User talk:ArbaazAli15

Sdmn[edit]

Why remove the caption names? Gilbert.JW (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Formulaonewik originally removed it on 23rd Feb by calling it redundant, that's why I edited them out. You can add it if you feel its necessary but Formulaonewik might remove it in the future. ArbaazAli15 (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see. I don’t see it being redundant. What do you think? Bearing in mind most groups usually have names listed in the image. Gilbert.JW (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Works either way. ArbaazAli15 (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not especially fussed if other editors feel it appropriate to include; to me it just seemed unnecessary particularly given that only one (KSI) is especially notable. Happy to leave it as it is. —Formulaone wiki 13:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Fair enough. Also, I recently added an award to KSI but you removed an award (different one) after my edit saying "If an award isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia page I fail to see why it is appropriate for inclusion in this article. Reads heavily of WP:FAN" Are you saying that to me ? Because I didn't add that award, that was already added before. I added a different one - British Book Awards which does indeed have a wikipedia page and no, I'm not a fan either. ArbaazAli15 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not aimed at anyone in particular. I didn't bother looking up who added the award, I just said the edit reads like fancruft, which it does. This isn't personal. —Formulaone wiki 15:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidemen[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sidemen, you may be blocked from editing. —Formulaone wiki 11:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just doing what's right. As I earlier said on the talk page, most of the YouTubers' wiki pages that have multiple article, their sub count of their multiple channels have been added & shown like that, so again. KSI's main channel has around 21 million subscribes & his second channel has around 8 million subscribers, yet we show "30 million (combined)" as his subscribers and have been showing like that for a long time. Same for Logan Paul. Same for MrBeast. Same for Etika. Same for Lazarbeam. Same for Smosh etc etc etc. We're showing the "combined sub count" in all those pages. And there's nothing wrong with that. You yourself admitted combining sub count is a common practice on wikipedia. So again why is that a problem here ? Why all of a sudden do you need a reliable source for showing combing sub count when you didn't need one for all the above pages that I just mentioned ?

Combined sub counts is not unsourced content. Its a sum total of the subscriber counts of all the channels listed in the infobox, all of which are sourced. There's not a source attached beside the combined sub counts in the infboxes of any YouTuber that has a combined sub count in its infobox so again why is that problem here specifically ?

Seems like you're setting your own rules specifically for this page and when someone questions it, you scare them with block warnings. No, for the record I'm not doing disruptive editing. Disruptive editing disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. What you're trying to do is disruptive editing because you're adding outdated stats and showing them as current stats. -ArbaazAli15 (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not doing 'what's right'. You are choosing to neglect Wikipedia policy in pursuit of what you believe to be 'right'. All information should, where possible, have reliable sources; I have provided such sources. How about instead of repeatedly adding original research, or using baseless arguments (quoting other articles which also have multiple issues and lack sources), you find reliable sources to back your claim? —Formulaone wiki 11:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Zaydx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) 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 sock puppet, 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[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).

ArbaazAli15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked as a sockpuppet of someone who I haven't even heard of. I use the computer in my college so there could someone else using their account on this same computer as its used by several students. But from my account, no rule has been broken. I only started editing and joined Wikipedia very recently. -ArbaazAli15 (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not buying it. Same IP address, same computer, same browser, and a substantial overlap in edits. We will continue blocking your sockpuppet accounts as we find them, and reverting all your edits. Yamla (talk) 12:20, 8 March 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.

@Yamla So you're saying if someone from my college has happen to use wikipedia on the college computer in the past, then I get blocked for it because I use the same computer ? How does that make any sense at all ? Are you kidding me ? I'M IN A LITERAL COLLEGE, HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS HAVE PROBABLY USED WIKIPEDIA ON THIS COMPUTER AT SOME POINT. In what shape or form does that justify me being blocked ? Also, the reason for which I'm blocked is completely unfair as I've explained below.

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).

ArbaazAli15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In response to the reason of my previous appeal being rejected, I'm in a literal college where hundreds or thousands of students have probably used wikipedia on this computer at some point. How does that justify me being blocked ? Especially when all of my edits are legitimate and I've broken no rule. To add to the subject, I'm assuming User:Formulaonewiki raised this request, I've been falsely accused by him of "Users refusing to use reliable sources/adding original research", that is false, I only added combined subscriber count to Sidemen. A combined subscriber count is when a YouTuber has multiple channels, so you add the subscriber counts of their multiple channels and show their combined subscriber count. This technique has been used on many wikipedia pages (some of which User:Formulaonewiki himself has been editing on for a long time) of most Youtubers' that have multiple channels, some of the big names include - KSI, Logan Paul, MrBeast, Etika, Lazarbeam, Smosh etc. And it has been used for a long time, even before I joined wikipedia. No source has been used on any of those pages for their combined subscriber counts as its usually a simple case of addition of the sub counts that you can easily check on youtube. So I find it extremely surprising that as soon as I added the combined subscriber count to Sidemen it became a problem for User:Formulaonewiki and even more surprising because literally a day ago, User:Formulaonewiki himself admitted on the talk page of Sidemen that combined subscriber counts are a "common practice on wikipedia". User:Formulaonewiki also said that most of my edits are apparently fancruft when literally none of them are (you're all allowed to go through them) and I've made quite clear that I'm not a fan unless you think me adding their combined sub count is me being a fan even though as I said that same technique has been used on wikipedia on many pages for a long time. User:Formulaonewiki accusing me is for the said thing is ironic in itself because he literally undid my edit of the combined subscriber count just to change the combined subscriber count to what it was 4 months ago, thereby making it an outdated stat and then backing that outdated stat to what he claimed as 2 "reliable sources" when in reality, the first one was not even reliable as per WP:RSPSOURCES and the second one states nothing regarding their combined sub count as we can see that here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sidemen&diff=944530996&oldid=944530975 . User:Formulaonewiki is literally guilty of the stuff that he has accused me of, and I'm not at all because I was just trying to add combined subscriber count which has already been existing on many wikipedia pages of Youtubers that have multiple channels. User:Formulaonewiki is not only guilty of that, he's also guilty of the third rule of "Grounds for checking" of CheckUser Policy i.e. "Threaten another editor into compliance in a content dispute" as I was repeatedly threatened for a potential block in our content dispute even though I was just trying to add combined subscriber count, a thing which already has been existing on many wikipedia pages of Youtubers that have multiple channels. I want other editors to see this and see what's been going on please. -ArbaazAli15 (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'd be happy to consider the issues with blocking IPs in college type situations if the accounts were unrelated, but the editing pattern across all the accounts is very similar so this clearly isn't a case of collateral damage. I'm turning off talk page access to prevent further time-wasting unblock requests. Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 11 March 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.