User talk:Rk adh

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Phulkharka.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Phulkharka.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Your recent editing history at Tinkar 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforement

There is a discussion concerning you at Arbiration/Requests/Enforcements. [1]. Please provide your comments there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 04:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

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. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Bishonen | tålk 20:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/30506 was submitted on 2020-05-30 20:32:23. This review is now closed.

Response carried over:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reasons for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. Please describe how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked.
Unfortunately, there is more than one issue. You have lost access to your talk page because of this statement, ( Redacted personal attack. )That is unacceptable behavior- personal attacks. I'm afraid you'll need to address that in you next unblock request. As it turns out, ARBPIA does apply-- you removed "The Tinkar Pass at the top of the Tinkar Valley is the de facto tri-junction between China, India and Nepal. The Article 1 of the China–Nepal border treaty of 1961 states." That's the sort of controversially contentious edit that should not be repeated without discussion and consensus if reverted. You were blocked for "nothere". The impression is that you are here to further some sort of off-Wiki agenda. Please address this in your next unblock request. Wikipedia needs neutral wording, which "this village was a stronghold of progressive forces," is not. It is politically charged. Please see my last point. This all seems beyond simple edit warring, but I'll leve you my boilerplate edit warring decline anyway. Please see our policy on edit warring (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring). In the event of a content dispute (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution), editors are required to stop reverting, discuss (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle), and seek consensus (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus) among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Noticeboards) and/or seek dispute resolution (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution).
Points to ponder:
Edit warring is wrong even if one is right. Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal. Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior. To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute.
Thanks for your attention to these matters.

--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You were warned. Repeatedly. Thanks. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your UTRS Account

You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB (owner / report) 02:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your UTRS Account

You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB (owner / report) 02:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UNblock discussion and UTRS 30749

user is requesting unblock via UTRS. I have restored TPA and will copy request here per discussion with bocking admin. (>or blocking admin, as it were --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 11:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

1. “Please describe how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked” – I should not delete other editor’s content. In future edits, I will insert my edits and engage for consensus-building if another editor opposes with valid arguments. You said, “That's the sort of controversially contentious edit that should not be repeated without discussion and consensus if reverted” – I like this argument and committed to follow it in the future before engaging with any controversial edits.
2. “You were blocked for "nothere". The impression is that you are here to further some sort of off-Wiki agenda. Please address this in your next unblock request.” – That time, I felt, a blocking was unfair towards me and subjective. I stated my goal clearly in my account to contribute enhancing the credibility of Wikipedia knowledge. After reviewing Wikipedia policies, I found that the way I worked was wrong (e.g. Edit warring). A single incident (because of newness to wiki policies) may not be justifiable to block me perpetually, that’s why I request you to unblock me and in fact, I learned a lot of Wikipedia policies because of this incident. One thing is clear, I may not be able to contribute regularly because of my other responsibilities. By the way, I thought the warning that came to me repeatedly from another editor during edit warring was the intimidation to me and I was expecting some intervention from third editor/administrator. Now I understood, I was wrong on it too.
3. “You have lost access to your talk page because of this statement, ( Redacted personal attack. )That is unacceptable behavior- personal attacks. I'm afraid you'll need to address that in you next unblock request” – Some sort of actions triggered those attacks and I do not want to explain those now. I am sorry for making personal attacks and I won’t repeat personal attacks in the future. You said, “Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy”, this is really true and eye-opening for me. I must be careful while engaging with others about edits, and should prevent myself from resorting to any attacks.

--Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user's block occurred after the admins saw the evidence at my ARE request. If it appears that the user may be unblocked, I would request that an ARBIPA sanction appropriate to that request be applied simultaneously. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they have addressed the behavior that led to the request for sanctions. However, if they socked in May, that would preclude unblocking until November at the earliest. Do we need a checkuser? I think we need a condition of zero tolerance of the behavior that led to the block. And probably 0RR or 1RR. Any other conditions can be added as we go along in this discussion. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 09:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do believe they socked in May, on May 19,[2] and I blocked Govinda Paudel per WP:DUCK. Govinda Paudel was created and used before Rk_adh was blocked, so not block evasion. Presumably, rather, it was in order to edit war more effectively. (Bad enough, obviously.) Also, in connection with this, I have a question for Rk_adh: why did you create your account in 2011, but did not make your first edit until 2016? That is what we call a "sleeper" account, and they are sometimes abused. Please reply below, and also address the matter of the Govinda Paudel account.

