User talk:Editorkamran

Editorkamran, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Editorkamran! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

BLPN discussion you may be interested in

The discussion on "terrorist" label is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ajmal Kasab and Zabiuddin Ansari - Terrorist label. Hopefully this will help drive a solid path forward. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Editorkamran, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! samee converse 18:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

∯WBG^converse 10:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Urdudaan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Urdudaan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Urdudaan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

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 Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2021 (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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank for your great contributions on this site Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI closures

Hi - I reverted your closure at ANI because I was in the middle of typing a comment. As a general rule, I'd advise you not to close discussions at ANI that you have been involved in - leave that to an uninvolved editor. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 13:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My pronouns

Hello,

U used they pronouns for me on the edit warring page so I'd like to clarify my pronouns are she/her.

If u have anything to discuss with me about our disagreements I'd be more than happy to talk with you here :) Stephanie921 (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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 16:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Subhas Chandra Bose. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Reo kwon (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for two weeks for edit warring, editing without consensus in the contentious India-Pakistan topic area, and WP:BLP violations including use of poor quality sources. Editorkamran, your POV pushing behavior at G. D. Bakshi is unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: First of all, this block is wrong over technical perspectives. You are blocking an editor in a good standing like me for 2 weeks without any prior warnings and that too after the article was already protected. Read WP:PUNITIVE.

Also, what's up with the sidewide block? The non-existing disruption happened only on 1 page according to you.

What you call "poor quality sources", Alt News and ThePrint, are actually high quality sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#Survey_(IFCN), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#Altnews.in, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#The_Print and more. Alt News is an IFCN certified fact checker.

I hope you are not aware about the credibility of these reliable sources otherwise your remarks are just disparaging.

I also hope that you correct your mistaken block as soon as possible. Editorkamran (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be unblocking you since you do not acknowledge that the edits in question violated policy, and you are not addressing the reasons for the block. You are welcome to follow the instructions above to make a formal unblock request which will be considered by another administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: You are required to show how I am wrong with any of my explanations. Why you are not offering a rebuttal? The content was reliably sourced and long-standing and it was never challenged on talk page. It was being removed by a vandal who made legal threats and personal attacks. Blocking me after the page was protected was a mistake on your part which you must rectify. Editorkamran (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my reasoning in detail at WP:ANI. If I am wrong as you assert, then another administrator will grant your unblock request promptly. I continue to believe that your edits violated WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I need your help here like it was needed on sock puppet investigations. Contrary to blocking rationale of Cullen328, most editors agree that this block is not valid per WP:ANI#Block review. Can you unblock me per those comments? Editorkamran (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to file an unblock request, following the instructions linked in the block notice. I don't have time right at this moment to read through the ANI discussion and review your recent editing, but I may come back to it later today; I would advise you, before you make your unblock request, to consider whether there were any potential problems with the content you were reinstating, and to undertake not to perform repeat reversions in situations like this in future. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Submitting below. Thanks Editorkamran (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

There are 3 reasons for blocking me. 1."edit warring": My reverts involved reversion of vandalism that aimed to remove particular information from the article. The 2 edits that I reverted[1][2] in last 24 hours (before the block) were vandalism. Reverting WP:VANDALISM i.e. "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia", is completely allowed. The content was being removed by a vandal who then made legal threats and personal attacks. If the content was being removed in a sensible manner, then I would have opened the talk page discussion first. My earlier contribution on talk page of the article tells I have engaged in discussion. 2. "editing without consensus in the contentious India-Pakistan topic area": Consensus? This content was never disputed on the talk page or anywhere else. A huge number of editors including C.Fred, Ppt91, Materialscientist, 1AmNobody24, The person who loves reading, Mako001, Edwardx and more have also restored the same content. 3. "WP:BLP violations including use of poor quality sources": Nobody mentioned "BLP" before Cullen328's. I was never told about any "BLP" violation before the block. Alt News and ThePrint, are not "poor quality sources" but they are actually high quality sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#Survey_(IFCN), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#Altnews.in, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#The_Print and more. Alt News is an IFCN certified fact checker. Information backed with high quality sources cannot be rejected as "BLP violation" to the degree that you would need to block me for it without ever discussing even once. That said, the reasons provided for the block are absolutely invalid. I request the unblocking admin will reflect this in my block log. Finally, if I was told to not restore content until the content dispute has been resolved then I would be refraining from reverting until consensus has been achieved for it. But unfortunately, I was never asked. There is no evidence that I would have refused to comply if I was asked. I am making it crystal clear now, that since the content is now disputed, I will first gain consensus before restoring. Editorkamran (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

