Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 18:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 17:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 22:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties

Requests for comment

Statement by Rama's Arrow

I am requesting arbitration over the disruptive conduct of these editors, who have edited almost exclusively to promote a religious and nationalist point of view across a wide range of articles (including biographies) concerning India, Pakistan and Hinduism. Repeated disruption has been caused owing to their edit-warring over script transliterations, wikiproject banners, descriptions of nationality and an attempt to rewrite articles on historical and cultural topics to promote their point of view. These editors have also been consistently incivil to others and have also personally attacked editors on the lines of national origin, race and religion. They have routinely accused other involved editors of racial, national, political and religious bias. All of these editors have attempted to evade blocks and promote their point of view via sockpuppetry through anonymous IP addresses and multiple sockpuppet accounts. Their continued disruptive activities have caused wide-ranging edit wars between groups of editors, often threatening to degenerate into an open edit-war between national and religious groups. These editors have continuously violated WP:POINT, WP:DE, WP:3RR, WP:EW, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NEO and WP:SOCK. Only Unre4L has attempted proper dispute resolution, which largely stalled as the editors in question maintained their disruptive and confrontational behavior. Rama's arrow 17:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Request for continuation I request that the case proceedings (if accepted) not begin until this Sunday, February 18th. This is because I will be out of town for some important business, which will deny me access to Wikipedia. I hope the arbitrators and clerks will find this request reasonable, as I'm asking for only a very short delay. Rama's arrow 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It also appears that one party to the dispute is not active and has not responded to the notification. It will provide some more time for that editor, Siddiqui to make a statement and allow arbitrators to decide if he is to be a party (in wake of his absence). Rama's arrow 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nadirali

With evidence,I will prove the violations of Rama's Arrow and his associates which I will soon name. They have committed the following acts/violations:

  • violated WP:NPOV
  • violated WP:NPA (including making racial remarks)
  • Disruptive edit wars,violating WP:EW.
  • Violated WP:NC by claiming the identity and heritage of other countries.(Mainly Pakistan's)
  • Abuse of administrative privelidges by blocking users for their disagreement and without evidence of their alleged "violations".
  • Taking "ownership" of articles through Tag-team edit warring.
  • using wikipedia as a soapbox to spread false information about Pakistan and it's history, therefor violating WP:SOAP.
  • Bullying single users in groups through harrassment on talkpages.
  • Repeated vandalizm.

I request that the Arbcom allows a few other users as witnesses to this case to make statements regarding this case with statemnts and evidence of their own.--Nadirali نادرالی

Reply to Ambroodey Ambroody is a close associate of Rama's Arrow and has engaged in tagging Pakistani articles with Indian tags,causing offense.His statement about tags not being used for ownership is not true.Administrator:Dbachmann is a Swiss and has participated in many South Asia discussions.Never was any South Asian article talkpage tagged with a Swiss banner for the obvious reason that the Indians are using their tags to claim our history.What's more is they won't allow us to add Pakistani tags to Pakistani history articles.Here is an example.This is enough to prove they want to use the tags to claim ancient Pakistani history as "Indian". If the case is approved and does proceed,I will provide evidence against each associate of Rama's Arrow (as well As Rama's Arrow himself) including the 2 which are already mentioned,Abroody and Dangerousboy.These two as well as others have committed serious violations and have gotten away with them.--Nadirali نادرالی

Response to clerks requests.I don't see why it should be called "Pakistani nationalism".What these Indians are doing is far beyond nationalism.Should it be called "Indian nationalism" or "Indian imperialism"?I think we should rename it to Indo-Pakistani disputes.Simply asking the right to my history/heritage does not make me a nationalist.Also want to point out that Rama's Arrow is both Hindu and Indian.He has made some accusations in his edits on the anti-Hindu article against Indian Buddists and Pakistani Muslims.So please consider changing the name from "Pakistani nationalism".Thanks.--Nadirali نادرالی

take this category for example.Based upon categories like these about Hindu temples/settlements in Azerbaijan,I saw a site about 2 years back (which I am trying to find again for evidence of my claims of Indian hegemonic claims over other countries ancient heritage) that claimed the so-called "common

The alligation that I "threatened" Ragib is bogus.I even apologised to him for getting so upset.I was under the notion he let Kumernator repeatidly attack me while making a big deal over striking out a false info.That was before he provided the links to Kumernators talkpage.And I also removed "middle school" kid since it borders personal attack.I removed it before anyone could see it.Bakaman is using a diff that was deleted before anyone saw it.

