Page semi-protected

User talk:Soham321

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo
Hello! Soham321, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! JackFrost2121(Frostbitten?/ My Work) 03:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Digvijaya Singh

Hi Soham, Just because you say so doesnt make it a WP policy, i already have a section an hour before you reverted my edits. Dont try to edit war. Involve in healthy discussion and gain consensus in the talk page before you edit(revert other peoples contribution) in that page especially when the section to discuss already existed before your reverts. And stop bullying other users claiming some unknown admin has warned people who are trying to interact with you. Also your edit summary shows that you reverted my edits disregarding WP:DRNC - so please try to remain constructive.  A m i t  웃   23:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Soham, you can't go around reverting other editors and claiming that only your version is neutral. Also, edit summaries like this one are combative and pointless because it is meaningless to invoke policy without explanation. If you persist in doing this, you may end up blocked. --regentspark (comment) 01:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see the talk page of the article for my explanation.Soham321 (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your post on the article talk page, I have no interest in what the article says. But, as a general rule, you want to be careful how you go about editing. Content is not determined by one person alone but must be arrived collaboratively through a process of consensus building. The best way to do that is to use the talk page when you're making edits that might be controversial (removing large scale pieces of text and/or finding yourself reverted are indications that the material is controversial). In that case, give your reasons on the talk page and ask others to explain their objections - relying on reliable sources to figure out what the appropriate content is. If you don't get resolution on the talk page, use some form of dispute resolution. Hope all this helps. --regentspark (comment) 17:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I am relatively a newbie to wikipedia and i was simply emulating what other posters--who appeared to be more experienced than me based on their posting history--were doing. I can give you other examples of where one person has simply removed an existing edit on what i personally thought were frivolous reasons. If you can explain to me whether the removal of these edits was violative of wikipedia policy then i would greatly appreciate it. I can point out in which articles this has occurred (and i am not talking of the Narendra Modi page now). I realize completely that edits have to be built through consensus, but what if multiple editors gang up together and try and blackball a politician they dislike using half truths and falsehoods.Soham321 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Soham, regarding the edit summary in this edit of yours. You might want to read WP:Vandalism. --regentspark (comment) 18:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. Soham321 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This is a non administrator notification, and will be logged as such on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

