User talk:42.106.5.240

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

For edit warring, using bad and promotional sources on a BLP, and generally harassing Maysinfourty. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am blocked for "using bad and promotional sources on a BLP, and generally harassing Maysinfourty", but on talk page Talk:Suhel_Seth, I made it clear that "Most of the content you removed is reliably sourced after all", and "Nearly all of the sources... meets WP:RS". While I can see the article depends a lot on filmibeat.com, it is confirmed as WP:RS per discussion on RSN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_183#Oneindia.com

So there was absolutely no use of "bad and promotional sources on a BLP". On the page, same reverts were made by other 2 editors. So there was consensus of 3 editors against 1 editor for my edits.

To say I was "generally harassing Maysinfourty", is correct but Maysinfourty, who made 4 reverts in violation of WP:3RR, has been accusing people of "WP:COI", sockuppetry[1] and also accused me of socking on noticeboard.[2] Why he isn't blocked for WP:NPA?

Why he should be let off with his blatant violation of WP:3RR?

I made these reverts because the current version of Suhel Seth violates WP:BLP by removing reliably sourced content and limiting the article to mere sexual allegations which violates WP:BLP and WP:BALANCE.

I also don't see how the revert made by CaptainEek with a misleading edit summary "BLP" indeed violated BLP or WP:COPYVIO. He was not allowed to make revert unless either those policies were violated. The revert appears to be violating WP:INVOLVED.

So I should be unblocked on these basis. Since I am not the one violating BLP or spamming but other user who is violating BLP and made 4 reverts to enforce the BLP violation. 42.106.5.192 (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were edit warring. Your edits do not fall under any of the exemptions. I do not see any consensus – too much reverting, not enough discussion. For parts of your appeal, see WP:NOTTHEM.

(BTW, FilmiBeat/OneIndia.com is not a reliable source according to WP:ICTFFAQ#Sources considered unreliable.)

— JJMC89 (T·C) 07:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

---