User talk:Sigmabaroda: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:22, 10 January 2016 editKautilya3 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,846 edits →Clean start?: Reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:16, 11 January 2016 edit undoBishonen (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,392 edits Blocked to enforce an arbitration decisionNext edit →
Line 77:		Line 77:
	::: 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.		::: 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 ]. - ] (]) 22:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)		::: 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 ]. - ] (]) 22:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

			==Blocked to enforce an arbitration decision==
			<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]To enforce an ] and for editing disruptively on Indian articles, you have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] (specifically ]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx\|unblock\|2=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.'' ~~~~}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the ] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. ] \| ] 16:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC) <hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following ] 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" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->

			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 <nowiki>{{Unref}}</nowiki> 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 shows you're not au fait with copyright law. 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, 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 ]?") instead stonewalling with irrelevant quotes and ]. You have stated elsewhere that you have acquired your striking familiarity with Misplaced Pages jargon and culture partly by "taking" the Misplaced Pages Adventure. 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,, you ignore that and "reply" with a list of irrelevant policy shortcuts. , 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 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 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 a lot of content from them.) ] \| ] 16:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

Revision as of 16:16, 11 January 2016

Welcome!

Hello, Sigmabaroda, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

October 2015

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)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages 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)

ARBIPA notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

Template:Z33--regentspark (comment) 17:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Stalking

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)

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)

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)

Sourcing

Hi Sigmabaroda, In this edit , 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)

Clean start?

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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

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

To use your own phrase , 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)

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)

“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 Misplaced Pages is going adrift. Sigmabaroda (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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 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 Misplaced Pages and try to make friends! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Blocked to enforce an arbitration decision

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 ] or ]. 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)

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" ). 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 shows you're not au fait with copyright law. 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, 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 Misplaced Pages jargon and culture partly by "taking" the Misplaced Pages Adventure. 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,, 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 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 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 a lot of content from them.) Bishonen | talk 16:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC).