User talk:Lindashiers

Welcome

Hello, Lindashiers, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva

You need to get WP:CONSENSUS at the talk page once you see several editors reverting you. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still say you need to take it to the talk page. Please. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Wikipedia has many competent editors who can edit in a neutral and unbiased manner on India related topics. Unlike you I don't have time to sit 24x7 on Wikipedia and fight all day long. So thanks but no thanks. Lindashiers (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very simple. This is Wikipedia and Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus, as linked by Dougweller above. It is entirely possible that what the Wikipedia community decides does not conform to "truth" as some people think it to be but, regardless, the rules here apply. There is no need to watch over things 24/7 but there is a need to abide by the policies and guidelines that have been established by the Wikipedia project over many years. If you happen to disagree with this then your options are (a) try to change the policies etc or (b) publish what you think to be a correct version elsewhere on the web or in print. It really is that simple, sorry: you accept the principle of consensus or you go elsewhere. If you think that the interpretation of consensus itself is wrong then there is always dispute resolution - a range of possibilities for challenging someone's interpretation by appealing to a wider group pf Wikipedians. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is only one of Wikipedia's core policies, albeit an important one. I have clearly explained WHY consensus is not required in the present case - it is a simple behavioral misunderstanding which is already resolved. Apparently some of the regular "vigilante" (and subject-incompetent) editors at Wikipedia appear to be in the habit of driving away competent editors who have expert knowledge of the subject and are "content creators" rather than plagiarist hacks. If you don't know even the ABC of the subject please don't edit the article or interfere with those who do. I hope this is simple enough for you to absorb. Lindashiers (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite obviously not a new user. Please can you familiarise yourself with WP:SOCK, just in case there is a breach going on here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you accuse (!) anyone of anything, have you considered the possibility you take more time than the average editor from India (where the standards of education are considerably higher than those in, say, the UK) to grasp simple things like rules and polices which every website has nowadays. If you suspect a "breach" I'm sure you know where to take it to to confirm your bias. FYI what I wrote above is based in part on material in the public domain published in reliable sources, eg. [1]. "The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage.", and the misogynist majority here are bent on driving away female experts. PS: I'm still looking forward to the authentic text from pages 119-123 of Ramchandra Guha's book so that I can scan it for more plagiarism than already exists in the article. Lindashiers (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you haven't read WP:SOCK, then? The last thing this project needs is another aggressive contributor in the Indic article sphere. I suggest that you back off with your ludicrous claims of plagiarism, sexism etc right now. Those things may well exist but I am not a party to them and playing the men vs women card will not wash with me. I work with loads of female editors with no problems at all and there is no reason why I cannot work with you (who, until just now, I didn't even realise was female or identifying as such). - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive socking

Every experienced contributor you have crossed words with (and that is several) seems to be aware that you are not a new user. Combine that with your generally aggressive and disruptive behaviour and I'm beginning to think that I should seek a block of you even though I'm not yet sure who the sockmaster may be. There are exceptional circumstances when someone does get blocked as an obvious sock but in any event that could happen here because you are are also obviously disruptive. I suggest that you slow down a bit, try to collaborate, drop the POV commentaries and anti-British/anti-male agenda etc. You're on borrowed time if you do not: practically every article you have edited falls under the scope of discretionary sanctions, be they the specific caste-related ones or the more general India-Pakistan ones. Administrative action would thus not necessarily need consensus at WP:ANI or whatever.

Please take note of WP:ARBIPA and WP:GS/Caste. A templated sanctions notification follows for the latter of those and you can assume that the same provisions apply to the former. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

I have already specifically denied that I am "socking". Furthermore, I am asking you to list/specify "all pages about social groups" on which I am active. Activity on pages "about" social groups is a core ingredient for application of these discretionary sanctions. Lindashiers (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is India Against Corruption yet again. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked

Well, you made an intimation of legal action, so presumably you know well enough by now that a block would follow. So here it is. There are several things wrong with what you're saying, but I'll just leave you with one example: the OTRS does not and cannot represent the WMF. OTRS is staffed by volunteers in exactly the same way that the rest of Wikipedia is; it has no direct connection to the WMF and cannot make statements on the WMF's behalf. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the blocking Admin, I presume that you have carefully read the construction of the paragraph for which I was blocked. Since you have indeff blocked me, the "intimation of possible legal action" abates thereby. Now it is for the "English language Wikipedia Community" to sort out the libels and plagiarism in the India Against Corruption article, or not.

I say this again, we are not here to abide by any Wikipedia community's self written policies, we are here demanding enforcement of WMF's (the hosting service provider's) "Terms of Use" [2].

"Responsibility – You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content)."
Lawful Behavior – You do not violate copyright or other laws.Lindashiers (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the copyright violation claim is legitimate, we certainly will handle it by removing the copyrighted text. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, "8. DMCA Compliance" .."Pursuant to the DMCA, we will terminate, in appropriate circumstances, users and account holders of our system and network who are repeat infringers.". The record shows that if there is/was a copyvio, then Sitush is a "repeat infringer". We did not (in good faith) lodge a DMCA, and we really hope we don't have to. Lindashiers (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blog faking allegation

We are prepared to respond to each and every claim User:Sitush wishes us to clarify concerning this allegation. [3], [4]. You will find it instructive. What was he doing these past 7 days ? Lindashiers (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued legal threats. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I say this again, we are not here to abide by any Wikipedia community's self written policies, we are here demanding enforcement of WMF's (the hosting service provider's) "Terms of Use" [5]."

If you aren't here to abide by the terms of use of this site then you don't need an account and may deal with the WMF directly. You can't invoke the Terms of Use in your complaint when you are violating them yourself. Please deal with this matter off wiki.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protect

@Writ Keeper and Berean Hunter: can we semi this page, please? Continued block evasion (the IAC tend to use proxy servers, hence the wide geographic range). - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I've gotten about as involved in this as I'm comfortable with before my admin actions might start to be called into question. If Berean Hunter (talk · contribs) would like to semi-protect, they're more than welcome; otherwise, we might want to post at RFPP. And for the record, I can't follow post-block Lindashiers's logic as far as the legal threat goes, so I have no opinion on whether it is still looming or not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. They haven't understood that they should contact WMF directly and are now getting disruptive.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I understand, Writ. No worries. We may end up having to semi the IAC talk page, too, and that is always a drastic move. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BH. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to claim that established Wikipedia editors are your sock/meatpuppets, you can do so from those accounts directly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

This account has been confirmed by checkuser Ponyo to be a sockpuppet of User:Duffycharles. I've updated the block log accordingly. Bishonen | talk 23:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]