User talk:SiddharthSunny

March 2016

Your recent editing history at Islam and Sikhism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 your 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. Thank you — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 03:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SiddharthSunny reported by User:Omni Flames (Result: ) regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 03:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Guru Arjan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Note that WP:3RR applies to all of your edits to a single page. It usually does not apply to all of your reverts against one editor across multiple pages.

Ms Sarah Welch has reverted you three times at Guru Arjan, and three times at Islam and Sikhism. You reverted at four times at Guru Arjan, either three or four times at Islam and Sikhism (since your first edit was technically a revert of an older edit). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, blocks are not punitive, but preventative. You are not being blocked as a punishment, but to prevent you from causing further disruption. When your block expires, stick to the talk pages for those articles. If you continue to revert without consensus, the blocks will get longer each time. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Omni Flames: Who do you think you are? You think you'll get away just by double-teaming and having me blocked? You can't do whatever you want. SiddharthSunny (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: What kind of joke is this? I get blocked but User:Ms. Sarah Welch does not get blocked for edit-warring? She and Omni Flames get do whatever they want. She and Omni Flames even gave false reasons against me and you did not even give me chance to explain. This is unacceptable. Try to be fair and unblock me. SiddharthSunny (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

The admin has blocked me but hasn't blocked Ms Sarah Welch who started this edit-war and gave frivolous reasons to revert my edits again and again. Another user Omni Flames tagged along with her to help her revert after she reached the 3 revert limit. Also notive that she reverted 6 times, 3 times each at multiple articles. This is still a violation. Please unblock me now if you aren't going to block and punish Ms Sarah Felch as well.

Decline reason:

Please concentrate on your own actions. You're currently blocked for a bright-line 3RR violation and you need to address this. Max Semenik (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2016 (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.

The three revert rule says not to revert more than three times.

You reverted four times on two different articles. That's one more than three, twice.

Ms Sarah Welch only reverted three times, which is not more than three. If she had reverted more than three times, I would have blocked her as well. She is not equally guilty.

That Omni Flames reverted you as well is a sign that consensus is against you. It does not mean that you are being "double teamed." If consensus was on your side, someone besides you would have reverted him.

I don't care what other reasons they gave or what reasons you imagine they gave. You reverted four times: 1 2 3 4. That's undeniable.

If all the traffic is heading toward you, you're probably in the wrong lane. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.Thomson: You do notice that the 3RR rule says you have violated it even if you have not exceeded the 3 reverts limit? And also please notice that Ms Sarah Welch also reverted on another article Islam and Sikhism. She reverted here, 2nd time here and the 3rd time. This in total 6 reverts in 24 hours.

And that too removal of sourced content which I already proved many times on talk pages of both articles. I don't understand completely what do you mean by consenus is against me. I notice the consensus is against me. But does that mean people can do whatever they want here? That's anarchy.

It is clear she only stopped after she reached 3 reverts on both articles. If the limit hadn't been there, she would have no doubt continued. I only have more reverts than her because I had added back my edits recently and another person Omni Flames jumped in. She clearly violated the rules and doesn't have any regards for them. And at the least you should have given me time to prove my case. She deserves to be banned more than me. And I notice that Omni Flames has reverted me again. I'm suspecting a sock-puppet here but that is matter for another discussion. Please be fair and ban Sarah as well if you want to ban me. She deserves it more. SiddharthSunny (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Sarah Welch only reverted three times on one page, and three times on another. That's still not "more than three reverts on a single page," and so not a violation of WP:3RR. Please actually read pages before citing them, and do not misrepresent policies.

Since your first edit of the day at Islam and Sikhism was technically a revert as well, you had four reverts there, too. Once again, Ms Sarah Welch only had three.

Your accusations of sockpuppetry violate WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks because there is no evidence for such claims. No admin will regard such accusations as anything more than a temper tantrum.

Even if I pretended that WP:3rr was for all pages, she still only reverted six times, while you reverted eight times. That's not equal. Then there's the fact that her reverts represented consensus, while yours did not. You two are not equal in this.

No admin is going to unblock you unless you realize that you were the only one here who made a mistake, unless you explain what that mistake is, and how you plan to avoid it in the future.

