User talk:Tootifrooti11

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Sino-Indian War that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on Sino-Indian War. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Sino-Indian War. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 06:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tootifrooti11 reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: ). Thank you. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 07:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Sino-Indian War. 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 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} 15:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, it does not appear that the block had any effect on him. He just made a revert on the same article,[1] straight away after the block expired. Clearly he hasn't learnt his lesson, so would you consider re-blocking this account for a longer period this time? Thanks. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 11:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:02, 29 June 2018 (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).

Tootifrooti11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have had very suspicious reverts on Sino-Indian War by MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00, D4in4, some editors. I don't understand how and why he's claiming me to be a sock. Another person who I have found involved with them - Adamgerber80 had lodged a false complain against me in the past. I am not Wikiexplorer13 who seems to have had conflict with Mblaze Lightning and Capitals00 in the past. This explains why he would blame others who try to investigate his acts as it would give him an easy excuse even if it is false. I wonder on what basis he has arrived on this conclusion when I'm not even in the same city as Wikiexplorer 13. I am blocked for "suspected sockpuppet" meanwhile Bbb23 doesn't do anything about my complain against Mblaze's suspected long-time sockpuppetry and lets it get removed like it doesn't matter even if what I said is true. These are double standards.

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Any further appeals accusing other editors of socking will result in talk page access being revoked. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 13 July 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.

Bbb23 is it okay for you to falsely block me as a "suspected sockpuppet" while not investigating claims against Mblaze Lightning and his suspected socks who have had a lot of suspicious interaction in the past and check their behaviour to confirm they are socks? Tootifrooti11 (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NeilN who do you think you are? You keep bullying me every time. I was explaining why I complained MBlaze Lightning which seems the reason why Bbb23 seems to think I'm Wikiexplorer13 who has been involved with them. And if I'm saying it's wrong that I am blocked as suspected sock falsely while my complain against MBlaze isn't cared for, I don't think there is anything wrong. I'll try to avoid accusing them in my last request. Please don't shut it down as I won't make accusations of sockpuppetry, let another person handle it. I will make another request a week later and then see where it goes because repeatedly doing it in a day won't get anything. Tootifrooti11 (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot remove declined appeals of active blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine but next time why don't you just tell me which rule doesn't allow me instead of just I can't remove it. I thought you could remove anything. Tootifrooti11 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLANKING. Beneath "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock

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).

Tootifrooti11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not Wikiexplorer13 so I don't understand why Bbb23 has blocked me just like that. It may be due to Wikiexplorer13 too complaining and reverting them. But come on how is that reason enough at all to assume I'm him which I am not? The only reason I reverted them at Sino-Indian war because I didn't think it was justified and was upset at the comment of POV-pushing. Why I complained was simply because I saw the users backing each other suspicious My previous request shut down and I was warned not to accuse them of what I did earlier. I'll avoid it and won't go into detail. But how can I be blocked my merely on "suspicion"? I am not even from the same city as Wikiexplorer13 who is from Chandigharh. If I am not unblocked, then this is my last request until next week. I hope you can see the truth and this unjust ban is lifted.

Decline reason:

Upon further review and discussion with Bbb23, I have decided to decline your unblock request. I have included the below standard decline reason as it may contain useful information should you wish to request a subsequent review. So far you have not acknowledged any fault for incidents involving yourself (be they edit warning or "socking"), appearing to prefer to rant or attack. I would strongly recommend sitting on this, reflecting, and submitting an unblock request when you are calm and collected. I understand that people can be upset and angry, but ranting and attacking will not help get you anywhere or help demonstrate that you wish to edit constructively (second bullet, points #2 and 3).

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:55, 17 July 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.

