Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Arbitration enforcement request referral: Indian military history none (orig. case) 8 May 2025
Motion name Date posted
Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2 13 May 2025
Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Arbitration enforcement request referral: Indian military history

[edit]

Initiated by Tamzin at 14:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Arbitration enforcement thread
Dympies
Reason for referral
AE has in the past three months considered at least 13 threads regarding pre-Raj Indian military history, often with caste implications, featuring the same revolving cast of participants. These have become increasingly difficult to resolve.

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Tamzin

[edit]

The military history of pre-Raj India has increasingly become a flashpoint for disputes on-wiki, correlating with contemporary Indian political disputes. This has come in two principal varieties: the historiography of established figures like Sambhaji and Shivaji, and military actions of questionable historicity such as the alleged Sikh–Wahhabi War. In many cases this correlates with caste, religious, and ethnic tensions, especially in disputes over the Deccan wars. Below I have included the 13 (that I could find) threads in the past 3 months concerning this topic area.

I have selected parties (whose names are boldfaced in the table) based on having been sanctioned or warned or having participated in multiple threads in a potentially partisan manner. That's not to say that I think all of these editors have necessarily engaged in misconduct. Nor is it to say that no other parties should be added; Srijanx22 and LeónGonsalvesofGoa both come to mind as potential parties.

Date Subject Filer Other involved participants Closing/imposing admin Outcome
2025-02-09 Ekdalian Chronos.Zx [NXcrypto] Orientls, LukeEmily, Capitals00 Seraphimblade Ekdalian warned for PAs and canvassing
2025-02-10 PerspicazHistorian Dympies Vanamonde Guerillero PerspicazHistorian indeffed as a non-AE action
2025-03-01 Adamantine123 Capitals00 Vanamonde, Rosguill Tamzin Adamantine123 indeffed as a non-AE action
2025-03-03 Big fan of the Mughals AlvaKedak none Abecedare Big fan of the Mughals indeffed as a non-AE action
2025-03-04 RevolutionaryPatriot Capitals00 none Valereee RevolutionaryPatriot p-blocked from mainspace as a non-AE action (since unblocked)
2025-03-28 Hu741f4 AlvaKedak Koshuri Sultan, Capitals00 Valereee Hu741f4, AlvaKedak, and Koshuri Sultan advised to go slow in CTOPs
2025-04-02 AlvaKedak Extorc none Tamzin No action
2025-04-05 Akshaypatill Abhishek0831996 Koshuri Sultan, LukeEmily, Fowler&fowler, Ratnahastin Rosguill Logged warnings: Akshaypatill for edit warring; Capitals00, Abhishek0831996 and Koshuri Sultan for failure to AGF; Abhishek0831996 furthermore for frivolous complaints and word limit violations.
2025-04-08 ImperialAficionado Mr.Hanes AlvaKedak, Vanamonde, Extorc SilverLocust Archived unclosed after subject's retirement
2025-04-20 Dympies Malik Al-Hind Chronos.Zx [NXcrypto], Ekdalian, Sitush, LeónGonsalvesofGoa, HerakliosJulianus, IAmAtHome, LukeEmily, Capitals00 Valereee Procedural close to allow refiling by a non-sock
2025-05-08 Dympies unilateral sanction Bishonen IPA TBAN for Dympies
2025-05-08 Dympies Capitals00 AlvaKedak, Ivanvector, AirshipJungleman29, Kowal2701, Ekdalian, Akshaypatill, Abecedare Tamzin This ARCA referral
2025-05-08 PadFoot2008 Srimant ROSHAN Kowal2701, Shakakarta, Dympies, AlvaKedak, Mithilanchalputra7 Tamzin PadFoot2008 TBANned
2025-05-08 Srijanx22 HerakliosJulianus Maniacal ! Paradoxical Tamzin Maniacal ! Paradoxical TBANned
Parties' sanction history (excluding sanctions mentioned above)

I'll note that three of the proposed parties are already TBANned. My reading of WP:BANEX #2 would include this process, but to avoid any doubt, I have included an exception in PadFoot and Maniacal's TBANs. It may be worth doing the same for Dympies.

