User talk:TheGr8Scorpio

TheGr8Scorpio, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TheGr8Scorpio! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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 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.

Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgethedragonslayer and AnM2002: I couldn't give a shit about you guys and your propaganda :••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 13:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Refrain from engaging in disruptive editing on Panjshir conflict.

India Today is a IFCN verified fact checker thus reliable whether you like it or not. Keep your vendetta against reliable sources just because they happen to be Indian out of Wikipedia. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgethedragonslayer: Nop, not reliable at all. Indian Media loves to peddle fake news when it concerns Pakistan, that's a fact. You've been repeatedly reverting the edit to make it seem like it's reliable. It's not, so stop it. :••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 12:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IFCN fact checkers like India Today are undoubtedly reliable and your absurd logic won't change it. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgethedragonslayer: Doesn't mean that it can't spread fake news, what bullshit is this? Indian Media is peddling in Fake news, once again, and Wikipedia is being used to spread that fake news. I'm not having it with your propaganda. Bring in an Admin if you really care. :••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 12:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. TolWol56 (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TolWol56: Quite surprising that only Indian Media is reporting on this, well not really. It's not disruptive editing, and I will continue to revert it until you bring a reliable source. In the same way, I'll also report you :) :••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 12:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, TheGr8Scorpio, but TolWol56 is in the right here. BTW, not just Indian media is making these claims, but also the NRF in Panjshir. That only partisan sources report the Pakistani involvement is already pointed out by having "(alleged)" next to Pakistan. To remove the claims completely, however, is disingenuous as well, considering how widespread the allegations of Pakistani support are among anti-Taliban forces. Applodion (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Applodion: With due respect, if another reference exists that ISN'T Indian Media, then cite that. But as it is currently concerned, Indian Media is going haywire on this subject. It is Fake news, end of. I'll keep reverting it until you bring a reliable neutral source, or you bring in an Admin :••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 12:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK media also cites local officials who claim that Pakistan has bombed the NRF, see here. This German source even states that it has access to unconfirmed reports about Pakistani drones killing the NRF spokesman. Applodion (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Applodion: One reference is Indian Media, the other is just a repetition of Indian Media or circular reference, either ways - unreliable. If it was true, this would've been all over BBC, Al Jazeera, Sky and whatnot :••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 12:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. TolWol56 (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TolWol56: I do not care about your empty threats. I can also report you. In fact - go on, do report me, so that an Admin can be involved. I dare you :••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 12:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to check the report against you, here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TheGr8Scorpio_reported_by_User:AnM2002_(Result:_). AnM2002 (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Panjshir conflict. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:

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).

TheGr8Scorpio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why the hell did I get blocked, when I'm trying to verify the source, AND the fact that I'm being ganged up on AND the fact that the other users aren't even willing to resolve it and only want to endorse their edits. Why the hell did I get banned and they didn't even get a warning? : Oh and would you look at that, how quickly the edit has been reverted. There definitely isn't any sockpuppetry or ganging up going on is there I assume? Also that news was fake news. But I doubt you give a shit. ••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 13:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2021 (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.

@AnM2002: You keep repeating the shit "India Today", I don't care what specific agency it is. It is, at the end of the day, Indian Media. You know your agenda. And you guys all ganged up on me. :••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 13:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I await your reply, if you care enough :••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 13:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I care enough. If you are unable to conduct yourself with due moderation, I will revoke your talk page access for the duration. The level of aggression you exhibit also leads me to think that a longer-lasting prohibition (like a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA) may also be due. El_C 18:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Oh here's another that misses the point, cheers. I don't care that I got banned for edit warring, but what I did expect was at least the edit to be reverted, for propaganda. It was fake news, what more do you want to hear? I literally said, if it was genuine, then bring another neutral source. Yet they were hell bent on endorsing India Today over anything. If you had sorted this out earlier, than the conflict that's going on now at Panjshir conflict, wouldn't be happening. :••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 20:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now. Me? I didn't even know about any of this. But sources that you feel fail the reliability threshold should be brought to the article talk page or to WP:RSN. You being aggressive, or just passive-aggressive ("cheers"), is unlikely to advance your position. And as a side note, there's a weird dissonance that your hostility is always accompanied by the smiley face attached to your sig. Feels a bit surreal, tbh. Doesn't matter, though, I guess. El_C 20:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Well when you said "I care enough", I would've assumed that you understood what the argument was about. And in regards to disputing it, I did say, discuss it on the talk page to every single user that decided to revert my edit. Yet all the other users thought it was sufficient to just either, 1. Threaten to report me, or 2. Just say, that they think India Today is reliable, and then just revert my edit. What am I supposed to do then? That's when my "aggression" started, because they clearly didn't want to listen to me, or come to a resolution. Like I've said multiple times, they only wanted to endorse Indian Media as a source for news relating to Pakistan. People can of course dispute my edits, but I'm not accepting it, if the reason behind the dispute is to further propaganda. :••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 22:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You assumed wrong. Anyway, you did discuss it or you did say "discuss it?" That is not the same thing. And as far as I can tell you've edited the article talk page 0 times, but had reverted 6 times today, thrice more than what the edit warring bright line rule allows for. Not sure why you think you ought to be extended some no you rule-breaking allowances, but obviously that is not a thing. El_C 23:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Like I said, I don't care I got blocked from editing, but I did still expect Admins to keep my edit, because the edits were simply propaganda and fake news, that's my problem! I said discuss it on the talk page, because there were multiple users, and I wasn't going to make a thread pinging all of them, only for them to say "India Today is reliable" or worse, simply ignoring me, second all of the users had decided to send me a message on my talk page, rather than on the article talk page - none of them decided to make a thread either, and what was wrong with asking them for a reliable source? If their edits were in good faith, then why not leave it at my edit, and discuss with all the users? After all, is it not better that a reader isn't aware of something, rather than be misinformed? I get ganged up on, get my edits reverted by multiple users, probably sockpuppets, the page gets locked so that I can't even edit, and then blocked ... Because I asked them to provide a better source, and they don't even get a warning AND keep their edits? Seems fair. :••TheGr8Scorpio^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 23:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the continuing personal attacks, I have revoked TPA. If you continue this kind of behavior after your block expires, I will block you indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Again, there are enhanced channels to weigh on a source's reliability, such as WP:RSN. Otherwise, your reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. I see little assumption of good faith, but much bad faith, evidence-less WP:ASPERSIONS: "probably sockpuppets," "ganged up on," "propaganda," etc., and even some personal attacks outright. Anyway, I still don't think you realize how you're being perceived.

For example, the admin who reviewed your unblock request found it so subpar, they didn't even bother writing anything (their response to you is just the default template, in case you weren't aware). And the only reason I'm here is because I noticed your inflammatory comment at the RfPP request, so I came here to give you a warning only to see that you were already blocked.

What I'm getting at is that at some point, there will need to some self-reflection on your part, or it just isn't going to work out. The WP:BATTLEGROUND will get too much and that will be the end of that. It is what it is. El_C 00:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]