To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Sdmarathe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

WP:ARBIPA: Indefinite topic ban from the conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed.[1]

Administrator imposing the sanction

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[2]

Statement by Sdmarathe

I believe, the reasons provided by BU Rob13 for topic banning me are not valid and my discussion with him on his own talk page still did not bring up anything worthy of such a sanction.[3]

Below are the 2 incidents that were used for the topic ban.[4]

1. "involved in chilling SPIs that were found to be unsubstantiated, such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital.": As I already told BU Rob13, there has been no involvement in "SPIs" by me, with the exception of the Liborbital SPI, which was about more than 2 months ago, and that had ended up with CU checking for the accounts and, fwiw, I never pursued the matter any further.[5] But BU Rob13 says he "personally would not have checked"[6], however other CheckUser already checked.
2. "unnecessarily included information about the topic area .... an apparent attempt to exclude ... silence or remove the opposition"

There's some big misunderstanding here. BU Rob13 seems to feel that I included details about "India-Pakistan conflict" only for barring someone, which is simply untrue. This same thing was discussed before as well, as can be seen in the preceding thread on the talk page (e.g., see here) The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 is an intrinsic aspect of the rise and fall of India and Pakistan in terms of regional power, and it finds mention in a large number of academic and scholarly reliable sources when discussing the topic in question (e.g., see [7]); and so it is not possible to omit the details of this particular war when deciding if the said countries are a regional power or not.

The principal reason why I sought clarification from BU Rob13 in the first place was because he had himself blocked Mar4d sometime ago along with 3 other editors after they had similarly participated in a thread about NadirAli's site ban,[8] and to me Mar4d's further participation in this thread struck as a breach of the topic ban imposed on him. Mar4d had then denied violating topic ban as well,[9] after which Bu Rob13 had detailed that how it was indeed a topic ban violation.[10]

I informed about a new edit by Mar4d on Talk:Regional_power#RfC:_On_quality_of_sources to BU Rob13 and I only sought clarification[11] from him about this apparent violation (without requesting any sanction or block or warning) and BU Rob13 had agreed that "Topic bans are broadly construed, and this fits within that."[12], not to mention he told Mar4d for another time not to contribute in that RfC because of "mention of the conflict as a relevant factor in deciding the question under discussion".[13]

However, after more than 24 hours, BU Rob13 changed his own stance on the topic ban violation from a "violation" to "no violation" without indicating how this is no longer a topic ban violation or violation of the actual warning added to Mar4d's topic ban notice that "testing of the edges of the ban" will be dealt with sanctions.[14]

Similarly, I could be topic banned from WP:ARBEURO, because I included the mention and sources about "Ukraine" in my RfC and this RfC can be similarly construed as attempt to "silence or remove" editors topic banned from Eastern Europe or Ukraine under WP:ARBEURO.

I was also thinking if one should be seeking clarification about this from WP:ARCA about the scope of a topic ban violation (not limited to this area) since this is more of a general confusion that if commenting on the thread concerning the restricted subject is violation "or" only making specific mention of the restricted subject is a violation. But anyhow, this topic ban in my opinion doesn't seem justifiable given there is a lack of any evidence of any policy violation or any misconduct. If there was a problem, I believe it could be easily handled with a dialogue. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: I have removed nearly 300 words now, I shall trim further, let me know if I should or I should not.

@BU Rob13: One 2 months old SPI and one recent query about a topic ban violation does not show I am "repeatedly" trying to get other sanctioned "through various abuses of process". Sdmarathe (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BU Rob13

This sanction was the result of the same type of behavior that led to a "end of patience" mass topic ban of 10 editors in this discussion. This topic area has seen a pattern of behavior emerge where editors repeatedly try to get each other sanctioned through various abuses of process in order to remove "opponents". I believe this editor is a part of that pattern. This pattern is disruptive, and I will refer to my lengthy responses to the editor's complaints on my talk page for my explanation of why their behavior fits it. Note also that this editor came up in the previous AE discussion, but narrowly escaped a topic ban at the time. Instead, they received an interaction ban with Vanamonde93 for baselessly trying to get them sanctioned at AE. Again, the same type of behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Narrowly commenting on why I went with this specific sanction without an AE thread, it's because I see this issue as having already been brought to AE, essentially. I mirrored the approach to very similar conduct at the previous AE thread because I think it's quite important to have even enforcement across the board in a topic area where editors are trying to get each other sanctioned to remove the opposition. I may not have gone with an indefinite topic ban had similar topic bans not already been handed out at AE, and I certainly wouldn't have gone with it without an AE thread if that were not the case. It's also worth noting that I already said I would be open to an appeal to me in three months. Indefinite is not infinite. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

