1502:
media (and
Twitter) are extremely interested in what happens on Knowledge. You're being watched, now maybe I'm being watched. You know that. It's not as though there's no way your employer is going to know about your Knowledge activities. Edits that endanger your job security, edits that enhance it, they're all relevant. And that means, to me a least, any edits about the Indian media, any edits about Indian politics, and any edits about religious disputes are areas that you need to avoid. If nothing else interests you, then that's a shame but you're active on other Knowledge projects, right? I see you've asked whether abandoning your internship would make a difference. If you then went to work with an IT company, a retail business, an airline, clearly not. But if you still want a media career with an organisation with politics similar to Swarajaya, that's got to affect your editing, your votes at AfDs, etc. What that means for any topic ban is up Joe whoever else considers your unblock request, but frankly I think you'd be foolish to give up your internship in return for being unblocked with no topic ban. And do remember that your actions recently, particularly your accusations of COI while not admitting your own, are going to put you under the spotlight here more than if you'd simply declared your internship and your COI when it occurred. Finally, because I know others will be watching anything written here, let me make it clear I'm not pro or anti Hindus or Muslims. I am against religious bigotry or violence. As I hope are you.
1679:
it was in the view of paid editing. I will carefully reread all important policies so it does not happen again. #My association with
Swarajya: I started an internship with Swarajya magazine on 12 April 2020. It is an unpaid short internship and I am not directed in any way to edit Knowledge. I had no previous association with Swarajya. I write articles and email them to various magazines and such articles have been published on Swarajyaâs website previously. But I was not paid or had any specific association with them then. I had no other communication with them then. I had emailed them about Knowledge policies when they doxxed an editor so they took down their news pieces then. It was only for protecting Knowledge editors and informing them about our policies. I had no other stake in that issue. So I want to clarify again that I had an association with Swarajya only after 12 April 2020. I have not COI previously. #As soon as I joined the internship, I should have declared COI on my userpage and should have not edited the Swarajya article in any way. But due to my poor interpretation, I failed to declare COI. I believe that it is not real COI because I was not paid in any way. When a
1684:
only used talkpage. Now I understand that I should not have edited that page in any way. Editor has removed the sources referred by me to maintain the consistency in all sources. #Indian politics is my primary area of interest. I have no malicious intent or political goal. I am here only to improve articles and have no other intention. If I am topic-banned from Indian politics, my area of interest will shrink significantly and I will not have much left to edit here. If you donât trust my COI association declared here, I am also ready to reveal my personal identity and afficiations to ArbCom or any other relevant authority. #I will not edit
Swarajya or any COI topic anyway now onwards. I can agree for topic ban on Indian media or media personalities for unblocking. I made a terrible mistake and I regret it. I apologise again and assure that it will not happen again as I have learned a lesson. I kindly request you to unblock me and please keep an eye on my edits as long as you want. Thank you,-
301:, Ahmedabad Mirror, Navbharat Times, DailyO and many more but it was through general way of just mailing editor of the website). I didn't get any compensation from any of these publications for Knowledge editing or writing for them till now. When Swarajya doxxed the Knowledge editor, I mailed them to take those pieces down as they were not complying with Knowledge's terms and policies; those pieces were taken down after. Hence, I always try to follow Knowledge guidelines and larger aspects of Wikimedia movement. While editing, I thought that COI disclosure was not needed because I was using talk page already for editing request but I think, I could have mentioned COI while doing editing request. In the future, I will not directly edit this page and I will add userbox of COI on my userpage regarding this.
1443:
consensus because I had CoI. I apologise for my mistake and Iâll not edit article further. Leave that matter. Iâm associated longly with
Wikimedia movement and multiple Wikimedia projects than Swarajya. Even in Swarajya, Iâm at learning position of writing and editing; that too from home. Iâm not getting paid from them. For me, free knowledge movement is more important than my internship. Will topic ban/block be abandoned if I discontinue my internship at Swarajya? Another point I want to make is I can agree of topic ban Swarajya, OpIndia or media publications but I canât agree on whole Indian Politics because it can intersect in my any editing. Suppose I make Knowledge page of book
1131:
one editor then you should also consider that same organisation took down those articles after intervention and explanation from me. Iâm affiliated with
Wikimedia movement for 2.5 years and multiple Wikimedia projects while I started internship at Swarajya just before 12 days. How can you hold me responsible for some articles which were published much before I joined (and even they were taken down due to my explanation)? I can agree not to edit article related to Swarajya or any person affiliated to Swarajya.â
42:
333:
attribution") rather than removal outright. This was in response to you writing: "I think word Alt News and otherâs are reductant because theyâve been certified by IFCN. What say?" And you did all that with an undisclosed conflict of interest looming large? A few hours later, the other editor involved (Newslinger) re-added a modified version of the passage which you removed, a passage which remains in the lead presently. It now reads: "According to fact-checking websites such as
94:
1821:
2027:
1874:
1589:
717:
209:
297:] in which several new users were doing edit war over fake news line in lead. I didn't directly edit affected page, instead I used for editing request and then after gaining consensus, I edited that page. I stopped editing page thereafter. Prior to 12 April, I didn't have any conflict of interest with the publication (though my articles were published there like my articles are getting published in other publications like
1498:
long as you can follow our policies and guidelines here, your politics and actions off-Wiki shouldn't matter (unless of course you harass our editors, and I'm not accusing you of that). Support your political party, attack your opponents, even try to get someone fired (did you do that?), these are all things we can do offline. I know I do. But the doxxing accusation seems a bit feeble. Still, that's water under the bridge.
