User talk:Arind8

CS1 error on LGBT rights in India

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page LGBT rights in India, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to fix that so you can do that for me please. Arind8 (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can't, it's a bot (as its username indicates), so it can't do anything other than what it is programmed for, nor can it see, read, or understand your request. JM (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

As a new user with low edits you are restricted from editing or commenting on topics such as the Israeli conflict. Step hen 09:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

Doug Weller talk 12:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this includes all talk pages, with the exception that on article talk pages you can make a clearly specified edit request. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS.

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that there are no special restrictions on editing in this area UNLESS the talk page of an article says that there are, eg only one revert. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caution: Do not use unreliable sources

Hello Arind8.. I have noticed your contributions, and observed that you are using random websites in sensitive articles! Please avoid such sites and use modern scholarly work by reliable authors instead! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop attributing sentences to me which I didn't write! I moved text from another article because it was relating to marriage in Hinduism. If you have a query about why I wrote that text then contact the original writer who I pinged you with earlier.

Furthermore the use of alternative sources was my way of providing numerous political views to satisfy the demands on Timovinga, who I now genuinely believe is simply engaging in an edit war with me for racial reasons that a lot of Muslims tend to do. A large percentage of the complaints involve text that I did not write and simply moved/copied. That in my opinion is textbook vandalism and/or WP:HAR. Arind8 (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are responsible for the edits you make, not the person who originally wrote the same thing somewhere else. The next time you attack people for being muslims, or for supposed vandalism, you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 10:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I am responsible for the edits I make, but most of the edits I make are moving content and re-ordering content. If you want then I can ping all the original content writers, but he has no excuse to remove any content that was already there before I came without a valid reason. If he wants to revert my edits then the original texts would still be there, but instead he decided to remove all content.

Furthermore he can't assert that he can remove large amounts of text that I did not write on the basis that I used invalid sources, because there were there already. Numerous other editors must have used invalid sources as well, which is silly. Do you think that SCMP and The Quint are invalid sources?

The Hindu-Muslim comment is based on the fact that he seems to be targeting articles related to Hinduism, which is a common form of racism. I initially stated it was a political conflict but the types of articles he targets seems more religious or racial in nature. I'm not the only one who has complained about his behavour. Arind8 (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, apart from the fact that I didn't actually write most of the text originally, so for all the sources to be unreliable would require some feat (and a second discussion on why those sources are unreliable), a lot of the sources he says are unreliable aren't actually unreliable. He's removed content sources from the likes of SCMP, The Quint, Tamil culture etc... which provide numerous political slants coming to the same conclusion making the sentence unbiased.

The fact is that most of the content isn't written by me and well sourced, but he is removing the content entirely on the basis of a discussion about me providing poor sources. He's removed significant amounts of text that's sources on the basis that there are, what he considers to be weak sources as well. Most content has at least one good source and have been on the articles for years without controversy.

Also looking back at the history of the sentences that weren't written by me but is being contested by Timovinga, someone removed the original citations as well which also seem to be strong. Someone is removing the citations and claiming that the content is unsourced. Arind8 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arind8 - I am going to politely ask that you read the policies wiki linked in my response to you here. Especially WP:AGF. Stop accusing other editors of vandalism without understanding what WP:VANDALISM is.

Again, you are responsible for the content you put in the article - EVEN if it was originally written by someone else, or if you're simply rearranging the article - especially if you are inserting or continuing to use those potentially unreliable sources.

You've been focusing on what other editors have done without taking accountability for your own shortcomings as far as editing goes - so please, please, please take the advice other editors are trying to give you here. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

...for racial reasons that a lot of Muslims tend to do is clearly not acceptable. You've been here a very short time (including the earlier account which was blocked short term for the same behavior you've restarted with this account. I'm not sure that you're here to build an encyclopaedia and if this behavior continues then your editing privileges will be withdrawn. —SpacemanSpiff 10:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating that there's racial conflict between Hindus and Muslims. Why is that not acceptable? The vandalism appears to be racial.

@Timovinga is clearly not engaged in Wikipedia building by removing large amounts of texts which I didn't even write. You can argue about whether some of my sources are correct, but removing sentences sourced with SCMP, Tamil Culture and The Quint which represent a wide variety of political viewpoints and are validly sourced shows he is not engaged in Wikipedia building, but rather political or racial conflict. It seems it's more akin to racism than politics now, and I am suggesting the reason behind it. Arind8 (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also this is the first time I've mentioned Hindus vs Muslims. I stated it as a politically-motivated edit previously until now. So I am not quite sure where you got the idea that I am "continuing behavior" that I have not done before. Initially I thought it might simply be politics and I never thought it was related to Muslims. Arind8 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 10:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[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).

Arind8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

one-sided block based on an edit war by @Timovinga for what I believe to be racially motivated reasons

Decline reason:

You were not blocked by Timovinga. Furthermore, your claim of racism is deeply concerning. No further unblock requests will be considered unless you withdraw this very serious accusation and apologise for it and promise never again to make a personal attack (WP:NPA), or unless you provide specific and irrefutable evidence that the blocking admin made the block based on your race. I can not even determine your race based on my quick look at what you've posted here, so this will be an incredibly high bar. Yamla (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2024 (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.

