Erik-the-red

Welcome

Hello Erik-the-red, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! alphaChimp laudare 23:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Erik-the-red. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Erik-the-red. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dhola Post; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Where was the "consensus" when you unilaterally made the significant changes to the article on 22 February 2020? You didn't open any section on the article talk page. You simply took it upon yourself to claim that Dhola isn't in Tibet and that "Dhola Post" is still under Indian Army control.Erik-the-red (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There was no substance in the stub that I found there, nor any evidence that Dhola is in Tibet now. Is it in Tibet now? If so, can you provide sources for it?

Even assuming it is in Tibet now, there is no content for it that warrants a Wikipedia article. So, I still don't see how you can maintain that reams of well-sourced and informative content should be deleted and the useless stub should be reinstated just to appease certain nationalistic posturings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks for admitting that you unilaterally decided by yourself to make extensive changes to the article without appealing to "consensus" first. So it is quite hypocritical for you to posture about consensus when I reverted the article to the last version prior to your changes that you unilaterally made without consensus. As to your (rhetorical) questions, I already provided you a source that Dhola not only is in Tibet now, but was in Tibet in 1962.

That source is Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report. You dismissed it on account of it being a primary source (which is yet another false statement from you: Part I is a secondary source because it "relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" in Part II.)

I would also like to point out how hilarious and ironic it is that you offhandedly mention "certain nationalistic posturings" when Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Government of India. I advise that you look in the mirror more often.

Lastly, as I wrote to you elsewhere, if you would like to claim that Dhola Post is an active Indian Army base, then by all means, I'm happy to read your sources for that claim. I ask only that they're in English and readily accessible online.Erik-the-red (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing nationalistic about the title or content I wrote for that page. So please refrain from making cheap shots.

If there was genuinely a place called Dhola in Tibet that was notable I would have left it alone, and started a new page. But the stub that you or whoever else created was only talking about the Indian post, despite claiming it to be in Tibet.

I stand by what I said about the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report. Please feel free to take it to WP:RSN if you don't believe me.

As for the McMahon Line, the content that you deleted makes it amply clear that its alignment was being actively disputed by the two sides when the conflict started. So it is certainly not clear-cut from Wikipedia point of view, as to which side it belongs. Titling a page as Dhola, Tibet would constitute WP:POV. Right now, the OpenStreetMap puts it on the Indian side of the LAC, and Google Maps puts it on the Chinese side, and the road infrastructure makes it look like OpenStreetMap is correct.

In any case, since you haven't provided any policy-based reason for deleting 12,000 bytes of well-sourced content, I am going to reinstate it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," but it's a "cheap shot" for me to flip it back at you by pointing out that the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Government of India.

Although I find your hypocrisy quite annoying, pointing it out is not productive to achieving the consensus that you purport to value. So in terms of resolutions, I am fine with a separate page called "Dhola, Tibet" and a separate page called "Dhola Post." Alternatively, I'm fine with one page called "Dhola Post" which clarifies that Dhola Post was established north of the McMahon Line and therefore was situated in Tibet, China.

Because if the best evidence you have for Dhola being in India or being in disputed territory is that OpenStreetMaps, a wiki-like crowdsourced map, places Dhola in India, that's painfully weak "evidence" and in no way contradicts the fact that in Part I of the Henderson-Brooks Bhagat report, Dhola Post was repeatedly noted to have been established north of the McMahon Line (and therefore outside of the disputed area). You might as well cite your own edits as evidence for your edits if you're going to rely on OpenStreetMaps.Erik-the-red (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dhola Post shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You might want to follow your own advice: "To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted." Or, you could keep being a hypocrite. Your choice.Erik-the-red (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Erik-the-red reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: ). Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Dhola Post. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Pointing out that you have repeatedly been dishonest, that you have repeatedly been hypocritical, and that you have repeatedly gaslighted me is not an attack on you.Erik-the-red (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dhola Post shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ARE

There is now a discussion concerning you at WP:ARE. Please make your comments there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

If you have a statement to submit to the AE report, feel free to draft one here and I will post it for you. If it is appropriate, that is. El_C 17:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Please accept my apology for venting earlier today. Upon calming down, I've decided that having only one side of the story presented in the AE report would be quite suboptimal. Please post the following for me (after this indented reply and above the unblock decision) if you deem it appropriate. Thank you.Erik-the-red (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like to respond to Kautilya3's comments, which in my view do not accurately describe any of the events and include numerous quotes taken out-of-context.

