User talk:AkhtarHussain83

AkhtarHussain83, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AkhtarHussain83! 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 Doctree (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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 at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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).

AkhtarHussain83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do not understand how come User:EdJohnston claimed I've been doing any disruptive editing. The article Guru Arjan I blocked was rarely touched by me in days and I particiapted in the discussions. If I've been blocked because of my reverts, then edit-warring wasn't my intention at all. In case I am at mistake, please accept my apology. I never had any intention of any edit-warring and I didn't even have any idea I did. Nor I understand why the additional reason of possible sock has been added that too just because I made an edit to the article. I ask the administrators to unblock me please.

Decline reason:

I really made an effort here for you. The blocking admin is correct that your activity is very suspicious. Our policy allows us to block based on behavioural evidence in addition to technical evidence. I feel that there is cause for concern. The offer the blocking admin made was to allow you to continue editing in other areas of the encyclopedia. Since you have declined the offer I am going to decline this unblock request. HighInBC 15:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Hey excuse me but I don't get what I've been blocked for. EdJohnston you have banned me for disruptive editing, but when did I do any disruptive editing anywhere? AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't done any disruptive editing anywhere. Do you have any evidence that I did disruptive editing anywhere? AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Because you been edit warring so much that EdJohnston lost your editing pencil indef, and a possbile sock. So, read our policies and always tell the truth.(KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC))

Sorry I'm so late in responding User:CitiesGamer66. I had given up hope that anybody would respond and I never came back. But anyway, I did not conduct any edit-war. I rarely even edited the article due to which I have been blocked. Nor I understand the reason you are basing this or me being possible sock on. If you have any proof of disruption or anything else then please give it. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is evidence of it! Please STOP lying; I'm going to ask EdJohnston to revoke your talk page access for lying. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I cannot believe you're openly accusing others of lying that too without any proof. I never indulged in any disruptive edits and I only did 2 reverts and both of them were more than a day apart, see my contributions. And I rarely edited the article. So yes, definetely I'd say there's no disruption. Nor I did any sock, in fact the reason was given as a possible sock which I don't understand what the admin has based on. Please stop making such insults against me. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Block review

Hello. I am here to offer an uninvolved review of this block.

This seems like a less than simple case so I am going to ask you some questions first, then I will discuss the matter with the blocking admin.

Can you let me know what you meant by this edit? Which blocked editor were you restoring the content of? This is important to know for your unblock review.

Also, you said above you were not edit warring but you restored the same removed section three times: [1][2][3]. Please read the [[WP:EW|edit warring policy], it is important for your unblock request that you understand what constitutes edit warring.

Once I hear back from you I will talk with the blocking administrator. HighInBC 17:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please ping me with {{ping|HighInBC}} when you respond so that I don't miss it. HighInBC 18:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Thank you for your time. You asked me what did I meant by [4] this edit. In actual, the edit summary says for itself. I was wanting to edit the article a little bit and while scrolling through its history I found here where User:Ms Sarah Welch claims she removed edits of blocked accounts [5]. However no offence but User:Ms Sarah Welch seemed to be creating her own rules to me thing that says edits of accounts have been blocked should be removed. Therefore she did not have any justification to remove them and that is the reason why I restored them. As for the blocked editor it was User:KahnJohn27, although others blocked editors might have edited the article as well.

Plus, each of these reverts [6] (I didn't know until now this was considered a revert as well), [7] and [8] were made with a difference of more than 24 hours with the next revert. As far as I've read it needs to be more than 3 edits in 24 hours or reverting over a long period of time. I didn't make 3 reverts in 24 hours, and I rarely even edited the article. Therefore I'm quite sure I have not done any edit-warring. And if you read the edit summary, you'll find out that all the reverts were made for a good reason: User:Ms Sarah Welch was misinterpreting the source. But in case I have edit-warred, then I'm sorry.

Plus, in actual I had no problem with letting others add their own edits and discussing with them. For example I didn't mind or object at all her removing the portion of the revert. And if you see from the edit summaries of my reverts and Talk:Guru Arjan, I was ready to let her change the article as long as she could provide a source for her edits and probe that she was correct. She didn't. However [[User:EdJohnston still considers I have done disruptive editing when in actual I've done nothing but trying to work along with other editors and he conveniently ignores it all.

Despite this, in case you consider that I have still edit-warred, then I'm sorry. I do not understand the basics some time and I am still confused about the rules due to being new. But I assure, it was never my intention to edit-war. My only intention was to help add to the article and help others as well. I'm sorry if I broke the rules during my edits, that's not what I meant to do at all. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I have left a message with the blocking admin trying to sort this situation out. HighInBC 14:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

AkhtarHussain83 caught my attention because he jumped in the middle of an edit war at Guru Arjan where socks had been involved. Since his account was so new, and since he began by restoring some edits by a blocked sock, I assumed he was part of the crew. The slower process would have been to notify him of WP:ARBIPA and so forth. At present, since HighInBC has reviewed recent edits and does not see a case for indef, I'd support an unblock with conditions. I suggest the user agree to a WP:1RR restriction. If they do that, and also agree to avoid the topic of Sikhism on all pages of Wikipedia, including articles, talk and noticeboards, I would support unblock. Such a voluntary ban would include Guru Arjan and its talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

AkhtarHussain83, what you do think of EdJohnstons proposal? HighInBC 21:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your answer suggests you acted on your own instincts, not any real proof that I am a sock. In-fact I didn't jump into any edit-war, I simply added back what I thought was correct. And I added back only 1 edit of blocked editors because it was recent and I found it legit. Should I avoid it just because other people edited it before? About your conditions, I cannot accept the ban on me from Sikhism that too especially from a talk page of an article. You didn't have any proof for me doing any disruptive edits, neither that was my intention as already stated. Neither my edits were so serious that I should be given a whole topic ban. My intention was never edit-warring in case I did and I didn't even know if I was edit-warring. But I have no problem with 1RR, I'll keep off from reverting and limit myself to 1 revert permanently on an article in case I do revert. I hope that satisfies you. Thank you. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have declined your unblocked request. I think Ed made you a very fair offer. The question you have to answer yourself is "Are you here to make an encyclopedia?" or "Are you here to argue a point about Sikhism?". If your goal is the former then we have offered you a way back, if you are just here for the one topic then the concerns presented by Ed remain valid. If you want further review you can ask another admin, I feel my review is complete. HighInBC 15:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I think you have misunderstood me. I objected to me not being allowed to a whole range of topics. If it was any other topic, I would have decline such a condition to not be able to edit them. Why are you thinking I'm implying that I wanna prove my point about Sikhism? I wasn't even intending to actually go back to the article. All I oppose is a topic ban that over such a small thing. You asked me to prove that I realise what I did wrong and will not do it again. That I've already proved, I did nothing serious even if I did and it wasn't my intention anyway. You seemed satisfied too. I don't know why you misunderstood just because I opposed having me banned from editing a range of topics that too over such a thing. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand. You were given a way back and you did not accept it. I share Ed's suspicions that you are not a new account, it does seem like you showed up to continue an argument started by another account. If you like you can ask for another admin to review your block, but I have put the time and effort I am willing to into this already.

The unfortunate reality of Wikipedia is that if a new user edits in an area that is controversial and has a history of sock puppetry it is far more likely they will be seen as a sock puppet. If they begin doing identical edits to a previously blocked user that suspicion increased to actionable levels. While you may not be a sock puppet it sure looks like you are. You have been given an offer to edit the rest of Wikipedia while avoiding the problematic areas, and you have declined. If you want to use the project for making an encyclopedia then you have a way back, but if you want to work in an area rife with sock puppets then you just seem too much like a sock puppet. HighInBC 14:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: You did misunderstand. I was simply against not being allowed to edit. No offense but this is ridiculous. To start off, I don't remember seeing any sock activity on Guru Arjan. And why should I be banned from editing a whole topic about Sikhism? Just because it has had socks and someone blamed me of being a sock as well? Does any such rule even exist? I don't think there's anything that says that I have to accept a topic ban over such a thing.

Neither I did any disruptive editing and neither any socking and no evidence was given in either case. What exactly am I a sock for? For restoring a legit edit? I simply edited where I was at and I don't think it is forbidden to edit just because other editors too made the same edit. I'll try to request another unblock request. Thanks for taking the time to review. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Well if you don't want to accept the offer then there is not much left for me to do. You can ask another admin for a block review, or you can accept the offer, or you can stay blocked. HighInBC 14:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: Perhaps, @AkhtarHussain83 can also comment and clarify what happened in the following edits:

1. The first edit to Guru Arjan article by @AkhtarHussain83, after opening a new account, was to restore old disruptive edits by a blocked editor. The edit comment "Restore some legit edits of blocked editors." by @AkhtarHussain83, indicates the intent.
2. @AkhtarHussain83 reverted edits of Omni Flames and JimRenge, during an active edit warring by @SiddharthSunny who has personally attacked and threatened multiple admins and editors, and recently likely harassed the blocking admin @Boing! said Zebedee and me after the block. Did @AkhtarHussain83 as a new account take WP:MEAT-style side with @SiddharthSunny? FWIW, the new account @AkhtarHussain83's comments were similar to the new account @SiddharthSunny on Talk:Guru Arjan.
3. An example of disruptive behavior by @AkhtarHussain83: Alleging Bhalla source didn't support the content in the edit summary. @AkhtarHussain83 later admitted making that edit without reading the Bhalla source.
4. Another example of disruptive behavior by @AkhtarHussain83: These allegations on the talk page, despite the fact that multiple sources had been provided, with embedded quotes from the cites.
5. Does @AkhtarHussain83 admit any issues with his past edits at Guru Arjan and his comments on its talk page? Were they disruptive?

I support @EdJohnston suggestions. FWIW, @HighInBC, the Sikhism-related articles have seen a high sock activity by @Js82 and others, for many months now, which has been quite disruptive and time consuming to address (see recent archive and current Talk:Sikhism). This was noted at the ANI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, he's probably a sock of User:SiddharthSunny. 3 hours after SiddharthSunny's first block [9] he reverted my edit at Guru Arjan and then began edit warring and pushing his POV on the talk page, pretty much exactly what User:SiddharthSunny was doing. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you are an administrator User:Omni Flames but regardless here's the explanation of all of it which you seem to blocking me for without proof:

1. The first edit was to restore actual legit edits which were recent. As I already asked is it wrong to restore some other user's edits? This seems to be more like a suspicion than any actual proof.
2. I reverted these edits of Omni Flames and JimRenge because I was the original one to add the edits which you and others removed, and I come back occasionally to a page I've edited. As for similar comments, I don't understand how you claim so. Is it because I agreed with him? Then again, that is something again you're considering on suspicion than actuality.
3. This was actually in response to your action of reverting here where you claim that Guru Arjan's execution was supported by the Bhalla sourc, when it actually wasn't. And the Bhalla source still hasn't been used to cite Guru Arjan's execution. I even asked you #here, here and here that how come you are actually claiming it is sourced based upon a source which wasn't even used for this purpose? And I also asked you whether you read it. And you still haven't answered me here Talk:Guru Arjan#About martyrdom. No offence but this suggests you haven't. In addition, I've noticed that you didn't even comment once about anything on Talk:Guru Arjan. All you did was revert the article. It is not right to accuse others of something when they try to discuss it with you but you don't. Therefore obviously it was not disruptive at all for me to revert your edit.
4. These are not some false allegations. I carefully read all the comments on the talk pages when making this assertion. You or anyone else weren't able to prove from any of the sources you cited in the article that it is a theory both here at Talk:Guru Arjan#@SiddharthSunny edits and Talk:Guru Arjan#Martyrdom. And you still haven't.
5. I don't think there was anything seriously wrong in my edits. Besides just a few reverts and sock and disruptive edits by other users doesn't mean I should be banned too.
6. You blame me of being a sock despite me not being any that too just because I edited the same article (which actualy I was the one originally to edit). In addition the claim of me editing only 3 hours after User:SiddharthSunny isn't any valid reason. I edited even before most of the editors in this dispute came to the artcle. And I didn't even try to push my POV. In fact i tried several times to help you with your edits. I removed the part of the text I restored at "selling ideas challenging the established religions in the Mughal Empire" didn't exist in source. In addition, I asked you 2 times for any source upon which you were basing your change of the edit. The first time and the second time. No one came forward with any evidence.

There never was any evidence of any of the accusation laid against me. And even if I did edit-war, that's not what my intention was anyway. That's all I have to say. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@AkhtarHussain83: Wikipedia article talk pages are not the place for forum like discussion, or to prove anything to you (see WP:TALK and WP:WWIN). We just summarize what the reliable sources are stating, faithfully, in our own words to avoid copyright violations, to the best of our collaborative abilities. If we disagree with a certain wording, we assume good faith then propose and discuss alternate wording to improve the article, we don't mass delete everything/large sections.

It is strange that your very first edit to Guru Arjan article restored major months-old content added by a sock-blocked editor. With your first edit, you restored content in different sections, from 2015, along with WP:OR such as 'selling ideas challenging the established religions in the Mughal Empire' which you now admit is not in the source. All this is unusual. Then you edit warred with @Omni Flames, @JimRenge and me, lecturing about "status quo". Unusual behavior. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You know the rules better than me @Ms Sarah Welch:, but you still don't understand me and why I reverted in first place. It's not about me, it never was. As you say we should faithfully summarize the sources. We cannot add something that isn't mentioned anywhere in the source. When the evidence was already given that what you are saying is nowhere in the source, you have provide counter-evidence for your claims. You say "We just summarize what the reliable sources are stating, faithfully, in our own words to avoid copyright violations"; but instead in your case you have not faithfully summarised it. In addition, as I already said nobody used the Bhalla source for citing it was a political theory and it still isn't. So definitely it was right on my part to remove it.

As for the reason I restored this has already been explained many times, it was because it was recently there and you removed it just 5 days ago. And the reason you gave was "revert edits by a blocked account". And you've done it again by ignoring my comments completely here just because I have been blocked. Also needless to mention on Wikipedia, anyone can edit anything at any time. If it was any other edit which was removed based on improper justification, it would have been no different and I would have restored it. You have no justification for your suspicion. And this was not a lecture, simply a request to everyone to discuss and stop edit-wars. Anyone can easily understand that. No one cared however. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@AkhtarHussain83: You continue your dissimulation, with "explained many times" allegations, rather than reading the responses and replies on the talk page. I am not going to repeat them here. See the comments of @JimRenge and @Apuldram as well.

You are clearly misinformed or misrepresenting me when you allege "you removed it just 5 days ago". Just check the edit history. Check the days between my restore and your first edit. Also check the days between the edits of 'multiple socks, all blocked' and my first edit. As I wrote above, it is highly unusual for you as a new editor, that your first action in Guru Arjan article was to restore a series of old edits, which were not supported by the source. Falsely misrepresenting me in your case by alleging "just 5 days", plus ignoring the fact that you edit warred with multiple editors to retain the "confirmed-and-blocked-sock-editors' contents", is continued inappropriate behavior on your part? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to clear up what happened in actual User:Ms Sarah Welch. Yes you're right that I got the day difference wrong between your and mine edits. It was 15 days, not 5 days. The mistake was because I read the date incorrectly, mistakes happen. But inapropriate behaviour? User:Ms Sarah Welch you're nitpicking again. This is similar to what you did here creating a issue over an accidental mistake. This is the edit where you give the reason for removal of edits of other account as "revert edits by a blocked account" despite clearly there being nothing that allows anyone to remove edits of others pre-block just because they've been blocked later on. And I read this reason, and this was definitely cause for a suspicion. So definitely tgrre was nothing wrong in restoring the edit and reverting you. Now please try to notice the difference between your removal and mine restoral in terms of intermediary edits. Only 3 edits were made in that timeframe. And I didn't edit-war with you, as I never breached the 3RR rule. In fact I only reverted just once in 1 in every 24 hours to a total of 3 reverts. And besides it wasn't my intention anyway. That and I asked you two times for a proof here and here You didn't provide anything except wrong wording of the book source everytime. Not to mention you've repeated the kind of same thing which I reverted you for, you've blatantly disregarded other users' opinions and proving you wrong. There's no such rule which allows you to disregard other user's comments. Neither there's any rule which says edits made by blocked users can be removed. On the other hand you know that I assisted you in the edits, I removed the part of the text I restored at "selling ideas challenging the established religions in the Mughal Empire" didn't exist in source. Wikpiedia is a faithful summary of sources as you say, but you're edits were not being faithful to the actual contents of the source. I simply tried to help provide a faithful summary by restoring the legit edits of other users, and by the way I don't think there's anything that says I can't. That's the actual reality of the situation. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@AkhtarHussain83: Mistakes in a testimony, during a due process, are inappropriate. You should be more careful when you are submitting your arguments for an admin review. See WP:GAME and WP:DE. You have been disruptive in Sikhism-related article edits. It is time to move on. I hope you will reconsider @Ed Johnston's offer. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: You haven't provided any proof where I've done any disruptive editing and also I edited only 1 Sikhism article. I tried to help you out, but instead you kept pushing your POV. You should be careful about blaming others without proof. Besides no mistakes aren't inappropriate, especially something about reading the dates incorrect. I even made a grammar mistake in my unblock request. Everybody can make mistakes, it's no big deal. You should stop nitpicking others over small things and making your own definition of what's correct and what's not. No offence but you can't force me off an article. You should consider opinions of others and work along with them instead of simply ignoring them over reasons like they've been blocked which you have done twice. Besides you're not an admin and I'm not taking such a ridiculous offer of a topic ban over charges that weren't correct and were never proven against me, at least not as long as there's no choice left.. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@AkhtarHussain83: You continue to cast aspersions, such as "pushing your POV", without proof. You continue to distort what happened. You falsely claim, without proof, that "now-confirmed-and-blocked-editors" had valid edits. No they didn't. The sock-editor's serial edits were reverted because they violated wiki content policies, not just because they were socks - just read the sources. For example, the sock-editor had inserted, "challenging the established religions in the Mughal Empire", which was not in the source. It is you who added it all back (see above for diffs). Plus you deleted sourced content (see above for diffs). Plus you edit warred with three editors (see above for diffs). Now you repeatedly cast aspersions, without proof. Your behavior continues to be inappropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

New unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

AkhtarHussain83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

User:EdJohnston claimed I've been doing disruptive editing and he blocked me based on that reason and also that I'm a possible sock. However none of those blames were true and there was no evidence. The article Guru Arjan I was blocked for was rarely touched by me in days and I participated in the discussions. If I've been blocked because of my reverts, then edit-warring wasn't my intention at all. He thinks me to be a sock puppet simply because I restored an edit of someone which was recently removed, even though there's no rule prohibiting it. User:HighInBC declined my previous unblock because I didn't accept User:EdJohnston's condition of not editing Sikhism-related articles. I simply declined because a topic ban is too far gone for such a thing and I don't think there's no rule that says I have to accept it even when the charges aren't correct. I have no intention to do any disruptive edit as I already told, but the others simply won't accept it.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[User:EdJohnston]] claimed I've been doing disruptive editing and he blocked me based on that reason and also that I'm a possible sock. However none of those blames were true and there was no evidence. The article Guru Arjan I was blocked for was rarely touched by me in days and I participated in the discussions. If I've been blocked because of my reverts, then edit-warring wasn't my intention at all. He thinks me to be a sock puppet simply because I restored an edit of someone which was recently removed, even though there's no rule prohibiting it. [[User:HighInBC]] declined my previous unblock because I didn't accept User:EdJohnston's condition of not editing Sikhism-related articles. I simply declined because a topic ban is too far gone for such a thing and I don't think there's no rule that says I have to accept it even when the charges aren't correct. I have no intention to do any disruptive edit as I already told, but the others simply won't accept it. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:EdJohnston]] claimed I've been doing disruptive editing and he blocked me based on that reason and also that I'm a possible sock. However none of those blames were true and there was no evidence. The article Guru Arjan I was blocked for was rarely touched by me in days and I participated in the discussions. If I've been blocked because of my reverts, then edit-warring wasn't my intention at all. He thinks me to be a sock puppet simply because I restored an edit of someone which was recently removed, even though there's no rule prohibiting it. [[User:HighInBC]] declined my previous unblock because I didn't accept User:EdJohnston's condition of not editing Sikhism-related articles. I simply declined because a topic ban is too far gone for such a thing and I don't think there's no rule that says I have to accept it even when the charges aren't correct. I have no intention to do any disruptive edit as I already told, but the others simply won't accept it. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:EdJohnston]] claimed I've been doing disruptive editing and he blocked me based on that reason and also that I'm a possible sock. However none of those blames were true and there was no evidence. The article Guru Arjan I was blocked for was rarely touched by me in days and I participated in the discussions. If I've been blocked because of my reverts, then edit-warring wasn't my intention at all. He thinks me to be a sock puppet simply because I restored an edit of someone which was recently removed, even though there's no rule prohibiting it. [[User:HighInBC]] declined my previous unblock because I didn't accept User:EdJohnston's condition of not editing Sikhism-related articles. I simply declined because a topic ban is too far gone for such a thing and I don't think there's no rule that says I have to accept it even when the charges aren't correct. I have no intention to do any disruptive edit as I already told, but the others simply won't accept it. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Note to reviewing admin Just wanted to say that my previous unblock declining is not binding, and any reviewing admin is welcome to come to their own conclusion without consulting me. I invited AkhtarHussain83 to make another unblock request because I feel this could use a second set of eyes. I am sure Ed would like to be in the loop though. HighInBC 15:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)