---

Initiated by Ferahgo the Assassin at 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Race and intelligence 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:

• Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

Note: I am making this request as per the recommendation I received from the Arbitration Committee Mailing List, after having contacted the list with this question. I will repost the relevant bits of the question I emailed them below, with personally identifying information redacted.

I was recently included as a party on a Clarification Request that was declined and closed without my participation. The clarification request concerned the scope of the Race and Intelligence topic ban, which also applies to me. (The current version of my editing restrictions can be found here) My understanding of my topic ban is that I am prohibited from editing articles related to "the race and intelligence topic, broadly construed".

What is covered under "broadly construed"? I am concerned about whether editing pages related to the "heritability of psychological traits” is considered to be a violation, or even the “psychometrics of intelligence” on its own. My understanding since my restrictions were given was that I was only prohibited from editing topics concerning both “race” and “intelligence”.

I should mention that my real-life circumstances have changed considerably since my restrictions were given. I'm now in my second year of the Ph.D program in behavior genetics at a prestigious university. My research specifically involves the heritability of intelligence, which so far has been very well received by my peers. (I sent the mailing list a link to an award I’ve received for my research.) The vast majority of research in my field has nothing to do with race, and most researchers do not want to touch the topic with a ten-foot pole.

It seems arbitrary to prohibit me from editing anything that has to do with the heritability of psychological traits, particularly when doing so would close off major potential improvements that I could bring to the encyclopedia to topics in my area of expertise. I am also currently finishing up a research project on mental chronometry that I plan to present at an upcoming conference, and was hoping that I could finally get around to making major improvements to the mental chronometry article with what I've learned over the course of this research and its background.

Can you please clarify the extent to which my topic ban covers the area in which I am developing professional expertise, and the rationale for which topics are covered?

@ Brad:

I did not think it was worth including & notifying anyone else, since this was intended just to be a request for clarification of what my own topic ban was intended to cover. But here is a brief history of my situation, if it’s helpful:

1. Original topic ban from R&I in October 2010, for violation of WP:SHARE policy, documented here.

2. This was followed by a 1-year site ban, in May 2012, for violation of WP:SHARE, documented here.

3. Suspension of this ban in March 2014 is documented further down, here. My request for appealing the site ban occurred via email, originally sent to the committee on March 6, 2014. In this appeal, I mention that Occam and I no longer share an IP address—and haven’t since (and still don’t).

4. My ban was lifted under the condition that in addition to the topic ban, I was restricted only to articles about “paleontology of birds and dinosaurs” and associated talk and process pages. I appealed this specific restriction in September 2016, and this was rescinded as documented here. Which leaves me under the original topic ban and the two-way interaction ban, as documented in the most recent link.

@ Euryalus:

Appealing my topic ban wasn't my intention in submitting this request, but if Arbcom thinks lifting the ban is the best solution, then I'm happy to have that considered. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 01:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, if Arbcom decides that my topic ban applies to articles about the heritability of intelligence in general, then I'd like to request for my topic ban to be lifted. I know there are plenty of other articles to work on, but I have a unique ability to improve articles about the topic that I'm getting my Ph.D in. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Capitals00:

With all due respect, if people want to scrutinize my edits that are 8 years old, it might be good to look at the whole discussion in context before drawing a conclusion. That being said, I think it’s fair to say that my explanation for these edits is simply that they were 8 years ago. My current hope is only that I be permitted to improve articles like Polygenic score and Gene-environment correlation, which are directly related to my research. If you want to see how I can contribute to topics outside this subject, I invite you to look at Specimens of Archaeopteryx and (longer ago) The Origin of Birds (a GA). Grad school has (quite predictably and, I hope, understandably) limited my time and energy for reading on topics outside of my field.

As for the comments about short leash, six month trial period, etc, I have no problem with these suggestions. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 16:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no current plans to edit anything about Richard Lynn, his books or his research. Anything I do edit will be fully compliant with both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policy, regardless of whether my topic ban is lifted or not. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 20:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Again, there isn’t any specific article related to race and intelligence that I’m aiming to edit. My preference is to edit articles on topics I’ve researched or am researching currently. I would start with Mental chronometry, Gene-environment correlation, and Polygenic score. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 21:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@MastCell: Well, any time we do genetic studies, we have to worry about population stratification. I’m happy to go into more detail about my research privately to Arbcom. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 21:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the new input, everyone. As a very busy grad student without much time to read outside of my research area anymore, I hope that "reasonably active" might be charitably interpreted if we revisit the question in half a year or so. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 11:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

@ Newyorkbrad:

• Race and intelligence case: Findings of fact 3.5: Ferahgo: counselled, topic-banned and blocked
• Race and intelligence case: Findings of fact 3.6: Ferahgo and Occam are topic banned
• Race and intelligence case: Remedies 2.1: Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam site-banned
• Race and intelligence case: Modified by motion 2: (Ferahgo the Assassin's site-ban suspended)

I believe that covers everything to date. Links to original discussions are in each section. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• On the clarification request, since Ferahgo the Assassin claims to now have some professional expertise on the subject of the "heritability of psychological traits", I personally see no problem with her editing in that subject area, very narrowly construed, as long as she doesn't touch on anything whatsoever regarding race, and assuming that her editing is based on citing suitable neutral reliable sources, and not on her own personal knowledge, which cannot be verified, or opinions, which are disallowed as WP:OR. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• On lifting the ban, I think that would be OK, as long as FtA was made aware that she was on a very short leash, and that the topic ban would be restored at the first sign of a problem in her editing. I think the question that would need to be answered is: in that circumstance (i.e. topic ban lifted, problematic editing, topic ban restored) would FtA's site ban be restored as well, considering the conditions under which the site ban was lifted? [1] Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Capitals00

I am not supporting that topic ban should be lifted because Ferahgo the Assassin has made just 400 edits on main articles since 2014 and I maintain that it doesn't matter how long ago the topic ban was imposed because I would like to see how FTA can really contribute in topics outside this subject.

I have removed a lot of WP:UNDUE content from Nations and intelligence dedicated to theories of Richard Lynn that are controversial and pseudoscientific. FTA's edits [2] [3] related to Richard Lynn show that she probably thinks otherwise. I would like to hear some explanation of these edits and also how she will represent Richard Lynn or his researches whenever she will edit these articles. Capitals00 ( talk) 12:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@ Ferahgo the Assassin: You still haven't answered my question. I asked how you "will represent Richard Lynn or his researches whenever" you will edit any articles that are related to him. I am waiting for your reply. What is your firm opinion about Lynn and his researches? Tell me which articles you would prefer to edit that are related to race and intelligence once your topic ban has been removed and how do you think you will improve those articles. Capitals00 ( talk) 16:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@ Ferahgo the Assassin: Your answer to the question regarding Richard Lynn and his researches seems satisfactory. I had also asked that "which articles you would prefer to edit that are related to race and intelligence once your topic ban has been removed and how do you think you will improve those articles". Waiting for your reply. Capitals00 ( talk) 14:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I wrote Wikipedia:Broadly construed on April 6. Seems timely. Perhaps we can fix this by fleshing that out a bit? Guy ( Help!) 17:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

Ordinarily, I'm of the opinion that an editor's real-life academic qualifications (or lack thereof) are irrelevant here. But since Ferahgo presents hers as a central component of her request, I think they're worth discussing.

