User talk:Bigfoot Yeti

Hi Bigfoot Yeti! 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 RhinosF1 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

07:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Your recent editing history at Insurgency in Manipur and Separatist movements of India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Posting the warning template for procedural reasons.

You don't seem to be understanding that Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of political propaganda. Instead, you need to wait for reliable sources describing the scenario as a separatist movement, preferably scholarly source but not news source. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked on an unsubstantiated grounds. The case presented was weak and hinged on my happenstance editing of the few articles mentioned. Even the filer is someone whom I haven't even come across since I started editing in March earlier this year. This is some sort of a mix-up. I want other admins to look into the evidence please. Bigfoot Yeti (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The grounds were substantiated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital where your violation of WP:SOCK was confirmed. Yamla (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2019 (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.

@Yamla: - And what or where is the evidence because I can't wrap my head around this? Bigfoot Yeti (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no access to that information. You can read about it generally, though, at WP:CHECKUSER. --Yamla (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: (Administrator) @Yunshui: (CheckUser) @Worm That Turned: (Bureaucrat) @DeltaQuad: (Ombudsperson) @KrakatoaKatie: (Arbitrator)

From what I gather the WP:CHECKUSER says "Information about users (like their IP address) is retained for a limited period on Wikimedia Foundation sites" while the Clerk note on the SPI case reads: "The archive is all stale". So the question I ask is what data set was relied upon by the blocking admin to block me? Does his actions comply with the WikiMedia Privacy policy and the Data retention guidelines? Does the blocking admin breach any of those and are his actions legal/ethical? Bigfoot Yeti (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come off it. Legal? Of course they were legal, and you are very, very close to losing access to this talk page due to WP:NLT, for this bizarre question. Do they comply with the privacy policy? In what specific way do you believe your privacy has been breached? Nobody has disclosed your IP address or any of the other information available only to checkusers. Indeed, you are the only person coming close to asking for the privacy policy to be breached ("what data set was relied upon..."). Does Bbb23's actions comply with the data retention guidelines? Of course they do; Bbb23 literally doesn't have access to data not in compliance with those guidelines. That data is purged and is not available to Bbb23. As to ethical, it is entirely ethical to block a ban-evading sockpuppet account. On the other hand, being a ban-evading sockpuppet account is not ethical. I strongly urge you to immediately cease this approach. You have access to your talk page solely so you can request an unblock. WP:GAB will help you with that. --Yamla (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]