Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 132 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_132

---

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

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:

• Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (filing party at AE)
• Dympies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User against whom enforcement was requested at AE)
• AlvaKedak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ekdalian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Akshaypatill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chronos.Zx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HerakliosJulianus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RevolutionaryPatriot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hu741f4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Extorc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ivanvector (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Abecedare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Capitals00
• Dympies
• AlvaKedak
• Ekdalian
• Akshaypatill
• Chronos.Zx
• HerakliosJulianus
• Maniacal ! Paradoxical
• Abhishek0831996
• Koshuri Sultan
• RevolutionaryPatriot
• PadFoot2008
• Hu741f4
• Extorc
• Ivanvector
• Bishonen
• Abecedare

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I thank CaptainEek for picking this case, this has been causing distrust among multiple editors who often seek revenge on the opposite party. Now that we see many reports on recent India-Pakistan trouble on ANI and ARE [9][10], which is likely to grow up. I'll request to cover this as well under ARBIPA2 and not just caste and pre-Raj Indian MILHIST, despite the calm template being hinged on Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict there's no stopping to the heated arguments, and the users I'm explicitly watching are Orientls, Azurdivay and Wareon, who seem to be rejecting [11][12][13] particular sources in the same way as I saw in my AfDs [14][15][16], on which AirshipJungleman29 and Asilvering are right there on point, which I would appreciate. I'll try not to self victimize myself but it's all started since I reported some of the active users in this topic area who repeatedly perform teaming (which now seems to be reaping the efforts). I saw my articles getting repeatedly nominated by all this, the repeated delete per nom votes by them had affected me enough to abandon editing for days. Now that I have a chance to clarify my stance and further dig into this issue, I'll not hesitate to disclose everything that I have found these days. I have noticed some past instances [17][18] of "off-wiki email coordination" and been personally affected by which could be related to this case. Aside from it, I have encountered many SPA accounts like MaheshMalhotra1. Judging by their talk page, they seem to have emailed many editors to invite them into their group -- two are evident, (courtesy ping @GrabUp and Shakya2007:). I would request Ivanvector to pass a check on this account and if possible, go through Mahesh's mail log, I wouldn't be surprised if this user has sent out hundreds of emails and possibly recruited many editors into their camp. Ivan's withdrawn comment [19] was right on the point the hacked account Togggle is also very much relevant here. As can be seen, the account is almost certainly a decoy, with no other purpose except mass mailing. -- having zero contributions -- likely created to avoid scrutiny. The SPI might be somewhat related to this particular canvassing issue. The current report lists only eight users with similar interests, but I believe there's more to uncover. If any other editor here has been affected by any stealth canvassing, then please disclose it, there may be many accounts like these, but so far, I have found only one. Heraklios 11:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Shakya2007, I'm not accusing you of getting engaged in any kind of off-wiki canvassing, but I'm afraid you may be affected by this. I'm sure you can disclose the information or the task which MaheshMalhotra1 may have wanted to get done through you, where you replied that you're ready to help them out. Note: Seeing the response of GrabUp, I'm almost certain that Mahesh wanted to sort out Godi media related issues through them, and here's the catch, we're seeing Wareon, Azurdivay and Orientls spinning around the similar Godi media problem on Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict & Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos. Surprisingly first edits by latter two [20][21] on the page was related to Godi media. I would again request GrabUp and Shakya2007 to disclose anything about their stealth canvassing with the decoy account. Heraklios 17:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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.[22]

2) Padfoot2008's topic ban from WP:ARBIPA.[23]

3) Dympies's topic ban from WP:ARBIPA on 8 May.[24]

4) Indef block on Rasteem on 6 May.[25] Rasteem was reported two times on WP:AE [26][27] 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.[28]

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)

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 [29] 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)

@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)

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)

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).

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).

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)

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)

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: [30]. 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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [31] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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.

HJ Mitchell, honestly I'm nearly at the point IvanVector is. It's hard to approach complaints within this topic sincerely when you sense at least some of those bringing complaints to AE (and at least some of those commenting/providing additional evidence) are themselves simply trying to throw as much up against the wall as they can to see what sticks. Just to brainstorm...allow AE to just declare a particular article off limits for anyone with under 10K edits because EC isn't anywhere near enough to show someone is HERE and meats/socks abound here? Limit how many cases can be created by any one editor in a given period within the topic? Specifically support indefs or tbans for any editor who brings more than X unsuccessful cases to AE within the topic over Y period? Disallow participation in a case by anyone who isn't a party?

So I'm seeing an argument that arbcom has given AE ability to do things like require 10K edits at a particular article where we think that's reasonably/proportionate. Ok, then. That isn't something I'd taken it to, but maybe AE needs to just move on in there?

(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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Valereee AE can already declare an article off limits because it's alloewd to do stuff under CT that individuals can't do. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Just call it IPA2 instead of horse trading to craft a cute name. The scope is probably going to end up reaching that anyways no matter how much you all would like it to be something else. Folding the community created caste DS into the CT regime would be a fairly easy win, if you are looking for one. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

If ArbCom is in doubt as to whether to accept this case, or some similar case coming from Arbitration Enforcement in a long-conflicted area, I suggest that ArbCom ask a two-part question. First, if the case did not require ArbCom attention, what harm was done by taking the case? Second, if the case did require ArbCom attention, what harm was done by not taking it? The answer to the first question is that time was spent unnecessarily by volunteers who had told the community that they were willing and ready to spend time dealing with difficult conflicts. The answer to the second question is that disruption may impede the orderly development of the encyclopedia, especially in an area where orderly development has already been found to be difficult.