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).

Arind8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reopened I didn't claim that the admin was racist. I claimed that the vandalism seems to be racially motivated as it focused on topics related to Hinduism, India and LGBTQ. But if you want then I can change it back to "politically motivated". The issue related to Timovinga is that he should be blocked for vandalism, and I am trying to explain what the pattern looks like to me. Since another admin pointed out that he joined soon after I opened an account, and seems to be fixated in reverting any text that I touch (even if I did not write it), combined with my view of the pattern of editing as politically motived, seems to also fall under WP:HAR. Furthermore I believe it is acceptable on Wikipedia to point out if a viewpoint has a bias (for example with related to a sentence seeming biased towards Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict etc...) so I don't understand the rest of the discussion.

Decline reason:

Calling someone's actions "racially motivated" is exactly the same as calling the actor racist. This block is about you, not about another editor. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:59, 31 January 2024 (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.

Unblock discussion

You are still accusing another user of racism to justify you own unacceptable behavior. Please read WP:NOTTHEM. "Politically motivated" is still a personal attack. Please describe how your behavior resulted in blocking and what you would do differently. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the concerns raised at #Caution: Do not use unreliable sources and #Final warning above. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notifications and invitation for comments. @Doug Weller, Bishonen, and SpacemanSpiff: I don't see a way forward without WP:TOPICBANs on Arab–Israeli conflict and edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, but I don't do conditional unblocks anymore. Too much trouble to enforce. Meh -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything to suggest that a topic ban would be worthwhile. However, I'm not going to force my opinion here. —SpacemanSpiff 15:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the comment about Timovinga engaging in racism having understood the rules of WP:ASPERSIONS. I accuse him of forwarding politically motivated edits without maintaining WP:NPOV if you are looking for something more formal.

I used a variety of sources including those from reliable and supposedly unreliable sources in order to provide a variety of political viewpoints. The text therefore should not have been removed because at least one of the sources would have been considered reliable to a person from a certain political viewpoint.

Furthermore the vast majority of sources and text that Timovinga is removing was not actually written by me, but simply moved or copied for restructuring/reordering purposes. There are numerous other editors who should be contacted for their opinion considering the editor is removing text that has been there for over five years, as they will have a better understanding of why the text was added in the first place. I am here to build wikipedia and suddenly removing information that has been on this article for five years without proper consensus process seems closer to vandalism.

You can argue that I should not use "unreliable sources" but the sources are not listed as banned or unreliable, and the edits generally have numerous citations including ones that Wikipedia considers reliable in normal contexts. For example Timovinga removed a sentence with three citations: SCMP, Deccan Herald, and Tamil Culture - he disputes the use of Tamil Culture despite two other sources being provided, so why should the entire sentence be removed instead of just the source? That does not seem to be Wikipedia building to me.

I am looking for Timovinga to be blocked for WP:HAR and WP:VANDAL. He created an account only a few days after I created by account, and seems to be obsessed with following me around and removing text that I have touched. He has been removing text that have valid sources from reputable news outlets, and text that has not been discussed as part of this discussion (because I was not the one who provided the sources).

If you want then look through the recent history of Timovinga's editing to see that he's simply removing text without valid reasons, and has other edit wars with other editors. Arind8 (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I will also add that I am quite sure that the editors who initially added the texts being removed by Timovinga are probably the best people to contact about the validity of any sources because they are more likely to understand why they wrote the text and where they can find a better source. A lot of the text being removed is at least five years old and I'm sure there are a lot of editors involved who want to have a say as well. Arind8 (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a topic ban would be a waste of time, and would lead to a bucketload of enforcement followed by a renewed indefinite block. Several people, including, me, have already told them they're responsible for content they add, no matter who originally wrote it somewhere else, and yet here we go again. Bishonen | tålk 09:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Why are you assuming that all the sources provided are invalid? Arind8 (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefly @Guerillero
I was wondering whether I would be able to get a second opinion on this:
Timovinga has the right to dispute sources and remove text which aren't validly sourced, but he is nevertheless removing mass amounts text which have been validly sourced, including text that I never touched in the first place. Furthermore removing large amounts of texts, especially texts that have been on the article for years, simply because I was banned over an unrelated reason (WP:ASPERATION) is basically vandalism.

Bishonen is repeatedly stating that I am responsible for the text I added. She is assuming that the all the sources provided are unreliable. The majority of the texts I have added have sources that come from major news outlets or academic institutions, and the vast majority of texts that I "added" were copied over from other articles or moved within the same article using text that was written and sourced by numerous other editors. A few were from smaller websites but in most cases they were paired with other citations from more formal intuitions as well. Under what reason is she stating that most of those sources are unreliable? Well sourced material should not be removed by Timovinga not contested by Bishonen. I also suggest that the original editors be contacted to provide their reason for including the article including the original citations, because it seems a mischievous editor has been removing the original citations.
Arind8 (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]