User talk:Sphinx120

September 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Boing! said Zebedee. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Banaphar, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important information[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | tålk 14:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I have not done any editing on India Pakistan and Afghanistan pages. Sphinx120 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not on Pakistan or Afghanistan pages, I know. The blue box is a standard alert which is very inclusive. But you certainly have edited Indian subjects. All your edits are to Indian subjects, including this one, that you have been warned about. Bishonen | tålk 14:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Can I know what type of rules I didn't follow Sphinx120 (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's made extremely clear in the post by Boing! said Zebedee at the top of this page. Please just read it and follow the links in it. Bishonen | tålk 21:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I also explained in some detail at my talk page, where I stressed the importance of seeking consensus through discussion when you wish to make contentious changes related to the topic of caste. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also another set of sanctions applicable to caste-related topics, which you need to know about...

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

September 2020[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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 ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were told to discuss before making Ahir/Rajput and other caste-related changes at Banaphar, to explain why your preferred sources are better than the ones currently used, and to seek consensus. You have continued with exactly the same kind of changes at Alha, without discussion or consensus. If, when this block expires, you continue making similar changes without gaining consensus, you could be banned from this entire topic area under the terms of the Discretionary Sanctions to which you were alerted above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you can block or banned me I don't care about blocking by Wikipedia volunteer but if you're talking about reliable source than the book is currently on the page is also not support the article Sphinx120 (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If/when you're topic banned (or indefinitely blocked), it's going to be by a Wikipedia volunteer. There's nobody else here but us volunteers. Bishonen | tålk 09:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Please do read and understand WP:Consensus. If you believe a source used in an article does not support what the article says, and you believe you have a better source that says something different, start a discussion on the article talk page. If you can gain an agreement in support of your desired change, with other editors agreeing that your proposed new source is reliable, then you can make the change. It is as straightforward as that.

What you can not do is just make a contentious change based on your own assertions and your own reasoning about a source - not in the highly charged area of the Indian caste system. Please understand that we have had huge amounts of dispute and disruption around castes - I'm sure you understand what a fraught topic it is. That's why discussion and consensus are especially important with this subject, and why the Wikipedia community has imposed these discretionary sanctions regimes and given administrators extra powers to deal with potential disruption. I'm quite sure you don't mean to be disruptive, but engaging in discussion and seeking consensus is the only permissible approach here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that I have no idea myself whether the "Acharya mayaram patang" source you used is reliable (for one thing, I don't read Hindi). The problem is, there are many many publications in this area that present religion and mythology as historical fact, and/or make all sorts of unsupportable claims relating to castes. There are many authors, and many caste-related organizations, promoting their own castes without justification. And it's compounded by writers from the Raj era who were essentially political and were wholly incompetent as ethnologists. So it is essential that any new source brought to a caste-related article be checked for its suitability and reliability. And that is done by discussion at the article talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[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).

Sphinx120 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked by Wikipedia volunteer for sock puppetry but I really don't that using more than one account is not in the Wikipedia policy but now unfortunately I can't do anything about it so the only thing I can do is just to promise that I never do it again. And I apologize for doing it and I also request you to unblock me so I can contribute to the page which needed to be improved.

Decline reason:

You already have an open unblock request at your original account. only (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2020 (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.

Sphinx120 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

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/Ultimate survi, 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.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]