Case Opened on 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Case Closed on 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Case Amended by motion on 18:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 17:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 22:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.
I am requesting arbitration over the disruptive conduct of these editors, who have edited almost exclusively to promote a religious and nationalist point of view across a wide range of articles (including biographies) concerning India, Pakistan and Hinduism. Repeated disruption has been caused owing to their edit-warring over script transliterations, wikiproject banners, descriptions of nationality and an attempt to rewrite articles on historical and cultural topics to promote their point of view. These editors have also been consistently incivil to others and have also personally attacked editors on the lines of national origin, race and religion. They have routinely accused other involved editors of racial, national, political and religious bias. All of these editors have attempted to evade blocks and promote their point of view via sockpuppetry through anonymous IP addresses and multiple sockpuppet accounts. Their continued disruptive activities have caused wide-ranging edit wars between groups of editors, often threatening to degenerate into an open edit-war between national and religious groups. These editors have continuously violated WP:POINT, WP:DE, WP:3RR, WP:EW, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NEO and WP:SOCK. Only Unre4L has attempted proper dispute resolution, which largely stalled as the editors in question maintained their disruptive and confrontational behavior. Rama's arrow 17:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
With evidence,I will prove the violations of Rama's Arrow and his associates which I will soon name. They have committed the following acts/violations:
I request that the Arbcom allows a few other users as witnesses to this case to make statements regarding this case with statemnts and evidence of their own.-- Nadirali نادرالی
Reply to Ambroodey Ambroody is a close associate of Rama's Arrow and has engaged in tagging Pakistani articles with Indian tags,causing offense.His statement about tags not being used for ownership is not true.Administrator:Dbachmann is a Swiss and has participated in many South Asia discussions.Never was any South Asian article talkpage tagged with a Swiss banner for the obvious reason that the Indians are using their tags to claim our history.What's more is they won't allow us to add Pakistani tags to Pakistani history articles. Here is an example.This is enough to prove they want to use the tags to claim ancient Pakistani history as "Indian". If the case is approved and does proceed,I will provide evidence against each associate of Rama's Arrow (as well As Rama's Arrow himself) including the 2 which are already mentioned,Abroody and Dangerousboy.These two as well as others have committed serious violations and have gotten away with them.-- Nadirali نادرالی
Response to clerks requests.I don't see why it should be called "Pakistani nationalism".What these Indians are doing is far beyond nationalism.Should it be called "Indian nationalism" or "Indian imperialism"?I think we should rename it to Indo-Pakistani disputes.Simply asking the right to my history/heritage does not make me a nationalist.Also want to point out that Rama's Arrow is both Hindu and Indian.He has made some accusations in his edits on the anti-Hindu article against Indian Buddists and Pakistani Muslims.So please consider changing the name from "Pakistani nationalism".Thanks.-- Nadirali نادرالی
take this category for example.Based upon categories like these about Hindu temples/settlements in Azerbaijan,I saw a site about 2 years back (which I am trying to find again for evidence of my claims of Indian hegemonic claims over other countries ancient heritage) that claimed the so-called "common
The alligation that I "threatened" Ragib is bogus.I even apologised to him for getting so upset.I was under the notion he let Kumernator repeatidly attack me while making a big deal over striking out a false info.That was before he provided the links to Kumernators talkpage.And I also removed "middle school" kid since it borders personal attack.I removed it before anyone could see it.Bakaman is using a diff that was deleted before anyone saw it.