If ArbCom takes this case, as I am asking, they can decide, after hearing the initial evidence, whether the scope should be expanded to WP:ARBIPA2. Alternatively, they can open an ARBIPA2 case, and contract the case if appropriate, as was done in Yasuke. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure why I was dragged into this mess but I deny any claims of getting emails from MaheshMalhotra1 or anyone else to join their group. Shakya2007 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

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

• 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)

  Indian military history and related caste issues sounds good to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• Also in support of accepting a case. - Aoidh (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

  @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)

  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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
• Sounds like we need a full case. Support per Daniel. Worm^TT(talk) 09:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

---

Initiated by Ritchie333 at 13:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Praxidicae (talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration. This is subject to the usual exceptions.

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

• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Praxidicae (talk · contribs) - Special:Diff/1291323835

Information about amendment request

• After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Praxidicae (talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration. This is subject to the usual exceptions.
  • Remove restriction

I recently attended the London Meetup and mentioned I still had an existing Arbitration Committee enforced interaction ban, which surprised everyone. I then said I wasn't bothered about appealing the ban, as it didn't affect my day-to-day editing or admin activities, but was suggested by a few people there that I should give it a go.

During mid-2019 I hit a low point of my life, lashed out at people for no good reason and behaved like a completely obnoxious jerk, and this was a prime consequence of it. I've since sorted myself out and changed my views on civility - in particular that admins must be held to a higher code of conduct and set a good example at all times - and just wonder if this could be recognised, leading to the interaction ban closed as obsolete from a time gone past. Anyway, I'll leave this to you for your thoughts.

NB: In full compliance with an interaction ban, I have not notified the other party; if somebody else could do this, it would be appreciated. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Regarding apologies, in June 2021, I wrote " I apologised for doing so at the time, and can only apologise again." I also consider "behaved like a completely obnoxious jerk" to imply regret and apology for behaviour in 2019. If this insufficient, it would be helpful to clarify what else I should do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll give a cast iron reason none of this behaviour will happen again - my fiancee, soon to be wife, wouldn't be with me if I did it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mz7: I don't believe that's correct. I was blocked in October 2019 for rewriting an article without realising who had (correctly) tagged the original revision for WP:G12. The block was overturned on appeal. I don't know what the incident in 2021 is, but the only obvious thing I can think of is recreating an article without appreciating who had edited a previously deleted version. So I would say there are people who very much think these are sanctionable offences. However, in both these instances, the intent was to improve the encylopedia above anything else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: "multiple posts with sexual undertones (and overtones)" How dare you say that, I have never done that, and I find that really offensive and upsetting. That is completely unlike me as a character, I have identified mostly as asexual on-wiki despite having children and a loving fiancee. Your comments have made me really upset, and I'd like you to apologise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ll keep this as direct as possible since I am unsure what I can actually say:

I do not believe the behavior that led to this restriction has changed, nor do I believe the harassment I experienced from Ritchie is unlikely to happen again. This includes being doxxed off-wiki after the IBAN was imposed and for a good year or two after, as well as repeated violations of that restriction, many of which resulted in little more than symbolic gestures that I cannot even call a reprimand, followed by sympathy and support from the very individuals responsible for enforcing it, which I will give Ritchie credit for - that is not his fault.

There is no reason for this restriction to be lifted on either side. I do not view this as a sincere request stemming from a change in behavior on or off-wiki, but a superficial gesture. As Ritchie has more or less acknowledged, if there's no intent to repeat the behavior, then the restriction shouldn’t matter.

There is absolutely no need for Ritchie and me to interact, or to edit within the same topic areas and thus no need for it to be removed.

What stands out most is the complete lack of apology or acknowledgment of the extensive harassment I endured, only justifications tied to personal hardships. And since personal lives are apparently relevant: I’ve had a long-term relationship end, lost several family members, gotten married, had a child, and nearly lost that child twice when he was just 14 months old. Not once did I use Wikipedia or another editor as an emotional outlet to stalk, harass, or violate a restriction, let alone repeatedly. And I’m a regular editor, not an administrator—who should absolutely be held to a higher standard. COOLIDICAE🕶 16:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I have extremely limited ability to meaningfully reply to this - as in, no access to my computer for the next few weeks. To whomever asked for the information I referred to in my initial statement, arbcom, over the course of I believe now 3 different committees has access to my previous emails regarding this, as well as others (which I do not myself know the content of said emails, referred to here and further in the same thread. ) Arbcom, I would assume has access to archives, it would've been in the same time frame in October-ish 2021 and shortly after the first iban violation in 2019. I have no interest in being harangued and stalked again, so I have nothing further to say on this matter other than reiterating my initial point that it was Herculean feat to have this enacted to begin with and it was already loosely followed and enforced, at best and I have no desire whatsoever to go back to being subject to the harassment that resulted in this to begin with.