Kautilya3 claim:

On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example.

My response: I created the first section on the talk page and wrote the following:

@Kautilya3: You wrote that "there is no evidence that it has been incorporated in Tibet." However, paragraph 29(f) on page 53 and paragraph 35 on page 54 of the Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report acknowledge that "Dhola Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line."

Paragraph 29(f) on page 53: "This, in effect, meant that the post was actually NORTH of the McMAHON Line as then marked on the map."

Paragraph 35 on page 54: "DHOLA Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line as shown on maps prior to October/November 1962 edition."

Therefore, by India's own claim, the assertion that "there is no evidence that [Dhola] has been incorporated in Tibet" is false.

Erik-the-red (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

My statements were all factual, and thus I strongly disagree that my statements in the above quote qualify as "bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page" as claimed by Kautilya3.

Kautilya3 claim:

When I pointed out that expanding stubs is normal day-to-day activity, his reponse was "don't gaslight me".

My response: Merely pointing out that expanding stubs is normal would not merit any anger or frustration on my part. But that is not what Kautilya3 did. Instead, in response to my newly created section on the talk page, Kautilya3 wrote,

First of all, this page is on "Dhola Post", which is an Indian Army post. The location of this post is still under Indian control, as you can see from the map on this page. If there is a place called Dhola in Tibet, please feel free to create a new page for it. (As far as I know, there is no such place.) Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It is at this point that I started to angrily feel that I was being gaslit: the page was "on Dhola Post" because Kautilya3 unilaterally changed the page's title by himself/herself. It was previously titled "Dhola, Tibet."

Kautilya3 claim:

After seeing that there was no way to reach agreement, I set the page back to what it was earlier and started a new page on Dhola Post.

My response: This is a very self-serving, inaccurate description of what happened. On 23:19, 17 June 2020, I suggested to Kautilya3

in terms of resolutions, I am fine with a separate page called "Dhola, Tibet" and a separate page called "Dhola Post." Alternatively, I'm fine with one page called "Dhola Post" which clarifies that Dhola Post was established north of the McMahon Line and therefore was situated in Tibet, China.

On 00:15, 18 June 2020, Kautilya3 accepted my first proposed resolution. So it is not true that "there was no way to reach agreement"; I proposed two resolutions, and he/she agreed with one of them.

Kautilya3 claim:

The user immediately came over to the new page and started modifying it too. Between the two pages, they made 6 reverts in 24 hours, as documented in this ANEW report. The admins did not sanction the editor. So I set it aside for a while to let things cool.

My response: I was not sanctioned because Kautilya3's claim that I made "6 reverts in 24 hours" was false. I checked and discovered that 2 of his 6 alleged reverts were not reverts at all, while of the remaining 4, 3 were reverts on one article and 1 was a revert on another article. Instead of admitting that he/she had made a mistake, Kautilya3 chose to claim that I was trying to "game the system."

Kautilya3 claim:

During the debates, the user started calling me "extremely hypocritical" [1]. The supposed "hypocrisy" is that I called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is their preference.

My response: This claim by Kautilya3 is easily shown to be false by examining the link he/she provided. The full context of my words were:

You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," but it's a "cheap shot" for me to flip it back at you by pointing out that the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Government of India.

That is, the hypocrisy had nothing to do with Kautilya3's claim that he/she "called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is [my alleged] preference." The hypocrisy had to do with Kautilya3 accusing me of being motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," and then claiming that it was a "cheap shot" of me to flip the accusation back to him/her.

I hope that my preceding reply has demonstrated that Kautilya3

• falsely accuses me of "bitterly complaining" when I merely stated facts.
• falsely claims that "there was no way to reach agreement" when I suggested two resolutions, one of which he accepted.
• falsely claims that I "made 6 reverts in 24 hours" despite knowing that I was not sanctioned for those alleged violations.
• falsely claims that I called him a "hypocrite" because he did not agree to one of my alleged preferences.

and therefore that Kautilya3 has not discussed with me in good faith.Erik-the-red (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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).

Erik-the-red (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@El C: From what I can see, a user filed a lengthy complaint against me at 17:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC). You then issued a 72 hour block against me merely 9 minutes later at 17:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC) based entirely and exclusively on the user's "side of the story." Given the extremely short length of time it took for you to make your decision, as well as that your decision was made purely on one side's extremely lengthy complaint, I don't see how this is a fair decision.

