, 24 May 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)

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.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 09:25, 24 May 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)

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 [20]. Their evidence? Claims that I filed a frivolous AE (which had in fact resulted in a warning [21]) against an editor who was duly topic banned for the same behavior a brief while later [22]. 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)

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)

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

• @GoldenRing: Please link the diff where MapSVG was alerted of the AE discussion before he received sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @SheriffIsInTown: 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.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

---