Further, I see the same exact type of response (X was happening in my life, which caused me to do y)that was given in 2021 for an appeal, but absolutely nothing indicating that it won't continue to happen, nor a need for it to be removed. It doesn't prevent Ritchie or myself from actually improving the project, as I've already pointed out. Sorry for any errors, responding on mobile sucks. Also I would encourage others to read the previous attempt from June 2021(ish), particularly the comments by SN and I believe it was BDD. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

And in addition to this I am having emergency surgery tomorrow morning so if my statement isn't enough and needs further clarification, Arbcom has access to the previous emails and correspondence, there isn't much else I can provide nor am I going to put in the effort to relitigate this ever again, including now. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the history between these two editors except what they have described here. It appears that the history is largely confidential material which should not be on public web pages, so that I will not and should not have knowledge of the history. However, in looking at what is seen here, I see one blatant defect in Ritchie's filing, that Praxidicae has also noted. I see what can be favorably described as Ritchie's explanation, or less favorably described as Ritchie's excuses. I see nothing that expresses regret over the hardship that he inflicted on Praxidicae or that amounts even to a non-apology.

As a non-administrator, the "optics" of this appeal, from an administrator to a committee all of whom are administrators, is bad. It looks like an administrator asking ArbCom to circle the wagons around an administrator who has admitted to sub-optimal behavior without taking responsibility for their sub-optimal responsibility.

I observe that 48 hours have elapsed since Praxidicae noted the absence of any expression of regret or apology, during which Ritchie could have responded.

Wikipedia editors, including Wikipedia administrators, are moral actors and should acknowledge agency and responsibility for their actions. I don't see that.

The ArbCom has the confidential record and knows what the details were. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Re. Prax's suggestion, this is the June 2021 discussion; mine and BDD's statements. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

On consideration, what we have here is an I-ban that one party wants maintained, and another party who, in fact, wasn't bothered about appealing it in the first place. I'm unsure as to why this is being entertained. It's harming neither by its existence, but if its removal distresses one party, then I'm also unsure wherein the benefit to the project is.In other words, arbs should not be wondering why the sanction needs to remain, but rather, why it should not. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

If Praxidicae feels uncomfortable about having the interaction ban rescinded, then I think it would be a mistake to rescind it. theleekycauldron states "In an ideal world, I wish we could wait a few more weeks for Prax to return to activity"—why is this not that ideal world? Why the rush here? Cabayi claims that this interaction ban is a "roadblock" that prevents Ritchie333 from acting in his admin role on pages that Praxidicae has edited, but that is not true: WP:IBAN states that interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other. In his statement, Ritchie confirms that the status quo does not affect my day-to-day editing or admin activities.

We are in no rush here. CaptainEek correctly points out that Praxidicae has been inactive on this project for much of the last few years due to things happening in real life, so we haven't really even "tested" this restriction that much yet. The restriction is not a roadblock, but rather a mechanism that allows an editor who experienced harassment to feel comfortable continuing to participate in this project. The way I see it, we risk losing a productive member of the community if the committee makes the wrong decision here. I see no harm to the project in leaving the restriction in place until such time that both parties involved feel comfortable with lifting it. Mz7 (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The statement It's not good for the project that an admin going about their role should have roadblocks if the other has edited the page in question, aside from misstating how IBANs work, gives the impression of giving an admin special treatment. Either the IBAN is unnecessary, in which case it should be lifted but Ritchie's adminship is irrelevant; or it's necessary and incompatible with adminship, in which case Ritchie should be desysopped; or it's necessary and compatible with adminship, in which case Ritchie should remain an IBANned administrator. Citing Ritchie's adminship as a reason to lift the sanction shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between admins and the community, from an arbitrator who I two years ago wrote had a "notion of advanced tools as a right, rather than privilege".

This is not to say I particularly support or oppose lifting the sanction, just that if done it should be done for the right reasons. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Without opining on whether or not the iban should be lifted in this case, I'd like to point out that when I asked for my iban with Doncram to be lifted and he opposed, rather than rescinding the ban outright, it was converted into a 6-month probation, after which it was lifted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with the reasoning that an interaction ban is not working if, after a period of time, one of the editors involved still feels a need for it to be in place. There is no deadline for a volunteer to become comfortable with collaborating with another volunteer. isaacl (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the comment Of course this matters; Praxidicae has addressed this in the last sentence of the initial statement.: Praxidicae stated the importance of holding an administrator to a higher standard, while Tamzin is objecting to using as an example that admin tasks may be hindered by an interaction ban. These arguments aren't in conflict. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the comment Sysops are expected to be true to their word and accurately assess their own limits. I have confidence in Ritchie continuing to be a sysop, and so I trust that he can do those things.: I think the cause and effect is inverted. In order to have confidence in an editor to hold administrative privileges, necessary prerequisites are to have confidence in their sincerity and ability to understand their limitations. Given that a previous arbitration committee felt that the behaviour of the admin in question warranted a formal restriction, I feel the editor being an admin isn't a good basis to support the appeal. (Actions taken by the editor, including those that are part of the admin role, can of course be used to support one's evaluation of the current trustworthiness of an editor.) isaacl (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I would personally oppose any rescinding of this interaction ban. Regardless of how long ago this behaviour occurred, it is clear to see it has had a long-lasting effect on Praxidicae, psychologically speaking, to the extent that she does not want the IBAN lifted, and not only do I fully respect that - I can personally relate to her feelings. Being harassed and doxxed off-wiki should never just be seen as something which is part and parcel of being an editor here, and I cannot help but feel as though her feelings about this have been invalidated by the arguments that enough time has passed that this behaviour should not occur again. To put it bluntly: we simply cannot know that for certain.