I am a busy man in my real life. I have no time to spend here. However, when I see something balatantly wrong, I try to fix it and there are others who do not want somethings fixed and try to push their own POV. My very first contributions were to fix a few typos. My first major contribution was in Abrar-ul-Haq [1]. Since then, I have expanded this article significantly. Interestingly enough, I was blocked for the first time because of the same article. It was because of edit war with a user User:Sukh who insisted to add Gurmukhi to the article, although, this script is not comprehensible to the subject of the article and neither it is used in the country of the subject of the article. See the edit summary of User:Rama's Arrow at [2]. He encouraged User:Sukh to keep irrelevant script just because it was used in India (country of User:Rama's Arrow). My disputes with User:Anupam started when he started to add Hindi script to virtually all Pakistan related articles (e.g. [3]) and changing Islam related articles with tone more favourable towards India. He has been catgorizing Arabic and Persian words as Hindi, and adding Hindi scripts to such words ( [4] [5] [6] [7]) On November 26, 2006 [8] I used WP:AWB to cleanup articles under Category:Archaeological sites in Pakistan; within hours, a User:Dangerous-Boy tagged the talk pages of all these articles with WP India tags and began to wage a war when I removed them. User:Bakasuprman (a staunch supporter of User:Hkelkar) also joined him. Rama's Arrow himself has been engaged in edit wars against me. I never complained against him but considering his behaviour and volatile nature, I had a strong feeling that he could never be an Admin; until he blocked me. All other parties of this Requests for arbitration have been blocked by many Admins, why is that only Rama's Arrow is crticised. I believe, because of heavy criticism gainst him from me and other Pakistanis, User:Rama's Arrow has developed an enemosity against us. If you count personal attacks from me (which by the way I still do not consider personal attacks as they were expressions of furstrations because of meatpuppetry against me) they are only two. That's right only two. One against User:Anupam ( mere criticism) and one against Rama's Arrow ( mere criticism), when he blocked me while ignoring policy violations from certain Indian users. Interstingly, he blocked me after the very first warning by [9] when I did not post any other heated post. He did not wait for any other heated post from me because he was in content dispute with me and used a warning as an opportunity to block me, hence violating the blocking policy; see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. Blocking policy clearly states that block should be for 24 hours for initial accusations of personal attacks but Rama imposed a whopping 7 day block. His policy violations were repeated twice in coming weeks. I believe Rama's Arrow has failed to prove his neutrality when content disputes involve India and Pakistan, he can easily be provoked into edit wars and he has been involved in multiple accounts of edit wars and meatpuppetry. Considering these facts, he should be stripped off his Admin privelages with justified period of block. He has ignored comments by other users and admins against his blocks. In one case he quickly reverted Jinnah [10] when I removed a bised sentence, although, I was going to give sources. Note that, in later edits I removed the same sentence again and provided solid sources against it. In addition, his user name "Rama's Arrow" gains a lot of attention because of his extremely religious nature. I have nothing against Hindus; in fact I am proud of Pakistani hindus such as Danish Kaneria and Rana Bhagwandas, however, consistent to his username Rama's Arrow's has demonstrated his religion-based intentions by being involved in edit wars with mostly Pakistanis and over sensitive issues related to Pakistan and India. By this it was my intention to gether attention of others towards how his religion and Indian background are affecting his neutrality at wikipedia.
Some points about my editing habits:
Reply to Dangerous-Boy
I contributed to Pakistan related articles. The Indian contributors are continuing to rewrite Pakistan related with the Hindutva version of history and events. The Pakistan History article has been rewritten with a Hindutva team tagging. There are not that many Pakistani contributors to defend and give Pakistani point of view in Pakistan related articles. The Indian editors have also been involved in this partisan editing. Some article like Poverty in Pakistan is created by Indians are owned by them as all edits are reverted. I think all Pakistan articles should have a heading "Written by Indians with Indian and Hindutva Point of view". This team tagging Indian contributors and Indian editors rewriting Pakistan articles has definitely smeared Wikipedia. I have been banned and I do not care anymore. I tried my best to be good contributor but these Indians have left me no choice. Good Luck and good bye. Siddiqui 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. This Arbitration case has taken me by surprise, as its filed minutes after Me and Nadirs complaint against user Rama's Arrow.
[11]
I am not a "PoV-Pusher" of any sort, All my contributions have been based on getting rid of PoV-based content on Wiki. A few Indian users supported by Rama have been bombarding Pakistan articles with Hinduvta Views:
(More examples of each can me provided, but you get the Idea)
Rama not only accepted this, but supported them, and banned Pakistani users who dared to question these views and vandalisms.
Rama ignores all the above offences of Indian users and punished Pakistani users for Questioning(!) Indian PoV, however false, and sourceless they were.
I did not Edit-war, vandalise, Curse, or Flame anyone whatsoever. My bans were caused entirely by Questioning the Current Indian POV.
I attempted several RfCs, where I asked that Neutral parties should reply. The Debate was bombarded by a group of Indians with a rich history of edit warring Pakistani articles.
Other Dispute Resolution attempts got me Blocked.
My first Block (Without Warning)
Banned for questioning the claim that
Lahore used to belong to Republic of India. (Please note, not once did I curse or attack another member in this discussion.)
I start a discussion on the talk page and put a Disputed template on the page, (which is removed seconds later).