1959:"Voila. Appealing after a break of 4 years. The points here are well-addressed and I agree with them. Henceforth, I will be disclosing my COI on my talk page and main page. Also, I agree with topic ban on Indian media as a whole as I have been associated with them. I have been editing Gujarati Knowledge in this long break and I want to continue editing in English Knowledge with translation of Gujarat-related pages.--
112:
1101:. This is just bad faith editing, and I wouldn't be willing to even consider unblocking you without some sort of topic ban or restriction on what kind of edits you will make in the future. Given your affiliation with an organization that's willing to out Knowledge editors in pursuit of political goals, that needs to start at the very least with a ban from Indian politics. â
1710:"I believe that it is not real COI because I was not paid in any way". Nope, you are wrong. And that destroys any chance of having your block lifted. In fact, you had a conflict of interest prior to your internship, the moment this happened: "such articles have been published on Swarajyaâs website". Additionally, you clearly fit the definition of a paid editor at
495:
Wikisourceâs social outreach programs. So, I didnât have any objective to use
Knowledge as soapbox or to advertise. I will do my regular edits (leaving this page) and page creations on books, geographical locations of Gujarat, biographies of notable people, acts passed by parliament of India etc. like I did it in past. â
1536:, that you have done that is persistent to right now. I think your best bet would be to take a step back from Knowledge for a few months and make another unblock request no earlier than 25 October 2020 explaining how you will mitigate these issues so they do not happen again. An admin may copy your request to
1152:, yes I read the discussion. You're claiming that because you brought it up on the talk page first, you were allowed to edit the article despite your conflict of interest. That's not what the policy says, and that is explicit in the warnings you gave to other users and the ones you received yourself (
1049:
let me clarify: everyone can email to publication via their contact us section. I had emailed in that way and perhaps, outed editor too emailed in that way. Surely, I started internship before 12 days but that doesnât mean no one can email any publication. Having said that, I will request you to look
597:
even a cursory glance? I'm not asserting intentional deception or anything, but that seems... well, strange to me. You've been on
Knowledge long enough, I think, to know how seriously we take the conflict of interest policy, yet you've been operating with your own interpretation of what that conflict
332:
has propagated fake news multiple times." You cited your reason as being "Per consensus on t/p." But looking at the talk page, the conversation was: a. only with one other editor. And b. that editor expressed their preference for modification of the passage ("I prefer the current wording with in-text
1683:
regarding consistency was carried out regarding a sentence in the article, the other editor, who is also an administrator, agreed to remove it so I removed it. When someone reinstated, I did not remove it. But now I understand that I should have also declared my COI there on talkpage and should have
1437:
First thing I want to clear is I was normal reader of
Swarajya like I am of other publications right now when problematic history happened. I have subscription of the publication. As a subscriber of publication and Knowledge editor, I have emailed them to take down pieces which outed editor and they
1130:
did you read whole discussion above? I approached on t/p first and after gaining consensus, I did edit page because I had CoI. I was not aware on topic that during t/p discussion, COI needs to be disclosed. Also, if youâre assuming bad faith because my recent connection with organisation which outed
823:
different users about COI editing, were made shortly before and shortly after that speedy request. Combined with your statement "I have not been aware that it was compulsory to disclose COI even on talk page" in this unblock request, it sounds a lot like you think there's one rule for other editors,
814:
On 17 December 2019, you asked for your previous userpage, which contained a rather revealing link wrt to your internship at
Swarajya (for the sake of your privacy I won't characterize the link further) to be speedy deleted. That could be seen as not merely not declaring your COI, but actually being
395:
Previously, line fake news was in lead and another editor clearly denied use of it. So, I thought it that they are in favour of removal of sentence and hence, I removed it. But after they objected it, I didnât reinstate it and just stepped back because I had CoI. This discussion was not even direct,
1678:
carefully. I should have understood that only paid editing does not mean COI but any remote affiliation or association too qualifies as a COI. I sincerely apologise for my poor interpretation of COI and sticking to the belief that I understood it. I had previously warned other editors about COI but
1463:
couldnât be made by me because some political party politicised it later. My most of edits have been directly or indirectly into this topic. So, broadly constructed TBAN will reduce me to zero editing because I have rarely contributed in any article prior. I can agree on TBAN on
Swarajya or OpIndia
1306:
I agree that I should have disclosed it then but I thought this is just discussion in which Swarajya was evoked by another editor. Youâre free to restore original version, Iâve not any issues. And please, stop alleging that I edit on behalf of Swarajya. I donât edit on behalf of them and I wouldnât
1284:
But that's the point of the conflict of interest disclosure. That admin didn't know that you were editing on behalf of Swarajya - they thought you were neutral. Pretending to be unaffiliated while proposing to remove criticism from the article is not good faith editing. You know this because you've
618:
I want to say that last two comments (one by me and one by another editor) were after my edit. I thought Iâm just doing internship without getting any money as of now. By looking at CoI, I considered to write on T/P as it said so. I didnât know I should disclose coi there too. My primary reason not
1497:
says "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Knowledge." But you'd voluntarily identified yourself and you knew you had. You can't be doxxed, you've said publicly who you are. So
1489:
I wrote this offline before I saw any of the above - I think that religious disputes needs to be part of the topic ban you're suggesting. Brihaspati, it's not really your choice. Because I posted the discretionary sanctions alert on your talk page, I thought I should chime in here. It seems pretty