Your current attitude makes it pretty easy to believe that you will resume edit warring once the block is over with -- be warned, if you do that, the blocks will get longer, and you may be permanently banned from editing articles relating to Islam and Sikhism. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.Thomson: Here's from the 3RR policy: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached."

And you know that she was edit-warring. I only reverted 2 times more because I was the first one to revert.

You say I'm the only one at fault. For what? For not doing as Ms Sarah Welch and Omni Flames want me to do? What consensus are you talking about? They're deleting my content when they want to and I should let them because they are more in number despite proving them wrong completely? That's called anarchy, not consensus or democracy.

Clearly she's more at fault at me. Ms Sarah Welch and Omni Flames have already violated Good faith and I doubt they ever had any. When I said I suspected them of being socks it's because they seem so. They don't seem to have any Good Intentions at all. It's funny how you only blame me, but do not even put a single blame on her.

Unblock me now please or block Ms Sarah Welch now. You might not like this, but your actions are indirectly helping them to do as they want to. You should help in stopping this anarchy instead, not promoting it further. SiddharthSunny (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have no idea what's going on here or how things work here. I've explained these things for you as simply as possible. If you refuse to understand these things, you are only going to end up being blocked over and over until finally everyone gets tired of you and blocks you indefinitely.

Your behavior is in the wrong here. Whatever your arguments about content are do not matter, you have edit warred by the standards of all regular editors. Whatever your claims are to the contrary, any regular editor would count you as edit warring and not Ms Sarah Welch. Read WP:NOTTHEM and WP:STICK.

I've filed a lot of sockpuppet investigation reports and have spotted a lot of long-term problematic editors hiding in various parts of the site. I'm pretty good at spotting sockpuppets. I'm far from the only editor who does that, and I'm not even the greatest of them. If there was any evidence that Ms Sarah Welch and Omni Flames were sockpuppets, they would have been found out a long time ago. You do not have evidence of them being socks, you are just being paranoid.

Your accusations about them never having participated in good faith are personal attacks. If you continue to make them during the block, I will revoke your talk page access. If you make them after the block, I will block you again.

There is simply no argument you could possibly make that would result in Ms Sarah Welch or Omni Flames getting blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who is right or wrong technically in this dispute. However, what I certainly agree with is that Sarah Welch is a habitual offender for edit warring, uncivil behavior, mocking and condescending behavior. Some action must certainly be taken now as it has been going on repeatedly, with multiple editors. Her approach is certainly detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole, and especially to new editors whom she absolutely does boss and mock; this being the latest example. Her continued editing privileges on WP present an imminent threat that must be curbed ASAP. I appeal now that, rather than letting this discussion focus on me/SiddharthSunny/anyone else, the approach of Sarah Welch would be thoroughly discussed and action would be taken. I can certainly share a lot of evidence, if needed.

