Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

---

Initiated by Soham321 at 20:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

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

• Soham321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ogress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mohanbhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Bishonen
• Ogress
• Sitush
• Mohanbhan
• SpacemanSpiff
• Ms Sarah Welch

Information about amendment request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

• Removal of the Arbitration Enforced 6 month topic ban on all India related articles which has been imposed on me by Bishonen

Bishonen accuses me of "battleground editing","tendentious editing", and an "aggressive discussion style" while imposing the ban. With respect to the first two accusations, i will point to Jawaharlal Nehru; all my edits have been accepted on this page even though it is a very disputed page and even the major political parties in India have commented on the editing on this page. I will also point out that even though i earlier had some personal friction with Ogress and Sitush i now have cordial relations with both of them. With respect to Sitush, one may see the talk page on Eckankar where we have interacted in a very civil way. Regarding Ogress one may see the talk page of Two Truths Doctrine where i express confidence in her editing and she endorses a source used by me in the main article. Bishonen's claim that i have an aggressive discussion style is totally undercut by my two responses to two different editors as per this diff: [diff1]. Additionally, Mohanbhan with whom i have collaborated on some WP pages has argued that Bishonen's action against me was completely unjustified: [diff2]. In the present case, there is an editor Ms Sarah Welch who repeatedly called Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya a fringe source on the talk page of Carvaka and proceeded to delete content in Carvaka that was sourced from Chattopadhyaya. Mohanbhan and i have repeatedly pointed out to her that Chattopadhyaya is not a fringe source in the talk page of Carvaka giving various pieces of evidence. I showed her that Ogress has endorsed Chattopadhyaya's scholarship. When Sarah Welch continued with her tirade against Chattopadhyaya in the talk page of Carvaka and also on my talk page i referred her to lacking in competence and mentioned that i would be henceforth referring to lacking in competence if she continued her tirade against Chattopadhyaya. This resulted in Bishonen imposing a 6 month ban on India related articles on me.

One clarification: Regarding diff1, one notes that Sitush had thrown lacking in competence at me when i had simply expressed disagreement over whether the book India as a Secular_State is 'outdated' or not. SpacemanSpiff, declaring himself to be an uninvolved Admin, has expressed the view that i deserve a one year ban for my present infraction. SpacemanSpiff, who is occasionally found exchanging friendly exchanges on Sitush's talk page, will i am sure reconsider his clearly biased opinion when comparing Sitush's behavior with mine and studying the provocations involved. I will also point out that Spaceman cannot declare himself to be an uninvolved Admin considering our somewhat rough interactions on my talk page, and considering his comment concerning me to another Admin (Dennis Brown) on Dennis's talk page which he later retracted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_35#Caste_system_in_India). Spaceman, Bishonen and others are welcome to cherry pick my edits to portray me in a poor light; what cannot be denied is that i happen to be a content creator, and content creators need to be respected and protected.Secondly, i would like uninvolved Admins to compare my behavior towards other editors with the behavior of the highly experienced editor Sitush towards me (prior to our new friendship as revealed by the recent editing on the talk page of the Eckankar page). The diff that i gave (diff1) is fairly typical of my interactions with Sitush (prior to our editing on the Eckankar page)--leaving aside my tiff with Sitush when i was a new WP editor. I have almost always been at the receiving end of Sitush's barbs, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jawaharlal_Nehru&diff=671007963&oldid=671007789 If no action is being taken against Sitush for behavioral issues, and concurrently action is taken against me, then the process smacks of double standards and hypocrisy. Bishonen had earlier created a unique pseudo complaint generator to protect Sitush: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Clueless_Sitush_complaint_generator So many complaints came up in this complaint generator--complaints of a serious nature as revealed by the history of this page--that the page had to be shut down. This is further evidence of double standards and hypocrisy and not treating all editors as equals.

Bishonen had earlier insinuated that i was editing anonymously using an IP address and when i protested against this she had withdrawn her accusation and even deleted the edit summaries, and from what i can tell even her edit. Please see Link1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soham321&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history ; and do a Ctrl-F for Bishonen. When i was new to WP, i had been involved in an ANI dispute. Not knowing WP rules I wrote a review of the discussion together with my thoughts on my talk page and Bishonen deleted my comments with what i thought to be an unduly harsh edit summary considering i was new to WP. This edit summary may be seen in Link1 (if you do a Ctrl-F on Bishonen ). There were also some harsh words exchanged on Bishonen's talk page relating to her insinuation or accusation that i was using an IP address to do editing (which she later retracted after my strong protest), but since this was on her talk page it will take me forever to retrieve the diffs. But as evidence for this one may see this diff containing two separate comments of mine: [diff3], one of them in reply to Kim Dent-Brown. Bishonen mentions the one year topic ban on Digvijaya Singh imposed on me by Kim Dent-Brown;my answer is that i was new to WP at the time and didn't know the rules. I also respected the topic ban and didn't approach Kim for a review after 6 months even though he offered to review my topic ban in 6 months. Finally, i am pinging Kenfyre, Twobells, and Agtx since i have done collaborative editing with them. Soham321 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i thank Agtx for the prompt response. I just wish to clarify that he is wrong when he says he did not have access to the full source when editing the Sach Khand article. The paraphrasing was being done from only one page of the book and he did have access to that page when he placed the close paraphrasing tag since he gave a link to the same book and same page (viewable online through google books) which i was using to make my edit: diff1

So my exasperation was as to why he was not paraphrasing himself when he had access to the source, and instead preferred putting paraphrasing tags. It is true also that initially he put two tags of non-neutrality and POV ( diff2 ) and then seemingly abandoned the discussion on the talk page which i initiated to try and resolve the tagging issue. In the one response he had given me as to why he had put the POV and non-neutrality tags, his rationale was coming across as being puerile.

This was when i told him that he has to continue participating in the talk page because of the POV and non-neutrality tags he had placed else we can opt to go for Dispute Resolution. I will point out, incidentally, that the article Sach Khand was created by me. I will also state that had i not been proactive the tags could very well have been in place in the article as of today. I also wish to refer to what Agtx had written on the talk page of the article (diff3):

That looks a lot better, thank you for doing that. You're definitely more knowledgeable on this topic than I am. I went ahead played around some with the language and cleaned up some formatting.Should add that if my changes made anything inaccurate, obviously please feel free to fix it.

And finally, i will state that the changes Agtx made to the Sach Khand article (after i had condensed and edited it further after my discussion with Agtx)--as can be seen from the edit history of the page-- ended up making the article inaccurate because of which i had to do further editing on the page. I explained why i had to make changes to Sach Khand, after Agtx's editing in the talk page of the article. (Essentially, Agtx had introduced inaccuracies into the article.) To his credit, Agtx yielded to my corrections and did not place any further tags on the page. Soham321 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to do any trimming which Thryduulf is suggesting i do. I am allowed 1,000 words in my appeal on this forum as per the rules and i wish to take full opportunity of discussing my case while respecting the 1,000 word limit. Soham321 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have two points to make in response to Ogress's post. First, it is inevitable to have a point of view and to therefore be "tendentious" when it comes to philosophy. But the fact that i have not let my point of view affect my editing on philosophy articles is seen when i have edited the Carvaka page presenting the Charvaka point of view and also the Sach Khand page (i created this article) presenting the Sikh point of view. The view of Sach Khand has nothing to do with the view of the Charvakas since the former is a spiritual view and the latter is a materialistic view. With respect to mentoring, there is only one Admin who has spent time mentoring me and that is Dennis Brown. However, the maximum mentoring i have received is from my interactions with the veteran editor Sitush since Sitush is the editor i have interacted with the most ever since i started editing on WP. Soham321 (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to Ogress's most recent post supporting sanctions against me, slamming Mohanbhan, and talking of "gang editing". I had mentioned in my appeal that Ogress and i had had some initial friction before we started enjoying cordial terms as is evident from the talk page of Two truths doctrine where i express confidence in her editing diff1 and she had endorsed a source i had used in editing this page diff2. I wish to now refer to the initial friction i had with Ogress--about which i mentioned in my appeal without giving details-- prior to our having cordial relations. These pertain to Ogress undoing an edit of mine from the talk page of Carvaka with the following edit summary: "Deleting personal attack. DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS." diff3. Ogress's undoing of my edit was in turn reverted by Mohanbhan with the following edit summary: "It is not a personal attack, he is stating a grievance, do not censor wiki by using strong words" diff4. The conversation had not remained confined to the talk page of Carvaka since Ogress saw it fit to take it to my talk page: diff5 and diff6. Prior to this Ogress and i have had issues pertaining to the Caste system in India article. None of my edits were being allowed to be inserted into the main article because of what i considered a collusion of around five editors who seemed to be working in tandem on this page; one of these editors was Ogress. I had mentioned Ogress by name and referred to the collusion taking place here: dif7. To protect myself as to why i took up that case on that forum (in which i mentioned Ogress by name and the collusion taking place in Caste system in India) i give this diff of an edit written by me and addressed to one of the Arbs: diff8. The peculiar thing was that i was not the only person who felt like this. This is ABEditWiki writing about this collusion and mentioning Ogress by name: "I again reverted and user Ogress came and reverted. No engaging on talk page." diff9. And this is Kenfyre and Twobells discussing the collusion that was taking place in the Caste system in India article: diff10 (i had also subsequently participated in this discussion and so had Sitush).Soham321 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Salvio for clarifying the procedure in place. I was hoping to show that the fact that earlier i had unfriendly relations with Ogress but subsequently i had developed cordial relations with her (and likewise in the case of Sitush) would be something taken in my favor. But if the Arbs, in their wisdom, find my defense worthless than so be it. Soham321 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to make one more point about Salvio bringing up WP:ASPERSIONS in reviewing Mohanbhan's criticism of Sarah. WP:Aspersions says that "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence." But here, Mohanbhan is casting the aspersions on Sarah on the basis of WP:CIR, specifically when WP:CIR talks of 'bias based'. Here, contrary to all available evidence, like the scholar Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's scholarship being endorsed by giants like Joseph Needham and Louis Renou, Sarah was continuing to launch constant tirades against Chattopadhyaya and repeatedly destroying content in the Carvaka page which used Chattopadhyaya as a source--without any consensus on the talk page. Three editors, Mohanbhan, Ogress, and me--had endorsed Chattopadhyaya's scholarship.I am mentioning this because i had brought up WP:CIR before Sarah on two occasions and this has resulted in what i believe to be an unreasonable 6 month ban on all India related articles on me. Even if i made a mistake, the quantum of punishment is surely disproportionate. And if you want to go by past history, even then it is disproportionate. Soham321 (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My response to Ms Sarah Welch: With respect to Joshua Jonathan, it is my genuine belief that the article Two Truths doctrine was becoming worse because of his editing since in my opinion he did not understand the content because of which he was introducing inaccuracies into the article. (This is similar to what happened after Agtx did some editing in the Sach Khand article--after i had condensed it following our discussion-- and introduced inaccuracies into it ). I explained why i felt this way, in the talk page and first asked suggested that we let Ogress do the editing, and subsequently pinged every person who had ever edited that page after Jonathan continued to edit on the page and continued to introduce more inaccuracies when doing so. I did not do any editing on this article after i had pinged every person who had ever edited this page. Shrikanthv has written a comment on the talk page addressed to Joshua which to my mind reads like a polite request to him to refrain from editing the article: diff1. On the Adi Shankara page there was a content dispute was over whether it can be mentioned in the main article whether Shankara borrowed/plagiarized certain arguments that had been first invented by Mahayana Buddhists. I gave in the talk page of the article references to various scholars (extracts from books) who maintained this. But Joshua, Sarah Welch and Abecedare were not willing to accept the introduction of the plagiarism accusation even after i posted the book extracts from three different scholars on the talk page in this connection. Sarah Welch was claiming here also that Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya cannot be used as a source, claiming he is a fringe source and an unreliable source and she was also raising a question mark on the book's publisher. I then gave her evidence of Chattopadhyaya's scholarship: Unreliable sources I also wanted an introduction into the main article a reference to a section of Adi Shankara's philosophical rivals calling him a demon. My source for this was the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Demon accusation However, since i was unable to gather consensus with my respect to my edits i did not force the issue and simply left editing this page. I had made my points on the talk page, and some day someone could see them and place the content in the main article.

With respect to edit warring with Sarunfeldt on the Eckankar page, first Sarunfeldt was simply reverting without even leaving an edit summary initially and secondly Sarunfeldt had a COV because he had declared he is member of the clergy of this religion. So it was his prerogative not to do any edit warring and instead have discussions with me on the talk page. I will point out though that i have not attempted to put back into the main page any of the content on Eckankar which i had placed and which Sarunfeldt had deleted (although i gave details of this content on the talk page of Eckankar) after Sarunfeldt was temporarily blocked although i had an opportunity for doing so. I was waiting for him to appear on the talk page of the article and have a discussion before attempting to place the deleted content back into the main article.

With respect to Ogress, my comment was after she had deleted my edit on the talk page of Carvaka, which was subsequently reverted by Mohanbhan and then taken it to my talk page claiming i was making personal attacks which i maintained i was not. I got tired of the personal attack accusation and hence i made the comment which Sarah Welch mentions. However, subsequently i apologized for the comment to Ogress on my talk page and told her to bury our differences and work together on enriching the Encyclopedia (i have already given the necessary links in my second rejoinder to Ogress) and i will point out again that Ogress and I had developed cordial relations.

Blade of the Northern Lights and Dennis Brown issued warnings to me with respect to my editing on the highly disputed Caste system in India article about which as i have mentioned earlier there were other editors who had expressed unhappiness about the collusion that was taking place in editing this page. I respected the warnings, and i refrained from adding any content on the main article after i received the warnings confining myself to the talk page of the article. They then had a problem with my comments on the talk page of the article also--this was after i gave a quote of the Harvard scholar Michael Witzel slamming "revisionist scholarship" for a second time-- and Dennis said i should consider taking a break from the talk page also, which i did. In fact i have not edited that article at all (not even the talk page) since Dennis asked me to consider taking a break from it.

SpacemanSpiff's warning to me was immediately after my conflict with Ogress. He essentially wanted me to be more civil with other editors. It is true that i had made a comment to Ogress belittling her after she posted an inflammatory edit summary when undoing my edit on the talk page of Carvaka (which was reverted by Mohanbhan) and after she continued accusing me of making a personal attack which i believed was untrue. But then i had also subsequently apologized to Ogress and appealed that we should bury our differences and work collaboratively. We even developed cordial relations. I do not believe i have been uncivil with Sarah Welch since she has repeatedly questioned Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's scholarship on one ground or the other--despite being shown ample evidence that her assessment of Chattopadhyaya was incorrect-- and repeatedly sought to destroy any content sourced to his writings. On the Carvaka page she was doing this without consensus which is when i pointed out WP:CIR to her. Soham321 (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Joshua Jonathan for contributing to this discussion. With respect to Two truths doctrine, i have already explained on the talk page of the article why Joshua was introducing inaccuracies into the article through his editing because he did not understand the content in my opinion: diff1 The fact that Shrikanthv politely requested Joshua to abstain from editing this article on the talk page gives additional credence to my assessment: diff2 Finally, i have never edited this article after i pinged every single person who has edited this page after my content dispute with Joshua. With respect to the plagiarism allegations against Adi Shankara i had given references, links, and book extracts from the writings of three different scholars for this claim on the talk page of the Adi Shankara article.. These were Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Surendranath Dasgupta and Fyodor Shcherbatskoy. With respect to the Caste System in India article, five editors(Twobells, Kenfyre, ABEditWiki, Intelligent Mr Toad 2, and myself) have expressed a viewpoint differing from the five editors who were not allowing edits by others into this page-- on the talk page of this article, on Kenfyre's talk page or in ANI discussions. With respect to the Carvaka talk page, it is true that Abedecare had initially sided with Ms Sarah Welch but this support was conditional. Ms Sarah Welch did not want Chattopadhyaya to be used as a source at all; Abedecare was fine with using him as a source providing this sourcing was done with some discretion. After Mohanbhan wrote that Chattopadhyaya was making hermeneutic claims about Indian philosophy which cannot be refuted, Abedecare did not refute Mohanbhan suggesting that he agreed with Mohanbhan. Also, Abedecare stopped providing any support to Ms Sarah Welch's claim about not using Chattopadhyaya as a source possibly because he was persuaded by Mohanbhan and myself to consider Chattopadhyaya as a legitimate source. On Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's talk page, Abedecare had sided with Mohanbhan and me against Ms Sarah Welch. Soham321 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a belated response to Mohanbhan's comments. Mohanbhan, commenting on Ms Sarah Welch provoking me, writes:

When she repeats her "Chattopadhyaya is not a valid source" comment for the third time, Soham says this, "Your repeated tirades against Chattopadhyaya have exhausted my patience. Whenever you declare him to be a fringe source i reserve the right to point out lacking in competence to you."...He has been provoked to lose his cool, and he should not be punished for it.

Mohanbhan is completely right that i did lose my cool. However i would like Arb to compare my reaction when i lost my cool with when Bishonen had earlier lost her cool and was subsequently blocked by Jimbo Wales. Bishonen, as an Admin, had written to an editor:

Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo!

for which Jimbo Wales had blocked her as per this diff: diff1

Bishonen had subsequently successfully appealed against the block. I am mentioning this because in any quasi-legal or quasi-judicial decision making it is valid to show precedence. Soham321 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to the Talk Page Etiquette link which has now been added in Joshua Jonathan's comment. The background to this is that on the talk page of Adi Shankara Joshua Jonathan was was moving edits on the talk page--his and also mine--from one section to another. Section headers were being deleted by him, new section headers created, and edits being transferred from one section to another. Secondly an edit written in response to a comment was transferred and made to appear as if it is a response to some other comment.This was creating a lot of confusion and so i simply started reverting him on the talk page asking him in the edit summary and also in the talk page to stop doing what he was doing since it was becoming impossible to have a discussion on the talk page. We were unable to come to an agreement. I then took him to ANI (simultaneously he also appealed against me on a page related to India asking for an Admin to take action against me--i will have to find the diff for this). An admin closed my appeal asking me to sort it out with Joshua. I went to the talk page of this Admin and said i have tried discussing with Joshua, and we are not being able to come to an agreement. I then specifically asked him: is there any intervening authority before i approach ArbCom since my appeal had been denied in ANI. He replied in the negative. I then posted on his talk page that i am taking it to ArbCom which i did. (I should add that Joshua rearranged the edits in their original form in the talk page of Adi Shankara after the matter went to Arb.) I gave the background to this to one of the Arb members with the request that this should not be held against me and he said 'it was an error of inexperience' and he would not be holding it against me. And this is the diff: Diff1 Soham321 (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to Floquenbeam. I have strictly followed the rules of this forum. I respected the 1000 word limit in the initial appeal. There is, however, no restriction on the word limit when it comes to replying to other editors. I have not violated any rule. In any legitimate quasi judicial or quasi legal decision making you cannot make up new rules once an appeal has been filed. Soham321 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to Abecedare. I would specifically like to highlight that Abecedare and i have been involved in content disputes on the talk page of Adi Shankara and Carvaka. In the Adi Shankara talk page, i gave references (including links and book extracts) to the writings of three different scholars who claimed that Shankara had borrowed philosophical content from Mahayana Buddhists in his writings. This included an extract from a book by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya which included the following words about Adi Shankara:

What is really not so indisputable about him is his actual philosophical ability. Though he reinterprets Upanishadic idealism in a really advanced form, there is nothing practically worthwile in this reinterpretation that is not borrowed from the Mahayana Budhists. This fact of large scale borrowing is sought to be concealed by Shankara himself with the demonstration of a great deal of contempt for these Budhists, often accusing them of preaching precisely the same views which he himself wants to preach with great gusto...The usual defense of Shankara by his modern admirers is that he admits the truth or logic as well as of the material things from the standpoint of practical life: but this very distinction between "two truths" is an innovation of the Mahayana Budhists, from whom Shankara borrows it only with some terminological alteration.

Abecedare's response to the above quote includes the words "What we are objecting to is the use of the word "plagiarism" that you introduced, which does not make any sense when applied to classical philosophical ideas and is not used by any of the sources you quote."

To which i responded with the words: "I am truly amazed that you are unable to see the plagiarism accusation. I would have imagined Chattopadhyaya at least makes the point very clear. I am glad i am giving the full quotes of these scholars instead of giving summaries or paraphrasing, so that at least other editors can see what you claim you are unable to see."

I leave it to Arb to judge whether i was civil or not with Abecedare.

And this is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adi_Shankara#Shankara_and_Buddhism

Abecedare and i have had two or three conversations on my talk page, and also in the talk page of Rigveda, where when i point out that an authority he is citing--Klostermaier-- is regarded a fringe historian (please see the Reception section of Klostermaier's WP page), he responds by saying he often mixes up Klostermaier with Elst who is another fringe historian as per Elst's WP page. (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rigveda#Reference_to_Hinduism ) I do not believe i was uncivil with him in these conversations. Soham321 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to Yunshui who is mischaracterizing my position in my opinion. My position is not that the problem lies with other editors; my position is that unless you are ok with the quality of several important WP articles (which are of a disputed nature) remaining mediocre and inaccurate (serving thereby to discredit the reputation of WP as a whole), you have to be prepared to tolerate a certain amount of friction and "heat" due to the inevitable intellectual debate that takes place in the talk page of the article and also occasionally in the main article through reverts with associated edit summaries. Soham321 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the conversation on my page from 2013 that Soham321 mentions above. Bishonen | talk 07:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Soham321 has been a tendentious and difficult editor. He also has been improving, albeit slowly, and I think one day might be a very solid editor. He has shown to learn from his mistakes, albeit slowly on some occasions. I do not know that this statement impacts a temporary ban on India-related editing.

Soham321, if your temporary ban is upheld, I hope you will take the time to continue to edit Wikipedia in other places. Admins have been extraordinarily patient with you - perhaps you do not realise how much mentoring you have received, I think I got about zero - and I urge you to learn the same patience. Also, pretty much everyone has suffered bans of one sort or another. Continue to improve your skills in areas where distance from your subject might help you improve as an editor; you are nothing if not committed to passionate editing on topics you are committed to, which can sometimes actually be a hindrance, especially to new editors who are learning. You are, as I said above, continuing to learn how to Wiki, and I would be lying if I said it came naturally to anyone. Ogress _smash! 03:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add more content. I am deeply troubled by the long responses by both Soham321 (talk · contribs) and Mohanbhan (talk · contribs), who are using this discussion to continue a very inappropriate attack on other users such as Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs), most particularly Mohanbhan, whose entire response is a tirade against Ms Sarah Welsh.

I am disappointed and angry that this is being turned into a forum to point fingers at Ms Sarah Welch and others. I have changed my position from neutral to support sanctions - although this is not a vote - as I think this very Arb request is being used as another chance to continue what is a grudge match.

I would also like to point out that the behavior of Mohanbhan (talk · contribs) has been very particularly inappropriate both in and outside this Arb board as well. I'm not sure why his behavior has not been examined more closely as he has been posting in a manner not befitting a Wikipedia editor.

