Lakhbir87
Welcome!
|
Welcome!
|
Tips edit
Hi, thanks for your work on the Ladakh page. I would like to mention a couple of points:
- Please be sure to write edit summaries for every edit. This is especially important when you make a long sequence of edits so that we can distinguish them from one another.
- You can use the citation tool at [1] to generate citations for Google Books URLs.
If you're interested in preventing an edit war you should be making your case on the article talk page. This article has been the object of much contention and requires discussion to establish consensus not contiuing reverting. Tiderolls 14:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Like most people I warn, you seem to have chosen not to read the relevant policy. Perhaps you have read WP:Edit warring and have failed to take the full meaning. Allow me to explain. It takes two (or more) editors to edit war. One cannot prevent an edit war by reverting. If you are sincere in your commitment to avoid the article, I applaud your restraint. For future reference, please understand that discussions are easier to follow when kept in a single location. There's no need to reply to me on my user talk; if I post here I will watch this page if interested in your reply. Tiderolls 15:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Blocked edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Tiderolls 09:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)You were warned edit
And yet you insisted on returning to the article and reverting. Understand that if you return from your block and repeat this behavior, longer block periods will result. Tiderolls
Unblocked edit
I think that you should have an opportunity to revert your last edit to Muhammad Iqbal. If you go back to the article and undo your edit you can avoid an edit warring block. Failure to do so will demonstrate to me that you either do not understand the policy or are willfully disregarding it. Tiderolls 09:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Stay in your limits edit
You have recently acted excessively for a mere revert. You seem it necessary to block me who only reverted 2 times just to stop others doing what they want. I understand the meaning of the policy but you shouldn't be blocking someone until they are definitely edit-warring. I am instead of reverting, going to complain the others if they revert again as the situation looks out of hand. In case you feel the edits should be reverted, you can revert then yourself, I have no objection as you are an admin. But please don't try to bully me over small reasons and because I'm new. If you bully me again then I will complaint about you. I have no tolerance for bullying people like you who think they can do whatever they want. Lakhbir87 (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've already requested that you keep discussions in a single location. Your lack of compliance with that request as well as your complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy is very concerning. Suffice it to say almost every point in your message is incorrect. The one correct point you make is that the situation is out of hand. That is due to editors, such as yourself, contiuing to revert without establishing consensus for your content. Again, go to the article and undo your edit so you can avoid a block and join the discussion on the article talk page. Tiderolls 10:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I told you not to bully me again and not to tell me what to do. I said I have no problem with you reverting it. The whole problem is because of editors like yourself. One who think they are entitled to do what they want. And why are you stressing so much upon keeping minor things like keeping discussion on my talk page only? It seems that you are not interested in peaceful discussion and only solve things by threats of block. It seems like you're not going to improve your abusive behaviour. Fine then, I am going to report you in a short time to the other admins, clearly you have exceeded your limits and don't have a proper understand of what to do and what not to, there's no choice left. Lakhbir87 (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's not bullying for someone who is more experienced to tell you that you are wrong. I have offered you the opportunity to undo your edit so that you can demonstrate that you are willing to abide by policy. Administrators do not decide, in most cases, what content remains in articles. That is an editorial decision. You can make whatever complaint you feel necessary after you have undone your edit. Tiderolls 10:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear sir, I wonder why despite being more experienced you think that you are the only correct one. Are you implying that I am inferior because I'm new. You are bullying and being aggressive and telling others to follow your diktat and do what you want. That is not how Wikipedia works, even I know that. Neither I see there being anything against admins deciding whether something to be reverted, an admin is an editor too. I am always going to abide by any policy. But I do not abide by anyone's bullying who think they can do what they want. Again if you want the edit undone, I have 0 problem. Try reading the edit-warring rules yourself. From what I've read, regardless of whatever reason I revert my edit again I will be breaking the edit-warring rule regardless of whether it is to show my honesty to an admin. And I don't see any reason why you can't revert it. So please revert yourself. You are crossing your limits therefore I am going to make a report about you to have others admins to take action. Lakhbir87 (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- If an admin gives you an opportunity to revert yourself and thereby correct a mistake, they are not going to call that a foul. A self-revert does not count as a revert. Your distrust in Tide rolls concerns me greatly, and the accusation of "bullying" is more properly uttered in a high school lunchroom than in this case, in an encyclopedia, where adults discuss content and, sometimes, the weather. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Your comment seems to be a joke hurled at me and it seems that you're bullying me for using the world "bully". I am 29 years old, so please don't make fun of me. If a self-revert doesn't count as a revert then I'm sorry. I thought it did. Thank you for your note. Lakhbir87 (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- No joke, and your charges of "bullying" sound a bit shrill, given that you are now blocked for being a sockpuppet. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Why have I been blocked again? I'm not a sockpuppet. This user SheriffIsInTown seems to be trying to get revenge for reverting him. How do I get unblocked? Lakhbir87 (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
How do I do that? Lakhbir87 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- What part of the instruction is giving you a problem? I don't know if I can communicate the concept in any simpler terms. Tiderolls 15:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
How do I request an unblock from my account? And I've noticed that it's Drmies who's himself blocked me over claims of "sockpuppetry" by Sheriff. Lakhbir87 (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, you log in to the other account and request an unblock, like you did before but with a different reason. CheckUser is a powerful tool and, in this case, left no doubt. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Drmies, I have no other account and the only reason you cited is of "behavioural evidence" which makes it seem that you're involved with Sheriff and claimed me to be a sockpuppet. Now please unblock me immediately or tell me how to ask for an unblock from my account. Lakhbir87 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Drmies will you unblock or not? You're block of sockpuppet seems clearly out of wrong and false reasons. Lakhbir87 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
SPI notice edit
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KahnJohn27. Thank you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
February 2016 edit
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
Lakhbir87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This user has blocked me by falsely claiming to be a sockpuppet of User:KahnJohn27 based on some apparent "behavioural evidence" which is also false as I don't understand how they claim to have "behavioural evidence", which seems most likely to me to be made-up because I reverted their edits on the same article as KahnJohn27. And the editor User:SheriffIsInTown who was the complainant was involved in edit-warring. I ask this block to be removed as it based on false claims.