The unblock request, as written above, was not acceptable. However, after the extended discussion below, and in consultation with the blocking administrator, I am unblocking, with a reminder to be more cautious about repeat reverting, especially on BLPs. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder - working on this. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Editorkamran, I've taken a look at this, and read through the ANI discussion, and the article's recent history. I'm not declining the unblock request, but I'm not ready to accept it either. I'm going to give you some thoughts about each of your numbered points above; I'd be grateful if you would consider these, and respond.

1 - It is not clear to me that the edits you were reverting were clearcut vandalism. Sure, it looks like there are POV issues at play, but it's not obvious vandalism of the kind where one could invoke WP:3RRNO.

2 - I've read through the history of the article. The article has existed since 2015; from what I can find in the history, that sentence was added to the lead, without discussion, on 23 January of this year, in this diff. It was removed the next day, then reinserted, and since then there has been a lot of back and forth removing and reinstating (all without discussion, disappointingly). Some of the accounts removing it have been blocked for edit warring, but some of them are editors in good standing, including Schazjmd, an autopatrolled editor with over 50,000 contributions to the projects in a very diverse range of subject areas. Its inclusion really ought to have been discussed on the talk page after she removed it, but it was reinstated with an disappointingly inappropriate edit summary. The sentence's inclusion has been contested continuously since its addition, it just hasn't been contested through the proper channels (a talk page discussion) - I see no basis to think that there any consensus on its inclusion.

3 - Even if we accept that those sources are reliable, we also have to consider other things - do they actually support the assertion as written? Is the inclusion in the lead appropriate? AltNews does not use the phrase 'Fake News' in its own voice - it is included in an attributed quote from another commentator, but they only say that the claims he made were 'false'. The Print does use the phrase 'spreading the fake news', but it seems to be talking about the same incident. So, these sources don't appear to support the 'on a number of occasions' part of the sentence. For the second sentence of the lead about a living person to mention something, I would expect it to be very much associated with what they are notable for; I would also expect to find a more substantial section of content going into more detail about that element of their career in the body of the article. I see neither in this article, and so I conclude that the inclusion in the lead is inappropriate, and probably a BLP violation (specifically, going against WP:BLPSTYLE). I'm not saying that something could not be added to the article using these sources, but it has to be written carefully and neutrally, not just crowbarred into the lead.

So, to summarise: you were blocked for edit warring, and I find that you were edit warring to reinstate content for which there was no consensus, and which was not written in compliance with the BLP policy. You were not warned about the BLP violation, but you have been warned about edit warring quite recently (in the section directly above this one). I need you to take all this on board, indicate that you understand what the problems with your editing were, and undertake not to repeat them, before I would be willing to consider unblocking. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the above. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Thank you.

1. I would have never claimed exemption because I noted that while these edits were somewhat vandalistic they couldn't be used to justify 3RR (if it could happen). However, after I saw that the editor has made legal threats and personal attack, I felt taking it to ANI per WP:NPA and WP:NOLEGALTHREATS.

2. Yes the content was never challenged but no discussion happened regarding it either. But if any discussion had happened then I would be joining it per my contribution here. I am not sure what it was about but there are clear reasons to believe I would not avoid discussion.

3. Alt News cites 2 claims by the subject to be "false",[3] while The Print is discussing those claims that were cited by Alt News, it is also discussing his false claims about independence movement as described just here. This is why the question about "BLP" violation could be successfully discussed on talk page. A block was completely unnecessary.

