Jump to content

User talk:PAKHIGHWAY

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PAKHIGHWAY (talk | contribs) at 15:03, 25 February 2018 (→‎Appeal #3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic-banned from articles relating to India and Pakistan, broadly construed for one year.

You have been sanctioned Per this debate at the administrators' noticeboard. You were notified in 2017 of the discretionary sanctions on India/Pakistan ([1]). You have continued to engage in tendentious editing in this area.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would note here that an appeal after not less than 3 months of harmonious editing elsewhere, is likely to succeed. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, Yamla's proposal was a topic ban on India/Pakistan articles that overlap (that's what I read it as anyway). Articles that are related to either India or Pakistan is rather broad, especially considering the useful work PAKHIGHWAY does on Pakistan related articles. I think it is worth reconsidering the scope of the ban but also, regardless of whether we stick to the broader one, Pakhighway might have thought that the narrower interpretation applied because I don't see any cross-border edits from him after the ban. --regentspark (comment) 00:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have just said pretty much the same thing on JzG's talk page. I think there may be an unfortunate misunderstanding here. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point, and I think it is valid. Let me consider for a moment how to modify the sanction. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amended

this sanction is amended: your topic ban covers articles at the intersection of India and Pakistan, allowing uncontroversial edits to Pakistan. You are strongly discouraged from editing articles on India. Articles relating to India-Pakistan relations or politics are in scope, i.e. you are banned from those articles. As before this is for one year with the expectation that an appeal after not less than three months is likely to succeed if you have edited harmoniously for that time. I trust all concerned consider this equitable. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy. It sounds right. PAKHIGHWAY, since this is a fuzzy scope, please tread carefully if an experienced editor tells you that some article is in the scope of the topic ban. If you disagree, please consult an administrator. Not heeding warnings might lead to blocks. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems better than what I was expecting. Best of luck! Excelse (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone for your help. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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 [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. 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. Guy (Help!) 00:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Ridiculous nonsense!

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I mean this is just ridiculous. I was told to stay away from Pakistan articles which overlap with India. I edited Sectors of Islamabad and I get banned for 31 hours? If this is the case then just permanently ban me. I'm sick and tired of being harassed on wikipedia and double standards being applied! PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I unblocked you, based on the discussion above. It does seem that the restriction is overbroad, but please stick to uncontentious topics while I work out the correct form of words. Thanks for your patience. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


JzG Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for continuing to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did at 2018 Kabul ambulance bombing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Swarm ♠ 00:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's be clear. It could be argued that your edit was a breach of the topic ban, and it could be argued that it wasn't; the scope of the topic ban is a little vague as it relates to these edits. However, the spirit of the topic ban was clear: the community wanted to sanction you for nationalistic editing, and the ban was meant to prevent contentious editing like this. It has already been determined that your personal bias is problematic, and making these kinds of edits immediately after you get your AE topic ban narrowed in scope is not good. The topic ban was narrowed based on the assumption that you could be trusted to edit positively in uncontroversial areas. These edits appear to be gaming the ban in order to continue nationalistic edits. I don't see any way of interpreting those edits otherwise. If there are further issues, the ban may need to be expanded again. Swarm ♠ 01:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be even more clear, this is not an AE block, but it is a disruptive editing and POV block. Swarm ♠ 01:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Swarm, are these [2][3] the edits that the block was for? – Uanfala (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is correct. Swarm ♠ 02:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • One of the edits replaced the word "blamed" with "accused", the other unlinked a phrase without modifying the text. Pakhighway hasn't made any other edits to this article and these edits weren't reverted or challenged. I'm finding it that I need a leap of the imagination to perceive that as an instance of disruption. – Uanfala (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's a community consensus that nationalist bias is a problem with this editor, and an according topic ban. You'd have to be blind not to see how that obviously comes into play in those edits. Your attempts to undermine the clear community mandate for sanctions against this user are self-evident on Guy's talk page. PAKHIGHWAY has the right to appeal the block and have it reviewed, but I don't think you yourself appear to be a particularly unbiased observer. WP:DE details ignoring community input as an example of disruptive editing, that's how that policy comes into play. Swarm ♠ 02:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again...

