User talk:Aghore: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:02, 4 December 2020

Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 08:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Bhutan–India relations. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

You are currently in an edit war at Bhutan–India relations. Stop now. —valereee (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have strictly complied with WP:3RRNO and contacted senior admins like Bishonen and Doug Weller about the persistent vandalism on this page, and I was also on the WP:RFP page for protection for this article. At no stage was I uncivil or violate any WP:5P policy as far as I can tell. If you would like to suggest to me where I specifically erred, I would like that. Aghore (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I joined Wikipedia in 2009, but thanks for the welcome anyway. Aghore (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do know we can see when you're lying? ‑ Iridescent 15:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Choose your words carefully my friend. [1] Aghore (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 18:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z7

See [2] --RegentsPark (comment) 18:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aghore (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was discussing the legal aspects with Jacob Rogers of WMF Legal over at wikimedia Commons [3], and didn't see the message from the other admins in time to respond. JRogers doesn't see my comments as any kind of legal threat as far as I can tell, and he would be the best judge of that. As regards your other link to the 300+ takedowns, EN:WP should be grateful for my expertise in such things and not treat my suggestions as a legal threat. I do these things professionally. Everyone's on a hair trigger these days. Sheesh ! When somebody here says laws are irrelevant after the Govt where I reside has chosen to send a formal takedown notice, well Sheesh again !!! When an admin says I am lying [4] where is the Good Faith in that ? On merits:- I am not a threat to the projects and don't edit disruptively in main space. I have scrupulously refrained from editing in main space after that page was protected, as I promised. In as far as talk page edits go, I was civil throughout and contributed in a positive way. Its not easy for legal professionals to deal with the IANAL types and sometimes we may not be as respectful and deferential to admins as Alices ought to be in Wonderland. One the one and only occasion I made disruptive (??) 3RR edits, deliberately, I invoked the exemption and also alerted 2 experienced admins Doug Weller and Bishonen on their talk pages beforehand. I considered taking it to WP:ANI but contented myself with WP:RFP discussions instead. So I am not any kind of vandal you see. All the edits I reverted (disruptively ??) were by anon IPs and SPAs who left no edit summaries or discussed on any talk page. Aghore (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for making legal threats; that means to be unblocked you must unequivocally withdraw those threats. If the Indian government chooses to take action against Wikipedia, that is their decision. If you asked the Indian government to do so, that initiates a legal action and you must remain blocked until the action is resolved. Even if you don't threaten to take action yourself, raising it as a possibility has a chilling effect on other editors who might fear what the Indian government will do. I am declining your request. I will add that if Mr. Rogers from the WMF feels your statements are not a legal threat, they should come here to offer their views. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

[5]--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You object to cabal ? It is no secret that wikipedia admins have IRC channels to discuss these things which ordinary plebe editors have no access to. Aghore (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I object (and fairly strongly) to unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I object to an unblock, too. Aghore, you clearly do not understand enwiki. I suggest you do some research on how we work here before requesting an unblock. —valereee (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me disruptive mainspace edits other than today's ? FYI, I don't concede that my mainspace edits today were disruptive, Aghore (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't talk down to me with comments like "you clearly do not understand enwiki". It is rude and offensive Aghore (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I clarify that I have not made any legal threats whatsoever. Aghore (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aghore, how is it in any way pertinent that you've only been disruptive today? You were disruptive for hours today. You have ~250 edits and almost half of them were today + disruptive. You made multiple veiled legal threats. You argued for literally hours about whether apparent wrongheaded-but-good-faith edits were "obvious vandalism" and justified edit-warring. You took drama to multiple fora. Why in the world would we want to give you a chance to give wikipedia another day like today with you? —valereee (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I reverted were targeted vandalism coordinated off-wiki caused by the newspaper reports. I suppose it would have been more convenient for WMNF and everybody else that nobody reverted those vandals and the merry-go-round would go on. But I did it today to defend the encyclopedia, even if you can't see it. 21:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. Those edits were likely good-faith edits by probably-less-than-well-informed IPs and newbs who likely were drawn here by some combination of news reports and twitter. They weren't thoughtful additions but they absolutely were not vandalism, and you continuing to call them that reaffirms that you do not understand enwiki. —valereee (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, they were sent here by off-wiki coordination to disrupt the encyclopedia and take down that specific link. And that is vandalism in my book. Aghore (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May very well be, but the book you need to consider when assessing 3RR exemption is Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism rather than your own. What I have been telling you llterally all day today is that you do not apparently understand the exemption. —valereee (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[6] A sleeper account just waiting to be activated for this specific purpose ? Aghore (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 other established editors undid identical revisions. Were they disruptive too ? Look I'm sorry that I upset somebody's plans to resolve this quietly so the Govt threat would vanish, but that is what happens when there is information assymetry. Aghore (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That literally has zero to do with it. We do not care about the government threat. —valereee (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You probably may like to read WMFs Terms of Use again. 22:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Checkuser may find that the 2 anon IP addresses I reverted were logged out edits by editors discussing vehemently on the talk page for deletion of that link.Aghore (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to ask a question of you ? Aghore (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aghore, of course. —valereee (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I requested Doug Weller to have eyes on this page, because I edited a page which was subjected to major long term sockpuppetry [7]. Now I ask you what is the difference between those LTAs WP:LTA/IAC and this group of vandals ? NB - It is on the wikipedia review badsites that those previous Indian vandals allegedly caused WMF (and therefore the contributors) US$ 300,000 in legal fees. Why should these new ones be any different. Aghore (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After being told this was not an exception you still continued -- still are continuing -- to argue that it was obvious vandalism. The 3RR exemption is for vandalism that any reasonable editor would agree was vandalism. Obvious vandalism is stuff like inserting "Joe Patton is a big fat hog". The removal of a disputed map does not qualify as obvious vandalism. I gave you a bye, saying I thought you were acting in good faith by violating 3RR and claiming exemption, and instead of taking that onboard, here you are still arguing it was obvious vandalism because some of the accounts were suspicious. That. Does. Not. Qualify. —valereee (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You call them newbs, I call them sockpuppets and SPAs (please read the definitions) and [8] edit summary. In your eyes their edits don't constitute vandalism, in mine they do. You must understand, that there were a series of identical reverts of that link in a compressed period of time indicating persistent sockpuppetry. Had RFP been faster the situation would not have arise, If it took hours, its because of RFP being backed up. Aghore (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that persistent sockpuppetry does not constitute vandalism ? Thats bizarre . Aghore (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia has a long tradition of constructive sockpuppetry (check User:Utgard Loki and User:Bishzilla for prime examples). Vandalism is defined as "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". So, no, persistent sockpuppetry per se does not constitute vandalism, and the only thing that's bizarre is your presumption that you can lecture experienced editors on how Wikipedia ought to function.

Despite it all, nobody here wants to see you blocked if there's a possibility you may be able to edit constructively and collaboratively in the future. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and then ditch all your pleadings about how you were doing the right thing, and how you feel you should have the right to edit-war indefinitely based on your own criteria, and then simply pick one or more (preferably all} of the following:

"I'm sorry that my posts gave the impression that I was making a legal threat.

"It was never my intention to use any legal threat to make a point in a debate.

"I withdraw without reservation any implication of a legal threat in my posts.

"I promise I will do my best to avoid giving any impression of making a legal threat in future."

or something similar that focuses precisely on a valid reason why you should be unblocked. Use that as your unblock request and hope that you haven't pissed off so many admins that nobody will respond to it. --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my posts gave the impression that I was making a legal threat. Aghore (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for you, Aghore. This morning I read the talk page discussions over that map that occurred on several different pages. And your position totally confused me. At times, you were stating, strongly, that Wikipedia can not bow to censorship. But then, a few posts later, you were predicting dire consequences if the map wasn't changed and claiming that Wikipedia editors in India would be arrested. It seems like you were arguing both sides of this serious dispute which was just incredibly disruptive. I was going to block you for that alone, before the legal threats. Were you just trolling us? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply : The reason there was apparent confusion, is because it was not clear from the press reports whether the Govt wanted the "link" to the map on that article to be deleted (content on en-wiki), or whether they wanted the map to be deleted (content on commons). Jrogers subsequently confirmed that they wanted the map be be deleted. The Govt of India has also confirmed privately to me that all maps of India with incorrect depictions of territories and boundaries shall be automatically subject to the same legal action in the same way whenever it is brought to their attention. Because the Govt of India now issues these orders in 72 hours, even as responses to Twitter tweets as in the present instance, it is clearly necessary that WMF (not the communities) must take steps. Secondly, the mission/purpose/scope of Commons being very different from EN:WP, my arguments would obviously be very different too. Now, because I have carefully noted that my block is being carried forward till such time as any legal action I resolve concludes, and because I have not initiated any legal action so far, it seems the only course open to me is to initiate some legal actions, done grudgingly under en-wikipedia's anonymous bureaucracy duress, about the maps of India on all wikipedias / commons and get an outcome expeditiously under laws of India which the community admins couldn't care less about. and ... No, I was not trolling. cheers. Aghore (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I was wondering myself as to what was their consistent stand and rationale behind all this. The editor based their argument completely on presumptions about 'what the government would do' and when asked about the map being NPOV violation they flipped 180°. This matter could have been easily solved by just putting up a more acceptable and accurate map but instead creating a hysterical storm out of it was, and is utterly insensible/unbecoming of 'any wikipedian.'AnM2002 (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 *I have a question for you, [[User:Aghore|Aghore]]. This morning I read the talk page discussions over that map that occurred on several different pages. And your position totally confused me. At times, you were stating, strongly, that Wikipedia can not bow to censorship. But then, a few posts later, you were predicting dire consequences if the map wasn't changed and claiming that Wikipedia editors in India would be arrested. It seems like you were arguing both sides of this serious dispute which was just incredibly disruptive. I was going to block you for that alone, before the legal threats. Were you just trolling us? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::'''Reply''' : The reason there was apparent confusion, is because it was not clear from the press reports whether the Govt wanted the "link" to the map on that article to be deleted (content on en-wiki), or whether they wanted the map to be deleted (content on commons). Jrogers subsequently confirmed that they wanted the map be be deleted. The Govt of India has also confirmed privately to me that all maps of India with incorrect depictions of territories and boundaries shall be automatically subject to the same legal action in the same way whenever it is brought to their attention. Because the Govt of India now issues these orders in 72 hours, even as responses to Twitter tweets as in the present instance, it is clearly necessary that WMF (not the communities) must take steps. Secondly, the mission/purpose/scope of Commons being very different from EN:WP, my arguments would obviously be very different too. Now, because I have carefully noted that my block is being carried forward till such time as any legal action I resolve concludes, and because I have not initiated any legal action so far, it seems the only course open to me is to initiate some legal actions, done grudgingly under en-wikipedia's anonymous bureaucracy duress, about the maps of India on all wikipedias / commons and get an outcome expeditiously under laws of India which the community admins couldn't care less about.  and ... No, I was not trolling. cheers. [[User:Aghore|Aghore]] ([[User talk:Aghore#top|talk]]) 09:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 :::{{ping|Liz}} I was wondering myself as to what was their consistent stand and rationale behind all this. The editor based their argument completely on presumptions about 'what the government would do' and when asked about the map being NPOV violation they flipped 180°. This matter could have been easily solved by just putting up a more acceptable and accurate map but instead creating a hysterical storm out of it was, and is utterly insensible/unbecoming of 'any wikipedian.'[[User:AnM2002|AnM2002]] ([[User talk:AnM2002|talk]]) 08:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)