I've also added as parties three admins whose comments, at the most recent AE thread and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoonadue/Archive § 19 April 2025, were key in making the case that the status quo in this topic area is untenable. Of particular salience is Ivanvector's comment:

Block everyone. There is no point wasting our time reviewing the complaints and counter-complaints here because no matter what happens, someone will file a new report in a few days with slightly different complaints or a slightly different group of editors involved, or maybe they'll try SPI again instead, or they'll try some other board to eliminate their enemies. It just goes on and on forever here. There comes a point, and in this topic the point is long since past, where we need to stop letting ourselves be used for these games and just start kicking the tendentious editors out. Blocking everyone involved is the best way forward for Wikipedia.

Finally, a courtesy ping to all other participants in the AE thread: @AirshipJungleman29, Kowal2701, Asilvering, Valereee, Black Kite, Voorts, and Rosguill. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian: You are included because you were warned in [1] and participated in [2] and [3]. Inclusion in the party list does not mean you necessarily did something wrong (beyond what you've already been warned for), just that you have been involved in the dispute that is being referred here. If you would like to comment (which you don't have to), it's less a matter of defending yourself, and more a matter of your thoughts on the state of the topic area. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've received two questions about this from proposed parties about adding more, I would just like to reiterate/clarify: This is not a definitive list of proposed parties. These are the people who, in the course of my looking through the 13 AE threads, came up as key players. If anyone, party or non-party, wishes to propose more parties, they should do so in a statement below, listing usernames and what makes the user a key player in these related disputes (e.g. having been warned or sanctioned at AN/I, having been blocked for misconduct in the topic area, having participated disruptively at AfD or SPI, etc.). Clerks can add further parties as appropriate. Sorting out the various proposed parties will no doubt be a pain for the arbs, but, that's what they get paid the big bucks for.[Joke] -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: To answer what could ArbCom do here that AE isn't empowered to do or can't reach a conclusion on?: Conduct an ArbCom case. AE is not well-equipped to hear complex multi-party cases involving years of evidence, some of it private. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

[edit]

Yes a new craze of Maratha history has emerged among the masses in the recent months since the release of the historically misleading movie, Chhaava, however, admins will have to be cautious about judging the edits if they represent the history correctly or if they are simply ideologically motivated.

Some concerns were raised about poor AfD performance with regards to some of the users, but this is not the first time we have faced this problem. Mass topic bans over AfDs have happened before too on ANI and some of the users (including myself) had participated there.[4]

That said, I don't see what is there for Arbcom to suggest here. They have imposed AC/DS regime, which is more than enough to deal with any of these issues. Capitals00 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: You have totally got it all wrong. Bensebgli had emailed me, but I responded to him on his own talk page to better get himself unblocked first before pursuing any complaints about sockpuppetry. Have you checked this message? You are also wrong with claiming Bensebgli was inactive for 2 years because he is largely active across multiple Wikimedia projects.[5] Also, see his activity with his account Rasteem. He was an opponent of Dympies since last year.[6] He made nearly 6k edits with it in less than a year and was frequently editing until the day you blocked it.[7] Capitals00 (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dympies

[edit]

Statement by AlvaKedak

[edit]

I would like to second Vanamonde93's comment. It's a no-brainer that this topic area has been overrun by two or three groups of editors, each trying to take down members of the opposing sides. The exact identities of the editors involved in this Tripartite struggle aren't clear, but if I had to guess, there may be around 35–40 editors across all groups. These alone speaks volumes: 1 2 3 4 5. It is very concerning that they can easily sway any consensus process through these vague waves. I would like to appreciate Tamzin, Rosguill, and Valreee for actively monitoring AE cases related to IPA over the past three months. I've seen many ANI/AE threads where these editors push "block proposals" as a pattern, and then the same groups start voting. Given the ongoing warring between multiple factions, I truly believe an ArbCom case is warranted. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ekdalian

[edit]