I agree with Tamzin above on several points, namely that administrators are not "above" being issued IBANs, and my personal view on Ritchie's statement is that it reads as though he has suffered some real-life embarrassment at a Wiki meetup over being an administrator with an IBAN. That is not something which the Arbitration Committee is equipped to deal with, and is something Ritchie needs to come to terms with in his own time. I appreciate that mental health issues are something which can happen to all of us, and that we can change for the better as individuals, but for as long as Praxidicae still has concerns over the IBAN being lifted, it needs to stay put. We have a major issue with female editors being driven off this project due to harassment and doxxing - why on Earth we are even considering the risk of losing such a productive contributor, is simply baffling to me.

Finally, as for the IBAN causing a roadblock, I'll write this out as an analogy: If you harassed someone in real life, and they filed for a restraining order against you, you would need to accept that if they decide to enter your favourite pub one evening and they get there before you, you cannot go in there for your favourite beer or cocktail, no matter how much you really want to. Such is the very nature of an interaction ban that this will arise, and the solution to that is to focus on other matters. There is no shortage of jobs to do here on Wikipedia, and it's easy enough to find something new. Patient Zero^talk 05:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, I must say I feel rather uncomfortable with Ritchie's insinuation that identifying as asexual means one cannot be guilty of sexual harassment, because a) they absolutely can be, and b) I feel the antithesis of that is surely to say that those on the allosexual spectrum are more likely to be guilty of this kind of thing compared to an asexual person. I identify somewhere between bisexual and pansexual myself, and there is no way I would ever harass another person, be it in a sexual manner or otherwise. Also, as Praxidicae herself said, having difficult personal circumstances is not an excuse for this kind of behaviour (I would say it is a reason, hence why I stated above that I appreciate that mental health issues are something which can happen to all of us, and that we can change for the better as individuals, but certainly not an excuse). I have encountered difficult personal circumstances myself since becoming an editor here, and the worst thing I've ever done to another Wikipedian around the time of said circumstances is be a bit brusque and blunt towards them on Discord (I apologised just minutes later, and felt absolutely awful). On the other hand, I see no remorse on Ritchie's part for his conduct towards Praxidicae. This deeply concerns me. Patient Zero^talk 21:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been debating whether or not to make a statement here. Then Patient Zero said pretty much exactly what I've been stewing over. I would like to endorse that entire statement, and in lieu of repeating what they wrote, I'll pose two questions.

1. Absent a good reason to lift an interaction ban early* + one of the two parties would prefer to keep it in place, why on earth would we consider lifting it?
2. What good does lifting it actually accomplish?

*"I should give it a go" is a reason, but not a good one.

On balance, it does feel unlikely that Ritchie would repeat the behavior that led to the interaction ban. And yet, that chance remains, and Ritchie has identified not one single place where the interaction ban is hindering their editing. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I've thought long and hard about commenting here, and didn't intend to until the motion below seems to be passing. I agree entirely with what Ed said above. There has been no reason provided why this interaction ban is hindering anything. Unless ArbCom thinks it was initially imposed improperly, it should not be removed just because time has passed - barring actual evidence that it is impacting the encyclopedia. ArbCom exists to further our goal of being an encyclopedia - not to just be a "supreme court" making decisions because it can. If one party of the interaction ban thinks it should remain, it seems that it would be significantly more harmful to remove (by potentially driving that editor off the project) than it would be to let it remain - again, absent any solid evidence that there is a negative impact to the encyclopedia by it remaining. The motion below appears to be passing and my statement is unlikely to change that - but the "status quo" is that both editors involved are still contributing to the encyclopedia - and if the result of this motion is one of them leaving, or even slightly reducing their contributions to the encyclopedia, then ArbCom has failed and should look back on this piss-poor request for revocation with shame. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Disclaimer that I consider myself friends with Prax and Ritchie. While I don't have access to the archives, I'm a bit unsure about the "four years since we last got complaints about infractions" rationale; that gap in time coincides with Prax and Ritchie not editing much, or otherwise editing more when the other was mostly inactive, such as Prax during the summer of 2022 or Ritchie in the fall of that year. When they were both active, there were quite a few complaints of infractions coming from both "camps". There's enough tension and history here that I'm skeptical that the same issues which led to the initial Iban won't recur, especially given Prax's opposition to a re appeal and other comments here. For various reasons--often because it seemed like people didn't want to create "drama"-- the sanction wasn't enforced or acted on when it should've been.

As for my opinion on the ban: It's complicated. I don't think Arbcom really had the authority to impose this-- while there were "private aspects" raised while consulting parties and with some of the history here, it basically came down to on-wiki actions and conflict around counter spam efforts and NPP. I also think the ban is unfair to both parties, for differing reasons; in some not-so-hypothetical situations, let's say Prax wants to write an article on something, but can't because Ritchie deleted it a bit ago (I know Ritchie would most certainly not mind if Prax wanted to do this). Or, an LTA burner sock is harassing the two of them over the Iban on their talk pages, and Ritchie can't block because Prax's name is involved. And, bluntly, the rationale for making this a two way Iban instead of a one way seems more "political" than anything; I've never really been clear on what Prax's "infractions" were.