Ferahgo writes: My research specifically involves the heritability of intelligence... The vast majority of research in my field has nothing to do with race, and most researchers do not want to touch the topic with a ten-foot pole. The realist cynic in me can't help noticing that this formulation leaves out a key detail: Ferahgo, does your research touch on race as it intersects with intelligence? MastCell  ^Talk 23:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

I'm not sure I like this. Not only because I'm not a big fan of "I have a unique ability to improve articles about the topic..." because that usually also comes with a unique agenda, but also because the sequence of events that I'm seeing here is disconcerting. Captain Occam returns to Wikipedia. Captain Occam edits in areas that are apparently intelligence related but not race related. Captain Occam gets indef blocked. Ferahgo the Assassin shows up requesting permission to edit in those very intelligence related areas that got the Captain indef blocked. Nope. Not an encouraging chain of events. -- regentspark ( comment) 08:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish (uninvolved)

I'm not going the theorize about history and connections, just observe that "heritability of intelligence" is clearly within the scope of the topic ban (not even "broadly construed" – the two subjects are inextricably tied). Perhaps a more narrow TB could be constructed that permitted HoI editing that isn't about humans. "Psychometrics of intelligence" in and of itself isn't within the broadly-construed scope, per se, but a tremendous amount of material relating to it is tied to efforts to prove or disprove racial/ethnic intelligence heritability ideas, so editing in that area will always be iffy for an editor under an R&I ban. It will probably frequently involve "skirting" or "testing the boundaries", and no such editor should be surprised if they end up sanctioned for crossing the line, which is ultimately going to be a matter of admin discretion. Given that admins are random people, the safe assumption is that PoI, like HoI, is implicitly within R&I except when it's entirely about non-human animals, like determining the relative intelligence levels of various dog breeds, or proving the tool-use and problem solving abilities of corvid birds. Even then, there is risk. E.g., overstating or understanding the heritability of intelligence in ways that do not match the scientific consensus in current, actually reliable sources, in a general article on intelligence heritability in mammals, can still trigger this TB, since it'll clearly be to advance or combat the "some human races are smarter than others" agenda in the long run.

Finally, Ferahgo the Assassin absolutely does not "have a unique ability to improve articles about the topic that I'm getting my Ph.D in". A PhD candidate is not an expert, but someone on the way to expertise, and when they get there, they'll find that there are many alleged experts with PhDs who have differing and contradictory views, and often non-PhDs who know as much as they do from practical application experience rather than academic hypothesizing, and who also have different stances. I think this speaks to why FtA was topic-banned in the first place. What FtA actually does have is a professionally-connected intense interest in editing in these articles and to project one particular viewpoint in them. Most of us have figured out by now that what we do for a living is generally not what we should write about at Wikipedia, for conflict-of-interest [in the broad sense] and lack-of-neutrality reasons. While a few editors can pull it off mostly okay, the average editor cannot. We have no rule about this, but if you look at general editing patterns, you find that long-term productive editors mostly write on WP about their side interests, not their life's work, and that many flareups are caused by people doing the latter and getting too emotional about defending a particular PoV from their professional segment.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:11, 8 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.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements or other input (although it's not clear just who should be notified of this request). Could Feragho the Assassin or someone else please provide more specific links to the prior discussions that led to the topic-ban and site-ban, to the extent they are visible on-wiki, and any other on-wiki material we should review? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Also awaiting any further input, and thought it worth clarifying if this is ultimately a request for amendment as well as clarification? If clarification only, then standard advice: topic bans can never be prescriptively defined, so if in doubt about whether an article is on the border of a ban, assume it is and find something else to edit. The examples referred to above are on the border of the ban; if you edit them I'd say there's a sanctions risk. However your request also has elements of an actual appeal against the ban, including for example your mention of the passage of time and your academic work. There's always a generic case for very old sanctions to be reconsidered, so it'd be worth clarifying if that's a part of this ARCA to make sure we consider all parts of the request. -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Ferahgo; thanks for the reply - not sure if it's the best solution, just checking on whether its part of what's proposed (in which case it deserves consideration along with the clarification request). If this was just about clarification then I'd say construe the ban pretty broadly and stay away from those borderline topic areas - there's five million articles to work on, and plenty to do in other spaces. -- Euryalus ( talk) 02:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Noting the comments in this section and by Beyond My Ken, what do people think about suspending the topic ban for (say) six months, with authority for reinstatement by any uninvolved admin if problems arise, but otherwise expiring completely by October if no problems occur? Views particularly welcome from other editors in the "race and intelligence" space, with whom Ferahgo the Assassin would presumably then work alongside. -- Euryalus ( talk) 09:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This has been here awhile without progress, so views welcome on the following, particularly from @ Alex Shih, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Newyorkbrad, RickinBaltimore, and Premeditated Chaos::

1. Interpretation of topic ban: There seems a rough consensus that articles relating to "heritability of psychological traits" and "psychometrics of intelligence" do fall within the topic ban, and that the best way to satisfy "broadly construed" is to edit in entirely unrelated fields. Absent contrary views, suggest we wrap this part up with that outcome.
2. Lifting the topic ban:Separately, there seems no consensus on whether to suspend or lift the topic ban entirely. Per Doug Weller, suggest it stay in place as something to revisit once Ferahgo the Assassin has demonstrated (say) six months of reasonably active and trouble-free editing elsewhere.