Anyway. I think this is very soon to unblock. The unblock appeal is good, except that I don't think they address their nationalist POV-pushing at all satisfactorily. Saying, as they do, "I stated my goal clearly in my account to contribute enhancing the credibility of Wikipedia knowledge. After reviewing Wikipedia policies, I found that the way I worked was wrong (e.g. Edit warring)." is not good enough by any means. Yes, they stated that there were here to enhance Wikipedia's credibility — all nationalist POV-pushers do tend to state that, it's easily done. There is so much more wrong with nationalist editing than just "edit warring", and I can't see that the user has any concept of that. I'll ping EdJohnston who made a strong and IMO fair statement at AE. Any comment, Ed? I agree with Kautilya that the very least sanction we can apply in case of an unblock is an ARBIPA sanction, such as an indefinite topic ban from pages related to Nepal, broadly construed. (Topic bans from Nepal may not actually come under ARBIPA DS, I'm not sure, but obviously we can set a ban from whatever we choose as a condition of unblocking.) Bishonen | tålk 10:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, it would be adequate to apply a topic ban for Indo-Nepalese disputes. That would be covered under ARBIPA. If the editor would like to apply their energies to improving Nepal pages that are unconnected to India, that would be good for them and us as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this comment by User:Rk adh on 19 May:

If anyone is visiting this page, I want to make clear that User: Kautilya3 with help of some Wikipedia administrators (Bishonen, EdJohnston etc) is spreading misinformation. This agent is involving creating controversy everywhere. I feel this was possible because that agent inserts one poison sentence (many controversial words in some cases) in a paragraph of 10 good sentences, for some wikipedia administrators, it is a contribution to 'encyclopedia'. That agent also distorts the spirit of source materials and also reference incorrectly. For example, "A country has ongoing claims to the territory.." but the source for such a poisonous sentence was from year 1998. In such case what does 'ongoing' means? Wikipedia should know it is year 2020. In addition, the agent also piles of the unrelated materials in article to spread misinformation. The agent works all the time (it can a paid team using same username) and also uses personal attacks and make others agitated and trap. If anyone has good knowledge of information technology and time, remove such virus from cyber world. I cannot do it because of time, interst and technical capacity to do so, rather I stop reading such a garbage.

I guess this means Kautilya3, Bishonen and I are part of a paid team, and that we constitute a virus. So no, I do not favor an unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, I created my account in Wikipedia long time ago assuming that there might be extra privileges for account holders than non-account holders such as in YouTube account (e.g. save favourites). In those times I heard, a user could create articles in Wikipedia but did not have any idea how to do it. My first article was created to practice a writing. Frequent travels and my regular job responsibilities prevented me from more contribution than other editors but I was a regular user of Wikipedia articles of my discipline.
About User:Govinda Paudel, I never ever had or created second account in my knowledge, nor pushed anyone to support my cause. User:Govinda Paudel should himself/herself face a consequence that it involved. I do not want to make any kinds of presumption or guess and, produce any unsubstantiated meaning out of User:Govinda Paudel issue. Ram Adhikari (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. I guess we do need a CheckUser, then. I have asked one. Bishonen | tålk 21:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The CheckUser found no connection. Sorry for suspecting you of socking, Rk adh. I still think it's too soon to unblock, per EdJohnston. Ed's post also reminded me of this accusation against Kautilya. But if you want to unblock on conditions, Deepfriedokra, I won't stand in the way. Please note Kautilya's comment above; topic ban from Indo-Nepalese disputes might be enough, though I'm not sure it wouldn't involve difficult grey area decisions. How about that, @Kautilya3:? You know more about it than me. Bishonen | tålk 11:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, restriction from "all pages dealing with India broadly construed" would be easier to administer, I think. That is similar to what we do with other similar ARBIPA cases.

