|
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Erik-the-red. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Erik-the-red. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dhola Post; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Dhola Post shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Erik-the-red reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: ). Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Dhola Post. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Dhola Post shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]There is now a discussion concerning you at WP:ARE. Please make your comments there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}
.
If you have a statement to submit to the AE report, feel free to draft one here and I will post it for you. If it is appropriate, that is. El_C 17:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to respond to Kautilya3's comments, which in my view do not accurately describe any of the events and include numerous quotes taken out-of-context.
Kautilya3 claim:
On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example.
My response: I created the first section on the talk page and wrote the following:
@Kautilya3: You wrote that "there is no evidence that it has been incorporated in Tibet." However, paragraph 29(f) on page 53 and paragraph 35 on page 54 of the Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report acknowledge that "Dhola Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line."
Paragraph 29(f) on page 53: "This, in effect, meant that the post was actually NORTH of the McMAHON Line as then marked on the map."
Paragraph 35 on page 54: "DHOLA Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line as shown on maps prior to October/November 1962 edition."
Therefore, by India's own claim, the assertion that "there is no evidence that [Dhola] has been incorporated in Tibet" is false.
Erik-the-red (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
My statements were all factual, and thus I strongly disagree that my statements in the above quote qualify as "bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page" as claimed by Kautilya3.
Kautilya3 claim:
When I pointed out that expanding stubs is normal day-to-day activity, his reponse was "
don't gaslight me".
My response: Merely pointing out that expanding stubs is normal would not merit any anger or frustration on my part. But that is not what Kautilya3 did. Instead, in response to my newly created section on the talk page, Kautilya3 wrote,
First of all, this page is on "Dhola Post", which is an Indian Army post. The location of this post is still under Indian control, as you can see from the map on this page. If there is a place called Dhola in Tibet, please feel free to create a new page for it. (As far as I know, there is no such place.) Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It is at this point that I started to angrily feel that I was being gaslit: the page was "on Dhola Post" because Kautilya3 unilaterally changed the page's title by himself/herself. It was previously titled "Dhola, Tibet."
Kautilya3 claim:
After seeing that there was no way to reach agreement, I set the page back to what it was earlier and started a new pageonDhola Post.
My response: This is a very self-serving, inaccurate description of what happened. On 23:19, 17 June 2020, I suggested to Kautilya3
in terms of resolutions, I am fine with a separate page called "Dhola, Tibet" and a separate page called "Dhola Post." Alternatively, I'm fine with one page called "Dhola Post" which clarifies that Dhola Post was established north of the McMahon Line and therefore was situated in Tibet, China.
On 00:15, 18 June 2020, Kautilya3 accepted my first proposed resolution. So it is not true that "there was no way to reach agreement"; I proposed two resolutions, and he/she agreed with one of them.
Kautilya3 claim:
The user immediately came over to the new page and started modifying it too. Between the two pages, they made 6 reverts in 24 hours, as documented in this ANEW report. The admins did not sanction the editor. So I set it aside for a while to let things cool.
My response: I was not sanctioned because Kautilya3's claim that I made "6 reverts in 24 hours" was false. I checked and discovered that 2 of his 6 alleged reverts were not reverts at all, while of the remaining 4, 3 were reverts on one article and 1 was a revert on another article. Instead of admitting that he/she had made a mistake, Kautilya3 chose to claim that I was trying to "game the system."
Kautilya3 claim:
During the debates, the user started calling me "
extremely hypocritical" [1]. The supposed "hypocrisy" is that I called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is their preference.
My response: This claim by Kautilya3 is easily shown to be false by examining the link he/she provided. The full context of my words were:
You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," but it's a "cheap shot" for me to flip it back at you by pointing out that the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Government of India.
That is, the hypocrisy had nothing to do with Kautilya3's claim that he/she "called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is [my alleged] preference." The hypocrisy had to do with Kautilya3 accusing me of being motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," and then claiming that it was a "cheap shot" of me to flip the accusation back to him/her.
I hope that my preceding reply has demonstrated that Kautilya3
and therefore that Kautilya3 has not discussed with me in good faith.Erik-the-red (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erik-the-red (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
@El C: From what I can see, a user filed a lengthy complaint against me at 17:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC). You then issued a 72 hour block against me merely 9 minutes later at 17:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC) based entirely and exclusively on the user's "side of the story." Given the extremely short length of time it took for you to make your decision, as well as that your decision was made purely on one side's extremely lengthy complaint, I don't see how this is a fair decision.[reply]
Beyond fairness, I don't agree that the user's first five examples constitute "personal attacks." Looking at the user's complaint, the so-called personal attacks on 17-19 June all involve me calling him a hypocrite.
That's just the first 5 complaints. The user presented another 12 complaints, all from his own self-serving perspective. So again, I do not see how a fair decision could be made in less than 10 minutes based entirely on one user's side of the story.
Decline reason:
If you make personal attacks, you'll be blocked. It doesn't matter if you think the personal attack is justified or true. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:58, 8 July 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.
(437 words) I would like to respond to Kautilya3's comments. Because of the 500 word limit, I cannot respond to all the claims, so I will show that Kautilya3's first and last claims do not accurately describe the events and use quotes taken out-of-context.
Kautilya3 claim:
On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example.
My response: I created the first section on the talk page and wrote the following:
@Kautilya3: You wrote that "there is no evidence that it has been incorporated in Tibet." However, paragraph 29(f) on page 53 and paragraph 35 on page 54 of the Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report acknowledge that "Dhola Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line."
Paragraph 29(f) on page 53: "This, in effect, meant that the post was actually NORTH of the McMAHON Line as then marked on the map."
Paragraph 35 on page 54: "DHOLA Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line as shown on maps prior to October/November 1962 edition."
Therefore, by India's own claim, the assertion that "there is no evidence that [Dhola] has been incorporated in Tibet" is false.
Erik-the-red (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not see how any reasonable person could construe the above statements to be "bitterly complaining that [Kautilya3] had modified the old page" as claimed by Kautilya3.
Kautilya3 claim:
During the debates, the user started calling me "
extremely hypocritical" [2]. The supposed "hypocrisy" is that I called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is their preference.
My response: This claim by Kautilya3 is easily shown to be false by examining the link he/she provided. The context of my words were:
You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," but it's a "cheap shot" for me to flip it back at you by pointing out that the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Government of India.
That is, in context, I did not mention Tibet at all. Kautilya3 has thus taken two of my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I am motivated by nationalistic bias.
I hope that my preceding reply has demonstrated that Kautilya3
and therefore that Kautilya3 has not discussed with me in good faith.Erik-the-red (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I am responding to your your most recent comment here because I am presently blocked. I assume that you are aware of this commentonWP:NORN:
Attempting to use fine details like coordinates based on visually copying the map is WP:OR. Using it for broad imprecise information is fine.
Unless you are dissatisfied with that comment, I suggest we both agree that it is WP:ORtointerpret
coordinates from old sketch maps that are not drawn to scale
. Therefore, unless you can find a map showing the location of Khinzemane that satisfies WP:COPYVIO, the article will not feature the OSM map upon which you marked the coordinates of your interpretation. Erik-the-red (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to your your most recent comment here because I am presently blocked.
I'm not sure there's IPA concerns beyond this one article. Why don't both of you turn to a dispute resolution request, like an RfC, and let others weigh in on the dispute? Limit interaction to the utmost in the interim.
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned from all pages and discussions related to India's borders indefinitely. You may ask for the ban to be lifted after a period of not less than six months
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. RegentsPark (comment) 15:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 |