User talk: Kashmiri

This is Kashmiri's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 2 months

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Committed identity: d254dc376a14af85ca560f32cbf255f9c1ba332a7b9e6832caaad7810fefbad08dda6b6388507ec13fa76206016ff036025e880edffdf2f40f39b3a3d29fc4cd is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

August 2024

Your this edit has been reverted. Please gain WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page before removing well sourced content. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackOrchidd You have two hours to self-revert all your edits made in violation of 1RR, as communicated on your Talk, or I'll take it to AE. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

-- Primefac (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac : The Reddit account is anonymous and unconnected to a real identity, so OUTING doesn't apply. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom, the Oversight Team, and the general community consensus have long agreed that linking to any undisclosed profile on another site is considered outing. There are certainly those who disagree along your lines of thinking (i.e. "it's two anonymous profiles, who cares") but at the moment they are in the minority, and would need an RFC to overturn this long-standing consensus. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Profiles on other sites" is in the literal text of the OUTING policy. This isn't some interpretation the OS team has made interpreting policy, but rather a straight forward application what the community decided policy says. In many discussions I tend to take a more wholistic view than many other oversighters - including in evaluating your conduct during the COI arbcom case - but I don't see any wiggle room in that edit. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 Thanks for chiming in. It matters a lot to me when fellow editors notice what's happening to my account.

These words you quoted were only added recently without a discussion. Earlier discussions on both the scope of personally identifiable information and the balance between COI and OUTING went both ways, and we for example had this consensus for years, too.

Anyhow, this is still a grey area, marred by many discussions, with policy wording changing on a regular basis. While I might have been more careful, I'll be emailing the ArbCom separately as advised by the template. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This block has been assumed by the Arbitration Committee and all queries should be directed there:

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Is it possible to get a little more explanation on what happened here, or is the Committee's recommendation that we go crawl around on Wikipediocracy in search of morsels? jp×g 🗯️ 04:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, is there something unclear about the last sentence in the template? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: It should be clear based on the content of this section ("August 2024") why Kashmiri has been blocked. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the ArbComm has more context, and I cannot see the REVDEL'd edits but the literal policy of WP:OUTING, as I read it, is good intentioned but doesn't match my understanding of how the present internet works, particularly the vector surface for privacy. Before proceeding, what would be the best way for the community to re-review its understanding of WP:OUTING? Guidelines like Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing are incompatible with "anti-doxing" measures if User contributes are available in the various mirrors and permanent ubiquity. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell I was looking to update @Kashmiri on what I believe is poor editing/vandalism/NPOV of an article he last edited on 9 July 2024 the article has since been edited 70ish times by a single user over the course of 3 days without any discussion or consensus in the talk page.

Although I see he's been perma-banned though I can't figure out the reason why from here, would you be able to assist me? Galdrack (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Galdrack I'm afraid not. The block is in the name of the Arbitration Committee, which does not comment on blocks like these which are rare but sometimes necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell thanks for that, is there anywhere we can check or see? Wiki is quite hard to follow the rulings to be honest and when I can't figure out what lead to one ban for a user it honestly makes it difficult to edit earnestly. Galdrack (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Galdrack I'm really sorry but no. ArbCom has a responsibility to handle matters not suitable for public discussion and this is one of those. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Clydesdale Bank logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Clydesdale Bank logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]