As Sitush has already let you know of the WP:ARBIP sanctions in the topic area I am posting this notification. Please follow the links and see what these discretionary sanctions entail. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you confirm whether you are an Admin, or are you just another 'experienced editor' who happens to be a friend of Sitush? Soham321 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The warning specifically says This is a non administrator notification. In response to the rest of your query, perhaps WP:CABAL? - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Does that mean an admin cannot give a non-admin warning? Also,why don't you let him speak for himself ? Soham321 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
No, there are two versions of the warning - one says it comes from an admin and the other is the one shown above. The wording is otherwise identical. - Sitush (talk)
I am not an administrator, however the arbitration committee in its ineffable wisdom has decreed that peons such as myself may notify people of these discretionary sanctions. In response to your second query, I have no friends. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The second part of your statement would have been more believable if you would have been making edits in the main page of the article under dispute. I can testify that you have not done so for at least quite some time; quite possibly you have not made a single edit in the main article under dispute. So the fact that you abruptly jumped to the talk page of the disputed article in defense of Sitush and then went on to issue me a warning on my talk page reminded me of certain rules regarding WP:Meat puppetry Soham321 (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I came here after seeing your comment about meat puppetry at Talk:Digvijaya Singh. I wouldn't bother writing this if I thought it was a waste of time, but you are clearly intelligent and able to communicate well in English, and there are many articles which would benefit from work by someone with an understanding of the topic and Wikipedia's procedures. However, you are going the wrong way at the moment, and it would require quite a lot of effort to gain the necessary understanding of procedures here. If you really want, I'll explain what WP:MEAT means (or you could get a quick answer at WP:HELPDESK—just ask if my activity warrants a description as a "meat puppet"; don't ask at WP:ANI because they may not react well to prodding). Discussing each other is very unproductive and if carried on for too long becomes highly disruptive. Disruption is tolerated for surprisingly large amounts of time, but eventually it is stopped. I mention that because often the stopping comes as a bit of a shock to inexperienced editors—they can't tell which advice is useful, and which is merely parrying from a political opponent, and they carry on for far too long until their removal is inevitable. Please stop referring to other editors in your article talk page comments—just focus on what content should be added, and what should be removed, and why. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I would emphasize that i am not a professional wikipedia editor, only an amateur. So if do get banned from the site, it won't be a big deal for me. Soham321 (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I got to that article from ANI, your accusations of meatpuppetry are personal attacks, I would recommend you refrain from any such further accusations. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I never made any direct accusation; i was very careful about my choice of words. Soham321 (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
A core principle here is "not bureaucracy"—Wikipedia is not a court of law where people get to argue about exactly what words are permissible. The community is sufficiently smart to recognize that you have suggested that I am a meat puppet, and if that kind of inappropriate behavior were repeated for long, sanctions would follow. The general rule is that it's ok to talk about another editor's behavior at a noticeboard like WP:ANI, if an explanation is provided (evidence). It is not ok to poke other editors anywhere else. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
If an editor who has never participated in the main article abruptly jumps into the middle of an intense argument in the talk page of that article between two editors who have actually participated (made edits) in the main article and starts taking sides than i think it is natural to have some concerns about whether the said editor is aware of certain wikipedia rules. Soham321 (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
If you wanted to ask, I forget exactly what led me to comment—I see a fair bit of stuff here, and the topic under discussion is not a major concern to me, but is one I have noticed. I have a wide variety of interests and spend a significant time hanging around noticeboards where I attempt to help those who are developing the encyclopedia. As I commented at ANI, it is well known among experienced editors that only a very small number of good editors work in topics connected with India, and that Sitush is one of them. My suggestion about WP:HELPDESK was serious—someone there would quickly confirm that my comments were standard operating procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Names in section heads

If you put my name in a section heading again, I'm going to do something pretty serious. You've been pointed to WP:TPG on several occasions and my patience is wearing thin. You are one of the worst cases of a single-purpose account I've ever come across here, and that includes people who have issued death threats to me. At least with them I knew where I stood. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And now you've done the same thing for someone else. I noticed that edit this morning and was tempted to revert you myself, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There have been occasions in the past when the same has been done to me. It is a way to attract attention to a specific section in a particular talk page of an article; you should not construe it to be something impolite. Soham321 (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not give a crap whether it has happened to you in the past - you should not do it, period. Now learn some manners. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Digvijay Singh, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I am not sure how else to get the message across to you, and I know that others have tried. Stop personalising, stop inserting names in section headings, stop being a general harasser of me on talk pages. You are entitled to discuss the content, that is all. Sitush (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I consider this a frivolous warning and an example of *you* harassing me. My own user name has been mentioned in the past in section headings in the talk pages of other articles, and i see no reason why i cannot do the same to you. It is a way to attract your attention to the the section in the talk page involving you and is in no way meant to harrass you in any way. I request you not to issue any further frivolous warnings to me since they could get you into trouble. Soham321 (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Soham, you are like a broken record with your trotting out of the phrase "in violation of wikipedia rules and guidelines" when referring to me. I could live with that bit if only you followed the very rules and guidelines that you trumpet so much. Not sticking usernames in section headings, per WP:TPG, is surely something that even you can manage? As for me getting into trouble for saying such things - go do your worst. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier, my own user name has also been mentioned in section headings of talk pages but i have never reacted in the irrational manner in which you are now behaving. Soham321 (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The relevant section in WP:TPG seems to be: "Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines.[3] Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators."
  • What this means is that i am permitted to refer to your edits in the talk page in the section headings providing those headings are written from a NPOV. Do you agree? Soham321 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No. You have completely misread the guidelines, just like you have misread WP:OWN and the various other of your favourite policy/guideline resorts. The fact that you have been told of these various misunderstandings by numerous people - here, at ANI, at DRN and on Talk;Digvijaya Singh - and still do not get it is extremely concerning. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The reason i am not worried about this is that experienced editors have used my user name in section headings in talk pages of articles. Soham321 (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, you should be worried because on Wikipedia you are responsible for your own actions. You cannot hide behind what someone else may or may not have done. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
If i am punished for referring to your edits in a section heading in an NPOV manner would the editors who used my user name in a section heading be similarly punished? Soham321 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
They should be if they continue to do so in a tendentious manner after being advised not to. But I'm not concerned about the alleged behaviour of anyone else - I am concerned about your behaviour and that is all that matters. You are responsible for your own actions. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Digvijaya_Singh, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sitush (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it your contention that you have never made any personal criticism of me during our interactions? Do you want me to produce evidence for your attacks on me? The difference is that i have never whined. What i said in the talk page is self-explanatory and i stand by it. Going back to an earlier edit which you had yourself modified after my criticism and when the said edit was still under dispute was behavior which i consider tricky. Soham321 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Your editing behavior is the topic of a discussion I started at WP:ANI. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


