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:
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
RegentsPark (
comment)
18:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)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.
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)
{{
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;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:
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
RegentsPark (
comment)
18:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)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.
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)
{{
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;