[23]
User:AMbroodEY responds with a harsh reply, including the statement:
I start presenting more arguments, User:AMbroodEY responds with further Harsh replies, including the following.
Conclusion:
I get a weeks block for "POV-Pushing".
[28]
User:AMbroodEY gets a verbal warning by Rama, After I point out the insults.
My second Block (Without Warning)
A debate on
Talk:History_of_Pakistan, led to a few "heated" replies by me, like:
(Plus more, be sure to check them all out.)
These insanely moderate comments were Twisted, by giving them alternative Titles, and used to hand out another 1 week ban
[33]. People who bothered to read the comments
criticized Rama for the Block. however, despite objections, the Block was not lifted.
Desperate Attempt to extend block.
I am a Pakistani Muslim, and yes, By Rama’s thinking, it makes me a much more likely candidate for an Anti-Semite. His accusation of Anti-Semitism were extremely hurtful, and they were thrown at me
Immediately after my 2nd block. Not caring that I was logged out, I immediately defended my self from these accusations. Ignoring everything I posted he hands out 2 weeks for "Block Evasion".
He also tried to extend my block by making me my own colourful "agenda".
[34]
To AMbroodEY
I never mentioned any Genocide, let alone Deny one. Why do you insist on twisting my words. My exact statement was, that I (without thinking) claimed that
And by the use of some twisted Logic, you convert my statement into a Genocide Denial? Please. I have told you several times that I didnt deny any genocide, I even told you I was offended when you called me a "Genocide Denier" [36], but you keep spreading the same lies over and over again.
15 million just left eh? Sindh had 35% Hindu population before partition, today it numbers only abt 2%. I dont want this page to snowball, we can discuss this later on.
Posted by AMbroodEY
This is EXACTLY what I mean. I provided half a dozen sources for the figure of 3.5 Million people moving out of Pakistan. All sources were ignored, and first these guys claim the figure was 7 million something, then 10 million something, now AMbroodEY is claiming the figure was 15 million for Sindh alone!. No sources of course. Thank you.
And btw User Chattezavecmoi is an Obvious Sock of someone. He only has 1 contribution, which seems to be a disruption of my Statement.
--
Unre4L
ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ
UT
02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: i meant 1.5 million. As for your 'sources' are you talking about this edit [37]?
Do tell whether your 'sources' qualify WP:RS: .# http://festivals.tajonline.com/independence-day.php .# http://kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code3/1496.html (a missionary website) .# http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/india/timeline4.html (a tv channel!)
It is impossible to put a number to the number of refugees during the partition. Estimates range from 8 million to 15 million. Conservative estimates suggest that over 500000-2 million people were killed disproportionate number of them being Sikhs and Hindus. Migration continued until mid-1950's.
Yes your encarta link does say that there were 3.5 million Hindu refugees but it also puts the number of Muslim refugess to 5 million. Why did you selectively edit the number for only Hindu refugees?The 7.5 million figure is cited from Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. India Wins Freedom. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1960. and Freedom at Midnight. Amey Aryan DaBrood © 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not selectively edit anything. Unlike you I took random sources. And we were discussing Hindus moving out of Pakistan. Not Muslims moving in. Your keep giving figures with both numbers added up. Now please dont cause a disruption of my statement. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
1) Wikipedia:Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
2) Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppets.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
4) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
5) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
1) Szhaider ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of aggressive edit-warring (see block log) and attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ( [38], [39], [40]).
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
2) Unre4L ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of aggressive edit-warring (see block log) and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ( [41], [42], [43], [44]).
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3) Siddiqui ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of abusive sockpuppetry (see checkuser results), aggressive edit-warring (see block log), and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ( [45], [46], [47]).
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
4) Nadirali ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of aggressive edit-warring (see block log) and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ( [48], [49], [50], [51]).
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Szhaider ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
2) Unre4L ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3) Siddiqui ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
4) Nadirali ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Superseded version
|
---|
5) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Passed by motion 8 to 2, 18:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
|
5) All pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
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.
SheriffIsInTown's topic ban from pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.
21) Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.
On 3 May 2014 Arbcom established a new method of notifying for discretionary sanctions which is explained at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. All notices given prior to the May 2014 cutover date will expire on 3 May 2015. New notices are to be given using {{ Ds/alert}} and they expire one year after they are given. No new notices should be logged here.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.