So will you keep me blocked even when it wasn't the reason I was blocked for? I have already accepted many of my faults. I already accepted NeilN was right and I was wrong on The International Jew. I already accepted to discuss about my edit on Sino-Indian war. It was wrong for me to edit-war and I already said I won't do it. I attacked Mblaze because I was angered when he attacked first, even then I'm sorry I shouldn't have done it. All I asked was for a fair treatment regarding my block and complains. I won't attack or edit-war again. But I can't edit if you don't unblock me. Tootifrooti11 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block-related discussion

I removed the comment because it is unacceptable to try to keep me blocked by citing a dispute with MBlaze which I said I will discuss and another edit on The International Jew I already apologised for. The person who blamed me had no role in any of my disputes and has often supported MBlaze and Capitals00 in past as seen from his edits, because of this it seemed unfair and suspicious. I won't go into detail so as to not make accusations as they distract from my issue. I shouldn't be stopped from discussing and disputing. I already said I won't revert again, so baseless muck-slinging should be avoided. Tootifrooti11 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently MBlaze, Capitals00 and Raymond3023 who suspiciously complains for illegitimate reasons; have already decided I'm a sock of Wikiexplorer13 and that he is in multiple cities to try to keep me blocked, even though it's clear I'm not him. Did anyone wait for a comment before labelling me as a "suspected sock"? Tootifrooti11 (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything happening with TheSandDoctor's review of this block? Wouldn't it be simple to just give them the benefit of the doubt; if they aren't a sock of this long-term abuser, nothing will happen, and if they are, they'll revert to type and get blocked anyway. I see two edit-warring blocks, so I think it would be reasonable to make a third one indefinite. Either way, everybody wins. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I can't see much productivity coming from this account; my goal was rather to shut the unblock review down and let us all get onto more productive things. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a CU block Ritchie333 and undoing a CU block can result in desysop-ing, so I thought it best to request comment from the blocking CU. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: But you didn't request a comment from me other than putting the unblock request on hold. If you believe the account should be unblocked, you should say so and why. If you have questions (your own not the user's), you should ask them, either here, privately, or on my Talk page. I often don't respond to questions from blocked accounts. Nothing compels me to do so. I block so many socks. Most of their questions are junk. If I believe a question deserves an answer, I answer it. I have nothing to say to this user.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richie333 I came here only a few days ago. So how do you say you don't see much productivity in me? Why are you agreeing with My Lord? Unblock me and please allow me to edit. Why is My Lord accusing me of being harassment sock and troll and trying to revoke my talk page access? I have already said I'm not Wikiexplorer13, so adding me as his sock on Long term abuse was highly wrong. They say what they want and try to keep me blocked under any reason but call me a harasser when I try to justify myself. Tootifrooti11 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By removing my comment when it was already replied, you are only proving that you are not capable of contributing here because you don't want to address the issues with your poor behavior and you think you can win by taking up fights with others by misrepresenting what others have said. You can't even prove otherwise with necessary evidence (diffs) which further establishes my earlier comment. ML^talk 19:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were calling me a harassment sock and a troll My Lord: "This account is a harassment sock that loves to troll." Most of your comment was about socking by Wikiexplorer13 except the part about looking through my edit summaries and contributions. So why shouldn't I remove it when most of your allegations are repeating the same unverified claims? Tootifrooti11 (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who's first edit is to stick a loaded word in Sino-Indian War with a summary "You are not POV-pushing Hindu nationalist? You do not run this place." is probably not the sort of person who is going to succeed at writing a neutrally-written encyclopedia that takes no sides. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 please look at MBlaze's first edit in the same link you posted here. He accuses others of POV-pushing first. Why is it okay when MBlaze is saying "rv POV pushing" even though it is not while you blame me? Tootifrooti11 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 I am not Wikiexplorer13 and I do believe your block is baseless, should I not dispute with or complain if I saw something wrong? What is this you have nothing to say to me? No one bothered to confirm or wait for comment before calling me a sock. You never bothered to address my complaint too. While things I have already resolved and someone else started keep being used as an excuse to try to keep me blocked. And I have to wait endlessly just to get unblocked for something I didn't do. Tootifrooti11 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You charged headfirst into disruption on your very first edit, which I have linked to above via a diff. I don't think anyone is going to unblock and I think you've said quite enough now, so I'm turning your talk page access off. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]