Honestly speaking, I don't understand why my name figures in the list! I have neither filed any report at WP:AE nor initiated any SPI in the recent past! It would be great if the filer can explain my role in this case, so that I can actually respond or defend myself. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tamzin for the clarification. I am really thankful to you for filling this report, and I sincerely believe that action will be taken against those involved in the offences clearly mentioned above by you! I had mentioned earlier about POV-pushing by Dympies both at ANI and AE, and admin Bishonen has very recently topic banned Dympies after more such evidence was presented by an uninvolved editor on her talk page! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Akshaypatill

[edit]

Looking at the AEs, ADFs and my own experience, I believe it's time for some higher authorities to have a look into the matter. The teams are out there poisoning everything. I almost have stopped making new edits to CTOP articles, as I don't see any point in it anymore, because 4-5 editors (usually, the same ones. After a while, you can almost predict who is going to comment next.) will be jumping on you one by one, till you exhaust and leave. If you persist, you will be dragged to ANI and AE, sooner or later. If you survive it somehow, you will be dragged to various admin talk pages. So, nowadays, I have limited myself to leaving my inputs and sources on talk pages, hoping someone with more time and patience than me may find it helpful someday. I am of the view that it's not enough just to sanction the problematic editors, but the articles that have suffered too need to be relieved of the damage that has been caused by the teams, by restoring it to the states before all these tag teaming stuff started. To sum up, I believe that, the circumstances warrant an in-depth investigation by ARBCOM.

CaptainEek, the scope is quite wide here, I don't see any reason for the recusal. Akshaypatill (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chronos.Zx

[edit]

I am also not sure what Arbcom should do, when we already have admin noticeboards.

There are always some controversial aspects in this area, and due to the trending subject at the time, a particular subject happens to attract more contentious editing. Weeks ago it was Maratha military history as Tamzin notes, but now it is the India-Pakistan conflict.[8] These issues flare up mainly due to real-life events. I would urge admins to be more vigilant. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HerakliosJulianus

[edit]

Statement by Maniacal ! Paradoxical

[edit]

Statement by Abhishek0831996

[edit]

Noting the recent sanctions on various involved editors, an ARBCOM case is unwarranted. The admins are completely empowered to deal with these ever present issues in the area, and so were these issues handled appropriately yesterday, if this pace keeps up, there would be no disruption in the area. Their refusal to handle things that they should be doing and seeing the disruption pile up slowly is what leads to the calls for these "mass sanctions".

I'll take a few examples, in how just a few admins willing to take action have made this area better in the last 4 days:

1) Maniacal! Paradoxical's topic ban from WP:ARBIPA on 8 May.[9]
2) Padfoot2008's topic ban from WP:ARBIPA.[10]
3) Dympies's topic ban from WP:ARBIPA on 8 May.[11]
4) Indef block on Rasteem on 6 May.[12] Rasteem was reported two times on WP:AE [13][14] and was under a 6 month topic ban from India and Pakistan for tendentious editing, blocking them as a confirmed sockpuppet of an LTA like Bensebgli has prevented further disruption that would have happened a few months down the line.
5) Shakakarta's temporary page block from Maratha Empire on 5 May.[15]

So in just the last 4 days, these sanctions were handed out, and I appreciate that. We do not need a likely trainwreck of an arbcom case with so many parties (likely few dozens), and workshops to handle something that has already been increasingly getting resolved now with the sanctions I noted above.

Rosguill's comment here sums it up. Admins need to be more active at AE, especially in light of the fact that the reports pertaining to the new Indian Pakistani conflict are already making its way there. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Koshuri Sultan

[edit]

Statement by RevolutionaryPatriot

[edit]

Statement by PadFoot2008

[edit]

Statement by Hu741f4

[edit]

Statement by Extorc

[edit]

I witnessed the exemplary clerking by Tamzin at AE and I think if admins maintain such a pace, there would be no need for an arbcom case. Today, 3 editors were sanctioned for reports that were languishing for over a month. The ARBIPA sanction regime already covers this topic area, and I don't think it would warrant a separate ARBCOM case involving so many parties for what is only a subset of the topic area that witnesses disruptive editing.|Abecedare's second approach [16] would be better suited to deal with the area. "The other approach would be to simply judge each individual report of misconduct individually, and apply (potentially boomerang) sanctions without worrying about whether sanctioning editor A indirectly "rewards" members of their rival groups, as long as the sanction is merited. That way we are not giving problematic conduct a free pass just because other editors are guilty too." >>> Extorc.talk 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel, Elli, and Aoidh: Been 5 days since this ARCA was filed, and there are no current disputes over Indian military history. This ARCA is the only venue where this issue is being discussed right now. This is apparently due to the recent spate of sanctions, which have been mentioned above. I believe Arbcom should be the last resort, and it would only waste their time if we are going to rehash the already resolved matters. >>> Extorc.talk 11:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

