Revision as of 20:16, 24 July 2015

• WP:ARCA

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality

Initiated by Callanecc at 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Christianity and Sexuality arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Roscelese

Statement by Callanecc

Following an AE request (I'll add a permalink when it's closed) could the Committee please clarify what the second part of dot point one in Roscelese's restriction ("and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page") applies to.

My suggestion would be that the bit in brackets for the first clause could be made to apply to the second clause as well, or if WP:BANEX could be applied to the whole dot point?

Roscelese may wish to make request regarding exceptions for dot point 2, but I'll leave that up to her. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: That really depends, currently there is no mechanism other than a formal amendment for the arbitrator comments below to be taken into account (or even found and referred to) for any enforcement in the future. If the Committee doesn't have an appetite for a formal amendment by motion perhaps they could do it through this request by foot noting the remedy with a summary of the arb comments here (though that would probably need to be done by an arb rather than a clerk). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually given that not all of the arbs commenting have answered:

• Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts?
• Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)?

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing to consider here (and something which has come up in the past) is that if the admins involved in the enforcement of the Committee's decision don't understand or need clarification to confirm their interpretation (whether the interpretation is correct or not) then the Committee should provide that clarification as clearly as possible. The comments here are equivalent to obiter dicta on the PD page and they disappear to the case talk page, that is, you'd look at the decision the Committee has passed when deciding whether to report/enforce not the case talk page. In this case the dot points are separate items and so don't necessarily rely on the conditions set in in each other, so in this case the questions being asked are valid and may very well come up again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Roscelese

• Obviously, I agree with the arbs who have commented here; if the user had provided some reason for removal (either in the edit summary or the talk page) I wouldn't have reverted with a simple "?" ("why did you do this?"), which seemed like a nicer thing to say than "rv vandalism" despite the lack of a summary, the fact that the text was cited to reliable sources, and the absence of other edits on the account. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

I don't see any reason to make material changes to the sanctions. The sanctions involved in my initial filing set minimum communication requirements. She breached; no one seriously argues otherwise. Claiming her breach was justified by WP:BANEX simply doesn't fly; BANEX requires that "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible explanatory edit summary or that you link to an explanation detailing the exemption". That's pretty much equivalent to the communication requirement that Roscelese didn't comply with; it would be rather silly to say she should provide an edit summary explaining why she didn't have to provide an edit summary. Perhaps the Committee might amend the second clause of the remedy to allow an appropriate edit summary in lieu of talk page comment when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations, but Roscolese didn't even make that minimal effort here. The more significant issue, as I saw it, was the violation of sanction 2, making an automated rollback-type edit without providing an edit summary; given that rollback-type edits are pretty much limited to situations which would fall under BANEX, it seems clear to me that no exception was indicated by the Committee's language. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Christianity and Sexuality: Clerk notes

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

Christianity and Sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Generally speaking, an unexplained removal of large chunks of an article, especially by a very new editor, is reasonably treated as a vandal or test edit. Roscelese was well within reason to do so here. I would see the meaning of "content revert" as the reversal of a content edit, which would exclude vandalism. Regardless, I'm not inclined to require Roscelese to start a talk page discussion every time she removes "HI JOE!!!!!!!!" type vandalism from a page. If, of course, that editor comes back and provides a reason they believe the material should be removed, that would then bring these restrictions into force should Roscelese revert it again. Seraphimblade 17:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• I just re-read the restriction in question and was surprised to see that we did not explicitly say it did not apply to reverts of obvious vandalism/BLP violations; that said, I agree with Seraphimblade. It would be a waste of time to have Roscelese open a thread whenever she were to revert vandalism. Salvio 17:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• i agree with both of my colleagues. Next time we must make this explicit. Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Having thought about this more since my comment at AE, I think all that is needed for vandalism reverts is an edit summary that notes it is vandalism being reverted (which is good practice for everyone). I'd be happy to amend the wording of the restriction to make this clear if people think that would be worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• We need to examine the full relevant sentence of the restriction being clarified:

  is: indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page

  Given that reversions are expressly defined as excluding "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations", reverting simple vandalism is outwith the scope of the restriction. In my view no amendment is needed and the answer to the question seems fairly plain. AGK 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's actually the second bullet point that clarification is being sought with regards:

    is: indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;

    While that contains no exceptions on it's own, it unclear whether the exception in the first bullet is intended to apply only to the first restriction or to both restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes it is, thanks Thryduulf. I think all of the above in any case have answered the question from that angle fairly exhaustively, so I still concur that no amendment is required. AGK 03:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Yes it applies to both"; or "yes it applies to the first only"?. I read it as applying to both. There can be a need to revert vandalism immediately; there is not a need to revert without explanation. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• I read it as no discussion is required for reverting obvious vandalism, and Rosclese did nothing wrong here. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that Roscelese should not be required to start a talk page discussion for reverting obvious vandalism. An edit summary mentioning that this was vandalism wouldn't have been a bad choice, but I'm not terribly concerned by "?". If we need to modify restrictions so that this is more clear, so be it, but I think that the exception of obvious vandalism is implied. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• I think at this point we need input. Do @Callanecc, Roscelese, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: or anyone else feels that the clarifications are sufficient as they stand or whether we need to amend the wording? Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen

Initiated by Soham321 at 20:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Soham321#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Soham321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ogress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mohanbhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Bishonen
• Ogress
• Sitush
• Mohanbhan
• SpacemanSpiff
• Ms Sarah Welch

Information about amendment request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Soham321#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

• Removal of the Arbitration Enforced 6 month topic ban on all India related articles which has been imposed on me by Bishonen

Statement by Soham321

Bishonen accuses me of "battleground editing","tendentious editing", and an "aggressive discussion style" while imposing the ban. With respect to the first two accusations, i will point to Jawaharlal Nehru; all my edits have been accepted on this page even though it is a very disputed page and even the major political parties in India have commented on the editing on this page. I will also point out that even though i earlier had some personal friction with Ogress and Sitush i now have cordial relations with both of them. With respect to Sitush, one may see the talk page on Eckankar where we have interacted in a very civil way. Regarding Ogress one may see the talk page of Two Truths Doctrine where i express confidence in her editing and she endorses a source used by me in the main article. Bishonen's claim that i have an aggressive discussion style is totally undercut by my two responses to two different editors as per this diff: . Additionally, Mohanbhan with whom i have collaborated on some WP pages has argued that Bishonen's action against me was completely unjustified: . In the present case, there is an editor Ms Sarah Welch who repeatedly called Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya a fringe source on the talk page of Carvaka and proceeded to delete content in Carvaka that was sourced from Chattopadhyaya. Mohanbhan and i have repeatedly pointed out to her that Chattopadhyaya is not a fringe source in the talk page of Carvaka giving various pieces of evidence. I showed her that Ogress has endorsed Chattopadhyaya's scholarship. When Sarah Welch continued with her tirade against Chattopadhyaya in the talk page of Carvaka and also on my talk page i referred her to lacking in competence and mentioned that i would be henceforth referring to lacking in competence if she continued her tirade against Chattopadhyaya. This resulted in Bishonen imposing a 6 month ban on India related articles on me.

One clarification: Regarding diff1, one notes that Sitush had thrown lacking in competence at me when i had simply expressed disagreement over whether the book India as a Secular_State is 'outdated' or not. SpacemanSpiff, declaring himself to be an uninvolved Admin, has expressed the view that i deserve a one year ban for my present infraction. SpacemanSpiff, who is occasionally found exchanging friendly exchanges on Sitush's talk page, will i am sure reconsider his clearly biased opinion when comparing Sitush's behavior with mine and studying the provocations involved. I will also point out that Spaceman cannot declare himself to be an uninvolved Admin considering our somewhat rough interactions on my talk page, and considering his comment concerning me to another Admin (Dennis Brown) on Dennis's talk page which he later retracted (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_35#Caste_system_in_India). Spaceman, Bishonen and others are welcome to cherry pick my edits to portray me in a poor light; what cannot be denied is that i happen to be a content creator, and content creators need to be respected and protected.Secondly, i would like uninvolved Admins to compare my behavior towards other editors with the behavior of the highly experienced editor Sitush towards me (prior to our new friendship as revealed by the recent editing on the talk page of the Eckankar page). The diff that i gave (diff1) is fairly typical of my interactions with Sitush (prior to our editing on the Eckankar page)--leaving aside my tiff with Sitush when i was a new WP editor. I have almost always been at the receiving end of Sitush's barbs, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Jawaharlal_Nehru&diff=671007963&oldid=671007789 If no action is being taken against Sitush for behavioral issues, and concurrently action is taken against me, then the process smacks of double standards and hypocrisy. Bishonen had earlier created a unique pseudo complaint generator to protect Sitush: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bishonen/Clueless_Sitush_complaint_generator So many complaints came up in this complaint generator--complaints of a serious nature as revealed by the history of this page--that the page had to be shut down. This is further evidence of double standards and hypocrisy and not treating all editors as equals.

Bishonen had earlier insinuated that i was editing anonymously using an IP address and when i protested against this she had withdrawn her accusation and even deleted the edit summaries, and from what i can tell even her edit. Please see Link1: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Soham321&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history ; and do a Ctrl-F for Bishonen. When i was new to WP, i had been involved in an ANI dispute. Not knowing WP rules I wrote a review of the discussion together with my thoughts on my talk page and Bishonen deleted my comments with what i thought to be an unduly harsh edit summary considering i was new to WP. This edit summary may be seen in Link1 (if you do a Ctrl-F on Bishonen ). There were also some harsh words exchanged on Bishonen's talk page relating to her insinuation or accusation that i was using an IP address to do editing (which she later retracted after my strong protest), but since this was on her talk page it will take me forever to retrieve the diffs. But as evidence for this one may see this diff containing two separate comments of mine: , one of them in reply to Kim Dent-Brown. Bishonen mentions the one year topic ban on Digvijaya Singh imposed on me by Kim Dent-Brown;my answer is that i was new to WP at the time and didn't know the rules. I also respected the topic ban and didn't approach Kim for a review after 6 months even though he offered to review my topic ban in 6 months. Finally, i am pinging Kenfyre, Twobells, and Agtx since i have done collaborative editing with them. Soham321 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

i thank Agtx for the prompt response. I just wish to clarify that he is wrong when he says he did not have access to the full source when editing the Sach Khand article. The paraphrasing was being done from only one page of the book and he did have access to that page when he placed the close paraphrasing tag since he gave a link to the same book and same page (viewable online through google books) which i was using to make my edit: diff1

So my exasperation was as to why he was not paraphrasing himself when he had access to the source, and instead preferred putting paraphrasing tags. It is true also that initially he put two tags of non-neutrality and POV ( diff2 ) and then seemingly abandoned the discussion on the talk page which i initiated to try and resolve the tagging issue. In the one response he had given me as to why he had put the POV and non-neutrality tags, his rationale was coming across as being puerile.

This was when i told him that he has to continue participating in the talk page because of the POV and non-neutrality tags he had placed else we can opt to go for Dispute Resolution. I will point out, incidentally, that the article Sach Khand was created by me. I will also state that had i not been proactive the tags could very well have been in place in the article as of today. I also wish to refer to what Agtx had written on the talk page of the article (diff3):

That looks a lot better, thank you for doing that. You're definitely more knowledgeable on this topic than I am. I went ahead played around some with the language and cleaned up some formatting.Should add that if my changes made anything inaccurate, obviously please feel free to fix it.