Comments welcome, including from the OP. -- Euryalus ( talk) 02:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think this request and the previous one basically boil down to a clarification on whether this individual is topic banned from articles about "race and intelligence" (e.g. articles that have to do with both at the same time) or articles about "race or intelligence" (e.g. articles that have to do with race and also, separately, articles that have to do with intelligence). If the former, then editing articles about intelligence as the filing editor describes would generally not be an issue, so long as nothing in the article had anything to do whatsoever with race. Looking back on the case, I think the former was clearly the intent. It's worth noting that the former was the bounds of the topic area originally given for discretionary sanctions, and this topic ban was initially implemented as a discretionary sanction, so I actually don't see how the latter could be correct from a procedural perspective. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 13:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If we're clarifying that the topic ban is really broader than explicitly written, we should amend it to be clear. I'll propose a motion to that effect shortly. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 16:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @ BU Rob13: I can understand your procedural concern, but the outcome here is clear, the OP has accepted it, and I don't think we need to draw this out with a motion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Due to off-wiki obligations, I haven't had time to write a motion yet. I don't want to drag this on forever, so I'm not going to hold this up further. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 20:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• My thoughts mirror Euryalus' genrally - from a clarification point of view, the edits described would be on the edge of the ban and depending on the content and context might well lead to a sanction. That said, looking back at the history, I would support lifting the topic ban which has been in place for 4 years, but I would be interested in hearing community views on that matter. Worm^TT( talk) 19:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• My opinion on the clarification aspect of this mirrors those above - I think the topics you indicate in your request are on the border of the topic ban. Whether they'd violate it would depend on the specific material, but it's risky considering that the general view on topic bans is that they should encourage an editor to work on something completely unrelated, not on something very close. On the appeal aspect - well, I realize that I'm hardly one to be looking down my nose at low activity given my own sluggish editing rate lately, but I do notice that the low number of edits since the 2016 appeal makes it a bit difficult to judge the success of that decision. Still, I'd be willing to consider a suspension given the age of the sanctions. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Following up here, it looks like the consensus view is that these edits do violate the topic ban, and that suspending it would be considered after more activity in other areas. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Studies in the "psychometrics of intelligence" often discuss the intersection of race and intelligence, so I would say that is within your topic ban. You mention mental chronometry and again that is an area where people like Arthur Jensen, to quote our R&I article, "have argued that reaction time is independent of culture and that the existence of race differences in average reaction time is evidence that the cause of racial IQ gaps is partially genetic instead of entirely cultural." As for inheritance of psychological traits, intelligence can be defined as a psychological trait and psychological traits are said to be influenced by genetics. But if you are going to stay well away psychological traits linked in any way to race and intelligence, then that might be ok. You probably know that would include for instance avoiding the topic of response time and race. If in doubt, either avoid it or ask. I'm not willing to consider a suspension at the moment, but I might after six months of active editing. I'm sure there are plenty of articles that you can contribute to without coming near to anything related to your topic ban. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Reviewing everything that has been presented here, I agree the edits requests are very, very close to crossing the line into the area where the topic ban currently is. I would reconsider a suspension of the ban in six months time, if there was a good faith effort to avoid the areas that led to the topic ban. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 02:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Based on what's been presented here and privately to us off-wiki, I agree that the intended edits fall within the topic ban. At this time, I'm not comfortable with a suspension; I prefer Doug's suggestion that this be re-visited after six months of productive editing elsewhere on the project. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that "heritability of psychological traits” & “psychometrics of intelligence” are in practice so closely related to the R&I topic that they are included in the ban. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with the consensus above that (1) the areas in question should be avoided under the topic-ban, and (2) we shouldn't suspend the topic-ban at this time. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• I read this a few days ago and read it again just now; my thoughts run along Doug's. I'm willing to reconsider in six months with productive editing in other areas. Katie ^talk 21:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by Shrike at 10:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel_articles_3 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Shrike

Does Iran-Israeli conflict (and particulary Iranian nuclear program)are part of the I/P conflict? The question was risen because of Project Amad and though it was protected by blue lock by Courcelles [ [4]] some of the admins argued(while others agreed with me Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mhhossein) that because Iran is not Arab country the discretionary sanctions doesn't apply. In my view it does apply: This short lived article have exactly the same problem as the I/P:(I don't ask to sanction anyone of course)

• Newly created account jumping to the article [5] with not bad knowledge of wikimarkup [6]
• Editing by the users the edit Arbpia articles and exactly by the same partisan lines.For example [7] and [8] it also evident from AE[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mhhossein] case that was filed.
• Edit warring 07:27, 2 May 2018‎ ,# 13:27, 2 May 2018‎ .

In my view the conflict with Iran exist only because the I/P conflict exist had this conflict wouldn't exist the Israel-Iranian conflict wouldn't exist also [9]. Anyhow I wish ask for amendment one way or another. A note:Its not an appeal on AE case its just a clarification if Iran-Israel conflict is under the relevant area-- Shrike ( talk) 18:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mhhossein

It's a new game by Shrike-Icewhiz. Unlike what Shrike said, five admins commented in this absurd nomination and only one of them thought Project Amad could fall within ARBPIA. Most of non-admin users disagreed with him, too, and I don't know why he's trying to pretend "others agreed with him". -- Mhhossein ^talk 18:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

In the past, Iran's support for Hezbollah has sometimes meant Iran-Israel relations fall under ARBPIA. I agree with the AE consensus that Project Amad is not under the General Prohibition. However, it may be reasonable for the committee to expand ARBPIA to include the Israel-Iran conflict. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on arbitrator comments, it seems clear that the (exceptionally stringent) rules of ARBPIA are not going to be applied to all Israel-Iran conflicts. I don't see any way that standard Discretionary Sanctions could be implemented through Amendment to ARBPIA. As I can't point to any recent disruption in this area and see no diffs here claiming there is disruption, this seems like a reasonable outcome. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TheGracefulSlick

I think you just need to pack your bags on this one, Shrike. Several editors were clear at the AE case. This is just a roundabout to get Project Amad under ARBPIA restrictions; by proposing the conflict is ARBPIA sanctionable, sub-topics like Project Amad would have to be included for it to be universal. It does not work that way, however, and needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis or, better yet, with a bit of common sense. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 21:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Attack Ramon

The page is protected from editing by new users, with a claim that it is subject to WP:ARBPIA3:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ACourcelles&type=revision&diff=839619136&oldid=839618769
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Project_Amad&type=revision&diff=839130707&oldid=839126480

looks like even the sys-admins can't make up their minds if ARBPIA applies or not ?!?

Statement by Icewhiz

I request you take this - and clarify either way whether Iran-Israel conflict(s) are under ARBPIA or not. We currently have ARBCOM templates and extended-confirmed protection on many articles that are "pure" Iran/Israel conflict articles. The recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mhhossein was on a recently placed page that was protected 500/30 due to ARBPIA by one admin (Courcelles), and the first admin (Masem) reaction at AE was that this was a clear ARBPIA violation. It would add a great deal of clarity if the scope was clearly set out in WP:ARBPIA - as was done for the Syrian Civil War. The present situation where this isn't spelled out - leads to a wide grey zone where enforcement isn't clear, a-priori, to editors. Having this spelled out clearly in WP:ARBPIA will clearly delineate the scope of the sanction.

In terms of whether to include Iran/Israel conflicts (which do not involve Arabs/Palestinians - e.g. I would assume 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping would be in scope to being part of the 1982 Israel/Lebanon war and February 2018 Israel–Syria incident due to Syria being a side) - there are merits either way -

• Against - Iran is not an Arab country.
• For - Iran, since 1979 (and particularly since 1988), has aligned with the Palestinian cause and other groups (e.g. Hezbollah in Lebanon) and has been involved in conflict with Israel via proxies and directly.

I'll add that editor conduct issues (and the editor pool) - tends to be similar for Iran/Israel content to the rest of ARBPIA. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Zero0000: Words? What about Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, Stuxnet, Flame (malware) - not to speak of recent (widely covered) CRYSTALBALLING of a possible outright shooting war [10] [11] [12]. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012

Very interesting request.

Everybody is aware that Iranians are not Arabs and even less Palestinians and that way it is difficult to argue that Project Amad falls under WP:ARBPIA, which deals with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On the other way, regarding what happens in practice on wikipedia on the internet and IRL (ie in the media): every article here, every publication on the internet and every statement from a public personnality that could affect positively or negatively Israel, will immediately be the topic of a war on words from advocacy groups.

And this is an important concern for wikipedia because it does affect the purpose of the project, which is to develop an encyclopaedia ( 1st pillar) complying with some values such as NPoV (2nd pillar) and in civility = pleasure to participate (4th pillar).