Lest anyone think I am partisan in this situation, I wish to be clear that Ms Sarah Welch and I are on the opposite side of disputes most of the time, even on the very article Carvaka that is being dragged around, and not in a minor disagreement kind of way. I have avoided editing pages she is involved with in order to avoid conflict with her. I nonetheless find the ongoing gang editing direly troublesome and extremely distasteful. Ogress _smash! 08:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is Sarah Welch's revert to the Charvaka article. There is no doubt that Soham's contribution to the article had enriched it, making the article a systematic exposition of Charvaka philosophy. Charvaka philosophy itself is unrelentingly critical of the Vedas and Vedantic thought, which, as I have suggested on Charvaka talk page, may have ticked off Sarah Welch who usually edits pages related to Vedantic philosophy. She has made it her one-point agenda to denigrate and exclude references from the greatest authority on this topic Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. Whenever I have edited or tagged the article she has shown a tendency to make the argument personal by adopting an aggressive hysterical tone, positioning responsible editors as vandals, and herself as the custodian of the page. Instead of discussing the cited references objectively and responding to the specific objections she repeatedly makes statements like "'The book @Mohanbhan likes' is not Wikipedia's definition of RS". She also quotes selectively and distorts the sources to push her POV, as can be seen in the discussion. She also uses the word "tainted" to refer to Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's dialectical materialist/Marxist viewpoint, and in spite of our objections repeatedly uses theis word] to refer to Chattopadhyaya. She is explained here that Chattopadhyaya is a philosopher who has made hermeneutic claims about Charvaka philosophy, and, as such, his work can't be said to be dated. After this discussion on 9th July Sarah Welch stops her disruptive edits and the article is substantially improved with sourced content. She shows up again on 20th July and starts haranguing about Chattopadhyaya as an unreliable source in spite all our previous explanations. She indulges in disruptive edits and her edits are reverted by Soham when she has no consensus for her view on the talk page. She then continues her rant on Chattopadhyaya, which I ignore, but which Soham responds to by advising her to read WP:CIR. But Sarah Welch repeats her rant, calling Chattopadhyaya "controversial and fring-y", citing non-existent "abundant evidence and review summaries" on the talk page. When she repeats her "Chattopadhyaya is not a valid source" comment for the third time, Soham says this, "Your repeated tirades against Chattopadhyaya have exhausted my patience. Whenever you declare him to be a fringe source i reserve the right to point out lacking in competence to you."

Soham has contributed constructively to the article, his content is cited and includes direct quotes from sources -- and he has used sources other than Chattopadhyaya like Bhattacharya and M Hiriyanna -- to avoid disputes about POV, and his arguments for their inclusion have been erudite and sophisticated. Sarah Welch, as can be seen on the talk page, has distorted the sources and pushed a POV; she has also indulged in disruptive editing, canvassed against me when her edits have been challenged and her rationale refuted, and has generally adopted an inflammatory tone, denigrating certain sources for their viewpoint instead of discussing the content and sources objectively. Given all this, I think it is Sarah Welch who is to be blamed for edit-warring and being disrespectful to other editors rather than Soham who has contributed constructively to the article. He has been provoked to lose his cool, and he should not be punished for it. I sincerely hope that ArbCom takes an impartial view of the matter and does justice to Soham. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Salvio: I am not casting aspersions on anyone; everything I have written is supported by links to the Carvaka talk page. I have found Sarah Welch's actions disruptive, and not constructive, and I have stated that with evidence. I have always avoided making content disputes and disagreements personal, and I have avoided that even on this page. I have also chosen to ignore Ogress's personal and inflammatory remarks about me. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Twobells' statement that "2 or 3 ideologically like-minded editors have 'taken over' the articles and proceeded to go to any length to undo any independent editors attempt to introduce neutrality and balance to said articles." The same has happened with Carvaka article as can be seen by looking at the revert mentioned in the first line of my statement. There has been a systematic attempt by these editors at historical revisionism as is evident from this discussion on Template talk:Hindu philosophy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like the arbitrators to please look at this discussion to see how some writers whose work is critical of Brahminical and far-right Hindutva ideology are being systematically excluded from wiki articles. Please notice how the other editor indulges in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by repeating again and again that 1. the books of Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, S.N. Dasgupta and Scherbatsky are more than 100 years old 2. that Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's book What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy is self-published and 3. that DC is not a reliable source -- all of which are false. People's Publishing House, a very prominent publishing house in the 1960s and 70s, has its website hosted on blogspot; this is being pointed out to claim that its books aren't "peer-reviewed", but Permanent Black, one of the most respected academic publishers in South Asia, is also hosted on blogspot. So spurious and silly reasons are being cited to keep out certain writers from wiki articles, and a far-right ideology is being forwarded through these articles. Soham is the victim of this cabal of ideologically motivated editors and their tendentious editing of articles related to Hinduism and Hindu philosophy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to post on here earlier, but as Floq brought up the length issue I'll slightly modify and transfer my post from the RfAr filing that preceded this to provide a summary and some general info.

Soham321 has been issued multiple warnings by multiple admins and other editors for various forms of disruptive behavior as well as on ARBIPA sanctions. He has had a topic ban in the past, yet the disruptive behavior has not stopped. The warnings and disruptive behavior have dated to at least as far back as mid to late 2013 by my checking. While demeaning other editors is part of the disruption, it is not the only one. There's a refusal to accept any form of feedback as well as misrepresenting opinions(including here where he says in the complaint above that I retracted something while I was just saving the ever so polite Mr Brown the necessity of replying.)

(Pinging Dennis Brown, The Blade of the Northern Lights, Abecedare, Kautilya3, Philg88, Shrikanthv as some of the warnings/notes have been from them in the diffs listed above.)

A little over two weeks back, I was ready to issue an AE block and six month topic ban, but switched to a warning instead, thinking that some of the input he has received will have some impact. Despite his response I expected that the warning will probably cause an impact. However, that has proved to be not the case. Today, I was ready to issue an ARBIPA one week block and a one year topic ban from India articles and was getting the explanation and diffs ready, but Bishonen beat me to it with a lighter sanction.

The issue here is Soham321's behavior, which has been disruptive over the course of two years. He has received blocks, topic bans, and numerous warnings. The question for this appeal is should other editors have to spend time and effort on this going forward as that is essentially what the ARBIPA sanctions are for. It's still a light sanction as Floq says, but that's what's on appeal, and I think ArbCom should decline that.—SpacemanSpiff 12:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soham321 placed a message on my talk page asking for my commentary, presumably because of our brief interaction editing Sach Khand. I would say that if Soham is reaching out to me to show an example of collaborative editing on an India-related topic, then he needs to do some work on his collaborative editing skills. I tagged the page in question first because it was presenting Sikh views on religion as though they were true, and then because it was a close paraphrase of a book (something about which Soham had already been warned). I would characterize our interaction as following along the lines described in Bishonen's talk page post imposing sanctions. Four talk page posts and less than 36 hours into the discussion, Soham was accusing me of abandoning the discussion, and threatening to invoke dispute resolution. When I pointed out the copyright problem, Soham's response was to tell me to fix it myself instead of tagging it, even after I said that I didn't have access to the full source.

To Soham's credit, after the initial interaction, which I would characterize as relatively unpleasant, things got more productive. He did change the article so as to avoid the close paraphrasing, and he edited collaboratively after that. No further accusations followed, and while the article needs expanding, I think it's not an unreasonable stub at this point. Soham obviously is knowledgeable about the topic, and he was able to fix errors that I introduced in clean up (because my grasp of Sikhism is, to put it mildly, tenuous).

From my interactions, I think that Soham is capable of contributing productively here, and I think he has a desire to get things right. However, I also think that he gets angry (or what others perceive as angry), and makes changes and comments rashly. Further, I think that he has trouble understanding Wikipedia policies, like copyright and reliable sources, when they don't align with his views. I also understand that some of these edits are in a heated topic subject to discretionary sanctions. Between my personal experiences, Soham's previous topic ban, and Soham's participation in the discussion at Talk:Cārvāka, I think the sanctions imposed are warranted. I hope that Soham will take these six months to edit articles in other areas to which he has less emotional attachment, so he can understand the kinds of talk page discussions and consensus building that are productive here. agtx 22:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to skip an analysis of the content @Soham321 has recently tried to delete, replace or add to various wiki articles from RS, NPOV and other wiki policy perspectives.

In this admin-issued-sanction arbitration matter, allow me to focus on: Are there facts to persuade that the admins of wikipedia in recent past have been reasonable? Is @Bishonen's latest sanction in this matter reasonable? My answer: "Yes, abundantly". Here is some of the recent evidence relating to @Soham321 sanction:

1. Edit warring with @Joshua Jonathan, despite @JJ request to stop edit warring in early July here, here and here
2. Edit warring with @Sarunfeldt in mid July here, here and here
3. Edit warring warning by @Shrikanthv here
4. Uncivil behavior and personal attack on a wiki article's talk page against @Joshua Jonathan here in Carvaka article, and more recently here in Two truths doctrine article; Quote of edit summary: "Joshua Jonathan's editing is making this article worse as i have explained in the talk page. The more he edits, the worse this article becomes in terms of clarity, accuracy, and cogency. - @Soham321"
5. Uncivil behavior and personal attack against @Ogress here; Quote: "I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. - @Soham321"
6. Uncivil behavior and personal attack against me, see links here
7. Request to be civil with other wikipedia editors by admin @Abecedare here
8. Warning in June 2015 by admin @Dennis Brown here
9. Warning in June 2015 by admin @The Blade of the Northern Lights here
10. Warning in July 2015 by admin @SpacemanSpiff here

How has @Soham321 responded to recent comments and warnings? @Soham321 has been combative with admins as evidenced here, and to requests by @Sitush here. Quote: "Soham, I am trying and trying to show you how to write well and you simply keep fighting it at every opportunity. I'm not known for a saint-like patience and sooner or later I will snap unless you start to come to your senses. - @Sitush"

Summary: The veteran members of the Wikipedia community have been patient. Admin @Bishonen's sanction on @Soham321 was reasonable.

FWIW, when I began considering evidence for this statement, my intent was to request reduction of the 6 month sanction to a 3 month sanction on @Soham321. But, after looking at @Soham321's pattern of behavior with numerous wiki editors over the recent months, I now feel that @Bishonen has already been kind and generous. The evidence points to a stronger case of WP:NOTHERE than what I felt a while ago. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a real shame I have not had the time to develop my Rfc on the Indian articles, perhaps then Soham321's patience would not have been quite so tested. I have found he has demonstrated a clear and concise willingness to present a neutral, balanced edit doing so with good manners and a clear methodology, however, he is energetic, a state some might wish to use against him. In my experience he has the patience of a saint when dealing with Sitush and others who have shown themselves to be prejudicial, labelling other editors as incompetent if they do not agree with their dogmatic position and quick to suggest bad faith. I have found Soham to have been a victim of combativeness rather than as presented a perpetrator, particularly on Indian history articles. With that in mind, together with my experience collaborating with Soham who has been a study in Wiki best practice, I would recommend you approve his appeal. Twobells^t@lk 18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit. In response to Joshua Jonathan's comment The situation couldn't be further from factual truth, I sourced (please see my Caste System In India and British Raj diffs) numerous up to date citations on the latest works, however, these were based on empirical and priori evidence rather than ideology and for this they were removed along with their conclusions. Unfortunately, what has happened on the British Raj and Caste System in India articles is that 2 or 3 ideologically like-minded editors have 'taken over' the articles and proceeded to go to any length to undo any independent editors attempt to introduce neutrality and balance to said articles. Essentially, what we have now are two articles so biased that they fail to stand up to independent review and display what can only be termed as a dogmatic and misguided attempt at historical revisionism. In closing, as they stand I would call these articles Examples of Morton's Demon At Work, regards. Twobells^t@lk 10:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Floq's Comments: Hello, pleased to meet you. With respect, are you aware of the issues pertaining to the articles concerned? Trust me, when I say an in-depth response such as Soham321's is required in order to give the neutral observer a proper background into what has been going on over there. A situation, which can only be described diplomatically as counter to best wiki practice, regards. Twobells^t@lk 15:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After the reply by Soham321 to Ms Sarah Welch, I think it's time for me to respond too.

• At the Carvaka talkpage, Ms Sarah Welch has explained her doubts about Chattopadhyaya as a source, and suggested that he should appended with more up-to-date sources, a proposal which has been endorsed by Abedecare. neither Soham321 not Mohanbhan has seriously responded to this proposal; instead, MSW has been accused of "incompetence." Given the quality of her edits, this is a gross misqualification.
• Caste System in India: five editors agreed that the Caste System in India, as it exists today, was shaped by the British. This was based on reliable sources. And, as Sitush mentioned, also to our surprise. Yet, Soham321 and TwoBells kept insisting that this wa suntrue, and that we were biased. Despite repeated requests, they were unable to present reliable sources which gave a different opinion.
• Adi Shankara: Soham321 introduced a section on "Allegations of plagiarism." A wildly anachronistic qualification. Abecedare and I immediately responded, see Talk:Adi Shankara#Shankara and Buddhism. We responded so soon, very short after each other, that I hadn't even noticed that Abecedare had already responded, and I opened a new thread. When I found out, I merged the sections, to the dismay of Soham321, who wrote he became confused. He reverted me twice at the talkpage, meanwhile removing my comments twice. Incredible. Anyway, it ended with Soham opening an ArbCom-case on "talkpage etiquette (yes, serious!).[91]
• At the Two Truths Doctrine article, Soham321 made a series of edits, based on one single source, in a writing-style which was difficult to follow. I smoothed his contributions; Soham321 reverted them en masse, with the statements he's already been given. At this point I'd already given up to discuss with him; it's impossible. Soham321 doesn't discuss, he makes statements, and seems to be incapable to understand what other editors are saying. And to say that I don't seem to understand the topic - well, had he taken the care to check my edit-history, he would have known that I'm one of the top-editors on Buddhism-related articles. Or just User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources.
  

All in all, I've seriously been wondering if Soham321 just doesn't understand at all how to work at Wikipedia (I put it friendly here), or that he is simply trolling. I'm still not sure that it is a lack of understanding.
I had refrained from responding here so far, since I've had my share from POV-pushers and the like. But now that he also mentions me, I felt I had to respond too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further response:

• " i have already explained on the talk page of the article why Joshua was introducing inaccuracies into the article" - incorrect. The Madhyamaka theory was already described; you doubled it, which was unnecessary. When you pinged dozens of editors (including B9Hummingbird Hoovering, who's been indeffed years ago already, as I'd already told you), you forgot to explain what the "content dispute" is about;
• "he did not understand the content in my opinion" - read WP:ICANTHEARYOU;
• "The fact that Shrikanthv politely requested Joshua to abstain from editing this article on the talk page gives additional credence to my assessment: diff2" - Shrikantv wrote "not supporting anyone in particular", and further wrote "would suggest to abstaining from concretising philo/spiritual concepts but rather giving only an Idea or a possibility (giving the reader to decide or finding out on his own) would be a better way of going ahead ". To read this as "politely requested Joshua to abstain from editing this article" is a misinterpretation. Read WP:OWN;
• Plagiarism: none of these authors uses the term "plagiarism." It is a wildly anachronistic term here. It's astonishing that you don't get that;
• "Ms Sarah Welch did not want Chattopadhyaya to be used as a source at all" - that's not true; she proposed to supplement him with additional sources;
• Talk Page Etiquette - I merged two sections, which was completely reasonable, as several admins have told Soham321. If you had simply said "Hey, please keep these two sections separate, it's confusing to me!" and simply reinserted the header, I'd said "Of course, fine." Instead, we ended the day at ArbCom...

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response #3 - "ideologically like-minded editors" - usually I get the heat from Vedic POV-pushers; this time I'm apparently considered to be in the other camp, of those Vedic sympathisers. That's nice, for a change. And "the patience of a saint" - where? And no, I'm not going to mentor Soham321. I've wasted enough time on official mentoring. He's welcome, though, at my talkpage, if he needs any help. @Shrikanthv: thanks for your thrust, of course; hoghly appreciated. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw yesterday that Soham321 had squeaked in just under the 1000 word limit. However, counting responses, he's now up to 4100 words. If "Decline - TL:DR" is a legit vote, that's what I would suggest. 6 pages (single spaced, 11 pt type), with no sign of stopping... if that's what people he's editing with have had to put up with, then getting off with just a topic ban is generous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Soham321 would be better put under a mentorship with an admin or senior editor related to topics he is editing, I see that he edits with passion and sometimes(most of the time) steps on wrong foot ! with some exp he could be well off rather than banning him ! would suggest JJ as mentor for him Shrikanthv (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see my name mentioned a few times, so here are my 2c, based on my interactions with and observations of Soham321 since July 2nd, when I first came across the editor.

Soham's article space edits have some problems (reliance on a single and often dated source; quote-farming; undue weight; (good faith) misinterpretation of sources etc), but these are routine issues that are typically handled easily through talk-page discussion. The main problem is that Soham doesn't react well to even the politest of feedback and responds by

• insulting other editor's intelligence, good faith, ideology etc,
• endless repetition and filibustering (eg, see Talk:Cārvāka, or just the ARCA section above),
• continual editor/admin/forum-shopping and needless escalation. This being the classic example; also note the number of totally unconnected editors/admins Soham contacted about this ARCA appeal alone. Another example here in which Soham (IMO, pointily) pinged >50 editors.
• refusal to concede even the tiniest of errors. For example, Soham's insistence that Bishonen misguided them into originally filing this appeal at the Arbitration Request page (the error itself was of course minor; I am only pointing to failure to simply say "oops" and move on). Also note the number of editors, admins, and arbcom members who told Soham that they were wrong about the issue of the previous arbitration request; yet Soham repeats the complaint unchanged. Ditto for the claim of an 8th century philosopher being guilty of "plagiarism", which Soham again repeats on the page (won't bore the audience of this page with the details, which can be read here).

All this makes collaborative editing with Soham321 virtually impossible, and I'm afraid the issue is unlikely to be confined to India-related pages covered by the current topic ban. Frankly Soham's statement above, by itself, provides ample examples of IDHT/TE/Battleground conduct that led to the topic ban, and the fact that the editor doesn't even realize this is not a promising sign. As I have recommended a couple of times earlier, and as Shrikanthv advises above, Soham should consider getting a mentor who they trust and can consult, because unless their conduct changes drastically, I see a perma-block or site-ban coming a few months down the line. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

• @Soham321: that's rather a large wall of text you've written there. Could you please trim it down to focus on the essentials, thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Seraphimblade below and Floq above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• For the benefit of those who may be unfamiliar with our procedures, I'll clarify that the standard of review employed by ArbCom when dealing with appeals against discretionary sanctions is "was the action we are reviewing reasonable?", rather than "would I, under the circumstances, have imposed the same restriction". In this case, Soham, examining your conduct, I do see a pugnacious approch to editing and disputes and some tendentiousness to top it off; for that, I find the sanction reasonable and vote to decline your appeal.

  Incidentally, Mohanbhan, please note that casting aspersions on other editors is disruptive and sanctionable. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline per Salvio - I also see a pugnacious approach as well as a failure to AGF which suggests that removing the sanction would not benefit the encyclopedia. Mohanbhan, you need to pay attention to what Salvio has said. Doug Weller (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Soham321, if your approach to editing bears any resemblance at all to your approach during this appeal, I would rethink it, quite quickly. Pugnacious is if anything an understatement. I would also strongly echo Salvio's point regarding casting unsupported aspersions, and all who have raised that you need to make your point reasonably concisely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Soham321's response to the topic ban (to fight it tooth and nail in any available venue, and to argue from the outset that the problem lies with other editors) is for me ample indication that this was a sensible call by Bishonen. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline -- Euryalus (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline , per Yunshi and Seraphimblade DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline LFaraone 20:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by Soham321 at 19:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Link

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

• Soham321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Bishonen
• diff of notification EdJohnston
• diff of notification Dennis Brown
• diff of notification JzG
• diff of notification Future Perfect at Sunrise
• diff of notification Gamaliel
• diff of notification Rich Farmbrough

Information about amendment request

• Link

• Waiver on the Voltaire page, and other waivers as described in my appeal

I have argued my case at WP:AE: Link. The banning Admin (Bishonen) and other Admins have given their views on this venue. Rich Farmbrough's views on my case (diff) in the WP:AE discussion encourage me to ask for a second opinion on the decision taken by WP:AE. I have nothing to add to what i have stated at WP:AE except to reiterate that i am seeking the exemption under WP:NORULES, and that i now seek exemption from the WP pages related to not just Voltaire but all European philosophers. These include pages of European philosophers like Immanuel Kant, René Descartes, and George Berkeley. The reason is that i would like to add a section on the WP pages of the European philosophers giving parallels with respect to their thoughts and opinions with their Indian counterparts. For instance, it has been argued that Kant's philosophy has similarities with the philosophy of Adi Shankara (see for example Will Durant's "Our Oriental Heritage"); and Descartes's framing of the Dream argument has a clear parallel with the treatment of this subject by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (see "Kumarila's refutation of the Dream Argument" by John Taber). This would add an extra dimension to these WP articles in my opinion. Here is an example of the source material i might use in editing the pages of the European philosophers: Link.

One might argue--why not wait the ban out (4 months more) and then put the material in. My response is that i am moving to another city in the next few months and i may not have the source material (specifically the books) with me anytime soon after my move.

Reply to Yunshui: as a sign of good faith i am offering to not go beyond 1RR in any edit where i do the comparative analysis that i mentioned in my appeal. Soham321 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Seraphimblade since he gave a cogent reason why he is declining my appeal: First, i accept that i did lose my cool with Ms Sarah Welch, but my defense is that i was provoked. Mohanbhan has given my defense more adequately than i could in my previous appeal: diff. Even then i accept i was in error for losing my cool. The ban is not necessary in my opinion because i have not demonstrated any evidence of "Battleground editing" or "Battleground behavior" after my first appeal was declined to the best of my knowledge and recollection. I have never gone to 3RR to the best of my knowledge and recollection on any page after the topic ban was imposed on me. I have had many differences with Sitush in the past, and had i really been guilty of exhibiting battleground behavior i would have happily joined in when some other editors were criticizing Sitush on my talk page, but i did not do so. Please see the posts of Rabt man and Mohanbhan here: Link; and the post of Twobells here: Link. I may have *exchanged* some personal comments with Sitush earlier, but i have not done so after my earlier appeal with one exception. That is this comment: diff. I made my comment in the belief that Sitush was bullying a new editor. I have discussed this issue, and a related issue of IP editor(s) posting on my talk page, at ANI and i accepted the Admin Swarm's view/comment/advice since it sounded reasonable to me and requested that the thread be closed. This was Swarm's analysis of the issue: diff. The last time i have done joint editing on any article with Sitush was on the talk page of Eckankar. One may examine this page to see that the joint editing was being done in a collegial way, and not a battleground way. Soham321 (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These permanent links to Soham321's previous requests may be useful: [92][93] Bishonen | talk 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

As I concluded there, the sanction appeared to be reasonable when looking at the totality of the editor's edits. My opinion hasn't changed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Soham's rationale for amending this sanction lacks any substance. Soham's reason for allowing edits in this area appears to boil down to not much beyond the fact that xe really really wants to. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Floq.

There is no compulsion to comment on Soham's requests - or even to read anything Soham posts.

@ Soham

I think it's worth reading what I wrote a little carefully. My objections were not endorsements of you. or your editing of the Voltaire talk page. Rather I respect the opinions of those who said that giving you this latitude was likely to cause problems. Pragmatically denying you the ability to make these edits may well be in your best interests (in terms of further conflict and sanction), as others hold - though the heightened scrutiny may mean that problems will be headed off before it comes to that.

My objection was I suppose to some extent a procedural or conceptual one, in that the area you wished to discuss on Voltaire seemed (to my not particular well informed ear) sufficiently divorced form the subject that you were sanctioned on for a good faith request for an exemption to be granted.