[edit]

Limiting the scope of this request as several arbitrators have already suggested predetermines that the case will be a failure. The conduct issues mentioned here are not limited in scope to any particular subject (many of these editors also cross into Israel-Palestine and/or other contentious topics) but at the very least the broader topic of ARBIPA should be examined. Anything less is a complete waste of time, and as I've already been mired in this for a goddamn decade, I'm not particularly interested in another weeks-long adventure in time-wasting bureaucracy. My earlier statement is withdrawn in full.

Several of the involved parties here who evidently completely lack the ability to self-reflect have suggested that there is no problem at all other than administrators being unwilling to act. End of statement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

[edit]

Tamzin, I've made an exception to Dympies' T-ban for participating in this case, so that they're on an equal footing with the other T-banned users. Bishonen | tålk 21:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

It's a systemic problem that we don't have enough admins familiar with the vast ARBIPA topic area; we have so few that even I, certainly not well read in it, have repeatedly been drawn into taking part. The shortage of knowledgeable admins is surely behind what a user below calls "their [=the admins'] refusal to handle things that they should be doing and seeing the disruption pile up slowly". I don't believe it's a question of "refusal", but of the fact that adminship unfortunately doesn't automatically confer expertise in all subjects — and even those with the IPA expertise sometimes have a Real Life. Considering this, it's a great boon that there is an actual arbitrator who knows the area. So please, CaptainEek, per Johnuniq, don't recuse. Bishonen | tålk 19:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Abecedare

[edit]

I too urge arbcom to take up this case for reasons I recently spelled out at AE, although I don't envy you the task. Two particular reasons for the arbs to take this up:

  • Handling the complaints piecemeal at AN/AE has the downside of either aiding editors get their "opponents" sanctioned even when others are acting equally badly or overlooking genuinely problematic editing because others are acting equally badly. Neither is ideal.
  • There is a stream of emailed allegations, supposedly leaked evidence, and possibly relevant CU findings that Arbcom would be better positioned to examine than admins at AN/AE. Ivanvector and I had emailed some of this to the arbcom list on around April 22 when dealing with a recent SPI report and I have been told that there is more.

Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by asilvering (non-party)

[edit]

Extremely grateful to Tamzin for doing the work of referring this. Bringing forward my comment from the most recent AE thread: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War is a prime example. It's become effectively impossible to trust most !votes in this topic area because of issues of competence, partisanship, or both. -- asilvering (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dig out some more AfDs as examples. Echoing Vanamonde93, I think the AE threads show only an iceberg's tip of the dispute. I think it is likely that involved editors may be more hesitant to bring disputes to AE than elsewhere, possibly because AE is harder to brigade, though of course that's a presumption on top of a presumption. The ANI example CoffeeCrumbs offers is a good one to demonstrate this: [17]. I closed it as it was getting out of hand and referred participants to AE; my close was objected to and the filer declined to refile at AE; and it turns out that there was indeed off-wiki co-ordination involved. -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler, I don't have an example handy for you, but I'm confident that affected AfDs, at least, have included skirmishes involving EIC troops. -- asilvering (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell, in addition to what others have already said, As with Israel-Palestine, the Wikipedia conflicts are a microcosm of real-world politics and will ebb and flow with trends that are outside of anyone's control. is true in a very general sense, but I don't really believe it to be true of the disruption in the milhist area. Sure, at one moment perhaps everyone is editing on topics more related to Shivaji, but at some other point it will be some other topic in the general area. That is, I'm not convinced the involved editors themselves are doing much ebbing and flowing, though perhaps a case will prove me wrong. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

[edit]