So there should not be doubt that everything touching Iran-Israel conflit should be added in the area of WP:ARBPIA restriction because it will be the target of exactly the same behavioural problems as all the articles direclty linked to ARBPIA.

But... It should as well be clear once for all that there is no symmetry in the disturbances. The equation is not "Iran =/? Palestinians" (as some against the introduction try to counter-argue), it is not "Iran-pov-pushing =/, Palestinian-pov-pushing" (as those for the introduction argue).
The only equation from wikipedia's point of view is: "Israeli-related entries =/? propaganda war"!

And that's something that should once for all be understood and accepted on wp: The problem IRL is very complex, dramatic and -as on each problem- it should be dealt with distance and NPoV. It is also highly controversial, polluted and biased. But the problem on wikipedia is the pov-pushing and the propaganda war majoritary lead by [some] pro-Israeli and Israeli contributors who take part to that propaganda war from Israel and for Israel. There is no any other problem.

Pluto2012 ( talk) 09:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Further readings:

• Nir Hasson, The right's latest weapon: 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia, Haaretz, 2010.
• Rachel Shabi, Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups, The Guardian, 2010.
• Hezki Ezra and Yoni Kempinski, First Ever: Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course, Aroutz Sheva
• CAMERA seeks 10 volunteers to submit info on wikipedia.
• Interview of Naftali Bennett.
• Benjamin Hartman, GA special feature / An online battle for Israel's legitimacy, Haaretz, 14 novembre 2008.
• Jeremy Gozlan, Wikipédia s’invite dans le système éducatif israélien, Tel-Avivre.com, 2014.

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I'll reiterate the basics of what I wrote previously in the Mhhossein AE request and extend them a bit:

While not an Arab country, Iran is a country in the Middle East which take a very strong stance opposing the existence of Israel, as, historically, have the Arab countries, and for this reason should be considered to be within the penumbra of ARBPIA, which we are instructed to take as "broadly interpreted." This is not to say that conflict between Israel and every other country in the world should be within its purview, but Iran shares enough characteristic with the Arab countries that are definitely part of the sanction regime that the inclusion of Iran is logical and reasonable.

It is to be noted that the same POV editors who are involved in Israel/Palestine and Israel/Arab disputes are also involved in those concerning Israel and Iran -- a strong indication that the same prejudices and biases are being played out, those which necessitated ARBPIA in the first place.

If this interpretation is not accepted, the problem of Israel/Iran editing is going to continue to be fester, while remaining outside the ability of admins to control it with discretionary sanctions. Inclusion is a simply solution, and does not violate the spirit of the original remedy -- indeed, it conforms to its purpose very well. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In answer to Malik Shabazz: no, the relations between Israel and every other country should not come under ARBPIA, but the problem with Iran is that is shares with the Arab countries almost every aspect in its relations with Israel except being an Arab country. The purpose of ARBPIA was to control disputes between editors favoring the parties in that region, and Iran is so closely related that including it is not an unreasonable step. (The same kind of problem exists with ARBEE, in the question of just where "Eastern Europe" begins and ends.) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's not in the least absurd. Discretionary sanctions aren't natural formations, they're man-made rules, and they can be defined in any way that's helpful to the community and the project. If ArbCom decides that Iran should fall into the penumbra of ARBPIA, then it does. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

The question of the boundaries of the "Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed" is an important one, and it should be clarified. Uganda accepted an airplane from Israel hijacked by Palestinian terrorists in 1976; is every article about Uganda and Israel part of the conflict? West Germany was the host of the Olympics when Palestinian terrorists kidnapped and killed Israeli athletes; is every article about Germany and Israel part of the conflict? If Israel picks a fight with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, is that part of the conflict? Where does it end? —  MShabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 17:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with Pluto2012 that nationalistic editing is a serious problem, it is hardly unique to the Middle East and more importantly, it is not the purpose of ARBPIA and ARBPIA3 to solve Wikipedia's problems with nationalistic editing. —  MShabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 18:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, Beyond My Ken, that's an absurd assertion. An article unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict does not fall within the ken of ARBPIA based on its subject's similarity to the Arab-Israeli conflict, no matter how much you (and others) may wish that it did. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 01:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

The article AMAD Project is not about the Israel-Iran conflict. The only revelance of the topic to Israel is that the Israeli Prime Minister made a theatrical speech about it. Actually a great number of different world leaders have spoken about it. So the article which brought the question here does not exemplify the question.

Leaving that aside, it is reasonable to ask whether articles that really are about the Israel-Iran conflict should be included in ARBPIA. In fact all of the active conflict is included already because it involves Arabs as well, such as Israeli bombing of Iranian military assets in Syria and Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The only part of the conflict that is left out is the "war of words", which includes threats of extreme violence from both sides. If that is included too, it would be only a handful of articles so it hardly matters. Zero ^talk 14:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I don't have a strong feeling either way on whether Iran-Israel should be included in ARBPIA. However, the way to answer the question is to look at the Iran-Israel articles and decide whether they should have the same protections. Then, if it is decided that they need the same protections, this should be implemented by an actual modification of the definition of the scope of ARBPIA so that the coverage of Iran-Israel is explicit. Zero ^talk 01:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

Copied from my input on this at AE.

This is not the first time that the question of ARBPIA enforcement on Iranian-Israeli relations has come up. The response seems to have generally been that Iran is involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, mainly through its proxies, but that this doesn't make every edit or article related to Iran-Israel relations subject to ARBPIA DS (compare this request with this one and this one and perhaps this one). GoldenRing ( talk) 10:36, 8 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.

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

• With respect to whether the special rules for editing Israel-Palestine articles currently apply to articles about Israel and Iran, the answer is that they do not, unless a particular article also contain specific reference to the potential impact of Israel-Iranian disputes to the Israel-Palestine issue. With respect to the perhaps more interesting question of whether the Israel-Palestine rules should apply to Israel-Iran articles, my answer would be "only if there's a clear necessity to do so." The special rules that have evolved for the Israel-Palestine topic-area (like the ones for some of the American politics topic area) go well beyond even ordinary discretionary sanctions and represent a serious but necessary derogation from the usual "anyone can edit" model. Their application should not be unduly extended without a genuine showing of need. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Currently, the answer is no. All articles about the conflict between Israel and Iran are not necessarily covered under the sanctions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area. Some may be covered if they explicitly address Palestinian issues (e.g. articles that discuss Iran criticizing Israel for its actions toward Palestinians), but this would be a minority. As for whether they should be covered, I agree with NYB. We should heavily scrutinize any attempts to extend such harsh sanctions, so I would only be willing to consider that question in a full case. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• We can't extend these serious sanctions to any article that has anything to do with Israel in the manner proposed here. I recognize that Iran supports Hezbollah and that is part of ARBPIA, but it's a stretch to include everything regarding the intersections of the two countries. ARBPIA and its two siblings are specific, and I'm also unwilling to consider any extension outside having a full case. Katie ^talk 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by SchroCat at 15:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Civility in infobox discussions 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:

• SchroCat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Sandstein ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cassianto ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Sandstein notification
• Cassianto notification

Statement by SchroCat

As the committee is aware, Cassianto has been put under sanctions by Sandstein (in this edit). The wording he has put together is "you may not edit discussions about anything related to infoboxes, either as regards their use in specific articles or in the abstract". I've looked through the ArbCom decision and I cannot see any restriction in the DS that stops involvement in a discussion "in the abstract"; this means that Cassianto is unable even mention IBs in any forum, or even to vote in the Wikidata RfC.