Once the content is contested, I avoid restoring it until consensus is reached. See here and here which shall raise your confidence. That's why I said that if I was told once I would be discussing the content, not restoring it. Editorkamran (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 - I think you're missing the point I'm making. You reinstated that edit many, many times - that's still edit warring, even if you don't perform three of them on the same day. So, if you accept that there isn't a 3RRNO exemption, then you are surely accepting that you were edit warring - that would seem to suggest that you accept that the block is justified, given that you have received warnings about edit warring recently? (I agree with you that the legal threats were unacceptable, and I agree with the indef block of the other editor.)

2 - The content was challenged, repeatedly. It was a recent addition to the article, which was removed almost immediately after it was added, and then removed again by many different accounts, some of them very experienced editors. People wanting the sentence to be retained should have been making the case on the talk page - the burden is on them to get consensus for the addition, not on other people to get consensus for its removal.

3 - Yes, I know Alt News says he made statements that were false; that is not the same as saying that he was spreading fake news. We are cautious in what we say about BLPs, and we do not go beyond the language used in the sources. This on its own would not be a strong enough reason for a block, but it goes along with the fact that you were edit warring to reinstate the offending sentence.

I would strongly advise you to stop contesting the legitimacy of this block, and instead focus on understanding what you did wrong, and undertaking to avoid such actions in future. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that the block was ~~not~~ unnecessary and it could have changed nothing that couldn't be changed through usual means. From the next time I will ensure making discussion about the content that has been repeatedly removed on talk page and ensure that there are no questions left over its legitimacy. Editorkamran (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your double negative there - you're saying that the block was not unnecessary, which means that it was necessary? I'm not trying to catch you out, I'm honestly confused about what you're saying. To be clear though, when it comes to edit warring, 'usual means' is temporarily blocking the involved accounts. I could see myself asking Cullen328 whether he would be happy for me to unblock your account, but you first need to accept that your own actions were inappropriate - I don't see a clear acknowledgment from you on that question yet. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say only "unnecessary". I have already accepted that the only thing I had to do was make a post about the information on talk page after he was frequently removed, but I am sure I was going to still get blocked over "low quality" sources, despite they are high quality sources. This is why I am finding problems with the block. Rhododendrites summarizes better than what I could right now. Editorkamran (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time understanding you: I don't know why you think you would have been blocked for "low quality" sources. Do you mean that you think you should have reverted and also posted on the article's talk page? Yes, that would also have got you blocked, but not for "low quality" sources - it would still have been for edit warring. What you should have done is not revert, and post on the article's talk page, and only reverted if a clear consensus emerged to include the information. Hopefully, discussion would have resulted in better wording for the content, and in it being placed in a more appropriate part of the article. Until you accept that your reverting was inappropriate, and undertake not to edit like that in future (not just on this article, but anywhere), I can't see a path to your being unblocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically talking about Cullen328 when I was talking about being blocked for "low quality sources" that I would have been blocked for low-quality sources when Cullen328 would be viewing the history that who was restoring the content.

I know "edit warring" would not be the reason, but everything else would be there. However, I agree I should have done a better job than reverting here and should have provided explanation. That may have contributed toward my favor. From the next time, whether others are sincere or not, I will ensure leaving a talk page message in such situation so that things may not get bad like they were this time. Editorkamran (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused by this response - you weren't blocked for the quality of the sources, you were blocked for edit warring. If you had not edit warred, you wouldn't have been blocked. The fact that you were edit warring to reinstate a sentence that was in violation of our BLP policy makes it worse, but it isn't the reason for the block. Please just give us an unambiguous statement indicating that you will not edit war like that again, and that you will be more cautious about staying within the spirit of our BLP policy in future. (I really do recommend reading the whole policy, and trying to take on board the intent behind it.) Girth Summit _(blether) 17:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I will not engage in edit war like I did this time and will be more alert about ensuring that there are no chances of policy violation. I am aware of BLP and I know that whenever there is a concern over BLP issues then WP:BLPN is the way to go but I never got that opportunity. Though, if I was told that there are BLP issues then I would be going to BLPN. Editorkamran (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never got that opportunity - I'm afraid this is still giving me the vibe that you think you have been dealt with unfairly here. You did get that opportunity - you reverted what, eighteen times? Every single time you chose to revert was an opportunity not to revert, but to leave a note on the article talk page, or to go to BLPN to get more eyes on the subject. You were warned about edit warring just a couple of months ago, but you went ahead and did that anyway. You do not need to be told there are BLP concerns to know that you shouldn't be reverting that many times.