And finally, i will state that the changes Agtx made to the Sach Khand article (after i had condensed and edited it further after my discussion with Agtx)--as can be seen from the edit history of the page-- ended up making the article inaccurate because of which i had to do further editing on the page. I explained why i had to make changes to Sach Khand, after Agtx's editing in the talk page of the article. (Essentially, Agtx had introduced inaccuracies into the article.) To his credit, Agtx yielded to my corrections and did not place any further tags on the page. Soham321 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to do any trimming which Thryduulf is suggesting i do. I am allowed 1,000 words in my appeal on this forum as per the rules and i wish to take full opportunity of discussing my case while respecting the 1,000 word limit. Soham321 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have two points to make in response to Ogress's post. First, it is inevitable to have a point of view and to therefore be "tendentious" when it comes to philosophy. But the fact that i have not let my point of view affect my editing on philosophy articles is seen when i have edited the Carvaka page presenting the Charvaka point of view and also the Sach Khand page (i created this article) presenting the Sikh point of view. The view of Sach Khand has nothing to do with the view of the Charvakas since the former is a spiritual view and the latter is a materialistic view. With respect to mentoring, there is only one Admin who has spent time mentoring me and that is Dennis Brown. However, the maximum mentoring i have received is from my interactions with the veteran editor Sitush since Sitush is the editor i have interacted with the most ever since i started editing on WP. Soham321 (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to Ogress's most recent post supporting sanctions against me, slamming Mohanbhan, and talking of "gang editing". I had mentioned in my appeal that Ogress and i had had some initial friction before we started enjoying cordial terms as is evident from the talk page of Two truths doctrine where i express confidence in her editing diff1 and she had endorsed a source i had used in editing this page diff2. I wish to now refer to the initial friction i had with Ogress--about which i mentioned in my appeal without giving details-- prior to our having cordial relations. These pertain to Ogress undoing an edit of mine from the talk page of Carvaka with the following edit summary: "Deleting personal attack. DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS." diff3. Ogress's undoing of my edit was in turn reverted by Mohanbhan with the following edit summary: "It is not a personal attack, he is stating a grievance, do not censor wiki by using strong words" diff4. The conversation had not remained confined to the talk page of Carvaka since Ogress saw it fit to take it to my talk page: diff5 and diff6. Prior to this Ogress and i have had issues pertaining to the Caste system in India article. None of my edits were being allowed to be inserted into the main article because of what i considered a collusion of around five editors who seemed to be working in tandem on this page; one of these editors was Ogress. I had mentioned Ogress by name and referred to the collusion taking place here: dif7. To protect myself as to why i took up that case on that forum (in which i mentioned Ogress by name and the collusion taking place in Caste system in India) i give this diff of an edit written by me and addressed to one of the Arbs: diff8. The peculiar thing was that i was not the only person who felt like this. This is ABEditWiki writing about this collusion and mentioning Ogress by name: "I again reverted and user Ogress came and reverted. No engaging on talk page." diff9. And this is Kenfyre and Twobells discussing the collusion that was taking place in the Caste system in India article: diff10 (i had also subsequently participated in this discussion and so had Sitush).Soham321 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to Salvio for clarifying the procedure in place. I was hoping to show that the fact that earlier i had unfriendly relations with Ogress but subsequently i had developed cordial relations with her (and likewise in the case of Sitush) would be something taken in my favor. But if the Arbs, in their wisdom, find my defense worthless than so be it. Soham321 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish to make one more point about Salvio bringing up WP:ASPERSIONS in reviewing Mohanbhan's criticism of Sarah. WP:Aspersions says that "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence." But here, Mohanbhan is casting the aspersions on Sarah on the basis of WP:CIR, specifically when WP:CIR talks of 'bias based'. Here, contrary to all available evidence, like the scholar Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's scholarship being endorsed by giants like Joseph Needham and Louis Renou, Sarah was continuing to launch constant tirades against Chattopadhyaya and repeatedly destroying content in the Carvaka page which used Chattopadhyaya as a source--without any consensus on the talk page. Three editors, Mohanbhan, Ogress, and me--had endorsed Chattopadhyaya's scholarship.I am mentioning this because i had brought up WP:CIR before Sarah on two occasions and this has resulted in what i believe to be an unreasonable 6 month ban on all India related articles on me. Even if i made a mistake, the quantum of punishment is surely disproportionate. And if you want to go by past history, even then it is disproportionate. Soham321 (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

My response to Ms Sarah Welch: With respect to Joshua Jonathan, it is my genuine belief that the article Two Truths doctrine was becoming worse because of his editing since in my opinion he did not understand the content because of which he was introducing inaccuracies into the article. (This is similar to what happened after Agtx did some editing in the Sach Khand article--after i had condensed it following our discussion-- and introduced inaccuracies into it ). I explained why i felt this way, in the talk page and first asked suggested that we let Ogress do the editing, and subsequently pinged every person who had ever edited that page after Jonathan continued to edit on the page and continued to introduce more inaccuracies when doing so. I did not do any editing on this article after i had pinged every person who had ever edited this page. Shrikanthv has written a comment on the talk page addressed to Joshua which to my mind reads like a polite request to him to refrain from editing the article: diff1. On the Adi Shankara page there was a content dispute was over whether it can be mentioned in the main article whether Shankara borrowed/plagiarized certain arguments that had been first invented by Mahayana Buddhists. I gave in the talk page of the article references to various scholars (extracts from books) who maintained this. But Joshua, Sarah Welch and Abecedare were not willing to accept the introduction of the plagiarism accusation even after i posted the book extracts from three different scholars on the talk page in this connection. Sarah Welch was claiming here also that Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya cannot be used as a source, claiming he is a fringe source and an unreliable source and she was also raising a question mark on the book's publisher. I then gave her evidence of Chattopadhyaya's scholarship: Unreliable sources I also wanted an introduction into the main article a reference to a section of Adi Shankara's philosophical rivals calling him a demon. My source for this was the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Demon accusation However, since i was unable to gather consensus with my respect to my edits i did not force the issue and simply left editing this page. I had made my points on the talk page, and some day someone could see them and place the content in the main article.

With respect to edit warring with Sarunfeldt on the Eckankar page, first Sarunfeldt was simply reverting without even leaving an edit summary initially and secondly Sarunfeldt had a COV because he had declared he is member of the clergy of this religion. So it was his prerogative not to do any edit warring and instead have discussions with me on the talk page. I will point out though that i have not attempted to put back into the main page any of the content on Eckankar which i had placed and which Sarunfeldt had deleted (although i gave details of this content on the talk page of Eckankar) after Sarunfeldt was temporarily blocked although i had an opportunity for doing so. I was waiting for him to appear on the talk page of the article and have a discussion before attempting to place the deleted content back into the main article.

With respect to Ogress, my comment was after she had deleted my edit on the talk page of Carvaka, which was subsequently reverted by Mohanbhan and then taken it to my talk page claiming i was making personal attacks which i maintained i was not. I got tired of the personal attack accusation and hence i made the comment which Sarah Welch mentions. However, subsequently i apologized for the comment to Ogress on my talk page and told her to bury our differences and work together on enriching the Encyclopedia (i have already given the necessary links in my second rejoinder to Ogress) and i will point out again that Ogress and I had developed cordial relations.

Blade of the Northern Lights and Dennis Brown issued warnings to me with respect to my editing on the highly disputed Caste system in India article about which as i have mentioned earlier there were other editors who had expressed unhappiness about the collusion that was taking place in editing this page. I respected the warnings, and i refrained from adding any content on the main article after i received the warnings confining myself to the talk page of the article. They then had a problem with my comments on the talk page of the article also--this was after i gave a quote of the Harvard scholar Michael Witzel slamming "revisionist scholarship" for a second time-- and Dennis said i should consider taking a break from the talk page also, which i did. In fact i have not edited that article at all (not even the talk page) since Dennis asked me to consider taking a break from it.

SpacemanSpiff's warning to me was immediately after my conflict with Ogress. He essentially wanted me to be more civil with other editors. It is true that i had made a comment to Ogress belittling her after she posted an inflammatory edit summary when undoing my edit on the talk page of Carvaka (which was reverted by Mohanbhan) and after she continued accusing me of making a personal attack which i believed was untrue. But then i had also subsequently apologized to Ogress and appealed that we should bury our differences and work collaboratively. We even developed cordial relations. I do not believe i have been uncivil with Sarah Welch since she has repeatedly questioned Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's scholarship on one ground or the other--despite being shown ample evidence that her assessment of Chattopadhyaya was incorrect-- and repeatedly sought to destroy any content sourced to his writings. On the Carvaka page she was doing this without consensus which is when i pointed out WP:CIR to her. Soham321 (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to Joshua Jonathan for contributing to this discussion. With respect to Two truths doctrine, i have already explained on the talk page of the article why Joshua was introducing inaccuracies into the article through his editing because he did not understand the content in my opinion: diff1 The fact that Shrikanthv politely requested Joshua to abstain from editing this article on the talk page gives additional credence to my assessment: diff2 Finally, i have never edited this article after i pinged every single person who has edited this page after my content dispute with Joshua. With respect to the plagiarism allegations against Adi Shankara i had given references, links, and book extracts from the writings of three different scholars for this claim on the talk page of the Adi Shankara article.. These were Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Surendranath Dasgupta and Fyodor Shcherbatskoy. With respect to the Caste System in India article, five editors(Twobells, Kenfyre, ABEditWiki, Intelligent Mr Toad 2, and myself) have expressed a viewpoint differing from the five editors who were not allowing edits by others into this page-- on the talk page of this article, on Kenfyre's talk page or in ANI discussions. With respect to the Carvaka talk page, it is true that Abedecare had initially sided with Ms Sarah Welch but this support was conditional. Ms Sarah Welch did not want Chattopadhyaya to be used as a source at all; Abedecare was fine with using him as a source providing this sourcing was done with some discretion. After Mohanbhan wrote that Chattopadhyaya was making hermeneutic claims about Indian philosophy which cannot be refuted, Abedecare did not refute Mohanbhan suggesting that he agreed with Mohanbhan. Also, Abedecare stopped providing any support to Ms Sarah Welch's claim about not using Chattopadhyaya as a source possibly because he was persuaded by Mohanbhan and myself to consider Chattopadhyaya as a legitimate source. On Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's talk page, Abedecare had sided with Mohanbhan and me against Ms Sarah Welch. Soham321 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a belated response to Mohanbhan's comments. Mohanbhan, commenting on Ms Sarah Welch provoking me, writes:

When she repeats her "Chattopadhyaya is not a valid source" comment for the third time, Soham says this, "Your repeated tirades against Chattopadhyaya have exhausted my patience. Whenever you declare him to be a fringe source i reserve the right to point out lacking in competence to you."...He has been provoked to lose his cool, and he should not be punished for it.

Mohanbhan is completely right that i did lose my cool. However i would like Arb to compare my reaction when i lost my cool with when Bishonen had earlier lost her cool and was subsequently blocked by Jimbo Wales. Bishonen, as an Admin, had written to an editor:

Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo!

for which Jimbo Wales had blocked her as per this diff: diff1

Bishonen had subsequently successfully appealed against the block. I am mentioning this because in any quasi-legal or quasi-judicial decision making it is valid to show precedence. Soham321 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to the Talk Page Etiquette link which has now been added in Joshua Jonathan's comment. The background to this is that on the talk page of Adi Shankara Joshua Jonathan was was moving edits on the talk page--his and also mine--from one section to another. Section headers were being deleted by him, new section headers created, and edits being transferred from one section to another. Secondly an edit written in response to a comment was transferred and made to appear as if it is a response to some other comment.This was creating a lot of confusion and so i simply started reverting him on the talk page asking him in the edit summary and also in the talk page to stop doing what he was doing since it was becoming impossible to have a discussion on the talk page. We were unable to come to an agreement. I then took him to ANI (simultaneously he also appealed against me on a page related to India asking for an Admin to take action against me--i will have to find the diff for this). An admin closed my appeal asking me to sort it out with Joshua. I went to the talk page of this Admin and said i have tried discussing with Joshua, and we are not being able to come to an agreement. I then specifically asked him: is there any intervening authority before i approach ArbCom since my appeal had been denied in ANI. He replied in the negative. I then posted on his talk page that i am taking it to ArbCom which i did. (I should add that Joshua rearranged the edits in their original form in the talk page of Adi Shankara after the matter went to Arb.) I gave the background to this to one of the Arb members with the request that this should not be held against me and he said 'it was an error of inexperience' and he would not be holding it against me. And this is the diff: Diff1 Soham321 (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to Floquenbeam. I have strictly followed the rules of this forum. I respected the 1000 word limit in the initial appeal. There is, however, no restriction on the word limit when it comes to replying to other editors. I have not violated any rule. In any legitimate quasi judicial or quasi legal decision making you cannot make up new rules once an appeal has been filed. Soham321 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to Abecedare. I would specifically like to highlight that Abecedare and i have been involved in content disputes on the talk page of Adi Shankara and Carvaka. In the Adi Shankara talk page, i gave references (including links and book extracts) to the writings of three different scholars who claimed that Shankara had borrowed philosophical content from Mahayana Buddhists in his writings. This included an extract from a book by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya which included the following words about Adi Shankara:

What is really not so indisputable about him is his actual philosophical ability. Though he reinterprets Upanishadic idealism in a really advanced form, there is nothing practically worthwile in this reinterpretation that is not borrowed from the Mahayana Budhists. This fact of large scale borrowing is sought to be concealed by Shankara himself with the demonstration of a great deal of contempt for these Budhists, often accusing them of preaching precisely the same views which he himself wants to preach with great gusto...The usual defense of Shankara by his modern admirers is that he admits the truth or logic as well as of the material things from the standpoint of practical life: but this very distinction between "two truths" is an innovation of the Mahayana Budhists, from whom Shankara borrows it only with some terminological alteration.

Abecedare's response to the above quote includes the words "What we are objecting to is the use of the word "plagiarism" that you introduced, which does not make any sense when applied to classical philosophical ideas and is not used by any of the sources you quote."

To which i responded with the words: "I am truly amazed that you are unable to see the plagiarism accusation. I would have imagined Chattopadhyaya at least makes the point very clear. I am glad i am giving the full quotes of these scholars instead of giving summaries or paraphrasing, so that at least other editors can see what you claim you are unable to see."

I leave it to Arb to judge whether i was civil or not with Abecedare.

And this is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Adi_Shankara#Shankara_and_Buddhism

Abecedare and i have had two or three conversations on my talk page, and also in the talk page of Rigveda, where when i point out that an authority he is citing--Klostermaier-- is regarded a fringe historian (please see the Reception section of Klostermaier's WP page), he responds by saying he often mixes up Klostermaier with Elst who is another fringe historian as per Elst's WP page. (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rigveda#Reference_to_Hinduism ) I do not believe i was uncivil with him in these conversations. Soham321 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to Yunshui who is mischaracterizing my position in my opinion. My position is not that the problem lies with other editors; my position is that unless you are ok with the quality of several important WP articles (which are of a disputed nature) remaining mediocre and inaccurate (serving thereby to discredit the reputation of WP as a whole), you have to be prepared to tolerate a certain amount of friction and "heat" due to the inevitable intellectual debate that takes place in the talk page of the article and also occasionally in the main article through reverts with associated edit summaries. Soham321 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Link from Bishonen

Here's the conversation on my page from 2013 that Soham321 mentions above. Bishonen | talk 07:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Ogress

Soham321 has been a tendentious and difficult editor. He also has been improving, albeit slowly, and I think one day might be a very solid editor. He has shown to learn from his mistakes, albeit slowly on some occasions. I do not know that this statement impacts a temporary ban on India-related editing.

Soham321, if your temporary ban is upheld, I hope you will take the time to continue to edit Misplaced Pages in other places. Admins have been extraordinarily patient with you - perhaps you do not realise how much mentoring you have received, I think I got about zero - and I urge you to learn the same patience. Also, pretty much everyone has suffered bans of one sort or another. Continue to improve your skills in areas where distance from your subject might help you improve as an editor; you are nothing if not committed to passionate editing on topics you are committed to, which can sometimes actually be a hindrance, especially to new editors who are learning. You are, as I said above, continuing to learn how to Wiki, and I would be lying if I said it came naturally to anyone. Ogress _smash! 03:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am going to add more content. I am deeply troubled by the long responses by both Soham321 (talk · contribs) and Mohanbhan (talk · contribs), who are using this discussion to continue a very inappropriate attack on other users such as Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs), most particularly Mohanbhan, whose entire response is a tirade against Ms Sarah Welsh.

I am disappointed and angry that this is being turned into a forum to point fingers at Ms Sarah Welch and others. I have changed my position from neutral to support sanctions - although this is not a vote - as I think this very Arb request is being used as another chance to continue what is a grudge match.

I would also like to point out that the behavior of Mohanbhan (talk · contribs) has been very particularly inappropriate both in and outside this Arb board as well. I'm not sure why his behavior has not been examined more closely as he has been posting in a manner not befitting a Misplaced Pages editor.

Lest anyone think I am partisan in this situation, I wish to be clear that Ms Sarah Welch and I are on the opposite side of disputes most of the time, even on the very article Carvaka that is being dragged around, and not in a minor disagreement kind of way. I have avoided editing pages she is involved with in order to avoid conflict with her. I nonetheless find the ongoing gang editing direly troublesome and extremely distasteful. Ogress _smash! 08:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

Statement by Mohanbhan

This is Sarah Welch's revert to the Charvaka article. There is no doubt that Soham's contribution to the article had enriched it, making the article a systematic exposition of Charvaka philosophy. Charvaka philosophy itself is unrelentingly critical of the Vedas and Vedantic thought, which, as I have suggested on Charvaka talk page, may have ticked off Sarah Welch who usually edits pages related to Vedantic philosophy. She has made it her one-point agenda to denigrate and exclude references from the greatest authority on this topic Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. Whenever I have edited or tagged the article she has shown a tendency to make the argument personal by adopting an aggressive hysterical tone, positioning responsible editors as vandals, and herself as the custodian of the page. Instead of discussing the cited references objectively and responding to the specific objections she repeatedly makes statements like "'The book @Mohanbhan likes' is not Misplaced Pages's definition of RS". She also quotes selectively and distorts the sources to push her POV, as can be seen in the discussion. She also uses the word "tainted" to refer to Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's dialectical materialist/Marxist viewpoint, and in spite of our objections repeatedly uses theis word] to refer to Chattopadhyaya. She is explained here that Chattopadhyaya is a philosopher who has made hermeneutic claims about Charvaka philosophy, and, as such, his work can't be said to be dated. After this discussion on 9th July Sarah Welch stops her disruptive edits and the article is substantially improved with sourced content. She shows up again on 20th July and starts haranguing about Chattopadhyaya as an unreliable source in spite all our previous explanations. She indulges in disruptive edits and her edits are reverted by Soham when she has no consensus for her view on the talk page. She then continues her rant on Chattopadhyaya, which I ignore, but which Soham responds to by advising her to read WP:CIR. But Sarah Welch repeats her rant, calling Chattopadhyaya "controversial and fring-y", citing non-existent "abundant evidence and review summaries" on the talk page. When she repeats her "Chattopadhyaya is not a valid source" comment for the third time, Soham says this, "Your repeated tirades against Chattopadhyaya have exhausted my patience. Whenever you declare him to be a fringe source i reserve the right to point out lacking in competence to you."

Soham has contributed constructively to the article, his content is cited and includes direct quotes from sources -- and he has used sources other than Chattopadhyaya like Bhattacharya and M Hiriyanna -- to avoid disputes about POV, and his arguments for their inclusion have been erudite and sophisticated. Sarah Welch, as can be seen on the talk page, has distorted the sources and pushed a POV; she has also indulged in disruptive editing, canvassed against me when her edits have been challenged and her rationale refuted, and has generally adopted an inflammatory tone, denigrating certain sources for their viewpoint instead of discussing the content and sources objectively. Given all this, I think it is Sarah Welch who is to be blamed for edit-warring and being disrespectful to other editors rather than Soham who has contributed constructively to the article. He has been provoked to lose his cool, and he should not be punished for it. I sincerely hope that ArbCom takes an impartial view of the matter and does justice to Soham. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Salvio: I am not casting aspersions on anyone; everything I have written is supported by links to the Carvaka talk page. I have found Sarah Welch's actions disruptive, and not constructive, and I have stated that with evidence. I have always avoided making content disputes and disagreements personal, and I have avoided that even on this page. I have also chosen to ignore Ogress's personal and inflammatory remarks about me. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with Twobells' statement that "2 or 3 ideologically like-minded editors have 'taken over' the articles and proceeded to go to any length to undo any independent editors attempt to introduce neutrality and balance to said articles." The same has happened with Carvaka article as can be seen by looking at the revert mentioned in the first line of my statement. There has been a systematic attempt by these editors at historical revisionism as is evident from this discussion on Template talk:Hindu philosophy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would like the arbitrators to please look at this discussion to see how some writers whose work is critical of Brahminical and far-right Hindutva ideology are being systematically excluded from wiki articles. Please notice how the other editor indulges in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by repeating again and again that 1. the books of Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, S.N. Dasgupta and Scherbatsky are more than 100 years old 2. that Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's book What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy is self-published and 3. that DC is not a reliable source -- all of which are false. People's Publishing House, a very prominent publishing house in the 1960s and 70s, has its website hosted on blogspot; this is being pointed out to claim that its books aren't "peer-reviewed", but Permanent Black, one of the most respected academic publishers in South Asia, is also hosted on blogspot. So spurious and silly reasons are being cited to keep out certain writers from wiki articles, and a far-right ideology is being forwarded through these articles. Soham is the victim of this cabal of ideologically motivated editors and their tendentious editing of articles related to Hinduism and Hindu philosophy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SpacemanSpiff

I did not want to post on here earlier, but as Floq brought up the length issue I'll slightly modify and transfer my post from the RfAr filing that preceded this to provide a summary and some general info.

Soham321 has been issued multiple warnings by multiple admins and other editors for various forms of disruptive behavior as well as on ARBIPA sanctions. He has had a topic ban in the past, yet the disruptive behavior has not stopped. The warnings and disruptive behavior have dated to at least as far back as mid to late 2013 by my checking. While demeaning other editors is part of the disruption, it is not the only one. There's a refusal to accept any form of feedback as well as misrepresenting opinions(including here where he says in the complaint above that I retracted something while I was just saving the ever so polite Mr Brown the necessity of replying.)

(Pinging Dennis Brown, The Blade of the Northern Lights, Abecedare, Kautilya3, Philg88, Shrikanthv as some of the warnings/notes have been from them in the diffs listed above.)

A little over two weeks back, I was ready to issue an AE block and six month topic ban, but switched to a warning instead, thinking that some of the input he has received will have some impact. Despite his response I expected that the warning will probably cause an impact. However, that has proved to be not the case. Today, I was ready to issue an ARBIPA one week block and a one year topic ban from India articles and was getting the explanation and diffs ready, but Bishonen beat me to it with a lighter sanction.

The issue here is Soham321's behavior, which has been disruptive over the course of two years. He has received blocks, topic bans, and numerous warnings. The question for this appeal is should other editors have to spend time and effort on this going forward as that is essentially what the ARBIPA sanctions are for. It's still a light sanction as Floq says, but that's what's on appeal, and I think ArbCom should decline that.—SpacemanSpiff 12:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by agtx

Soham321 placed a message on my talk page asking for my commentary, presumably because of our brief interaction editing Sach Khand. I would say that if Soham is reaching out to me to show an example of collaborative editing on an India-related topic, then he needs to do some work on his collaborative editing skills. I tagged the page in question first because it was presenting Sikh views on religion as though they were true, and then because it was a close paraphrase of a book (something about which Soham had already been warned). I would characterize our interaction as following along the lines described in Bishonen's talk page post imposing sanctions. Four talk page posts and less than 36 hours into the discussion, Soham was accusing me of abandoning the discussion, and threatening to invoke dispute resolution. When I pointed out the copyright problem, Soham's response was to tell me to fix it myself instead of tagging it, even after I said that I didn't have access to the full source.

To Soham's credit, after the initial interaction, which I would characterize as relatively unpleasant, things got more productive. He did change the article so as to avoid the close paraphrasing, and he edited collaboratively after that. No further accusations followed, and while the article needs expanding, I think it's not an unreasonable stub at this point. Soham obviously is knowledgeable about the topic, and he was able to fix errors that I introduced in clean up (because my grasp of Sikhism is, to put it mildly, tenuous).

From my interactions, I think that Soham is capable of contributing productively here, and I think he has a desire to get things right. However, I also think that he gets angry (or what others perceive as angry), and makes changes and comments rashly. Further, I think that he has trouble understanding Misplaced Pages policies, like copyright and reliable sources, when they don't align with his views. I also understand that some of these edits are in a heated topic subject to discretionary sanctions. Between my personal experiences, Soham's previous topic ban, and Soham's participation in the discussion at Talk:Cārvāka, I think the sanctions imposed are warranted. I hope that Soham will take these six months to edit articles in other areas to which he has less emotional attachment, so he can understand the kinds of talk page discussions and consensus building that are productive here. agtx 22:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ms Sarah Welch

Allow me to skip an analysis of the content @Soham321 has recently tried to delete, replace or add to various wiki articles from RS, NPOV and other wiki policy perspectives.

In this admin-issued-sanction arbitration matter, allow me to focus on: Are there facts to persuade that the admins of wikipedia in recent past have been reasonable? Is @Bishonen's latest sanction in this matter reasonable? My answer: "Yes, abundantly". Here is some of the recent evidence relating to @Soham321 sanction:

1. Edit warring with @Joshua Jonathan, despite @JJ request to stop edit warring in early July here, here and here
2. Edit warring with @Sarunfeldt in mid July here, here and here
3. Edit warring warning by @Shrikanthv here
4. Uncivil behavior and personal attack on a wiki article's talk page against @Joshua Jonathan here in Carvaka article, and more recently here in Two truths doctrine article; Quote of edit summary: "Joshua Jonathan's editing is making this article worse as i have explained in the talk page. The more he edits, the worse this article becomes in terms of clarity, accuracy, and cogency. - @Soham321"
5. Uncivil behavior and personal attack against @Ogress here; Quote: "I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. - @Soham321"
6. Uncivil behavior and personal attack against me, see links here
7. Request to be civil with other wikipedia editors by admin @Abecedare here
8. Warning in June 2015 by admin @Dennis Brown here
9. Warning in June 2015 by admin @The Blade of the Northern Lights here
10. Warning in July 2015 by admin @SpacemanSpiff here

How has @Soham321 responded to recent comments and warnings? @Soham321 has been combative with admins as evidenced here, and to requests by @Sitush here. Quote: "Soham, I am trying and trying to show you how to write well and you simply keep fighting it at every opportunity. I'm not known for a saint-like patience and sooner or later I will snap unless you start to come to your senses. - @Sitush"

Summary: The veteran members of the Misplaced Pages community have been patient. Admin @Bishonen's sanction on @Soham321 was reasonable.

FWIW, when I began considering evidence for this statement, my intent was to request reduction of the 6 month sanction to a 3 month sanction on @Soham321. But, after looking at @Soham321's pattern of behavior with numerous wiki editors over the recent months, I now feel that @Bishonen has already been kind and generous. The evidence points to a stronger case of WP:NOTHERE than what I felt a while ago. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Twobells

• Comment It is a real shame I have not had the time to develop my Rfc on the Indian articles, perhaps then Soham321's patience would not have been quite so tested. I have found he has demonstrated a clear and concise willingness to present a neutral, balanced edit doing so with good manners and a clear methodology, however, he is energetic, a state some might wish to use against him. In my experience he has the patience of a saint when dealing with Sitush and others who have shown themselves to be prejudicial, labelling other editors as incompetent if they do not agree with their dogmatic position and quick to suggest bad faith. I have found Soham to have been a victim of combativeness rather than as presented a perpetrator, particularly on Indian history articles. With that in mind, together with my experience collaborating with Soham who has been a study in Wiki best practice, I would recommend you approve his appeal. Twobells 18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

edit. In response to Joshua Jonathan's comment The situation couldn't be further from factual truth, I sourced (please see my Caste System In India and British Raj diffs) numerous up to date citations on the latest works, however, these were based on empirical and priori evidence rather than ideology and for this they were removed along with their conclusions. Unfortunately, what has happened on the British Raj and Caste System in India articles is that 2 or 3 ideologically like-minded editors have 'taken over' the articles and proceeded to go to any length to undo any independent editors attempt to introduce neutrality and balance to said articles. Essentially, what we have now are two articles so biased that they fail to stand up to independent review and display what can only be termed as a dogmatic and misguided attempt at historical revisionism. In closing, as they stand I would call these articles Examples of Morton's Demon At Work, regards. Twobells 10:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In response to Floq's Comments: Hello, pleased to meet you. With respect, are you aware of the issues pertaining to the articles concerned? Trust me, when I say an in-depth response such as Soham321's is required in order to give the neutral observer a proper background into what has been going on over there. A situation, which can only be described diplomatically as counter to best wiki practice, regards. Twobells 15:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Joshua Jonathan

After the reply by Soham321 to Ms Sarah Welch, I think it's time for me to respond too.

• At the Carvaka talkpage, Ms Sarah Welch has explained her doubts about Chattopadhyaya as a source, and suggested that he should appended with more up-to-date sources, a proposal which has been endorsed by Abedecare. neither Soham321 not Mohanbhan has seriously responded to this proposal; instead, MSW has been accused of "incompetence." Given the quality of her edits, this is a gross misqualification.
• Caste System in India: five editors agreed that the Caste System in India, as it exists today, was shaped by the British. This was based on reliable sources. And, as Sitush mentioned, also to our surprise. Yet, Soham321 and TwoBells kept insisting that this wa suntrue, and that we were biased. Despite repeated requests, they were unable to present reliable sources which gave a different opinion.
• Adi Shankara: Soham321 introduced a section on "Allegations of plagiarism." A wildly anachronistic qualification. Abecedare and I immediately responded, see Talk:Adi Shankara#Shankara and Buddhism. We responded so soon, very short after each other, that I hadn't even noticed that Abecedare had already responded, and I opened a new thread. When I found out, I merged the sections, to the dismay of Soham321, who wrote he became confused. He reverted me twice at the talkpage, meanwhile removing my comments twice. Incredible. Anyway, it ended with Soham opening an ArbCom-case on "talkpage etiquette (yes, serious!).
• At the Two Truths Doctrine article, Soham321 made a series of edits, based on one single source, in a writing-style which was difficult to follow. I smoothed his contributions; Soham321 reverted them en masse, with the statements he's already been given. At this point I'd already given up to discuss with him; it's impossible. Soham321 doesn't discuss, he makes statements, and seems to be incapable to understand what other editors are saying. And to say that I don't seem to understand the topic - well, had he taken the care to check my edit-history, he would have known that I'm one of the top-editors on Buddhism-related articles. Or just User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources.
  

All in all, I've seriously been wondering if Soham321 just doesn't understand at all how to work at Misplaced Pages (I put it friendly here), or that he is simply trolling. I'm still not sure that it is a lack of understanding.
I had refrained from responding here so far, since I've had my share from POV-pushers and the like. But now that he also mentions me, I felt I had to respond too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Further response:

• " i have already explained on the talk page of the article why Joshua was introducing inaccuracies into the article" - incorrect. The Madhyamaka theory was already described; you doubled it, which was unnecessary. When you pinged dozens of editors (including B9Hummingbird Hoovering, who's been indeffed years ago already, as I'd already told you), you forgot to explain what the "content dispute" is about;
• "he did not understand the content in my opinion" - read WP:ICANTHEARYOU;
• "The fact that Shrikanthv politely requested Joshua to abstain from editing this article on the talk page gives additional credence to my assessment: diff2" - Shrikantv wrote "not supporting anyone in particular", and further wrote "would suggest to abstaining from concretising philo/spiritual concepts but rather giving only an Idea or a possibility (giving the reader to decide or finding out on his own) would be a better way of going ahead ". To read this as "politely requested Joshua to abstain from editing this article" is a misinterpretation. Read WP:OWN;
• Plagiarism: none of these authors uses the term "plagiarism." It is a wildly anachronistic term here. It's astonishing that you don't get that;
• "Ms Sarah Welch did not want Chattopadhyaya to be used as a source at all" - that's not true; she proposed to supplement him with additional sources;
• Talk Page Etiquette - I merged two sections, which was completely reasonable, as several admins have told Soham321. If you had simply said "Hey, please keep these two sections separate, it's confusing to me!" and simply reinserted the header, I'd said "Of course, fine." Instead, we ended the day at ArbCom...

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Response #3 - "ideologically like-minded editors" - usually I get the heat from Vedic POV-pushers; this time I'm apparently considered to be in the other camp, of those Vedic sympathisers. That's nice, for a change. And "the patience of a saint" - where? And no, I'm not going to mentor Soham321. I've wasted enough time on official mentoring. He's welcome, though, at my talkpage, if he needs any help. @Shrikanthv: thanks for your thrust, of course; hoghly appreciated. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Floq

I saw yesterday that Soham321 had squeaked in just under the 1000 word limit. However, counting responses, he's now up to 4100 words. If "Decline - TL:DR" is a legit vote, that's what I would suggest. 6 pages (single spaced, 11 pt type), with no sign of stopping... if that's what people he's editing with have had to put up with, then getting off with just a topic ban is generous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by shrikanthv

I would suggest Soham321 would be better put under a mentorship with an admin or senior editor related to topics he is editing, I see that he edits with passion and sometimes(most of the time) steps on wrong foot ! with some exp he could be well off rather than banning him ! would suggest JJ as mentor for him Shrikanthv (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Abecedare

I see my name mentioned a few times, so here are my 2c, based on my interactions with and observations of Soham321 since July 2nd, when I first came across the editor.

Soham's article space edits have some problems (reliance on a single and often dated source; quote-farming; undue weight; (good faith) misinterpretation of sources etc), but these are routine issues that are typically handled easily through talk-page discussion. The main problem is that Soham doesn't react well to even the politest of feedback and responds by

• insulting other editor's intelligence, good faith, ideology etc,
• endless repetition and filibustering (eg, see Talk:Cārvāka, or just the ARCA section above),
• continual editor/admin/forum-shopping and needless escalation. This being the classic example; also note the number of totally unconnected editors/admins Soham contacted about this ARCA appeal alone. Another example here in which Soham (IMO, pointily) pinged >50 editors.
• refusal to concede even the tiniest of errors. For example, Soham's insistence that Bishonen misguided them into originally filing this appeal at the Arbitration Request page (the error itself was of course minor; I am only pointing to failure to simply say "oops" and move on). Also note the number of editors, admins, and arbcom members who told Soham that they were wrong about the issue of the previous arbitration request; yet Soham repeats the complaint unchanged. Ditto for the claim of an 8th century philosopher being guilty of "plagiarism", which Soham again repeats on the page (won't bore the audience of this page with the details, which can be read here).

All this makes collaborative editing with Soham321 virtually impossible, and I'm afraid the issue is unlikely to be confined to India-related pages covered by the current topic ban. Frankly Soham's statement above, by itself, provides ample examples of IDHT/TE/Battleground conduct that led to the topic ban, and the fact that the editor doesn't even realize this is not a promising sign. As I have recommended a couple of times earlier, and as Shrikanthv advises above, Soham should consider getting a mentor who they trust and can consult, because unless their conduct changes drastically, I see a perma-block or site-ban coming a few months down the line. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2015 (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.

Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen: Clerk notes

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

Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen: Arbitrator views and discussion

• @Soham321: that's rather a large wall of text you've written there. Could you please trim it down to focus on the essentials, thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline per Seraphimblade below and Floq above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• For the benefit of those who may be unfamiliar with our procedures, I'll clarify that the standard of review employed by ArbCom when dealing with appeals against discretionary sanctions is "was the action we are reviewing reasonable?", rather than "would I, under the circumstances, have imposed the same restriction". In this case, Soham, examining your conduct, I do see a pugnacious approch to editing and disputes and some tendentiousness to top it off; for that, I find the sanction reasonable and vote to decline your appeal.

  Incidentally, Mohanbhan, please note that casting aspersions on other editors is disruptive and sanctionable. Salvio 10:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Decline per Salvio - I also see a pugnacious approach as well as a failure to AGF which suggests that removing the sanction would not benefit the encyclopedia. Mohanbhan, you need to pay attention to what Salvio has said. Doug Weller (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. Soham321, if your approach to editing bears any resemblance at all to your approach during this appeal, I would rethink it, quite quickly. Pugnacious is if anything an understatement. I would also strongly echo Salvio's point regarding casting unsupported aspersions, and all who have raised that you need to make your point reasonably concisely. Seraphimblade 00:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Decline Soham321's response to the topic ban (to fight it tooth and nail in any available venue, and to argue from the outset that the problem lies with other editors) is for me ample indication that this was a sensible call by Bishonen. Yunshui _水 11:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Decline -- Euryalus (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Decline , per Yunshi and Seraphimblade DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Decline LFaraone 20:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages requests