WP:ARBIMH

Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Target dates: Opened 22 May 2025 • Evidence closes 8 June 2025 • Workshop closes 15 June 2025 • Proposed decision to be posted by 22 June 2025

Scope: Military history and related caste issues on the Indian subcontinent.

Case clerks: HouseBlaster (Talk) & SilverLocust (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Aoidh (Talk) & ScottishFinnishRadish (Talk) & Elli (Talk)

This case is currently open, so no changes may be made to this page, and unauthorised edits may be reverted.
If you wish to submit evidence in this case, go to the evidence page. Proposals for the final decision may be made at the workshop.

Case opened on 00:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original

talk page. Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail

before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Case information

Involved parties

Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Akshaypatill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AlvaKedak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
)

Chronos.Zx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dympies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ekdalian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Extorc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HerakliosJulianus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hu741f4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
RevolutionaryPatriot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Shakakarta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Shinjoya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Srimant ROSHAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SurajMal sir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution

ARCA request

Preliminary statements

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

The Arbitration Commmittee directed the opening of this case by email. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter

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]
I appreciate the various folks who weighed in on whether I should recuse, no one suggested I ought, and so I will be active on this. We should accept a case here based on Indian military history, although my preference would be pre-Raj, lest this become an India-Pakistan issue. I believe we should be happy to accept cases when AE refers them; I have repeatedly tried to send the signal to AE that we will take what they give us and that they should give us things if they are unable to resolve them. The AE admins are the forces on the ground and they have the sense of where the real issues and pressure points are. Procedurally speaking, in the past we've opened cases from ARCA via motion, although I'm not seeing why we couldn't net-four a case from here? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:39, 15 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]
- Having thought on this, my ideal name/scope would be "South Asian military history and related caste issues"; fine with "India" as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:27, 12 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]
We have three drafters who are currently working on looking through the AE threads and private evidence to determine the named parties for the case as well as establishing criteria for adding new parties during the evidence phase in the event that evidence is provided to warrant such inclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 21:02, 19 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]
  - Agreed; it is easier to widen the scope if necessary than be drowned by a firehose of information tangentially related to the initial concerns. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 17 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. Worm^TT(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]

Final decision (none yet)

All tallies are based on the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.