I'm trying to help you here, but you are not making it easy. Your edits were problematic. Cullen328's block was not unreasonable - it is a standard response to edit warring. I'm not going to unblock you without Cullen saying that he's happy with that, so you really need to convince us that the message has got home. Is there anything more you would like to say? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I don't think Cullen328 will personally agree with the unblock. Cullen hasn't responded to you on ANI and clearly said above he has no issue if another "administrator will grant your unblock request". Cullen hasn't even agreed to correct his most obnoxious claim that the used sources were unreliable. The failure of WP:BEFOREBLOCK is very clear and I myself don't recall seeing worse block than this. Are we seriously treating Editorkamran as some super disruptive editor like the block summary claims? He does not deserve the bad treatment that he is facing here over an inappropriate block. To force him to accept this inappropriate block will only entertain disruptive editors who are after him.[4] I think we should also keep that in mind here. The response his block received here on ANI is also immense. In general, users side with admins anyhow which has been also acknowledged by Arbcom. The criticism of block is real and should be taken into account while unblocking this account. For what it is worth, he has confirmed he will avoid edit warring and use discussion more to avoid similar situation. The unblocking obviously does not mean that user cannot be reblocked if actual disruption happens. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to attack @Cullen328 you could have at least pinged him. Doug Weller talk 20:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The block is primarily for edit warring - it is beyond doubt that that occurred, and I don't think that you are doing this editor any favours by trying to convince me, and by extension them, that the block was unjust. I am trying to get to a point where an unblock would be appropriate, and I think that comments like this are counterproductive. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aman.kumar.goel, I would very much appreciate it if you would not misquote me or try to predict how I might respond to a question from Girth Summit or any other administrator about unblocking. I did not say the publications in general are unreliable. Instead, I described the specific articles used as references "poor quality sources" in the context of an addition to the lead of a BLP that violated the neutral point of view and devoted undue weight to just one aspect of this person's long career, and led to slow motion edit warring for months. The content was also in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which says quite clearly that the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents and that the lead must comply with the neutral point of view. I continue to believe that the whole matter amounted to an ongoing BLP violation, and no one has convincingly refuted my assessment. I have never said that I am opposed to including some version of this content in the article, but it must be written in a rigorously neutral fashion. The policy says that we must do our best to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Cullen328 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your position, then the quality of sources is still not supposed to be disputed at all because various RSN discussions have concluded these are reliable sources. We don't doubt these sources on WP:ARBIPA. How the content needs presented is purely a content dispute and it had to be discussed first. Blocking comes when the user fails to abide by the foretold requirement. That was not the case here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations call for much swifter action than routine content disputes, and I took swift action. Every cited source needs to be evaluated in context, and just because a given publication is accepted as generally reliable does not mean that everything that appears in that publication can be used 100% of the time. Highly opinionated content should be used only with great caution which was lacking here, just as we would not use stuff from gossip columns or astrology columns. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are reliable for the information they are being used for. Alt News is a fact-checker and The Print's articles (outside opinion pieces) are of a high quality. You can dispute them at WP:RSN but I am sure that won't work. Where was BLP violation mentioned? The text was supported by the sources. You had explicitly stated that the sources are of "poor quality" which would have confirmed there was a BLP violation but since they are reliable sources the information couldn't be construed as BLP violation. Several editor on ANI have noted that too. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aman.kumar.goel, you are really not helping here. Edit warring is edit warring - there is no exception listed at 3RRNO that allows 'edit warring to include content that is cited to a reliable source'. And, on top of that, all parties need to recognise that WP:BLPSTYLE is a part of the BLP policy - a violation of that is a violation of BLP policy, you cannot get around it by saying 'it's a content dispute'. I personally believe that Editorkamran has their heart in the right place, and could potentially be unblocked early if they showed genuine understanding that their actions were inappropriate. The comments by yourself (and a few others), implying that they were somehow right to edit war about this stuff, and that there was nothing wrong with the content, are making this situation much more complicated; I am not comfortable in advocating for an unblock in these circumstances. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring took place but reverts by Editorkamran were reversions of disruptive removals and he wasn't alone. Still, 3RR wasn't violated and it was impossible to violate it after page protection. There are varying views about the block, I agree with that but it should not be viewed otherwise. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Girth Summit I agree edit warring appears to be the main reason for the block. You asked what else I have to say, I would repeat that I have agreed above that I will not engage in edit war like I did this time and will be more alert to ensure that I don't give impression of edit warring and show more care with BLPs. Editorkamran (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I just want to check something here as it's still not clear to me from the above. Please inform us as to what your response would be in the following situation.