Statement by Szhaider

I am a busy man in my real life. I have no time to spend here. However, when I see something balatantly wrong, I try to fix it and there are others who do not want somethings fixed and try to push their own POV. My very first contributions were to fix a few typos. My first major contribution was in Abrar-ul-Haq [1]. Since then, I have expanded this article significantly. Interestingly enough, I was blocked for the first time because of the same article. It was because of edit war with a user User:Sukh who insisted to add Gurmukhi to the article, although, this script is not comprehensible to the subject of the article and neither it is used in the country of the subject of the article. See the edit summary of User:Rama's Arrow at [2]. He encouraged User:Sukh to keep irrelevant script just because it was used in India (country of User:Rama's Arrow). My disputes with User:Anupam started when he started to add Hindi script to virtually all Pakistan related articles (e.g. [3]) and changing Islam related articles with tone more favourable towards India. He has been catgorizing Arabic and Persian words as Hindi, and adding Hindi scripts to such words ([4] [5][6] [7]) On November 26, 2006 [8] I used WP:AWB to cleanup articles under Category:Archaeological sites in Pakistan; within hours, a User:Dangerous-Boy tagged the talk pages of all these articles with WP India tags and began to wage a war when I removed them. User:Bakasuprman (a staunch supporter of User:Hkelkar) also joined him. Rama's Arrow himself has been engaged in edit wars against me. I never complained against him but considering his behaviour and volatile nature, I had a strong feeling that he could never be an Admin; until he blocked me. All other parties of this Requests for arbitration have been blocked by many Admins, why is that only Rama's Arrow is crticised. I believe, because of heavy criticism gainst him from me and other Pakistanis, User:Rama's Arrow has developed an enemosity against us. If you count personal attacks from me (which by the way I still do not consider personal attacks as they were expressions of furstrations because of meatpuppetry against me) they are only two. That's right only two. One against User:Anupam (mere criticism) and one against Rama's Arrow (mere criticism), when he blocked me while ignoring policy violations from certain Indian users. Interstingly, he blocked me after the very first warning by [9] when I did not post any other heated post. He did not wait for any other heated post from me because he was in content dispute with me and used a warning as an opportunity to block me, hence violating the blocking policy; see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. Blocking policy clearly states that block should be for 24 hours for initial accusations of personal attacks but Rama imposed a whopping 7 day block. His policy violations were repeated twice in coming weeks. I believe Rama's Arrow has failed to prove his neutrality when content disputes involve India and Pakistan, he can easily be provoked into edit wars and he has been involved in multiple accounts of edit wars and meatpuppetry. Considering these facts, he should be stripped off his Admin privelages with justified period of block. He has ignored comments by other users and admins against his blocks. In one case he quickly reverted Jinnah [10] when I removed a bised sentence, although, I was going to give sources. Note that, in later edits I removed the same sentence again and provided solid sources against it. In addition, his user name "Rama's Arrow" gains a lot of attention because of his extremely religious nature. I have nothing against Hindus; in fact I am proud of Pakistani hindus such as Danish Kaneria and Rana Bhagwandas, however, consistent to his username Rama's Arrow's has demonstrated his religion-based intentions by being involved in edit wars with mostly Pakistanis and over sensitive issues related to Pakistan and India. By this it was my intention to gether attention of others towards how his religion and Indian background are affecting his neutrality at wikipedia.

Some points about my editing habits:

  • I have personally felt a little confused about Pakistani nationalism as I was finding some material added by Pakistanis which was outrageous. The only thing I was sure about the Aurangzeb part and I have tried to build consensus against that part as I found such claims about importance of Aurangzeb baseless and ridiculous.
  • I never edited any articles related to Hinduism as I have no solid knowledge about that religion (I have some curious questions though which I will be posting on relevant pages). I am in discussion about clarification of the origin of the word Hindu.
  • I have never made any major changes to India (I do not remember any typos if I have ever fixed in this article).
  • Rama's Arrow gave me 1 extra week of block for block evasion, therefore, this accusation should not be mentioned again.
  • I have always resisted the inclusion of Indian scripts to Pakistan related articles, however, I have never tried to add any Pakistani scripts (Arabic script is exclusively used in Pakistan for regional and national languages) to India related articles. My recent attempt to add persian to Hindu has been countered with full force, although, I gave a solid reason for persian script. I have backed off from it for now. I consider the inclusion of Indian scripts to Pakistan related articles a cultural warfare against Pakistan's culture and it's identity; and I believe Wikipedia is being used as an active battlefield. Such additions of foreign scripts is a nostalgia-based claim over Pakistan for India.
  • I do not add any content unless I believe it is not POV and it can be proved. If strong proofs against my edit's validity are provided with a dignified way, I accept them. However, I counter with full force when a balatant POV is pushed into a topic of my interest.
  • We four Pakistanis are being accused of being waging edit wars in groups. The fact is we have never worked as groups. I have no off-wiki contact with any of other three editors. Although I feel most of their edits are valid but at times I have had my share of disagreements with them. See this as an example. In contrast to our accusers, we have never tried to support each other with meatpuppetry.

