User talk:Sigiheri

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Corporation. 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 adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process, continuing to attack editors, or other disruptive reasons. You may still contest any current block by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This guy BBB23 is over the top. He had no good reason to block me and seems to garner pleasure from blocking people. I would argue that an admin should specify exactly the reason for a block and not just reference an article that may or may not apply.

May 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ... disco spinster   talk  23:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I think you should provide evidence if you block someone that is specific and not general. You simply say there was "disruptive editing" but provide zero evidence. Typically, when someone accuses another, they provide evidence. Are Admins above this type of basic justice? This is a serious question.

Sigiheri (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel like the comment by Daniel Case is totally inappropriate. Is it typical for Admin to call frustrated editors "dicks"? I feel like he failed to do his job.

January 2021

 * Note to unblocking admins: I had a discussion on IRC with this user, and spent a while trying to get them access back to an account. They had several autoblocks plus a VPN on, but we got that sorted. However, I could not get things to work on their original account, so I think it best to treat the old account as toast and just use this one. My take: this user can be productive, but I expect them to show they know how to make edit requests, what edit warring is, and to understand that they were in the wrong in the first place. The block is now 7 years old, although they did do some logged out editing ~2 years ago. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is mostly edited by and intended for lay people, as it only summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and not necessarily what experts in various fields state. That isn't to say expert editors are not welcome, but they need to be aware of how things work here.  I'd suggest reading WP:EXPERT for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand, but I would disagree that "...it only summarize what independent reliable sourse state..." I see a number of unreliable sources in the reference section of the Corporation page, such as #2 and #37.Sigiheri (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As this is a volunteer project with over 6 million articles where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content by us, we can only address what we know about. Helping us to remove inappropriate sources is something that we can always use help with. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The corporation article is poorly written and poorly cited. It's a real piece of garbage that lay editors protect because they don't know any better. They are pawns of capitalist propaganda who have been warped into believing in a fantasy world. I can help, but I need to be unleashed.Sigiheri (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Yamla: I guess you failed to read the first line in the appeal where I state that "I will not edit any page, ever. I will only post to the talk pages, from now on." Therefore, your concern that I will not edit in a collaborative manner is not warranted. I agree that I won't edit in a collaborative manner, so I'm not editing at all!!!!!!! It's too bad there's no accountability because this is egregious, imo.Sigiheri (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I read it. I have no desire to unblock you if you are going to go causing a ruckus over on various talk pages. You are free to request another unblock and a different administrator will review it. --Yamla (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Yamla, It would be nice if you familiarized yourself with the background of an appeal before denying it. I have stated that I am only interested in the corporation page. Therefore, once again, your fear are unwarranted. Also, you state in the your denial of my appeal that you don't think I'll edit in a collaborative manner. So if you did read my appeal as you assert, why did you state something that makes zero sense? Serious question.Sigiheri (talk)

NinjaRobotPirate: Another random decision with zero basis. I am posting an appeal, so call it argumentative, but isn't that what I'm supposed to do? Lay out an argument for why I should be unblocked? NinjaRobotPirate, asserts that my posts come across to you as, "arrogant." I take this fact-free opinion as an ad hominem attack. He bases his denial on my attempt to convey the political situation to the page to admin. I am pointing out that many ppl have been inculcated in an incorrect way to think about the corporation. In that sense, these people are "pawns of capitalist propaganda". I am not directly calling ppl that, nor would I. Yet, NinjaRobertPirate wants to be the thought police. He thinks that because I describe the situation that way to admin to get unblocked that I will call ppl names. It's a preposterous and thoughtless inference. Why does NijaRobortpirot draw a conclusion that what I say to admin is not what I say to editors? It's ridiculous. Nijarobertpirate should be banned from any authority to make decisions like this, imo.

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
 * You've been told repeatedly - you're blocked. No amount of hassling / trolling the same 30 admins on IRC is likely to get you unblocked. Make your case at UTRS, or to the Arbitration Committee. SQL Query me!  00:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)