Deepfriedokra, the issue is nationalistic POV, not only misconduct towards editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I specialize in high-risk unblocks. And I've had my heart broken more than once as a result. My cynicism compels me to be less tolerant of relapse than some. Which is to say i haven't the patience for recidiivism or boundary testing That equates to zero tolerance for the behavior that led to a block. All around apologies to everyone who has been offended looks like a good idea, even if it means reiteration of them. Do we need to log any conditions or restrictions as AE or just in the unblock log? Dozing off. Worked last night. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 11:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your cynicism? Haha, you're the AGF guy. If you set restrictions purely as unblock conditions, without reference to any discretionary sanctions (and involving DS would just be an unnecessary detour IMO), I think they only need to go in the block log, not the AE log. Please set out all details in the block log, such as how long restrictions are for. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

All right. I admit it. I hate DS. I hate the fuss and bother. A neutral, uninvolved admin should be able to act without the Wikidramaz. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are all interested parties OK with this being an unblock condition. The DS thing was mooted by the block. If violated, unblock conditions would actually be easier to enforce without going to the AE Noticeboard. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with the conditions listed below. Nothing to do with AE. If the user accepts the conditions and then violates them, they should be first warned and next time be re-blocked, by any admin so inclined. Bishonen | tålk 22:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Looks like we are all set . . . ? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock conditions proposal

Zero tolerance for any sort of personal attack. Particularly breathtaking is the quote referenced by Ed Johnson. Yes. I know you have apologized and the personal circumstances have changed and you have taken on board the advice of addressing content and sourcing rather than saying bad things about people. That is what persuaded me to seek unblocking.Still, given Ed's concern, I must memorialize it here.
WP:0RR-- If reverted, you will please not revert. You will instead discuss, seek consensus, talk it out. Please explain what you mean if you challenge cited material.
Hand in hand with these is assuming good faith. I hate being contradicted. I take a number of calming breaths and don't address the matter till I can say "please" and "thank you" and mean them.
A topic ban on "all pages dealing with India broadly construed" is a real mouthful. The problem was, I think nationalistic editing about Nepal-India. Think long and hard about this one. It would be easy to think you were just editing about Nepal and enter this area as well. You must steer well clear of " Indo-Nepalese disputes". This is where the other conditions become extremely important. A willingness to self-revert, apologize, and politely seek clarification could make the difference between being thanked and being reblocked-- with all the attendant melodrama.
It would be OK to focus on "improving Nepal pages that are unconnected to India".
These conditions will remain in effect for 6 months from the time of unblocking and may then be reviewed/discussed/rescinded at WP:AN, or may be modified/rescinded by any admin who feels so inclined.

(Please ping me when ready to accept or seek modification of these proposed consitions.) Thanks, --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra:, thank you for a proposal and to me, this is a great deal of work you made. By following your suggestion “calming breaths”, I wrote some suggestions to make those conditions more specific and measurable in case of misuse or violations.

Zero tolerance to personal attacks: Principally, I cannot disagree with this condition as it applies to everyone in Wikipedia. But my question is how to define ‘personal attacks’. What is not offensive to me can be offensive to someone else because our community represents full of diversity in terms of culture, race, gender, nationalities, and geography. Honestly, some sentences or phrases I used during this dispute was not meant to attack personally, but others did not take that way. When you engage in user page discussion, sometimes it is hard to avoid referring to each other, for example ‘you don’t be silly’. Thus, I suggest, it should be assessed by any previously uninvolved administrator whether any claim is personal attack or not.
WP:0RR is toughest one and may be suitable for editor who engage repeated edit warring. A minor personal error can also result it. Reverting (not disruption) is one of the beauty of Wikipedia where original contributor has to think twice whether s/he is really correct if a good reason is provided. Thus, it improves the articles quickly those have factually incorrect, choppy and un-sequential sentences in a paragraph and brings efficiency in expanding the article in coherent way. As in this dispute I was not breached even WP:3RR (more than 3 reverts), I should consider for WP:2RR.
Third condition (assuming good faith…) is okay to me, however I did not understand “mean them”.
You mentioned…….The problem was, I think nationalistic editing about Nepal-India….You must steer well clear of " Indo-Nepalese disputes"………This condition is also neither specific, nor measurable in binary scale (yes/no). I do agree that nationalist POV is problem if an editor ignores or distorts reliable facts and stick blindly to his/her ‘my country first’ principle. In general, I believe that allowing or placing different viewpoints in an article makes the article more balanced, comprehensive and thereby credible. In my opinion, this is particularly important when the topic is more controversial in nature. Having said that I suggest reconsider about this condition and please do not impose it to me. If you still consider yourself “Indo-Nepalese disputes” (probably you mean border dispute?) is important condition, please find other specific and measurable alternative bans which is equivalent to it. When things are all-clear, life gets easy for everyone.
It would be OK to focus on "improving Nepal pages that are unconnected to India" -----Do not limit me to Nepal. I should not praise myself, but I can contribute topics of global scope, for example, carbon accounting, unit root tests etc effectively. If you want this condition, condition 4 above will be obsolete.
….6 months….This condition is okay if you address my suggestions.

