Initiated by Ivanvector at 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

SheriffIsInTown (among others) topic banned from "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan"

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

• Ivanvector (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification SheriffIsInTown
• diff of notification DBigXray

I am seeking clarification on whether the article on the geographical feature Siachen Glacier is covered by the scope of the aforementioned sanction in its entirety because it contains a section describing the Siachen conflict (actually two sections) which itself is a dispute between India and Pakistan. This is in response to DBigXray posting a note ([1]) to SheriffIsInTown that their semi-automated filling of a reference within the description of the conflict ([2]) was a violation of their topic ban, which they acknowledged and self-reverted ([3]). While nobody here disagrees that this specific edit was strictly a topic ban violation, I've been challenged on my interpretation ([4]) that hypothetical constructive edits to the significant portions of the article which do not concern the conflict would not violate this sanction, and so I am seeking clarification on that point.

I'd also like to point out that I restored the ref-fill edit as it was clearly constructive. I was then referred to the "banned means banned" section of the banning policy, which does not state that edits made in violation of a ban must be reverted; on the contrary it states that "obviously helpful changes ... can be allowed to stand". And I'd also like to draw the reviewers' attention to an essentially concurrent discussion ([5]) in which another editor was sanctioned for attempted frivolous enforcement of this same decision. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron11598: thank you, that was a silly omission on my part. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I am thankful that DBigXray's message on my user talk allowed me to remediate the blunder I made in form of an inadvertent violation of my ban, I am bit disappointed in the choice of language in their message. There is quite a bit of assumption of bad faith in their comment when they put it like "I saw that you are still editing Siachen Glacier", it conveys as if I was a long term habitual editor of that article and I am still continuing to edit that article in defiance of my ban but in reality that was my first ever edit on that article. I never ever edited that article in good ole days of freedom to edit any article on Wikipedia then why I would knowingly and willfully violate my topic ban just to fill a reference so assuming good faith, the message could have better read as "I see that you might have inadvertently violated your topic ban in this edit, please be careful in future as your ban is broadly construed and it does not matter whether you are fixing a reference or adding content about actual conflict." No matter the disagreements or different backgrounds, why cannot we give space to our fellow editors by assuming good faith towards them when we have a choice between both (good or bad). While we are here and being thankful to the admins to give me a leeway, my question to them and more specifically to ARBCOM members is that would not it be a good idea to exclude purely technical edits such as the one I made out of the scope of such topic bans. I am unable to see what could be the risk of such edits spiraling the conflict out of hands or starting an edit-war or battleground editing pattern which could be risks when an edit is truly content related. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in this case, the entire article is subject to ARBCOM rulings. It's clear from looking at it that the conflict is more than a mere mention in this article.

Before I looked at the article I was expecting to opine that the parts of the article related to the geographical/geological/environmental/etc aspects of the glacier would be fine to edit. However, after having read the article it seems that everything is intimately tied up with the conflict, or its origins, history or effects. I would recommend topic banned users give this article a miss in its entirety.

Ivanvector is correct though regarding reinstating the self-reverted edit. WP:PROXYING is the relevant policy here - "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." [emphasis in original]. The edit in question was clearly productive, and there is no suggestion that it was performed at the direction of anyone else. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an affinity for boundary-testing-experiments but IMO, if Sheriff can manage to edit the article excluding anything tangential to the conflict, there's no problem.

The entire second paragraph of lead, etymology-section and drainage-section ought not be any related to the conflict.

I would advise against the seemingly-innocent section of Environmental issues courtesy that they are caused by the presence of forces et al, which links up to the conflict.

The rest of the sections are a clear-red-zone.

I concur with Ivan's restoration and commend him for rising above petty process-wonkery. Whilst I agree that this particular edit violated Sheriff's T-Ban, I don't have any idea as to why DBigXray asked for a revert; a plain note of caution would have been sufficient.∯WBG^converse 16:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the current action taken by Ivanvector and believe that this was a constructive edit. IMO, as long as we are here, there is an issue with this topic ban from the point of view of it's scope. Just to be clear I am not arguing for or against the ban or trying to dig into the reasons behind it. My intention here is to clearly list what is allowed and what is not allowed under this topic-ban, for the sake of the editors who are under the ban and other editors who edit in the general area. When the ban was crafted there was some degree of ambiguity to it (not certain if that was deliberate or not) which has led different administrators to derive different interpretations from it and impose it per their view. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to maybe make a small list of gray areas to remove procedural overhead of people reporting each other and leading to more discussions. I would present two scenarios which happened recently because of the aforementioned ambiguity. There was a WP:ANI discussion about an editor who was involved in the area and some editors who participated in the discussion were briefly banned since this was considered a violation of their topic ban. Another scenario which is currently playing out on another talk page discussion where there was a discussion about inclusion/exclusion of countries (along with India and Pakistan). I don't have a strong opinion in either of these cases or other gray areas but feel listing no-go zones and okay zones might be easier for all of us. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