1501:
It all changed when you took up your internship with a major Indian media company. Now no one is accusing you of editing at their request, please put that argument aside. What we are saying is that you have a strong incentive to want to keep your job, and that we all know that parts of the Indian
931:
Yes, I would like to edit those topics. But I donât write for OpIndia and I donât have any relation with them. Swarajya and OpIndia got separated in 2018 while I started internship in former one just before 12 days. Itâs wrong to call them sister publication because Swarajya is media house having
1181:
Youâre still not understanding. I didnât directly edited article. I brought up issue, another admin said they donât have any issue and then I removed part. Thatâs it! I didnât edit that article after it. I should have disclosed COI while taking issue to talk page but it was shifted comments from
660:
to disclose COI while doing edit request on talk page. I was not still editing article directly first because of my knowledge of CoI policy. And I edited after receiving response which has been misinterpreted. After clarification, I didnât edit article further because of CoI and dropped stick. I
574:
as I clearly said in above message, another editor said on talk page that they were not in favour of using fake news in this way which was considered by me as removal of fake news sentence. However, meaning by them was to replace word fake news with misreporting. Therefore, I didnât edit article
1381:(Commenting as the blocking admin:) I'd like to find a way for you to get back to productive editing Brihaspati, but this situation isn't good. First things first you need to drop the excuses that you were not aware of the COI requirements or that you do not have a financial COI with regard to
935:
No, Iâm not in touch with chief editor or anyone of OpIndia who outed Knowledge editor. Plus, I was the one who emailed and explained Swarajya to take those pieces down because they were violative of Knowledgeâs policies and hostile for Wikimedia movement. Those pieces were taken down after my
637:
Brihaspati, you confirm having been aware that you were suffering from a conflict of interest, but you still opted not to disclose that, to anyone. You opted not to seek any clarifications about that, whatsoever. That is why I declined your request. Because that just does not make sense to me.
1442:
and I gained consensus on the talk page first. Now, I think that I should have disclosed COI at that moment while gaining consensus but I think that disclosure on t/p was not compulsory (as interpreted by me which was wrong). I was really not aware that I shouldnât edit article after gaining
494:
thanks for enlightening me that it is considered as paid. Iâll not directly edit article in future. Even after starting internship, I edited article by posting request and after obtaining consensus. Iâm associated with Wikimedia movement in India and specifically to Gujarati Knowledge and
471:
An internship is still considered to trigger the requirement to declare as a paid editor, even if you are not paid in cash money, as you are being compensated with the experience. You don't have to be specifically asked or directed to edit. What topics will you edit about henceforth?
1544:, or (c) endorse the block as a ban. Note that the community is making a determination as to whether further disruption will ensue should you be unblocked. (I am not an admin, I am just explaining my experience from when I got an indefinite block a couple of years ago to right now.)
294:
I am aware of terms of paid editing and I am not getting paid of doing any Knowledge editing. I have COI with the page though as I started internship at there just before 12 days. No one has directly or indirectly asked me to edit this page. There was discussion regarding this page
1397:. But you did, so unfortunately that option is no longer available to you. Further, given this attempt to furtively edit the article without disclosing, and the problematic history of Swarajya and Knowledge, I wouldn't be willing to unblock you unless you also agree a
418:. Briefly, again, I'm not sure how you could have read the other editor's comment to be indicative of a preference for outright removal when, as I mention above, they wrote: "I prefer the current wording with in-text attribution." How do you explain this discrepancy?
958:
Plus, Nupur Sharma whom youâre referring to is BJP leader not OpIndiaâs chief editor. Both are different personalities and both have different verified twitter accounts. I nominated article for deletion of @NupurSharmaBJP not @UnsubtleDesi who is editor of OpIndia.
1845:
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.
687:
That said, if you draft a convincing second unblock request which results in another admin unblocking you, that would be fine with me. I've said my piece and it's unlikely I would be offering further input on the matter (including objections) at this
1849:
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 until the discussion has finished.
1780:
in order to be even considered for an appeal. I do not want your talk page access removed, but if you continue making unblock requests like what you are doing right now, an admin may disable your talk page access, which will make appealing
802:
As recommended by 331dot and El_C, Iâm filing the unblock request again. I have not been aware that it was compulsory to disclose COI even on talk page. Having said that, Iâll disclose CoI on my userpage and will not edit page further.
142:(COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Knowledge to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is
452:
Sorry, it looked like it was edited the very minute, but converting UTC remains an issue with Knowledge which decades later has not been streamlined. Sorry for conflating the timeline. Still, a highly problematic edit.
619:
to disclose there was doxxing which Iâm facing and perhaps, I mailed about it to you too. Iâm associated with Wikimedia movement offline and I didnât have any malicious intention to turn encyclopaedia into soapbox. â
1981:
applies only if you haven't been evading your block. Also, for the record and based on your past editing, any future unblocking should come with a topic ban for Indian media, religion, and politics related topics.
396:
some new editors on another page brought issue of this publication and I shifted that discussion and my thoughts there. I am sorry that I didnât disclose CoI at the time of making request, which I could have done. -
1071:
Sorry Brihaspati, I am not buying your explanation about the failure to disclose the conflict of interest above. In the past few months you have warned numerous editors about their own conflicts of interest, e.g.
900:
a wikipedia editor, while you were apparently writing articles for the sister publication who then republished OpIndia's doxing? Can you clarify if you know or were in touch with the editor about deletion of the
557:
removal of the unfavourable passage outright), to an entity with which you were connected, without having disclosed that connection to anyone on Knowledge. Surely, that warrants further elucidation on your part.
1050:
at t/p section where I made request first, gained consensus and edited page. Of course, there was some misinterpretation but I hadnât edited page thereafter. It was only one edit (and that too with consensus). â
1005:
Frankly, I don't see how these issues can be evaluated without knowing the full extent of your COI, and since that probably involves disclosure of personal information, IMO it is best done in consultation with
1244:. One new account was blocked at that time and this editor was blocked for 3 days. While my edit was being done after posting message and gaining consensus on T/P. Is that clear how these two are different?â
1160:). I don't believe that you didn't understand the COI policy or that you didn't understand what constitutes a consensus on the talk page, and I don't see how I can in good faith accept that explanation. â
552:
Brihaspati, as I note above, the point is that you've taken upon yourself to make a highly favourable direct edit, one which did not seem to have been in-line with the talk page conversation you allude to
987:
However, I am concerned with the possibly narrow interpretation you apply to "write for" or "part of". This combined with your earlier failure to disclose the COI with an explanation that you were
598:
of interest policy ought to mean to you without having checked out the policy page once, or at the very least asking another experienced editor (I would have been happy to advise you) about it...?
1520:
explaining the problems with your edits, so I will try to keep this short. I understand that this is not your first block and being blocked from editing can be frustrating. Have you considered
593:
I don't know, Brihaspati. I've consider you to have been a productive editor, which is why it pains me to ask: you've known you had a conflict of interest for weeks, but you still failed to give
881:
if unblocked do you intend to continue to edit wikipedia article's related to India, especially Indian politics, governance, religious issues and current affairs, i.e., topics covered by
393:
I am not a big fan of using the term "fake news" in this way, since our articles on American/British publications don't do the same unless reliable sources explicitly describe it as such.
832:
20:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Adding: I should probably have supplied a link to the deleted userpage in Brihaspati's old name, even though there is already one in the block log:
926:
I donât write for other publications. I just send them piece via email and it got published. Writing for them means getting paid for being published which is not case for me.
1413:. This would mean you could not edit the articles, their talk pages, or make edit requests. We would of course also have to have the consensus of the other admins here. â
1240:
That old editor, whom I gave warning, removed part directly and I was not part of publication then. His username was assimilating with someone of publication and I opened
1018:. At a minimum, if unblocked I would like to see a topic-ban from some India related articles since your recent editing is highly correlated with the topics that Swarajya
685:, but the fact that you knew we take conflict of interests seriously, and yet had failed to do your due diligence, is something I find too problematic to unblock myself.
182:
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
1674:
I reread all the policies and guidelines as well as all above discussions and questions. Following is my clarification. #My understanding of COI: I should have read
134:. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have an undisclosed financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory
143:
1153:
1938:
1734:. Specifically, you'll need to directly state that you were indeed a paid editor with a conflict of interest (even though you weren't receiving money to edit).
1653:
781:
273:
2018:
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.
1768:
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.
870:
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.
374:
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.
2077:
1157:
1841:
1438:
took down. Now, I donât understand how I became centre of problematic history of Swarajya and Knowledge? Also, I have edited this article as part of
833:
882:
1809:
1087:
824:
and another rule for you yourself. I agree with Bradv that this amounts to bad faith editing. See also El C's comments higher up on this page.
1577:
889:
1511:
1862:
1195:
1063:
972:
1540:
for review to determine whether the block should be lifted. The community may choose to (a) lift your block, (b) lift your block with
1035:
949:
936:
intervention. (I got to know from them that outed editor also emailed them and email from me put weight; thus, they took pieces down.)â
1085:
1077:
1830:
1477:
1490:
clear that you deleted your old userpage because you didn't want your identity known. In fact, you'd complained about doxxing at ANI
547:
508:
1345:
1320:
1301:
1279:
1257:
1228:
1205:
1201:
1176:
1144:
1094:
1090:
1083:
1079:
693:
674:
642:
632:
602:
588:
457:
447:
422:
345:
edit to an entity with which you are connected? I'm sorry, but I am finding your current request to be insufficient at this time.
1914:
1718:. Frankly, this is the end of the line for you at this time. You've repeatedly refused to listen to what others are telling you.
1629:
1073:
984:
Thanks for the clarifications Brihaspati, especially correcting my confusion over the two diffeernt persons named 'Nupur Sharma'.
757:
341:
has misreported news on multiple occasions." Did it not occur to you, at the very least, the optics of making such a favourable,
249:
59:
55:
1548:
1075:
522:
932:
editorial standards and journalistic ethics. I was not part of any publication before 12 days, I canât comment on those issues.
135:
562:
1493:
although your old user page had included your Facebook account which identifies you by name and your Instagram account, and
1524:? That is how I got back to productive editing in a year. Admins hate imposing sanctions, but they are needed to prevent
616:
I mention above, they wrote: "I prefer the current wording with in-text attribution." How do you explain this discrepancy?
101:
2003:
1793:
1753:
1567:
855:
359:
154:
1385:. As demonstrated above, neither is remotely plausible. As a minimum requirement to return to editing, you will need to
1367:
yourself to remain ignorant about it. That simply fails to meet our expected standards for editing here, inexorably so.