Case Opened on 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Case Closed on 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Case Amended by motion on 18:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 17:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 22:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.
I am requesting arbitration over the disruptive conduct of these editors, who have edited almost exclusively to promote a religious and nationalist point of view across a wide range of articles (including biographies) concerning India, Pakistan and Hinduism. Repeated disruption has been caused owing to their edit-warring over script transliterations, wikiproject banners, descriptions of nationality and an attempt to rewrite articles on historical and cultural topics to promote their point of view. These editors have also been consistently incivil to others and have also personally attacked editors on the lines of national origin, race and religion. They have routinely accused other involved editors of racial, national, political and religious bias. All of these editors have attempted to evade blocks and promote their point of view via sockpuppetry through anonymous IP addresses and multiple sockpuppet accounts. Their continued disruptive activities have caused wide-ranging edit wars between groups of editors, often threatening to degenerate into an open edit-war between national and religious groups. These editors have continuously violated WP:POINT, WP:DE, WP:3RR, WP:EW, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NEO and WP:SOCK. Only Unre4L has attempted proper dispute resolution, which largely stalled as the editors in question maintained their disruptive and confrontational behavior. Rama's arrow 17:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
With evidence,I will prove the violations of Rama's Arrow and his associates which I will soon name. They have committed the following acts/violations:
I request that the Arbcom allows a few other users as witnesses to this case to make statements regarding this case with statemnts and evidence of their own.-- Nadirali نادرالی
Reply to Ambroodey Ambroody is a close associate of Rama's Arrow and has engaged in tagging Pakistani articles with Indian tags,causing offense.His statement about tags not being used for ownership is not true.Administrator:Dbachmann is a Swiss and has participated in many South Asia discussions.Never was any South Asian article talkpage tagged with a Swiss banner for the obvious reason that the Indians are using their tags to claim our history.What's more is they won't allow us to add Pakistani tags to Pakistani history articles. Here is an example.This is enough to prove they want to use the tags to claim ancient Pakistani history as "Indian". If the case is approved and does proceed,I will provide evidence against each associate of Rama's Arrow (as well As Rama's Arrow himself) including the 2 which are already mentioned,Abroody and Dangerousboy.These two as well as others have committed serious violations and have gotten away with them.-- Nadirali نادرالی
Response to clerks requests.I don't see why it should be called "Pakistani nationalism".What these Indians are doing is far beyond nationalism.Should it be called "Indian nationalism" or "Indian imperialism"?I think we should rename it to Indo-Pakistani disputes.Simply asking the right to my history/heritage does not make me a nationalist.Also want to point out that Rama's Arrow is both Hindu and Indian.He has made some accusations in his edits on the anti-Hindu article against Indian Buddists and Pakistani Muslims.So please consider changing the name from "Pakistani nationalism".Thanks.-- Nadirali نادرالی
take this category for example.Based upon categories like these about Hindu temples/settlements in Azerbaijan,I saw a site about 2 years back (which I am trying to find again for evidence of my claims of Indian hegemonic claims over other countries ancient heritage) that claimed the so-called "common
The alligation that I "threatened" Ragib is bogus.I even apologised to him for getting so upset.I was under the notion he let Kumernator repeatidly attack me while making a big deal over striking out a false info.That was before he provided the links to Kumernators talkpage.And I also removed "middle school" kid since it borders personal attack.I removed it before anyone could see it.Bakaman is using a diff that was deleted before anyone saw it.