This argument does not support your broader request to compare European philosophers to Indian philosophers.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

If we're invoking WP:NORULES, does that mean I can just block this guy as a timesink if I think it would improve the encyclopedia? That was mostly a rhetorical question - I suspect it would suddenly become very important to Soham that the rules be respected - but here's a serious one: when ArbCom rejects this, as I am sure they will (AE was closed 5-0 against revising topic ban) could Arbcom please shut this guy down, and shut him down hard, so he doesn't waste quite as much of everyone's time after this? For example, forbidding future appeals in any forum for the duration of the topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soham321, in your reply to Yunshui you offer not to exceed 1RR. Unfortunately, past history suggests even that will not avoid timesink issues. Bishonen is pretty conservative (imo) when issuing sanctions and there is little doubt in my mind that such issues will have played a part in her decision. She may, of course, disagree but the very fact that you have appealed again immediately after the AE appeal was closed rather supports the point even if not my assumption regarding Bish's thought processes. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

• Decline There's no substance here; it boils down to, "I want to make edits that I'm not currently allowed to make." No indication that the original reasons for the topic ban have been considered and addressed, no suggestion that previous behaviour will be avoided - just a complaint that the TBAN is inconvenient. This is not a reason to amend or rescind it. Yunshui ^雲_水 21:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, no reason has been provided as to why the ban either shouldn't have been applied or is no longer necessary. "I really want to do it now" is not a valid reason to overturn a topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline and quite frankly, I don't think this sanction should expire. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. I see no reason to overturn the consensus at AE. It is also worth noting that exhausting the community's patience can lead to blocks that are not often overturned. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline If anything, this seems to show that the sanction is required. Doug Weller (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by Js82 at 09:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Topic banned from edits in any namespace and any pages related to Indian religions, broadly construed

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

• Js82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification SpacemanSpiff

Information about amendment request

• Topic banned from edits in any namespace and any pages related to Indian religions, broadly construed

• revocation of the sanction

UPDATE OCT 18 20:41 Greenwich Time: I am deciding to withdraw my amendment request. I do however wish to retain this application and my below statement as a means of having officially lodged a protest, and to appeal to the committee members to consider removal of Sikhism and other religious pages from the purview of India-Pakistan arbitration clauses.

If this is not acceptable, please let me know. Thank you.

---

A 6 month sanction has been imposed, related to Indian religions, broadly construed, citing "disruptive editing and an inability to collaborate with other editors". I feel this is completely unjust, and motivated by a deep-rooted desire to subdue a voice that does not conform with the personal views of some of the editors who overwhelmingly "control" these pages, and mostly act in groups to harass and torment new/differing view point editors.

On the actual pretext of "disruptive editing and inability to collaborate": I had joined Wikipedia in Aug 2015, and I understand that my edits for some period of time appeared disruptive (which Wikipedia itself agrees may happen with new editors). However, after I was blocked for a week last month, I have been careful and understanding of Wikipedia policies. In fact, over the last 25 days, I have only made very few edits (restricted to Sikhism page only), and have not engaged in any edit-warring. If anything, I have presented my views on the talk page, and moved away from a discussion where no headway seemed possible, rather than persisting with my POV. How can this be construed as "disruptive editing and non-collaboration" ? In the one case where there were differing views, it was actually one of the other editors (Ms Sarah Welch) who edit-warred. See Here. In the most recent instance, again, I had made only one edit, following which I have been engaging only in talk page discussions. Again, the user Ms Sarah Welch has made numerous edits within the past 24 hours itself, without getting any consensus at all. See Here. And the end result is, I am banned for "inability to cooperate" ? Citing an issue that has been discussed for less than 24 hours yet, where I gave no indication whatsoever of not being open to collaboration ?

My main interest here has been to improve Sikhism related articles. I feel that barring someone from editing Sikhism articles, under the pretext of an "India-Pakistan Arbitration" is highly contentious. India Pakistan may have territorial conflicts on Kashmir, etc, (which I presume is the reason for the arbitration powers), but what has that got to do with Sikhism? Further, Sikhism is in no way restricted to India and Pakistan (more than 5 million Sikhs live outside India), so how can this be justified ? One purpose it does serve though is to provide admins and editors with a Indian/Hinduism background or interests (who are present aplenty here, as opposed to those from Sikh background) the discretionary powers to shoot out and subdue voices that do not conform with their own POVs about Sikhism.

Finally, I have issues with even assuming Mr. Spiff to be an uninvolved admin. Right from the day I joined Wikipedia (when I had no idea how it works), he has been hounding and harassing me. Till very recently, he has been bringing up my actions from the first few days as evidence of my disruptive editing. How dishonest is that. Further, last month, he instigated an inquiry into my actions, based on false accusations, as I had exposed Here and Here. He never bothered responding to these false accusations, despite my repeated prompting. End result was, I was blocked for a week for personal attacks.

I would like to conclude by stating that the committee would likely see a barrage of negative posts here from some of the editors who dominate India/Hindu/Indian religion related articles. These should be treated with caution, as these editors are hand in glove in their ulterior motives to get me banned.

Js82 (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio and other members: You state that "Unfortunately, South Asian topics have, historically, ...". This is precisely my point: The entire Sikh religion (and for that matter Buddhism Jainism etc) should not be construed as South Asian topics. I understand there is historical and cultural relation, but that's about it. In the contemporary world, it does not seem reasonable at all to limit these global religions to India/South Asia. If anything, these should be included in a arbitration under some "religion related" clauses (I am assuming one exists here). And to reiterate what I said above, covering all these religions under the purview of India-Pakistan discretion only gives editors and admins who are active in India/South Asia pages unjustifiable powers to tacitly impose their own views and POVs on these otherwise global religions. What this does in effect is make any new editors (like myself) who join Wikipedia with an honest intention of improving articles on Sikhism feel suffocated and hounded in face of these unjustified discretionary powers.

To quote, from the very same first reference that has been used to actually even justify the the term "Indian religions"

At a more profound level, geographical classifications are unacceptable because they have nothing to do with the essential constitutive elements of religion. The physical location of a religious community reveals little of the specific religious life of the group. Though useful for some purposes, geographical classifications contribute minimally to the task of providing a systematic understanding of human religions and religiousness. Adams, C. J., Classification of religions: Geographical, Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007

As an example, to further point out the flaws and the misleading nature of such geographical prominence, I quote:

By this test Sikhism, though born in India is "a religion of the West" in texture and temper, being non-idolatrous, prophetic and revelatory Kapur Singh. Parasaraprasna. Guru Nanak Dev University Press. ISBN 81-7770-014-6.

I hope that all the members here would debate my amendment appeal critically. Js82 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabor the point further, but again, as another example, because of this "India-Pakistan" arbitration sanction, I am unable to edit articles like Gurudwara (a Sikh place of worship) ? What have editing privileges for a Gurudwara article got to do with an India-Pakistan arbitration ? And coming to my particular case, the last topic we were debating just before sanctions were imposed was to do with the revelatory nature of Sikhism (Please see relevant talk page discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sikhism#Revelation_again_and_WP:BRD). Again, what has this got to do with an India-Pakistan arbitration. Editors and admins who have very limited knowledge, at best, of religion have unjustifiable powers to impose sanctions on topics related to religion, simply because they are active in India/Pakistan topics ?

The more I think of all this, the more unjust all of this seems. I do hope there would be a redressal here. Js82 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't new, it's been happening since day 1, and a classic case of WP:IDHT. I came across this on WP:AN3 -- Sardarji joke where Js82 (as an IP first and then as an account) was editing against consensus and blocked the IP and then the account. Point in time snapshots of the user talk page show the various warnings on issues spanning copyright violations, edit warring, original research, NPOV, personal attacks etc across multiple articles. I have sought a second opinion from NeilN in the past regarding this as I have been unable to get through to the user, but sadly that doesn't seem to have helped either. There has been an enormous amount of discussion at various talk pages ([94], [95], [96] -- the full page from those sections provides the necessary context). Today it was this response to a critique of sources. Given the editing pattern and behavior since creation of the account, unless the editor shows that they can adhere to policies and guidelines in other areas, this sanction is necessary. Please ping me if you need any clarification. —SpacemanSpiff 10:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Islam and Christianity would not be included but Islam in India and Christianity in India would be, this is per the AC motion listed at WP:ARBIPA. —SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do encourage User:Js82 to withdraw the request, and take the six months to learn about how Wikipedia works. There is every chance that had the topic ban not been considered available a similar length block would have been used.

But I am concerned with the interpretation of "broadly construed".

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

If we are to include the major religions of the region, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam and Christianity, we are including 98% of all our religious articles, at a guess. And that is only one facet of knowledge

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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).

• Decline Indian religions are in the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorization. Based on the information provided, the sanction in question seems appropriate. "They started it", even if true, does not give one a pass on civility or disruption. LFaraone 20:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The appeal has been withdrawn, so there is no need to focus on that issue. On the other hand, concerning the request to amend the original case, to unauthorise discretionary sanctions for edits relating to Sikhism and other religions, I am not inclined to accede.

  Unfortunately, South Asian topics have, historically, proven to be rather contentious and to flare up unexpectedly (for the best example of this, see the articles about castes), and that is why ArbCom was forced to authorise discretionary sanctions in the first place. In light of that, I'm not really in favour of limiting the scope of DS in that area, as I don't see how that would possibly be beneficial. And, though many Sikhs may not live in India today, the (historical and cultural) link between India and Sikhism is strong enough that, in my opinion, it justifies the inclusion of the topic among the ones covered by WP:ARBIPA. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Salvio. Sikhism is clearly covered as things stand today, and I don't see a good reason to change that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Formal decline although I see the request is withdrawn. Doug Weller (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No comment on the appeal, as that has been withdrawn. Decline the amendment request re Sikhism per Salvio. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by MapSGV at 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828410043&oldid=828409525

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [97]

Information about amendment request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828410043&oldid=828409525

• Consider the block and topic ban as invalid; removal of topic ban.

I have spent some time evaluating policies and practices. Given the many problems with the sanction, I am finding that this sanction should be appealed.

Sandstein first blocked me indefinitely and then unblocked and topic banned me from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan by finding sense in a frivolous report filed by a ban evading sock[98] who was already going under an SPI investigation[99] for being a suspected sock of an editor who is himself indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan.[100] It was also clear the the user was going to end up getting blocked per WP:DUCK. The version of the SPI report at the time when Sandstein sanctioned me clearly shows that the user has a long history of deceiving, harassing, wikihounding, filing frivolous reports and he even trolled on SPI by claiming that CheckUser absolved him.[101] Clearly, Sandstein shouldn't have relied upon report filed by this sock without identifying the motives and background first.

In place of removing that report per WP:G5 or just blocking the reporter as a sock and also for filing a frivolous report, or at least waiting until the SPI was sorted per GoldenRing's suggestion,[102] Sandstein claimed that the report is actionable[103], and the didn't even checked statements of anyone, nor he checked the diffs properly. WP:ARE clearly says that, "Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale," and "your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it." But Sandstein also ignored these policies throughout this report. Here is the accurate analysis of all those "18 diffs" that Sandstein has frequently pointed to justify his actions.[104][105]

I responded to Sandstein,[119][120] highlighting both sides and the credibility of this report. Sandstein made a response and closed the report in just 16 hours[121] and blocked me indefinitely by making disparaging remarks about me in his comment,[122] and also making contrary claims like " rather than convince us that it will not reoccur", despite he never even asked, and "incivility by others is no excuse for incivility of one's own", however, when a user is reported to WP:ARE, conduct of all parties is observed so it is necessary to highlight conduct of others when allegations have been made against you.

In short words, there was not even a single diff for which I could be sanctioned. Anyone can misrepresent more than a dozen of diffs about any user but admin's work is to properly judge them and Sandstein failed there. If the user was not a sock then still, Sandstein had to remind all involved parties of the dispute about relevant policies of conduct than singling me out and blocking me in violation of blocking policy. Since I had no earlier sanctions or blocks, he had to leave a note per WP:BEFOREBLOCK and make it clear that it should not happen. What Sandstein deemed as "incivility" didn't even involved any use of the seven dirty words, nor I think you will find anybody else on Wikipedia getting blocked over that. Sandstein also topic banned me from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, despite I never even edited Afghanistan. Given all these problems, I request Arbcom to consider both the block and topic ban to be invalid and request Arbcom to remove the topic ban. MapSGV (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein you are still misrepresenting me and my edits to justify your unwarranted actions.

18 diffs do not make "10%" of "223". None of the diffs involved any violation. Are you saying that if I had 1000 edits then you wouldnt be sanctioning? Which policy says that higher edit count can save you from getting sanctioned? Many of my edits have nothing to do with this subject[123][124][125][126] hence I am not SPA but you are falsely claiming me to be. You seem to be asserting that users can be topic banned from whole India, Pakistan and Afghanistan but not any one of them, which is also wrong. WP:NOTTHEM is for unblock requests and here it is relevant to give details on background. MapSGV (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, Sandstein never gave me a single warning and indeffed me right away. I never had a warning from any other admin or user either. MapSGV (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, Siachen conflict was improved because of me and there are chances it will be improved when I will be able to edit it again. All diffs from Siachen conflict were outdated and not one sided. Leave out a couple of messages with petty civility issues, have you read my most messages there? Majority of editors there [127][128][129][130][131] agreed with my scholarly accepted WP:RS based content. Is that is why you topic banned me from there or you see something that no one else can see? There's no reason why you should single me out. MapSGV (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Do you have any diffs to prove my edits as "stronger than desired POV"? Evidence suggests that my edits were agreed by most editors and they are backed by scholarly WP:RS.[132][133][134] That's not a POV, but representation of mainstream academic view. – MapSGV (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: You should look into the problem with the sanction that is being appealed. Since you have read a discussion on talk page, you must have also seen that most editors supported my comments. "how you present that perspective" is immaterial to the policy (WP:NOPOV) when you are talking about "POV". It will be a POV only if it contradicts any of the points mentioned at WP:NOPOV and none of my edits contradict any of the points mentioned there.

By reading the discussion on talk page, you must have also seen one editor frequently calling verifiable references a fake,[135][136] and one other editor frequently making personal attacks[137] on multiple editors, falsely accusing of socking, putting his personal opinion over reliable sources. If these users were not sanctioned for their much worse conduct despite past blocks concerning same subject, then there is no way I have to be singled out, and Sandstein had the opportunity to look into this, he had to see the root of the problem and also see that who was being undoubtedly offensive and disruptive, but Sandstein didn't. That's why the "personal attacks" that you are referring, they were not one-sided, nor I am the one to start them and instead I tried to avoid them[138] despite I was being attacked. The diffs from Siachen conflict also seemed outdated, no action had to be taken. Rest of the reported diffs involved a ban evading disruptive sock who was harassing, edit warring, misrepresenting sources and violating copyrights.

Except these important reasons, sanctions are unwarranted also because I never even had a prior warning. All of this has been already clarified by other arbitrators. – MapSGV (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive227#MapSGV I outlined my reasons for what was initially a non-AE indef block and which I later changed to a topic ban. Specifically, MapSGV had then made only 223 edits, and of these, some 10% had been problematic as reported in the AE thread. This is not an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio, especially in a high-tension topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. I concluded then that MapSGV's contribution to this topic area is not a net benefit to Wikipedia.

What is being submitted here on appeal does not make me change this view. The discourse about supposed socking by others is beside the point because the conduct of others is not relevant to sanctions imposed on MapSGV; see WP:NOTTHEM. The comments on the individual diffs are also immaterial, because it is the number of problematic or at least questionable edits by MapSGV, in proportion to their other editing, that made me impose the sanction, and not the particulars of any one of these edits. Afghanistan is included in the topic ban because it is part of the real-world conflicts affecting the topic area.

Moreover, the fact that MapSGV has not made any edits unrelated to the sanction since being sanctioned 18 days ago indicates that they are not interested in productive editing outside of issues related to the conflicts in India and Pakistan. We do not need more WP:SPAs dedicated to ethno-nationalist conflicts.

I therefore recommend that this appeal be declined. Sandstein 17:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad: The conduct at issue was mainly about Siachen conflict, a conflict between India and Pakistan. I suppose one could omit Afghanistan from the ban, but a frequent practice at AE is to make the scope of topic bans correspond to the DS topic area to avoid issues of boundary-testing, gaming, etc. Sandstein 19:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: You ask me to comment on whether "the block is no longer preventative". The block has already been lifted. What is being contested here, insofar as I understand it, is the subsequent topic ban. In my view, MapSGV's edits linked to in the AE request indicate that they would not be a net benefit to Wikipedia if they were to continue to contribute to articles related to India-Pakistan conflicts. I would therefore prefer to maintain the topic ban until MapSGV has demonstrated substantial productive editing in other topic areas, but would be open to restricting its scope further if MapSGV intends to edit uncontroversial India- or Pakistan-related articles. Sandstein 15:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: In response to your question on my talk page, I have taken note of the comments made so far but do not have anything to add to what I wrote above. Sandstein 15:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: Most of the diffs concerned a ban evading sock who was on verge of getting blocked, hence the credibility is not just limited with reporting but the evidence itself. SPI showed that the sock was Wikihounding every page that had been edited by MapSGV,[139] and had the tendency of Wikihounding other editors and then calling them a sock for justifying his harassment and he was calling MapSGV a sock as well.[140]

As for other diffs, anyone can point out a number of diffs about just anyone from a heated content dispute where a couple of editors are engaging in original research, making personal attacks and disregarding reliable sources. You need to read what MapSGV was replying to, and he tried not to fall into their level at first.[141] I don't see any "personal attacks" for which he could be sanctioned by any other admin and Sandstein himself refuses to take action against users engaging in long term pattern of egregious personal attacks, misrepresentation of sources, gaming of system, edit warring, and other forms of disruption as seen in these two [142][143] recently closed AE reports. One of them[144] directly involving a user who had offensive interactions with MapSGV as well as other editors not only on Talk:Siachen conflict, but also an AfD. If other users are allowed to scot-free for their egregious personal attacks and long term pattern of problematic editing, then MapSGV should not be singled out just for trivial civility issues.

Later on, MapSGV had interactions on AfD of Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan, where the AfD result ended up supporting MapSGV's opinion and not his opponents. Here, MapSGV was again attacked by the same user[145] but MapSGV remained civil.[146]

WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL describes how to make judgement on incivility and MapSGV couldn't be sanctioned in this regard if we go by the policy and standards.

Again, I have also never seen anyone getting sanctioned like MapSGV has been and without even a single warning. That's why this topic ban as well as the block lacks any merit and contradicts the policies and standards. Lorstaking (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking and then topic banning a well-meaning editor over small civility issues (that weren't one sided) without even a prior warning and solely relying on report lodged by disruptive ban evading sock is objectionable and also out of process. Sandstein should've considered making a discussion with MapSGV first and had to make similar discussion with other involved users that engaged in incivility.

Most editors agree with MapSGV's contributions to Siachen conflict, because they were important and his edits brought back focus on result of the battle, which is also emphasized by scholars and academics. MapSGV's edits contradicted the long term POV version that was pushed by FreeatlastChitchat,[147] and MapSGV became target of FreeatlastChitchat who would abuse his sock to harass MapSGV and then file an AE report after failing to get his POV on articles. Since incivility is judged after reviewing entire incident and MapSGV was clearly provoked by others who made false accusations against him, there was no way he had to be singled out while leaving others. The AfD pointed out above is a good example, where MapSGV was again attacked but he was civil.[148] FreeatlastChitchat always had a tendency of filing frivolous complaints and he had done same with me with his main account.[149] Talk:Roti#RfC about the origin of the roti also ended up supporting MapSGV's opinion, hence MapSGV should be allowed to edit this subject since he happens to be correct with his edits, unlike those who engage in disruption to right great wrongs.

In all fairness, Sandstein is clearly incorrect and his failure to understand the errors with his actions is concerning. This is not happening for the first time but just another time, despite issues have been raised before about his mishandling of AE reports,[150][151][152] and given Sandstein's disappointing responses here, I am inclined to think that Sandstein's mishandling of AE reports is going to create problems in future. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with this sanction in the sense that it's not what I would have done, I think it was within administrator discretion and would be unlikely to be overturned on appeal at AE (I would certainly opine that way in an appeal there). I still think it would have been better to let the SPI play out before taking action on this request, because although it is true that we expect editors to behave calmly and civilly even with socks of disruptive editors, and the fact they were responding to disruption does not excuse or give them license for being disruptive themselves, it should IMO be taken as a mitigating circumstance when deciding a sanction for that disruption. To do otherwise is to be seen to be enabling harassment. I would therefore urge Sandstein to commute this to time served plus a warning not to respond to disruption in kind. GoldenRing (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

• Recuse see above. GoldenRing (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am reviewing this appeal, bearing in mind the discretion accorded to administrators in AE/DS areas. As I read the history, however, the sanction against MapSGV was based primarily on incivility and allegations (at least some of which proved correct) that other editors were socking. As the sanctioning administrator, Sandstein, himself recognized while unblocking MapSGV, the editor has agreed to improve his level of civility. I see no prior warnings and there is no prior block history, and the sanction does not seem to have been based on substantively improper content editing. A lengthy topic-ban based primarily on first-offense civility concerns strikes me as an unusually severe sanction. ¶ In addition, I note that while Sandstein has expressed concern above about MapSGV's editing on "the conflicts in India and Pakistan" and about MapSGV's failure to edit on other subjects since being sanctioned, the scope of the topic-ban goes well beyond "the conflicts in India and Pakistan." Rather, the topic-ban specifically bars MapSGV from any editing about "everything related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan." (Emphasis added.) That scope goes far, far beyond a topic-ban from editing about conflicts between India and Pakistan. (The equivalent in scope might be my being topic-banned from "everything related to the United States," or Sandstein's being topic-banned from "everything related to Europe.") I would ask Sandstein to comment on whether, even assuming a topic-ban is otherwise warranted, the one imposed is overbroad in scope to the extent indicated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've belatedly modified the title of this request, for clarity. I invite Sandstein to provide any further input in light of the comments added since he last posted to this page. As a general response to another arbitrator's comment, a decision to overturn a particular discretionary sanction is not a "rebuke" of the administrator who issued it, but merely a disagreement with a particular judgment call. Admins are not expected to take things personally when there's a consensus on ANI to lift a block or on DRV to restore a deletion, and this situation shouldn't be any different. On the procedural issues, please note the current discussion on the motions subpage; I hope editors with thoughts on the proposed motion, particularly admins active on AE, will comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the discussion seems to have come to rest, and Sandstein has indicated he has no further comments, I've proposed motions below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I consider the issue with the block and its duration to have already been addressed; MapSGV was blocked, concerns were primarily raised about the duration (not about the validity), and the block was changed by the blocking admin. Any remaining complaints about administrative misconduct should be deferred back to the community at the appropriate venue. If the community is unable to reach a consensus to address the issue, it may be continued in the form of a case request to ArbCom, although, I expect the community deems this aspect already resolved.

