User talk:Sigmabaroda

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Sigmabaroda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- Aronzak (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Ronz. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ramdev but your explanations didn't appear to accurately describe the actual content and sources. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA notice[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 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.

--regentspark (comment) 17:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking[edit]

This is very simple: you either back off following me around or I take you to WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking is called "Wikihounding" nowadays. Take it to the article talkpage and stop using abusive language like "butt out" and "can't be arsed" etc. Some of us get offended. Sigmabaroda (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also seriously suggesting that I "followed you around" to Rajiv Dixit and Aam Aadmi Party where YOU reverted all my edits with your frivolous edit summaries and your WP:BULLYing attitude ? Sigmabaroda (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

Hi Sigmabaroda, In this edit [1], which is similar to edits you have done elsewhere, please keep in mind the coherence of the article. Even unsourced material can be kept if it is non-contentious, and tagged for citations. For example, the factual information about the birth date, place, and the education details, are fairly non-contentious. I would say there is no serious harm in keeping it unless it is contradicted by some other sources. I will revert your deletion for now. You can take another shot at cleaning it up. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean start?[edit]

Look, it is obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that you are a returning contributor. Your claim that you have gained all your wikihistory and policy knowledge from completing The Wikipedia Adventure just does not wash, you are making a fair few very poor edits using inconsistent approaches, and you appear to have latched on to me. Can you at least confirm that you are not in breach of WP:SOCK? - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HARASSMENT - is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I am getting emails about you and thought it better to be open about things. - Sitush (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient. Could you share those emails publicly instead of resorting to innuendo ? Sigmabaroda (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously. Although the senders may choose to reveal themselves here if they are watching this page. I'll give you another example of what on the face of it appears to be anomalous: you said here that you had completed The Wikipedia Adventure. I am pretty sure that if you did then it would show up in your contribution history because of the interactive edits that go on during that process.

Look, India- and Pakistan-related stuff is absolutely plagued with sockpuppets and meatfarms. While we are supposed to assume good faith, it is not a suicide pact. WP:LTA/IAC is just one of many documented examples of how extreme the problem can be at times. - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PACT is not a policy whereas WP:HARASSMENT, WP:AGF and WP:NPA is treated as policy. I will shortly ask Shri Wales to clarify his statement about WP:PACT. Sigmabaroda (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many widely-accepted essays that are not policy. At least one of them has been cited by you. - Sitush (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, WP:AGF isn't policy either, although it is a guideline. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to answer the question I asked at the start of this thread? - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To use your own phrase [2] , F***O**. As it seems you behave this way with everybody, I'm not taking this personally and ignoring you. Sigmabaroda (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I will ask for you to be blocked now since it is blindingly obvious you are a returning contributor and probably a block evader. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“The encyclopedia that anyone can edit” is at risk of becoming, in computer scientist Aaron Halfaker’s words, “the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semiautomated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.” An entrenched, stubborn elite of old-timers, a high bar to entry, and a persistent 90/10 gender gap among editors all point to the possibility that Wikipedia is going adrift. Sigmabaroda (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmabaroda, I don't exactly know what the problem is, and I don't think I want to know either because I am up to my neck with other stuff. However, I would like to say a couple of things which might help you build better relationships:

A look at your contributions [3] shows an awful lot of negative numbers. That indicates that you are spending a lot of time cleaning articles and deleting content, rather than writing new content. You need to balance both. Ideally you should pick subjects that you are genuinely interested in and work towards improving those articles. That would involve both deleting questionable content and writing new content.
You also need to use your judgement as to how important something is to fight about it. The emptying of D. P. Agrawal article that you did was unwarranted, because the man is important enough to have a page but not that important that we should go and clean his page on a high priority. However, your deletion forced me to do just that, which I didn't particularly appreciate.

Enjoy your time at Wikipedia and try to make friends! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments /feedback. Somebody has to "clean up" unsourced statements in articles or else anybody can write anything. When I did try to rewrite some articles, this editor Sitush started attacking me. There was some initial confusion at the D.P.Agrawal article, because of a) Rajiv Dixit article confusion with Dharampal (Gandhian), b) wrong statement he was fellow of INSA (turned out to be NASI fellow instead which is a relatively inferior grade of fellowship), c) very poor INDEPENDENT good quality sources (which BTW is still the case), and d) I doubt that Agrawal satisfies WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR Sigmabaroda (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush is a solid experienced editor, and I suggest you listen to him more. I am not saying you shouldn't delete material, but rather that you need to find a balance between cleaning up and creating your own content.

As for the D.P.Agrawal article, I can accept that the sources are not great, but for academics that is essentially all you get. They don't get much press and the scholarly mentions are often cursory. But my view is that there are plenty of people buying and reading their books. We provide a service to them. Agrawal is certainly a notable scholar and widely respected. My main interest in him is that he is a `nationalist' historian who believes in Aryan migration. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked to enforce an arbitration decision[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for editing disruptively on Indian articles, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Bishonen | talk 16:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You edit largely by removing material, and you seem quite unwilling to do due diligence first, such as look for sources or — if that's not something you wish to do — simply tag as {{Unref}} instead of removing. Users have urged you repeatedly to follow these principles, but you apparently have no interest in it: you "clean up" like a bull cleans up a china shop. Another example: removing a bare list of a writer's works as a copyright violation[4] shows you're not au fait with copyright law.[5] Persistently acting in this way, and repelling all complaints, gets very disruptive.

Moreover, it seems clear to me that you are a returning contributor with something to hide. The only alternative that makes any sense would be that you're trying to look like a sock of a banned editor by your evasive behaviour, for instance in the conversation above,[6] and I don't see why we should have patience with that either. You won't even say yes or no to Sitush's direct question above ("Can you at least confirm that you are not in breach of WP:SOCK?") instead stonewalling with irrelevant quotes and alphabet soup. You have stated elsewhere that you have acquired your striking familiarity with Wikipedia jargon and culture partly by "taking" the Wikipedia Adventure.[7] When Sitush points out above that your contributions list shows no traces of the edits that appear automatically in the course of doing the Adventure,[8], you ignore that and "reply" with a list of irrelevant policy shortcuts. Here, I believe you pretty much admit to following Sitush's editing in order to make editing unpleasant for him — else why suggest a "pact" whereby you offer to leave him alone on certain conditions? "I [=Sigmabaroda)] will level / bulldoze some (a few) important articles on India which are poorly sourced or badly POV - and which I find especially offensive/unencyclopediac, and you [=Sitush] can erect / correct / content create or whatever it is you do after that." (When he rejected that pact, you followed him within hours to at least two articles you hadn't previously edited and removed content from them.[9][10]) Bishonen | talk 16:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Because somebody with better sense seems to have unblocked me, I will not be replying to your unwarranted inquistion.Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been unblocked. There is either a technical issue of some sort (if the block notice is intended to trigger an actual block) or Bishonen has simply forgotten to set up the block after issuing the notice. Either way, you should not be editing articles and I will be reverting you. - Sitush (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was never blocked. And I shall continue to edit. This entire episode reeks of bias against Indian editors to prevent them from editing responsibly on articles about India. BTW: Can you cite any policy which compelled me to reply to your wild accusations ? I have pointed answers for each and every point above including WP:TWA. Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was I editing disruptively when I exposed that the BLP article on Pratibha Patil and her family members was of a pathetic standard ? Wikipedia is clearly a joke of an encyclopedia when it comes to India, when even the article on a former President of India was so shitty.Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this diff by Sitush. After he couldn't find a reliable source, he simply stuck on a template and left the allegations in place. Is the RBI inquiry report cited in public domain or does Sitush (like Ritu Sarin or Arun Shourie) have a private copy ? Why is Sitush reluctant to cite 'Lifting the veil over Pratibha Patil' Arun Shourie for this section ? It is a blatant copy-paste. Or this Vigil Online. Are these reliable sources ? Sigmabaroda (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this. I am finding that the blocking ARBCOM "Bishonen" is not an "uninvolved administrator" because "Sitush" had involved him directly into another dispute involving Sitush, myself and 3rd editor, see this. I request either Sitush or Bishonen to point where Sitush complained about me and I came to be blocked by Bishonen without prior discussions. Those emails may also be given to me for my future appeal process. Sigmabaroda (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I've become so used to placing block notices using Twinkle that I forgot the arb enforcement template doesn't actually place the block. Fixed — now you're blocked. As for where Sitush complained about you, I believe most blocks, certainly most of mine, are placed without any complaint or block request; admins simply use their eyes. In this case, there was no complaint: I watch Sitush's page, and what I saw there made me take a look at your page, and your editing. Sorry for the confusion about the block. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Since I intend to appeal your sanction, could you respond to my comment that you are not an uninvolved editor in this case (to apply this sanction) because U:Sitush had earlier specially invited you into an ongoing dispute he and I were having with a WP:SPA on Daya Singh Bedi - an India related article, where Sitush said "I suggest that you butt out of this".

Since the Dictionary definition of "butt out" means to strike or push with the head or horns, or to strike one another instead of meshing. I did exactly as he suggested by trying to improve his edits and thereafter continually attempted to strike with him. Since he is from US and I am from India, it seems there was some language communication gap. (I learn later that in his country "butt out" can also mean "simply go away" etc). But I repeat that I was doing exactly as Sitush had himself instructed me to do.

When I found after 3 days his approach was not working and causing more problems, I voluntarily offered him the "pact" in very good faith so that we did not keep butting each other while editing articles. His reply was Piss off ... devil. I also found he is regularly saying similar things to other editors on his talk page, asking them to F***O**, Go away etc.

When I took a small India related editing dispute between us to WP:3O, he actually replied on his talk page that WP:30 was waste of time and I would be blocked before that. I don't know why he was so confident that you (or some other) would block me to prevent me from using Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes relating to his very poor edits.

As you watch Sitush's talk page, I wonder you did not block / caution Sitush earlier instead of acting like his involved fairy godfather by blocking me and despite seeing that I repeatedly was warning Sitush to be CIVIL and not use bad language.

My editing was not at all disruptive because another editor even strongly objected against Sitush's hostile attitude and incivility towards me at Administrator's noticeboard

Synonimizing an user with the devil, saying "Piss off" to an user who is genuinely trying to understand Wikipedia's policies. Good job. At this point, you're a half-baked version of what FPAS is, if you want to be proud of it, that's your choice. Also, some curt language, you got there, buddy. Please have the decency to be polite and get rid of that attitude.

So I am asking you to why such quarrelsome and uncivil editors like Sitush get so much leeway at Wikipedia and other editors are drummed out ?

Considering all these things I hope you immediately unblock me, or else you will also indefinitely block Sitush also under the same ARBCOM ARBIPA decision for disruptive editing relating to India related articles.

PS: I just tried to email you but my unblock request but there is some problem, but you can send me email at hrm2014WG00972 <AT> sigma <DOT> ac <DOT>in and I will reply it. Sigmabaroda (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail problem? Probably the problem is that you don't yourself have e-mail enabled. You can't e-mail other users through the wikimail system without having it yourself; there's a reciprocity about it. Not sure whether you can enable wikimail while you're blocked, but I don't really see why not. Try it: if you go to your preferences, you will find the e-mail options under the "User profile" tab. Then you should be able to e-mail me, if you have something confidential to say to me. Thank you for providing your addy above, but I don't much feel like using it — I don't have anything confidential to say to you, and to be absolutely frank I'm not crazy about giving you my address either.

Apparently you believe a post by Sitush on my page, here, makes me "involved", in the sense that it's inappropriate for me to block you. You're mistaken. I took a look at the page he linked to, but had to decide I didn't have time to do anything there. Even if I had responded to, or acted on, Sitush's request to try to smooth down the new editor, it wouldn't have made me involved. I have only ever involved myself with Indian topics in an administrative capacity; I don't edit the articles, nor discuss their content on talkpages. Take a look at WP:INVOLVED.

IMO I have now answered all your remotely reasonable questions/arguments. I decline to debate the definition of "butt out" and similar matters with you (beyond noting that you misread the dictionary, perhaps accidentally). I suggest you move on to the next step in your appeal process. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

WP:ADMINABUSE[edit]

Dear Bishonen. I am bluntly stating that you have all the appearances of being an involved administrator since Sitush was frantically signalling you to block me - and was very confident that I would be blocked too. I am concerned with WP:ADMINABUSE in my indefinite block because Sitush specially involved you (why you ?) in a dispute the SPA was having with him and myself,and then followed it up with calls on his talk page (which he knows you watch) sending signals about me BLOCK .. BLOCK .. BLOCK. All these factors indicate you are a BIASED admin whom Sitush deliberately "involved". When Sitush clearly wrote I would be blocked before my WP:3O would be taken up it he was certain you would do it. Why for instance have you not similarly blocked User:Dev raj gujjar who Sitush had also said he would write up for a ARBIPA block on Sitush's talkpage [11]. ie. Why me ?

PS: It was certainly an accident that I read the dictionary in that way, and stopped reading at "butt in". Sigmabaroda (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bishonen, Your statement that you don't edit pages on India is incorrect. You and Sitush have both closely edited here [12]. And you both also have closely spaced edits on India Talk pages [13], Sigmabaroda (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bishonen, it is also unclear why you have been so harsh and biased with me compared to this Indian page editor Capankajsmilyo Sigmabaroda (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've told you my opinion of your "involved" claim, and that claim frankly seems like a mere attempt at diversion to me. If you really do have answers to things like the Wikipedia Adventure issue, why don't you offer any of these answers? Anyway, unless you should come up with something genuinely new, I'm done on this page. If you have any faith in your cause, you should appeal your block. Don't you think there would be a certain logic in telling other, neutral, people, rather than me myself, all about my "admin abuse"? Bishonen | talk 22:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The Wikipedia Adventure is another communication gap thing. I said I "took" the TWA whereas Sitush interprets it to mean I "completed" the TWA. I took the TWA as part of my Management degree program on strategic social marketing and new communication technologies. The TWA was done onscreen (using OHP) by our faculty and did not use my user account but some arbitrary named account generated as part of the instruction.Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help please from admin[edit]

Questions for administrator[edit]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I am planning to send Block Appeal.

Is there any reference book for drafting ARBIPA appeal? (The AE template is only for the format,not for the content of an appeal).
Is it better to appeal to AE or AN notice board for my block ?
To what extent is the social policy WP:AGF a binding principle for editors. Under what circumstance, if any, can WP:AGF be ignored by non-administrators under the essay WP:PACT ? The context is statement Look, India- and Pakistan-related stuff is absolutely plagued with sockpuppets and meatfarms. While we are supposed to assume good faith, it is not a suicide pact.- Sitush (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC) made by the other editor.
Is there any Wikipedia policy which compels editors to answer leading questions put by other user eg. Can you at least confirm that you are not in breach of WP:SOCK? - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC) ?
I understood that the term "returning contributor" to essentially mean a user who is logging in again to edit using his registered account and password [14]. Does it have any other usage on Wikipedia ?
Is using the terms "Piss Off" and "F*ck Off" considered as "Uncivil" ? How should we respond to editors when these terms are used ?
The other editor says he was receiving emails from other editors complaining about me. I think he is making up about these emails, so how to apply for discovery of these emails for drafting my appeal ?
Is it also correct that ARBCOM has disbanded the BASC, but Jimbo Wales still has power to overturn even ARBCOM applied sanctions?

--Sigmabaroda (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sigma, I am an uninvolved editor, but am only here to point something out. Just letting you know, many of the questions you are asking are Leading questions. You come off as hostile, and it will discourage other, uninvolved editors from help you. I highly suggest that you rephrase your questions. Thanks. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for this valuable pointer to "leading questions". So it means that Sitush could not ask me leading questions like - have you stopped being a WP:SOCK ? I have also started rephrasing the questions.I am not hostile, I am upset. Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not disallowed to use leading questions. It is just a lot less likely that someone will respond. You definitely do seem upset, and I suggest that you go take a walk. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This "request for help" is disingenuous. It is clear that its purpose is not, in fact, to solicit help, but rather to make various pointy remarks. Continue in the same way and expect to have talk page access removed, to stop you from endlessly wasting time of other editors with your string of unconstructive messages disguised as requests for help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CONFLICT OF INTEREST - REPORT'

Dear editor who uses the pseudonym JamesBWatson".

I asked for an UNINVOLVED administrator's help. I believe you should have stayed away from this matter since you are known to associate with User:Sitush outside of Wikipedia. Sigmabaroda (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, " Meetup Manchester -- developing a core of Wikipedians who now know each other better", -- "and also great to finally meet JamesBWatson and Sitush (and, of course, all the others) User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee 19:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)". I am not posting links outside of Wikipedia which amplify this aspect better. Sigmabaroda (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So what you mean is that because once, over four years ago, Sitush and I once attended the same Wikipedia Meetup, I am for ever disqualified from acting as an administrator in any case with any connection to Sitush. An interesting interpretation of "involved", but not, I think, a useful one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am not an uninvolved admin, but I am an uninvolved editor. You are shooting yourself in the foot SO HARD right now, I don't think you have a foot left. If you want any chance at editing Wikipedia again, you need to shut up, take a WALK, and finish your AE request. Don't stir up more stuff, don't even reply to me. Just do. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 15:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello Help channel. Please request an uninvolved administrator of this website to assist me with my above mentioned doubts and queries.

Also is it true that the appellant has to grovel a lot in his appeal and agree to stay away from India related articles broadly construed for ARBIPA appeal to succeed ? Can you point me to similar ARBIPA appeals on AENB for indefinite blocks which have succeeded ? Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to appeal your block the instructions to do so are included in your block notice. The use of the {{help me}} template is not going to help you in this instance. --Majora (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

My first question

1) Is it correct that ARBIPA enforcement blocks are for 1 month initially and then to be increased progressively up to 1 year [15] ? If so, why was I blocked indefinitely under this policy ? Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are asking leading questions. I would highly suggest you wait for an uninvolved admin to come around. The average helper can't help you here. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you allthefoxes, you give good advice. Meanwhile, I can answer that one. Yes, it's true. However, I've blocked you as an obvious sock (alternatively someone who impersonates an obvious sock). Indefinite is the only alternative there, and (to answer a question you haven't asked yet) a preliminary warning also isn't relevant. ("Hello, please stop being an obvious sock or you may be blocked.") And it's beyond me why you don't simply use the block appeal template that you've been told about. You can ask and state anything you like in your appeal, and ask for it to be pasted to WP:AN or WP:AE. (They'll both work, but I would recommend WP:AE.) Bishonen | talk 11:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Bishonen, Your new argument that I was blocked for being an obvious sock is bollocks. If I was an obvious sock (which I am not), you would have explicitly stated it in the blocklog and you would also have done all the following i) blocked all affected accounts, ii) banned the user (sockmaster) behind the accounts, iii) on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects iv) public exposure of any real world activities or personal information. The fact that you have done none of these in my case exposes you as a cheap liar who queerly resorted to ARBIPA to save your pal Sitush. I shall wait till some uninvolved administrator eventually gives me proper answers, before filing my Unblock Appeal thank you. Sigmabaroda (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the WP:BOOMERANG --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft_Unblock_Appeal_to_AE[edit]

I am starting a draft of my Unblock Appeal to AE

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <Username>[edit]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Sigmabaroda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –

Sanction being appealed: INDEFINITE BLOCK

Administrator imposing the sanction: Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: EDITING ACCESS IS BLOCKED,and email to admin is out of question.

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by <Username>[edit]

September 2016[edit]

Hi, Sigmabaroda. You were quite right in January that arbitration enforcement blocks aren't supposed to be indefinite. I don't know why I was so stubborn about it, I apologise. I have now converted your AE block to an ordinary indefinite block, which you can appeal in the ordinary way per the instructions below. Bishonen | talk 08:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. It further seems obvious from your evasions and misdirections on this page that you are a sock of a banned user. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 08:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]