There is no part of the ArbCom ruling or in DS that justifies the addition of the words "or in the abstract". This additional restriction steps over what was voted upon by the committee and clarification is needed to establish that this is beyond the scope of the probation. – SchroCat ( talk) 15:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• As I am asking for clarification, rather than appealing anything, this seems an unnecessarily bureaucratic way to avoid looking into another flaw in the way this case has run, but so be it. - SchroCat ( talk) 16:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• BU Rob13: nope. I've made it very clear that I am asking for clarification. This is the second time that I have seen wiki-lawyering by the committee to avoid admitting there is fault, and it is an unedifying spectacle. Unfortunately it's not really a great surprise either. Now: can you provide clarification as to whether "or in the abstract" is beyond the scope of the DS or the ruling? Once we get to that point, Cassianto will then be able to appeal against the additional unwarranted wording. - SchroCat ( talk) 17:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

How big of you Sandstein. Burob, I said before you should have recused from this case, considering your previous actions at an idiotbox discussion and an FAC: you were disruptive then, and your views are obviously affecting your decision making process here. Mind you, given the response at the last discussion where the committee deciding evasion pointy near-trolling comments were the order of the day, I remain unsurprised that you couldn't actually arbitrate your way out of a wet paper bag. - SchroCat ( talk) 17:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• And while you're all fucking about wasting time looking through Cassianto's history, did you not think it worth to spin through the thread? How about an editor re-opening a discussion less than 24 hours after another discussion had been closed, then adding the box back after 11 days, while the RfC is still open? Excellent news that ArbCom managed to "sort" all that messy IB nonsense out then. Good work: give yourselves a big pat on the back for a job well done complete fuck up that missed the point and has no effect. More and more proof (not that this was needed) that this case wasn't about "sorting out" the IB question, just in punishing Cassianto. If the (linked) re-litigating and edit warring had been to remove the box, rather than force it back in, all hell would have broken out and it would have been ANI, blocks or ArbCom to ensure punishment was meted out. - SchroCat ( talk) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

As BU Rob13 notes below, only the sanctioned users themselves may appeal a discretionary sanction. Sandstein 16:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If anybody cares, a previous appeal by Cassianto at AN was rejected, and I have now noticed a recent topic ban violation by Cassianto, and blocked them in response. Sandstein 17:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Cassianto

Query by Iridescent

BU Rob13, where are you getting Cassianto will need to be the one to bring any appeal from? This is a clarification request, not an appeal; the motion you're presumably citing says that only the sanctioned party can appeal a sanction, but there's nothing in either the motion or WP:ARBPOL to say that a third party can't query Arbcom as to whether a particular action taken at WP:AE is in line with what the committee intended when a sanction was issued. Asking "Hey, Arbcom, what did you actually mean when you said this?" is exactly what this particular board is for. This is "Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment", not "Arbitration/Appeals", and SchroCat's query is fairly explicitly a request for clarification, not a request for amendment. ‑  Iridescent 2 16:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

As a clarification, the case allows for "standard discretionary sanctions", which are "broadly construed". Discussions of infoboxes "in the abstract" seem to fit in this. I also remind SchroCat that Comments that are uncivil or intended to provoke a negative reaction are unhelpful.

As a straight appeal, I don't see the value in preventing Cassianto from discussing infoboxes outside of article or talk space. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr rnddude

Just so we're clear: this is the edit Cassianto has received a block for. Going to a neutral third party admin for assistance (specifically one that came in to save the day after the shitshow that was the last ARCA) in response to this bit of editing. There's a big DS notice when you edit the article, and there's a short instructional note to "PLEASE DO NOT UNCOLLAPSE THE INFOBOX WITHOUT SEEKING A CONSENSUS FIRST ON THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE" (the allcaps, is not mine, that's actually in the article). Their justification for ignoring the notices? "... I thought that it [the collapsed infobox] was quite useless". *sigh*, directly, the intervention of ArbCom here has been a failure in what it tried to achieve, and a success in what its proponents wanted to achieve. That is, you failed to even lessen the issue, but succeeded in kicking Cassianto to the ground. Mr rnddude ( talk) 22:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: No, I'm not asking for the block or TBAN to be removed. No, I am not adding to an appeal. No, I'm not even addressing the ARCA. I'm dropping you the exact edits that have led to this here. You work out if your intervention looks successful to anyone not interested in punishing Cass. For me the answer is: No. Mr rnddude ( talk) 22:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

I think many of you will know my strongly pro-infobox views, but I have had a good relationship with Cassianto since he started editing, and like Brad, I'd love to find ways to have him return to making his prolific contributions without running into conflict over what is really an unimportant issue when viewed dispassionately. The collapsed infobox that sparked this off was a hard-fought compromise that both sides of the infobox dispute could live with. Neither side saw it as ideal, but both agreed that it would be acceptable. That explains the ALL-CAPS notice within a comment, asking that the box not be uncollapsed. It is delicate compromises like these that I had hoped the ArbCom decisions would help stabilise. Nevertheless, I think that anyone could appreciate that Cassianto might well be justified in being upset by the change to the infobox.

I believe the purpose of the ArbCom remedy was to keep Cassianto out of further on-wiki conflict concerning infoboxes. Its intent was laudable, but its effect was also to muzzle him from reporting what he must have seen as a flagrant breach of the circumscribed editing environment now in place around infoboxes. Instead of tackling the editor who caused him upset, he went to Bishonen to seek assistance. Lots of editors do, and for good reason; you usually get a sensible, humane resolution to your concerns. It's much better than ANI for any reasonable editor. The result is that he's blocked for a week. I have to ask, was that really the intention of ArbCom when they placed his restriction?

I've already suggested to Sandstein that I'll happily listen to Cassianto off-wiki if he has concerns in future, and I'll do my best to help him resolve them. Naturally, Sandstein only sees that an attempt on my part to "circumvent the ban", but I suppose I was foolish to expect anything else. Hopefully, with good will all-around (and just a bit less process-wonkery), we can get Cassianto back to contributing productively soon. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

May we have something more clearly worded? How about a list of where an editor can & can't post or edit about infoboxes. GoodDay ( talk) 22:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If this includes not being able to contact administrators about infobox concerns, then that's rather harsh, IMHO. GoodDay ( talk) 23:49, 17 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.

