User talk:Bigfoot Yeti

ARBIPA sanctions alert
Kautilya3 (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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)

Blocked

 * - 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)
 * 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)
 * (Administrator) (CheckUser)  (Bureaucrat)  (Ombudsperson)  (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)
 * 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)