I was pinged to Sdmarathe's topic ban inquiry on BU Rob13's talk page by Mar4d, although I'm not otherwise involved since I don't really have an interest in the topic, but I am aware that defining Pakistan as a regional power has been an ongoing debate. Here is a basic timeline:

1. Mar4d (and several others) were topic banned from the India-Pakistan conflict in May this year. Although the topic ban is broadly construed, the definition is a narrow subset of topics within ARBIPA (specifically, pages related to the specific conflict). It seems to me that Pakistan's status as regional power is outside the ban's scope, as it does not concern a specific conflict between the two neighbours, but I see that this may be subject to some interpretation.
2. In July, Mar4d participated in a discussion at Talk:Regional power specifically about whether or not to include Pakistan in the list of regional powers (Talk:Regional power#Pakistan, [15]). Sdmarathe also participated in that discussion, which was mostly between the two editors. Several others also argued against Pakistan's inclusion, but none made any reference to Mar4d's participation being in violation of the topic ban, nor SheriffIsInTown, who is banned under the same sanction and also participated.
3. This week, Sdmarathe formed an RfC on a general question of source context, but it's hidden behind an off-topic reference to the 1971 India-Pakistan war. The reference has no relevance to the question, which originally was whether or not at least three sources should be required for inclusion in the list. They also listed a series of examples of countries which were mentioned in passing as regional powers, in which Pakistan was the only one actually listed on the page. It seems pretty obvious that the motivation behind the RfC is to create a list inclusion criterion by which Pakistan would be excluded from the list.

In short: Sdmarathe's new RfC, whether deliberate or not, is a discussion on whether or not to include Pakistan in the list. Adding a tangent related to the India-Pakistan war does not make the RfC about the India-Pakistan war. I also agree with Bishonen that Sdmarathe's original post on BU Rob13's talk page was not seeking clarification, it was seeking sanction; if Sdmarathe wished to request clarification they would have done so at requests for clarification, and would have asked "is this a violation?", not run to an admin and declared "this is a violation". Restarting an unresolved discussion on a controversial point and then running to an admin to get your primary opponent from the same discussion sanctioned is, to put the best possible spin on it, not ideal behaviour in a collaborative environment.

And, given Rob's explanation here, which I endorse, even if I might not have not gone to a topic ban solution without pursuing an AE discussion first, I can find no reason why the sanction should be overturned. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sdmarathe

Result of the appeal by Sdmarathe

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

@Sdmarathe: At 980 words, your statement is well over the 500 word limit. Could you please trim it down? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. After checking out the discussion with Mar4d and Sdmarathe on Rob's talkpage, I find it difficult to take this request in good faith. Firstly, Sdmarathe's opening post there was in toto "Hi BU Rob13. It seems that Mar4d has violated his topic ban[1] by commenting in a thread that concerns India-Pakistan conflicts", posted under the header "Topic ban vio". There is neither in spirit not actuality any sign of a question mark or doubt there, so Sdmarathe's statement above that they "only sought clarification from him about this apparent violation" [italics in original] is misleading. Further down the userpage thread, Rob first asked Mar4d to disengage from an RfC at Talk:Regional power. Then, when Mar4d protested that the RfC had nothing to do with the conflict between India and Pakistan, from which Mar4d is topic-banned, Rob responded "I do take your point and will dig into this further". 24 hours later, having dug, Rob said "@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." To me, this is just how an admin should act: listen to the sanctioned/warned user, do some more research, and if new facts emerge, change your mind. I love seeing that, especially after some experiences I've had of admins doubling down, listening to nobody, and defending their original stance to the death. On this board, Sdmarathe tries to twist this exemplary, prestige-free, admin approach into an implication that Rob doesn't know his own mind and contradicts himself. Bah. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• In fairness, this sanction does appear to me to be fairly heavy-handed; that said, taking into account Sdmarathe's previous conduct (see here and here) and the well-known fractiouness of the topic area, I don't think that, in this case, Rob has exceeded the margin of discretion that administrators are afforded in respect of the imposition of discretionary sanctions. For that, in my opinion, this appeal should be declined. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I probably wouldn't have imposed a topic ban in response to what looks like a non-frivolous enforcement request. But the banning user's references to the user's prior conduct in the topic area make it clear that the ban passes at least rational basis review, so I don't think it is necessary to overturn the sanction. Sandstein 18:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with declining. This area is plenty toxic enough as it is, and I don't see how this request really addresses the reason for the sanction. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]