Civility in infobox discussions: Clerk notes

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

• Because the ARCA was closed a bit soon, I am reopening the ARCA now for 36 hours, after which the ARCA will not be reopened. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I hate to focus on procedural issues, but Cassianto will need to be the one to bring any appeal. Other editors cannot appeal on his behalf. If he notes here that he wants this to be his appeal, then we can do that to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, but otherwise, this will need to be closed without Committee comment. This is actually important because, if we were to decline an appeal, Cassianto would be barred from raising the appeal at AN or AE. He must be the one to choose if he wants to raise the issue here so he can decide if he wants to forego appeals elsewhere. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 16:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Saying "I'm asking for clarification that this sanction is impermissible under the arbitration remedy" is equivalent to saying "I'm appealing". ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 17:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Any discussion about infoboxes is included in the discretionary sanctions. Nothing restricts the remedy to just discussions about a specific infobox. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 17:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @ SchroCat: The discretionary sanctions were how we dealt with the issues in this topic area. Where did you give that editor a DS notice? Where did you file a report at AE? ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 18:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @ GoodDay: For a topic banned editor, that list consists of all pages on-wiki. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 23:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It does include contacting administrators about the topic area, and that is harsh. Topic bans are usually placed due to severe disruption that could not be curbed with lesser sanctions. They are an attempt to avoid a block by removing the editor from a topic area completely. It’s important to note the years of conflict here, as well as the attempt to restrict Cassianto in a much lesser way. He did not abide by that restriction, leading to a topic ban that removes him from the topic of infoboxes entirely. I hope that he will be able to return to that area soon, but he’ll first need to convince admins that he’s able to abide by his lesser ArbCom restriction. The current topic ban violations are not doing a great job of showing that. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 12:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• I understand the concern that this "clarification request" actually serves as an appeal by someone other than the sanctioned editor. Such disguised appeals by others are usually disallowed, partly because they may be a poor use of time if the sanctioned editor doesn't actually wish to appeal, and partly because the request may not put the sanctioned editor's best foot forward. Having said that, in this instance the dispute remains an open sore in the community and there can be little doubt of Cassianto's point of view, so I'll address the merits. Remedy 2 in the Civility in infobox discussions decision provides: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. (emphasis added). This is very broadly worded and I don't see anything to prevent an admin, in a proper case, from barring an editor from discussing infoboxes abstractly as well as specifically. Whether imposing that broad a topic-ban on Cassianto and blocking him under it were proportionate is a different question not currently before us. I will add this: it is sad when a quality content-creator stops contributing content, voluntarily or involuntarily, over a relatively peripheral issue such as infoboxes. I wish I had a suggestion for steering Cassianto away from the point that, according to the infobox information in the box on the top of his talkpage, he says he has reached. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• I disagree with the notion that infoboxes themselves are steering away content-creators from contributing content; my understanding of the frustration, from a wider perspective that I believe has been implied by myself and others in the past, is that for these editors, when they try to calmly explain their editorial viewpoint in regards to content, frequently they get non-argument responses that soon turns into accusations of biting and ownership on their part. This is incredibly restricting knowing that anything content you write can be immediately dismissed, and any attempt at a civil discourse will likely be futile as all opinions, whether or not they are valid, are presumably treated equally. While in principle, all editors should be treated equally across the project, but I have a strong feeling that sometimes we are giving far too much leniency to supposedly new editors without considering whether or not they are/were really here to become legitimate contributors, or do not consistently reprimand editors who do not communicate properly in the acceptable standards of this community. I am not dismissing that being uncivil and overprotective of certain articles is not an serious issue for some of these seasoned content-creators, but I think it should be highlighted that one of the key reasons in my opinion that pushed these editors to these behaviours is the declining mutual respect between parties and declining notion of common sense and decency in these interactions.
  Back to the clarification request, I will echo the thoughts expressed by RexxS; imposing the discretionary sanction in this case was perfectly fine as it was what was authorised by the remedy, and the interpretation was within the scope in the broad sense I suppose (even though I do not support this particular interpretation as proportionate, but like Newyorkbrad said this is for another discussion). However, I believe the purpose of any remedies is to seek improvement, and I thought Cassianto's post to Bishonen's talk page was certainly an improvement on their approach to the infoboxes issue. While it may have been a violation of the wording described in the topic ban that was imposed, I did not think the block was necessarily constructive. Alex Shih ( talk) 04:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• As above - yes, you can ask for clarification of another editor's sanctions here, though it is kind of confusing and unnecessary given the now-realized possibility that they will appeal in their own right. On the substance, yep, you can get topic-banned from infoboxes "in the abstract" (read: "broadly construed") if you're already restricted in the input you can offer and then it turns out you're unwilling to work within those limits. As is often the case with AE sanctions and their follow-up blocks, I don't know that I would have personally implemented these, but that doesn't really matter; they're within the normal range of administrative discretion. I hate to say it, because it sounds so procedure-y, but I think more commentary than that from arbcom would start to risk crossing the streams with the still-outstanding AE appeal, which may yet end up back here. (But, you know, hopefully not. Listen to long-term sane people like RexxS and Bishonen.) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For all those who are always suspecting arbcom of various elaborate conspiracies: as usual, poor coordination is more likely than successful conspiracy execution. This was closed and reopened because another arb noted, correctly, that the answer was clear and that having this open was potentially a distraction from the AE thread, and asked the clerks to archive it. My inattentive self then came along and made the highly original observation above that the answer is clear and that having this open is potentially a distraction from the AE thread. The case clerk came along a bit later and closed it, as requested. Trying to read too much into who closed it or when isn't going to get you anything except a headache. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 09:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes the topic ban is within the scope of the remedy. That's not to say it was justified in this instance - that's a matter for the admin who imposed it, and for the current AE appeal. In passing, agree this ARCA seems to have closed a bit early. Pleased it was reopened and apologies to a)the clerks for the contrary directions they received, and b) to any editor who wanted to comment and didn't previously get the chance. The outcome seems pretty clear given the comments already received in this section, but more input welcome as always. -- Euryalus ( talk) 07:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

---

---

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)

Anyone intends on explaining how this template quelled the disruption--that doesn't exist-- on the Jordan article? Or does anyone intends to repeat the same argument over and over? Makeandtoss ( talk) 15:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN

@ Newyorkbrad: Please see this discussion. You'll see that other admins including myself were sympathetic to your position but Arbcom as a whole was not. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Raymond3023