You enter a sentence into an article and someone comes along and reverts it. Do you

A) Revert back to your inserted addition

B) Revert back to your addition and also start a thread on the talk page

C) Leave the reverted version as is and start a thread on the talk page

D) Take it to a noticeboard

E) Revert and place a message on the other editors talk page

F) Leave the reverted version and place a message on the other editors talk page

G) Some other option or combination of options (please specify)

I'm asking this as it's not clear from the above messages how you believe this situation should be handled. Canterbury Tail talk 01:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: Answers:

A) Revert back to your inserted addition

Only if the removal is disruptive, such as content removal with misleading edit summary or removal of reliably sourced content with no explanation

B) Revert back to your addition and also start a thread on the talk page

I won't revert back when I am starting thread.

C) Leave the reverted version as is and start a thread on the talk page

If the edit has been shown to be disputed.

D) Take it to a noticeboard

When I need more than views of 1 or 2 editors.

E) Revert and place a message on the other editors talk page

Only if the edit is disruptive or vandalism.

F) Leave the reverted version and place a message on the other editors talk page

Only if there is a conduct issue with the editor but their edit is correct.

G) Some other option or combination of options (please specify)

Already stated in questions above. Editorkamran (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail and Girth Summit: So far, the ANI report was archived, the content has been proposed on talk page for section with additional details. The biggest concern until now seems to be that the content had to be first included on section before it could be posted on lead. This is something I have been careful about on other articles. You can see these edits:[5][6] where I was adding content on article body because it existed only on lead. It was missing from article body. I am also aware that when edit warring is taking place then it is best to notify noticeboard for further eyes (see this edit:[7]). For this particular page (G. D. Bakshi), what I observed were disruptive removals being also reverted by other editors. However, I was not ignoring any possible input on talk page.[8] Nevertheless, I will be more careful with dealing with such removals next time and ensure that the content on lead is properly described also on body of the article. I will ensure the page has been brought to relevant noticeboard in the event of content dispute (like I cited did earlier). I hope I will get unblock now. Thanks Editorkamran (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest concern was the nature of the content on a BLP, the fact that the sources did not entirely support it, and the fact that it had previously been removed with an appropriate edit summary by an experience editor in good standing. What you saw as 'disruptive removals' could also be interpreted as good faith removals of content which, as you now know, was not compliant with our policies. I wish you would stop trying to defend your edit warring, and just say 'I get it - edit warring is disruptive, I should have been a lot more careful, it won't happen again'. As I've said before, I'm not comfortable in unblocking you early when you are still trying to defend elements of what you were doing. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I only mentioned the reasons that why it happened. I clearly say that I get that edit warring is disruptive, I should have been a lot more careful, it won't happen again. Editorkamran (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soap_Boy_1 has returned. Compare: [9][10] and [11][12] Editorkamran (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good shout, thanks. Cullen328 - see the long conversation above, in which Editorkamran accepts that the edit warring was disruptive, and has undertaken not to go back to similar behaviour. Would you be happy with an unblock at this point? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, I have no objection to unblocking at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, will do. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Sino-Soviet border conflict