  1. You write: "Regentspark had written on my talk page: Soham, you can't go around reverting other editors and claiming that only your version is neutral. Also, edit summaries like this one are combative and pointless because it is meaningless to invoke policy without explanation. If you persist in doing this, you may end up blocked. --regentspark (comment) 01:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)"
  2. Earlier you wrote that "After the warning of RegentsPark i had clearly desisted from reverting Sitush's edits on the main article and had confined myself to discussing his edits on the talk page of the main article as can be seen."
  3. Your last revert was on 18:09, 7 August 2013, doesn't make sense to me.
  4. Discussing this here as I don't want to make the AN/I discussion murkier. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
In rapid fire discussions sometimes one can make genuine errors in one's posts. I will qualify what i wrote earlier. For the most part, i avoided reverting anything by Sitush and confined myself to the article talk page. However, when i did revert (and i was always reverted again by Sitush) on a few occasions i was careful not to revert the same edit more than once. The diff you give involves the edit discussed in this section of the talk page: Soham321 (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no need to treat this as "rapid fire", take your time to understand the issues the community has with your editing behaviour. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Beware of canvassing

Soham, there is a world of difference between asking for advice from someone who is already involved with a third party and who has tried to address the issues - as I did with Johnuniq - and canvassing. You are approaching people who have had no involvement with the article or yourself but whom you presumably think will be sympathetic to you because of past contretemps concerning me. For example, here, here and here. I do appreciate that the message you are leaving for those people is neutral in phrasing but, really, I think the community might take a dim view of it. Probably best not to continue in that vein. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, sorry. I've just looked at the ANI thread and I see that it has already been raised there. Sorry about this: I was trying to keep it below the radar. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It has certainly been raised in the ANI thread, and it has been raised there by me. As i explained i was unaware of WP:Canvassing. Meanwhile, this is the diff of you canvassing for support with Drmies: Sitush and Drmies. This was after you came to know of my prior disagreements with him when i gave you the link to the DRN discussion involving Drmies and me because you wanted to know precisely what the mediator TransporterMan had said about giving at least two reliable reference sources for disputed edits (as per WP:WELLKNOWN) in that DRN. This is the diff: [Sitush and Drmies 2]. With respect to you canvassing for support with User:Johnuniq, i am simply going to give the diff and let others decide whether it was canvassing or not: [Sitush and Johnuniq]. Soham321 (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, no. You are trying to read my mind and failing. I have had a long association with Drmies (as I have with many of the experienced contributors to matters Indian on Wikipedia) and, of course, I was heavily involved in the Narendra Modi article at the time that the DRN case arose. I already knew of the interaction between you and my request for information related to your claims of what TransporterMan had said, which could have been in any of the numerous DRN discussions that you have raised. As for Johnuniq, well, they have been involved in discussions with you and me, as well as on the article talk page and in a prior report at ANI. If you cannot see that Johnuniq has been trying to talk you away from the precipice that you are now facing then I am sorry that their time was wasted because, believe me, they went to some lengths to accommodate you. Yes, I am incredibly frustrated with the way you are handling things and, yes, that frustration will show because my tolerance for such behaviour is not as great as it is for some others who contribute to Wikipedia. It was out of frustration that I vented my experiences; there was no request for either of them to open a discussion at ANI, nor comment at a discussion anywhere ... although perhaps I did wonder whether Johnuniq could take one last go at applying some balm here on your talk page. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your explanation. I leave it to the community to judge whether you were canvassing or not based on the diffs i have given. Soham321 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Complaining to an admin is not canvassing afaik Soham. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Except that Drmies is not an Admin anymore as i found only yesterday (after my initial responses in the ANI discussion). I believe that Boing and Drmies are no longer part of the admin corps.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)You're right - what the heck is going on? Though, from Bwilkins' comment below, it appears that the contents of the email are beyond toxic so my suggestion is likely moot. --regentspark (comment) 15:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC) (all quotes from ) Soham321 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but he seems to remain an admin There is a very useful tool importScript('User:Ais523/adminrights.js'), you paste it in your monobook. Check this to get an idea how it is done, once it is activated, any editor who is an admin has his name highlighted when one sees it on talk pages, or places like an/i etc. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I am confused about Drmies's Admin status in view of what regentspark (another admin) said and whose quote i gave together with the reference in my earlier response. Also, Qwyrxian who also seems to be an Admin has written in the current ANI discussion: the only mistake I've significant mistake I've ever known Drmies to make was to give up his administrator status. I suppose i could directly ask Drmies this question on his talk page, but will refrain since that could exacerbate the problem. The people who will be adjudicating this case will know his current status. Soham321 (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
No need for confusion: for a while I wasn't an admin, now I am an admin again. That doesn't really matter much here; I'm not the one enforcing anything since I brought the matter up. Other admins will determine what's to happen. Thank you. (Also, Yogesh, I'm beginning to think that you are having a very positive influence, for which I thank you. The advice you've been giving Soham is, from what I can tell, very sound. I am always hoping for a positive outcome, and the outcome here should be that at least the Singh article suffers less from what I consider disruption. Thanks.) Drmies (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Soham, I have reviewed the AN/I discussion and I think the consensus is clear that a topic ban is appropriate. A narrow ban on the Digvijaya Singh was proposed and a much wider ban relating to all of Indian politics was also gaining support. I've decided to keep the ban to the restricted topic of edits relating to Digvijaya Singh, as a gesture of good faith and to allow you to remain editing in an area which is obviously of interest. The topic ban means you must not discuss or make any edits relating to Digvijaya Singh anywhere on Wikipedia. Obviously that includes the article itself and associated talk page, but also any other article, article talk, user talk or other project page where the edit relates to Digvijaya Singh in any way. The ban is for one year, until 9 August 2014. If you do make any such edits, I'm afraid you will be blocked.

Obviously, I understand that you will be disappointed and think this is unjustified and unfair. You believe you have been in the right and that others are the ones causing problems. I'm not going to try and persuade you otherwise but I do point out that the overwhelming tide on this AN/I and on the one you previously brought against Sitush was not in your favour. If almost everyone else is not persuaded by you, then either we are all very stupid, or conspiring together, or just maybe you are the one out of step.

I've left the door open for you to contribute on other topics here. Please try to do so differently in future; Wikipedia is not a forum or battleground, nor a court of law. Your long posts trying to justify your position have, I'm afraid, been counterproductive (the usual term is 'wikilawyering' and it gets people's backs up!) Carrying on editing as you have been is a recipe for wider and longer exclusion. If you want to edit here in the long term you are going to have to change your style to a more collaborative, less tendentious one. As one example, I would suggest you think very, very carefully before raising any more complaints at AN/I. (Post an edit here or on my talk page if you want to check out whether an issue would justify you doing so.) I'm sorry to be so blunt but you need to know where you stand. If you have any questions please post them here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Since you have made your decision, i see little point in discussing your decision with you. However, i would like to know what are my options for appealing your decision. I was checking WK rules, and i believe i can appeal this decision in the Arbitration Committee. I would like to know what other forums are available to me for getting your decision scrutinized. Soham321 (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Meanwhile, i would like to thank you for posting this message on my talk page and offering to engage with me. Soham321 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The information you need is here. But I urge you not to follow this route; just because you can doesn't mean you should. In your own interests, I'd advse against an appeal. Wikipedia is not a legal system where the logical thing to do is to appeal right up to the Supreme Court. Exercising your right without very clear grounds for an appeal is not going to help you and will only confirm the impression of wikilawyering. I'm not instructing you not to appeal - just advising you as an impartial administrator that it's unlikely to be helpful - quite the reverse. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the information. Soham321 (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry this has happened, let it be clear Kim's hasn't banned you, he's just interpreted the consensus regarding your behaviour. Please trust me when I say that Kim has been very considerate in keeping your ban very narrow. Please do not make things worse by reacting undesirably to this ban. Please read related policy on how to handle the issue. Please note that you're not allowed to write, discuss, comment, about Digvijay Singh directly, indirectly. If in doubt err on the safer side. Also take the suggestion about AN/I like another "topic ban", stay away from AN/I for a long time. This unsolicited advice it isn't meant to trouble you any further. Happy editing! You have over 43,01,800 articles to edit. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is a mild punishment, and i could easily live with it. But, as a matter of principle, i would like this decision to be scrutinized. I will state my reasons in my appeal. Soham321 (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Soham pl imagine yourself in the shoes of a closing administrator, and look through his eyes at the AN/I discussion. How would you have reacted to the discussion? 7 for v/s 2 3 against. And those seven pressing for more stringent action. Also action on Wikipedia is preventive and not punitive, you were banned because it is perceived that you will not be able to edit constructively in that area, as manifest from your editing history in that area. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually it was 7 vs 3 i believe. Also, i will point out that i was not 'friends' with any of the 3. Soham321 (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Long story short, drop the stick and move on, it is a long way to the end of the world. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  • not going to happen because i would always be worried about getting topic banned from some WP article if i disagreed with an 'influential' editor who had several Admins as personal friends. Soham321 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Good question. The best policy is don't undo when your edits are reverted, if what you've written is important, someone is bound to notice and bring it back. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Assume good faith towards others, and assume others have assumed (and will assume) good faith towards you. It is theoretically possible that the other editors who may have reported you, and the administrator who blocked you, and everybody involved, are part of a diabolical conspiracy against someone half a world away they've never met in person."[1] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Note to self

In the recent ANI discussion, the adjudicator was: Kim_Dent-Brown

  • 1.Those in favor of topic ban (confined to disputed article): Drmies, A.amitkumar, Lukeno94, Johnuniq, regentspark (5)
  • 2.Those in favor of topic ban on articles relating to politics in India: Sitush, Bishonen (2)
  • 3.Those in favor of temporary block: Mark_Miller (Amadscientist), Begoon (or at least 2), Qwyrxian (or at least 2) (3)
  • 4.Those against any ban: Yogesh Khandke, Pectore, OrangesRYellow (3)
  • So the actual vote seems to have been 10-3.
  • Of the above, the following are Admins: regentspark, Qwyrxian, Drmies, Bishonen
  • The following is a volunteer at DRN (not an Admin): Mark_Miller(Amadscientist)
  • The following is a volunteer at WP:Backlog (not an Admin): A.amitkumar
  • The following is a volunteer wikipedia new page patroller (not an Admin): Lukeno94
  • The following is a volunteer at WP:Lua (not an Admin): Johnuniq
  • Note:Begoon and Qwyrxian would be willing to support point 3, but believed at the very least the topic ban described in Point 2 should be imposed. Soham321 (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Unblockables