And with all due respect, the actions of Ian.thomson are also not worthy of your stature as an Admin here. Please try to understand SidhharthSunny's point too. He already quoted that it can be deemed edit-warring and a violation even if technically it is not more than 3 reverts. Further, another example: You accuse SiddharthSunny of not showing good faith since he raised potential Sarah Welch socking issue. However, now go and read Sarah Welch contributions on user Joshua Jonathan page here where she is trying to destroy SidhharthSunny's (a new editor, who must rather be encouraged) reputation by accusing him of being a Sock. Like I said, the approach of Sarah Welch must be thoroughly discussed and action should be taken against her to restore faith of new editors in WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User pm22 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riiight... And you're obviously not a sockpuppet of someone who got into an argument with Ms Sarah Welch in the past. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.Thomson: You are now being hostile. Please notice that I never claimed that I'm not innocent of rule-breaking. I certainly have idea here on how things work atleast about edit-warring. You don't need to tell me who's going to get blocked. Even another user here has said that Ms Sarah Welch does break the rules frequently. She has clearly edit-warred. Whatever you want to say, Ms Sarah Welch is the one who's most at fault. No excuses can be made against it. And please try to understand why I'm complaining her. It's because of my own original complaint about her at ANI, the one you quashed without batting an eye. I have every right to ask her to be blocked, it's not even because of my block. It is simply because of her breaking the rules. Besides in case you didn't notice I said I "suspect", bot that they are. There's a big difference. But you might be right, I can't assume them over a few edits. Regardless I had legit suspicions. And when I said they do not have any good faith, they are not accusations or personal attacks in any way. They were a mere representation of what I thought about their own actions which you have seen yourselves. They have mocked me, bullied me, they break the rules bluntly and have no regard for the rules, they have bluntly forced their edits and edit-warred. And yet I'm the one you think is the only wrong one. If you revoke my talk page access, I'll complaint against you and have my talk page access restored. You are creating a meaningless argument. Fine, if you will not block Ms Sarah Welch, then I'll complain about her again. And this time I will make a proper and completely detailed complaint highlighting her actions. If you do not want to take any action, then I'm sorry but then there is nothing useful in talking any further with you. I could talk for a long while but that will serve no purpose to anyone. Ms Sarah Welch clearly broke the rules. People who break rules can't scot-free. SiddharthSunny (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see your unblock request being declined? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was due to me bot concentrating on my own actions. I shouldn't have asked the other editor to be blocked in the request. And thus have made a new request focusing on my own actions. SiddharthSunny (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SiddharthSunny: I really don't believe that there's any evidence of me being a sockpuppet of Ms Sarah Welch. I don't recall ever coming across the user before and I truly believed that the past revision was better when I reverted your edit. But if you honestly believe that I'm a sock I have absolutely nothing against you starting an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ms Sarah Welch. Anyway, the bottom line is that you made 4 reverts. Technically on two different pages. Ms Sarah Welch, on the other hand, made just 3. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 09:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Omni Flames: I said I suspected you of sock, that was because of similar uncooperative behaviour of yours with her. If you're not then fine. Also please stop the meaningless evasion of they didn't do this, you did that. 3RR rule clearly states that you can be considered edit-warring even if you do not make more than 3 edits in 24 hours. Please try reading all my comments here. She is clearly edit-warring and I will complain about her again in complete detail when the block lifts. She even mocked me when I warned that I will complain if she doesn't stop breaking the rules. She deserves to be blocked. Beyond this I see no use of talking further about this subject. SiddharthSunny (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Wikipedia:Edit warring also states that editors should try to resolve the conflict on the talk page first. She did that, but you still claimed that she had been "proven wrong" despite the lack of consensus. You then continued to revert the edits. In my opinion, that makes you the only edit warrior. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 10:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Omni Flames: I wonder for what reason you are defending her. You are either lying or are simply mistaken about what she did. It was me who told her to talk. Here's what actually happened. She first changed the text of Akhtar Hussain83's restoration of some of removed edits by blocked users. While changing that, she never once told anyone to talk. Then I came along and reverted her as it was not in the source. And it was me who told her to talk. The edit summary says so itself: "Please talk in case I'm wrong." She however instead of simply talking first, reverted again and then told me to see talk claimed I'm edit-warring even though at that time I had only reverted just one time. This is what she did, only after getting reverted by 2 editors she started talking, and that too after she was told to and even when she did start a discussion she still made a revert. The common policy is to discuss if you are reverted. This shows what kind of person she is, someone who has no regards for the rule.

And please note being "proven wrong" is a matter of facts and sources here, not consensus. You cannot claim X is Y because more people agree with you. That's not how it works. She was proven wrong clear as day, yet she refuses and insists she is the only one correct there. By her own comments it was clear that she only wants her edits to be in the article, she didn't seem interested in cooperating and making the article better. And after I reverted she reverted me again and one more time. Edit-warring is edit-warring. No matter what you claim or what reasons you give. The difference between her and me. I accept my faults, she doesn't even care. She deserves to be blocked, she has absolutely no regard for the rules. Now please don't comment unless you have anything worthy to contribute. You can say what you want when I complain about her. Until then I see no point in the long discussion. SiddharthSunny (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been blocked from editing your talk page, so I see no point continuing this discussion. If you really wish to continue arguing, you can do that once your block expires. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 21:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

