Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: India-Pakistan

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

Case or decision affected
India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [1]
Information about amendment request
  • Consider the block and topic ban as invalid; removal of topic ban.

Statement by MapSGV

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[2] who was already going under an SPI investigation[3] for being a suspected sock of an editor who is himself indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan.[4] 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.[5] 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,[6] Sandstein claimed that the report is actionable[7], 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.[8][9]

Analysis of diffs reported in ARE by sock.
  • diff 1: User was a sock, who was earlier calling me a sock without evidence.[10][11] No violation.
  • diff 2: same as above. No violation.
  • diff 3: same as above and when the user is WP:WIKIHOUNDING your contributions to violate WP:COPYVIO, WP:EDITWAR, misrepresent sources you would obviously see it as agenda. There is nothing wrong with using the word "agenda". There was recently an ANI thread with this title "Political agenda editor", "INDICATOR2018"_(II) and no one questioned the OP. No violation.
  • diff 4: outdated diff from 20 February. No "personal attack" involved, although next editor had falsely claimed the reliable sources to be "WP:FAKE"[12] which is clearly sanctionable. No violation.
  • diff 5: outdated diff from 20 February. Though there was some incivility but I was not the one to start but next editor who was continiously making personal attacks[13] even after I told him to "focus on content".[14] No violation.
  • diff 6: outdated diff from 20 February. The message made in response to a false off-topic accusation[15], so that editor can talk about the content. No violation.
  • diff 7: outdated diff from 20 February. Clearly no violation here.
  • diff 8: outdated diff from 20 February. It was response to a problematic comment that read "I see is a concerted effort to push WP:POV into a longstanding article, and a POV that is being caused in part due to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of sources",[[16]] contrary to WP:V, WP:RS, I was a little but blunt, but I had soon realized I had to be better. But still, no violation.
  • diff 9: outdated diff from 21 February. It was a response to "replaced by the horrible POV and OR edit",[17] despite it was correctly sourced.[18] No violation.
  • diff 10: outdated diff from 21 February. It was made in response to personal attacks (and misleading accusations of being SPA) by other user that read "time you drop your POV stick, because an SPA whose first edits involve adding contentious OR and POV".[19] Though incivil, but both sides, but no actual violation from me.
  • diff 11: outdated diff from 21 February. Made in response to frequent personal attacks and false accusations such as "''You are not only a POV warrior, but an [[WP:SPA]] whose only purpose is to cause disruption. And you are definitely [[WP:SOCK|not a new user]]'"[20]. Since I have edited subjects about multiple continents in last 4 years and yet I was seeing an years old editor making frequent false allegations of socking and being SPA. As usual, no violation.
  • diff 12: removal of WP:COPYVIO, self-published sources/opinion pieces, unreliable sources and what Wikipedia is not, recently added by an editor with unusual edit summary.[21] No violation.
  • diff 13: same as above, and this time removal of misrepresentation of source too. Where did the source was "10.2 million" or "recording a growth of 15.9%"? Source said "10 million" and 12%.[22] (though 12.49 should be corrected to 12.36 and I didn't got chance following these sanctions) No violation.
  • diff 14: when next user provides you self-published, unreliable, outdated sources for making claims as though the problem is prevailing, you happen to let them know why the article has been rid of such information to this day and we need better sources, WP:RS, for inclusion. No violation.
  • diff 15: per WP:DENY, I removed RfC tag of the RfC started by this obvious sock after the seeing the convincing SPI where I was pinged. No violation.
  • diff 16 same as above.
  • diff 17 same as above.
  • diff 18 not even under scope of Arbitration sanctions and otherwise no violation.

I responded to Sandstein,[23][24] highlighting both sides and the credibility of this report. Sandstein made a response and closed the report in just 16 hours[25] and blocked me indefinitely by making disparaging remarks about me in his comment,[26] 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)

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[27][28][29][30] 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)

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)

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 [31][32][33][34][35] 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)

Statement by Sandstein

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)

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)

Statement by Lorstaking

@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,[36] 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.[37]

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.[38] 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 [39][40] recently closed AE reports. One of them[41] 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[42] but MapSGV remained civil.[43]

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)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • 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 ususually 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)
  • 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)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA