Aghore

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:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

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.

Doug Weller talk 08:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

@Iridescent: You need to be very cautious with some of these tools, because their results can be misleading. With my user account (as a non-controversial example):

• Special:CentralAuth/Toddy1 Toddy1 registered: 20:20, 22 April 2011
• Special:Contributions/Toddy1 First edit 12:57, 1 January 2007
• Special:ListUsers/Toddy1 Created on 30 December 2006 at 16:29

You see the discrepancy. By the way, my real first edit was to a page that got speedy deleted, so is not shown on my contribution history (at least to non-admins).-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• The reason 1,387 edits between 2012 and 2019 from this account are not accessible to anyone, even oversighters, is said to be due to a court order affecting 67 user accounts in India related to paid editing being carried out by 3 EN:Wikipedia admins.Aghore (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

• 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 : 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)

Important update from Wikipedia legal regarding UNBLOCKING

I am privately informed by counsel of Wikimedia / Wikipedia INDIA that the tribunal case/s whereby my account was redacted between approx 2013 to 2019 has been closed in India on or about 13 Jan 2020 and consequently this account was restored by WMF along with a few others. I am further informed that as part of the terms of the consent order, WMF INDIA Chapter had agreed to take the Indian domains wikipedia.in and wikimedia.in offline. This has been independently verified by me from archive.org using the URL http://wikimedia.in/wikipedia.html and both the domains are presently offline.

In such circumstances, although I was never a party in the matters between WMF INDIA, and the rogue enwiki admins involved, there is no legal action pending at the present time involving myself and Wikipedia as far as I know. Hence, I should be UNBLOCKED as this block violates the special tribunal orders and also satisfies the UNBLOCK scheme of enwiki of legal matters being resolved. Aghore (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is part of a privately-owned organisation headquartered in the USA. A block from Wikipedia is simply a removal of the privilege previously granted to you to edit this private site. You have no legal right to edit. This block cannot violate a "special tribunal order", as the "special tribunal" is not competent to issue an order with regard to your block. So you're going to have to look elsewhere for help in getting unblocked. I hope that is clear now.

Did you read WP:GAB? You need to be very familiar with WP:NLT to be able to create a competent appeal in this case. There are three avenues open to you to get unblocked:

1. Discuss with RegentsPark whether they feel that the conditions laid down in Wikipedia:Appealing a block have been met, and persuade them to unblock you;
2. Add the {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} template to your user page, making sure that you phrase your reason in a way that conforms to the guidance in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks #Composing your request to be unblocked, and hope you can convince an admin to unblock you;
3. Compose a request to be unblocked using the form linked from Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System and hope you can convince an admin to unblock you.

I hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

RexxSThanks for your valued inputs. I hasten to clarify that whatever took place on this enwiki account between 2013 and 2019 was done at the instance of the aforedescribed "privately-owned organisation headquartered in the USA" and not by some anonymous pseudo-bureaucrat person hiding behind a contrived name at enwiki. In point of fact I recall the term used was "official action" or suchlike when I last enquired from counsel appearing in those matters. Aghore (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since all Aghore is doing is posting some random stuff about tribunals and not addressing the reasons for the block (this legal threat, for example, I'm tempted to say "revoke talk page access" and be done with the time wasting. But, as a policy, I'd prefer it if someone else addresses any unblock requests the user chooses to make.--RegentsPark (comment) 22:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

RegentsPark No reasonable person in the real world would construe that extracted sentence to be a legal "threat". The other valid interpretation is that I was conveying my expertise in the matter as in [9] or [10] and that subsequently Google took down their entire BLOGSPOT.IN domain containing almost a million blogs. But heck, I forgot ... Wikipedia doesn't tolerate "experts" WP:EXPERT since everybody is anonymous over here <rol>. Taking RexxS's advice for reviewing NLT and engaging with you, before blocking me, was I not supposed to be asked if I intended that sentence as a legal threat ? Was I not supposed to be given adequate time to respond ? What was so "urgent" that I had to be blocked indefinitely ? Does my statement unambiguously say anywhere that I intended to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors ? If so, please cite it back to me ? Aghore (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Aghore, I'm not sure why -- maybe you're a lawyer? -- but you appear to be incorrectly interpreting what we've been telling you about enwiki's relationship to government bodies. What a government tribunal declares doesn't actually have any relation to how we edit. WMF deals with that, and we go about our editing, trying to be neutral, but completely unconcerned about whether any government entity approves or disapproves of what we write. If some government entity decides to censor us in their country, that's a drag for the citizens of that country, but it doesn't in any way change how we edit. If India decided tomorrow to completely block Wikipedia, we wouldn't change anything about any of our articles in response. —valereee (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Valeree, my short response is - US citizens are privileged in that Wikipedia is highly unlikely to be blocked there, but have you considered how citizens of Turkey, China feel when there is no Wikipedia ? Yes, editing at Wikipedia is a privilege as RexxS says, .. for those of the privileged North ! Aghore (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC) I