Decline reason:
The block is based on checkuser evidence that there is a technical connection between the two accounts, and not just on behavioral evidence. You will need to explain that if you wish to make a new unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2016 (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.
User:Boing! said Zebedee This is just ridiculous. How am I going to explain about something I don't even know about? Now I see that Drmies claims he did a "CU run based on behavioral evidence. Editor was careful but slipped". This seems more like than a block based on edits rather than any actual evidence or supposed "technical connection". This block is definitely done with false reasons deceitful motivations. Lakhbir87 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Edits are actual evidence. Tiderolls 17:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You misunderstand. A block based on CU (WP:Checkuser) *is* based on a discovered technical connection between the two accounts, and you would need to explain how both you and KahnJohn27 appeared to be technically the same. It is possible that such discovered connections can be accidental, but Wikipedia logs apparently indicate that such a connection exists. Also, accusing others of having deceitful motivations is considered a personal attack and is likely to lose you the ability to edit even this talk page. To sum up, if you wish to be unblocked, you need to be able to explain how you and KahnJohn27 appeared to be the same person based on logs of technical information about your connections to the site. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't think that the comment by Drmies means that the block is based on edits. To my understanding, what Drmies means by his comments is that the editor created accounts named such as they can never be linked and claimed he is some German footballer named Kahn and his friends call him John and his jersey is number 27 and the other account named Lakhbir an Indian name so by being careful the editor tried not to edit same pages from both accounts until it became absolutely necessary for him to do so, to evade a block to continue with edit-warring. The editor created the second account one month after his last block just to make sure that when he gets blocked next time for edit-warring so he has another account to continue with his edit-warring. When Drmies is saying that the editor was carefull, i think that's what he means but then he ran CU on them, he found technical evidence linking them both. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Boing! said Zebedee I cited the reason itself that makes it clear it's based more on "behavioural reasons". As for Checkwiki or connection, I don't understand anything about that nr I understand how am I explaining that I'm not someone else, and I'm me. And I just said what seems most likely to me especially based on "behavioural evidence" of especially SheriffIsInTown and Drmies as well. Lakhbir87 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, the report states that behavioural evidence is what led Drmies to run a Checkuser check, and that check uncovered a technical connection between the two accounts - I don't know what that connection is, but it could be something like same IP address or same computer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
User:SheriffIsInTown Now I'm some German footballer called Kahn who creates account after one month of block. Or are you just trying to vengeful, override everyone else's opinion and are claiming this because I reverted your edit-warring on a Pakistani personality? And also please try to remember, I didn't say nobody else called User:vaibhav times as a spammer, I said you were getting aggressive over them changing text about a Pakistani personality. The whole truth of why you did this is easily visible to anyone. Lakhbir87 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, i am not saying that you are a German footballer named Kahn, that's what you claimed on your other user page, i was just mentioning the tactics used by you behind creating multiple accounts so nobody can suspect you for being a sock-puppet. Someone claiming to be a German footballer does not make them so. You could be anything and claim to be anything. As you might have noticed the spammer is blocked as well. So stop discussing other's matters and discuss your own block because it's kind of evasion of a block when you you use your unblock request to settle other scores. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Now I have an another account. Your shutting down of me with false complaints because I didn't let you edit-war on Iqbal, someone considered legendary in Pakistian are easily visible to anyone. And I directly provided your own comments as proof. The one who should have been blocked here is you, you're nothing but a disruption causing editor. I have been discussing my block all along and I just have explained that real reason behind th block. Lakhbir87 (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am not going to respond to any accusation you make towards me anymore because this is not the proper forum for that. You are welcome to discuss your block with the admins. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Of course you won't, not because it's not the proper forum (even though the're all related to my block), but because you already know they all are true. Lakhbir87 (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