I urge ARBCOM to look into this. As with previous iterations of this conflict featuring massive tag-teaming and probable off-wiki coordination, there is unquestionably bad behavior that individual admins could sanction: but several of my colleagues are hesitant to do so, for not wanting to reward tag-teaming, hesitation about who is behaving worse vs who is better at gaming our system, and possibly hesitation about the blowback from other editors when sanctioning one. It is my view that a mass TBAN is going to be the minimum needed, but it is beyond the capacity of AE to determine the limits of such a sanction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking partly in response to Rosguill below, I do think the AE threads underestimate the severity of this dispute: there have been interminable SPIs, several AfDs, and some AN/ANI threads involving many of these parties: 1, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6 (noting that in the last few I'm referring to the nature of the editors' participation, rather than its existence). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to scope, I would advise against ARBIPA2. The scope of the ARBIPA CT regime is broad: but doesn't mean every dispute spans the entire CT regime, and if you did decide this is ARBIPA2, I don't see how you could prevent every extant ARBIPA dispute from being thrown in your lap at once. Insofar as there is a single dispute here, it is a single dispute by way of the people involved: but we have moved away from naming cases after editors. There are a few strands to this set of disputes: 1) Military history of the Marathas 2) Military history of the Sikhs, 3) History (not just military) of the Rajputs, 4) Status (upper-caste or not) of many caste groups, and 5) Sundry military history. I confess I'm still trying to understand why a small group of editors has been so noisy across both the military history areas and the caste areas, but such is the way of things. If you want to encompass all of it - and I would prefer that you did - I would suggest a scope of "Caste and Indian military history" - that is, conduct related to either of those would be in scope. If that is still too sweeping, "Indian military history" would still address most of the behavior brought here. You may wish to add a time limitation (pre-1900, perhaps) to exclude the Indo-Pakistani conflict: this has flared up over the last couple of weeks, but features widespread conflict between large numbers of editors, rather the than trench warfare between small groups that precipitated this case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs (non-party)

[edit]

I also urge ARBCOM to dig into this issue, as I believe the community is at its wits' end when trying to deal with this area. My feelings are similar to Ivanvector's, and many ANI discussions about the issues become too complex quickly with dueling charges and accusations, and it's causing experienced editors and admins to nope out of the whole thing, understandably. Discussions like this [18] have shown little holes of revolving any of the fundamental issues with warring cliques. The escalation of conflict in that part of the world is likely to make things worse here, not better. ARBCOM is the only party with the jurisdiction to make sense of this mess. While I am not a named party, in the interest of full disclosure, I've been involved in a few of the conversations about these issues. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that the dueling charges of off-Wiki coordination that have popped up a few times create additional complications that the community would have issues dealing with by normal means. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also ask CaptainEek not to recuse unless there's a compelling argument to recuse presented, beyond a philosophical position. Losing an arbitrator with a direct understanding of what's going on from a complicated, sprawling case as merely a precautionary measure would not serve the interests of the community. If a specific issue does come up, given the scope of the case and the large number of involved parties, I would also urge CaptainEek to first consider a partial recusal from a specific part of the case. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

[edit]

I think I may be the one somewhat-dissenting admin in that I'm not sure we're really at wit's end at AE, just a bit backlogged. Several parties have received topic-bans today alone, and we've also handed out several warnings that should make further enforcement much more straightforward. Ironically, Tamzin herself has to a point resolved our backlog today by actioning several threads that had been languishing. Speaking for myself, I am hesitant to take action in many cases because I am generally hesitant to take action unilaterally except when there is a clear-as-day policy violation. I think it's easy to get tunnel-vision when reviewing POV wars and greatly appreciate other admins' input on AE cases. Low traffic from admins and making space for right of rebuttal means that these discussions can end up hanging open even when we have a pretty clear outcome, but I don't know that the situation is quite like the muddied-waters mutual breakdown of good faith editing or that we have evidence of off-wiki coordination such that have required other ARBCOM cases.