• Valereee, you are clearly wrong here. We would note it at Internet censorship in India and likely write an article about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It's all a big joke isn't it ?? Ha ha. Aghore (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure we would do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Aghore, it's not. We don't consider it a joke at all, and GGS is pointing out how we react to censorship: by writing an article about it. To us it's very serious that some countries would censor WP so that their citizens couldn't get the benefit. But we don't change because of it, because that would deprive citizens of every country. As GGS points out, one of the ways we hope to prevent countries censoring us is by reporting on it. Are you actually arguing that WP should censor itself to make it more palatable to oppressive governments so that the citizens of those countries -- and all countries -- would have equitable access to bullshit? —valereee (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As Tom Hagen said to Jack Woltz shortly before the horse's head was sawn off, - "I have a single client" - who are probably India's largest free-speech association (among other things). So "we" are probably more against Censorship than you or WMF are. To take a small example - Self induced abortion is mostly legal in USA but illegal in India where its a criminal offence. So should Wikipedia (in India) be allowed to provide instruction manuals detailing how to carry out self induced abortions which Indian women (possibly underage teens) might access ? The answer is not simple. Aghore (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a great example; we don't actually supply WP:NOTHOWTO for anything, including self-induced abortion. That's not because we're censored. It's because we aren't a how-to guide. —valereee (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It happened, and the Indian Wikipedia editor (an employee of the Guttmacher organisation promoting their how-to abortion manual on enwiki) was tracked down in the real world and dismissed from her medical job in India and had her medical licence suspended for 6 years, which she has appealed. Aghore (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

That's terrible, and there is no way on earth I'd conclude that the solution is to stop creating neutral articles because some oppressive government doesn't like them. I feel for that woman, and I hope she gets her license back, and if there's significant coverage in reliable sources, I would absolutely write an article about it. But if she was actually "promoting their how-to abortion manual on enwiki", she shouldn't ahve been doing that. —valereee (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

On the plus-side, there is a good chance Ajay Sawhney will conclude that WP has bowed to his authoritah, and so not order any blocks. This time. Btw, who is the Godfather in this example? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure the point was ol' Ajay wanted to get his name in the paper. So win-win? —valereee (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. But what if somebody points out the refs in Self-induced abortion to him, will it be blocking-time again? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

oooh...excellent point. —valereee (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)*

• Seriously, the newspaper stories were not leaked by the Indian Government or any of their people (Rule 16 of Section 69-A strictly prohibits any such disclosure). It was leaked by Centre for Internet and Society (India) after WMF received the notice. Aghore (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Aghore, as RegentsPark states, your sole activity here is not to converse with editors and admins dropping by but to compose an unblock request. Since, in your reply to me above, you talk about initiating legal action, I think you will have to withdraw all such threats if you ever want to edit here in the future. Soon enough, your ability to edit this talk page will be revoked if this discussion continues. I'd like to ask visiting editors to cease with the forum-like discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Liz. —valereee (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not talk about initiating legal action. I was (sarcastically) protesting that it seems the only option being offered to me (by u:331Dot) was that I should initiate legal action so as to be unblocked once such was resolved. Please read it again. In any case how (or why) can I withdraw a legal threat which was never made ? And, can we please dispose of RegentPark's NLT example first ? My statement has to be read in the context of u:331Dot's action, where he says first withdraw your legal threat. My questions to RegentsPark are still unanswered, possibly because there was never any actual legal threat made by me for which I was blocked. So how can I withdraw something which I never committed ? It's Catch 22 all over again. Accordingly,, I shall await RegentsPark's response, if any, and then compose a suitable Unblock request. Fair enough ? Aghore (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in debating this. I see Oh BTW, did I mention that I got 300+ Google websites taken down under the same section of law ie. 69-A, from the same office ? as a clear legal threat. You are welcome to explain yourself in an unblock request and see if another admin sees it differently. In my opinion, if you make another comment that is not an unblock request, your talk page privileges should be removed. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)