In regards to AE/DS, the primary basis of MapSGV's request relies on two arguments: the filing was done by a disruptive party and the diffs used should be deemed "stale". It is not uncommon at AE, ArbCom case, and AN/ANI requests, to continue to be reviewed by administrators or the Arbitration Committee if there are merits to the request. The Arthur Rubin case as a recent example. As for whether the evidence submitted to AE is inadmissible, the operative word "may" in the instructions means possibility, not absolute requirement. Using such a technicality to argue "there was not even a single diff for which I could be sanctioned", when it comes to personal attacks and disruptive editing, is not reasonably going to extricate the party from sanctions. I see a troubling pattern of behaviour where MapSGV fails to acknowledge their part in the dispute with comments such as "... I am confident that I was blocked for no reason", despite a lengthy list of personal attacks listed at AE. The topic ban expires after 6 months of problem-free editing. I welcome other comments from the community, but I am inclined to uphold the sanction. Mkdw ^talk 22:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I think the sanction probably shouldn't have been imposed. A block was imposed, and the editor promised to correct their behavior. That's usually the time where we let them show us they will correct their behavior or won't, after which we can act accordingly. This is especially relevant where most of the problematic behavior was directed at a now-blocked sock. To be clear, the block does not excuse incivility, but if most of the behavioral problems centered around a now-removed editor, it's very possible that continued sanctions are not preventative. Having said all that, I see nothing here that makes me think this goes beyond something that can/should be handled by the community. I think ArbCom's role in appeals should be as a final venue to correct gross misuses of administrator discretion. While I may not agree with this particular sanction, I don't think it's indefensible. There was disruptive behavior here, and an admin made a difficult decision in a difficult area. Without taking a negative stance on his use of discretion here, I would ask Sandstein to read this and reflect on whether there's a good chance the block is no longer preventative because the locus of it has been blocked. If he were willing to reduce or remove the sanction, I think that would be best, especially if he was willing to keep an eye out on new activity after the easing of sanctions to see if they should be replaced. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein: Sorry, I meant the topic ban; typed my comment relatively quickly due to an engagement I had to get to. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I had hoped not to address this as a Committee, but accept. Yes, the behavior wasn't good. Personal attacks are not okay, though it's worth noting that they were directed at a sock who was rather clearly goading him. The editor received zero warnings followed by an indefinite block. That block was clearly disproportional and has already been lifted by the blocking admin, but it was replaced by an indefinite topic ban that is itself rather dubious. It is the burden of the sanctioning admin to show their sanction is preventative, and with zero warnings prior to the sanction and zero chances for the editor to change their behavior, that burden can't be met here. I would like to remind Sandstein that, while arbitration enforcement is unique in many ways, it's not unique in the sense that editors should generally be given a chance to correct their behavior before being sanctioned for it. There are some exceptions for short-term sanctions needed to put an immediate stop to active disruption (e.g. a 31-hour 1RR violation block, if edit-warring is ongoing), but long-term sanctions should almost always occur only after at least one warning that the specific problematic behavior needs to change. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• While there's nothing wrong with bringing this here, it probably could have been more efficiently handled by appealing directly at AE. (Arbs are slowpokes, after all.) The disputed block has already been undone, so I gather this is intended as an appeal of the topic ban. Now, I don't like that decision at all; it's much too heavy-handed for my taste, and made worse by the fact that the original complainant was a sock. MapSGV has not responded very gracefully to this outcome, but that's common and unsurprising when someone feels that a member of the community with more 'power' has treated them poorly. All that said, I do think this decision was broadly within administrative discretion; "not to Opabinia's taste" isn't a violation of anything. I think this would be better off overturned, but as a gesture of good faith, not as some kind of rebuke on anyone involved. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with OR. I don't think the topic ban was necessary although I understand why it was placed. I too think it would be better overturned, or at the very least, reduced in scope to cover only the India-Pakistan conflict rather than everything about India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, as NYB suggested. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to concur with some of my fellow arbs here. The topic ban I feel was a bit on the heavy handed side, and should be at the most reduced to cover the I/P conflict, if not removed all together. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• MapSGV, here is not the venue to re-visit specific details of a content dispute. I have been reading through Talk:Siachen_conflict#Recent_Edits, and my conclusion is that sometimes it is not about the perspective you present, but how you present that perspective. Reading through this particular discussion, I see several instances of personal attacks that makes it difficult to revoke the topic ban, regretfully. Alex Shih (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Enacted - Miniapolis 17:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Per discussion above. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Let's give this a try. Of course, granting this appeal does not mean similar sanctions can't be re-imposed if there are further problems. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. only choice. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Neither option offers the option to reduce the sanction duration as indicated by several Arbs as one possibility. In that absence, I prefer Motion 2. Mkdw ^talk 04:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. Alex Shih (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by arbitrators

Community comments

The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained to the extent that the topic-ban imposed on March 2, 2018 is modified to provide, "MapSGV is topic-banned from editing regarding conflicts between India and Pakistan until September 2, 2018." MapSGV may edit regarding other topics involving India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, but 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.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Support

1. Per discussion above. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. It can't harm the encyclopedia for the topic ban to continue and allows MapSGV plenty of articles to edit.Doug Weller talk 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. I disagree with some of the justifications for this topic ban, but for a contentious area like conflicts between India and Pakistan, MapSGV certainly edits with stronger than desired POV; the modification looks fine to me. I have a feeling that first motion will pass, and ideally I would like to support both; although if I was to make a choice, I would prefer to make a weak support for this motion instead. Alex Shih (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mkdw ^talk 04:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Too elaborate DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

Community comments

---

---

Initiated by MapSGV at 18:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=841350919

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

• MapSGV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TripWire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raymond3023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NadirAli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• GoldenRing
• NadirAli
• MBlaze Lightning
• Capitals00
• TripWire
• Mar4d
• SheriffIsInTown
• D4iNa4
• Raymond3023
• Sdmarathe

Information about amendment request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=841350919

• Removal of topic ban

My topic ban was removed by Arbcom from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan on 7 April for appropriate reasons.[153] Since that Arbcom action, I have made barely a couple of edits in relation to these subjects,[154] and my last edit to this subject is from 11 April,[155] which helped gaining consensus.

Even if they banned me only for editing the subject, it is still a frivolous ban because WP:ARE clearly says that "Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale". I also received a malicious threat of "indefinite block, without further warning" which is totally baseless.[156] Do someone really sanction people based on personal assumption or thoughtless predictions? Or I am worse than a vandal now?

I was inactive for over 12 days from Wikipedia and last time I edited an article about the subject in question was about 33 days. I was not even notified in the TLDR report or my talk page. No evidence had been posted that why I have to be topic banned. My name was being blindly endorsed on proposed list of topic banned users. WP:AE is too dysfunctional because it allows admins to abuse tools or there is a serious problem with the tradition of handling these issues. This is very concerning since this has happened for another time and this time it was absolutely worse than it was before. — MapSGV (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I had appealed the ARE decision, I have notified all other affected users. — MapSGV (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing you should not misrepresent my comments for finding a justification solely because you are lacking it. You are not doing yourself any favor by claiming that only because I had participated in the subject that is why I am as culpable as others. Are you really saying that if one editor is frequently goading other editor then both should be topic banned? Are you really saying that if one editor is arguing other editor by engaging in policy violation (WP:OR, WP:TE, WP:SYNTH) then both should be topic banned? Do you really believe that if one editor has commented on a space where other editor with behavioral issues has also commented then both should be topic banned? Arguments happen everywhere in the world including Wikipedia. You can have a look at current version of WP:ARE, WP:ANI, etc. and you will discover that many editors are arguing similarly or worse. To justify the topic ban by citing mere existence of the argument is a flawed logic. — MapSGV (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• These comments including "I support what GoldenRing did... I support their statements",[157] "fully support what Golden Ring... get my support",[158] "I endorse GoldenRing... I agree"[159] are not doing any favor either per WP:NOTAVOTE. Ivanvector below fails to define how the topic ban is "justified" but refers my "recent participation" as evidence, despite my actual edits in this subject were policy based and I had made them 33 days ago before the topic ban. — MapSGV (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Rehashing weak evidence from AE won't make it better. I was not a participant in any of those "discussions", and those editors didn't deserved to be topic banned because of those discussions at all. To me this looks nothing more than wheel-warring when one admin takes action over something where other administrators have already acted and the original "discussion" was already closed/archived. 3/5 of the links mentioned by GoldenRing suffer from that defect, and I am not counting one which was just a duplicate link as discussion was moved (from copyrights board to article talk page). You have misunderstanding about subject restrictions. They are exclusively made for judging the policy violation and for the smooth running of the project. Your statements, like that of others lack evidence obviously because you haven't even made efforts for the betterment of the situation. But nevertheless, editors have picked up that approach which is admirable and I support it. — MapSGV (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I remind those users that two wrongs make a right, who are defending the sanction by saying that decision involved multiple admins contrary to previous topic ban that involved only one admin (Sandstein). It can be also argued that Sandstein is more experienced[160] compared to admins like GoldenRing, et al., when it concerns WP:AE and even after being so experienced he was wrong with what he had done. That's why such justifications are not convincing when it is clear that this AE decision was a mistake. — MapSGV (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised with GoldenRing's badgering in this ARCA. Looks like he has also planned how he will indefinitely block the editors. His comments show he is trying to prove how he might be correct with his assumption of bad faith and misrepresentation of other's statement. He continues to give weight to frivolous requests of "indefinite blocks" for justifying his clear-cut policy violating topic bans that he largely placed for petty civility issues that are not actually "sanctionable" according to his own opinion either, let alone 100s of admins that observed the same comments weeks before him. In which sense it is a sanctionable conduct if someone is calling out disruption on an administrator board? It is understandable that why GoldenRing has to falsify evidence to defend himself, for example, he claims that D4iN4a was "arguing that everyone they disagreed with should be banned", so far D4iN4a's own statement only reads that "you had to be blocked indefinitely",[161] that's totally different to what GoldenRing has been claiming. GoldenRing is ignoring the specifics that who is right and who is wrong, he just thinks that as long as you have been a participant you should be topic banned. GoldenRing is not addressing that who is the offender and who is the victim, he is treating both things as same. In real, GoldenRing himself doesn't see any of these comments as sanctionable. A perfect example is this AE report, where the violation of 1RR and personal attack was reported but GoldenRing asked the user to "strike" their comment while adding that he he wants to see main article edits to be disruptive by saying there is no "problem on either side in the article space edits given".[162] However, GoldenRing is here deliberately misusing the policy on civility, while ignoring WP:IUC which is a fundamental part of policy on civility. Goldenring's own lack of prior efforts for the betterment of situation speaks a lot.

It is not surprising that GoldenRing is failing to recognize the errors with his actions. GoldenRing has poorly handled arbitration enforcements before in his short tenure. He has previously engaged in endlessly arguing over unwarranted sanctions he issued, even after being told by other admins and editors that he is wrong. This has happened earlier both on WP:ARE[163] and WP:AN,[164] and even after all that GoldenRing has shown no improvement. Finally, it is also evident that GoldenRing has deliberately wheel-warred ArbCom by taking action on same weak evidence that was already reviewed and rejected by ArbCom in the appeal where he himself participated and opposed the topic ban.[165] An admonishment is clearly warranted. Admonishment will further help improve the tradition of handling these issues. MapSGV (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: Thank you for the motion. I agree with your earlier comment that exact group wasn't chosen correctly. I am hoping to help out with that.

Issues have been raised here, whether all are disruptive or some are disruptive. We can acknowledge that we wouldn't be here if no one was disruptive. Similarly, we can also acknowledge that if everyone was disruptive then this appeal would've been rejected long ago and there would be no filibustering because disruptive editing can speak for itself.

@Newyorkbrad: and Bu Rob13, I have taken the liberty to analyze the issue and I can back up my analysis with diffs. I would simply summarize for now that after going through the statements posted on ARE, I find evidence of edit warring, copyright violation, source misrepresentation, forum shopping, harassment, misrepresentation of policies, etc. for multiple editors of Group 1 (Mar4d, SheriffIsInTown, TripWire, NadirAli, JosephusOfJerusalem), but due to lack of any such evidence of policy violations for Group 2 (Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023, D4iNa4 and me ), at least half of the topic bans appears to be entirely unwarranted because half of the editors are far from the misconduct that warrants a topic ban. Their participation is nothing more than engagement in the area that was being dominated with disruption of others. I was not present in any of the disputes.

One editor is engaging in disruption while other one is only replying in order to convince other editor otherwise. I don't know why both should banned. It is also apparent that admins have often refused to take action in order to avoid the impression that they are taking sides in disputes and now we are seeing equal amount of topic bans on both groups for avoiding that same impression. However such doctrine is not encouraged by any policy of Wikipedia.

In the whole list, only TripWire and NadirAli have been sanctioned in this area under discretionary sanctions before. Why other editors are topic banned indefinitely? It is giving a misleading impression that some editors require more warnings while some should be sanctioned right away. While topic bans from Group 2 should be vacated, I think warning should be tried for SheriffIsInTown and JosephusOfJerusalem, because they had no past blocks or sanctions. I had hoped I could say the same for Mar4d but it seems that he has thwarted me for saying such because he has already breached his topic ban multiple times.[166][167][168] — MapSGV (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93: I have never seen you before this ARCA and you don't have to filibuster if evidence exists. Why can't you provide diffs for the violations in place of repeating the unfounded speculations in violation of WP:ASPERSIONS? I noted that only TripWire and NadirAli were topic banned "under discretionary sanctions" and evidence exists that why they should remain topic banned. It's not something where you have to trying finding loopholes unless you can reject it entirely with evidence. I can understand that you have disputes with a number of editors here but it looks awkward when you are this hell-bent on keeping them sanctioned that your replies are much larger compared to those from the sanctioned parties despite your lack of involvement in these disputes.

@JosephusOfJerusalem: I haven't supported topic ban on you, but now I am curious to know why you are defending others and asking for the evidence for the obvious? It is well known now that I am getting banned every time for the problems that were caused by editors like TripWire, Mar4d. I had added verifiable content on Siachen conflict,[169] which was referred as "WP:FAKE" by TripWire[170] and "complete mockery" by Mar4d[171] and it continued to get worse despite present version supports my edits. It is clear their disruption evolved overtime and having them in the area has proven that "a rotten apple spoils the barrel". You had participated in the entire ARE, you must have read this and this. Evidence exists for backing the points that I have made above and I have myself discovered some more evidence that I would provide later. Mar4d has mentioned Chuck Yeager,[172] by highlighting his career ("1971 to 1973") which was mainly about Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and concerned destruction at PAF Base Nur Khan.[173] The base had also played a role in Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,[174] and Mar4d edited about the base at least two times.[175][176] That's a topic ban violation. — MapSGV (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @GoldenRing: You are getting it all wrong there. Are you really saying that Elektricity was being truthful when he falsely claimed that CheckUser has absolved him?[177] WP:ARE clearly states that "diffs older than one week may be declined as stale", so I am correct there. Are you really saying that people should be topic banned only because they had edited the page over a month ago and made 100% accurate edits?[178][179] There are no "disputed categories" because Siachen lies in India as a result of its victory in Siachen conflict. By calling it "disputed" you are misrepresenting the geography and history. As for the rest, Mar4d has been harassing me from the beginning by asking multiple admins to block me[180][181] and he was still requesting a block on me and Capitals00 in this diff that you have added in place of getting over the accurate decision. I was pinged by Ivanvector to that discussion.[182] I had clearly said to Mar4d that he "should find some other hobby", but in place of dropping the WP:STICK he opened an ANI to get me blocked and made personal attacks like calling me "WP:NOTHERE".[183] He never notified me[184] or SPI clerk or anyone else involved about the ANI and grossly misrepresented statements of both CheckUser and SPI clerk in the ANI to get me blocked.[185]

What really made you believe that I am responsible for this mass disruption by Mar4d? I am not! You can't punish editors only because they have disputes with other editors and somehow their kind efforts to improve Wikipedia has provoked disruptive editors to cause more disruption. That's simply not how the things should work. MapSGV (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Pointing out confirmed sock puppetry of a user who is falsely accusing you of sock puppetry for 3 months[186] is not "accusing someone else being a sock". And how replying to long term harassment after being notified of the discussion is a justification for topic ban? One needs to prove disruption on the content space for it. One can put one-way interaction ban on Mar4d for his harassment, but so far there is no reason to put a topic ban on me only because he was harassing me because he couldn't get his unrealistic POV accepted on Siachen conflict.[187] Which "unchanged attitude" are you talking about? Read my above response for knowing more. Why I should be punished for mass disruption of someone else? I am not the one who filed frivolous SPI and I am not the one who forum shopped for the SPI after it was rejected. Are there any past examples of people getting topic banned because of disruptive behavior of others? By permitting such a non-policy basis for topic bans, we are only encouraging harassment and disruption since every editor is likely to respond to the messages or call out on disruption and then find themselves sanctioned only for pointing it while letting people scot-free who engage in mass disruption(edit war, BLPvio copyvio, IDHT, harassment). When there are no policy basis for topic banning, the topic ban should be removed. That's what the policy suggests. They are not to be preserved only for creating false balance for avoiding the impression of taking sides in a dispute. To me it seems as if admins actually waited for the rotten apple to spoil the barrel by allowing disruptive editors to cause so much disruption that everyone would become fed up of it and then confuse editors with disruptive ones. The evidence GoldenRing came up after 20 days shows he doesn't understand the Arbcom ruling and he also lacks understanding about this India-Pakistan conflict because he refers Siachen as "disputed". How can you really rely on judgement of someone who don't even know simple basics of the elements involved? Can he accurately judge what is a topic ban violation or what is a disruptive edit in this subject? Evidently not. — MapSGV (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: What do you mean by being "part the problem"? AE admins didn't provided even 1 diff about me. I didn't asked anyone to violate a policy and neither I have and if my actions have encouraged others to act more disruptively for making their point then why I should be punished for that? I think we will soon see people reverting vandalism/BLPvio getting blocked only because they are "part the problem". — MapSGV (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: Not even close because my last edit to the area was 33 days before I got topic banned. Why you should be sanctioned only because your opponent is engaging in mass disruption and had some dispute with you in the past where they were 100% wrong? I opened this appeal for reviewing the ARE decision, I didn't opened it for hearing what went there. I have already asked if there is any policy or past examples of people getting topic banned just because of disruptive behavior of others and I am still not receiving any answer about it. — MapSGV (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: It is well known that many people are going to misrepresent things in favor of admins because they are more familiar with those admins. Let's forget he is an admin, it is also agreeable that a lot of times, understandings are construed depending on the popularity of the person. You, as an arbitrator, was selected for dealing with such type of difficulties that users continue to face because of poor administration. Contrary to that, you have only referred ARE decision and now you are referring to comments of others. The diff you are linking is not doing anything more than showing harassment by an editor (Mar4d) who didn't dropped the WP:STICK even after the SPI closure[188] and getting answers on talk page discussion.[189] He went to continue the harassment by opening an ANI [190] that he opened without notifying and grossly misrepresented statements of both CheckUser and SPI clerk[191] and made personal attacks and after that ANI thread was closed[192] he still continued the harassment even in unrelated venues.[193] It is clear that Mar4d was goading me and provoking me all the time but I only made 1 reply to his harassment and it was only because I assumed that he could convince the reviewing admin just like GoldenRing has convinced you and a few others about the sanctions he imposed, despite half of them are based on disruptive behaviors of others. Punishing me for someone's intended harassment/disruption is not how the things should work. Where I am responsible for all that disruptive forumshopping and harassment carried out by somebody else? I am not. I had expected GoldenRing to cite disruptive editing related to the content for which topic bans are imposed as per the policy, but that's totally missing here. I can only urge you to change your vote based on the evidence. — MapSGV (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, some formalities: I have received an appeal by email from SheriffIsInTown which I haven't processed in detail yet. My apologies for the delay. Also, @BU Rob13: as far as I am aware, MapSGV was not notified of the AE discussion and there is no requirement that they be notified, only that they be formally aware of DS, which they were (documented in the AE discussion).

To the substance of the appeal, this ban was not particularly directed at MapSGV, it covered ten editors who, between them, have turned subjects related to the India-Pakistan conflict into a battleground and MapSGV is clearly part of that battle. I realise that much of the evidence on which I included MapSGV in the ban comes from before their recent successful appeal here; nonetheless, reading back through the committee's comments on that appeal, they seem to have been of the opinion that the ban Sandstein issued was too broad, not that it was unwarranted, and it seems fairly clear that their basic approach hasn't changed (eg diff - a significant part of the problem here is editors constantly lobbying to get each other banned). MapSGV tried in their last appeal to argue that diffs older than one week were inadmissible; the suggestion was shot down then and their trying the same argument now is not impressive. Every admin who made a substantive comment on the AE report - me, Seraphimblade, Bishonen, Drmies, Sandstein, Ivanvector and Vanamonde93 (the last being INVOLVED) - agreed that the sanction was necessary. For completeness, NeilN commented without supporting, to say that he had not the time to investigate. Several editors (both admin and not) complained that the sanction I proposed was too lenient. The sanction was not indiscriminate - it took some convincing from others for me to include MBlaze Lightning and some argued for the inclusion of Lorstaking as well, which in the end I thought was not justified.

MapSGV is as culpable as any other editor for the mess that India-Pakistan conflicts have become and banning everyone but them on procedural grounds would be both manifestly unjust and to the detriment of the project.

If a clerk could please notify the admins involved at AE of this discussion, I would be grateful.

I would like to comment on MBlaze Lightning's statement below. It is extremely disingenuous of them to claim I obviously haven't read the threads I linked because MapSGV didn't participate in them; while that is true, one of them is an SPI investigation of MapSGV and another is an ANI review of that SPI. Although the SPI was closed with no action on socking grounds, both present diffs of MapSGV's battleground attitude. It is also difficult to square their statement here that I highly appreciate the approach of these users. In view of the statements above, it is apparent that we all are willing to work together and put all grudges aside with his arguing not three weeks ago that Mar4d should be indeffed because Such a long term disruption clearly warrants an indef block. I expect no return without a topic ban from South Asia subjects, because of his lack of competence (diff); accusing JosephusOfJerusalem of a glaring lack of understanding of the very policies that he [sic] citing and gross battleground mentality (diff) and filed an SPI against them with evidence such as both using phrases "there needs to be a", "a conclusion not", "policy based arguments", "strengthens my", "it does not matter", "I am afraid", "for a long time", "into the article" and "this comment is" (see here - Capitals00 chimes in with even more ludicrous evidence which in any other context I would suspect of being satirical); accused SheriffIsInTown of serious WP:CIR issues (diff); accusing Mar4d of defending a bogus SPI filed in bad faith [that] speaks only about the filer's misconduct (diff); it really is quite the turnaround, but I think the above amply demonstrates the need for the ban, in their case.

TripWire's statement below is also hard to take seriously; I would indeed urge the committee to read that discussion as it includes gems from TripWire like This WP:IDHT attitude wont get you anywhere and You sir are a text-book case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It's also simply not true that that is the only one of the pages I linked where TripWire participated; they also commented on the Capitals00 SPI case (diff), where they took the opportunity to accuse MBL of frivolous Witch hunting, and to accuse Kautilya3 of off-wiki collaboration with a banned editor on ridiculous evidence. He doesn't deny that it's a problem, it's just all those other editors baiting him with their battleground mentality.

Capitals00 below argues that ARE has no jurisdiction on those boards but this is simply not true. Use of administrative noticeboard reports to carry on a dispute is classic battleground behaviour and squarely in the domain handled at AE. Otherwise, I'm not sure what to make of their comment; apparently, sanctions I impose are unjustified... and should be replaced with a different set of sanctions they've devised? Anyone who thinks that there are no problems related to Donald Trump should not be devising AE sanctions.

JosephusOfJerusalem seems to think that as soon as a boomerang appears, he can avoid it by withdrawing the complaint. It says in the big red box at the top of AE, If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. It's fairly clear that the "unnecessary trouble brewing" that he saw was sanctions proposed against himself. I explained their inclusion in the ban here and don't see a particular need to expand on that.

NadirAli claims here that in all that discussion no evidence was provided by the sysops that I had done any sort of misconduct yet there were clear examples of edit-warring presented which led to full protection of Princely State. In retrospect, I wish I'd looked at the edit history of that article as it would have been a pretty good shortcut to most of the names that ended up banned.

