TransporterMan (talk | contribs) Undid revision 830635257 by Special:Contributions/2605:E000:FB42:5F00:14B2:E31E:D191:8FRv test edit Tag: Undo |
No edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[[Category:Wikipedia arbitration]] |
[[Category:Wikipedia arbitration]] |
||
[[Category:Wikipedia requests]] |
[[Category:Wikipedia requests]] |
||
== Amendment request: India-Pakistan == |
|||
'''Initiated by''' [[User:MapSGV|MapSGV]] '''at''' 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
;Case or decision affected |
|||
:{{RFARlinks|India-Pakistan}} |
|||
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested |
|||
#https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828410043&oldid=828409525 |
|||
#Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment |
|||
; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' |
|||
*{{userlinks|MapSGV}} (initiator) |
|||
*{{admin|Sandstein}} |
|||
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request'' |
|||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> |
|||
*[diff of notification Sandstein] |
|||
; Information about amendment request |
|||
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828410043&oldid=828409525 |
|||
:*State the desired modification |
|||
*Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment |
|||
:*State the desired modification |
|||
=== 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828216894&oldid=828214779] who was already going under an SPI investigation[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FreeatlastChitchat&oldid=828194572] for being a suspected sock of an editor who is himself indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FreeatlastChitchat&diff=720713561&oldid=720262980] It was also clear the the user was going to end up getting blocked per [[WP:DUCK]]. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FreeatlastChitchat&oldid=828300050 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FreeatlastChitchat&diff=828218902&oldid=828194572] 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,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828262034&oldid=828219261] Sandstein claimed that the report is actionable[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828294613&oldid=828281140], 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=828328045][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828397087&oldid=828394829] |
|||
{{collapse top|Analysis of diffs [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive227#MapSGV|reported in ARE]] by sock.}} |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=prev&oldid=828208089&diffmode=source diff 1]: User was a sock, who was earlier calling me a sock without evidence.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&diff=prev&oldid=828034654][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=827895935] No violation. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=prev&oldid=828207713&diffmode=source diff 2]: same as above. No violation. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elektricity&diff=827880872&oldid=827880674&diffmode=source diff 3]: same as above and when the user is [[WP:WIKIHOUNDING]] your contributions to violate [[WP:COPYVIO]], [[WP:EDITWAR]], [[WP:DE|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", [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#Political_agenda_editor_"INDICATOR2018"_(II)] and no one questioned the OP. No violation. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826653702&diffmode=source diff 4]: outdated diff from 20 February. No "personal attack" involved, although next editor had falsely claimed the reliable sources to be "[[WP:FAKE]]"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826652864] which is clearly sanctionable. No violation. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826681169&diffmode=source 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826681169] even after I told him to "''focus on content''".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826680304] No violation. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826684301&diffmode=source diff 6]: outdated diff from 20 February. The message made in response to a false off-topic accusation[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826684301], so that editor can talk about the content. No violation. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826690977&diffmode=source diff 7]: outdated diff from 20 February. Clearly no violation here. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826697391&diffmode=source 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''",[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826696486]] 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. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826847746&diffmode=source diff 9]: outdated diff from 21 February. It was a response to "''replaced by the horrible POV and OR edit''",[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826847591] despite it was correctly sourced.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siachen_conflict&diff=826687585&oldid=826679685] No violation. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826848677&diffmode=source 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''".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826848677] Though incivil, but both sides, but no actual violation from me. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826863595&diffmode=source, diff 11]: outdated diff from 21 February. Made in response to frequent personal attacks and false accusations such as <nowiki>"''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]]'"</nowiki>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826855755]. 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. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=827762795&diffmode=source diff 12]: removal of [[WP:COPYVIO]], self-published sources/opinion pieces, unreliable sources and [[WP:SOAP|what Wikipedia is not]], recently added by an editor with unusual edit summary.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_India&diff=825939928&oldid=825921407] No violation. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_India&diff=827878196&oldid=827874900&diffmode=source, 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%.[http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/india-attracted-10-mn-foreigners-in-2017-sports-to-bring-more-alphons-118011700293_1.html] (though 12.49 should be corrected to 12.36 and I didn't got chance following these sanctions) No violation. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tourism_in_India&diff=828033474&oldid=828031139&diffmode=source 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. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tourism_in_India&diff=828175041&oldid=828069781&diffmode=source diff 15]: per [[WP:DENY]], I removed RfC tag of the RfC started by this obvious sock after the seeing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FreeatlastChitchat&oldid=828119488 the convincing SPI] where I was pinged. No violation. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tourism_in_India&diff=828207787&oldid=828207609&diffmode=source diff 16] same as above. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tourism_in_India&diff=828208161&oldid=828208054&diffmode=source diff 17] same as above. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KA$HMIR&diff=prev&oldid=828210990&diffmode=source diff 18] not even under scope of Arbitration sanctions and otherwise no violation. |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
I responded to Sandstein,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828297052&oldid=828294613][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828298616&oldid=828298208] highlighting both sides and the credibility of this report. Sandstein made a response and closed the report in just 16 hours[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=828328240] and blocked me indefinitely by making disparaging remarks about me in his comment,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=828328045] 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. [[User:MapSGV|MapSGV]] ([[User talk:MapSGV|talk]]) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by Sandstein === |
|||
=== 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. |
|||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> |
|||
=== India-Pakistan: Clerk notes === |
|||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
|||
* |
|||
=== India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion === |
|||
* |
|||
---- |
Revision as of 16:45, 20 March 2018
Requests for clarification and amendment
Amendment request: India-Pakistan
Initiated by MapSGV at 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828410043&oldid=828409525
- Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- 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
- [diff of notification Sandstein]
- Information about amendment request
- State the desired modification
- Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- State the desired modification
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[1] who was already going under an SPI investigation[2] for being a suspected sock of an editor who is himself indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan.[3] 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.[4] 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,[5] Sandstein claimed that the report is actionable[6], 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.[7][8]
Analysis of diffs reported in ARE by sock.
|
---|
|
I responded to Sandstein,[22][23] highlighting both sides and the credibility of this report. Sandstein made a response and closed the report in just 16 hours[24] and blocked me indefinitely by making disparaging remarks about me in his comment,[25] 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)
Statement by Sandstein
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).