I had expected removal of ECP from an article. I was told that "you cannot request removal except by action/motion of the Arbitration Committee itself". [13] Now I am not sure how correct that was after reading comments here. [14] Raymond3023 ( talk) 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks BU Rob13. Raymond3023 ( talk) 17:57, 26 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)
  • @ Newyorkbrad: The ECP sanction actually uses "reasonably construed" instead of "broadly construed", so it's already narrower than the discretionary sanctions in general. An editor who disagrees with a specific placement of ECP can appeal that at AE or ARCA. I would be of the opinion that a country not directly involved in the dispute probably isn't reasonably construed to be in the topic area, although it would be broadly construed to be. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 12:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @ Makeandtoss: We are not opining on whether Jordan falls into the Arab-Israeli topic area "reasonably construed", which is what's needed for the 500/30 restriction to apply. That's a matter for the community to decide at AE, if someone appeals any sanction there. Having said that, ECP isn't currently on Jordan, so IPs/new editors can edit it. There's not really anything current to appeal, and I'm not quite sure why Primefac placed that notice on Jordan if it isn't actually under 500/30 protection. @ Raymond3023: Any editor can appeal a page protection placed as an arbitration enforcement action at WP:AE or to the enforcing administrator. Such an appeal would presumably only be successful if the community felt the enforcing administrator erred in deciding that the article can be "reasonably construed" to be within the topic area. Otherwise, WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 indicates ECP should not be lifted. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 17:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with Alex Shih regarding the "right question", and I'd like to note that the question is currently being answered by the community at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Makeandtoss. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 14:57, 2 June 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)
  • Does the fact that an article falls, or might fall, into the Israeli-Palestine area mean that it's automatically covered by 30/500, or does that only apply when an admin has specifically decided to restrict a particular article? I am sure there are plenty of articles that are at least arguably or borderline within the topic-area, which newer editors are editing without any problem, and on which there has never been any editorial conflict nor is there any anticipation of one developing; I'd be reluctant to conclude that all those edits are formally forbidden. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Decline. -- Euryalus ( talk) 12:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Decline. I believe in the "anyone can edit" model but these sanctions have quelled a huge part of the disruption around this area. Katie ^talk 16:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• This request wasn't articulated clearly; it appears to have been filed after discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Jordan that concluded with a frustrated remark by Makeandtoss. I fairly sympathise with the sentiments expressed (Disclosure: I recall having interacted with this editor once at one of their Good Article review request); As BU Rob13 have stated above, this isn't the correct venue, nor are you asking the right questions. The clause will not be amended, as it is working as designed, so personally I would withdraw this request.
  The questions you need to be asking the community is whether or not Jordan can be "reasonably construed" to be within the Arab-Israeli topic area, as Rob have pointed out. And if you believe it cannot be construed as such, you should be filing an appeal request at WP:AE using Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal, I believe. Also, administrators are not required to place page restrictions on articles that may be related to arbitration decisions. So the other question that you may want to ask the community is that whether or not Jordan has been subject to sufficient amount of disruptive editing that prompted an administrator to act within their discretion to place a page restriction.
  Currently the page notice situation at Jordan is quite confusing to me; as Rob have also pointed out above, the article on Jordan isn't currently under extended confirmed protection, nor has it been since July 2017. Therefore, I think it's fair for you to ask Primefac to elaborate (beyond this reply) on why he felt it was necessary to place the page notice on April 2018 when he is not required to do so, although it is within his discretion; and whether or not placing the notice without actually applying extended-confirmed protection on the article is a good practice; to me this could be perceived unfairly by new/IP editors, who are capable of editing the page, but if they do edit the page, they can be subject to summary sanctions. I think this is the sentiment that Makeandtoss was trying to express. I suspect if this was done intentionally, the page notice was added to serve as deterrent for potential disruption, but was not protected as there wasn't recent disruptive editing. But I am not sure if this was the original intention of how the page notice was intended due to the way it is being phrased. Alex Shih ( talk) 06:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• I hate the whole 30/500 thing. I hate the fact that it worked well enough to be promoted from temporary clumsy desperation hack originally applied to a single article in an unrelated topic area to actual baked-in user-group implementation. I hate the fact that its effectiveness relies heavily on there being relatively little room for discretion on when an admin should use it. All that being said.... the method has, apparently, worked. And the proposed change would make it much less effective and invite the same sorts of tendentious arguments that the sanction was designed to stop. So no, I don't think that would be a good idea. As for the details of the implementation (re NYB above) - to my understanding the common practice has been that non-ECP editors can't edit on the topic, but the whole enforcement infrastructure with the templates and page protections and whatnot only gets used on pages that are primarily about the topic, not ones with only a passing reference to the Palestine/Israel conflict. Obviously there's something of a gray area there despite efforts to make the sanction easy to use, but the specific question of whether the Jordan article should be ECP'd is a better fit for AE, where admins who regularly work in the area can weigh in. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

---

---

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/?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)
• JosephusOfJerusalem ( 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)
• MBlaze Lightning ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TripWire ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raymond3023 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NadirAli ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Capitals00 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mar4d ( 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/?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. [15] Since that Arbcom action, I have made barely a couple of edits in relation to these subjects, [16] and my last edit to this subject is from 11 April, [17] 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. [18] 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", [19] "fully support what Golden Ring... get my support", [20] "I endorse GoldenRing... I agree" [21] 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)

@ Ivanvector: 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 [22] 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", [23] 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". [24] 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 [25] and WP:AN, [26] 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. [27] An admonishment is clearly warranted. Admonishment will further help improve the tradition of handling these issues. MapSGV ( talk) 15:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• @ BU Rob13: 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.

@ Newyorkbrad: 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. [28] [29] [30] — MapSGV ( talk) 08:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• @ Vanamonde93: 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.

@ JosephusOfJerusalem: 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, [31] which was referred as "WP:FAKE" by TripWire [32] and "complete mockery" by Mar4d [33] 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, [34] by highlighting his career ("1971 to 1973") which was mainly about Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and concerned destruction at PAF Base Nur Khan. [35] The base had also played a role in Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, [36] and Mar4d edited about the base at least two times. [37] [38] That's a topic ban violation. — MapSGV ( talk) 13:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• @ GoldenRing: 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? [39] 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? [40] [41] 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 [42] [43] 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. [44] 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". [45] He never notified me [46] 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. [47]

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)

@ Premeditated Chaos: Pointing out confirmed sock puppetry of a user who is falsely accusing you of sock puppetry for 3 months [48] 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. [49] 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)

@ Worm That Turned: 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)

@ Worm That Turned: 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)

@ Worm That Turned: 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 [50] and getting answers on talk page discussion. [51] He went to continue the harassment by opening an ANI [52] that he opened without notifying and grossly misrepresented statements of both CheckUser and SPI clerk [53] and made personal attacks and after that ANI thread was closed [54] he still continued the harassment even in unrelated venues. [55] 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, @ 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)

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)

@ BU Rob13: 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#aware.aware 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)

@ Newyorkbrad: 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)

@ Newyorkbrad and BU Rob13: 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)

@ Opabinia regalis: 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)

• @ BU Rob13: 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: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]
• Accusations of incompetence: [61]
• Wikilawyering / misrepresentation of policy (to put it kindly): [62] (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 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)
• 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. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• It looks like at least two of the arbitrators ( Alex Shih & Newyorkbrad) 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. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• @ Ivanvector: 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. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• @ BU Rob13: 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. :) Sheriff | ☎ 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. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• @ BU Rob13: I have come thus far, I will stay in now. I will embrace whatever comes. Sheriff | ☎ 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Role of administrators, 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. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• @ Opabinia regalis: 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. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Arbitrators (@ RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned, Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Doug Weller, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, Euryalus, and Newyorkbrad:), 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)? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 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 [63] 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 [64] [65] and made personal attacks, threats [66] [67] and accusations. [68] 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. [69] 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)

MapSGV 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 ( [70] [71] [72]) "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, [73] [74] [75] 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" [76] [77], 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, [78] and civility restriction was removed. [79] 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. [80] 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 [81] against users who have history [82] on that article even before they themself were ever active there. [83] 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; 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. [84] 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)

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, [85] seeking sanctions for legit reasons could be grounds enough for imposing an indefinite topic ban. Regarding my participation in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00/Archive#30_April_2018, 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)#Pakistani_casualties), 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, [86] 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 focus entirely on mainspace editing during this period. Lastly, I'd like to thank the committee for considering my appeal. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 13:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• BU Rob13: 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, [87] 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, [88] 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.— TripWire ^{________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.— TripWire ^{________ʞlɐʇ} 12:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

MapSGV, 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).— TripWire ^{________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.— TripWire ^{________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: DarSahab ( talk · contribs). 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)

• @ Desmay: 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 [89]. Their evidence? Claims that I filed a frivolous AE (which had in fact resulted in a warning [90]) against an editor who was duly topic banned for the same behavior a brief while later [91]. 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)

• @ BU Rob13: "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: @ Ivanvector: 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)
• @ Newyorkbrad: 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: @ Seraphimblade: your views would be welcome. Vanamonde ( talk) 06:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• MapSGV's last statement [92] 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)
• @ Opabinia regalis: 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 Wikiexplorer13. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 15:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: 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: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98], 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 power~enwiki, 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? Bbb23?) 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 SheriffIsInTown 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. [99]. 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 | talk 16:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC).

• @ Newyorkbrad: 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 | 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. DarSahabshall probably consider lucky enough to have escaped a TBan.Going by his net contributions, umm........
• @ BU Rob13:--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)
• @ Desmay--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, [100] TripWire, [101] Mar4d, [102], Raymond3023 [103], NadirAli [104], 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. Razer( 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 {{Ds/alert}}. But in practice many of the sanctioned editors have received additional reminders too. GoldenRing 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 Adamgerber80, EkoGraf, DBigXray etc.

As far as this appeal is concerned, it makes sense to treat the appeals from MapSGV and TripWire 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)

1990'sguy 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. RegentsPark'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

• 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.

-- regentspark ( comment) 22:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• @ BU Rob13 and Premeditated Chaos: 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 ( [105] and the filing of this appeal [106], 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, [107] [108] [109] 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, [110] [111] 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.

BU Rob13 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, [112] [113] [114] [115] incivility, [116] [117] [118] [119] and advocated WP:SPS. [120] I see no reason why you left out Adamgerber80 who misrepresented sources, [121] and edit warred on Sindhudesh [122] [123] [124] (3 reverts), Indian Line of Control strike, [125] [126] India–Pakistan border skirmishes, [127] [128] 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 [129] [130] 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'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 Kautilya3 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. ( [131], undoing incorrect closure, talk page discussion). 1990'sguy, 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.

@ BU Rob13: 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 [132] [133] [134] [135] and his breaking of the aspersions restrictions which he is under. [136] [137] [138] GoldenRing did not even consider all that but somehow found this conduct from JosephusOfJerusalem [139] [140] 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. [141] [142] [143] 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." [144]? 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 [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] 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 [150] 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 [151] which he is which he is noted to have violated. [152] 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 [153] 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, [154] 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)

@ BU Rob13: 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 "The trade-off, really, is between procedural punctiliousness toward individual editors versus the best outcome for the encyclopedia-building process as a whole." 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 Sandstein's original sanction there was warranted. (_{Note: In the interest of unnecessary notifications, I've only pinged those not already participating this discussion.}) — 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 Newyorkbrad'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", [155] 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 [156] and implemented, [157] it is evident that I never got the opportunity to defend myself as my contribution history shows. [158] 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. [159] 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. [160] [161] Maybe clerks can do the needful? Thanks. D4iNa4 ( talk) 16:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• @ BU Rob13: 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, [162] [163] [164] 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,[ [165] however GoldenRing suddenly added my name without providing any reason to topic ban me neither any evidence was provided to him. [166]

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 [167] 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. [168] 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 [169] [170] 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

Vanamonde93, 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 Ealdgyth 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. [171] -- 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 ( Owais Khursheed) [172] that has been re-activated after more than 6 months and his last edit 6 months ago was to allege MBlaze Lightning and Kautilya3 of being sock puppets of each other, though the SPI was closed by Alex Shih as "insufficient evidence". [173]

@ Seraphimblade, GoldenRing, and Doug Weller: I must note that something is very fishy going on here. Also linking an ARE report that concerned NadirAli, highlighting the alleged meatpuppetry. [174] -- RaviC ( talk) 15:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And now NadirAli (who I have already mentioned) has violated his topic ban by misrepresenting the edits on Kashmiris, from where he is topic banned. [175] RaviC ( talk) 15:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@ NadirAli: 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. [176] 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 [177], 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, [178] [179] [180] 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", [181] which is a clear misrepresentation of the credibility of his block that was imposed because he himself violated 2RR. TripWire has surprisingly omitted the ARE report from July 2016, where I had participated as well. [182] 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 [183] and topic banned, which he later appealed. [184] He claimed here that "I had broken no 3RR", [185] while technically true, the statement is unconvincing to defend his record, given his 3 reverts on Princely state well under an hour. [186] [187] [188]

3) Mar4d: his actions include source misrepresentation, [189] edit warring on 2016 Indian Line of Control strike [190] while misrepresenting established consensus as no consensus, [191] harassment of MapSGV, [192] [193] [194] poor AfD nomination [195] and then he went on to tag the article with CSD A10 while the AfD was still running, [196] 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 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. Bharatiya 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, [197] [198] [199] for restoring pseudohistory/fringe content that never had consensus. [200] 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 [201] 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, [202] [203] but they deny it, [204] [205] just like they used to deny copyright violations in the disputes that has led to topic bans. [206] @ GoldenRing: 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. [207] 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

• @ 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)
  • 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. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 12:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @ Beyond My Ken: Also, appeals are submitted as amendment requests. ~ Rob₁₃ ^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. ~ Rob₁₃ ^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. @ MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00, TripWire, JosephusOfJerusalem, Mar4d, SheriffIsInTown, D4iNa4, Raymond3023, and Sdmarathe: 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). ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 07:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC) @ Capitals00 and TripWire: Messed up the pings to you, so re-pinging. ~ Rob₁₃ ^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 GoldenRing. 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 MapSGV 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.) ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 14:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @ SheriffIsInTown: 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). ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 15:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @ GoldenRing: I would very much like to see diffs specifically related to MapSGV. I don't think they're as necessary for others, though I may come back and ask for diffs of others later on. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 21:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline all but MapSVG. For the other editors, I see no significant overstepping of administrative discretion. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 12:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @ GoldenRing: 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. ~ Rob₁₃ ^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—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 Euryalus on moving this forward and hear this as a collective appeal. I also want to note that as far I am aware, GoldenRing'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 Doug Weller. 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • GoldenRing, 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. ♠ PMC♠ (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)
• @ GoldenRing: 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. Worm^TT( talk) 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. Worm^TT( talk) 10:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  MapSGV, 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. Worm^TT( talk) 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.

Doug Weller 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. `~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 14:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently weighing whether I still hold this stance after the diffs from GoldenRing. 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. ~ Rob₁₃ ^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)

2. 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. Worm^TT( talk) 10:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
4. The later evidence presented by GoldenRing shows a need to oppose this now. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 12:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
5. After further consideration, moved here. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 01:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

---