SiddharthSunny, may I suggest that it is ill-advised to insult other editors and then fifteen minutes later, request an unblock? It might not suggest to the community that you understand why you have been blocked. Understanding that, is the key to success right now- friendly advice! Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi When did I ever insult any editor? If you meant that by saying that Omni Flames is either lying or simply mistaken, then clearly you are mistaken. What I said is what I think. Omni Flames claimed that it was Ms Sarah Welch who tried to resolve the conflict on talk page first. However this was wrong. From the history of the Guru Arjan article, that she didn't bother to talk until she was reverted by 2 editors and it was me who told her to take it to talk page. And even when she did talk, she still edit-warred. This is clearly visible from the history of the article but Omni Flames still claims she tried to resolve it first. Why will Omni Flames make such a wrong claim despite the proof already being against there Sarah? Clearly it's either a lie or a mistaken belief. How is it an insult? Are you saying this just because I used the word "lying" in my statement? People on my talk page keep taking statements to be personal attacks and insults even when they clearly aren't in way. You people seriously need to chill out, there are no insult or personal attacks here. SiddharthSunny (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enough assumptions of bad faith. To prevent you from posting even more ridiculous allegations, I've revoked your right to edit this page for the duration of this block. Your unblock request is still up, so other admins will still review it. Max Semenik (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this is for you Max Semenik, I couldn't answer your claims on your talk page. Me demanding your apology and if you didn't do it I'll report you was in relation to your completely unnecessarily agressive actions against me. Not to "scare you"/"threaten you"/blackmail you etc. Your actions deserved to be complained. However I thought of letting yoi apologise just like I did because everyone should be a given chance to rectify their mistakes. If somebody feels sorry for something, obviously you should forgive them and not complaint have any action taken against them. It was simply for recognising that you have good faith towards other. However just like here, you became agressive on your talk page as well and started making blames against me there as well. You have been unnecessarily to aggressive over most minor of things, not to mention you mocked me in your last comment as well. It was completely correct on my part to try to report you. And I do believe you should be reported because you have shown uncivil and agressive behaviour multiple times. SiddharthSunny (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more evidence for help

I fully support a ban on Sarah Welch. Over a period of time, I have observed that Sarah Welch is a habitual offender for edit warring, uncivil behavior, canvassing, mocking, condescending behavior, but being an experienced editor, she manages one way or the other to game the system and get away. It is time this is thoroughly investigated. Her approach is certainly detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole, and especially to new editors whom she absolutely does boss and mock. Her continued editing privileges on WP present a imminent threat that must be curbed ASAP. Some evidence below. I can share a lot more if needed.

Post from a well established editor MohanBhan here on her behavior:

"Your behavior matches with every single instance of uncivil behavior mentioned there including name calling, inappropriate and repeated use of warning templates, and repeated copy-pasting of out-of-context comments made on different forums. The tone of your comments is unprofessional, mocking and condescending even when you are at fault and have brazenly misquoted citations or modified them to suit your purposes. You have been warned many times for breaching WP:Civil, and for using talk pages (the last being the talk page of Allama Prabhu) to make personal attacks."

Post from Mohanbhan on Sarah Welch's canvassing here

Evidence of prior edit-warring here, acknowledged by another experienced editor Kautilya3.

Another instance of completely pointless edit-warring episode by Sarah Welch. She reverted the same well sourced edit multiple times harassing other editors and wasting their time: here and here without even checking the source, as eventually acknowledged herself here. Tocic45 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing, per a complaint at WP:AN3

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ms Sarah Welch reported by User:SiddharthSunny (Result: Filer blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

What are you talking about EdJohnston? I haven't done any disruptive editing since my block expired. I just made one revert and stopped after that. There never was no disruptive editing. Not only that there was no report against me as well, which is a violation of due process. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ms Sarah Welch reported by User:SiddharthSunny (Result: Filer blocked) was my own report. You are stifling me. And also I see at AN3 you have meaninglessly accused me of being a sock and I've been accused of being a sock of 4 different users at least. You can't block me for whatever reason you want. I ask the mods to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:23, 22 March 2016 (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.

@SiddharthSunny: it's not "a violation of due process". Admins don't need to go file a report at a noticeboard before blocking. For example, if an admin saw someone edit warring, it would be pointless for them to go through AN3, wouldn't it? — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 00:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He said there was a report against me. I said there wasn't. If you have to claim something, atleast it should be right. That's what I talked about. And besides where did I edit war? Oh you mean the one revert? SiddharthSunny (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SiddharthaSunny, at the top of WP:AN3 it states "When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized." If you didn't want the closing admin to look into your own behavior, you shouldn't have opened a complaint there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok admin User:EdJohnston but please tell me in what way if any you have scrutinised the user I complained about and punished them? I have the right to know that at the least and you should be fair in your judgment. Or have you let her go scot-free? SiddharthSunny (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

The mod EdJohnson blocked me for disruptive editing but haven't warned nor blocked the other user User:Ms Sarah Welch. And I have been blocked indefinitely, are you kiddng me. The one who reviewed my unblock request decline saying I need to convince them I won't disrupt it. Also I already apologised here and assured I won't edit-war (which I didn't) at this unblock request. What more do you guys need? I only did one revert after my block expired and somehow that's considered disruptive but she who's done the same thing isn't even warned, let alone be blocked for her continued last of uncivil and disruptive edits. And she's got what she wanted, to have me blocked in order to continue overriding her views over others. And yeah, I said it. Claim whatever you want, yoi will try to claim that it's a personal insult or attack. I already assured you but I get blocked for just one revert even though I never did any more reverts after I got reverted again. Or is ot because of the false claims of bad faith and personak attacks others keep making? But Ms Sarah welch is somehow too innocent. And please don't point out WP:NOTTHEM. This is not justice, this is selective biased punishment. I already told I'm not going to disrupt. What am I, your slave who needs to convince you every time? I come here ro contribute and all I get is get bossed because I'm new, get mocked, get pushed around by others like I'm some jerk and get repeatedly harassed and blocked while others go scot-free. I am not going to apologise or convince you for anything repeatedly to you people. You mods are nothing more than inhuman monster-like people who bossed me around. And you can consider it whatever you want and probably try to revoke my user rights, talk page access etc. But I won't let my comments be stifled by anyone anymore. You people are being aggressive plain and simple over trivial issues but I won't be doing wheeling and dealing and beg you again and again that too over biased outrageous blocks because of fears about your aggressiveness. Enough is enough. If you won't unblock me, then do what everyone can do what they want in the democracy which these people have turned into nothing more than anarchy and doing what they want with sly tactics. That's exactly what Ms Sarah Welch, she has used sly tactics to do what she wants. This block is totally outrageous and I won't take any bullying lying down. This is enough, I demand to be unblocked right now and if you won't, it's a clear indication that Wikipedia will become a cesspit with people like you, it already has actually it seems.

Decline reason:

This aggressive diatribe laced with personal insults and demands is the kind of thing that would lead some admins to revoke your ability to edit this talk page, as you have surmised. But I don't like doing that, especially in response to something that was clearly written in a moment of anger. Instead, I'll simply decline this request, in the hope that there will be a more collegial one to follow after your anger has subsided. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2016 (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.

If all the traffic is heading toward you, you're probably in the wrong lane. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM Ian? Try this. IT IS MS SARAH WELCH regardless of what you want to claim. And another thing: Wikipedia isn't a road where everyone is heading in one direction and is following the rules, also neither it is as serious as real life traffic where your actioms will affect your life directly. And in this case the "traffic" aka THEM is wrong. And I demand a fair judgment. I have that right. And I want my complaint to be taken care of. You can't push my complaint aside because I was blocked. Act upon it instead of giving various reasons to try to justify your inaction. If you don't then you don't then you are detirmental to the process of keeping Wikpedia clean and healthy. SiddharthSunny (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the site is working just fine with Ms Sarah Welch unblocked and with you blocked. Multiple administrators whose collective experience on this site quite possibly be longer than your entire life have decided that your actions are disruptive and that your presence is not needed.

Your capacity to judge the situation is so clouded by rage that you cannot begin to realize what's going on. You have confused your petty and vengeful temper tantrum with justice, as if you were WikiGod or something. As long as you are acting that way, no admin will ever unblock you. Your only options at this point are:

Give it up. Stop posting. Wait a few months, and come back and promise you will not get into this trouble again. You can believe whatever you want about Ms Sarah Welch, but if you indicate that you will not cross paths with her and not engage in the same misbehavior elsewhere, an admin may unblock you.
Keep trying to argue, only to have another administrator revoke your talk page access, blocking you from everything but reading. If you try to come back from this, we will treat you the same way we treat long term vandals and trolls -- and no better.