I will close this statement by saying that these are all capable, competent editors who need to go and find something else to do because their interactions on this topic has become so toxic that there have been repeated calls for them to all be indeffed. I think that would be a loss to the project. The ban is not infinite, it is indefinite, with a specific recommendation that it be lifted after six months of productive editing elsewhere. GoldenRing (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that the irony of JosephusOfJerusalem turning up here to berate me for imposing sanctions when I "should assist cooperation instead of neglecting genuine issues and then punishing people after for problems they could have themselves easily averted" is not lost on anyone - it was him who brought two complaints to AE with the comment "a very long block is in order" and arguing that "that the problems are entirely one-sided." I know he thinks he answered the accusations against him satisfactorily, but that's rather a different thing. GoldenRing (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: It's entirely up to the committee, of course, but I think my preference would be to deal with this as an appeal en masse. Seven of the ten sanctioned editors have indicated that they wish to appeal here, so dealing with them piecemeal is going to create a lot of work, both for you and for me. As far as I can tell, there is no realistic defect in the process here; all the editors involved were aware per the terms of WP:AC/DS#aware.aware and this was carefully documented in the AE case. The sanctions were duly logged and editors notified of them. I was not INVOLVED and no-one has alleged that I was. Are there any other process questions? If not, then the appeal comes down to whether the sanction was warranted, and that I think is a question better dealt with en masse, as the evidence is largely the same in each case and reading through the evidence will give you a pretty good idea of the reasons the sanctions were imposed and the culpability of each editor. If this approach is taken, the clerks should notify the remaining sanctioned editors who haven't commented here (Raymond3023, D4iNa4 and Mar4d) that their participation is invited in this appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I structured the ban as I did to avoid waiting it out; I agree that a ban from all things IPA would effectively end the careers of some of these editors and I didn't want that, and that is indeed why I chose the scope of ban I did (though some at AE argued for a full IPA ban, and others elsewhere have argued for indefinite blocks). My reason for not giving the ban an automatic expiry is that the problem is not one-off, egregious behaviour but long term, mid-level disruption. If we had an automatic expiry with further disruption leading to an indefinite ban, I think there is a fair chance that the first sign of disruption would be the filing of an SPI, ANEW, AE or similar complaint. Almost any such complaint from these editors, especially against each other (but in general against anyone who is active in the IPA area) would amount to further disruption; but it would not be obvious to someone who is not familiar with the situation that six months absence, a bit of only-slightly-disruptive editing and a noticeboard complaint (which might itself, on the face of it, seem plausible) is justification for an indefinite topic ban; I think in this case the community's time would be wasted to a large extent on meritless appeals. Essentially, I'm saying I prefer a positive appeal, on the basis that they've demonstrated six months of positive collaboration on other topics, to a negative appeal, that what they did didn't really merit an indefinite ban. Perhaps this is overly cynical of me, but on balance I think the history of noticeboard complaints, in particular stupid SPI reports (see the examples above) justifies it.

I would also like to comment briefly on D4iN4a's text below. The idea that I merely "cited [their] particpation" in the topic as justification for the ban is risible. Their involvement at AE was pure battleground, arguing that everyone they disagreed with should be banned and that everyone else was as white as the driven snow; their participation at here includes such wonders of collaborative editing as Are you out of your mind or just making up to distract from your long term copyright violations by making up fairy tales? and These lousy attempts of yours to rescue disruptive editors are becoming hilarious everyday, I also agree that NadirAli is trying everything "possible under the sun" to get himself blocked; their comment on this SPI is also well worth a read; their comment here includes What about your way of responding to a sensible revert, after changing longstanding content without an edit summary[46]? But you sure use edit summary when you believe you can organize a WP:BATTLE; this was all cited as evidence in the AE case and I could go on but I think the point is clear. On this basis, the statement I admit that I have been critical a couple of times in participation but at the end of the day it was also apparent that it didn't took me long to restore the collegial atmosphere should be sanctionable in itself.

I am sorry to disagree with someone with as much experience as Newyorkbrad; but, while I see various claims here that the editors are willing to work together in a spirit of collegiality, I don't see much of the salutary result on[sic] focusing some of these editors on the problems with their editing. What I'm seeing is essentially a lot of editors saying, "Problems, what problems? We're all ready to play nice together, just like we've always done." The only thing they can agree on is that the ban should be lifted, despite most of them arguing in the very recent past that the other half should be subject to just such a ban (in the cases where they didn't instead argue for an indefinite block, which are admittedly few and far between). GoldenRing (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad and BU Rob13: I have so far avoided compiling lists of diffs concerning each editor in this appeal. In making the decision at AE, I relied on a list of discussions, not specific diffs (which I can only suppose is where the mistaken accusation that "no evidence" was advanced comes from) and thos same discussions have been linked to again here. Other editors have advanced extra bits of evidence here, in particular with regard to MapSGV. If the committee want, I am prepared to compile specific lists of diffs regarding each editor, but it will be a major investment of my time. I am generally not active at weekends so I would begin this on Monday and likely wouldn't finish until mid-next-week. Would you like me to do this, or are you happy to evaluate the appeal on the basis of the evidence already presented? GoldenRing (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: I would oppose a ban on noticeboard filings. Although battleground-ish filings have been a significant problem, what really kicked off this particular episode was the dispute over the Siachen Glacier article and the related History of Balochistan. The behaviour on the talk pages of those articles is just atrocious. IMO allowing this group to continue editing the topic but not make any reports will change a situation where article talk pages and noticeboards are toxic to one where article talk pages are toxic and there is no way for this to come to the attention of administrators. I'd rather the disruption happened on noticeboards than on articles. GoldenRing (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: Regarding your statement that If you'd like to do so [appeal at AN/AE], you're welcome to withdraw from this appeal (as is any other editor), is there going to be some sort of limit on this? NadirAli initially joined this appeal, but less than four hours after the first bolded denied vote appeared, they have decided to withdraw from it. As this seems a fairly obvious tactic for other editors to follow, how does the committee propose to deal with it? Also pinging User:L235 to get the clerks' attention. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to Sandstein's topic ban Here's a selection of their editing approach from this year:

• Attacking other editors' motives / accusations of trolling: [194] [195] [196] [197] [198]
• Accusations of incompetence: [199]
• Wikilawyering / misrepresentation of policy (to put it kindly): [200] (the "diffs older than one week" nonsense)

Although the above is all prior to the overturning of their TBAN at ARCA, it is important background.

Since the ban was overturned

• Their third, fifth and sixth edits after the ban was overturned were to resume the Siachen Glacier dispute. The response from someone who "remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions" should not be to jump straight back into a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan and start removing disputed categories.
• This edit is continuing the battleground approach, accusing other editors of incompetence and bringing up 3-year-old socking to sling mud at another of the group.

Those four edits on their own wouldn't move me to impose a topic ban; against the backdrop of the their editing before their previous appeal, it seems clear to me that they are part of the problem pattern in this topic and need to stay away from it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, as Opabinia regalis has noted, their contributions above are rather proving the point. They are part of the battleground. GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing Wikipedia for close to four years now and contributed significantly across a lot of different topic areas. I never had a significant sanction like this before. I was never warned in WP:ARBIPA area for any misconduct before, the admin just went straight for topic-banning as they were banning all others, they tried to create a false equivalence (was noted by another editor commenting on that AE) by banning five editors each from both decks not regarding who was at fault and who was not. As for MapSGV, the case was same for me that they used stale diffs (over a week old), at least that is what they showed. The diffs used to ban me were not from WP:ARBIPA but rather from an ANI discussion involving myself and few other editors with whom I did not have any significant interaction prior to that discussion. That discussion was archived with no action while that forum (ANI) is monitored by many admins daily. Even if my comment there was objectionable, I did try to remove the comment which was reverted by an admin Bbb23 telling me to strike it which I did. I also showed the remorse for my actions during the AE discussion which was all ignored.

There is also a case of another editor TripWire who was never notified about the discussion and never participated in the discussion and who was completely dumbfounded by the decision to topic ban him thus it is evident that this whole case was mishandled, decision was hastily made, and users were banned to create a false equivalence.

Citing all these anomalies, I appeal that the ban should be overturned for everyone who was banned in result of that AE. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: I am not appealing for myself, I am claiming that the whole process had a lot of flaws and as editors were banned wholesale, the ban should be overturned wholesale as well, from everyone as if it never happened. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Beyond My Ken: It is both but on the appeal side it has become more of an appeal on that whole case with the way it was mishandled, if the bans cannot be overturned otherwise then they can be overturned in lieu of the ammendments proposed by Capitals00 to which everyone seemingly agree except that consensus and status quo is a shady area. I propose that admins who so willingly go for such harsh and overreaching topic bans should come forward to decide WP:STATUSQUO when there is a disagreement on that otherwise proposed amendments look good to me. Kudos to Capitals00 for coming up with such brilliant idea. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have provided a lot more evidence if it was a general appeal against the whole decision but since committee is going for a collective appeal yet making independent decisions, I will leave it to the committee to raise any questions/concerns regarding my conduct and behavior. I have provided the counter narrative for the only known diffs which affected GoldenRing to include me in the list and willing to provide any rebuttals necessary for any other issues. I will further note that I almost had a clean slate until this ban and consider this ban as a stain on my editing record. I was just being bold and playful with my comments and did not know that I would end up getting banned in result of those comments. Most if not all of the questionable material came from outside of WP:ARBIPA topic area. I would also note that I am currently and I was in last few months mostly filling out bare references. I was only occasionally editing that topic area. The reasons to get that ban invalidated are number 1 that I consider that a bad thing for my editing record and number 2 although only occasionally but I would still like to keep editing that topic area. Please ping me if you find my behavior questionable so I can explain. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like at least two of the arbitrators (Alex Shih & Newyorkbrad) are relying on AE admins decision/feedback and assuming that since multiple admins were involved in that discussion thus this ought to be a right decision. We are here in front of arbitration committee, the highest body on Wikipedia, we want your independent decision, not that you (Newyorkbrad) ask the AE admins about the outcome. We are here because of their decision and we are appealing against their decision, they are party to this dispute, you should not be asking an involved party for their opinion about what ARBCOM should decide. From the onset, this looked like that the AE admins are fed up of these requests and they opted to cut the root by banning everyone. These bans were without merit. It looks like they do not want to see WP:ARBIPA requests anymore and who is going to file them anyway in future if the result is going to be like this then why not scrap WP:ARBIPA if it cannot be enforced with merit, that would be the best easy way out for admins. Some of these admins have been saying things like “let’s ban everyone” for some time, whenever a request came for arbitration enforcement. These were generalized statements then and these were generalized statements now and without merit. People were rounded up to issue the bans, some of them not being aware of the proceedings and unable to defend themselves. As explained above, equal number of editors were chosen from both decks as admin knew who was on which deck since they kind of accepted that by saying "clear the decks of one side in a dispute" in one of their comments.

Talking about the admin roles, this idea to ban everyone was thrown by Vanamonde through one of their iconic lines plague to both of your houses, again that was a generalized statement and without merit. Vanamonde has been in extensive conflict with some of the users whose bans were being discussed. They know their word carries an extra weight as an admin, they should have kept themselves away from these proceedings but they came out as an original proponent of these en masse bans causing others being caught in the collateral damage and they are still trying to influence the proceedings here at ARCA as well.

Some of the admins mentioned filing of SPIs by this group of people as part of the problem but on the contrary most SPIs filed by this group of people ended up in users being banned, this is wikidefending at best, others can defend their SPIs but here are the SPIs filed by me which ended up users being banned (total 10 filings resulting in 21 users being banned) and the ones which did not end up in similar result, they had enough evidence in them to merit a CU or a behavioral investigation and that is what is required to file an SPI, I do not understand why filing of SPIs being mentioned as a problem by Ivanvector and Bbb23, could that also be a case of admins being fed up of these filings and wanting a break (but why at the expense of destroying other editors record)? The filer can never say for sure if those users are actually socks or not, we can only go by the evidence representing user traits. Filing of SPIs should not be seen with criticism instead it should be seen with an applause. SPIs should not be a merit to propose or root for topic bans as was done by Ivanvector at AE and ARCA both and by Bbb23 here at ARCA.

Highlighting all these problems, I will still urge the committee to vacate all bans as when it is proven that even one of the bans were without merit in a multi ban case, it should invalidate the whole decision. If committee does not want to go that route of vacating all bans then they should evaluate each and every editor’s conduct separately and without relying on input of the AE admins as they have already given their decision and if we would have accepted their decision we would not be in front of the committee in just a fortnight. We are in front of you to get your independent decision without any influence or bearing from admins involved in AE and admins who have had clear conflicts with some of the affected. If the committee cannot evaluate each and every editor’s conduct (in case of not deciding to vacate all bans) then I will like to pull out my appeal and maybe appeal later on when I can get undivided attention of the arbitrators as I do not want my fate to be decided as one of many. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ivanvector: Phew, where to begin! Well, I will begin by saying that my only motive was to defend my own SPIs and I did not intend to attack you per se. While defending my record, I wanted to understand why SPIs are being mentioned as a problem area and being linked to these topic bans while evidence points to the contrary as far as this group of topic banned users is concerned. You linked several SPIs while responding to mainly me and that makes onlookers feel that all those SPIs were filed by me so I would hereby list who actually filed those SPIs so there is no ambiguity left:

• Capitals00 is D4iNa4 filed by Zanhe

• I don't like the answer, so I'll ask again filed by Terabar (blocked sock)

• Still no? Well it's been four months, let's check again filed by Terabar (same blocked sock)

• I'm really sure this time. Ok, not D4iNa4 then, so Capitals00 must be Razer2115 filed by Casktopic (blocked sock)

• D4iNa4 is Raymond3023 filed by Vanamonde93 (an admin involved in this very discussion and at AE as well)

• Capitals00 must be MapSGV filed by me and it did not start from that topic area so why used SPIs as an excuse to propose topic bans

• SheriffIsInTown filed by Spartacus! inactive for long

• MBlaze Lightning filed by Sardeeph (blocked sock)

If you see above, almost all of the SPIs you linked were not opened by anyone from this topic banned group, that is what we have been yelling, screaming, begging and pleading all through the AE proceedings and here at ARCA as well that please do not ban everyone just because of the fault of some or even fault of outsiders and that is where the fault lies and that is what we are pointing, this en masse topic ban is the result of the anger and frustration built up inside admins for past few years which is being taken out by an en masse topic ban instead of merit so thank you very much for proving me right on that front.

• I take an exception to your statement Importantly, the archives show that these reports were investigated anyway and the vast majority found by a variety of clerks and checkusers to be at best inconclusive, rather than summarily dismissed as SheriffIsInTown seems to want everyone to believe. – No, I do not want anyone to believe as you implied I want

The folks accused in any of the SPIs have no problem evidently as per their statements on this page so why does it matter now?

Finally I thank you for considering me one of the more reliable “frequent filers” at SPI but I am not a frequent filer by any means, actually last SPI I filed was filed after close to two years break. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: I did not go to AN and AE since I genuinely thought that this whole decision was wrong and my genuine belief was that there is no other forum to turn this over in its entirety except ARBCOM or is there? I thought if I went to AN or AE and even if I am able to get it turned over, that would still bring a stain to my editing record in form of firstly the acceptance of the ban being valid and then getting that valid ban turned over through an appeal. My belief was that when ARBCOM will turn over the whole decision, it would mean it was invalid to begin-with thus having no bearing on my editing record. If currently there is no way to challenge an admin’s decision in its entirety especially when there are multiple users banned then it would be a good idea for ARBCOM to come up with such mechanism, that way if the whole decision is validated, individual users will not lose their normal right to appeals for the normal appeal process (AN, AE, individual appeals at ARBCOM) that is if multiple users are banned together. Since I was invited by MapSGV to join the appeal, I genuinely thought from the onset that this is going to be a collective appeal against the entire decision and the decision would be turned over as there is plenty of evidence that even if all bans were not wrong, some were definitely wrong and ARBCOM (being the last appealing body) will never set a precedent of validating a decision where multiple users fate is decided this way when some of the users never knew about the proceedings, never participated in them and never got an opportunity to defend themselves, where slogans like “plague on both your houses” were raised without consideration of individual behavior, where admins were worried about time investment in these proceedings. I only joined in the appeal in the hope of all bans being vacated.

That being said, I was in the middle of preparing more evidence (when I saw your note) in regards to how most of the admins involved at AE are worried about investing time in these proceedings (i.e. admin burnout) thus prefer to bunch things together. I will like to ask your permission to post that, rest assured I will try to be very polite as I have been during all this process. :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (@The Condemned Band of 10) If admin burnout is the concern then I will like to propose that all these 10 editors should promise to voluntarily stay way from filing any reports at AE for minimum of six months. ---- Or maybe ARBCOM can instruct something like that in lieu of lifting these bans. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @BU Rob13: I have come thus far, I will stay in now. I will embrace whatever comes. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I was not going to comment anymore but this is kind of important. I will like to remind the committee about admin.not provision number 5 under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Role of administrators, it reads like this While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not....repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate sanctions or issue a grossly disproportionate sanction. (with emphasis on the part after Or). I am not suggesting or assuming anything, it's for you to decide whether banning 10 people together falls under the definition of disproportionate. I am just bringing attention. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Opabinia regalis: I will like to commend you for your great suggestion regarding replacing these topic bans with a restrictions on noticeboard filings by any of these 10 editors against any of 10 (although I would like to avoid any ban as not being banned previously). You have struck at the root of the problem. If we are going that route, please add copyvio board as part of your banned list. SPIs are not a big issue, although there might have been some of them purely retaliatory but most of them were good and resulted in net positivity for Wikipedia (in form of socks being banned), I suggest leaving SPIs out of your banned list. Also, dispute resolution boards such as WP:3O, WP:DRN and RFCs should also not be banned. Actually, this group should be availing more of these to resolve content disputes instead of bickering and edit-warring. I will also like to note that AE has been particularly a bickering hotbed out of all boards. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Arbitrators (@RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned, Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Doug Weller, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, Euryalus, and Newyorkbrad:), since you are deciding all individual appelas, I would request you to please let me know what made you to uphold the decision regarding me. The diffs on which the decision was based on was struck by me a long time ago before AE was opened. I respect your decision whatever it is but at least let me know what outstanding problematic behavior on my part made you to uphold the original decision (at least that is where you are heading)? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear that the entire process became a bird shooting game, with an insincere and indiscriminate dishing out of sanctions. As the OP of both requests, I tried to withdraw the complaints[201] when I saw the unnecessary trouble brewing in the situation. Yet the withdrawal attempt was ignored? What is Wikipedia's rule about that? Am I or anyone else not allowed to withdraw complaints? I don't see it as a rule that editors must appeal separately especially when the ARE decision can be appealed here.

Per WP:NOTBURO, I believe that brief statements from the involved parties is not going to harm since they can significantly contribute in changing the flawed ARE decision. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never received any sort of sanction before nor have I ever been reported. In light of that fact this topic ban that I got was extremely harsh. I repeatedly asked GoldenRing to point out the diffs where they thought I misbehaved but they kept on bringing up diffs which I had either already explained in their proper context, or which were stale and were from before Bishonen's advice to me, or were no different to an average Wikipedian's ordinary conduct. This demonstrates that the administrators performed badly and inefficiently.

I appreciate the positive approach of SheriffIsInTown and Capitals00. Along with them, I also oppose all these topic bans and give my wholehearted support to lifting them from all the editors. The subject restrictions Capitals00 is forwarding are more than sufficient to ensure there will be a smooth running of the topic area. The topic bans are entirely unnecessary. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, thank you for proving my point that you haven't found out any policy violating edits in my part, and not especially those that would concern the main page articles. The diffs you have cited for evidence about me here were already answered satisfactorily by me at the ARE. How did discussions at a copyvio board warrant a topic ban on mainspace editing in the India-Pakistan conflict area? The dots just don't connect.

You also took no action in the ARE despite complaints from users about an editor who repeatedly broke their aspersions restriction[202][203] and made personal attacks, threats[204][205] and accusations.[206] That inaction on your part demonstrates everyone's point here that the whole process was flawed and unfair to begin with. Therefore, the decision to topic ban all ought to be invalidated and everyone ought to be given a fair chance.

By locating the burden of evidence and accountability on other editors, despite you were the one who took action you are not fulfilling your admin responsibilities correctly. Your attempts have so far only shown that you have been making things worse for us rather than cooling the things down. I am finding it hard to assume that if you hadn't reminded us of the collaborative approaches then why in the world we would be engaging in any battles. Not only you are clearly ignoring our willingness to collaborate in good faith but you are also failing to agree that you had to instead try better methods of making things better than simply forcing us to leave the subject.

For example, to justify your banning of NadirAli, you cite the ″edit war″ at Princely state, disregarding that all those who did reverts were involved in the discussion on the Talk:Princely state, each side genuinely believed that their version was the real WP:STATUSQUO (while the content dispute was ongoing) and no one broke WP:3RR. I had to request page protection for that page.[207] But had the administrators intervened earlier and decided which version was the real WP:STATUSQUO (while the discussion could have continued at talk) there would have been no misunderstanding from anyone.

That's not how our administrators should handle the things. They should assist cooperation instead of neglecting genuine issues and then punishing people after for problems they could have themselves easily averted. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said what I had to, I am committed to the modified approach of collaborative approach with the editors with whom I may had issues (in the past) but now after hearing positive reactions from them I am optimistic about them. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MapSGV It would be helpful if you could provide diffs in support of this claim "I find evidence of edit warring, copyright violation, source misrepresentation, forum shopping, harassment, misrepresentation of policies, etc. for multiple editors of Group 1 (Mar4d, SheriffIsInTown, TripWire, NadirAli, JosephusOfJerusalem)". These diffs you have provided for Mar4d ([208][209][210]) "violating his topic ban" are not even related to any India-Pakistan conflict. And while it is true NadirAli and TripWire had been sanctioned before, this time around, virtually no evidence was provided by the AE administrators to justify NadirAli's ban and still has not been provided. And as several uninvolved users have pointed out, a user whose behaviour was reported at AE was not given any deserving action. So that is why your initial point is agreeable that the exact editors who should have been banned were not banned, thus making this decision flawed. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will once again appeal that diffs for my alleged misconduct be provided so I can answer about them. I still feel that individual examinations of each user's conduct has not been taken. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The links mentioned by GoldenRing were not sanctionable in ARE,[211][212][213] since admins had already acted upon them. ARE has no jurisdiction on those boards and chances are nil when there was no discussion of content related to Indo-Pakistan conflict in those links. In place of finding a solution, GoldenRing went to hand topic bans without making it sure that he is correctly banning the users or not, or his evidence is credible enough to justify the topic bans.

I was not sanctioned or warned ever before neither any of the 10 diffs presented from last 4 months were good enough for sanctions or even a warning because none of those diffs evidenced actual violation and those diffs only proves that there is no smoke without a fire. Indefinite topic bans are tried when reminders, warnings, temporary sanctions have been failed. GoldenRing didn't even read my response nor he came up with a solution.

I am also supporting removal of everyone's sanctions. We can agree that these editors are an asset to Wikipedia. They make 100s of edits and likely a couple of those edits happen to be disruptive but they are capable of avoiding it if they have been properly told.

The correct solution of this problem is to impose further restrictions on the subject of India-Pakistan conflict. I would urge everyone to read the following and let me know if they agree my proposed additional restrictions:-

• 1RR imposed: No more than 1 revert under 24 hours.

• This will end the revert-spree.

• Consensus required: so that no one can restore the removed content unless it has clear consensus.

• Currently the editors describe their preferred version as "STATUSQUO"[214][215], and a lot of problems have been caused due to a lack of this restriction. This restriction will encourage editors to abide by consensus.

• Civility restriction: Obviously any personal attacks. It should be clarified that "any allegations based on the user misconduct, credibility, including the concerns about incompetence, sock puppetry, should be made on appropriate noticeboards or any admin".

• Mostly because it is often difficult to decide what really constitutes as a personal attack. It would be best to forbid all remarks about the editor on content pages, especially when they are negative.