Never mind the miniature elephant in the room: this is all mired in late 2010's Wikipolitic discussions, which have mostly aged like milk and withered into irrelevancy. At the time, getting this Iban through was a difficult task, as both editors were highly influential and well connected: Ritchie was arguably the most prominent RfA nominator during this time and friends with several reviewed content-writer higher ups, while Prax was an anti-spam, anti-abuse NPP powerhouse. They both worked around patrolling edits and pages, and had clashing ideologies; Prax (rightly or wrongly) was quicker to revert, nominate for xfd, and harder on sourcing and notability, while Ritchie tried to (rightly or wrongly) save articles from deletion and was softer on notability and sourcing. But this led to conflict between the two, with Ritchie policing Prax's patrolling by his standards, and becoming overly aggressive towards her, eventually resulting in this failed 2018 ANI IBAN proposal (which I even wrongly opposed back then). In a lot of ways, they were both too big to sanction. In the years since, the internet has changed a significant amount; AI sludge, blackhat SEO spam, paid editing scams, and shill crap have increased 10000%, and policies and the NPP process have shifted more towards keeping that spam out. So, history has landed more on Prax's side than Ritchie's. This sort of dispute is unlikely to go on for as long as it did now and days.

And also, let's put this into context in Wikipedia's larger history: this Iban and dispute amounted to the last great conflict between "Content Creators" and "Maintenace IRC Regulars" which ran throughout the 2000s-2010s. These disputes primarily circulated around a group of GA/FA contributors (mostly based around older British writers and meetup participants) and IRC patrollers (mostly based around younger more technically inclined North American anti-vandals). These groups would frequently clash at ACE, RfA, civility sanctions discussions, etc. Bluntly, most of these disputes are grating to read and incredibly overblown and over dramatic. I won't get into all of that, but since the rise of the much more accessible Discord and IRC's increasing fade into obscurity, there has generally been much less conflict between these two groups. The Discord is much more popular than IRC ever was and is home to a plethora of younger content creators with stacks of GAs and FAs, while some editors on differing "sides" of these disputes have mended with each other over the years (See: the various kinds of editors that pass RfA now and days, nearly all of whom have Discord accounts, or Schrocat and Premeditiated Chaos's comments in the ACN discussion at the time vs. their friendly talk page comments and collabs all over FA now and days)

Now why do I say all of this? Because I really do want this sanction to go away and for this annoying era of Wikipedia to have its chapter closed. But I have difficulty supporting this appeal, because I don't think Ritchie's comments here really get to the heart of the matter and show the required contrition. Namely, I hope Ritche would explicitly say that he was wrong to hound and condescend to Prax, and that he unduly enforced his own view of patrolling on others, and that he was wrong to keep his foot on the gas and repeatedly pick at these wounds (both on and off-wiki), and that the harassment Prax got at the time of the Iban was undeserved, and not just say "I was going through a hard time in real life", and commit to not repeating this all over again. I hope Prax would then accept this, begin to forgive Ritchie, and then they could move forward on mostly separate paths. But I understand if neither of them are interested in doing this, because of the history and that in some ways it would feel like they are acquiescing parts of their respective ideologies. To which I say, it's not about entrenchment, it's about evolution. And I'm not saying this to be unduly critical of either party; I'm saying this because I care about both and want to see them do well. I feel like I have a bird's eye view of things and that I have responsibility to try and help work things out. But I'm not expecting to accomplish what 30+ people couldn't, so... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

And yes I belatedly realized I am way over the word limits (no longer have that Arblimatic Immunity…!); I ask if I can have a 1500 word extension; if not I’ll hat /remove the less important parts here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

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

• Noting that there was an amendment request in July 2021, which resulted in a motion adding the following exception to the interaction ban: Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've notified Prax. No opinion yet as I have to review the history, but I'm generally in favor of releasing five year old restrictions if there's no compelling reason to believe the behavior will resume. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Recuse Worm^TT(talk) 15:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• I don't agree about if there's no intent to repeat the behavior, then the restriction shouldn’t matter; this would make partial blocks, topic bans and interaction bans impossible to appeal for those the restriction is the most unnecessary for. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Recuse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• I'm sensitive to Ritchie's concerns; it doesn't feel nice to be carrying a sanction around. But I'm inclined to listen to Prax here. I'll also point out that she hasn't edited much in the last three years, and is just now starting to get back into editing, which means that the sanction hasn't actually been tested for a full five years. Given that at the last violation (in 2021) we had a serious conversation about desysopping Ritchie, I think it doesn't hurt to keep this around longer. I don't think we should keep it forever though; if I'm still around in a few years I'd be more receptive to lifting it then. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Doxxing might be part of this appeal, but I think evidence on that aspect should be presented privately to ArbCom to prevent WP:OUTING. @Ritchie333: if you want to make a statement to ArbCom about the doxxing aspects, please email the committee. @Praxidicae: your statement says, "This includes being doxxed off-wiki after the IBAN was imposed and for a good year or two after." If you would like to expand upon this, please email the committee with details of the doxxing that took place after the IBAN was imposed, and any other statement related to doxxing you would like ArbCom to have. If other editors would like to submit evidence in this appeal related to doxxing, please email ArbCom. Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• There's a fair bit of background to this that I'd like to review before commenting further. - Aoidh (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• The Committee is still discussing this request; sorry for the delay. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Support

1. I have looked over the history from 2019 and 2021. In short, I support this being rescinded because I believe that this is unlikely to recur. The Committee has held this open for longer than usual to see if we would receive any further evidence of violations; given that that hasn't occurred, we should move forward on this issue on the merits. I agree with ToBeFree above: while Praxidicae's desire for the bans to stay in place did weigh heavily in my consideration of this, I am hopeful that people and circumstances can fundamentally change. This doesn't mean that I want either party to be poking the bear, but as rational adults both parties can move on from this affair. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

   To be honest, Ritchie's adminship did not play a part in my consideration of this appeal. Maybe it should have, as I agree that administrators are held to a higher standard, but for me the likelihood of issues occurring in the future was the more important consideration.