Ram Adhikari (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm. @Bishonen: back to you. I'm heading into my sleep-work-sleep-work-sleep cycle. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

I am releasing this appeal. Any reviewing admin may decline at their discretion. Any reviewing admin may unblock on any conditions acceptable to Bishonen. Cheers, stay safe. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 02:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins, please provide me comments -- Ram Adhikari (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me. Ram Adhikari (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me.Ram Adhikari (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked in 38 minutes when one 'commented' and other 'agreed'. Ram Adhikari (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, if you cannot unblock, just delete this account. Ram Adhikari (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators do not seem careful, blocking the account since 2 years and taking no action. Ram Adhikari (talk)

I will reply tomorrow. Bishonen | tålk 21:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Rk adh: Right back at ya. It is up to you to convince a reviewing admin that you will cause no further disruption. Not me. Not Bishonen. We took all the action needed by first blocking you and then, out of great magnanimity, I restored talk page access to give you the opportunity to request unblocking. Which opportunity you have squandered. Which you continue to squander. I am now convinced that you will cause further disruption if unblocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock offer

Hi, Rk adh. You made a poor start at Wikipedia, but I'm quite impressed that you are still, now, trying to get unblocked and expressing wishes to contribute. I will unblock you on the following conditions:

1. No personal attacks, and no assumptions of bad faith (read Wikipedia:Assume good faith).

2. No edit warring, per WP:Edit warring.

3. You must not edit any pages or discussions concerned with Indo-Nepalese disputes, broadly construed.

You will notice that conditions 1 and 2 are no more than what applies to all users. I'm only putting them as conditions in the sense that I will be more strict about them in your case, and not give you several warnings before blocking. All three conditions apply to the next six months; after that, you may ask me to lift them, and if I think you have abided by them, I will. Or you may ask the community to lift them at WP:AN.

It's a pity that you exhausted DFO's (considerable) patience by arguing about his unblock conditions in 2020. I can very well understand that your "What is not offensive to me can be offensive to someone else", etc, and especially your insistence on continuing to edit concerning Indo-Nepalese disputes in your point 4 above ("You mentioned...") made him throw up his hands in despair. I've no idea why you think "steering well clear of " Indo-Nepalese disputes" is not "specific" (?) nor "measurable in binary scale (yes/no)" (??). As far as I'm concerned, it's both. Just steer well clear of such disputes. Don't edit any article or discussion that has to do with Indo-Nepalese disputes. Is that specific enough? If the article is, to the best of your judgment, only about Nepal, or only about India, without involving any Indo-Nepalese disputes, then you may edit it. If another user should introduce the dispute angle into the article, or on the talkpage, you don't respond. This is what a topic ban is. And remember that if you're unsure, you can always ask me, before you place an edit, if it's allowable under your restriction. Also, if you worry whether or not something is a personal attack, you can ask me first.

The above is not an invitation to more arguing. You may ask what I mean by anything in my three conditions, but if you start arguing about them, like you did with DFO, I will withdraw this offer. You are not going to be allowed to edit about Indo-Nepalese disputes for the next six months, so you might as well not ask. Bishonen | tålk 07:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. I should have pinged Deepfriedokra. Doing so now. Bishonen | tålk 08:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

No need to ping. You got this. "Don't edit any article or discussion that has to do with Indo-Nepalese disputes, is a complete statement-- so full of portent and plenipotence.Tu es la migliora fabbra.

Great Ghu! This is two years old. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And getting older. Either Rk adh doesn't like my offer, or they're not watching this page. Can't be helped; they don't have e-mail enabled. Bishonen | tålk 05:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bishonen for the comments. I accept your conditions. Ram Adhikari (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good! You have been unblocked. Happy editing. Bishonen | tålk 07:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]