The choice is yours, you bring the results on yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to keep arguing with you Ian and don't want to continuously arguing with you or others. Since you've not realised, the rest of the site is not working fine with Ms Sarah Welch unblocked and me blocked. Edit-warring is wrong no matter what reason you had, even I know that. And if I get unblocked, I will complain her again. I'm not letting her go unpunished as it might only encourage such actions further. She has constantly disrupted and will probably be repeating her same disruptive behaviour elsewhere. You can call it bad faith, personal attack whatever you want, but it's none of that, all it is the truth and nothing else. And just becuae you have spent much more time here, doesn't automatically make you correct and me wrong. No offence intended but "Experienced people can make mistakes too". I don't think of myself as WikiGod. Plus I'm not gerting scared by your and anyone threats, even if you do revoke my talk page access. I'm not begging again and again and destroying my integrity. I already assured for my behaviour once and I am not begging for it just because others want me to or think I should. And neither I am going to stifle or ridiculously censor myself on some words because of fear that others might not like them. If you don't want to argue that's fine. If you don't want to take action against Sarah for her distuptions, then you're yourself harming your own reputation and that of Wikpedia. I don't see in any more point in this discussion anyway and don't want to keep arguing. SiddharthSunny (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And just one other thing EdJohnston and Ian there's no such thing on AN3 or anywhere on Wikipedia that says "If you have been blocked for something wrong, then the user who you complained against willl not be acted against and/or is innocent". You people clearly have no respect or regard for the due process. I don't see in having any discussion with people like you any further. Please stay away from my talk page from now on since you won't take action and don't contact me on my talk page unless it's absolutely important and required by the rules. SiddharthSunny (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you too User:Omni Flames, stay away until it's important and required by the Wikipedia policies. You have mocked me at my own talk page and have mostly contributed nothing except arguments. Any further comment of yours will be deleted. SiddharthSunny (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Omni Flames: That doesn't even make sense. You didn't intend to inform me I'm blocked, yet you inform it to me, that too 2 times in the same comment. And then you say you're saying you made the statement to say you won't be responding, like you should tell others that you won't be talking on their page like they had asked you or something, that too when others told you beforehand the block to stop commenting (which I still am). That's not even understable. And it isn't surprising you'll try to defend yourselves from wrongdoing. Please stop replying. I'm deleting most of yours and mine thread to me after the block as it is mostly useless and I have told you many times to stop replying. I won't be allowing any more comments here unless they are of actual use to the Wiki. Thank you. SiddharthSunny (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I empathize with you and support you.

SiddhathSunny, I empathize with you and relate to each and every word you have said above. You cannot edit wikipedia without sucking up to the powers that exist here. They really really want you to beg and make sure you do what they want you do to, not what is the right thing to do. Not much of a "Wiki"-Pedia this is. But don't lose heart. This kind of operation cannot sustain itself for long. Sooner or later, this Wiki-Pedia would die its natural death. Already over the last few years, it has been dwindling, and nobody in the real world anyway assigns any credibility whatsoever to what Wikipedia says, precisely because of what we have witnessed in your case.

If you do want to continue here, I suggest you not to fight/engage with anyone of the sort of Ian Thomson who comes here just to provoke you or to make you realize that you ought to beg. You have done the right thing asking Ed Johnson to explain to you what he has done to scrutinize the actions of the other editors in question. Just wait for him to respond, or ping him again after some time if he has not responded. Apart from that, just ignore everyone else who is here to just "trap" you or to make you beg. They will never see your point of view, which is such a shame. I can only hope this message of mine offers you some solace, I do not believe it would lead to anything else, although if it does, that would be pleasant surprise. Tissot331 (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tissot331: Thank you even though I think you're a sock. But anyway, I'm not apologising again. Nor I'm going to beg anyone. I have already apologised and I am certainly not doing it again that too over a block over false claims of "disruption". Neither I'm going to let Ms Sarah Welch go scot-free as long as I intend to be here. You are right about Wikipedia as well. These mods are assuming only what they think or do is correct and do not impart even a warning let alone a block to Ms Sarah Welch. These are not the first such mods I've encountered, such mods can even be encountered on various other websites and social sites. And people like Ms Sarah Welch game the system of Wikipedia, canvassing, bully others especially newcomers like me, toss various allegations all the while never even acknowledging their own wrong actions, try to impose what they want to in the articles of Wikipedia and remove well-sourced content using frivolous reasons. People like her do it over various reasons which can range from personal to mistaken beliefs. Surely Wikipedia is a great storehouse of dependable knowledge but at the same time it's also becoming undependable because of such people who mostly don't seem to have interest in improving the Wiki. People like her and these mods are destroying the credibility and most importantly reputation of Wikipedia. SiddharthSunny (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done