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).

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

Request reason:

It's quite apparent that this is becoming a witch hunt. No matter what I do it seems I get blocked. These edits are not nationalistic and POV...ironically the text that was writen before my edits [4] and here [5] were Afghan propaganda and Afghan POV. The first edit replaced the word "blamed" with "accused". Blaming someone entails evidence has been gathered. If blatant accusations are being made, then the article should reflect that. Blaming and accusing are two different things, which leads me to my next edit where I unlinked a phrase without modifying the text. Since no evidence has been brought forth, I don't see why that phrase should link to "Pakistan state sponsored terrorism". I guess the recent United States election should link to Russian intelligence operation as well. I look forward to my ban being lifted. How any of this is "disruptive" or "nationalistic" is beyond my comprehension.

Decline reason:

You give every appearance of gaming the system and you do not appear to accept the fundamentals at work here. The entire point is that you cannot be relied upon to judge whether your own edits are nationalistic or POV. When the block expires, consider how you might work more harmoniously with tohers. For example, propose edits on Talk first and allow others to judge whether they are appropriate. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 2 February 2018 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Punjabi wedding songs

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Punjabi wedding songs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. IM3847 (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Punjabi wedding

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Punjabi wedding requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. IM3847 (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EXPLAIN

Please explain about how this edit is not a clear-cut violation of your T-ban? Thanks!~ Winged BladesGodric 12:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sheesh, PAKHIGHWAY. You've got to leave that sort of thing alone. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the Indian administrative units article makes no mention of any dispute, why should the Pakistani article? If Wikipedia is about fairness, then be fair. Both articles should mention the dispute or none should. Since I can't touch Indian articles, I edited the Pakistani article. If administrative units of India mention tne dispute, I'll happily revert my edits. -PAKHIGHWAY (talk)
Whether you are right or wrong about the factual part of it, you need to leave it to someone whose judgement is trusted on such matters. That someone isn't you and the more you keep doing things like this, the less chance there is that any appeal would be successful. In fact, you could find your ban extended. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Nonsense.You evaded my question and the reply couldn't have been worse.It's exactly the same reasons, as cast out in your reply i.e a fundamental non-compliance with NPOV coupled with nationalistic agenda that led to the imposition of T-Ban.~ Winged BladesGodric 12:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Administrative units of India is a red-link.~ Winged BladesGodric 12:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see note 1 at Azad Kashmir.And, I could add more.~ Winged BladesGodric 12:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand note 1. Also the article is Administrative divisions of India. And how did I evade your question? -PAKHIGHWAY (talk)
So if I'm editing an article as a whole I should just ignore the Indian POV is what you're saying indirectly? Unacceptable. I was editing the entire article of Administrative units of Pakistan. I only made that edit when I viewed the Indian article right at the end. Didn't realise disputes of JK only concerned Pak administered regions. Anyhow, I've started a discussion on the Administrative divisions of India talk page since my edits were reverted on the Pakistani article. Fair is fair. -PAKHIGHWAY (talk)
No, you should not be engaging in such discussions. Talk page are covered by the ban also. I'm sorry because I know you can contribute much that is useful but this is going to end very badly for you. - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's settle the issue on hand here. JK is disputed. I wouldn't have made that edit if the Indian article also mentioned a dispute. Why does the Administrative Divisions of India make no mention of a dispute? And if it doesn't, why don't you add it and lets be done with this discussion. -PAKHIGHWAY (talk)
I am not getting involved in it. I've never actually understood which bit of J&K is disputed, or whether all of it is, and I have always had a reluctance to get involved in issues of disputed territories wherever they may be, eg: Israel/Palestine. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

