User talk:BU Rob13

Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.

If you sent me an email, there's no need to notify me here. I check my email regularly and will respond as time permits.

Topic ban vio

Hi BU Rob13. It seems that Mar4d has violated his topic ban[1] by commenting in a thread that concerns India-Pakistan conflicts. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

BU Rob13: Sdmarathe is deliberately misrepresenting my involvement, which I would strongly take the liberty to refute. Please note that I have been active on that talk page much after the 'topic ban' at this section, as well as on an WP:NPOVN noticeboard discussion concerning the same issue, and that my participation there is strictly limited to the inclusion of Pakistan on that article. The above accusation, if not downright misleading, is factually evasive and frivolously twisting. Pinging admins Ivanvector and RegentsPark, please... Mar4d (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: That RfC explicitly involves the India-Pakistan conflict, so you need to disengage from that specific discussion. Topic bans are broadly construed, and this fits within that. I will trust this was a genuine mistake, so I don't believe any sanction is necessary at this time, but please withdraw the comment you made and steer clear going forward. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Can you please clarify how and where the inclusion of Pakistan on Regional power spills over into the conflict area? I was involved in that discussion for days, and not once did the conflict area come up, nor remotely was it within scope. My detailed involvement there, post-ban, has been quite strictly limited to providing sources and reference-checking on Pakistan. Am I supposed to withdraw from a topic now, which I'm not banned from editing in the first place, and where I'm directly involved? This seems like a deliberate abuse of the WP:RFC process to be honest, and if it's true, it's clearly a bad-faith set up meant to systemically exclude me from something I'm not banned from. Mar4d (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The way the RfC is set up, it does include specific mention of the conflict as a relevant factor in deciding the question under discussion, Mar4d. Having said that, I do take your point and will dig into this further. If it becomes apparent that there are broader issues in this topic area with the editor who started the RfC, perhaps a topic ban is in order there. I am acutely aware that editors on both "sides" of this dispute have used tactics aimed at excluding those on the other side, so it is important to me that enforcement is handled evenly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: After a complete review of the situation and a review of your sanction itself, I do not object to your participation in that discussion. You are restricted from edits or pages about the conflict, which is actually narrower than a usual topic ban. This page is not about the topic, and neither was your edit, so even if the discussion broaches on the topic, you're very technically fine. Related to this, I've indefinitely topic banned Sdmarathe from this topic area. I'm extremely unimpressed with both the current and previous attempts to remove opposition from discussions through various processes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Noted, thank you. As stated before, I will continue to participate there and elsewhere within the parameters of the TBAN. Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: I have no idea how and if I was involved in chilling unsubstantiated spi about liborbitol. As far as this RFC, it was specifically about a discussion that involved mention of Pakistan and India along with other countries in the list of regional powers. The report I made to you was after mar4d asked me to drop the stick, in an apparent reference to India Pakistan discussions. I neither invited nor disinvited mar4d until that reference to dropthestick. I had made changes to RFC based on uninvolved user Marshall recommendations and was moving forward with it until that reference by mar4d. I must have misunderstood the interpretation of the ban after I saw their reference. I would request you to kindly reconsider this. Thanks Sdmarathe (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • My action was based on a complete review of your history in this topic area, not just this one incident. I also reviewed the history of that talk page, which had addressed this issue before without reference to conflict between India and Pakistan. I don't think it was an accident that you included an extended example about that conflict in your RfC and then rushed to report Mar4d when they commented on the discussion (but not on that example). This has become typical of how editors have attempted to use AE and SPI as weapons against their opponents in this topic area. I'm unwilling to reconsider the ban at this time. Your typical avenues of appeal are available to you, and I would be willing to consider an appeal myself in 3 months if you thoroughly disengage from the underlying dispute. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall where I was "involved in chilling SPIs that were found to be unsubstantiated" because Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Liborbital/Archive#21_July_2018 isn't clearly one. It did result in CU and I am unsure if there is a sanction for filing SPI that didn't resulted in a block. It was only one SPI where as you are claiming involvement in multiple SPIs which is wrong. How it is possible to go over a discussion about Pakistan being or not being a regional power without discussing it's massive demographic change in 1971 war? My argument was substantiated with high quality sources since a reliable source on the subject itself doesn't discuss about this subject without discussing the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war. Are you saying that I should cut the information from the sources because it bars some topic banned editor from contributing? Which policy supports this rationale? If you have done "a complete review" like you claim above, you should substantiate that which "WP:NPOV Noticeboard discussion" is he talking about since none existed. Do you have a link for it? Have you verified that Ma4rd's comment entirely? It has many factual errors. Finally there has been no edit warring or any breach of a policy so how a topic ban is warranted? Sdmarathe (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Your topic ban is not based on Mar4d's comment. It's based on my review of your contributions. Just the bringing up of the conflict is not indicative of a problem. Bringing it up when earlier discussions had gone on for quite a while without mention of the conflict and then immediately trying to use the fact you brought it up as evidence to get someone who had been participating in the discussion blocked for violating a topic ban is the issue, among other things, including the history of issues mentioned at the past AE threads you've been involved in. A topic ban is warranted by disruption. I consider the general abuse of process to remove opponents that occurs in this topic area to be disruption, as have most admins who have laid eyes on it. If you disagree, you are welcome to appeal at WP:AE or WP:AN. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

If there has been no "WP:NPOV Noticeboard discussion" like Mar4d falsely asserted so you need to tell how it is valid to act on such misleading information. Mar4d did participate on article even when it concerned the war-related information[2], just like he participated in NadirAli's siteban thread thinking he can significantly participate without dicussing topic ban. So your claim "discussions had gone on for quite a while without" is also incorrect. You haven't clarified how I have breached a policy or which "chilling SPIs" I have been involved in. Furthermore there hasn't been any actual "issues mentioned at the past AE threads" other than editors making attempts to get rid of an opposing viewpoint like me without substantiating their request with diffs. If there are, then why you can't justify this topic ban providing a policy based rationale? Something like "You violated 3RR[][][][]" or even "You reverted without gaining consensus[][][]" would still work if you really have any. I would be happy if you can even find me making a misleading claim like there was a "WP:NPOV Noticeboard discussion", since that can be sanctionable too. However it is not evidence of disruption when you link a valid SPI from more than 2 months ago, nor a discussion that presented the required information backed by reliable source. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You're repeating the same incorrect statements about why you were sanctioned and what is required to issue a sanction. You were sanctioned for repeated attempts to remove opponents from the topic area, including a very thin SPI which I personally would not have checked and which found no evidence of sockpuppetry and your most recent attempt to remove Mar4d from an unrelated discussion here. WP:DE is a guideline, and I feel you've violated it, specifically WP:DISRUPTSIGNS#6 in trying to drive away opponents from a topic area. You've asked your questions and I've answered them. I will not respond further. You may file an appeal if you'd like to. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Appeal on AE

Hello! I have appealed the indefinite topic ban from India-Pakistan conflicts here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sdmarathe. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)