These sanctions have worked on Donald Trump. They also used to work on India-Pakistan conflict subject but later on, 1RR was changed to 2RR,[216] and civility restriction was removed.[217] There was no "consensus required" restriction before. I am 100% confident that restoration of past subject restriction as well as addition of "consensus required" restriction will improve things.

Overturning sanctions of all users and imposing the new subject restrictions would definitely work. It is time to move on from everything that happened and give a new start. Capitals00 (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having described my case above, I have added my name to the list. I further agree that the appeals should be judged as independent from the analysis that was done in ARE because the decision on ARE was distorted given the severe issues with notifications, evidence, scope, and the total duration from the proposal to implementation of the sanctions was also very small. I am pleased to see that I have received support for subject restrictions that I proposed. This positive response from the editors who were a party in disputes is a further indication that we have managed to find a solution. Capitals00 (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• BU Rob13, I had asked GoldenRing to discuss the topic ban, though I never received any response.[218] I have not appealed anywhere else. I assumed that enough admins on ARE must have already seen the decision and they wouldn't disagree anytime soon. After observing this appeal since I was notified, I thought that a making a brief statement regarding the topic ban and it's validity as well as proposing a resolution would be fine for now since the decision was being disputed here. After I had already made my statement here I thought that I should just stand by my participation also because of the positive reception of my comments by the editors that were involved in disputes and after that I felt assured that I don't have to try multiple routes to get the topic ban overturned. That's why I lodged an appeal here. Capitals00 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a productive editor on Wikipedia ever since I have been allowed to edit again. The AE requests which were behind the topic ban were badly mishandled. In all that discussion no evidence was provided by the sysops that I had done any sort of misconduct. It appears my name was dragged in unfairly, without basis and became accepted in the list of sanctioned users through unquestioned repetition.

I had broken no 3RR nor done anything sanctionable in itself. In short, the sysops handed out an unfair blanket ban on me without even explaining what exactly they were sanctioning me for. I agree with Capitals00, SheriffIsInTown and JosephusOfJerusalem that the proper approach should be that these sanctions should be lifted off all the involved editors and the ban can be replaced with their proposals. That will be a better substitute if the encyclopedia is to be improved.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to state that I am quite saddened to see that the arbitrators have not as of yet performed an individual assessment of each editor. The editing behavior of some editors should not be regarded as the behavior of all. No recent policy violation has been alleged of me and my history in the original ArbCom case is now no longer relevant. So I believe I should be let off.

I would also like RaviC to be estopped from making aspersions[219] against users who have history[220] on that article even before they themself were ever active there.[221] What I said on Owais Khursheed's talkpage was friendly advice to RaviC and not an entry into the topic area.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent considerable time in the consideration of the above matter, I have decided to appeal the indefinite topic ban imposed on me. First off, I want to start off by saying that I agree with my colleagues that the ARE case in question was mishandled by admins; GoldenRing in particular.

GoldenRing in his first statement said that he had read through this, this, this, this, this and this, but clearly that wasn't the case, because if he had actually read those pages, let alone reading thoroughly, he would have known that MapSGV, had, in fact, not even participated in those discussions. Also worth noting here is that some of the pages linked by GoldenRing, such as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Article_about_Hookah_and_sources were totally outside the scope of the "conflict between India and Pakistan".

It is worth mentioning that GoldenRing had not initially included me in his list of editors that he proposed to sanction, but subsequently included me without any valid reason.[222] I couldn't believe that I received an indefinite topic ban without any prior warning or sanction, but what was even more unbelievable and upsetting was that GoldenRing provided no evidence whatsoever that I engaged in battleground conduct or that might support the inclusion of my name in that list, and this failure to provide evidence against me clearly makes the sanction imposed unreasonable.

I won't go into details; what kind of evidence was provided to GoldenRing and who he was hearing, because the indefinite topic ban imposed is still not going to make any sense. I don't see how it benefits the encyclopedia when you topic ban multiple editors who have made thousands of edits in military subjects over many years and adhered to core Wikipedia policies.

I highly appreciate the approach of these users. In view of the statements above, it is apparent that we all are willing to work together and put all grudges aside. I am also in agreement with the removal of sanctions and installation of subject restrictions proposed by Capitals00 as the appropriate solution. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 07:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep this statement concise and to the point. Like I said above, GoldenRing never provided any evidence whatsoever demonstrating sanctionable conduct on my part, as he had ought to, but merely relied upon the misleading statements of certain users, which GoldenRing himself admits, when he says, "it took some convincing from others for me to include MBlaze Lightning". By failing to do so, GoldenRing not only showed complete disregard of WP:ADMINACCT, but also deprived me of the opportunity to defend myself.

Needless to say, the evidence that GoldeRing cited here to merely prove that he was right in the first place in imposing an indefinite topic ban on me is extremely weak, and is far from "amply" demonstrating the necessity of the indefinite topic ban. I fail to see how merely pointing out the obvious: that the OP demonstrated a lack of proper understanding of the policies and/or guidelines (WP:NOTTHEM, etc) they cited in their statements,[223] seeking sanctions for legit reasons could be grounds enough for imposing an indefinite topic ban. Regarding my participation in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00/Archive#30_April_2018, I don't see any sanctionable conduct here on my part either; it was closely observed by the CheckUser (Yunshui) and the SPI clerk Ivanvector's comment shows that I was absolutely right with my assessment that the SPI was greatly unconvincing.

Finally, I want to reiterate that the indefinite topic imposed on me is wholly unwarranted. I believe it's worth saying that I have made thousands of positive contributions in this topic area. I have played an important part in achieving consensus on some of the most contentious articles in the "conflict between India and Pakistan" area; Talk:Siachen conflict (#Recent_Edits), Talk:Point 5353 (#Kuldip_Singh_Ludra's_evidence), just to name a few examples. These are subjects that many don't want to touch even with a ten-foot pole. It is also pertinent to note that many if not all the editors who received indefinite topic bans are prolific content creators; speaking for myself, I have several GAs and DYKs under my belt—and surely this speaks volumes that I am here to build the encyclopedia. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 04:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• One more thing: being honest with myself, I acknowledge that I've lost my cool on a couple of occasions of late while responding to comments that were not adhering to policies (for example, Talk:India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present)#Pakistani_casualties), but I believe I've never crossed the line. Though such happenings can be avoided.

Also, of all the SPI reports I've filed until now,[224] including the Sardeeph one, I've never argued, never disagreed or objected to the outcome. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 13:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also planned to voluntarily stay away from all the administrative noticeboards for some time, unless I am reporting vandalism or BLP violation, and focus entirely on mainspace editing during this period. Lastly, I'd like to thank the committee for considering my appeal. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 13:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• BU Rob13: No, I haven't appealed the ban anywhere else, prior to coming here. I had decided to retire sine die upon seeing my name being dragged into the list,[225] as I was upset with the way my contributions were being represented at ARE. My account was inactive for ten days, prior to my statement here, and during this period of time, I was considering whether I should appeal the ban or not. MapSGV had left a message on my talk page on 23 May,[226] stating that he had filed a appeal at ARCA "regarding the ARE decision that affected you". Upon seeing some of my fellow editors here appealing their bans, I decided to do just the same.

Having come this far, and having looked at the option of staying banned, I don't want to step back. I will accept wholeheartedly whatever the committee decides.

MBlaze Lightning ^talk 13:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused: this says it's an amendment request, but it looks like an appeal. Which is it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13: Thanks for the clarification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that I was unaware of the AE discussion for almost its entire duration, only later came to know about it when someone mentioned me (the decision for T-banning was almost finalized by then), and I didnt participate even then, I would like to further point out that GoldenRing in his first statement said that he had read through this, this, this, this, this and this, out of which I had only participated in this (more specifically this particular discussion, and was not connected to any of the remaining this's). Even in the thread (reviewed by GoldenRing in which I had participated), I fail to see how could my conduct there could have been sanctionable? I would urge the reviewers to go through that thread and point me out any instance which they think was objectionable. Asking other editors to focus on the current discussion and pointing out applicable WP policies - how can this conduct be sanctionable for a blanket T-ban? I can see above that other editors are willing to collaborate more and hence would request that this ban is lifted. However, certain other restrictions must be placed instead.

P.S. I was T-banned in the past, during my younger days. I believe I am not the same person any more. I was also recently blocked for 48 hrs for no fault of mine (see the discussion with the blocking admin). So, let's just get that out of the way.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 09:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing, Re:

• This WP:IDHT attitude wont get you anywhere and You sir are a text-book case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH: Sir, I would really appreciate if you could also take regard and provide the context in which it was said for making it easier for the readers to better judge. Still, how the quoted text is sanctionable? May be there's a policy I am unaware of?
• They also commented on the Capitals00 SPI case (diff), where they took the opportunity to accuse MBL of frivolous Witch hunting: When a user presents WP's default settings, that a double dash (--) before signatures of suspected socks is credible evidence in an SPI (diff), what else should be said?
• Accuse Kautilya3 of off-wiki collaboration with a banned editor on ridiculous evidence: I can dig better evidence if required. But that's not a case here.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 12:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MapSGV, just pointing out for the record that by unnecessarily bringing in the "us" VS "them" debate, you are only making it difficult for yourself, and not to mention others (include myself).—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 08:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya29, 'thanks' for bring the writing on the wall to Admins' attention, which obviously they would have missed had you not drafted a reply here.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support what GoldenRing did as being the absolute minimum needed and as having consensus, and I support their statements above. That the topic banned people are now piling on here with ludicrous statements etc is just more evidence that they are tendentious and cannot let it go. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that I have for some time been concerned that there might be off-wiki co-ordination involving some of the people involved in the "conflicts" fracas. I say that because of timings of edits but, obviously, I cannot prove it. However, we now have people commenting here who (a) haven't actually edited much and (b) haven't edited regularly, yet are keen to see the topic bans removed. Eg: DarSahab (talk · contribs). I'm sorry if this sounds like an assumption of bad faith but it is odd. Perhaps it is just the meds I am on? - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Blow it. It is odd and has been odd in the past but it is probably just my bent brain. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Desmay: lack of evidence? Really? Did you read the original thread where the topic bans were enacted? - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting to make it clear that I'm aware of this, but honestly, I don't have too much to add here; the evidence I presented at AE covers most of it. These editors have demonstrated a pattern of battleground editing that makes it near impossible to build consensus. Problematic aspects of their behavior include edit-warring, making blanket reverts where those are not required, constant low-level incivility and personal attacks, sock-puppetry on the part of at least five of the principals (admittedly in the past), and constant attempts to get folks they don't liked sanctioned at any cost. A perfect example of the last phenomenon is Sdmarathe, who made a grand total of 21 edits between opposing my RFA in September 2016 and attempting to get me sanctioned in the AE case under discussion here [227]. Their evidence? Claims that I filed a frivolous AE (which had in fact resulted in a warning [228]) against an editor who was duly topic banned for the same behavior a brief while later [229]. I believe the sanction GoldenRing eventually imposed was, if anything, lenient, and uninvolved folks who make it through the reams of evidence will come to the same conclusion. Vanamonde (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: "many of the other editors banned with no warning about their behavior" There aren't many such. MapSGV and TripWire are the only editors t-banned who did not participate in the AE discussion. Moreover, all of the t-banned folks who did participate there were advocating sanctions against other editors, and so should have expected scrutiny of their own behavior. I recognize the value of following due process, but surely it is a bit excessive to suggest that if all the t-bans are examined as a group, then they must all be vacated for procedural reasons: and if we're that keen on following the process, I'd much prefer that this be treated as an appeal for MapSGV alone, and the others be required to appeal separately. Vanamonde (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• While I still maintain that the appeals of all editors who wish to appeal should be considered en masse, it does seem that we're going from collective appeal to general mudslinging rather quickly. Is an appeal the right place to even consider sanctions against other editors? If we are to consider such sanctions, surely the format needs to be different, ie a full case? Aside from the fact that this is precisely the sort of time-wasting stuff that AE is supposed to prevent, it seems to me that if it's considering anything aside from appeals, ARBCOM should clarify that ASAP, and the clerks should deal with comments appropriately. Vanamonde (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I just had the chance to read through the restrictions suggested by Capitalso00 which are being supported by several of the sanctioned editors. I would advise against them very strongly. The heart of this matter is the battleground attitude: everything else is a symptom. One of the most unpleasant symptoms with respect to the rest of the community is the constant attempt to get opponents sanctioned. "Consensus required" and civility restrictions are a recipe for disaster in this respect. Topic bans are clear, and short of site bans or indefinite blocks (neither of which I advocate) are the only way to keep drama manageable. Also: @Ivanvector: I agree that part of the problem here is the constant proliferation of conflict; but that is precisely why we need to rely on ARE rather than ARBCOM. There is no "once and for all" solution here. New editors will always be popping in to fight a proxy war on one side or the other. The DS system works, when it is implemented with the intent of cutting out drama and promoting the interests of the encyclopedia; which I believe is what happened here. Vanamonde (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Newyorkbrad: I don't know if you would consider me an AE admin given that I'm involved with respect to some of these folks. That said: I would advise against setting an expiration period for this ban. These behavioral problems are long-running, deep-seated issues with the way some of these editors approach the topic. They will not be addressed by a cool-off period; lifting the ban should, IMO, require that the editors recognize the problems with their editing and offer concrete evidence that they will behave differently. Since the ban was imposed, the activity of most of these folks has dropped off, and much of it has been limited to reverting socks and IPs. Even so, there is evidence that some of them are unwilling to step back and recognize issues with their editing: see this discussion, which was started after this ANI (I don't offer the ANI thread as evidence of wrongdoing, only as context). Virtually none of the editors who have offered statements here have recognized that they may have overstepped. All they do is to assert that they did nothing wrong.
  I am less opposed to reducing the wait-before-appeal period. An early appeal only places an extra burden on AE admins/arbs, which isn't great, but not on the community, which is the important thing. As such, that really should be up to the AE admins, I think; if they think early appeals are likely to be a waste of time, then the current restriction should not be modified. Vanamonde (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm getting rather annoyed by all of the mud being slung GoldenRing's way. Do the appealing parties realize that although GoldenRing imposed the sanction, it was entirely supported by two uninvolved administrators, supported in principle by two others, and opposed by none? Also, since nobody seems to have bothered to alert Seraphimblade (do we have no active clerks?) I'm going to go ahead and ping them, as they are the only admin who commented on the substance of the sanction at AE but has not commented here: @Seraphimblade: your views would be welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• MapSGV's last statement [230] demonstrates perfectly why his topic ban was necessary though it may have stretched the process a bit. He finds policy violations from Group 1 (conveniently, a group whose members all disagreed with MapSGV in the disputes that started this) but the folks from Group 2 (who agreed with him) are of course pure as the driven snow. None of these editors were innocent in the disputes which required this sanction, as is adequately demonstrated with the links in the AE discussion. MapSGV is also quite incorrect in his assessments of past sanctions. Raymond3023 has also been sanctioned under ARBIPA discretionary sanctions, and his sanction is still in force. Furthermore, Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Mar4d, and D4iNa4 all have lengthy blocks for sockpuppetry, which would ordinarily not be relevant, but become relevant if we're examining past misdeeds. TL;DR: MapSGV is applying an ideological filter in his analysis above, and in doing so is displaying exactly the sort of us-vs-them attitude that made their topic-ban necessary in the first place. Vanamonde (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Opabinia regalis: Thanks for wading through this morass. About making this a topic-ban with respect to reporting others to admin noticeboards; from my ringside seat, my impression is that such reports are more a symptom, and less of the problem itself. As such it would reduce the administrative burden in the area, but not reduce conflict overall. Vanamonde (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just chime in here that I had read the original discussion (and all the various supporting bits) and fully support what Golden Ring imposed. I was just too busy to get my support of the topic bans into the original AE action before it closed (since reading all the stuff involved took a while). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I gotta say, BuRob's statements here certainly don't make ME want to even think about stepping into enforcing ArbCom remedies. Sure looks like they are basically cutting GoldenRing off at the knees and abandoning them to the sharks. And people wonder why admins aren't tougher on enforcing sanctions... well, look at what happens when an admin (with backing from other admins) takes a tougher line to enforce ArbCom remedies in an area that's just plain nasty. They get hauled before ArbCom and an ArbCom member doesn't support them at all. Sure makes it seem a lot easier to just ignore ArbCom remedies and not expose yourself to the headache. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I did in the ARE case which led to the unusual mass topic ban, I endorse GoldenRing's statement here. I think that each and every one of the editors sanctioned in that discussion are capable of contributing constructively, but they have all demonstrated that they prefer treating the topic area as a battleground, pushing the boundaries of existing restrictions in order to "score points" (my words), and repeatedly pursuing bans for their opponents for behaviour that they themselves also engage in. Furthermore their activities draw other editors into their conflict, and since the bans were imposed I have observed several of these editors engaging in the same battleground behaviour in areas not covered by the ban, for instance the recent edit war at Ogaden War. This broad ban gives the disrupted topic a chance to cool down and have the conflicts addressed by uninvolved editors, and gives the sanctioned editors an opportunity to demonstrate that they will edit collaboratively if allowed to return, or as some are demonstrating instead that they will continue to treat Wikipedia as a battleground no matter what topic they edit. I commend GoldenRing for the conservative decision when several others have been calling for the lot to be indefinitely blocked instead.

As for MapSGV's appeal, I agree that including them in the sanction was justified given their recent participation, and that unbanning is not in the interest of Wikipedia.

The Committee should also be aware that Capitals00 and D4iNa4 (at least, probably others in this group) are being harassed by sockpuppets of Wikiexplorer13. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I'm disappointed with the characterization of there being "very few diffs", though I may be misinterpreting your comment. The archived enforcement thread numerates one hundred and ninety-one diffs, plus many more un-numbered which I did not attempt to count. In their initial comment GoldenRing linked to the following discussions: [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236], before suggesting a list of users who might be sanctioned. This course of action was endorsed specifically by three administrators (including myself though I did not comment in the result section) and endorsed in principle by two more (as endorsements for a topic ban without mentioning specific users) (and also not counting Vanamonde93). The list of users recommended for bans changed throughout the discussion however the only editor who ever suggested MapSGV should not be included was power~enwiki, as they've already stated here, and for the same reasons that MapSGV is now appealing. What I mean to point out is that this was not one administrator's knee-jerk reaction which also reversed an Arbcom decision (MapSGV's earlier appeal) but a group of (mostly, referring to myself) uninvolved and neutral administrators reviewing a complex situation and recommending/endorsing a complex but necessary solution. Furthermore it was a thoughtful and reasoned approach to a situation where many more editors (and admins) have been calling for the entire lot of users currently sanctioned, plus others, to simply be sitebanned.

As for Capitals00's suggested replacement of the topic ban with specific restrictions, the topic area already has specific restrictions, under WP:ARBIPA. Experience has shown that this group of editors perceive violations of those restrictions by their opponents, and refer to those perceptions as justification for their own violations of the restrictions, or else pollute the administrative discussion boards with frivolous complaints. Additional restrictions to be gamed are not a solution here - these editors have shown repeatedly that they cannot work together, and a mass interaction ban would be completely unworkable.

The arbitration enforcement result is a good one, and I remind the Committee that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There is no modification to the result that the Committee can enact here that will not result in more conflict, likely immediately. I do not wish for that result and I hope that you also do not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The new comments by previously uninvolved (in ARE) editors pointing out the misbehaviour of even more previously uninvolved editors I think only shows that the topic ban ought to be expanded to include even more editors, if anything. But I think if we do, then we'll just see more genuinely new editors coming to fill the void and perpetuate the conflict. Someone (was it MapSGV) suggested that GoldenRing "cherrypicked" recent discussions and suggested sanctions based on the editors who participated in those battles, without really reviewing the entire situation. And other editors (Ealdgyth? Bbb23?) have observed that this widespread-on-Wikipedia conflict seems to follow the battle lines of the real-world India-Pakistan political battle, and I agree. On reflection, while I still commend GoldenRing for the solution, I am in favour of vacating the topic bans en masse but only if a full arbitration case is immediately opened to review the situation further; respectfully, I do not believe that the solution to this will come from the editors already involved in it.

Perhaps there are some editors here who are deliberately or inadvertently bringing their real life conflicts to Wikipedia and behaving in a way that they should be individually sanctioned or banned from editing, and perhaps there are others who have attempted to remain civil and neutral but have been worn down by the disruption of the first group and have responded in kind. We should all be able to see evidence of this by the numbers of editors and administrators who are commenting on this page that they will not touch the subject, and as I've said before in the Palestine-Israel case, failing to do something about this goes against the spirit of WP:ANYONECANEDIT because editors who want to participate can't because of the toxicity of the preexisting factionalized combatants. That case led to the development of extended-confirmed protection; I don't know where this is heading. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it seems all of the arbitrators commenting here are intent on finding any reason they can to undo the sanctions, I don't know why this is being left open to be filled with more invective from all sides, but on the other hand it's aptly animating the battlefield, isn't it? I was not intending to comment further but I ought to respond to the specific attack that SheriffIsInTown has just posted against my motivations as a sockpuppet investigations clerk. I find the attack disappointing, as I've said numerous times that I take reports seriously, even when the filers clearly have motivations other than "defending Wikipedia". Yes, I am frustrated by a number of SPI reports that are obviously frivolous and retaliatory, often with long rambling lists of extremely vague examples, and even longer narratives attempting to clarify the extremely tenuous connections. Capitals00 is D4iNa4. I don't like the answer, so I'll ask again. Still no? Well it's been four months, let's check again, I'm really sure this time. Ok, not D4iNa4 then, so Capitals00 must be Razer2115 and D4iNa4 is Raymond3023! Also a miss, Capitals00 must be MapSGV then! And on and on and on and on and on; compare the archives for SheriffIsInTown, NadirAli, Kautilya3, MBlaze Lightning, TripWire, D4iNa4, Sardeeph, and probably dozens of others - almost the entire lot are mostly baseless accusations against opponents in content discussions. Importantly, the archives show that these reports were investigated anyway and the vast majority found by a variety of clerks and checkusers to be at best inconclusive, rather than summarily dismissed as SheriffIsInTown seems to want everyone to believe. It's pretty likely that any named account that has made more than a handful of edits to ARBIPA topics in the last three years has had CheckUser run on them at least once.

This pattern of trying to get content opponents sanctioned for anything plays out on many noticeboards including on this one right now, and this is why I'm wary of relying on restrictions or throwing in even more restrictions to manage disruption where these editors are involved. I fear they will just use these restrictions to hound their opponents, trying to game each other into minor violations so they can play Defenders Of The Wikipedia and Punish The Wrongdoers. I fear this because they have repeatedly demonstrated it. I don't think they know how not to do it, and at some level I believe at least some editors here are more interested in getting rid of opponents than building an encyclopedia. What started out here as an appeal by one editor of one restriction has very quickly turned into a mudslinging competition, with several editors (even some who are not apparently involved) listing out all of the ways that somebody else but not them should be sanctioned. It's only a matter of time before somebody commenting on this page accuses myself and Bbb23 of being sockpuppets of one of these editors, because we've repeatedly "defended" the accused at SPI.