If I've been blocked from editing, why has nobody contacted me? -PAKHIGHWAY (talk) PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now blocked you from all articles for six months, to enforce the topic ban. This edit and these edits were a pretty clear-cut violation, the latter, however, being a talk page. You were already right against the edge of your topic ban before, but these push things over the edge. @JzG: for a review of this block. It's not immediately clear to me if the topic ban would then have six months to run on the conclusion of this block, or if it would restart at that time. I suggest the latter, but request feedback from JzG. --Yamla (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yamla (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PAKHIGHWAY, I am around for a few hours. If you wish to comment at the ANI thread then post here and I will copy it for you. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the consensus of the discussion at WP:ANI is that six months was too harsh. I have therefore reduced your block to one month. Your topic ban restarts once that block expires. That means your topic ban will be in effect until 2019-03-06. --Yamla (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind, PAKHIGHWAY, that if you continue these breaching experiments on your return, you will almost certainly be site banned. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For doing major expansion on many Pakistan-related Wikipedia articles including Lok Virsa Museum and Pakistan Railways. I'll try to follow up on some of your edited work while you are unable to contribute due to your college studies etc. etc. My Salaams and Best Wishes. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sadly I've been framed and now banned indef. Thanks for the barnstar though. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PAKHIGHWAY, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Cabayi (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN talk to me 17:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the world would I setup a sockpuppet account, when I'm literally 5 days away from being unblocked. Does that sound logical to you whatsoever? This is outrageous! --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I wake up and apparently now I'm using multiple accounts? What kind of shady "investigation" was this to have me indef blocked with zero evidence? I have never used a multiple account in my life. I got blocked for 1 month and was only days away from being unblocked. Why would I be that stupid to do a thing like this? I've been using my own offline sandbox and was prepared to start editing right away. This indef block is ludacris and ridiculous!

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=I wake up and apparently now I'm using multiple accounts? What kind of shady "investigation" was this to have me indef blocked with zero evidence? I have never used a multiple account in my life. I got blocked for 1 month and was only days away from being unblocked. Why would I be that stupid to do a thing like this? I've been using my own offline sandbox and was prepared to start editing right away. This indef block is ludacris and ridiculous! |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=I wake up and apparently now I'm using multiple accounts? What kind of shady "investigation" was this to have me indef blocked with zero evidence? I have never used a multiple account in my life. I got blocked for 1 month and was only days away from being unblocked. Why would I be that stupid to do a thing like this? I've been using my own offline sandbox and was prepared to start editing right away. This indef block is ludacris and ridiculous! |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=I wake up and apparently now I'm using multiple accounts? What kind of shady "investigation" was this to have me indef blocked with zero evidence? I have never used a multiple account in my life. I got blocked for 1 month and was only days away from being unblocked. Why would I be that stupid to do a thing like this? I've been using my own offline sandbox and was prepared to start editing right away. This indef block is ludacris and ridiculous! |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on...this is quite unusual because my facebook account also was deactivated. Facebook claimed I was using multiple accounts and that I had hacked someone else's FB. I had to upload my ID and photo to confirm indeed this was my profile.

And now this? I'm impressed.

I mean look...I get it...a certain group want me gone...they don't like the fact a Pakistani guy has a backbone. But this is seriously a new low...it's clear I was framed.

Please tell me what good would it be for me to open a multiple account? I stayed quiet after the 1 month block, just so you folks could have your victory lap.