Reply to Dangerous-Boy

I stopped removing Indian tags when all of my reservations had been resolved and POV images had been replaced with satellite images for pre-1947 South Asia. As for your claim that you never removed Pak tag, here are some diffs where you did remove Pak tag (and replaced with India tag):
In addition to these, you are continuously using {{WP India|history=yes}} instead of {{WP India|history=yes|pre=yes}} to tag Pakistan relating historical articles. {{WP India|history=yes}} results in a Republic of India flag which is not only inappropriate but also provocative and offensive; and in a direct violation of consensus built about Indian tags which resulted in {{WP India|history=yes|pre=yes}}. Szhaider 06:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Siddiqui

I contributed to Pakistan related articles. The Indian contributors are continuing to rewrite Pakistan related with the Hindutva version of history and events. The Pakistan History article has been rewritten with a Hindutva team tagging. There are not that many Pakistani contributors to defend and give Pakistani point of view in Pakistan related articles. The Indian editors have also been involved in this partisan editing. Some article like Poverty in Pakistan is created by Indians are owned by them as all edits are reverted. I think all Pakistan articles should have a heading "Written by Indians with Indian and Hindutva Point of view". This team tagging Indian contributors and Indian editors rewriting Pakistan articles has definitely smeared Wikipedia. I have been banned and I do not care anymore. I tried my best to be good contributor but these Indians have left me no choice. Good Luck and good bye. Siddiqui 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Unre4L

Ok. This Arbitration case has taken me by surprise, as its filed minutes after Me and Nadirs complaint against user Rama's Arrow. [11]
I am not a "PoV-Pusher" of any sort, All my contributions have been based on getting rid of PoV-based content on Wiki. A few Indian users supported by Rama have been bombarding Pakistan articles with Hinduvta Views:

  • Replacing/Removing terms to change the image of Pakistan/Islam , [12]
  • Omitting Pakistan altogether in Ancient history articles, [13]
  • Replacing terms with "Indianised" non-official terms and editing entire texts to promote Hinduvta views, [14]
  • Replacing terms to promote Indian version of history, [15]
  • Replacing (sourced) facts with exaggerated versions to fit POV. [16]
  • Pakistani national heroes referred to as “Indian” to cause tension, when infact they were “British Indian” [17] [18]
  • Other examples which caused a lot of tension was the inclusion of unrelated India terms to Pakistani articles. [19]
  • Not to mention Generally ignored insults: [20] [21] [22]

(More examples of each can me provided, but you get the Idea) Rama not only accepted this, but supported them, and banned Pakistani users who dared to question these views and vandalisms. Rama ignores all the above offences of Indian users and punished Pakistani users for Questioning(!) Indian PoV, however false, and sourceless they were. I did not Edit-war, vandalise, Curse, or Flame anyone whatsoever. My bans were caused entirely by Questioning the Current Indian POV.

I attempted several RfCs, where I asked that Neutral parties should reply. The Debate was bombarded by a group of Indians with a rich history of edit warring Pakistani articles. Other Dispute Resolution attempts got me Blocked.
My first Block (Without Warning)
Banned for questioning the claim that Lahore used to belong to Republic of India. (Please note, not once did I curse or attack another member in this discussion.)
I start a discussion on the talk page and put a Disputed template on the page, (which is removed seconds later). [23]
User:AMbroodEY responds with a harsh reply, including the statement:

  • "Wikipedia is not a playground for nationalist wetdreams"[24]

I start presenting more arguments, User:AMbroodEY responds with further Harsh replies, including the following.

  • "First i'd do take additional English lessons."[25]
  • "By your dumb logic..."[26]
  • "AN article does not become disputed just because you get nationlistic epileptic fits, every now and then." [27]

I get a weeks block for "POV-Pushing". [28] User:AMbroodEY gets a verbal warning by Rama, After I point out the insults.
My second Block (Without Warning)
A debate on Talk:History_of_Pakistan, led to a few "heated" replies by me, like:

  • "I will let you take your words back" [29]
  • "why do 160 million have to be denied their history?" [30]
  • " I was naive enough to think you would agree with me for once" [31]
  • "The history belongs to the Pakistani people, hence its Pakistani history. Tell me, how many Pakistanis are there in India, since you can claim the history of their ancestors?" [32]

(Plus more, be sure to check them all out.) These insanely moderate comments were Twisted, by giving them alternative Titles, and used to hand out another 1 week ban [33]. People who bothered to read the comments criticized Rama for the Block. however, despite objections, the Block was not lifted.
Desperate Attempt to extend block.
I am a Pakistani Muslim, and yes, By Rama’s thinking, it makes me a much more likely candidate for an Anti-Semite. His accusation of Anti-Semitism were extremely hurtful, and they were thrown at me Immediately after my 2nd block. Not caring that I was logged out, I immediately defended my self from these accusations. Ignoring everything I posted he hands out 2 weeks for "Block Evasion". He also tried to extend my block by making me my own colourful "agenda". [34]

To AMbroodEY
I never mentioned any Genocide, let alone Deny one. Why do you insist on twisting my words. My exact statement was, that I (without thinking) claimed that

  • "Nobody was forced out. People left Pakistan just like they left India." [35].

And by the use of some twisted Logic, you convert my statement into a Genocide Denial? Please. I have told you several times that I didnt deny any genocide, I even told you I was offended when you called me a "Genocide Denier" [36], but you keep spreading the same lies over and over again.

15 million just left eh? Sindh had 35% Hindu population before partition, today it numbers only abt 2%. I dont want this page to snowball, we can discuss this later on. Posted by AMbroodEY

Above - BTW - the migration of people from both sides of Indian border continued till the mid 1950's - it was not as if all the partition was completed on 14-15 August 1947 and then borders closed Chattezavecmoi 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is EXACTLY what I mean. I provided half a dozen sources for the figure of 3.5 Million people moving out of Pakistan. All sources were ignored, and first these guys claim the figure was 7 million something, then 10 million something, now AMbroodEY is claiming the figure was 15 million for Sindh alone!. No sources of course. Thank you.
And btw User Chattezavecmoi is an Obvious Sock of someone. He only has 1 contribution, which seems to be a disruption of my Statement.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: i meant 1.5 million. As for your 'sources' are you talking about this edit [37]?

Do tell whether your 'sources' qualify WP:RS: .# .# (a missionary website) .# (a tv channel!)

It is impossible to put a number to the number of refugees during the partition. Estimates range from 8 million to 15 million. Conservative estimates suggest that over 500000-2 million people were killed disproportionate number of them being Sikhs and Hindus. Migration continued until mid-1950's.

Yes your encarta link does say that there were 3.5 million Hindu refugees but it also puts the number of Muslim refugess to 5 million. Why did you selectively edit the number for only Hindu refugees?The 7.5 million figure is cited from Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. India Wins Freedom. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1960. and Freedom at Midnight. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not selectively edit anything. Unlike you I took random sources. And we were discussing Hindus moving out of Pakistan. Not Muslims moving in. Your keep giving figures with both numbers added up. Now please dont cause a disruption of my statement. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)


Assume good faith

1) Wikipedia:Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources.

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


2) Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppets.

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

3) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited.

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

4) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

5) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact


1) Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of aggressive edit-warring (see block log) and attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ([38], [39], [40]).

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


2) Unre4L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of aggressive edit-warring (see block log) and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ([41], [42], [43], [44]).

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


3) Siddiqui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of abusive sockpuppetry (see checkuser results), aggressive edit-warring (see block log), and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ([45], [46], [47]).

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


4) Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of aggressive edit-warring (see block log) and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ([48], [49], [50], [51]).

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


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

Szhaider banned

1) Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unre4L banned

2) Unre4L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Siddiqui banned

3) Siddiqui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nadirali banned

4) Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Contentious topic designation

Superseded version

5) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

Passed by motion 8 to 2, 18:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

5) All pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  1. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  2. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  3. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.


Motion 1 (April 2018)

The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained, and the topic-ban imposed on MapSGV on March 2, 2018 is lifted. MapSGV remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies.

Passed 6 to 2 with 1 abstention by motion at 17:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Motion 2 (April 2019)

SheriffIsInTown's topic ban from pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

Passed 6 to 2 by motion at 22:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

21) Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Enforcement log


On 3 May 2014 Arbcom established a new method of notifying for discretionary sanctions which is explained at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. All notices given prior to the May 2014 cutover date will expire on 3 May 2015. New notices are to be given using {{Ds/alert}} and they expire one year after they are given. No new notices should be logged here.

Log of blocks and bans

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.