Boing! said Zebedee, I'm not going to make any requests for "forgiveness" or do any begging before anybody as I've already said. I have already told how EdJohnston has made an outrageous block over something non-existent and that too just one-sided. Neither I did any edit-warring after the block: I did 1 revert after the block and stopped straight after I was reverted. I didn't make any insults/personal attacks etc which so many of these people keep falsely accusing me of, I'm not going to stifle my speech based on what other people want to hear. In case you feel what I said is a "personal insult", please read carefully again. It's nothing but criticism of mods like you. I'm not going to censor my comments based on what you think is appropiate to enter in order to appease anyone. It's the mods who are at fault. I and not scared nor I care if anyone wants to revoke my talk page access. They are acting like only they are correct and I'm wrong. I don't have any explaining to do or requests to make. They have no care of anyone at all except themselves and what they believe. I do not need to do anything. They should correct their violation of the process, re-open my complaint and block Ms Sarah Welch just like they did me and lift this ourageous block themselves. And I know you'll cite WP:NOTTHEM, but that does not excuse Ms Sarah Welch for her disruptive actions, uncivil behaviour and bossing new users like me. Also, it does not excuse the mods who didn't even warn her let alone block her. I'm not the one at fault here and I won't be destroying my integrity by apologising for mistakes of others. I'm a man of integrity. If you don't want to unblock me, then you're harming Wikipedia by your own irresponsible actions. People like the Ms Sarah and some of the mods are destroying the image, reputability and credibility of Wikipedia. You people have no shame or humility. And I'm not going to be a silent spectator. This is the complete truth. If you don't want to accept it, then no one but you are at fault and I hope everyone realises their mistakes soon, go on and do what you want to. I thought of having a good time editing and interacting with others when I joined up here last month but all I found is people freely doing what they want at a article through sly moves. I won't remain in such a place where anarchy will be let to prevail. I'm leaving and I'm never coming back. No requests, begging or anything else. Enough is enough! I'm done with this. Do whatever you want. SiddharthSunny (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am going to file an unblock request for the last time. I'm not the servant of the mods. I do not need to request anyone or beg for any "forgiveness" again and again nor I am going to. I'm not at fault. The mod User:EdJohnston should lift the outrageous one-sided block and ban Ms Sarah Welch regardless of what anyone wants to claim about WP:NOTTHEM. I didn't deserve to be blocked and I should be unblocked. This is all there actually is to explain and the real truth. And if I'm not unblocked, then I'm going away forever. I've had enough.

Decline reason:

Your request does not address the issue(s) that resulted in your block. Further, if you continue to post block requests that you have been told will not gain unblock, it may deemed an abuse of the unblock template. That determination could result in your losing the ability to edit this page. Tiderolls 17:42, 22 March 2016 (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.

I think you are the 4th mod to say this to me Tide rolls. All of the mods who come here act like they are the only ones right here and everybody can only say and do anything only the way they want them to. I've already described all my actions many times and the outrageous actions of User:EdJohnston against me. I am not going to explain to you and beg you again and again for unblock. I am not your servant and I'm not compromising my integrity by bowing before you and saying whatever you want me to. I'm not going to apologise and grovel that too before you people who have comitted such outrageous actions have been against me. Besides as I already said, I wasn't going to make any more unblock requests. My unblock request described it as it is and as I have already said, I'm not going to ridiculously censor myself just because you or anyone else didn't like what I say. You mods are the ones who need to stop being so agressive and thinking that you are the only ones who are correct. If you won't unblock me, then there's no point in staying here anymore. I'm leaving this site. SiddharthSunny (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You won't need the ability to edit this talk page then, so I have revoked it. Should you change your mind, please see WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]