816:
1909:
1886:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
1624:
1601:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
1023:
752:
729:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
244:
221:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
2063:
1993:
1796:
1570:
1932:
1776:
Sorry to say this, but you need to take a break from Knowledge. I am not an admin here, but you need to follow
1647:
1547:
In the meantime during these six months, why not spend time editing other wikis? Wikimedia has a complete list
775:
267:
1901:
1616:
1326:
744:
236:
139:
1897:
1803:
1612:
893:
740:
232:
409:
2049:
1923:
1638:
913:
766:
681:
258:
1697:
844:
1722:
applies. The only path forward I can see for you is to wait six months with zero edits, then apply under
196:
481:
1424:
1117:
1942:
1919:
1657:
1634:
1371:
785:
762:
349:
277:
254:
1887:
1834:
1799:
1743:
1602:
1573:
730:
434:
That comment was done after my edit, not before it. And hence, after that comment, I didnât edit it.â
222:
1081:
179:
Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
1928:
1905:
1881:
1867:
1643:
1620:
1596:
1386:
877:
Brihaspati, I'll let another admin handle the unblock-request but I do have a couple of questions:
771:
748:
724:
263:
240:
216:
1790:
1564:
1007:
1517:
147:
28:
2060:
1988:
1858:
1680:
1508:
1452:
1439:
1022:(controversially) cover and as is common for those publications, you have accused others of "
1491:
1182:
another article; I was not aware that COI should be disclosed to t/p while requesting edit.â
1448:
1241:
8:
1460:
1444:
1401:
1382:
1098:
1031:
909:
321:
131:
2037:
1787:
1561:
1266:
and analysis used here. Otherwise, I was not in favour of removing or changing words. â
979:
841:
829:
1826:
1811:
1456:
1419:
1376:
191:
2055:
2012:
1983:
1854:
1762:
1503:
1393:. I know you wanted to avoid outing yourself, and that would have been fine if you
1011:
897:
864:
518:
477:
368:
160:
72:
2045:
2033:
1960:
1892:
1739:
1686:
1607:
1541:
1529:
1466:
1399:
topic ban from Indian politics broadly construed, including articles relating to
1363:
Brihaspati, as Bishonen says, you cannot enforce a policy while at the same time
1340:
1309:
1296:
1268:
1246:
1223:
1184:
1171:
1149:
1133:
1112:
1052:
961:
938:
735:
663:
621:
577:
536:
497:
436:
398:
227:
153:
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our
83:
1726:. At that time, you'll need to demonstrate a clear acceptance that you violated
1782:
1731:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1532:, but I think some admins realized that there are many other things, including
1390:
1263:
1044:
1027:
921:
905:
298:
170:
123:
68:
2071:
1727:
1675:
1537:
1533:
1494:
1455:â all will have intersection of politics. Similarly, I am in process to make
1015:
837:
825:
594:
317:
127:
41:
2054:
Just to make it crystal clear, you cannot ask for the standard offer again.
1307:
have edited this article either if this discussion wouldnât have happened. â
1204:
not editing the article? And it's exactly the same edit that another editor
896:
for Nupur Sharma, the editor of OpIndia and the author who wrote an article
324:
the following sourced passage: "According to fact-checking websites such as
1978:
1777:
1723:
1556:
1525:
1521:
1484:
1432:
1414:
1210:
Kindly disclose your affiliation with magazine. We have off-Wiki evidence."
186:
1235:
I brought up issue, another admin said they donât have any issue and then
1000:
I was the one who emailed and explained Swarajya to take those pieces down
529:
514:
489:
473:
93:
74:
2041:
1735:
1330:
1286:
1213:
1161:
1125:
1102:
1208:, for which you gave them a COI warning and added in your own words: "
1368:
690:
651:
639:
609:
599:
569:
559:
454:
429:
419:
386:
346:
414:
Brihaspati, please see my comment below. Also, replace "could" with
334:
325:
70:
18:
Where there is a glut of words, there is a dearth of intelligence.
1552:
1407:
157:
to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text
1325:
That response illustrates that you still do not understand the
1089:. In one of those cases, the COI warning you gave was for the
575:
further because I have CoI and I agreed with present version.â
75:
185:
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future. â
1262:
Now, youâll ask me why I removed that part. The reason is
2000:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
1750:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
852:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
356:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
2020:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
1770:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
1516:
Hi Brihaspati. Looks like a few admins posted detailed
872:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
376:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
1825:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
316:
of you to disclose your conflict, as is spelled out in
1880:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
1829:
is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to
1595:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
723:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
614:
First let me clear one misunderstanding. You wrote,
215:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
35:
994:, leaves me with no clear idea of what you mean by
1002:since the latter surely was more than 12 days ago.
661:apologised for editing article though. Thatâs it!â
1842:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jagdish Lal Ahuja
1551:and there are many other popular wiki sites like
1528:from happening. I know I coached you earlier on
2069:
1459:article good which I canât do it. Additionally,
1389:your conflict of interest and fully comply with
996:I was not part of any publication before 12 days
513:You will need to make another unblock request.
173:. For that request to be considered, you must:
2078:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery
320:. Four days ago, you directly removed from
1559:that you may get a kick out of editing :)
679:Brihaspati, I don't usually like invoking
885:and the other publications you write for?