An interesting comment on Admins

  • The following is taken from:
  • The central goal of the admin system should be facilitating content building, not pandering to civility warmongers who want everyone else to conform to their fantasies of correct behaviour. At the heart of the dysfunction we call our "admin system" is a group of admins who have been inappropriately given the power to jerk about and block, not just vandals, but also the committed content builders. This might work if there were fewer admins, if the admins themselves were all committed and able content builders, if there was some sort of centralised control which ensured that individual admins didn't behave like loose cannons, and if standards of admin behaviour were sanctioned when appropriate. But that doesn't happen on Wikipedia. No admin on Wikipedia has ever been sanctioned for abusing a content builder. Instead we have an absurd Alice in Wonderland fantasy production, a tiresome procession of machinations by the often underqualified users who are our legacy admins for life. Admins are aided by retinues of social networking users who seem to resent the editors who have come here to build the encyclopedia. They track down content builders they can provoke and bludgeon into responding immoderately. They then run to like-minded admins with their charges of incivility and demands for blocks and bans. Content builders should be protected from these users. Referring to aggrieved content builders as "these people" who are a "rabble", as an admin has done above, may in the current climate help tighten the admin choke on content builders, but it doesn't further building the encyclopedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There are many other routes for dealing with civility issues. The workable ones involve a rationalisation of admin privileges, a rationalisation which the admin corps flatly refuses to allow. No burden has been placed on the shoulders of admins. A few good admins assume burdens in the process of administrating well, just as many content builders assume equally onerous burdens in building content well. One of the main problems is that there are far too many admins who shouldn't be admins. We have an absurd position where hundreds of underqualified and poorly performing users have been unjustly placed in positions of power and privilege over productive and able content developers. It is simply wrong, and I cannot understand why self respecting and capable admins are not keener to distance themselves from the unseemly mess. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Soham321 (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


Hello. The purpose of user talk pages is to communicate with other users. Lately you have been using it mostly to communicate with yourself — "notes to self" — in a way that includes personal attacks on other users. I see that many people have already warned you about this, warnings which you have not only removed — which is your right — but also ignored, which is a problem since the warnings have been well justified. The part of the section that's merely a factual summary of the discussion is (just) acceptable, but what you call "Recap of the discussion(for future reference)" is not, nor of course is the section "Regarding Mark_Miller (Amadscientist)". I suggest you keep this material (if you value it) on your own computer, away from Wikipedia, as it's not appropriate on any page of the project.

Since you've already ignored numerous requests to remove the material, including by the people you're describing in an uncivil way, I've removed it for you. Don't reinsert it or any similar material, here or on any other page, or you will be blocked for personal attacks. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battlefield. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC).

This discussion is continuing on . As i have explained to Bishonen her claim (in the edit history of my talk page) and also on her talk page that i have been editing my talk page using an IP is completely false and hence the restriction she has placed in my talk page (IP address users cannot post on my talk page anymore) is completely unjustified. Soham321 (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Hi Soham321. I suggest that you should reconsider your attitude towards Mark Miller. The ANI is a place where eds are expected to present their assessment of other eds behavior. It happens all the time at ANI and that is the primary function of ANI. If eds were not to present their assessment of other eds behavior, it would be very difficult for the ANI to function. It is my request that you should take such things in your stride and not hold it against anyone personally. Further, I suggest that you may consider making up with Mark Miller. I had become exasperated at another ed once, and then went on to make up with them. Please see User talk:Aurorion#An apology. This is a friendly suggestion and I hope you will not neglect it. Trust me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. It is possible that i might make up with Mark Miller in the future, but it is not possible right now. By the way, you might wish to see the following discussions i have had with Mark: and also Soham321 (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My talk page

You and another editor recently spent several hours doing this to my talk page when both of you might have been fighting vandals, expanding stubs or adding references. This is an encyclopaedia and the pair of you have wasted a ridiculous amount of energy to no avail. How has the encyclopaedia been improved by your efforts? You must learn when to give up and walk away, and how to do so sooner. If you carry on down this road it will be a short one for either of you. And Soham, Bishonen is one of the fairest and most respected editors and admins here on Wikipedia - you should take her advice very, very seriously indeed. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Since i have come to respect your judgement and sense of fairplay i have no choice but to follow your advice. However, i will maintain that Bishonen is wrong when she thinks i have been posting on my talk page using an IP address (for which she has blocked IP addresses to post on my talk page). My suggestion is that Bishonen should investigate whether i was the person who posted using an IP address and if she finds she is mistaken, she should remove the restriction she has placed on my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)