• @Ivanvector:, just a heads up I added the diffs of your notifications for you. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: no problem! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• General comment: I should know better to ask this after almost nine years on the ArbCom, but is it altogether impossible for common sense to govern this sort of question? My thanks to those who have already employed this underutilized dispute-resolution tool. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• We run into this issue quite a bit and may times where the intent is not innocent. In those cases, we have taken a hard line stance on the wording of "broadly construed", especially if it is apparent the editor in question has difficulty disengaged and continuously tests the waters. In this case, broadly construed was also used in the discretionary sanction and editors were expressly warned that "testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block". That being said, it appears the intent was accidental and SheriffIsInTown immediately reverted their actions once they were notified. No block was issued and I think it was handled reasonably well by both involved. We allow administrators to rely their judgement when enforcing discretionary sanctions on a case-by-case basis. In this case a notification was a measured and appropriate response. Mkdw ^talk 20:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As Mkdw says, this is an issue which comes up a lot. Technically if the edit has absolutely nothing whatsoever (note the broadly construed) to do with the conflict between the two countries then it would be okay. However, administrators and the Committee have taken a fairly hard line in interpreting what is and what is not covered by a sanction. There are a number of things which need to be considered when determining whether an edit is a violation of a sanction and what, if any, action should be taken, these include the history of the editor and sanction, conflict on the article in the past, what exactly is edited and what, if discernible, the intent of the edit was. In this case, I believe that the correct action was taken and nothing more needs to be done. SheriffIsInTown reverted their edit when they where alerted that it might be a violation of the topic ban rather than fight about it (which is another factor in deciding what to do). Looking at the article, I believe that it would be difficult to edit much of it without the edit being at least tangentially related to the India-Pakistan conflict so it would be best to not edit the article at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Mkdw. I could expound and sound important, but he’s put it as well as I could. Katie^talk 01:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh Mkdw is good. I agree. Doug Weller talk 05:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Mkdw. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Piling on the Mkdw bandwagon. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree with MKDW. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Case or decision affected

Some editors "indefinitely banned from edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. "[6]

Would it be a topic ban violation if an editor topic banned from "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan" edits Regional power with the purpose to debate the status of India or Pakistan?

The description of India and Pakistan in the context of regional power heavily focuses on conflicts between India and Pakistan. Reliable sources largely emphasize on conflicts between two countries in this subject when they discuss their "power". Some more factors including "regional power" that falls within the India-Pakistan conflict area are mentioned by this reliable source.

Historically we have considered subjects like Khalistan movement, Insurgency in Balochistan to be a violation of this particular topic ban since these subjects are also tied up with conflicts between India and Pakistan.

Even if an editor edits such subjects without actually making mention of India-Pakistan conflict, then still it could be still considered a topic ban violation because India-Pakistan conflict is among the major factor involved and ultimately the coverage of India-Pakistan conflict is significantly affected. Orientls (talk)

@KrakatoaKatie: This is not about a particular editor but clarification concerning treatment of this subject (Regional power) when the editor is editing this subject with purpose to debate the status of India or Pakistan as regional power.

Topic banned from India-Pakistan conflict or not, both types of editors treat the subject as a part of India-Pakistan conflict. This question was also raised by Adamgerber80 above as "scenario which is currently playing out on another talk page discussion". FWIW, I have presented both sides that those who don't consider this subject to be a topic ban violation (from IP conflict) would only claim that "I made no mention of any India-Pakistan conflict", while influencing the very same conflict by editing this subject.

I don't know if topic banned editors (and how many of them) could be named as party since they are not the ones seeking clarification or raising any demand for one. Non-topic banned users have shown no interest in seeking clarification either. Given these uncertainties, I saw no need of naming anybody as a party unless they had shown interest anywhere. Nevertheless, I also believed that anyone interested can ask clerks if they want to be a party to this request. Orientls (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Premedidated Chaos: Don't we use ARCA instead when there is uncertainty over the scope? Reporting an edit without being sure if it constitutes a violation or not would likely result in sanction on the reporting editor and that is what we need to avoid. Orientls (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally suspicious of these generic "I won't tell you who I'm asking about" questions. ArbCom should decline to answer without background info. Doing it this way denies the targets of the filing the opportunity to comment. If ArbCom doesn't decline, someone should notify all the editors in the linked enforcement log addition. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

• This is ultimately a decision for the community, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Floq makes a good point. Is this about you, Orientis? If it’s not, you should name the editor about whom you’re concerned. Katie^talk 01:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I'm with Rob and Katie here. I don't think ARCA should be used to make such granular decisions in the absence of any specific context. If you're reporting an edit you believe is a violation, report it at AE and see what the admins there think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Jumping on the bandwagon. Not here, AE. Doug Weller talk 05:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely a matter for AE to handle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• We review most things on a case-by-case basis. I would need to review the editor's past history and the edit itself before making any decision. Mkdw ^talk 22:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---