   Regarding if you have to ask that the IBAN still be treated as it is essentially in force and for the editors to continue avoiding each other then why are we removing it?, I'll repeat what I said in private: this is sensible advice for anyone who has just had a restriction removed. Anyone who has had an interaction ban removed should not immediately go poking the other party, and anyone who has just had a topic ban lifted should not create the most controversial article possible and get into fights with others. Just because that is sensible advice doesn't mean that we shouldn't remove the ban. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

   (2.) The evidence here was a tough read. In an ideal world, I wish we could wait a few more weeks for Prax to return to activity to see if she has any evidence we've missed. Still, it doesn't seem like anyone's alleging any violations more recent than four years ago, and while I think both the violations and the responses to them left something to be desired, I feel on the balance that Ritchie's word is credible when he says the sanction is no longer necessary as a preventative measure. Part of having confidence in a sysop is being able to take them at their word – so I'm really hoping to not be disappointed on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

   Since we're a bit split on this issue, I want to say that Ritchie's status as a sysop did factor into my decision, but not in the sense that [i]t's not good for the project that an admin going about their role should have roadblocks if the other has edited the page in question. Admins are and should be bound by the same policies and guidelines as everyone else. But in deciding whether to restore a privilege to someone, on some level you have to trust them at their word when they say they won't abuse that. Sysops are expected to be true to their word and accurately assess their own limits. I have confidence in Ritchie continuing to be a sysop, and so I trust that he can do those things – if that trust is broken, than my confidence in Ritchie continuing to be an admin would be broken along with it. Given those stakes, I'd say that "maybe err on the side of caution" isn't bad advice, and it's a pretty common thing to say to people with newly given or restored privileges. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

   Striking my vote for now, in light of what Katie and Moneytrees said. I'm not switching to oppose, but I also don't want to this to close before the new points of fact are settled and Ritchie has time to more substantively addressed what happened. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

2. It's not good for the project that a comment from one of them on an issue should necessarily preclude the other from commenting. It's not good for the project that an admin going about their role should have roadblocks if the other has edited the page in question. We have two highly valued editors who have had a falling out. If four years is not long enough for some scar tissue to have formed over the wound, then time is not the healer in this case, and prolonging the IBAN will serve no purpose. I'd recommend both to pretend for day-to-day purposes that the IBAN remains, but to not officiously refrain from normal activity just because the other has previously edited. Be civil. Be kind. Cabayi (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
3. After reviewing the original case, subsequent communications from various parties (both recent and not-so-recent) and subsequent evidence, I have landed here. There have been no recent events to make me believe that this IBAN is necessary at this time. If the IBAN is lifted, I still recommend that both parties refrain from interacting with each other whenever possible. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

   I won't delay this ship from sinking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

4. This is a tough call either way. Ritchie's appeal here is not particularly compelling, and I share many of SFR's concerns regarding it. However, I'm simply not convinced that this sanction needs to remain in place, and as it's generally quite difficult to "prove a negative", I'm inclined towards lifting since the last problematic behavior occurred many years ago. Ritchie says he has changed, and I very much hope that is the case. To be clear, Ritchie's status as an admin was not weighed in my decision here. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As I said above, I'm sensitive to Ritchie's concerns; it doesn't feel nice to be carrying a sanction around. But I'm inclined to listen to Prax here. I'll also point out that she hasn't edited much in the last three years, and is just now starting to get back into editing, which means that the sanction hasn't actually been tested for a full five years. Given that at the last violation (in 2021) we had a serious conversation about desysopping Ritchie, I think it doesn't hurt to keep this around longer. I don't think we should keep it forever though; if I'm still around in a few years I'd be more receptive to lifting it then. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
2. I find myself here for a few reasons. The biggest is that appeal itself isn't very good. It says I then said I wasn't bothered about appealing the ban, as it didn't affect my day-to-day editing or admin activities, but was suggested by a few people there that I should give it a go. We have a sanction that protects a party from a situation that was significant enough that Arbcom had to step in and that isn't onerous to the parties. One party clearly would like the IBAN to remain in place, and the other party isn't bothered by it. If that were a two person discussion we'd call it consensus to keep the IBAN. There is also some general apology, but nothing specifically to or about the injured party, and I'm not very impressed with the "I have a fiance" defense. As a note to the arbs voting support, if you have to ask that the IBAN still be treated as it is essentially in force and for the editors to continue avoiding each other then why are we removing it? If Ritchie isn't even bothered by the IBAN, why are we worried about clearing their slate? I also think Tamzin makes a solid point that we shouldn't be treating this any different because Ritchie is an admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

   I would be more likely to vote for removing the ban if Ritchie333 wasn't an admin. Of course this matters; Praxidicae has addressed this in the last sentence of the initial statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

   Moneytrees, the toothpaste is out of the tube now, so unless you have more to add I think you're fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

   I didn't go into behavioral specifics with my oppose because I wasn't too interested in picking at old scabs, but I see Ritchie's response to Katie as some pretty solid evidence that either they don't know what the problem is with doing things like telling a woman to smile or don't see it as a problem. Either way, it doesn't bode well for being able to avoid that behavior in the future. I was willing to accept that they had come to an understanding about their behavior, but their response put a bow on that.