As a final note, I have been less aware of the issue concerning vote-brigading at AfD as described by asilvering, as this has not been a central component of cases I've examined at AE, and thus may be underestimating the severity over there. If possible, I think the opinion of admins that are heavily active in closing AfDs would be appreciated. signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To HJ Mitchell's question, I think ARBCOM is better positioned to examine concerns of !vote-brigading at AfD (and if pertinent, RM, RfCs, etc.) and similar malfeasance. signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

[edit]

@CaptainEek: Please do not recuse unless someone provides credible evidence of a "significant conflict of interest" per WP:RECUSAL. I quickly reviewed comments with your user name at Talk:Sambhaji and its two archives. I do not see any reason for recusal. It would be very valuable for a case if someone with some knowledge of the topic were involved. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

[edit]

Having worked at many of the AE cases Tamzin references, I agree opening a case would be helpful. CEek, I do not see any reason you need to recuse simply because you worked heavily on an article within this topic. The topic is huge.

Question on usage "pre-Raj" by Fowler&fowler (non-party)

[edit]

(I was pinged above). I am unable to participate in the discussion. I do have a question about usage. I noticed "pre-Raj" in Tamzin's statement. The "Raj," i.e. the British Raj or the British Indian Empire did not begin until 1858. In my cursory look, the Wikipedia articles under the scanner here seem to be from an earlier period. Is pre-British implied? Pre-Raj would include East India Company rule in India, 1757–1857, but that period generally does not lack reliable sources, in fact there is even an embarrassment of riches. (See Proby Cautley.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Asilvering for the clarification in your statement above. My question stands addressed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

[edit]

I have not participated in this situation more than some AfDs. What I have seen there has been deeply troubling. The battleground behaviour and disruptive editing, as far as I could see, is endemic; there is no "side" of editors more disruptive than the other. These accounts seem dedicated not to the improvement of Wikipedia, but to the promotion of articles which highlight their preferred nationalism/ideology and the deletion of those which do not.

The most frequent problem I have seen is wilful source manipulation and misrepresentation, the most difficult for any adjudicator to handle and especially hard when there is a shortage of administrators in a topic area (hence the extreme broadness of IPA). Then, there seems to have been extensive weaponisation of noticeboards with immediate impact (AfD, AE, SPI, ANI) to take "opponents" out of the game, also increasing the burden on administrators.

I'd ask the arbs to consider the limitations of governance in huge topic areas where administrator knowledge is superficial and numbers are few. You may be assured it makes life quite difficult for the rest of us. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

[edit]

I believe that ArbCom need only to take such testimony as required to determine that this a matter of POV pushing in contravention of the overall topic case, and issue such bans, topic or general, and reminders of the proper purpose of an encyclopedia, as required. My suggested metric would be the ratio between discussion between parties, and that of accusations, edit warring, and forum shopping. I once used to admin in these spaces, and would comment that there are entrenched viewponts regarding caste, religion, modern day political nationalism, post colonial pride, and a raft of other snares that make NPOV a difficult course to navigate. In view of the latter, making encyclopedic contributions to any related matter does not mean an arb should recuse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orientls

[edit]

I would recommend Arbcom against accepting a case mainly for 2 reasons:

  • 1) There are far more controversial subtopics within this topic, such as India-Pakistan, India-Bangladesh, India-China, Caste (see WP:GSCASTE), Hindu-Muslim conflict, and more.
  • 2) Arbcom noticeboards will also attract forum shopping.

There have been times when this area has become heated up, such as during the times of the COVID crisis, a recent riot, government meddling into Wikipedia pages (see Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation), conflict between India and Pakistan/China, among other instances. An Arbcom case wasn't needed then, and I don't see why it should be needed now. Orientls (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

[edit]

Since the issue largely implicates WP:GS/CASTE (which is notionally under IP in the first place), why not cut the knot and confirm GS/CASTE as part of the IPA area in the first place, and then expand the balanced editing restriction and XCP to that particular topic area? I get the feeling that would address a lot of these ills. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

[edit]

