Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Clarification request: Indian military history: close as read what Tamzin said |
→Clarification request: Indian military history: Reversion of Sohom Datta's edit of Tamzin's comment as it broke the link →Amendment request: Venezuelan politics: Point to previous case vote |
||
Line 51:
{{pinged}} To me, the logical scope of "Indian military history" would be {{ordered list|list_style_type=upper-alpha|The military history of any entity, or vassal/proxy of an entity, based in {{ordered list|list_style_type=lower-alpha|the present-day Republic of India and/or|territory that was at the time considered India}}and/or|Any military activities by any other entity that took place in that region.}}<span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 15:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Koshuri Sultan|Koshuri Sultan]]: I think this answers the time question as well. But to be clear, no, I don't impute any time-based limit to this. Maybe hypothetically it wouldn't cover conflicts prior to the [[Indus Valley Civilisation]], but honestly even there I'm not sure.{{pb}}I also stopped to think about whether this covers actions by Indian-originating forces far removed from the region. I knew a woman who was the lone survivor of a [[Free French]] unit slaughtered by what she described as renegade British imperial [[gurkhas]], but according to a historian I talked to were more likely soldiers of the Nazi [[Indian Legion]]. Should those fall under Indian military history? But then I thought, yes, they should, and [[Talk:
=== Statement by Rosguill ===
Line 57:
:I fully agree with Tamzin's further comments on scope, including ancient history and operations by Indian military groups outside of India. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 17:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Sohom Datta ===
Line 130 ⟶ 129:
*'''Decline''' for private reasons. A one-account restriction is a distant second choice to me. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 11:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*Based on some private discussions that have taken place, while I am okay with an unblock (keeping the existing other restrictions in place) I am uncomfortable doing so unless we limit WMRapids to using a single account. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 22:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*I was [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Proposed decision#WMrapids unblocked with a one-account restriction|the only one who thought that a site ban was unnecessary]], and I still believe that. Robert, please see my and Barkeep's comments there regarding use of multiple accounts (and at {{slink|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan_politics/Proposed decision#Use of multiple accounts|nopage=y}} too). [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 01:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||