Editorkamran, with this edit you, an involved editor, have unilaterally reverted many edits with the edit summary; Given the falsification of sources by Crows Yang, it is best to restore last stable version. Crows Yang has been blocked for disruptive conduct at WP:AN3. They were warned for disruptive reverts at the article: They may be blocked the next time they revert at Sino-Soviet border conflict unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. This is not a licence for the revert made, which can be seen as a continuation of the disruptive editing that has occurred at Sino-Soviet border conflict. It clearly devalues and disrespects the contributions of other editors. To state that Crows Yang has falsified sources is a serious allegation of conduct. If you believe that this can be substantiated, then the allegation, with your evidence, should be made at ANI, not made in an edit summary. As it stands, the edit summary can be seen as a personal attack and a continuation of the disruptive conduct that has occurred at Sino-Soviet border conflict. An edit summary cannot be redacted but it can be retracted at the talk page. As for the revert, I would strongly suggest that the reversion be reversed. If there are particular issues with material added since Crows Yang stared editing at Sino-Soviet border conflict that have not been resolved through normal editing processes, then these should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, where all editors contributing to the page can have the opportunity to assess and contribute to building a consensus in respect to the material you would challenge. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restored necessary edits after discussion on talk page. Editorkamran (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Caste-related violence in India. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Patit Pavan Mandir

I've updated my feedback on WP:Articles for deletion/Patit Pavan Mandir to "Merge" instead of "Keep" - the source I added is the only in depth source on the topic of the Temple I've been able to find. Per Wikipedia - if all we have are books and articles about Savarkar, and not books and articles written about the temple - the temple is non-notable and the article should be deleted. It would be nice if you explain why the source is "unreliable". Technically, we need multiple, in depth, reliable sources about the Temple (not Savarkar) and that was only one. We really need 3 to prove the temple is notable per Wikipedia standards, so to keep it - two more in depth sources on the temple are needed. Denaar (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstpost

This I can easily say was the most unfounded and silly AfD I ever saw in my over 10-year tenure here on Wiki. Simply saying it is not RS without justifying or elaborating isn't professional. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ds/alert is now obsolete

Please do not place Ds/alert templates on user talk pages, as you did here. Instead, use one of the new alerts explained at Wikipedia:Contentious topics. This usually means using {{CTopics/alert/first}} the first time, and then abbreviated ones after that. The same topic codes are in use as for the old, Ds/alert system. Also, can you please tell me what template you placed there? It cannot have been the old, Template:Ds/alert, because that redirects to the new one; so there must still be one out there that hasn't been redirected, and it needs to be. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say the Hindu Mahasba recruited for the British during WW2

I would really like to see the source for this claim, not as a challenge, only because I am reading a book which directly contradicts these claims. StrongALPHA (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StrongALPHA: I have already provided the source here. Editorkamran (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Aksai Chin, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad verbiage in "Cattle slaughter in India"

In the 9 November 2022 edit of Cattle Slaughter in India, you added the phrase "extent and status of cows throughout during ancient India", miscopying it from Cattle in religion and mythology. Can you please correct this. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Ajmal Kasab. Thank you.

Saurabh^{Talk} 03:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saurabhsaha: Calling content a "conspiracy theory" is not an attack on you. Learn the difference. Also just because a WP:RS is covering a conspiracy theory it does not become valid. It is still conspiracy theory. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL and it will need a lot better evidence to claim Kasab is still alive. You should make a self-revert now. Editorkamran (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion involving this article if you have not been notified and are still interested. Vacosea (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Aman.kumar.goel per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

firefly ( t · c ) 15:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

@Firefly, Drmies, and Blablubbs: I saw the ping from Aman.kumar.goel and I was myself coming to reply but at first I thought of checking my watchlist and making this edit and this block happened. I would too say that I am not socking and the provided overlap is not really surprising given there are many accounts that have same interests. Kindly unblock me. Editorkamran (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not only is there behavioural evidence but there's also technical evidence. Yamla (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2023 (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.

Yamla, thank you. The behavioral evidence is very strong; I'll not address the technical evidence here. Editorkamran, after reading this talk page it has become clear to me that perhaps your temperament is not well-suited to a collaborative environment. To put it another way, your interactions here, including with Cullen328, display a clear battleground mentality and are sometimes just plain rude--the way you tried to weasel out of that block was pretty low. Also rude are the comments placed here at the time of your block for edit warring, comments made by Aman.kumar.goel, your alter ego. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add that I am not convinced with this block. You should read WP:GAB and find a way to appeal checkuser block. You are a good editor and I hope you will resolve this issue. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]