I have not read most of what has been posted here nor the AE case which preceded it. But I happened to catch Harry's comments and want to answer his questions So my question is, why can't this be handled at AE? I believe the admins who tell me that AE is struggling, having been an AE admin myself, so is there something ArbCom can do to help in that respect? Maybe the answer is ArbCom can do nothing that AE admins can't do. But the 14 of you have agreed to To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. You can try delegating that authority and indeed ArbCom has been successful often in delegating authority. But if the people you've delegated it to say they can't do it, then it's your responsibility to say "OK" and muddle through. Opening a case may be the wrong answer, but it can't be handled at AE because the people who staff that agree it can't be. Having 14 of you makes a difference because even this very well attended AE only attracted 6 uninvolved admin so there might be solutions or analysis found that a smaller group won't find. However, if at the end there's nothing that this ArbCom can do that AE can't, it remains true that handling the impossible as best you all can is what every person who runs for ArbCom has agreed to do. It's why I and so many others in the community remain appreciative for the act of service to the 14 people who have accepted that Herculean task. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

[edit]

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.

Indian military history (AE referral): Clerk notes

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

Indian military history (AE referral): Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
  • Having first hand experience with repeated reports on matters too complicated to handle at AE , and with a consensus of admins referring, I see this as our responsibility. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indian military history and related caste issues sounds good to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, do you think that a full on IPA case has any possibility of not getting mired down in every conflict, especially if there is bleed-over into ARBPIA. Although WP:ARBPIAIPA and WP:ARBIPAPIA would make the PIA/IPA confusion even confusinger, I don't know if that would make it possible to have any decent outcome. I'm not totally opposed, but I think smaller bites are easier to chew, swallow, and digest, and I'd rather see 2-4 narrower cases than one grand megacase. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am considering recusal; I am a top contributor on Sambhaji, as I tried to help improve the page when the issue first arose. I'll recuse if folks think I should. Otherwise, I have made only limited edits to the military side of IPA, Battle of Ichogil Bund is the only one that comes to mind. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly inclined to accept as a full case, to consider largely public but also some private evidence, with the scope proposed being Indian military history and related issues. Daniel (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support hearing a case on this; not sure on what exact scope is best. Also strongly encourage Eek not to recuse; having Arbs with more of an understanding of the details/context here will be very helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accepting a full case seems (regrettably) to be the way forward. I also echo Elli's request that Eek not recuse. Cabayi (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in support of accepting a case. - Aoidh (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Extorc: It wouldn't be the first time that an issue temporarily died down when ArbCom starts looking into the matter. There is also the private evidence aspect User:Daniel mentioned, which also needs to be examined. The question for me isn't if a case is needed, but that the exact scope should be. - Aoidh (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a matter of housekeeping, are we planning on focusing strictly on Indian military history, or will this be WP:ARBIPA2? Primefac (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am supportive of Indian military history only (and not IPA2) as per my comment above, and am aligned with V93's comment here. Name "Indian military history", scope 'Indian military history and related caste issues'. Daniel (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support full case, with scope as named by Daniel above (Indian military history and related caste issues) or something similar. I do not think this needs to be a full ARBIPA2, but not against expanding the scope (or opening an ARBIPA2 case later) if that's where the evidence leads. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like we need a full case. Support per Daniel. WormTT(talk) 09:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started reading this with the inclination to open a case but I'm reminded of ARBPIA5: lots of people saying "something must be done", admins saying "we can't cope". ArbCom caved there and opened a case with a huge scope. After a few months, we issued some topic bans which were largely foregone conclusions and that was that. No systemic changes. No site bans. Nothing else. Of course, where we have a core group of editors making a topic area unmanageable, clearing out the "regulars" can be a useful thing to do, if only to give AE admins some temporary respite. But we don't need a months-long case with its attendant procedures and thousands of words of evidence to issue a handful of topic bans—the contentious topics procedure was created precisely to allow for disruption to be addressed quicker and with less bureaucracy. So my question is, why can't this be handled at AE? I believe the admins who tell me that AE is struggling, having been an AE admin myself, so is there something ArbCom can do to help in that respect? Or, to approach it from a different angle: what could ArbCom do here that AE isn't empowered to do or can't reach a conclusion on? What outcome are people looking for other than identifying a few troublemakers and banning them? As with Israel-Palestine, the Wikipedia conflicts are a microcosm of real-world politics and will ebb and flow with trends that are outside of anyone's control. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1290464170"