   It may be that Ritchie simply didn't remember those, or other comments. The thing is, the target of that behavior does and, quite reasonably, doesn't want to have to deal with it again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

3. I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish here. - Aoidh (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Per ScottishFinnishRadish. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
5. Here's how this appeal reads to me: Ritchie has this embarrassing black tick which doesn't affect him like ever, and gee he'd like that removed because somebody thinks he should, and wow he was a jerk in 2019, and he apologized once and has implied another apology, golly what else do we want a guy to do, so please take this away. I just went back and re-read the history, and the appeal does not address the meat of what really hit its stride in 2018, not 2019, and continued well into this decade. Ritchie did his level best to run Praxidicae off of this project, plain and simple, and he did it with harassment and WPO posts and multiple posts with sexual undertones (and overtones). And I see nothing, zero, nada here to suggest that Ritchie understands the impact on Praxidicae and other women editors. Praxidicae clearly wants this IBAN to remain. I can't vote to remove it until and unless Ritchie demonstrates understanding and remorse, and I see neither here. Katie^talk 16:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
   • Ritchie, I dare it because you did it. Here is one example from 2018. Why on earth did you think that was a good idea? No, it's not addressed specifically to Prax (which saved your bacon) but you were stalking her AFD and CSD noms at the time, she's already on edge because this long-term, respected admin is following her around commenting on every single freaking thing she does, and wham! here comes a comment like that on one of her AFD noms. And you also told her not to forget to smile. Lots to smile about there. Yay you. It looks like you're going to get your wish and get this IBAN lifted; I said my piece, you've said yours. I really, really hope the majority is correct and that you'll leave her alone. Katie^talk 20:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Daniel (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• While there is some off-wiki evidence, the vast majority of evidence is on-wiki, which is why this has been proposed in public. A clear theme throughout the Committee's handling of the parties' relations is that complications ensue because the requests are off-wiki when the evidence is on-wiki. I don't think that we should continue that pattern. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• In my personal opinion, Praxidicae should have used different words than "This includes" as these may seem to imply that doxxing was part of behavior "from Ritchie", which, as far as I can see, is not the case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Regarding Sarek's suggestion, I am fine with a probation or suspended topic ban if it allays some concerns. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Initiated by NoonIcarus at 00:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Venezuelan politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 4.3.3. Interaction ban

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

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

Information about amendment request

• 4.3.3. Interaction ban
  • "The interaction ban between NoonIcarus and WMrapids is rescinded."

Kind regards. After an email exchange with the Arbitration Committee, I include the original request (almost) verbatim:

I hope this message finds you well. Over a year after the decision of the Venezuelan politics case, given that WMrapids are currently indefinitely banned, and that at any rate they remain topic banned from Venezuelan politics (the main reason of the dispute between both in the case), I kindly wanted to ask if it was possible to ask for an appeal of the current interaction ban.

From what I gather, an interaction ban goes as far as even mentioning the other user, which currently makes difficult to discuss the circumstances of the case, and I would like to ask a review for the community regarding my current own topic ban, particularly since I would like to contribute more in contests such as the Pride Month and this month's Women in Red event. Best wishes and many thanks in advance.

Re @ScottishFinnishRadish: It's the primary reason, yes. A rescission would also allow me to contribute in related articles, but I consider that less important than appealing the broader TBAN. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a stake in the iban but, if Noonicarus is seeking an amendment to their tban, I'd be interested in asking them a few rather specific questions. They are not apropos to the iban on which I have no opinion. Should this progress to the point where a tban appeal is being discussed and I don't notice the discussion is ongoing I'd appreciate a courtesy ping. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel thank you for that clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

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

• NoonIcarus, is the primary reason you want the iban lifted to allow you to discuss it in an appeal of your topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm amenable to temporarily adjusting the interaction ban to allow discussion at a TBAN appeal. I think how NoonIcarus handles that allowance could do a lot to inform the community about the necessity of the topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• My preference would be to retain the interaction ban at this time, given that WMrapids only became eligible to appeal their indefinite site-ban a few weeks ago (and could very well do so in the next few weeks or months, for all we know). I was not on the Committee when it was placed, but the comments at the proposed decision vote support the view that retaining past the 12 months is worthwhile. That being said, I'm inclined to support an explicit carving out of an exception for NoonIcarus to 'breach' the interaction ban and speak freely when challenging the community-imposed topic ban at the appropriate noticeboard, given the interaction ban is our sanction. WP:BANEX says there's an exemption for "appealing the ban", but it's arguably unclear whether this allows an exemption from one ban for appealing a different one. In my view, common sense here suggests we should explicitly allow it to happen — with a cautionary note to NoonIcarus that unjustified "sniping" (to borrow a term from the proposed decision) will likely not reflect well in the community appeal of the topic ban. Daniel (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Simonm223: the topic ban is a community sanction so won't be appealed here. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with Daniel above. Z1720 (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• I think a statement here explicitly indicating that appealing a community-imposed ban will not trigger the ArbCom-imposed ban is reasonable, provided that in the spirit of BANEX any mentions of WMrapids are kept brief and to-the-point, with little to no editorialising. Primefac (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  +1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Concur that BANEX should be interpreted here to allow them to appeal the t-ban. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with the above, with an emphasis on Daniel's comment about unjustified "sniping". - Aoidh (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues that BANEX should be interpreted to allow an appeal of a related sanction. I don't think a formal motion is necessary but I'm happy for ArbCom to clarify here that there should not be sanctions for mentioning the other party to an interaction ban in the course of appealing the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Initiated by MarioProtIV at 21:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 4) MarioProtIV is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.