But this is really a new low. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infef Block Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I protest this block and call upon sane members of the Wikipedia community to come to my aid. This is clearly turning into some witch hunt and I for one am not having any of it. I read this joke of a North Korean sock puppet investigation which was launched against me, and it's beyond hilarious. I thank those members who had the sanity to see how ridiculous this was and pointed it out. Let me be very clear here. If I wanted to use a fake account, I would not be dumb enough to use an IP within my vicinity which would be easily tracked back to me, as claimed in the "investigation". Furthermore, I decided to keep quiet and allow my 1 month ban to finish. I was days away from being unbanned...what good would it do for me to use an account that would be tracked back to me and possibly have me infed banned? I clearly didn't want that and don't want that. But for the small group of nationalists who have been trying to get rid of me for the past year, this would clearly be something THEY would want to do. Lastly, if I had an issue I would have used my own account and brought it up myself since I have access to my own talk page. I have been regularly logging in daily and using my own offline sandbox to make edits. This was done because I can get to work right away when I am unbanned. And now this? I accepted my 1 month for the sake of just letting it be and letting things cool off. But I am not going to accept this garbage. If that account has no relation to me whatsoever, you have NO RIGHTS to claim it belongs to me and ban me over it. I mean this is just ridiculous and I'm sick and tired of being harassed like this. I appeal this block and will keep appealing this block DAILY if I have to.--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm declining this because a) a checkuser has advised the block be upheld, and b) the behavioral evidence appears hard to dispute. The claims about this being a conspiracy against you are not particularly believable either. But primarily, you show no understanding of the already-existing block. You claim it's because you have a backbone, and that you're only accepting it so we can have our "victory lap". This shows me that the temporary block is not having the desired preventative effect and that we can not expect the serious changes we have been expecting. Therefore, you shall remain blocked indefinitely in your own right, unrelated to the SPI, until you address the actual underlying behavioral issues that led to your TBAN and previous blocks. Swarm ♠ 03:58, 25 February 2018 (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.

  • Hi PAKHIGHWAY. If you want to make your case on the SPI page, make a statement here and ask for it to be copied to that page. Someone will do that for you. I suggest focusing on the SPI result (and being reasonably brief). Best. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an arbitration enforcement block. Your appeal will be dealt with here. --NeilN talk to me 15:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, tell that D4iNa4 that his attempt to try and get rid of me will fall in vain. His obsession and anti-Pakistan mentality is clearly visible. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way NeilN please check out this Sockpuppet investigation of D4iNa4 (talk · contribs) from a few years ago. See the bottom conclusions made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yogesh_Khandke/Archive "However, D4iNa4 has been editing from a number of open proxies worldwide, and the following are Confirmed matches to one another:". This character is pure trouble. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you focus on your own situation. --NeilN talk to me 16:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to focus on my situation, if I could even comment on that North Korean investigation you folks have started over there. If you won't even let me type and defend myself, then what's the point of an investigation? Yes, let's all believe the right wing Hindu nationalist who created 3 sockpuppet accounts from different worldwide IPs. (RealRx (talk · contribs), Aciddery (talk · contribs), Rafikhsk (talk · contribs). I'm sure they have nothing to do with this. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But unlike you I never violated WP:SOCK, i.e. abusing same accounts on same page and I had made it very clear during unblock request as well.[6][7] One of the account wasn't created by me and there was "assumption of guilt" because I used proxy.[8] While you created a new account to promote your pseudohistorical nationalist nonsense on very same template that you heavily edited with your main account and canvassed same editors, some of which you have canvassed a few times before with your main account. Focus on your gross WP:CIR issues if its possible, though I think I am asking for too much. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your mental gymnastics is hilarious to say the least. Almost as hilarious as that matata "empire". But that's for another discussion after I get unbanned. The first is trying to figure out your weird obsession with me. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yamla (talk · contribs), I'm a little confused over what decision has been reached over my status at Wikipedia. Since I cannot defend myself on that investigation page, I have no choice but to use my own talk page. I have read the sockpuppet investigation, and most seem confident or are leaning towards the idea that this sockpuppet is not me, which it is not. The only one pushing this claim is D4iNa4 (talk · contribs), a user who has a personal vendetta against me and has tried several times to get me banned in the past. Two previous sockpuppet investigations were done against me prior, both of which were found to be unfounded...third times a charm? Furthermore, a person such as D4iNa4 who himself was caught using 3 sockpuppet accounts as mentioned in this sockpuppet investigation here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yogesh_Khandke/Archive, should raise eyebrows, especially when it was found that all 3 accounts had different overseas IP addresses. Should this not raise some questions? Also, one user mentioned how my account IP changed. This is nothing unusual...people move around the world. I have temporarily moved due to my job posting overseas and that coincides with my IP changing in February 2017. And I don't appreciate those other editors mocking me and making claims I am that sockpuppet without evidence. If CheckUser came back empty, what seems to be the problem here? If I was banned for 1 month, why risk an indef ban using an account that as mentioned in the investigation "is in the geographical locale". --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal #3

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Hello. I am appealing my indef block because I believe I was set up. My behaviour was not the reason for the indef block, so I find it unfair why now all of a sudden something else needs to be brought up to justify the indef block. My 1 month ban was for my behaviour, and I accepted it by not appealing. This indef block was for a supposed sockpuppet account, which the accuser surely had a part to play considering his own sockpuppet history. The results of that investigation clearly points to oddities and since that account is not related to me, I don't see why the indef ban should remain. Had this fictitious sockpuppet accusation not been leveled against me, I wouldn't have even typed what I did above. I mean when you keep poking someone with a stick, sooner or later that person will respond. Please keep bias aside and look at my block rationally. Once again, I am only requesting my indef block to be removed back to the original block. I am not challenging the original block. Thank you. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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=Hello. I am appealing my indef block because I believe I was set up. My behaviour was not the reason for the indef block, so I find it unfair why now all of a sudden something else needs to be brought up to justify the indef block. My 1 month ban was for my behaviour, and I accepted it by not appealing. This indef block was for a supposed sockpuppet account, which the accuser surely had a part to play considering his own sockpuppet history. The results of that investigation clearly points to oddities and since that account is not related to me, I don't see why the indef ban should remain. Had this fictitious sockpuppet accusation not been leveled against me, I wouldn't have even typed what I did above. I mean when you keep poking someone with a stick, sooner or later that person will respond. Please keep bias aside and look at my block rationally. Once again, I am only requesting my indef block to be removed back to the original block. I am not challenging the original block. Thank you. [[User:PAKHIGHWAY|PAKHIGHWAY]] ([[User talk:PAKHIGHWAY#top|talk]]) 12:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC) |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=Hello. I am appealing my indef block because I believe I was set up. My behaviour was not the reason for the indef block, so I find it unfair why now all of a sudden something else needs to be brought up to justify the indef block. My 1 month ban was for my behaviour, and I accepted it by not appealing. This indef block was for a supposed sockpuppet account, which the accuser surely had a part to play considering his own sockpuppet history. The results of that investigation clearly points to oddities and since that account is not related to me, I don't see why the indef ban should remain. Had this fictitious sockpuppet accusation not been leveled against me, I wouldn't have even typed what I did above. I mean when you keep poking someone with a stick, sooner or later that person will respond. Please keep bias aside and look at my block rationally. Once again, I am only requesting my indef block to be removed back to the original block. I am not challenging the original block. Thank you. [[User:PAKHIGHWAY|PAKHIGHWAY]] ([[User talk:PAKHIGHWAY#top|talk]]) 12:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC) |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=Hello. I am appealing my indef block because I believe I was set up. My behaviour was not the reason for the indef block, so I find it unfair why now all of a sudden something else needs to be brought up to justify the indef block. My 1 month ban was for my behaviour, and I accepted it by not appealing. This indef block was for a supposed sockpuppet account, which the accuser surely had a part to play considering his own sockpuppet history. The results of that investigation clearly points to oddities and since that account is not related to me, I don't see why the indef ban should remain. Had this fictitious sockpuppet accusation not been leveled against me, I wouldn't have even typed what I did above. I mean when you keep poking someone with a stick, sooner or later that person will respond. Please keep bias aside and look at my block rationally. Once again, I am only requesting my indef block to be removed back to the original block. I am not challenging the original block. Thank you. [[User:PAKHIGHWAY|PAKHIGHWAY]] ([[User talk:PAKHIGHWAY#top|talk]]) 12:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PAKHIGHWAY&oldid=827577786"