126:and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's
815:furtive about it. Many of the diffs in
100:This section is pinned and will not be
2070:
1024:encouraging islam-apologetic agenda
136:paid editing disclosure requirements
87:
1831:Knowledge's policies and guidelines
13:
1872:
1587:
1285:pointed it out to other people. â
715:
207:
110:
14:
2089:
1839:The article will be discussed at
2025:
1819:
1714:. This is directly addressed in
92:
40:
1538:the administrators' noticeboard
1863:21:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
391:Another editor used sentence:
1:
836:. (Only readable by admins.)
138:. Paid advocacy is a form of
1411:, and connected publications
682:Ignorantia juris non excusat
7:
1977:Per Yamla's comment below.
1966:11:11 am, Today (UTC+5.5)"
1884:, who declined the request.
1599:, who declined the request.
727:, who declined the request.
219:, who declined the request.
10:
2094:
1578:01:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
1512:17:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
1478:14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
1425:13:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
1372:22:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1346:18:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1321:18:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1302:18:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1280:18:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1258:18:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1233:reiterating same comment:
1229:18:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1196:18:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1177:18:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1145:17:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1118:17:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1064:18:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1036:17:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
973:17:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
950:17:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
914:17:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
845:09:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
694:16:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
675:16:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
656:I was not aware that itâs
643:16:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
633:16:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
603:16:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
589:15:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
563:15:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
548:16:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
523:15:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
509:15:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
482:15:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
458:16:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
448:15:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
423:15:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
410:15:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
350:15:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
197:08:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
2064:15:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
2050:10:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
2004:guide to appealing blocks
1994:13:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
1754:guide to appealing blocks
856:guide to appealing blocks
360:guide to appealing blocks
155:guide to appealing blocks
1833:or whether it should be
1804:11:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
1744:11:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1698:04:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1464:or similar mediahouses.â
124:advertising or promotion
1395:didn't edit the article
1877:
1592:
720:
212:
118:Your account has been
115:
102:automatically archived
26:
1929:change block settings
1876:
1868:Appeal for Unblocking
1644:change block settings
1591:
1453:The Elephant Paradigm
772:change block settings
719:
264:change block settings
211:
114:
16:
1449:A Dominant Character
1327:Conflict of interest
989:not aware that itâs
883:Swarajya and OpIndia
148:purpose of Knowledge
140:conflict of interest
120:blocked indefinitely
1783:much more difficult
1461:2019 Vadodara flood
1445:Sixteen Stormy Days
1402:Swarajya (magazine)
1383:Swarajya (magazine)
1099:Swarajya (magazine)
888:I see that you had
322:Swarajya (magazine)
171:your user talk page
132:Swarajya (magazine)
2038:logged-out editing
1878:
1778:the standard offer
1593:
998:while also saying
817:Bradv's post above
721:
213:
116:
1992:
1827:Jagdish Lal Ahuja
1812:Jagdish Lal Ahuja
1457:Kanaiyalal Munshi
1423:
983:
894:wikipedia article
819:, where you warn
195:
108:
107:
81:
80:
2085:
2058:
2040:, last month. --
2029:
2028:
2017:
2011:
1986:
1948:
1946:
1935:
1917:
1915:deleted contribs
1875:
1823:
1822:
1802:
1767:
1761:
1663:
1661:
1650:
1632:
1630:deleted contribs
1590:
1576:
1526:disruptive edits
1506:
1488:
1436:
1417:
1343:
1338:
1299:
1294:
1226:
1221:
1174:
1169:
1129:
1115:
1110:
1048:
977:
925:
869:
863:
791:
789:
778:
760:
758:deleted contribs
718:
655:
613:
573:
533:
493:
433:
390:
373:
367:
283:
281:
270:
252:
250:deleted contribs
210:
189:
168:
165:your reason here
130:, as you did at
113:
96:
88:
76:
44:
36:
31:
24:
2093:
2092:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2068:
2067:
2056:
2026:
2023:
2015:
2009:
2008:, then use the
1997:
1968:
1936:
1926:
1912:
1895:
1888:blocking policy
1873:
1870:
1852:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1786:
1773:
1765:
1759:
1758:, then use the
1747:
1701:
1651:
1641:
1627:
1610:
1603:blocking policy
1588:
1560:
1504:
1482:
1440:this discussion
1430:
1379:
1341:
1331:
1297:
1287:
1264:this discussion
1237:I removed part.
1224:
1214:
1172:
1162:
1123:
1113:
1103:
1091:exact same edit
1042:
919:
875:
867:
861:
860:, then use the
849:
834:User:Harshil169
805:
779:
769:
755:
738:
731:blocking policy
716:
649:
607:
567:
527:
487:
427:
384:
379:
371:
365:
364:, then use the
353:
303:
271:
261:
247:
230:
223:blocking policy
208:
205:
166:
158:
111:
97:
86:
77:
71:
49:
34:
33:
29:
25:
22:
12:
11:
5:
2091:
2081:
2080:
1998:
1975:
1971:Decline reason
1957:
1953:Request reason
1950:
1871:
1869:
1866:
1818:
1817:
1815:
1810:Nomination of
1808:
1807:
1806:
1748:
1708:
1704:Decline reason
1672:
1668:Request reason
1665:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1546:
1545:
1499:
1378:
1375:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1260:
1179:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1003:
985:
953:
952:
933:
928:
927:
903:
902:
886:
850:
812:
808:Decline reason
800:
796:Request reason
793:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
550:
511:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
354:
310:
306:Decline reason
299:Times of India
292:
288:Request reason
285:
206:
204:
203:
202:
201:
183:
180:
169:at the end of
164:
109:
106:
105:
98:
91:
85:
82:
79:
78:
73:
69:
67:
64:
63:
51:
50:
45:
39:
27:
23:Indian proverb
20:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2090:
2079:
2076:
2075:
2073:
2066:
2065:
2062:
2059:
2052:
2051:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2034:block evasion
2032:
2022:
2021:
2014:
2007:
2005:
1996:
1995:
1990:
1985:
1980:
1974:
1972:
1967:
1965:
1962:
1956:
1954:
1949:
1944:
1940:
1934:
1930:
1925:
1921:
1916:
1911:
1907:
1906:global blocks
1903:
1902:active blocks
1899:
1894:
1889:
1885:
1883:
1882:administrator
1865:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1851:
1847:
1844:
1843:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1813:
1805:
1801:
1798:
1795:
1792:
1789:
1784:
1779:
1775:
1774:
1772:
1771:
1764:
1757:
1755:
1746:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1707:
1705:
1700:
1699:
1696:
1695:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1682:
1677:
1671:
1669:
1664:
1659:
1655:
1649:
1645:
1640:
1636:
1631:
1626:
1622:
1621:global blocks
1618:
1617:active blocks
1614:
1609:
1604:
1600:
1598:
1597:administrator
1579:
1575:
1572:
1569:
1566:
1563:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1518:walls of text
1515:
1514:
1513:
1510:
1507:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1486:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1441:
1434:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1421:
1416:
1412:
1410:
1409:
1404:
1403:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1374:
1373:
1370:
1366:
1347:
1344:
1339:
1337:
1336:
1328:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1300:
1295:
1293:
1292:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1265:
1261:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1227:
1222:
1220:
1219:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1200:What? How is
1199:
1198:
1197:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1180:
1178:
1175:
1170:
1168:
1167:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1127:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1116:
1111:
1109:
1108:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1086:
1084:
1082:
1080:
1078:
1076:
1074:
1065:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1046:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1008:functionaries
1004:
1001:
997:
993:
992:
986:
981:
980:edit conflict
976:
975:
974:
971:
970:
966:
965:
964:
957:
956:
955:
954:
951:
948:
947:
943:
942:
941:
934:
930:
929:
923:
918:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
899:
895:
891:
887:
884:
880:
879:
878:
874:
873:
866:
859:
857:
848:
846:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
822:
818:
811:
809:
804:
799:
797:
792:
787:
783:
777:
773:
768:
764:
759:
754:
750:
749:global blocks
746:
745:active blocks
742:
737:
732:
728:
726:
725:administrator
695:
692:
689:
684:
683:
678:
677:
676:
673:
672:
668:
667:
666:
659:
653:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
641:
636:
635:
634:
631:
630:
626:
625:
624:
617:
611:
606:
605:
604:
601:
596:
592:
591:
590:
587:
586:
582:
581:
580:
571:
566:
565:
564:
561:
556:
551:
549:
546:
545:
541:
540:
539:
531:
526:
525:
524:
520:
516:
512:
510:
507:
506:
502:
501:
500:
491:
486:
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
459:
456:
451:
450:
449:
446:
445:
441:
440:
439:
431:
426:
425:
424:
421:
417:
413:
412:
411:
408:
407:
403:
402:
401:
394:
388:
383:
382:
381:
380:
378:
377:
370:
363:
361:
352:
351:
348:
344:
340:
336:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
312:There was an
309:
307:
302:
300:
296:
291:
289:
284:
279:
275:
269:
265:
260:
256:
251:
246:
242:
241:global blocks
238:
237:active blocks
234:
229:
224:
220:
218:
217:administrator
200:
198:
193:
188:
184:
181:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
172:
162:
156:
151:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
103:
99:
95:
90:
89:
66:
65:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
48:
43:
38:
37:
32:
19:
2053:
2030:
2024:
2019:
2001:
1999:
1976:
1970:
1969:
1963:
1958:
1952:
1951:
1924:creation log
1891:
1879:
1853:
1848:
1840:
1838:
1814:for deletion
1769:
1751:
1749:
1709:
1703:
1702:
1693:
1692:
1687:
1685:
1673:
1667:
1666:
1639:creation log
1606:
1594:
1557:Uncyclopedia
1542:restrictions
1473:
1472:
1467:
1465:
1406:
1400:
1398:
1394:
1380:
1364:
1362:
1334:
1332:
1316:
1315:
1310:
1308:
1290:
1288:
1275:
1274:
1269:
1267:
1253:
1252:
1247:
1245:
1236:
1234:
1217:
1215:
1209:
1191:
1190:
1185:
1183:
1165:
1163:
1140:
1139:
1134:
1132:
1106:
1104:
1070:
1059:
1058:
1053:
1051:
1019:
999:
995:
990:
988:
968:
967:
962:
960:
945:
944:
939:
937:
904:
876:
871:
853:
851:
820:
813:
807:
806:
801:
795:
794:
767:creation log
734:
722:
686:
680:
670:
669:
664:
662:
657:
628:
627:
622:
620:
615:
584:
583:
578:
576:
554:
543:
542:
537:
535:
504:
503:
498:
496:
470:
443:
442:
437:
435:
415:
405:
404:
399:
397:
392:
375:
357:
355:
342:
338:
329:
313:
311:
305:
304:
293:
287:
286:
259:creation log
226:
214:
199:
152:
128:Terms of Use
119:
117:
54:
46:
30:Show another
17:
2057:Doug Weller
1984:RegentsPark
1961:Brihaspati
1688:Brihaspati
1534:coi editing
1505:Doug Weller
1468:Brihaspati
1311:Brihaspati
1270:Brihaspati
1248:Brihaspati
1186:Brihaspati
1135:Brihaspati
1054:Brihaspati
963:Brihaspati
940:Brihaspati
665:Brihaspati
623:Brihaspati
579:Brihaspati
538:Brihaspati
499:Brihaspati
438:Brihaspati
400:Brihaspati
314:expectation
1920:filter log
1893:Brihaspati
1681:discussion
1635:filter log
1608:Brihaspati
1329:policy. â
1150:Brihaspati
1016:WMF Office
991:compulsory
763:filter log
736:Brihaspati
658:compulsory
255:filter log
228:Brihaspati
2031:Confirmed
2002:read the
1939:checkuser
1898:block log
1752:read the
1654:checkuser
1613:block log
1045:Abecedare
1028:Abecedare
922:Abecedare
906:Abecedare
890:nominated
854:read the
782:checkuser
741:block log
358:read the
274:checkuser
233:block log
2072:Category
1910:contribs
1625:contribs
1530:WP:DNBTN
1387:disclose
1242:this SPI
1095:you made
901:wikibio?
838:Bishonen
826:Bishonen
753:contribs
339:Swarajya
335:Alt News
330:Swarajya
326:Alt News
245:contribs
163:|reason=
144:contrary
47:Archives
2013:unblock
1989:comment
1933:unblock
1835:deleted
1763:unblock
1732:WP:PAID
1720:WP:IDHT
1716:WP:PAID
1712:WP:PAID
1648:unblock
1553:wikiHow
1485:Joe Roe
1433:Joe Roe
1408:OpIndia
1391:WP:PAID
865:unblock
776:unblock
369:unblock
268:unblock
161:unblock
146:to the
84:Blocked
1964:(talk)
1728:WP:COI
1694:(talk)
1676:WP:COI
1495:WP:DOX
1474:(talk)
1317:(talk)
1276:(talk)
1254:(talk)
1192:(talk)
1141:(talk)
1060:(talk)
1012:arbcom
969:(talk)
946:(talk)
898:outing
671:(talk)
629:(talk)
595:WP:COI
585:(talk)
544:(talk)
534:made.â
530:331dot
515:331dot
505:(talk)
490:331dot
474:331dot
444:(talk)
416:should
406:(talk)
343:direct
318:WP:COI
167:~~~~}}
2042:Yamla
2006:first
1979:WP:SO
1855:Sohom
1756:first
1736:Yamla
1724:WP:SO
1522:WP:SO
1377:Break
1365:allow
1126:Bradv
1093:that
1020:et al
858:first
821:eight
688:time.
362:first
2061:talk
2046:talk
2036:via
1859:talk
1740:talk
1730:and
1555:and
1549:here
1509:talk
1420:talk
1369:El_C
1333:brad
1289:brad
1216:brad
1206:made
1202:this
1164:brad
1105:brad
1032:talk
910:talk
892:the
842:tĂĽlk
830:tĂĽlk
691:El_C
652:El C
640:El_C
610:El C
600:El_C
570:El C
560:El_C
555:i.e.
519:talk
478:talk
455:El_C
430:El C
420:El_C
387:El C
347:El_C
192:talk
122:for
1943:log
1890:).
1785:.
1658:log
1605:).
1451:or
1447:or
1415:Joe
1097:to
1026:".
1014:or
786:log
733:).
278:log
225:).
187:Joe
2074::
2048:)
2016:}}
2010:{{
1973::
1955::
1937:â˘
1931:â˘
1927:â˘
1922:â˘
1918:â˘
1913:â˘
1908:â˘
1904:â˘
1900:â˘
1861:)
1837:.
1766:}}
1760:{{
1742:)
1706::
1670::
1652:â˘
1646:â˘
1642:â˘
1637:â˘
1633:â˘
1628:â˘
1623:â˘
1619:â˘
1615:â˘
1405:,
1342:đ
1298:đ
1225:đ
1212:â
1173:đ
1156:,
1114:đ
1034:)
1010:,
912:)
868:}}
862:{{
847:.
840:|
828:|
810::
798::
780:â˘
774:â˘
770:â˘
765:â˘
761:â˘
756:â˘
751:â˘
747:â˘
743:â˘
521:)
480:)
372:}}
366:{{
337:,
328:,
308::
290::
272:â˘
266:â˘
262:â˘
257:â˘
253:â˘
248:â˘
243:â˘
239:â˘
235:â˘
159:{{
58:,
21:â
2044:(
1991:)
1987:(
1947:)
1945:)
1941:(
1896:(
1857:(
1800:m
1797:i
1794:s
1791:a
1788:A
1738:(
1662:)
1660:)
1656:(
1611:(
1574:m
1571:i
1568:s
1565:a
1562:A
1487::
1483:@
1435::
1431:@
1422:)
1418:(
1335:v
1291:v
1218:v
1166:v
1158:2
1154:1
1128::
1124:@
1107:v
1047::
1043:@
1030:(
982:)
978:(
959:â
924::
920:@
908:(
790:)
788:)
784:(
739:(
654::
650:@
612::
608:@
572::
568:@
553:(
532::
528:@
517:(
492::
488:@
476:(
432::
428:@
389::
385:@
282:)
280:)
276:(
231:(
194:)
190:(
150:.
104:.
60:2
56:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
