User talk:Kip1234

Welcome!

Hello, Kip1234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Ethnic group did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Doug Weller talk 11:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Sino-Indian War, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Sino-Indian War. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya, here is another independent source that verifies the Chinese military engaging in resumed forward patrols in Ladakh from April 30 1962 on p104: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_bjADwAAQBAJ&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=chinese+army+patrols+ladakh+april+1962&source=bl&ots=bPra_eME2D&sig=ACfU3U2xT4FzI_tR1n3ozKt6mjMXjH7Y0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3p-GG3PDoAhVmTRUIHVejA9UQ6AEwCnoECA4QKQ#v=onepage&q=chinese%20army%20patrols%20ladakh%20april%201962&f=false. I would welcome an attempt from you to add your own sources for your edits, instead of you accusing me of original research without justification, when I would argue that it is you whom is responsible for this (due to your lack of sources). I do not wish to be combative, but I have multiple sources for both the Chinese army chasing the Dalai Lama in 1959 and then initiating increased military action in and along Indian-controlled territory in early 1962. Thanks, I hope that you will be reasonable and that we may achieve consensus before unsourced edits are changed.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Winstanley Estate has been accepted

Winstanley Estate, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

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

---

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

---

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

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kip1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

What is the justification for suggesting that I am a sockpuppet of some random user that I have absolutely no connection to whatsoever? Also, what have I ever said that either confirms that I am him, or that I have used abusive language? There is literally no evidence in my sockpuppet investigation, nor has anyone pointed out any reason for there being suspicions. Really disappointed that I have been blocked for no reason, especially when I have made my own (what I hope is unrelated claim) against another user for repeated abusive language and personal attacks on me. When I made that claim, I asked for admin. abritration and gave that user a chance to respond, rather than being able to unilaterally impose an indefinite block with absolutely no factual basis. Kip1234 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Technical "CheckUser" evidence has indicated the abuse. This evidence is very rarely wrong, and you will need to either provide a convincing reason as to how you would share the same IP address and/or devices as another person, or own up to any alternative accounts and ask for forgiveness. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@CaptainEek: I honestly have no idea how my account apparently has the same IP address as Kykyred 2, except to possibly suggest either a shared IP address or some other mistake. I have never used abusive language or had any other controversies and it's a massively disproportionate reaction to indefinitely block me for the judgement of a "checkuser" that must have been completed within 2 hours of coming to the attention of whoever is in charge of it. However, having looked at kykyred2's edits, I honestly have no idea why my IP address would apparently be linked to that account. Particularly as I can see no similarities in interest of topics (he was focused on Chinese topics and overwhelmingly military matters), which I have only slightly contributed to, nor in the lack of punctuation or capital letters with anyone who might have used this network. However, IP sharing or some other mistake is the only reason I can think of, as I absolutely and categorically deny any personal link to that account. It is definitely not the case that is a second account of mine. I have never been accused of vandalism or warned in this manner. I'm also not really sure why my Wikipedia:Request/Arbritration/Enforcement claim against Alcaois has been closed so quickly by the same user (@Berean Hunter: ) that implemented an indefinite sock-puppet ban, but oh well.

Can you at least see that I share none of the interests or writing style with Kykyred 2? I would also be amazed if we had the same IP address considering they were interested in Chinese and other military matters. Can there please be another checkuser review? This one appears to have done very quickly, considering that I was banned with no explanation only a few hours ago. Kip1234 (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC) }}

especially when I have made my own (what I hope is unrelated claim) against another user for repeated abusive language and personal attacks on me: I have absolutely no relation or connection, direct or indirect, with your ban. Alcaios (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alcaios:

I didn't tag you, so I'm not sure how you got the notification to reply to me. Anyway, I definitely did not use abusive language against you or anyone else, so I'm a bit mystified as to why I have been indefinitely banned straight away. I was just trying to seek an explanation as to why such a strict punishment has been applied and what reasons there might be for it, but you're right that it's probably just a coincidence that the request for abritration that I submitted against you has been conveniently summarily dismissed, not on the evidence that I presented but because I was banned due to some unproven allegations that make no sense.

Kip1234 (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I have just discovered that you have been banned by looking at the Arbitration enforcement, then I went to your talk page to see what happened. The arbitration request has been closed because it had been filled by a banned account. I would guess that this is rather a different request of yours that has preceded the CheckUser analysis. Alcaios (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alcaios:

Yes, it was an over-reach and "I shouldn't have said "extension of block/permanent ban", but again I did not use any abusive language and I'm amazed that you've been vindicated for calling me a neo-nazi and suffered absolutely no punishment, whereas I have had the most serious punishment for essentially bringing some comments (that someone had actually said) and then suggesting an (inappropriate) course of action. I am very confident that the IP claim will turn out not to be correct but shows how selective the definition of "abusive language/behaviour" can be according to certain editors.

Kip1234 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, the Arbitration request against me has been closed because you have been banned and you're the one that filled it. I was waiting for my "trial" and I have never tried to "escape". I think it's called a "formal defect" or "technical flaw" in penal procedures. Alcaios (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alcaios:

There's actually a more apt legal metaphor that describes why my request has been closed against you (even though technically they should be two unrelated things and there is no reason why my ban affects the language and content of what you said). However, since neither of us are Wiki lawyers, I won't get into that and I hope that you now see how easy it would be to potentially end up with a very harsh punishment on here! In all seriousness, you do seem to have a lot more discretionary topic bans than I have ever had as well, but I am left once again to ponder the massive inconsistencies of these punishments.

There are literally no editing similarities between myself and the page that I am apparently a sock-puppet of, so yes I would guess that is one ill-advised sentence to @Berean Hunter: that 'dun me wrong, even though he has left @CaptainEek: to explain it to me, whereas he has just imposed the harshest punishment with no warning and not bothered to engage in any additional dialogue beyond that point.

Kip1234 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no topic ban. I have only displayed on my talk page that I am already aware of existing discretionary sanctions in various topics so that editors save time when they are about to give me such an alert. Alcaios (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alcaios:

My point was just that I didn't have any but a far harsher punishment has been applied to me more quickly with a far more opaque and inflexible process. By the way, if you hadn't have continued to call me a racialist in your apology and accuse other people of being "racialists" for agreeing with me, then I would have accepted your apology for the neo-nazi comparison. Anyway, that doesn't matter for now.

Kip1234 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Kip1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, @CaptainEek: and @Berean Hunter:, thank you for your explanations as to my ban. Can you please explain the grounds that the checkuser tool was used to check for sock-puppetry in the first place, which I believe is part of the process? Can you also adhere to the IP information disclosure that my IP address is within the County of Norfolk and NR18 postcode and so is the IP address of kykyred 2 (as the most basic form of IP information disclosure checking)? I believe that this is justified considering that you have already mentioned that you have checked my IP address against Kykyred 2's. This is all the information that I am prepared to publicly disclose but I would be happy to initiate private email contact to provide further detail on my IP address. I would like this IP address to be checked very carefully as an alleged sock-puppet, as this is the address that I will be staying in for some time and I would presumably be unable to create any legitimate further accounts based from here. Also, if I did commit some offence other than alleged sock-puppetry, I would like to apologise and state that from now on I will just create new pages (3 of which have already been accepted) and not enter into editing on other pages that might cause disputes or vandalism. As you know, these new pages will be reviewed for any content that violates wikipedia policies. Finally, I am not, not, not a sock-puppet of this other user. Our editing histories have no similarities whatsoever and my account has been far more active and less contentious than theirs. Please give me the benefit of another chance. Regards, Kip1234 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello, <span class="template-ping">@[[User:CaptainEek|CaptainEek]]:</span> and <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Berean Hunter|Berean Hunter]]:</span>, thank you for your explanations as to my ban. Can you please explain the grounds that the checkuser tool was used to check for sock-puppetry in the first place, which I believe is part of the process? Can you also adhere to the IP information disclosure that my IP address is within the [[County of Norfolk]] and NR18 postcode and so is the IP address of kykyred 2 (as the most basic form of IP information disclosure checking)? I believe that this is justified considering that you have already mentioned that you have checked my IP address against Kykyred 2's. This is all the information that I am prepared to publicly disclose but I would be happy to initiate private email contact to provide further detail on my IP address. I would like this IP address to be checked very carefully as an alleged sock-puppet, as this is the address that I will be staying in for some time and I would presumably be unable to create any legitimate further accounts based from here. Also, if I did commit some offence other than alleged sock-puppetry, I would like to apologise and state that from now on I will just create new pages (3 of which have already been accepted) and not enter into editing on other pages that might cause disputes or vandalism. As you know, these new pages will be reviewed for any content that violates wikipedia policies. Finally, I am not, not, not a sock-puppet of this other user. Our editing histories have no similarities whatsoever and my account has been far more active and less contentious than theirs. Please give me the benefit of another chance. Regards, [[User:Kip1234|Kip1234]] ([[User talk:Kip1234#top|talk]]) 12:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, <span class="template-ping">@[[User:CaptainEek|CaptainEek]]:</span> and <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Berean Hunter|Berean Hunter]]:</span>, thank you for your explanations as to my ban. Can you please explain the grounds that the checkuser tool was used to check for sock-puppetry in the first place, which I believe is part of the process? Can you also adhere to the IP information disclosure that my IP address is within the [[County of Norfolk]] and NR18 postcode and so is the IP address of kykyred 2 (as the most basic form of IP information disclosure checking)? I believe that this is justified considering that you have already mentioned that you have checked my IP address against Kykyred 2's. This is all the information that I am prepared to publicly disclose but I would be happy to initiate private email contact to provide further detail on my IP address. I would like this IP address to be checked very carefully as an alleged sock-puppet, as this is the address that I will be staying in for some time and I would presumably be unable to create any legitimate further accounts based from here. Also, if I did commit some offence other than alleged sock-puppetry, I would like to apologise and state that from now on I will just create new pages (3 of which have already been accepted) and not enter into editing on other pages that might cause disputes or vandalism. As you know, these new pages will be reviewed for any content that violates wikipedia policies. Finally, I am not, not, not a sock-puppet of this other user. Our editing histories have no similarities whatsoever and my account has been far more active and less contentious than theirs. Please give me the benefit of another chance. Regards, [[User:Kip1234|Kip1234]] ([[User talk:Kip1234#top|talk]]) 12:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, <span class="template-ping">@[[User:CaptainEek|CaptainEek]]:</span> and <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Berean Hunter|Berean Hunter]]:</span>, thank you for your explanations as to my ban. Can you please explain the grounds that the checkuser tool was used to check for sock-puppetry in the first place, which I believe is part of the process? Can you also adhere to the IP information disclosure that my IP address is within the [[County of Norfolk]] and NR18 postcode and so is the IP address of kykyred 2 (as the most basic form of IP information disclosure checking)? I believe that this is justified considering that you have already mentioned that you have checked my IP address against Kykyred 2's. This is all the information that I am prepared to publicly disclose but I would be happy to initiate private email contact to provide further detail on my IP address. I would like this IP address to be checked very carefully as an alleged sock-puppet, as this is the address that I will be staying in for some time and I would presumably be unable to create any legitimate further accounts based from here. Also, if I did commit some offence other than alleged sock-puppetry, I would like to apologise and state that from now on I will just create new pages (3 of which have already been accepted) and not enter into editing on other pages that might cause disputes or vandalism. As you know, these new pages will be reviewed for any content that violates wikipedia policies. Finally, I am not, not, not a sock-puppet of this other user. Our editing histories have no similarities whatsoever and my account has been far more active and less contentious than theirs. Please give me the benefit of another chance. Regards, [[User:Kip1234|Kip1234]] ([[User talk:Kip1234#top|talk]]) 12:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Have you worked for an NGO before?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Hi Berean, is there a more private way to carry out this conversation? I am conscious that I have given away quite a lot of information as public disclosure and don't really feel comfortable giving away much more. Hopefully, we can move selective parts of that private conversation to a public domain.

Kip1234 (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You can email me. See the pink box near the top of my talk page. This allows me to see what you would like to keep private. I may reply here with followup questions. I may be offline for some time as I've got several things to get finished today.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Hi Berean, apologies for spamming but just want to make sure that all policies are being abided by and so am letting you know that I have just sent you an email.

Apologies for the inconvenience, Kip1234 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• I replied a little more than an hour later but haven't gotten a reply.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter:

Apologies, as I sent it through wikipedia it didn't go to my primary inbox at first. I also didn't see the notification until just now. I've replied and thanks again.

Kip1234 (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Replied.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter:

Replied. There is a sock-puppetry investigation process that should have been and still isn't being followed. Copyright violations on images are mistakes that I made in earlier work.

Kip1234 (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)