Beyond fairness, I don't agree that the user's first five examples constitute "personal attacks." Looking at the user's complaint, the so-called personal attacks on 17-19 June all involve me calling him a hypocrite.

1. For the first one, he claimed that I did not seek consensus, even though he took it upon himself to unilaterally make extensive changes without first seeking any discussion on the talk page. That's hypocrisy.
2. For the second one, he insinuated that I was motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," and then when I flipped it back at him, he accused me of launching "cheap shots." That's hypocrisy.
3. For the third one, he gave me a boilerplate warning against reverting others' edits, even though he reverted several of mine. That's hypocrisy.
4. For the fourth one, he accused me of using primary sources, even though he himself added seven primary sources to the article references. That's hypocrisy.
5. For the fifth one, he claimed that what I wrote did not follow from the source. I then showed that what I wrote indeed followed the source. That's not hypocrisy, but it does follow the two other complaints I presented to him: dishonesty and gaslighting.

That's just the first 5 complaints. The user presented another 12 complaints, all from his own self-serving perspective. So again, I do not see how a fair decision could be made in less than 10 minutes based entirely on one user's side of the story.

Decline reason:

If you make personal attacks, you'll be blocked. It doesn't matter if you think the personal attack is justified or true. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Erik-the-red, I don't need more time than that to see that you called them a "hypocrite," and then after being warned against doing so, doubling-down on the insult again. That is straight-forward enough for me. I would also advise you to read WP:GAB closely, especially WP:NOTTHEM. El_C 18:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: To be clear, I am not "complaining about other people" or "excusing what I did with what others did." I am stating my belief that correctly pointing out when a person is being hypocritical is not an "insult" or personal attack.Erik-the-red (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I deem calling someone a "hypocrite" as a personal attack. Switching it to an aspersion in response to a warning against this is scarcely better. El_C 18:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: In WP:ASPERSIONS, the 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC) example states, "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe." From my perspective, I have provided evidence to substantiate my accusation of another of misbehavior; so I don't believe I've casted any aspersions at that user. But if you deem calling someone a hypocrite a personal attack (as opposed to an accusation of misbehavior), well, you are the admin.Erik-the-red (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see any evidence attached to that followup. Just insults and bad faith. Anyway, hopefully, another admin will attend to your appeal soon. El_C 19:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: That followup, as in what I wrote on 18:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)? If so, then I was referring to the evidence presented in my original appeal on 18:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC). If you are not convinced, so be it, but if your response is that you only see "just insults and bad faith," then while WP:GAB states that "the blocking administrator will have tried to assume good faith on your part" and "There is not much need to remind administrators to assume good faith, or to accuse administrators of failure to do so," I have no choice but to accuse you of failing to do that. In any case, thanks for your replies. The lesson I've learned is that you consider calling someone a hypocrite, justifiably or not, a "personal attack," therefore I will refrain from calling anyone that, justifiably or not.Erik-the-red (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, Erik-the-red, that you need to be told that calling someone a "hypocrite" is a personal attack, or that accusing someone of being "dishonest" isn't a problem that's rooted in bad faith and are not insulting, I just don't know what to say to that. El_C 19:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: WP:WIAPA states "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:" Calling someone a hypocrite or dishonest, justifiably or not, is not listed in any of the subsequent examples.

Like I said, you're an admin. So if you started off by assuming good faith on my part, and then seeing that I repeatedly called someone a hypocrite, justifiably or not, was enough for you to conclude that I was acting in bad faith, so be it. If you think calling someone a hypocrite, justifiably or not, is a personal attack, then so be it. I disagree, but I have to accept that you believe otherwise and you're an admin.

But respectfully, please don't act as if my disagreement with you (meaningless as it may be) is so beyond the pale that you "don't know what to say."Erik-the-red (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Erik-the-red, I'll qualify anything I say as I see fit. You are always welcome to bring anything I say or do up for review. I don't really have that much to add beyond that. El_C 19:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I would take you up on your offer. Then I checked around and saw that a certain user with a 4-character long name appears to wield a certain amount of power through certain Wikipedia review channels. So thanks for the offer, but I'll pass. Enjoy the rest of your week.Erik-the-red (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind you venting a bit, Erik-the-red. But I don't think it's to your credit. Good week to you, as well. El_C 20:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: As a follow-up, please post the following for me to the AE report if you deem it appropriate. Thank you.Erik-the-red (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(437 words) I would like to respond to Kautilya3's comments. Because of the 500 word limit, I cannot respond to all the claims, so I will show that Kautilya3's first and last claims do not accurately describe the events and use quotes taken out-of-context.

