User talk:Hyper9

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Hyper9. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Yashovardhan (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper9, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Hyper9! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chera dynasty, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tamil and Pliny. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference format[edit]

Hi, thanks for adding citations to the Chera dynasty article. FYI, there are cleaner (and easier) ways to cite and reuse refs; please have a look at this video for a quick tute. The ideal citation format is to use the sfn which will allow you to add notes and quotes to the references. You can see both formats in use in articles such as Vikramaditya. Also, the reply template is synonymous with ping. And thank you for your note of appreciation on the Cheras talk page. Please try and add as many pages that interest you to your own watchlist and help keep an eye on them. Cheers.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpt.a.haddock: Hi. The consolidated referencing method is much more neater and I'll look into how to do it later. The references that are now provided are far superior to those that used to be there. And finding other high quality material takes time. The article's remaining citations/references will be given an upgrade over time. I have noted your highlights of poor quality references. However, I have reverted the edits as they were cluttering up the reading - and the poor quality of citations is anyway implied by the template. Thanks for the trouble though. Cheers.

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

—SpacemanSpiff 02:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: - Hello, May I know the page that this notice refers to? Also, I do not see any specific decision related to my name anywhere on the link provided above within the template. Was I part of some arbitration/decision that I was not aware of? Also, whatever this is, this has been done without a warning!! Is that SOP on Wikipedia? Thanks.Hyper9 (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic you are editing is covered by discretionary sanctions -- any admin can sanction editors based on behavior, that's what the alert is for. —SpacemanSpiff 09:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: Hello, you did not answer any of my queries! May I know the page that this notice refers to? Also, I do not see any specific decision related to my name anywhere on the link provided above within the template. Was I part of some arbitration/decision that I was not aware of? Also, are sanctions administered to well-intentioned medium/long term contributors without warning on Wikipedia?Hyper9 (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the notice above, the topic where you are editing currently is covered. The decision is not specific to you, but for the topic area. And yes, sanctions can be imposed on anyone in the area if their behavior requires it. Note that you have just been alerted to the fact that the topic area is covered by sanctions, not actually been sanctioned. This alert serves as any necessary warning that sanctions can be imposed, that's all. —SpacemanSpiff 09:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: - The reason why I asked for the clarification is because I'm involved in editing several pages, so I dont know what topic is being referred to. Also, could you point out the 'behaviour' on the basis of which this has been raised - it would be helpful to avoid it in the future. Thanks for the clarification.Hyper9 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may be different pages but all your recent editing revolves around "Malayalam" where you don't seem to be interested in resolving disputes through proper discussion but just revert as "POV". —SpacemanSpiff 09:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: - Thanks for the clarification that you are referring to the page 'Malayalam'. I am not sure whether you could say that I am not interested in resolving disputes because it was I who opened the Talk section against the repeated POV edits of another user - Cpt.a.haddock. Does that indicate an unwillingness to resolve disputes? Moreover, I waited several hours for a response from this very active user before proceeding with an edit. I could not find any timelines regarding this, and it would be helpful if you could point me to some - as you appear to have used this against me. Hyper9 (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a question of whose version will be retained at the point of imposing sanctions / developing consensus. This seems to be a major issue at hand. If you can point me to any guidance on Wikipedia, it would be useful. ThanksHyper9 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a content issue and irrelevant to the sanctions issue. WP:Discretionary sanctions are decided upon by the WP:Arbitration Committee which deals with editor conduct, not the content of articles. I see that you've looked at the link. No one has used anything against you, you were simply given an alert. Looking at your language at Talk:Malayam I can see that you need to read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, as sanctions cover not just editing but general behavior on relevant pages including talk pages. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk - Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that the sanction has been placed on me since it 'magically' appeared on my page. I am guessing that you are talking about the page "Malayalam" (though you write Malayam). I am aware that I have been engaged in a debate on that page that is bordering on the civil. However, I believe that I have maintained decorum and hence was curious to know what exactly elicited this warning. If it is not to do with my behaviour but the repeated edits on the page itself, then perhaps I can understand. Also, how has this escalation come about? Has someone requested this or has an observing editor raised this? Clarifications on these or a link to the process would be really helpful as well. Thanks Hyper9 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a typo. I've given brand new editors these alerts before when their first edits are in a contentious area. I think it's a good idea because it helps editors avoid actions which might lead to them running foul of sanctions of any kind. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk - Thanks again. But you still have not clarified what is it that caused this process to be kicked into motion. As a result of which, it is still as opaque as the initial 'warning'. Is it a complaint raised (if so, what process is this) or an observing editor flagging this off. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is your behavior that has triggered the need for the alert, and if it continues this way, sanctions are likely. —SpacemanSpiff 12:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: - Dear Sir, with all due respect - all I have been asking all along is to know what exactly is this behaviour that has been flagged and you are referring to. So that I can avoid it in the future. This is only because I have not got an inkling of what it is. Thank You.

Also please note, that talk said that this was not against me but the page ie 'Malayalam' (which I have not edited for 24 hours and am still awaiting a decent response from the other editor or outside contributions). Kindly clarify which is the case, as you two are giving me contradictory statements.Hyper9 (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- THis is my last note to you, but I've already flagged this before, you've just been calling any viewpoints contrary to yours as POV and reverting. You don't seem to have any interest in our DR process at all (as evidenced by a recent reply fo yours at Talk:Malayalam, if that continues and you indulge in the edit warring behavior again, then either I or another admin will sanction you for this. Whether the arbcom case was against you or not is irrelevant, you've been alerted that the topic area is covered, that's all there is to it. And your behavior isn't restricted to that article, but also to Chera dynasty. The warning is for you as an editor across any topic covered by the sanctions.—SpacemanSpiff 12:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff:talk Thank you for the clarifications though your stern-ness in language is uncalled for. The debate on the Chera page has already been settled yesterday. I am merely editing today as per to the agreed conclusion - and correcting the faults with citations that have been highlighted by the other editor, Cpt.a.haddock.

Now, coming to the page Malayalam. Allow me to present my situation. I am indeed a person who prides in giving a fair assessment of evidence and I hope the WP editors do too. All my responses are backed by the publications/references of top authorities in the field (in this case, Malayalam linguistics). The other WP editor (in this case Cpt.a.haddock) has used citations by top scholars no doubt, but not in the field of Malayalam! In fact, I checked their body of work over time, and the other editor's references do not have a single publication specific to Malayalam. Not only that, the other editor's last response has been disgraceful and I found it highly disrepectful of the experts whom I used for my comments. It was I who recognised the conflict and opened the Talk section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malayalam#Debates_on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017) in order to resolve the dispute without recourse to reverting each other's edits. I believe my behaviour was excellent. Only the language used might be a bit caustic but do you expect something different in a debate? Thanks again, both of you, for your time to look into this.Hyper9 (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latest - A Dispute has been recognised and a DR case has been opened to resolve this.Hyper9 (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the 'Malayalam Origins Consensus Dispute' DR case for reference - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Malayalam.23Debates_on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017 Hyper9 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. (diff) - You might want an admin to delete that edit if you don't want to share your IP. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk - Hello, Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realise that I was logged out when making the edit. It must have been made in error and is un-intentional. If you are an editor, please do remove the infringing edit and IP address and I will remedy the post subsequently. Thanks in advance. Hyper9 (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it looks like it came up because I forgot to sign my post. I did sign it subsequently but I guess this stayed. Kindly delete the details as they are irrelevant. Thanks.Hyper9 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk - Hi. I have deleted it from the page and the responsible admin can delete it from the History/edit records. It was un-intentional and appeared when I forgot to sign the update and not due to an unlogged edit. Thanks.Hyper9 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Chera dynasty. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 06:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpt.a.haddock: - My apologies if you felt that this was an attack. The edits in question however, do not show any sign of verification or coherence from you. If you wish to edit the WP page, a minimum amount of cross-verification would be appreciated. Without that and in the absence of any supporting evidence provided, it is merely an insertion of your personal POV violating WP:NPOV. Hyper9 (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Chera dynasty, you may be blocked from editing. Stating that Malayalam existed in prehistoric times and since the Cheras existed at some point, it follows that they were Malayalam speakers is clearly synthesis. Your source must directly support the statement that the "Early Cheras ruled over territories with Early Malayalam speakers". Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpt.a.haddock:, talk, talk, @SpacemanSpiff: - I would be really surprised if you would have any right to provide such a warning being an integral part of this discussion yourself - discussing, mirroring my actions and resorting to disruptive editing yourself. There is NO original research (WP:OR) involved nor any WP:SYNTHESIS. And if you are indeed capable of such admin actions, then they only exhibit a misuse of any authority provided to you. I think that such a warning would be appropriate if served by another neutral editor/admin at this point. Hyper9 (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Hyper9 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor, even if involved. Only SpacemanSpiff and I are Admins. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hey, you seem to have pinged me wrong every time so I couldn't reply earlier.. Use {{ping|Yashovardhan Dhanania}} next time please.. Thank you for correcting the IP leak there. I'd suggest approaching an admin for WP:REVDEL if you want. Your other queries seem to have been answered already. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chera dynasty. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please see WP:BRD if you find your changes being reverted repeatedly.--regentspark (comment) 17:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chera Dynasty[edit]

Just a small note that you're pretty close to violating WP:3RR at Chera dynasty. I counted 2 reverts with a look at the history but I might have missed one in the bush... Better be careful. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add to it, Arbitration committee's discretionary sanctions are also applicable in this page. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

This is to warn you to stop your edit warring at Chera dynasty. I have temporarily full-protected the page because both you and Cpt.a.haddock were in danger of a block for edit warring. You have been here long enough to know better than this. I see talk page discussion and that is good; please work it out, call in expert or third-party assistance if you can't agree, but refrain from edit warring while the discussion is going on.--MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@talk, Yashovardhan, regentspark, MelanieN - Thanks a lot for your comments. Some of my doubts have been clarified. I will look into the further mechanisms and suggestions provided. Hyper9 (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk - Great, Thanks. Will respond if required.Hyper9 (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No takers. Now listed here.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Chera dynasty. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please replace the template. If you are the one who added the source then you need to be able to provide a quote. If you can't then you shouldn't use it as a source as you haven't seen the context. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk - Hi Doug. Thanks for the comment. I can provide the reason for the removal of the template. The reference(s) are a summary of around 3 pages of the book (165-167) and there is really no single sentence that I have "lifted" from it. The reference is complete and verifiable by anyone. I will update the reason on the page for the removal of the template. And thanks for the links.

talk - There is a second matter that I would like your counsel on. There was a DRN ongoing which was closed by the Moderator without completely absorbing my Sixth Comments (Para 3) - where I state that the usage is not acceptable by me. I am not sure whether he did not read it or just closed it off anyway. Could you suggest whether I should re-open this or seek other means of redressal? Thanks in advance. Hyper9 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Hi, Hyper9. You can't ping people by linking to their talkpage: do you see how it leads to you calling them "talk"? Also, it doesn't work, they don't get an alert. Use the form [[User:Doug Weller]] or [[User:Doug Weller|]] or one of the ping templates: see WP:PING. And please check how what you use comes out on the page. Bishonen | talk 08:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen, thanks for the tip. Will use it in the future.Hyper9 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

It has become amply clear that you are not here to edit collaboratively and prefer to just edit war, therefore unless you change your behavior you are likely to be topic banned from the area or your editing privileges revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 11:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman - I have repeatedly indicated that I am more than willing to build a consensus. However, please tell me how I am supposed to do this when other editors do not even have one reference to back their position. I would like to point out/ask two things at this point. There is already another WP admin, Doug Weller directly involved in this and they do not appear to have any such issues with my "behaviour". And two, please advise what I am supposed to do when other editors repeatedly remove well sourced and referenced content on WP without consulting or providing other sources. Your inputs would be highly appreciated. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been advised on the talk page by many editors now, and on here too, but you don't seem to be willing or able to listen. Saying one thing and doing another is not an excuse for your behavior. I'm done explaining this to you, any further such edit warring or other disruptive behavior and your editing privileges will be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 23:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I do have issues with your behavior. You've made personal attacks and are not cooperative when asked to back your claims, ie your inability to give quotes and your removal of the request for a quote. You don't appear to understand our verification and no original research policies, which also causes problems. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman - I have only traded barbs when I received them. I am perfectly willing to have a decent discussion if the other editors are too, as my interactions would show. My initial responses were very warm and open but I was soon at the receiving end of condescending comments and I responded in a similar fashion. All the same, I would be more careful of my interactions in the future. Doug Weller - But I have provided quotes and screenshots wherever possible on the Chera Talk page - and upon request provided further references as well. I have gone through the pages WP:SCHOLARSHIP several times and if there is something else that I should read up on, I am open to recommendations. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman, Doug Weller - When I asked for recommendations, in my previous post directly above, on what WP codes I should read up, you did NOT provide any. This link (now looking at WP:IDHT) would have been really useful when you served a warning, instead you provide it after a ID TBan. How is that of any use for genuine WP editors/contributors? Hyper9 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban[edit]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

Topic banned from any edits or pages pertaining to Indian history for a period of six months. This covers any content pertaining to the history of the Indian subcontinent, including but not limited to kingdoms, dynasties, linguistic history etc and applies across all name spaces (including -- articles, talk pages, user pages, user talk pages, categories, templates, project pages and their talk pages etc) on the English Wikipedia.

You have been sanctioned despite multiple editors trying to reason with you, you have been continuing with the "my way or the highway" approach and have been attacking other editors too.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal against the ban, please say so below or on my talk page and I will explain how to do it. —SpacemanSpiff 11:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman - All arguments clearly debated in the Talk page - and no further responses provided by other editors for over a week to my answers/questions. Hence, I would like to appeal against the ban. Hyper9 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have three options to appeal (as listed here:

You can ask the sanctioning admin (in this case it's me) to reconsider, but I'm not inclined to, so you can skip this step
You can request for review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or at the administrator's noticeboard. If appealing at AE then be sure to use the right template -- {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
You can submit a request at the arbitration requests for clarification and amendment noticeboard which is the final point of call for appeals, as it is directly handled by the arbitration committee.

In the meantime, pending any final change/removal of the sanction via the appeal process, edits like these are considered violations of your topic ban and can result in blocks. —SpacemanSpiff 00:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman - I hardly expected you to reconsider your decision/actions. I will go through the other options available once I have examined them in detail. Whether the Talk pages can be edited or not was not clear, so I will keep it in mind. Also, can you provide a proper link to what pages the block entails as your link on the AE page - "articles related to history of Indian subcontinent" merely routes back to this page. Hyper9 (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not articles but edits relating to Indian history. Anywhere, including userspace. If in doubt, stay away. You are banned from discussing the topic. If an article isn't directly related to the topic but has a section related to the topic, you can't edit that. I hope this is clear now. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper9, As I've mentioned above in the notice --- "from any edits or pages pertaining to Indian history for a period of six months. This covers any content pertaining to the history of the Indian subcontinent, including but not limited to kingdoms, dynasties, linguistic history etc and applies across all name spaces (including -- articles, talk pages, user pages, user talk pages, categories, templates, project pages and their talk pages etc) on the English Wikipedia." anything pertaining to Indian history is covered, anywhere on the English Wikipedia, this means while you can edit a page like Romila Thapar you are not allowed to edit content about her findings or work pertaining to Indian history and so on. Please see the topic ban link in the notice. I had also spelled out "talk pages" specifically so that you don't have this confusion. —SpacemanSpiff 11:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, Spaceman - Thanks for the clarifications. I have examined the AE, AN processes briefly. Before presenting my case there, I would like to know the exact behaviour of mine that has come under sanction - which is different from what the other editor ie 'Cpt.a.haddock' has NOT done. I can see that this editor was also warned for edit warring in June 2017 - but no further sanctions or questions were raised when this editor was editing WITHOUT replying to me in the Talk page. In other words, I would like a clear explanation for a) what exact behaviour of mine has been sanctioned (preferably which edits Spaceman is referring to) b) why a uniform procedure is not followed and this user (Cpt.a.haddock) has not been similarly sanctioned as my edits have only been to revert this editor's deletion of sourced/referenced content on the page. I will need this to properly present my appeal in the AE/AN noticeboards. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been alerted about your problematic edits and behavior many times by many editors, including at Talk:Chera dynasty by three different editors, yet you continue with the "my way or the highway approach" peppered with attacks on others, exhibiting a WP:IDHT behavior. As for Haddock, he hasn't acted in the same manner. —SpacemanSpiff 04:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman - Your opaque accusations do not help any contributor/editor on WP to understand what exactly the problem is. All of the above are equally applicable to the other editors involved - and I will state that I felt exactly like your points (ie being attacked and illogical behaviour by other editors) . There have been no responses by any other editors for a week on the Chera:Talk page sections (which I started) - so how is that a "my way or highway" approach. In fact, you would be completely lying in making such a statement if you have examined the Talk page. I repeat something which I have pointed out earlier on my Talk page, I do not have any clarity on the behaviour that you are referring to. I have pointed this out to you in your previous warning as well, yet you continue to give unclear explanations. Please show the exact instances which elicit all your warnings so that I know exactly what is the accusation and what I am appealing to and I can prepare my appeal accordingly.

That you have not even served a single warning to the other editor (whose actions I have mirrored) is a clear example of bias as a WP admin in my view - and you can examine that the other editor has been served warnings by other admins who have examined this. So a better explanation is required as I cannot see still what behaviour of mine is being censured. Ideally provide the posts that you have served each of the warnings for, i.e. if you have any real material to back yourself up. Hyper9 (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, Spaceman - I would like to alert you to the fact that the other editor (Cpt.a.haddock) has now gone ahead and tampered with the references on the Chera dynasty page (the 1st edit on 10th July). They have changed all references to denote the 1967 edition of the book. Obviously, they do not know the difference between a 1967 edition and a 2012 edition of a book. All the '2012' references were personally sourced and verified by me but now have been vandalised by this editor. Now that I have made you aware of this, I look forward to see how you will respond to these erroneous edits. Hyper9 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, Spaceman - I am still awaiting clarifications on what are the instances of the "behaviour" that has been censured so that I can appeal it at the AE/AN. Without any clarity on this, it is difficult for me to know what I am appealing against. I have only been given vague warnings by Spaceman (which I have pointed out earlier on my Talk page). And when any issue has been specifically pointed out by Doug Weller, I have immediately responded by apologising or rectifying it. Hyper9 (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given all the clarifications necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 09:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpacemanSpiff - An AE appeal has been added. Hyper9 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. Fixed pending verification on whether this is simply a reprint. Next time, please specify the edition number if available. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cpt.a.haddock - "Obviously." The year number provides the edition number. Why is there even a confusion? Hyper9 (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AE appeal closed[edit]

I have closed your appeal at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. The result is that the appeal was declined as unsuccessful. To make things very clear, this means that you may not make any edits related to the subject at all, including to discuss it, on any page on Wikipedia, including this one. Future violations will result in a block from editing without further warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding Remark - Seraphimblade - Well, well, this process looks like quite a sham with the victim (ie a banned user) not even getting a chance to defend against the accusations from the relevant Administrator (articulated clearly for the first time). I would suggest that you scrap this kind of an appeal process altogether - a DRN type system would probably be more effective. Either ways, I see little point in commenting on this and would be withdrawing from WP altogether. I used to defend against the critics of WP but now I begin to see their point. There is very little a contributor with the correct and supporting references can do to correct WP's slants in the presence of such hostile Admins (such as SpacemanSpiff, DougWeller and their trainee Cpt.a.haddock) who do not lift a finger to improve the page over the years but come down heavily on a contributor who improves it with the correct references (even after providing screenshots, they go ahead and revert the edits!!). They have not provided a SINGLE authoritative source/reference for their views and think they have very cleverly come up with some argument that everything in society needs to be directly attibuted to the ruling dynasty - which is obviously quite silly.

Also, some of the expressed worries are unfounded as I would not be contributing any further to WP or trying various technical means to do so - as, frankly speaking, you guys can play amongst yourselves. Cheerio. Hyper9 (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Hyper9. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement[edit]

I have made a Arbitration enforcement request to ban you @Hyper9: from the Malayalam page regarding your disruptive tendentious edits.Nagadeepa (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hyper9 Nagadeepa (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from all Wikipedia pages and discussions connected with Indian history including languages/linguistic history.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read specifically the topic ban policy to see what a topic ban entails. You are encouraged to appeal the sanction no sooner than six months from now, with evidence that you have contributed constructively in other parts of Wikipedia or in our sister projects in the meantime. Such an appeal is likely to be viewed favorably. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Hyper9. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]