A question about your edits[edit]

Hello Timovinga, I noticed that you have been pretty active in your edits, including starting a sockpuppet investigation within a day of creating your account. We don't usually see this kind of activity in users with only 200 edits. Is this your only Wikipedia account? Have you edited on Wikipedia without an account, or with a different account? Thanks, Wracking talk! 18:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This person has been repeatedly removing large amounts of text in topics related to LGBTQ, Hinduism and India. He needs to be checked IMO for bias. Arind7 (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I ask you to refrain from removing large amounts of text in relation to India, LGBTQ and Hinduism. Your edits are unilateral and seem to be vandalism. If you have an alternative opinion to add then please feel free to build on the article. Arind7 (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources like Tamilculture.com and other blogs are not considered reliable as per WP:RS. I already explained that to you multiple times. Timovinga (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I have already explained to you that the valid procedure is to mark a disputed section as needing a better source, and then remove if no source is provided. You are removing sentences which have five sources etc... and it can only be seen as vandalism. Arind7 (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the ((Ctopics/aware)) template.

— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

@Bbb23 there must be some misunderstanding. Arind7 started edit war across many articles. He pushed his POV in many articles using some unreliable sources. I reverted those edits and warned him many times and asked him not to edit war see 1 2 3. But despite that he continued the edit war and finally, I filed the complaint against him. Arind7 broke the 3RR rule in Marriage in Hinduism. I also reverted him there only to stop the POV of him under WP:IAR. If this was the reason behind my block then I think I misunderstood the IAR. I know in WP you cannot achieve anything by doing edit war. Please kindly reconsider by block, Thanks. Timovinga (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:IAR doesn't excuse edit warring in content disputes, no. Think about it: every good-faith editor who is in an edit war thinks their version is improving Wikipedia. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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.

Break 1 to ease navigation[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Although, in my opinion, it was not a content dispute but rather an edit war and POV pushing by the user Arind7. Clearly, he was violating WP:RS by using some user-generated Blogspot websites. I will make sure this kind of mistake will not happen further from my side. Maybe I misunderstood the IAR and my good-fait edits were not actually good faith for the Admins. Thanks for your valuable time and guidance. Timovinga (talk) 8:10 am, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.
Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.
Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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.

More