The part that is the most disappointing by far is the Committee's implicit endorsement of this long-term disruption, through consistently undoing the good-faith actions of any administrator that attempts to intervene, and not in any way because the interventions are flawed but because of silly "boxes not checked" style bureaucracy. Why should we bother trying? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also adding, for the record, that I consider SheriffIsInTown one of the more reliable "frequent filers" at SPI, and don't mean to suggest that they are deliberately filing frivolous reports. I scrutinize their judgement in reports involving editors they are in conflict with, but I would do so for any editor. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse GoldenRing's statement in all particulars, and urge BU Rob13 to recollect that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Are we really going to have to do this ten times, with ten topic banned editors weighing in each time to complain about their own bans, and all the admins explaining over and over the benefit of the bans, and specifically of giving the disrupted topic a rest by topic banning these editors together? As for the mass topic ban violations you mention, inasmuch as the topic banned editors are commenting on another's appeal, we can hardly blame them on that score, since MapSVG listed them as involved and alerted them.[237]. I don't actually blame MapSVG for doing that, either; I suppose they thought this could be handled at one go, without being crushed by the full weight of the rulebook. Mass banning is certainly unusual, but where nationalist timewasting and disruption is concerned, there's a logic to it. Is it not possible for ArbCom to deal with this case in a simpler way? How about a motion of some kind? Bishonen | talk 16:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• @Newyorkbrad: about your suggestion that the bans be modified to have a specific expiration date, because it'll be such a business to evaluate up to ten appeals come autumn; I'd rather not. I'm dubious of time-limited bans in general, because I've seen too many people simply wait out their three months or six months and then return to the area where they were previously disruptive, with an unreconstructed bad attitude. You may have perceived a resolve to improve in some cases, but I'd like to see that resolve tested for six months. (Or three months; I'm not personally dead set on waiting six months before they can appeal.) Having the sanctioned warriors write an appeal where they demonstrate not just good intentions, but also that they've been constructive and collaborative in other areas, would be more promising for the future IMO. Having the old fires re-ignite in six, or three, months would be worse, and cause more admin burnout, than evaluating ten appeals. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Why not just hear the appeal collectively and then make individual judgements for each editor? There is no reason to tie the outcomes together nor is there a reason to present the same/similar evidence ten times. Much of the disruption which resulted in the TBANs arose from the collective interactions between and among these editors, not just from individual behavior in isolation so examination of one's behavior will, often, necessarily lead to the examination of at least one other's behavior who was in the same events. Jbh ^Talk 15:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I, for one, completely endorse Golden Ring's mass T-Ban per Ivanvector's reasoning(s) over here and the evidence presented in the original AE thread.DarSahabshall probably consider lucky enough to have escaped a TBan.Going by his net contributions, umm........
• @BU Rob13:--Can you please expand upon no serious transparent review of their conduct...no/very few diffs...?
  • And, umm....your candidature statement said:--We need less courtroom.Surely:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I would prefer an en-masse appeal per Jbhunley's reasoning.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would advise strongly against the implementation of restrictions suggested by Capitalso00. In an area, where every editor tries to brand all other opposing editors as sockpuppets/meatpuppets and utilizes each and every opportunity to get other editors sanctioned, unnecessarily convoluted restrictions like Consensus Required will spell a disaster and open avenues to more wiki-lawyer-ing. And, no Civility restrictions please.Those have seldom worked and experience tells that they won't....~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Desmay--Have you missed the original ARE thread, by any chance?~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically noted the problem with MapSGV's sanctions in this diff, and feel that it would be reasonable for the committee to only lift MapSGV's sanctions.

If the committee feels that other sanctions from that discussion are also problematic, I think the only feasible option is to vacate the entire action, with the understanding that if disputes continue, the next discussion will be a full ARBCOM case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A number of statements here are as misleading as they were in the concerning AE. There were a couple of users who were seeking sanction against all editors, and they had to be sanctioned similarly if seeking sanction is really a justification for imposing indefinite topic bans. FWIW, what I have read from the statements of sanctioned users that at least they are not asking for sanctions on each other now and showing their willingness to collaborate by opposing sanctions, yet some are still asking for sanctions. MapSGV,[238] TripWire,[239] Mar4d,[240], Raymond3023[241], NadirAli[242], were not notified and they weren't even editing when case was being established, though NadirAli came before the near end but clearly his comments were ignored, which is another issue, but still it doesn't means that he was notified. What about others who were being discussed yet weren't notified? Process was completely flawed.

I urge Arbcom to vacate all bans at one go and implement the subject restrictions as proposed by Capitals00. The ARE decision was faulty since it lacked necessary process and evidence as a whole was largely unconvincing when compared with the actual outcome or anywhere close to that. I don't see how it will benefit encyclopedia that we should be observing harassment of each of the 10 experienced editors on daily basis by those who are not willing to get over a faulty ARE. Razer(talk) 17:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee is well aware that ARBIPA is a system of discretionary sanctions, whereby uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits to the topic area. No prior warning or notification is necessary other than {{Ds/alert}}. But in practice many of the sanctioned editors have received additional reminders too. GoldenRing did not go by just the complaints made in the ARE case, but took the trouble to read entire discussions on the relevant talk pages and come to his own judgement about the editors that needed to be sanctioned. There were several other editors involved in these discussions who did not receive any sanctions. Other than me, such editors included Adamgerber80, EkoGraf, DBigXray etc.

As far as this appeal is concerned, it makes sense to treat the appeals from MapSGV and TripWire separately, on the grounds that they did not participate in the ARE case and, therefore, did not have an opportunity to present their side of the picture. All other appealing editors were part of the ARE case.

In my view, MapSGV merits special consideration because he is a newish editor, his overall contribution has been positive, and his apparent combativeness in the talk page discussions is mostly reflective of what he himself received.

On the big picture, I would like to submit that, for the first time in the last year so, I am able to spend time on other important matters, like, e.g., the ongoing GA nomination of Shivaji, instead of getting bogged down with daily fire-fights on India-Pakistan conflicts. Many of us are breathing a sigh of relief. GoldenRing is to be commended for his bold and decisive action. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1990'sguy makes some incisive comments, many of which I agree with. I agree the admins have been lax in enforcement in the past. If some action like this had been taken six months earlier, the damage could have been lesser. Left to their own devices, the editors have had to raise their voices more and lower the levels of debate. But at the end of the day, discretionary sactions are subject to admin discretion. They represent a low-cost method of enforcement compared to full arbitration cases. Several admins have participated in the ARE case and they more or less agreed with the sanctions that have been imposed as well as those that were not imposed. RegentsPark's input in particular is highly valuable. They are one of the few frontline admins that are willing to police the India-Pakistan conflict pages from close quarters and their judgement is highly respected, despite their frequent leniency.

As to my conduct, several complaints have been made at the ARE, which I answered, and, at the end of the day, the admins judged that no sanctions were warranted. I see that several editors are not satisfied. So, in the interest of fairness, I am requesting the ARE admins to waive whatever restrictions may be in place, and allow a fresh case to be brought against me. I will be happy to answer the complaints there. This does not seem to be the right place for them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been following the India-Pakistan conflict mess for a while (for example, I imposed the restrictions that Capitals00 mentions above) and I think GoldenRing did an excellent job in identifying the root of the problem and the solution they proposed was just the right one. The crux of the problem is that these editors are fighting a proxy India Pakistan battle on Wikipedia. Some of them are good and useful editors who just lose it when it comes to the conflict (Mar4d, Capitals00, perhaps others), while it is less clear about others. GoldenRing took a surgeon's scalpel to the problem and crafted a narrow topic ban that should help separate those editors who are here with broader agendas from the ones that are narrowly focused on the India-Pakistan conflict. Six months of editing on other areas (both India as well as Pakistan are underserved on the pedia) and then ask for the topic ban to be lifted. This was explicitly supported, both in content as well as in procedure, by other admins and, clearly, discretionary sanctions and AE worked exactly as they should. This issue is consuming the spirit of neutral editors on Wikipedia, is dispiriting for admins in the area, and the long term consequences of overturning the ban are not going to be good.
• About MapSGV. They are not quite correct in their activity summary post ARCA overturning their topic ban. While they have not edited much in the India Pakistan conflict area, they actually have barely edited elsewhere as well (approx 8 edits in the conflict area out of a total of 17 or 18 over the space of a month and a half). This edit illustrates the very "who won the battle" and "go after the other guys" attitude that is at the root of the problem. GoldenRing was, imo, justified in including them in the topic ban.

--regentspark (comment) 22:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13 and Premeditated Chaos: MapSGV mostly stayed away editing in all areas after their topic ban was lifted but, of the 19 edits they made between the lifting of the ban ([243] and the filing of this appeal [244], 7 were related to the contentious area (plus 1, on your talk page, asking for record amnesty). Almost all the other edits relate to a prod that they removed from an article. I'm not sure if the India-Pakistan edits were contentious or not but that's not exactly staying away from the area. --regentspark (comment) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment above by RegentsPark is disingenuous because it seems that every time an issue was reported, he tried to rescue the reported editor in violation of WP:INVOLVED,[245][246][247] even when the issue was very clear that sanctions on the reported editors were definitely warranted. RegentsPark cites a user talk page discussion that only shows continued harassment from Mar4d that could have been avoided had RegentsPark made efforts to curb reported disruption or simply stayed out of the reports but RegentsPark has been himself a part of the problem, as my diffs show. RegentsPark seems to be using his own failure to handle the issue as evidence of escalation though without admitting his own guilt. Similarly, GoldenRing has has failed to act on the reports where the topic ban was the obvious solution,[248][249] but now he has to confuse one editor's behavior with other to justify a large number of problematic bans and that speaks of nothing but problems with his own actions in this case.

BU Rob13 is right -- the problem here is that 10 concerning editors are being treated as same by GoldenRing. Cherrypicking ten editors and handing them same sanction only for editing the subject makes no sense. GoldenRing in his statements has only proven the existence of the editors in the subject, however, disruption is limited only with two or three editors, not more than that. According to GoldenRing, if one editor refutes other editor's argument with accordance to policy and other editor begins to engage in blatant policy violations, then we should ban both editors because there would be no such situation without both. There is an article on False equivalence that I think GoldenRing would benefit to read.

I also believe that even if GoldenRing's philosophy is correct, his list was still largely incomplete. You missed Kautilya3 who has been a party of the disputes and has engaged in edit warring,[250][251][252][253] incivility,[254][255][256][257] and advocated WP:SPS.[258] I see no reason why you left out Adamgerber80 who misrepresented sources,[259] and edit warred on Sindhudesh [260][261][262] (3 reverts), Indian Line of Control strike, [263][264] India–Pakistan border skirmishes,[265][266] and more. False balance is a bad choice. Since there was no particular analysis of everyone's behavior and it took sanctioning admin less than a day[267][268] to sanction 10 editors in good standing for mostly outdated issues and without even notifying half of those editors, it would be better if the same sanctions are removed in this appeal for lacking necessary evidence and procedural basis. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to emphasize one thing before I make this statement, that I am only making one because (a) I was mentioned in this discussion by Kautilya3 and (b) I subsequently discovered that another editor had raised some concerns with some of my edits. I don't have a strong opinion on the WP:ARE which took place or this subsequent appeal. A discussion on my talk page which incidentally occurred before the entire WP:ARE discussion represents my view on this entire situation. In general, I wish to stay away (and have made an earnest attempt to do so) from the numerous WP:ANI, WP:ARE, WP:SPI, and other discussions that have gone down in the past six months. My attempts have been to ensure that constructive discussion occurs and here are some recent edits which represent that. ([269], undoing incorrect closure,talk page discussion). 1990'sguy, You have very right to question and raise issues about my edits but I would implore you to assume WP:AGF and to please have a look at my respective discussions on the talk pages of those articles to understand the complete picture. Second, it is common courtesy to at least ping/mention the editor such that they are notified about the concerns one has raised. In my opinion, it would have been nice if you had indeed extended me that courtesy here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement was based on clearly weak evidence, mainly stale diffs (often outside scope) and topic bans were recklessly imposed. I am failing to find any evidence of main page disruption from the editors. It is worrying that many editors were not notified as evidenced by Razer211. If someone was disruptive then smaller sanctions (warnings, reminders) had to be tried first but I am not seeing any previous attempts to deal with the editors and forced breaks including blocks are contrary to Wikipedia policies per WP:COOLDOWN, let alone handing topic bans.

I also agree that there was no reason not to consider Kautilya3 and Adamgerber80 as suited editors for topic bans when they caused more disruption than nearly all named editors.

@BU Rob13: To show you the frivolity of the entire topic bans, I will say that there was a classic display of admin favuoritism. The administrators totally ignored evidence that several users had shown of Kautilya3's misconduct such as his incivility[270][271][272][273] and his breaking of the aspersions restrictions which he is under.[274][275][276] GoldenRing did not even consider all that but somehow found this conduct from JosephusOfJerusalem[277][278] deserving of sanction. I will leave that up to you to decide whose behaviour was worse. You should note that admins have let Kautilya3 off the hook before too despite his abusing multiple accounts and edit warring.[279][280][281] And this supports my idea that this the entire process had favouritism and selectivity all over it.

To support my point that the evidence was really weak I will show you another example. GoldenRing's evidence of TripWire's supposed misconduct are what he calls these "gems"; "This WP:IDHT attitude wont get you anywhere" and "You sir are a text-book case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH." But how is that any different to this sort of "gem" from Vanamonde93 "TripWire, you're digging a hole for yourself here."[282]? Either both are bad or neither are bad.

We can undoubtedly agree that whatever ideology was being used for justifying the ban, it's use was totally incomplete and the result was too unsound.

Since the entire mechanism was abused like a joke I believe it's better to overturn these bans and implement the subject restrictions (as Capitals00 proposed) as per agreement between most editors here. They describe where the problems exist and how they can be easily avoided. DarSahab (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must applaud the spirit of conciliation[283][284][285][286][287] which has come about on this appeal between the T-banned users. This willingness to let go of past grudges and work cooperatively in future is not something I have ever seen here before and should not be ignored either as it sets a good precedent for the encyclopedia. We must give them a chance to demonstrate their friendship and collaborative attitude. The subject restrictions will be a good substitute for the T-Bans. I support the idea that the T-bans be lifted en masse from everyone.

I would not only suggest that these t-bans be lifted but I would advise that they be supplemented with proper and more stern administrative action for Kautilya3's misconduct. I advise more stringency in their case because most of the topic banned users here were not already under an indefinite ARE sanction. Kautilya3 was. As a user who was restricted from casting aspersions[288] this sort of verbiage: "don't make deceptive POV edits again","your soapboxing for Pakistan", is quite across the end of the line. This is also the case with his ethnicity claims restriction[289] which he is which he is noted to have violated.[290] The only solution is that User:Lord Roem's warning be made true and a due block be served. As an administrator myself over at Urdu Wikipedia I don't know what the administrators here have been doing. It is apparent that these topic bans has given them a false sense of self-righteousness and superiority over other users. This conversation[291] does not make for pleasant reading. Kautilya3 calls one edit, involving the removal of large amounts of unsourced text, a month after the last major edit,[292] an "edit war" and refers to NadirAli's sanction in what clearly looks like a bullying attempt.--Obaid Raza (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lift topic bans and give Kautilya3 the penalty for breaking their ARE sanctions: To those arguing that this is not the right place to bring it up, this is ARCA. Amendments are requested and made here to fix whatever deficiencies there were from the ARE in question. Since violations by Kautilya3 of his ARE-restrictions were repeatedly brought up (and ignored) at that ARE, that failure now has to be corrected here. I would advise English Wikipedia administrators to complete here the action that was missed at ARE. Of course, the original failure to do so also now raises question marks over the credibility of the original decision, which is another reason why the mass topic ban should be lifted. Obaid Raza (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Can a motion be passed to take some sort of action on Kautilya3's misconduct? If you go through the original ARE report and even the diffs regurgitated here, its clear that that user's behaviour has been worse than the rest. They also violated their own ARE sanctions. Ignoring his behaviour which was reported at that same ARE is one of the main reasons the original decision was so faulty. It let the prime wrongdoer off the hook, and this user has been given too much leeway already by English Wikipedia administrators (abusing multiple accounts, edit warring, you name it).Obaid Raza (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of my own sanity, I do not admin in this particular area, except for blocking known socks and the like and therefore did not participate in the ARE. With that out of the way, I agree with NYB below that this should be held as a mass appeal. It's far simpler for all involved. There's no reason why individual issues can't be evaluated in a mass appeal. That said, I'm not sure where this "single/individual admin" imposing a sanction comes from (from BU Rob13 below and some others above the line). This was imposed after a discussion and at least three admins (in the uninvolved section) agreed and came up with the final sanction while two others agreed with the general principle. In fact many of those appealing the sanction here were vociferously supporting the same or stiffer sanctions for some of the others in that same discussion, just the fact that all their opinions were taken into consideration, evaluated, and all of them sanctioned seems to be an inconvenient outcome for them. I think NYB has hit the nail on the head with "The trade-off, really, is between procedural punctiliousness toward individual editors versus the best outcome for the encyclopedia-building process as a whole." and we shouldn't forget that the WP:ARE outcome was taking into consideration what was best for the encyclopaedia. As for the other comment on why some others were left out, well, they seem to have been considered and deliberately left out of the sanctions. As for MapSGV's appeal, right after the ARCA appeal this edit which plays into the tag teaming aspect within the sanctioned topic area. So, while I do agree to an extent with power-enwiki's statement above reg there being very minimal contribution since the ARCA appeal, that kind of contribution is actually just "ARBCOM has accepted my appeal, now I'm untouchable", so in effect suggesting that Sandstein's original sanction there was warranted. (_{Note: In the interest of unnecessary notifications, I've only pinged those not already participating this discussion.}) —SpacemanSpiff 10:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly. My knowledge of these topic-banned editors is only at SPI. Without analyzing each one separately, on balance, SPI would be better off without their largely disruptive factionalized back-and-forth on many cases. It's true that some are worse than others, but to the extent this ban prevents them from filing reports, I'm in favor of it. As an aside, I agree with Newyorkbrad's preliminary procedural statement. Separating this would be an unnecessary nightmare.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tldr: Ban good, proposed alternatives bad.

I edit in the normally anodyne periphery of this topic area, and I haven't looked at most of the events that led here. But I've witnessed other, similarly toxic, discussions between the editors concerned, and I've followed the recent AE reports. I can say I agree with Goldenring's selection of editors to place restrictions on and I believe that these restrictions were long overdue. Further noting that the narrow topic ban is probably the most lenient of all the options that were considered in the last AE request.

Regarding Capitals00's proposal for a new set of editing restrictions in this topic area, this doesn't seem to be gaining traction, but I think it's worth emphasising why it might not be a good idea. This is likely to have a disproportionate effect on new editors (who will not be familiar with the strict letter of this new law), and it won't do much to solve the underlying issue with the currently t-banned group of editors. I don't see the relevance of either 1RR (the problem was the constantly horrible environment on talk pages and noticeboards, not so much the occasional instance of mild edit-warring), and I don't see how the proposed civility restriction could work: I don't remember ever seeing civility proper to have been a major problem (and two of the worst offenders banned are the poster childs of WP:Civil POV pushing). If civility is defined broadly enough to encompass all the neutrally-worded recriminations or the polite, but persistent, mutual litigation that we had become used to, then the definition will be too broad to make it enforceable.

Starting a full-blown arbitration case was recently suggested, but I don't see how it could help at this point. What is the way forward from here? These editors have been banned from the major heat source – the India–Pakistan conflict – but they remain free to edit in the wider subject areas of India and Pakistan. These topics have been an area of conflict between some of those editors in the past, but if this time round they show they can work constructively and collaborate, they can follow the standard path of individually appealing their topic bans after six months. If the battleground behaviour carries on, then stricter restrictions can be selectively imposed on the those responsible.

Maybe MapSGV's topic ban could be overturned, in the interest of fairness, because of their overall low level of participation in the most recent skirmishes. – Uanfala (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked with few of these editors and had my share of agreements and disagreement. We can debate about their behavior being good or not. But their contributions to articles speaks volume about their commitment and hours they have put in. Thus, I highly oppose this hasty and heavy handed topic ban, that was clearly put in place without any consideration or considerable proof of disruption. For example all the (stale) evidence used to ban Mar4d was rehashed from an AE of two months ago, then dismissed as a "wall of minutia",[293] so it should not have been actionable at all. I thank the rest of the editors for their productive contributions, I also thank Capitals00 for a good set of good-faith proposals, and look forward to work with them. I wish them best of luck with this appeal. --Spasage (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is actually wrong with banning multiple editors but such action still requires firm evidence of disruption and that is badly missing here. I condemn such approach of banning anyone without following the right procedures. Given the lack of evidence, no implementation of preventative measures and justification through misleading conjectures, I oppose the topic bans and request committee to undo the damage by overturning all bans.

Disagreements are a part of daily life but to punish someone over common disagreement is simply unjustified. ARE must not be used as a tool for clearing feuds of your favorite editor. desmay (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the policies and general understanding, the topic bans are imposed after failure to abide by the warning issued for clear evidence of disruptive editing which most importantly includes problematic main article edits, failure to abide consensus, personal attacks, etc. however, none of that can be discovered anywhere in my editing record since I have joined Wikipedia.

No evidence of sanctionable editing had been produced that concerned me. Looking at time when the list of bans was proposed[294] and implemented,[295] it is evident that I never got the opportunity to defend myself as my contribution history shows.[296] GoldenRing cited my participation but that is really not enough and I have never seen anyone before being sanctioned for such. So far, I have never engaged in any edit warring, canvassing, personal attacks, bludgeoning or any kind of sanctionable conduct. My participation showed by the links provided by GoldenRing involved the instances that were either outside scope or they were no longer actionable. If GoldenRing found them to be actionable, still, my overall motive was all about working on improving the credibility of Wikipedia and abide by its core policies. I admit that I have been critical a couple of times in participation but at the end of the day it was also apparent that it didn't took me long to restore the collegial atmosphere.

We are ought to be building a collegial atmosphere and after hearing the reactions from the involved users with whom I had disputes, I am happy that they are also ready to collaborate in building a collegial atmosphere and I welcome their commitment as a net benefit to encyclopedia. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that NadirAli was not mentioned in the comments made below that brought me here.[297] I would also like to request NadirAli's section to be moved below the one belonging to Capitals00 because NadirAli commented 2 hours after Capitals00 had already commented.[298][299] Maybe clerks can do the needful? Thanks. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: I am aware that appeals can be made on ARE and AN prior here, but the reality is that those options largely depend on the popularity of the appealing editor. It has been frequently observed that even if an editor has carried out gross violations of policies, he would get away with those violations with reviewing admin citing the consensus among editors/admins and at the same time if an editor has not carried out any violation or even participated in the diffs used for banning then the sanctions are still going to be endorsed only because the appealing editor have a low bar on popularity, like we have already seen here in the case of MapSGV. At first I was avoiding this ARCA because I had doubts whether multiple editors can appeal or not. After receiving your ping I decided that this should be treated as most likely as the only venue that nonetheless has highest chances of making a fair review of the decision at AE. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for allowing me to appeal.

GoldenRing notifies the people whom he has mentioned in his ARE comments,[300][301][302] but this time GoldenRing failed to notify the people he mentioned. I was one of them who weren't not notified about being sanctioned, and my name was added without any consideration and there was no evidence provided by anyone to backup the topic ban proposal. At first, GoldenRing didn't agreed with the idea of including me in the list,[[303] however GoldenRing suddenly added my name without providing any reason to topic ban me neither any evidence was provided to him.[304]

To this day, I have never engaged in disruption and whenever anyone told me about a mistake that I have made, I realized it and made the improvement. I had been temporarily topic banned before by NeilN, who swiftly removed the topic ban on appeal but put me under temporary restrictions[305] and 3/4 of these temporary restrictions were successfully appealed on 18 April, after I had cited the evidence of lack of disruption and the faults in the evidence that had been used for putting me under restrictions.[306] However this indefinite topic ban from India-Pakistan conflict is overtly unwarranted and there are no reasons why I had to be banned when I have not disrupted this area or in fact any other area at all.

