User talk:Son of Kolachi

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Son of Kolachi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Umair Aj (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Son of Kolachi. You have new messages at Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir.
Message added 06:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBig Xray 06:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert[edit]

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 recently 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 any 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) 13:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Thank you. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating WP:1RR on Human rights abuses in Kashmir, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

Son of Kolachi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the administrators' noticeboard. I have been blocked for a period of 72 hours for allegedly violating WP:1RR. Even though I haven't been blocked previously, I was handed a three day block while other users have recently been given lenient blocks of just 24 hours. Firstly, the user that reported me has been making reverts on the same Human rights abuses in Kashmir article himself, that too without engaging on the talk page and I am the one being blocked. The blocking admin didn't even wait to hear from me. The first diff reported was a revert from 28 July. The second diff reported was actually an edit that I made on 2 August and not a revert. The third diff reported is the ONLY revert that I made on 2 August that too when the reporting user had reverted me. Now if both me and the reporting user made a revert on 2 August, how does that violate WP:1RR and why I'm the only one being blocked? This was simply a content dispute where the reporting user never engaged in a discussion but the admin decides to block me without a violation of 1 revert per 24 hours even occuring. Son of Kolachi (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Account is not presently blocked. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Copied to here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Care to explain, how does what you are referring to as 'Revert 1', happen to be a revert? Whom did I revert there? Son of Kolachi (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. You removed an addition (reversed actions of other editors). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this account as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Liborbital. It doesn't really matter which. You happen to be making the same edits, sometimes logged in and sometimes as anon IPs. Because of the latter, some of the evidence cannot be shared publicly with non-checkuser admins so I have made this a checkuser block. If you would like them to be able to review the evidence then you will need to give your consent to the checkusers to share your IP information publicly. Otherwise, only other checkusers will be able to review any unblock requests that you happen to make and I will share evidence with them via email.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: Hi! This SPI in July this year resulted in my being Unrelated to Liborbital. Would you tell me what led to this CheckUser without there being an open SPI? Would you be able to share evidence (whatever that is) with me via email, for me to review it? So I can get what this is all about. If I'm not aware of what the allegation is or where it stems from, what am I supposed to appeal to Arbitration Committee about? Am I a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet? If you yourself aren't clear about this, then why this block? Son of Kolachi (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: @BU Rob13: @Swarm: Can you admins please look into this opportunistic reversion campaign started by Lorstaking? Son of Kolachi (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Thanks a lot for the few restorations you did. Could you please also restore all the other removals Lorstaking is aggressively continuing to make? Son of Kolachi (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. --Saqib (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: You need to see this IP. 119.160.118.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also 45.116.232.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 45.116.232.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 45.116.232.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) --Saqib (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: I'm still waiting for your response. If you aren't going to respond, have the courtesy to say so. That way I'll know & I'll proceed to emailing ArbCom. @Saqib: Nice suggestion. Berean you are more than welcome to run these IPs against me a 100 times if that's what satisfies Saqib. Son of Kolachi (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvited guest has been keeping me busy. Saqib, I'm too busy to look at the moment but since Son of Kolachi has pinged Ivanvector and BU Rob13, they can consider it. Son of Kolachi, I have sent some info to others for review. To answer a couple of your questions, we don't have to have an open SPI case in order to investigate. We also block both sockpuppets and meatpuppets; I don't need to be clear on that as they are treated as same. Arbcom set the precedent.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of international prime ministerial trips made by Imran Khan for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of international prime ministerial trips made by Imran Khan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international prime ministerial trips made by Imran Khan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

PepperBeast (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]