Kautilya3 claim:

On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example.

My response: I created the first section on the talk page and wrote the following:

@Kautilya3: You wrote that "there is no evidence that it has been incorporated in Tibet." However, paragraph 29(f) on page 53 and paragraph 35 on page 54 of the Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report acknowledge that "Dhola Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line."

Paragraph 29(f) on page 53: "This, in effect, meant that the post was actually NORTH of the McMAHON Line as then marked on the map."

Paragraph 35 on page 54: "DHOLA Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line as shown on maps prior to October/November 1962 edition."

Therefore, by India's own claim, the assertion that "there is no evidence that [Dhola] has been incorporated in Tibet" is false.

Erik-the-red (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not see how any reasonable person could construe the above statements to be "bitterly complaining that [Kautilya3] had modified the old page" as claimed by Kautilya3.

Kautilya3 claim:

During the debates, the user started calling me "extremely hypocritical" [2]. The supposed "hypocrisy" is that I called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is their preference.

My response: This claim by Kautilya3 is easily shown to be false by examining the link he/she provided. The context of my words were:

You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," but it's a "cheap shot" for me to flip it back at you by pointing out that the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Government of India.

That is, in context, I did not mention Tibet at all. Kautilya3 has thus taken two of my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I am motivated by nationalistic bias.

I hope that my preceding reply has demonstrated that Kautilya3

• accuses me of "bitterly complaining" when I merely quoted a source and stated one conclusion.
• takes my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I have a nationalistic bias.

and therefore that Kautilya3 has not discussed with me in good faith.Erik-the-red (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 12:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Response

@Kautilya3: I am responding to your your most recent comment here because I am presently blocked. I assume that you are aware of this comment on WP:NORN:

Attempting to use fine details like coordinates based on visually copying the map is WP:OR. Using it for broad imprecise information is fine.

Unless you are dissatisfied with that comment, I suggest we both agree that it is WP:OR to interpret coordinates from old sketch maps that are not drawn to scale. Therefore, unless you can find a map showing the location of Khinzemane that satisfies WP:COPYVIO, the article will not feature the OSM map upon which you marked the coordinates of your interpretation. Erik-the-red (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Erik-the-red, as per El_C's prescription at the WP:ARE, we have been asked to minimize interaction. Consequently, I will not be writing on your talk page. You are welcome to write your comments on the article talk pages, keeping in mind that you are expected to be commenting on content, not the contributors. I would also request you not to ping me when you write comments. Those comments are on a public forum and everybody is able to read and respond to them if they wish to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: As I wrote and I must assume in good faith that you read,

I am responding to your your most recent comment here because I am presently blocked.

As a courtesy to you, I reposted my comment to the article talk page at 17:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC), 13 minutes before your reply at 17:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC). You should have been notified of that repost prior to your 17:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply because as I have always done, I began the reply with @Kautilya3:. Therefore, it is not clear to me why you decided to post your reply to my talk page 13 minutes after I notified you that I reposted my comment to the article talk page. Erik-the-red (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I wrote here in order to tell you to avoid pinging me, in line with El_C's recommendation. You have now pinged me three times in an hour. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I think you should reread what the recommendation was:

I'm not sure there's IPA concerns beyond this one article. Why don't both of you turn to a dispute resolution request, like an RfC, and let others weigh in on the dispute? Limit interaction to the utmost in the interim.

I replied to you on my talk page because I was blocked at the time. Out of courtesy to you, I reposted my comment to the article talk page. Instead of replying at the article talk page, you decided to write on my talk page 13 minutes after I reposted my comment to the article talk page.

As I used the "reply to" feature, you were notified of my repost, and yet you still chose to come to my talk page and reply to complain that I not use the "reply to" feature. That's your right, and if you'd like to open a third request for arbitration against me because you came to my talk page to request that I not use the "reply to" feature when you reply to me, well, I can't stop you from doing that. But I can and will point out again that you chose to come to my talk page and post 13 minutes after I reposted my comment to the article talk page. Erik-the-red (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from all pages and discussions related to India's borders indefinitely. You may ask for the ban to be lifted after a period of not less than six months

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. RegentsPark (comment) 15:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)