I am a busy man in my real life. I have no time to spend here. However, when I see something balatantly wrong, I try to fix it and there are others who do not want somethings fixed and try to push their own POV. My very first contributions were to fix a few typos. My first major contribution was in Abrar-ul-Haq [1]. Since then, I have expanded this article significantly. Interestingly enough, I was blocked for the first time because of the same article. It was because of edit war with a user User:Sukh who insisted to add Gurmukhi to the article, although, this script is not comprehensible to the subject of the article and neither it is used in the country of the subject of the article. See the edit summary of User:Rama's Arrow at [2]. He encouraged User:Sukh to keep irrelevant script just because it was used in India (country of User:Rama's Arrow). My disputes with User:Anupam started when he started to add Hindi script to virtually all Pakistan related articles (e.g. [3]) and changing Islam related articles with tone more favourable towards India. He has been catgorizing Arabic and Persian words as Hindi, and adding Hindi scripts to such words ( [4] [5] [6] [7]) On November 26, 2006 [8] I used WP:AWB to cleanup articles under Category:Archaeological sites in Pakistan; within hours, a User:Dangerous-Boy tagged the talk pages of all these articles with WP India tags and began to wage a war when I removed them. User:Bakasuprman (a staunch supporter of User:Hkelkar) also joined him. Rama's Arrow himself has been engaged in edit wars against me. I never complained against him but considering his behaviour and volatile nature, I had a strong feeling that he could never be an Admin; until he blocked me. All other parties of this Requests for arbitration have been blocked by many Admins, why is that only Rama's Arrow is crticised. I believe, because of heavy criticism gainst him from me and other Pakistanis, User:Rama's Arrow has developed an enemosity against us. If you count personal attacks from me (which by the way I still do not consider personal attacks as they were expressions of furstrations because of meatpuppetry against me) they are only two. That's right only two. One against User:Anupam ( mere criticism) and one against Rama's Arrow ( mere criticism), when he blocked me while ignoring policy violations from certain Indian users. Interstingly, he blocked me after the very first warning by [9] when I did not post any other heated post. He did not wait for any other heated post from me because he was in content dispute with me and used a warning as an opportunity to block me, hence violating the blocking policy; see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. Blocking policy clearly states that block should be for 24 hours for initial accusations of personal attacks but Rama imposed a whopping 7 day block. His policy violations were repeated twice in coming weeks. I believe Rama's Arrow has failed to prove his neutrality when content disputes involve India and Pakistan, he can easily be provoked into edit wars and he has been involved in multiple accounts of edit wars and meatpuppetry. Considering these facts, he should be stripped off his Admin privelages with justified period of block. He has ignored comments by other users and admins against his blocks. In one case he quickly reverted Jinnah [10] when I removed a bised sentence, although, I was going to give sources. Note that, in later edits I removed the same sentence again and provided solid sources against it. In addition, his user name "Rama's Arrow" gains a lot of attention because of his extremely religious nature. I have nothing against Hindus; in fact I am proud of Pakistani hindus such as Danish Kaneria and Rana Bhagwandas, however, consistent to his username Rama's Arrow's has demonstrated his religion-based intentions by being involved in edit wars with mostly Pakistanis and over sensitive issues related to Pakistan and India. By this it was my intention to gether attention of others towards how his religion and Indian background are affecting his neutrality at wikipedia.
Some points about my editing habits:
Reply to Dangerous-Boy
I contributed to Pakistan related articles. The Indian contributors are continuing to rewrite Pakistan related with the Hindutva version of history and events. The Pakistan History article has been rewritten with a Hindutva team tagging. There are not that many Pakistani contributors to defend and give Pakistani point of view in Pakistan related articles. The Indian editors have also been involved in this partisan editing. Some article like Poverty in Pakistan is created by Indians are owned by them as all edits are reverted. I think all Pakistan articles should have a heading "Written by Indians with Indian and Hindutva Point of view". This team tagging Indian contributors and Indian editors rewriting Pakistan articles has definitely smeared Wikipedia. I have been banned and I do not care anymore. I tried my best to be good contributor but these Indians have left me no choice. Good Luck and good bye. Siddiqui 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. This Arbitration case has taken me by surprise, as its filed minutes after Me and Nadirs complaint against user Rama's Arrow.
[11]
I am not a "PoV-Pusher" of any sort, All my contributions have been based on getting rid of PoV-based content on Wiki. A few Indian users supported by Rama have been bombarding Pakistan articles with Hinduvta Views:
(More examples of each can me provided, but you get the Idea)
Rama not only accepted this, but supported them, and banned Pakistani users who dared to question these views and vandalisms.
Rama ignores all the above offences of Indian users and punished Pakistani users for Questioning(!) Indian PoV, however false, and sourceless they were.
I did not Edit-war, vandalise, Curse, or Flame anyone whatsoever. My bans were caused entirely by Questioning the Current Indian POV.
I attempted several RfCs, where I asked that Neutral parties should reply. The Debate was bombarded by a group of Indians with a rich history of edit warring Pakistani articles.
Other Dispute Resolution attempts got me Blocked.
My first Block (Without Warning)
Banned for questioning the claim that
Lahore used to belong to Republic of India. (Please note, not once did I curse or attack another member in this discussion.)
I start a discussion on the talk page and put a Disputed template on the page, (which is removed seconds later).
[23]
User:AMbroodEY responds with a harsh reply, including the statement:
I start presenting more arguments, User:AMbroodEY responds with further Harsh replies, including the following.
Conclusion:
I get a weeks block for "POV-Pushing".
[28]
User:AMbroodEY gets a verbal warning by Rama, After I point out the insults.
My second Block (Without Warning)
A debate on
Talk:History_of_Pakistan, led to a few "heated" replies by me, like:
(Plus more, be sure to check them all out.)
These insanely moderate comments were Twisted, by giving them alternative Titles, and used to hand out another 1 week ban
[33]. People who bothered to read the comments
criticized Rama for the Block. however, despite objections, the Block was not lifted.
Desperate Attempt to extend block.
I am a Pakistani Muslim, and yes, By Rama’s thinking, it makes me a much more likely candidate for an Anti-Semite. His accusation of Anti-Semitism were extremely hurtful, and they were thrown at me
Immediately after my 2nd block. Not caring that I was logged out, I immediately defended my self from these accusations. Ignoring everything I posted he hands out 2 weeks for "Block Evasion".
He also tried to extend my block by making me my own colourful "agenda".
[34]
To AMbroodEY
I never mentioned any Genocide, let alone Deny one. Why do you insist on twisting my words. My exact statement was, that I (without thinking) claimed that
And by the use of some twisted Logic, you convert my statement into a Genocide Denial? Please. I have told you several times that I didnt deny any genocide, I even told you I was offended when you called me a "Genocide Denier" [36], but you keep spreading the same lies over and over again.
15 million just left eh? Sindh had 35% Hindu population before partition, today it numbers only abt 2%. I dont want this page to snowball, we can discuss this later on.
Posted by AMbroodEY
This is EXACTLY what I mean. I provided half a dozen sources for the figure of 3.5 Million people moving out of Pakistan. All sources were ignored, and first these guys claim the figure was 7 million something, then 10 million something, now AMbroodEY is claiming the figure was 15 million for Sindh alone!. No sources of course. Thank you.
And btw User Chattezavecmoi is an Obvious Sock of someone. He only has 1 contribution, which seems to be a disruption of my Statement.
--
Unre4L
ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ
UT
02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: i meant 1.5 million. As for your 'sources' are you talking about this edit [37]?
Do tell whether your 'sources' qualify WP:RS: .# http://festivals.tajonline.com/independence-day.php .# http://kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code3/1496.html (a missionary website) .# http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/india/timeline4.html (a tv channel!)
It is impossible to put a number to the number of refugees during the partition. Estimates range from 8 million to 15 million. Conservative estimates suggest that over 500000-2 million people were killed disproportionate number of them being Sikhs and Hindus. Migration continued until mid-1950's.
Yes your encarta link does say that there were 3.5 million Hindu refugees but it also puts the number of Muslim refugess to 5 million. Why did you selectively edit the number for only Hindu refugees?The 7.5 million figure is cited from Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. India Wins Freedom. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1960. and Freedom at Midnight. Amey Aryan DaBrood © 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not selectively edit anything. Unlike you I took random sources. And we were discussing Hindus moving out of Pakistan. Not Muslims moving in. Your keep giving figures with both numbers added up. Now please dont cause a disruption of my statement. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
1) Wikipedia:Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
2) Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppets.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
4) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
5) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
1) Szhaider ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of aggressive edit-warring (see block log) and attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ( [38], [39], [40]).
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
2) Unre4L ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of aggressive edit-warring (see block log) and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ( [41], [42], [43], [44]).
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3) Siddiqui ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of abusive sockpuppetry (see checkuser results), aggressive edit-warring (see block log), and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ( [45], [46], [47]).
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
4) Nadirali ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of aggressive edit-warring (see block log) and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ( [48], [49], [50], [51]).
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Szhaider ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
2) Unre4L ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3) Siddiqui ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
4) Nadirali ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Passed 6 to 0, 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Superseded version
|
---|
5) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Passed by motion 8 to 2, 18:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
|
5) All pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
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.
SheriffIsInTown's topic ban from pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.
21) Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.
On 3 May 2014 Arbcom established a new method of notifying for discretionary sanctions which is explained at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. All notices given prior to the May 2014 cutover date will expire on 3 May 2015. New notices are to be given using {{ Ds/alert}} and they expire one year after they are given. No new notices should be logged here.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.