My overall view of this issue is that it can be easily resolved and it has already begun to be resolved. The unanimous agreement between involved editors to allow implementation of subject restrictions from protecting the area from disruption is a positive sign. Furthermore, I would like to thank JosephusOfJerusalem that he has countered a sock[307][308] who keeps disrupting my contributions. This is an evidence that we are contrary to what the admins had assumed, that we will move conflicts to other areas but clearly we haven't done that at all, instead we have evidenced the fact that we can collaborate together. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence of me being disruptive? I was not even a part of most of these disputes. To me this sounds more like a sanction for only having involvement than violating any policies or engaging in this disruption that is necessary before getting topic banned. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the AE thread, I have not reviewed the evidence with respect to each individual sanctioned editor, but support the general approach by GoldenRing. Nothing submitted here on appeal makes me believe that the sanction was completely outside the discretion granted to administrators by the discretionary sanctions provisions. Even if with respect to individual users other admins might have come to different conclusions, or indeed even if the one-size-fits-all approach might be perceived as not equally reflective of the degree of culpability of each sanctioned editor, in the aggregate I believe these sanctions will help quell battleground-type editing in the area of conflict. Sandstein 15:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, thanks for letting me know about this. There's an awful lot to wade through, but I'll try to get a statement put together tonight. It would indeed seem to make sense to notify admins who participated in the AE review of an ARCA appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, my thoughts. I agree very much with Ealdgyth here, that it would be quite demoralizing for ArbCom to second-guess GoldenRing's decision. Every one of the editors who was banned had, in some way or another, been behaving poorly and disruptively in the area under sanctions. I am absolutely not one who's okay with a "ban everyone who was in the general area" type remedy (and as some arbitrators might recall, harshly criticized ArbCom when they once proposed such a thing), but that's just not what we've got here. These editors really did, each and every one, behave in a way that earned them their sanction. I supported GoldenRing's decision at AE, and nothing said here changes my mind about that. For ArbCom to review a discretionary sanction, the standard should not be "Is that exactly what I would have done?", but "Did the sanctioning administrator act within reasonable administrative discretion?" If the answer is yes, the sanction should be upheld. I see no reason to believe that GoldenRing acted outside the bounds of reasonable administrative discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No comments on these appeals yet. I should note however that I had requested Doug Weller due to his heavy involvement with a few editors listed in this request. Whilst Doug Weller has not disagreed that he is involved, he seems to be refusing to recuse.[309] --RaviC (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding here that the topic ban violation brought in by JosephusOfJerusalem about 2 days ago has been now restored by an account (Owais Khursheed)[310] that has been re-activated after more than 6 months and his last edit 6 months ago was to allege MBlaze Lightning and Kautilya3 of being sock puppets of each other, though the SPI was closed by Alex Shih as "insufficient evidence".[311]

@Seraphimblade, GoldenRing, and Doug Weller: I must note that something is very fishy going on here. Also linking an ARE report that concerned NadirAli, highlighting the alleged meatpuppetry.[312] --RaviC (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now NadirAli (who I have already mentioned) has violated his topic ban by misrepresenting the edits on Kashmiris, from where he is topic banned.[313] RaviC (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NadirAli: Looks like you really don't understand what a topic ban is. Since you referred to talk page (Talk:Kashmiris) you must have been aware of this message by GoldenRing.[314] You are not allowed to refer to any edits that are related to your topic ban, but given that you have violated your topic bans and have been blocked[315], I don't think that this is something particularly new to you. RaviC (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked into this request sometime before but didn't commented then because I couldn't really make up my mind at that time. But having now read through the statements at AE and here, I feel that at least three topic bans should be preserved since these three editors have caused massive amount of disruption, and as pointed above, that if they had been topic banned at the right time as the result of the strong AE reports against them,[316][317][318] there would be no such collateral damage that we are seeing now.

1) TripWire: he says here that he was topic banned during his "younger days", and then was eventually "blocked for 48 hrs for no fault of mine",[319] which is a clear misrepresentation of the credibility of his block that was imposed because he himself violated 2RR. TripWire has surprisingly omitted the ARE report from July 2016, where I had participated as well.[320] This ARE resulted in a 3 months topic ban on TripWire from entire Balochistan subject, not to mention that TripWire is currently still under a "casting aspersions" sanction as a result of that ARE.

2) NadirAli: needs no introduction. He was site banned as result of the original ARBIPA case[321] and topic banned, which he later appealed.[322] He claimed here that "I had broken no 3RR", [323] while technically true, the statement is unconvincing to defend his record, given his 3 reverts on Princely state well under an hour.[324][325][326]

3) Mar4d: his actions include source misrepresentation,[327] edit warring on 2016 Indian Line of Control strike[328] while misrepresenting established consensus as no consensus,[329] harassment of MapSGV,[330][331][332] poor AfD nomination[333] and then he went on to tag the article with CSD A10 while the AfD was still running,[334] in fact, no longer than a few hours before the ARE was filed. His disruption is clearly highest among all other editors. Add to this: the topic ban violations as pointed above in this edit further leaves me with no doubt that the topic ban ought to be preserved in Mar4d's case.

At present, this is my stance regarding this case. Bharatiya29 09:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the situation where you have to select between what is right and what is easy.

I was aware of these bans but not this request that I got to know only after following up events related to JosephusOfJerusalem, after he violated his topic ban multiple times,[335][336][337] for restoring pseudohistory/fringe content that never had consensus.[338] At this moment, I would just mention that the necessary details of background are missing that can significantly decide the outcome of this request. It is necessary to tell that this kind of frivolous ARE reports submission citing insignificant issues to get away from own mass disruption dates back to January this year. One side has tried almost every way to engage in disruption for the sake of POV pushing, while other side has only attempted to fix the problems created by other side or helped them clearing their misunderstandings of policies and content disputes. I know that I am saying this is a one-sided disputed, but this is not a new thing. Same was the case in the original case[339] where only one side was sanctioned and NadirAli was a part of it, just like he is in this case.

Situation has not changed. I would bring unwarranted admin leniency into attention that widely exists here and it's existence has been further proven post-topic bans. Interestingly, Mar4d and JosephusOfJerusalem have violated their topic bans multiple times but they haven't been sanctioned even after the clear logged warning agreed by several administrators that any violation will lead to "either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning."

Should I just say that no one should be reporting topic ban violations? Because nothing happens as it has been already proven and if anyone tried to report the violation, then the reporting editor would be instead blocked/banned for "battleground mentality". If the reports of topic ban violation increased then one side will falsely accuse other side of topic ban violation and then all editors will get blocked indefinitely or topic banned from whole subject only for being "part of that battle", even if most editors never violated the topic ban. I mean, this is what has happened here that half of the editors have been sanctioned for disruption caused by others and apparently we are moving there again. I know that would be wrong if it happened and I would definitely advise against such practices.

I will expand my comment with relevant diffs soon. My Lord (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that I have my evidence ready for proving my above statement. I feel it is important because such evidence has not been mentioned here by anybody yet. At this moment, it appears that several members of the committee have already made their votes. I guess I am probably late. Please ping me if you are interested. My Lord (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how much clearer the things have to be than they already are now. Along with JosephusOfJerusalem, Mar4d it seems that NadirAli has now also joined the list of topic-ban violators with this edit. As expected, these editors engage WP:IDHT even after being told about very obvious topic ban violation,[340][341] but they deny it,[342][343] just like they used to deny copyright violations in the disputes that has led to topic bans.[344] @GoldenRing: I don't think we should be disregarding the decision made by you and other by admins on AE that topic ban violation will lead to indefinite block or topic ban from entire area.[345] Or we are waiting for other side to violate topic bans too then impose block/ban on both sides for maintaining the balance? Sorry, but it is natural to have many confusions over the things that could be well avoided if things were sorted out in a copybook manner from the beginning. My Lord (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

• Recuse obviously. GoldenRing (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @GoldenRing: Please link the diff where MapSVG was alerted of the AE discussion before he received sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, at the moment, this is only an appeal from MapSVG. Anyone else who desires to appeal should do so separately. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SheriffIsInTown: As noted above, we look at appeals from each editor individually. If you wish to file an appeal at ARCA, you'll need to submit another request. Considering appeals for ten editors in one discussion is just too complicated to end well, since each editor's circumstances and behaviors are different. I'm not trying to give you the run around, just trying to make sure we are set up to reach the best decisions for the community. If you want to just copy what you wrote over to another ARCA thread, that's perfectly fine; no need to duplicate effort. (As a side note, seriously consider whether you want to appeal straight to ARCA instead of to AE/AN first. If you do that, you lose your ability to later appeal to AE/AN over the legitimacy of the original ban.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to reiterate this clearly. This is an appeal for MapSVG and only MapSVG. If others wish to appeal, do it separately. I've half a mind to close this procedurally and start over, because we simply cannot process 10 different rationales for appeals from 10 different editors in one ARCA. Further, this is turning into mass topic ban violations, as a topic banned editor may not comment on the appeal of another editor banned in the same topic. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Beyond My Ken: Also, appeals are submitted as amendment requests. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we’re going “all or nothing”, then I’ll have to vote to vacate all the topic bans, as at least MapSVG’s topic ban is grossly improper. After a successful topic ban appeal, it appears he had virtually no further activity in the topic area, and certainly none close to the time of the ban. Reimposing the topic ban under those circumstances looks a lot like reversing the Committee’s decision. An individual admin can’t do that, and it isn’t fair to MapSVG for their ban to be reimposed without new behavior warranting one. I also have process concerns here. There is technically no requirement to notify an editor of a report involving them at AE, but when an AE discussion starts talking about banning ten editors with no serious transparent review of their conduct (no/very few diffs, in many cases), we have to apply some common sense. MapSVG should have been allowed to defend themselves, as should many of the other editors banned with no warning about their behavior. I’d rather have one properly-banned editor unbanned than one improperly-banned editor banned, so if I’m forced into that choice, I’d vote to accept. That’s not optimal. Some of the banned editors should certainly stay that way, and I hope the Committee is willing to put in the effort to make those determinations, which are best made in separate discussions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose we're hearing this collectively yet making independent decisions. After discussion on the list, I've removed all parties except the original filer and GoldenRing. @MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00, TripWire, JosephusOfJerusalem, Mar4d, SheriffIsInTown, D4iNa4, Raymond3023, and Sdmarathe: If you want to be part of this appeal, please re-add your username to the list of parties. This is how we are determining who wishes to appeal their sanction as part of a collective appeal. Please note that, if you join this appeal, you will no longer be able to appeal the validity of your sanction at AE/AN (see important note #2). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC) @Capitals00 and TripWire: Messed up the pings to you, so re-pinging. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each of the editors have now joined the appeal, and we are deliberating. I would ask all of the appealing editors to pull back on the criticisms of GoldenRing. No, he isn't being admonished. Several admins agreed with the general concept of topic-banning en masse at AE. Maybe that wasn't ideal, and maybe the exact group chosen wasn't exactly correct, but it's clear that the action was taken in good faith after discussion among several uninvolved admins. Right now, you're trying to convince us that you don't have a battleground mentality that makes working with you in this topic area difficult. Continuing to make unwarranted or polemic attacks on an administrator who acted in good-faith just seems to indicate GoldenRing got it right. In short, calm down a bit and give us a chance to talk over your appeals. This may take a while, since there are so many of them. I would like each appealing editor other than MapSGV to answer the following questions: Did you already file an appeal to the community at AN or AE? If so, please provide a link. If not, why did you come straight here? (You may wish to read my statement here for context.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SheriffIsInTown: You can absolutely appeal the validity of the topic ban at AN/AE first. If you'd like to do so, you're welcome to withdraw from this appeal (as is any other editor). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GoldenRing: I would very much like to see diffs specifically related to MapSGV. I don't think they're as necessary for others, though I may come back and ask for diffs of others later on. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline all but MapSVG. For the other editors, I see no significant overstepping of administrative discretion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GoldenRing: The time to withdraw from the appeal has long passed. No, editors cannot withdraw after arbs have started voting. I offered it for those who may wish to withdraw at the very beginning due to a misunderstanding of process, not for those wishing to game their way to an extra future appeal. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I am sorry we seem to be a little bit uncertain about procedure here. Speaking for myself only, I think it will be easier to have just one discussion relating to this group of topic-bans rather than up to ten separate requests, which would result in (for example) the admins who participated at AE having to either post the same thing several times, or cross-reference from one request to another. That does not mean that we would need to overturn or modify either none of the topic-bans or all of them; they could still be reviewed on an individual basis. On the merits of the appeal(s), I sympathize and empathize with the concept of "let's clear out a whole group of editors who have become overly contentious in the topic area and have some fresh blood, although some of the editors have misbehaved worse than others." I was one of the drafting arbitrators in a case a few years back where we suggested "don't take it personally, but the lot of you edit something else for awhile" as a possible remedy—but at that time the community reacted very negatively to the idea of topic-banning anyone who hadn't been shown to have misbehaved fairly seriously. The trade-off, really, is between procedural punctiliousness toward individual editors versus the best outcome for the encyclopedia-building process as a whole. In this regard, some of the admins who supported the group topic-ban in this case are ones who freely speak up when they believe an editor has been sanctioned unfairly, which gives me some comfort that the sanction here was applied carefully rather than reflexively. To be continued. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to allow a couple more days in case any of the other sanctioned editors want to add anything. I must say that my initial reaction to this request was that the topic-ban seemed harsh as to a few of the editors, and was subject to our taking a hard look at it as we did on MapSVP's appeal a couple of months ago. Having read again through everything, however, I lean toward accepting what appears to be a strong consensus of the regular AE editors that drastic action was necessary to improve the atmosphere in this topic-area. I also note with approval that the scope of the topic-bans was limited to the conflict between India and Pakistan (as opposed to all editing about India or Pakistan, which in the case of an Indian or Pakistani editor could destroy their ability to contribute). That being said, the topic-ban has already had the salutary result on focusing some of these editors on the problems with their editing and to resolve to improve them. For this reason, I'd be interested in whether the AE admins believe a shortening of the six-month term might be appropriate (my feelings won't be hurt if they say "no.") Also, as currently written the topic-bans extend until each editor makes a successful appeal, which means that come the autumn, there will be up to ten appeals that have to be submitted and evaluated. Would it be more sensible, in this case, to modify the bans to have a specific expiration date, with the understanding that renewed misconduct once they expire would lead to their being reimposed indefinitely? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As a starting point let's agree to hear this as a collective appeal. We could do that as a general appeal against the decision, or as a collective appeal by the editors who have posted above, who have idnciated they are lodging an appeal on their behalf (Sheriff and NadirAli, your intentions aren't clear on this score). This doesn't bind us to having the same appeal outcome for all of the above, but it avoids asking people to post multiple very similar ARCA's. Happy to support a motion to that effect if required; otherwise let's move forward with it as is. And as NYB says, to be continued on the substance though I do note the general community endorsement of the outcome on this page so far. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Euryalus on moving this forward and hear this as a collective appeal. I also want to note that as far I am aware, GoldenRing's sanction was implemented carefully with the consensus of the administrators that participated in the enforcement request. So any allegations on that the decision was made hastily is unfair in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, for now. For what it's worth, the patterns on display in the commentaries at this very appeal is precisely the reason why the discretionary sanction by GoldenRing, enacted with consensus and within their discretion, should be upheld. It would be inaccurate, in my opinion, to interpret our previous motion to overturn the topic ban on MapSGV as if MapSGV should not have been sanctioned, and certainly not as an excuse for MapSGV to return to their problematic editing behaviour. The diffs provided by GoldenRing is more than sufficient to affirm this decision. As for Kautilya3's editing behaviour, this will need to be addressed in a separate thread. Alex Shih (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Doug Weller. There should be no more withdrawals from this appeal as deliberations have already begun. Alex Shih (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree with handling this as a collective appeal. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Adding that I agree in the handling of this as a collective appeal. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Rob, I would also like to see GoldenRing's diffs for MapSGV. Of all the TBANs issued, it's MapSGV's that gives me pause - the rest were based on recent/ongoing misbehavior, but MapSGV has been largely inactive since the repeal of his earlier TBAN. It seems unfair to issue a sanction to an editor who has been largely inactive lately, even if they have been problematic in the past. Statements from a multitude of parties make it fairly appearent that the existence of these TBANs in general has significantly reduced infighting and disruption in the India-Pakistan area, including reducing the burden at SPI, which is often backlogged. I would like to see the diffs for MapSGV before I make a final decision, however. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • GoldenRing, thanks for providing those diffs. I'm now reasonably convinced that there's no basis to exclude MapSGV from the at-large topic ban. The diffs of them returning to editing in the area are not as problematic to me, but the one on IvanVector's talk page where MapSGV jumps back to accusing someone else of being a sock, etc, is pretty telling of their unchanged attitude. I believe the mass ban overall ought to be upheld and the appeals denied. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm generally in agreement with what Newyorkbrad has said except for the suggestion of a specific expiration date. I do not believe that vacating the bans would be in the interest of the encyclopedia, so decline the appeals with the exception of MapSGV's. I can see grounds for revoking the ban but, but MapSGV's statement have not convinced me that there will be no problems if the ban is simply vacated. I'll come back later with a proper wording, but I'd like to propose a six months suspension of the ban, which will then expire if there have been no problems in the topic area. As I've said, I need to think about the wording, particularly how the ban can be reinstated if there are problems. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @GoldenRing: I noticed this before your post and have reinstated him. Once voting and discussion starts, it's too late to withdraw. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have changed my mind about MapSGV. I now decline all the appeals, given the current evidence. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been intending to look at this "tonight" for days now, and the growth in text volume has been outpacing me. Having now waded through it all (I think), a few observations, not necessarily in any particular order:
  • There's a ha-ha-only-serious joke about arb spaces being venues in which people demonstrate the behavior that got them there in the first place. That's very much in evidence here - there's a lot of commentary to the effect of "I didn't do anything wrong, but those nasty other guys did!" Reading through this, the AE thread, and the various preceding or linked discussions very clearly illustrates the point made by several people here about a pattern of people involved in this dispute using dispute resolution as a weapon to get opponents sanctioned. (Please, nobody respond to declare that their own noticeboard threads/SPIs/etc have all been necessary but some other jerk is a chronic complainer who should be sanctioned.)
  • There's also an unnecessary degree of vituperation about GoldenRing in particular, who only enacted a sanction supported by others in the AE thread. This doesn't help anybody's case. On the other hand - and I think we've tried to make this point every time it's come up - if an AE sanction is appealed and then is modified by arbcom at ARCA, that doesn't mean the original decision was wrong, the admin was wrong to use it, etc.
  • I don't quite know what to think about the idea of mass topic bans at AE. I know that a similar "clear out the topic area" approach has been tried in arbcom cases in the past, and I don't think it worked out all that well, for reasons similar to what you can see here. That is, there's a lot of distraction about process and "fairness" and did I or did I not get my due. Of course, the whole arbitration edifice is supposed to be about practical solutions and not about procedural perfection, but that doesn't help the person who (pick one) was unfairly sanctioned/is using procedural complaints to continue their battleground behavior.
  • On the suggested alternatives: "consensus required" is a hell no, we tried that in another area and it caused no end of problems. Put that in the Bad Idea Bin with civility parole and time-limited bans.
  • On MapSGV's previous appeal: maybe this should have been clearer at the time of the appeal, but that should have no impact whatsoever on subsequent decisions regarding his editing. A successful appeal should not be interpreted by the appellant as "I can get away with anything now!", and by the same argument, if more problems arise, admins shouldn't hesitate to sanction someone who'd previously appealed. This seems to have been a distraction in some of the comments above.
  • Given the very clear pattern that emerges from reading all of this about abuse of noticeboards and complaint processes, I wonder whether this could be partially replaced with a "topic" ban prohibiting the members of this group from reporting each other at AN, AE, SPI, etc. That might also address some of the concerns that the squabbling among this same group has spread to peripherally related topics. It might also be a pain to remember who's allowed to report who, so maybe that's too complicated. I don't love the idea of settling this by letting MapSGV off the hook and otherwise doing nothing, but I'm not opposed exactly either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Like OR, I've taken an awful long time to read this and digest it all. I'm not going to go into depth about my thoughts, besides simply saying that none of the participants have covered themselves in glory. Indeed, it seems the India Pakistan area has spiralled out of control again, and all names on that list have been involved in some form in making that happen. The admins (plural) at AE came up with a solution, removing the participants for 6 months - that is well within their discretion, and enacted by GoldenRing. This wasn't unilateral, it wasn't overstepping the bounds and quite simply the solution is acceptable, if not optimal. As such, I would deny the appeal in toto.
  In addition, I'd like to concur that NadirAli should remain part of the appeal. He added his name on 30 May, and Rob gave him (and others) a chance to remove their names and appeal at AE first on 1 June. Today is 7 June, and NadirAli has removed his name, after the first denial vote. Deliberation and voting is happening, it's too late to remove names from the appeal. Worm^TT(talk) 10:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  By "part of the problem", I am talking about the area as a whole, which has degraded over time, with similar in-fighting, snarky comments and out-right personal attacks, and each person named has been part of that degradation. The consensus of admins at AE is that the parties should be removed for 6 months. You are able to edit elsewhere on Wikipedia, but in this area which has a history of difficulties, the topic ban across all parties is an acceptable solution. Worm^TT(talk) 10:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  MapSGV, there are number of people who have complained of you "wikilawyering" in the thread. To be clear, this dispute has clearly been carrying on for a few months prior to the AE report and I do not accept that you were not involved in the larger dispute. The damning diff was this one, May 3rd, 9 days before the AE report was filed. You made zero edits between the May 3rd and AE report and have been editing at low rate, so I have no reason to think you had moved on. Worm^TT(talk) 13:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained, and the topic-ban imposed on MapSGV on May 15, 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.

Support

(Now moved to oppose) Proposing this to start chipping away at the outcomes here. The wording is the exact same as last time (with an updated date of sanction). MapSGV is saying this in a rather polemic way, but he's essentially correct. His topic ban was removed by ArbCom, and then GoldenRing replaced it even though he had almost no involvement in the topic area between the time he was unbanned and the time the ban was reinstated. He seems to have greatly reduced his participation in the area in response to the warning issued when the previous appeal was sustained, and I simply don't see any disruption in his post-appeal contributions to justify a topic ban. We can't have an admin overruling an ArbCom decision, and even if that wasn't the intent, I think it's the practical effect of letting this topic ban stand.

Doug Weller proposed a suspended topic ban above, but that's not needed here. In the past, we've suspended ArbCom remedies instead of lifting entirely because we wanted to provide some mechanism for admins to sanction the editor if they resumed acting disruptively. Here, the active discretionary sanctions in this topic area already provide that mechanism. `~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently weighing whether I still hold this stance after the diffs from GoldenRing. I don't appear to have to think very hard on it, since the consensus is likely against either way, but I probably am also leaning decline now. On one hand, those diffs would not be enough to topic ban someone without considering the wider disruption in the topic area and past conduct. On the other hand, it probably pushes things well into administrator discretion territory, which is the same reason I'm agreeing to decline the other appeals. I will note that, regardless of outcome, those diffs probably should have been provided prior to the ban being placed. A topic banned editor has a right to know the exact reason for their ban, which is usually necessary both to defend their conduct in the original discussion and to formulate an appeal. The specific diffs/evidence of wrongdoing shouldn't be coming out only multiple weeks into the appeal process. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I oppose this motion. I will expand my comment later. Alex Shih (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I think it's no longer necessary for me to expand the comment as I have voted to decline the collective appeal for now based on the latest diffs and rationale from GoldenRing. Alex Shih (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. I don't agree that this should be vacated for MapSGV, he was part the problem, and this is the solution agreed by admins at AE. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. The later evidence presented by GoldenRing shows a need to oppose this now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. After further consideration, moved here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

---