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

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

Information about amendment request

• 4) MarioProtIV is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.
  • Repeal of restriction

This may come as a non-standard request, but in light of recent events I decided to bring this up with the ArbCom. I’m well aware I had a NAC ban as a result of the 2022 saga, and it’s been more than 3 years since then, far past the minimum 12-month appeal period. Since then I never requested a rescission because I didn’t feel like it was important compared to the topic ban restriction, but I did allow RMs to continue naturally and instead of closing myself if I felt it was dragging I simply opened a closure request and let it run from there, as proof I’ve learned from this mistake. However that’s not necessarily the full reason why I’m requesting this.

The WikiProject has been dealing with a LTA user known as Andrew5, who is known for sockpuppeting across many articles related to the project and ones specifically tailored to his interests such as politics and sports. Recently, he has developed the obsession of removing my edits reverting information under BMB policy that he entered. Where it gets murky is that he has also opened RMs on these IPs on pages, and these edits I reverted also under BMB (such as this one which was a reversion of a DUCK IP (not banned yet, but highly likely Andrew given the same three reverts), although I was advised that I bring this to ArbCom as even under this policy the reversion could possibly count as a NAC by me. A full rescission of the restriction would allow me to continue BMB edits without possibly violating this restriction even though I’m assuming good faith in this decision. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: I should note that RM in March was later revealed to have been opened by a sock, but besides that that RM was very messy as we were trying to determine what dates to move it to and others were suggesting non-standard names (it got closed as not moved). The other point you have was a genuine lapse of thought by me as I had briefly forgotten I was still under the NAC restriction and thus quickly reverted my change upon being notified of that. It had been almost 3 years since the end of the case and my other priorities in life caused me to forget that momentarily. Hope that makes sense for those. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

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

• A BMB revert shouldn't count as a t-ban violation as long as it's crystal clear that the edit was really made by an LTA. Not opposed to lifting the sanction here altogether, though will have to do a bit of a more thorough review first. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• I don't think WP:BANEXEMPT covers this, unless the edits themselves are obvious vandalism. If it's just a non-vandal LTA edit it can be taken care of by the next person who doesn't have a topic ban. That said, I wouldn't ding someone with a topic ban for reverting any of the obvious LTAs that I know, so I guess it's a bit of a IAR around BANEXEMPT. I'll take a deeper look at the circumstances surrounding the restriction when time permits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• If the edits being reverted are obviously disruptive (ie any reasonable editor can see what the problem is), I would be fine with invoking BANEXEMPT but if nuance and detailed explanation is required it would be better to leave it to another editor and/or bring the issue to the attention of administrators at AIV or SPI or whichever venue is appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• WP:BANEX covers reverting obvious vandalism, though I don't think that it goes so far as to cover BMB unless the edits are obvious vandalism in themselves. Stretching it like that by default would be too prone to gaming, given how sock detection is sometimes an art rather than a science.
  @MarioProtIV: Please comment on Special:Diff/1281279843 (March RM) and Special:Permalink/1282053230#Topic ban violation. Others: please note the previous topic ban amendment that passed. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• I agree that this is really stretching BANEX when the "LTA" editor isn't yet blocked, and could potentially cause problems per Harry and s.q. above; for contrast as to what I think is included under BANEX, if someone with an AfD close/re-open tban reverted the IP LTA who forges admin signatures when closing AfD's as "pure vandalism", that would be acceptable in my view. That being said, having spent some time researching this issue and Mario's recent contributions and talk page discussions yesterday, I am supportive of a motion to rescind this topic ban at this time, absent any evidence that doing so would be unwise. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• The request above does indicate a reasonable measure of conscientiousness regarding moves; I am not at this point opposed to removing the restriction. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Enacted – HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Per my comments above in the discussion section. Daniel (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Unlikely to resume the behavior that led to the restriction, it's been a while, and they're constructively engaged with the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Enough time has passed, and this can always be reinstated if problems resurface. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
5. Aoidh (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 03:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
7. Per Z1720 – they've already reintegrated themselves into the topic area, which speaks to their ability to grow from a ban and not repeat the same mistakes. All the best, Mario! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I generally lean towards removing sanctions after some time and this is a lighter sanction compared to the topic ban. But I can't vote for this when Mario acknowledged that they couldn't remove RMs due to the restriction but still did so. I'm also unconvinced by Mario's response to my question: that March RM was opened by EF5, not a sock (I thought that they may have mixed up the RM with the ANI discussion, but they had separated the two when writing, so maybe not?). Mario's comment above Special:Diff/1281279843 makes it seem like they may work too hastily when closing RMs: I do not think that lifting the restriction is a good idea at the moment. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I just don't know this case or the parties well enough to have a strong opinion. I haven't seen a compelling reason to lift the sanction altogether, but nor have I seen a compelling reason not to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion