User talk:Sindhian

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sindhian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

disruption Warning

Your recent post to the Administrator's Noticeboard was in poor taste. You followed the discussion at dab's talk page, where your 3RR report was broken down and analysed, and found to be invalid. After review by multiple administrators and after the orignial blocking admin reversed his decision, you continued to pursue this by posting to AN (with no mention of previous discusison). This is deceptive and disruptive. Please do not engage in this type of behavior again. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] 


This was my first time reporting a 3RR violations and apperently I made a mistake in terms of taking diffs from the Article history page.

But why am I blocked ? Sindhian (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked without a reason. Can you please explain why

Decline reason:

There is no record of your block? IF you are autoblocked, please provide the autoblock ID — Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your recent edit to the Administrator's Noticeboard removed several other comments. While this probably wasn't your intention, please remember to preview your edits. Exarion (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your 2nd warning for disruption. Please put down the stick and step away from horse corpse. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 01:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I have re-blocked you (48h this time) for continued disruptive editing, edit-warring, block shopping on WP:ANI and general disruptive POV-pushing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

That charges are not correct.Please look at my history I have not engaged in edit warring. I have only expressed my openion on the talk pages in a decent way. One of the Admins who has a particular POV on the topic of Hinduism (which I believe is anti-hindu and maybe racist) disagreed with me and was starting calling me names and threatening me. I brought this to the attention of Adminstrators Noticeboard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Please_re-asses_the_rude_behaviour_of_Dbachmann) Since I am new to the wikipedia I made a mistake in terms of reporting th 3RR of the same admin, once I realized the mistake I apologized for that mistake. The only reason I feel I have been blocked is that I had disagreements with one of the admins and since he threatened to get me blocked he has managed to do it. This block is completely unjust, please review because this is not a just block Please look at the detailed explination below.

Decline reason:

Nobody in the ANI thread objects to your block, which appears prima facie well-founded. Alleged misconduct by another user is not a reason to unblock you; see User:Sandstein/Unblock. —  Sandstein  11:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.


1. For the charge of disruptive editing is concerned, this is completely wrong. Please look into my history. I always use the talk pages before making any changes to the Article and invite editors with opposite POV to discuss the issue. So I don't understand the case of disruptive editing. 2.I have not engaged in any edit warring. Please site any incidance. 3. Block shopping on WP:ANI. I made a mistake in understanding what is 3RR and how to identify and cite the reverts due to my inexperience and since it was my first reporting of 3RR, I realized my mistake and apologized.[1] The next seperate issue I wanted to highlight is about rude,abusive and threatening behaviour of Dbachmann. [2]. I was feeeling that I was not able to express by complaint properly so I created another thread since the earlier one was closed and cited proof of abusive and threatening behaviour. After I was warned not push it further I agreed rest the case and walk away. So there is no point of Block shopping since in my next complaint i wasn't asking for a block but just pointing to an unacceptable behaviour.

Obviously Dbachmann has a lot of friends in the Admin notice board who came to support his side and got me banned. Please review.

I agree this looks really unfair and bad. The user is being blocked for trying to report 3RR for an admin? That's so silly. A user should not be blocked for that, I had a look at it and it was an honest mistake. futurebird (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure you understand the entire situation before you jump in and start throwing accusations around. This situation has been reviewed by several independant edtiors. He was not blocked for his 3RR report, he was blocked for having a vendetta against an editor and refusing to drop it after several editors reviewed the situation and saw nothing wrong. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some serious reasons for concern here. Please see Talk:Hinduism. Wikidās ॐ 16:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And please see the full discussion of this block at WP:AN#Please re-asses the rude behaviour of Dbachmann. I'm not a "block-happy" admin by any stretch of the imagination, but disruptive editing and forum shopping is not acceptable. To Sindhian: If you find yourself in a conflict with another editor in the future, please read WP:Dispute resolution and avail yourself of one of those options. Thank you and good luck. — Satori Son 18:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

This is witch hunting. Now I understand that of the three charges that were cited for the block only forum shopping is the reson for this block. Please look at talk pages as suggested above by wikidas. Please understand this is not about content dispute I was complaining about an admin who was clearly abusive and threatning towards me. Why should I take this to Dispute resolution? I am not so much concerned about the content but Why shouldn't I complain about verbal abuse by an Admin. If you castersize me for complaining about an admin who was clearly misbehaving what message are you sending to the rest of the editors

Decline reason:

We have been over this before, it is far more than just complaining about a particular editor being disruptive, you are clearly on a vendetta. I tested this by responding at WP:AN in fairly abrasive comments towards you. While this was uncivil, you have not cared about the comments left for you at WP:AN (And they were far worse than anything DAB has said). This has been reviewed. just DROP IT, DAB has done nothing worth action. What do you propose we do? De-sysopp him? The fact is, he has not abused his admin tools by using them to gain the upper hand in a content dispute therefore the fact that he is an admin is pointless. Drop it and move on or you will most likley get this block extended. — Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 00:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason I did not care about your harsh comments is because I had asked for assesment and that was your judgement and you were asked to give your opinion. I accepted that as your judgement even though I did not agree. But my concern is verbal abuse. I re-submitted the request because it was wrongly dismissed as a content dispute. Calling anyone a "paranoid zealot" or "Hindu Zealot" is not just poisoning the well but is an attack on the dignity of the person. I was not calling for desysoping him but I at least wanted an acknowledgement from any one that this behaviour is wrong. And if an admin is threatening to ban a editor in a content dispute that amounts to abuse and the fact that I am banned is a proof thatthere is abuse of power. But none of you even chose to say anything against him, which amounts to encouraging his bullying and abusive behaviour. You were just trivilizing the issue as a content dispute. I admire Wikidas because at least he acknowledged and had the courage to tell Dab that his behaviour is not correct. I am not going to rest till I get justice even if I have to go to court for that.

Decline reason:

Oh, you found the secret to getting unblocked. We respond well to legal threats. I am only declining this unblock because another, independant administrator has chosen to indef block you (Which I agree with unless you redact your threat). If you continue to abuse the unblock template, your talk page will be protected to prevent abuse. — Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 01:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Per Wikipedia:No legal threats, would you like to revise your unblock request? Yuo really need to follow Chris's advice here. Kevin (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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).

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

Request reason:

That was really not a legal threat. I only said that as a figure of speech. I do not intend to go to court for this reason. This dispute is not something I will go to court for. I am sorry if I did not express myself properly

Decline reason:

Why do I get the feeling you wouldn't have been characterizing it that way had your unblock been accepted? In any case, this is not something to toss figures of speech around about, and the casualness (some would say recklessness) with which you did so strongly argues for declining the unblock. Oh, and we're protecting your talk page as you've had three shots at this. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

.

After consultation with the blocking admin, I have reduced your block to "time served", i.e. a little more than the original 48 hours, as the apparent legal threat has been retracted and was probably not a serious one in the first place. The reasons for your original block still stand though. This means you are now again free to edit, but please do keep in mind that a change of behaviour is expected of you, or you will very likely find yourself blocked again pretty soon. Users whose activities on Wikipedia are focussed on promoting a particular political or ideological viewpoint regarding some national, ethnic or religious group are not welcome on this project, and any disruption resulting from such editing will not be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

hi, I am with you people for contributing in "Orissa communal violence" and will follow you against the opponent people's work here

Please do one favour the same persons who are removing your words from the "Orissa communal violence" are removing my words from "arundhati_roy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arundhati_Roy and "sanddep_pandey" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandeep_Pandey who are giving frequently Anti india ,Anti Hindu , pro pakistani and pro terrorists statements and statements favoring kashmiri Separatists in public.This is tarnishing over country's image in the world Please help me out. you are free to take my help in any such issues. Raulmisir (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Religions article

Hello Brother. Currently some POV users such are reverting changes made by Nexxt 1, who is imputing completely referenced material that Hinduism is the world's most ancient religion, and other material. The POV users are disrupting his changes. Would you please be able to step in and take the side of user Nexxt 1? Thanks. - Angle reflection —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angle reflection (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]