User talk:Ezhuth

Welcome

Hello, Ezhuth, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Ezhuth, good luck, and have fun. - SUN EYE 1 13:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Ezhuth. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Joseph Kallarangatt, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. - SUN EYE 1 17:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Joseph Kallarangatt, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - SUN EYE 1 17:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote number 2 in the article "Joseph Kallarangatt" claims 30 books. I find out 26. Kept the available details intact. And followed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources Ezhuth (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs reliable sources for each books. - SUN EYE 1 15:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there is nothing like ThD in Pontifical Gregorian University The degree is titled Sacrae Theologiae Doctor (STD) [[1]] or Doctor of Sacred Theology (English translation of the Latin)--Ezhuth (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Joseph Kallarangatt, you may be blocked from editing. - SUN EYE 1 15:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Joseph Kallarangatt has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. - SUN EYE 1 15:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like the rhythmical usage of the words "inadequate, inaccurate, inappropriate". What i did is explained in the edit summary. I think you are not aware of all doctoral degrees granted by foreign universities. For eg. STD (Sacrae Theologiae Doctor) Take some time to tour in wikipedia itself. Don't feel that i have misspelled the word in STD. In fact, it is Latin. It is good to have an open mind to knowledge/reason rather than keeping a prejudiced mind to intimidate with words like blocking.Ezhuth (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You express your ignorance when you demand reliable source for books. In fact you would have to ask for the ISBN number. I have the ISBN of the list of books i have collected. Since i don't see ISBN number in similar pages of renowned writers i just skipped it. When it comes to your interventions it seems all funny.Ezhuth (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notices

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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.

--Blablubbs (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Cherupushpa Mission League

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cherupushpa Mission League requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Daiyusha (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding other accounts

Hi, Ezhuth. My name's Tamzin. One of the things I do on Wikipedia is look into situations where multiple accounts have interacted with each other in unusual ways. I and other users have noticed that you've made edits very similar to those by several other users: Arunmathewleo, Tomytomthomas, and Straightwrite, as well as an unregistered user with the IP address 120.89.74.184. Are you using more than one account, or editing while logged-out? If not, do you know any of these other people? Or have any of the edits you've made to Wikipedia been based on requests you saw elsewhere to edit in a certain way?

Please respond here or at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arunmathewleo § Comments by other users at your soonest convenience. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact interested in petty narratives rather than metanarratives, a Lyotardian original concept. Always tried to keep enough footnotes, balanced view and error-free English. I edit wherever I feel an intervention is necessary. Nothing more, nothing less. Ezhuth (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you have nothing to do with these other users, and that no one asked you to make the edits you made? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ezhuth, I'm Blablubbs, and I'm an administrator as well as one of Tamzin's fellow SPI clerks. I'd like to follow up on this since you have edited after Tamzin's last query. Do you have no connection to these accounts whatsoever? Thanks. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blablubbs I have edited/replied only the first query by Tamzin. I left his last query since it is a repetition. Regards Ezhuth (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think her question is a repetition, considering that your first answer was evasive. Could you please answer my follow-up and not edit further until you have done so? As a sidenote, Tamzin prefers "she" or "they" pronouns, as indicated in her signature. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I intervene whenever I feel it is necessary. I made this clear already and I feel I should be responsible only for my words in the notice board and editing made from my id. Ezhuth (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of your personal position on the legitimacy of your actions, WP:SOCK mandates that if there is a connection here, you have to disclose it, and may be sanctioned if you refuse to do so; I'll ask you one last time: Do you have any connection to 120.89.74.184 (talk · contribs), Straightwrite (talk · contribs), Tomytomthomas (talk · contribs) or Arunmathewleo (talk · contribs)? --Blablubbs (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I say I am responsible only for my editing, it is clear that I dont maintain any caucus with anyone. Damn independent- Not related with usernames you mentioned. Ezhuth (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Arunmathewleo per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arunmathewleo. 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 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 ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

It seems funny that Blablubbs blocked me. I have been editing wikipedia in various topics, including publishing a page all the time Blablubbs makes the queries. In fact, complaints made after BLP of Joseph Kallarangatt is the provocation for Blablubbs to block me, and unfortunately many of the complaints remain unattended on the page. Joseph Kallarangatt was accused of involved in sexual allegations against Bishop Franco based on tabloid journalism. No authentic materials are quoted on that line to support the accusation. Whenever a grammar mistake is corrected or a precision is made on the page, it is reverted to its previous state, especially by the username Suneye1. I have brought attention to this fact and DeCausa felt the same. Extreme vandalism is felt there. Other users can also felt the same. if you want to complaint on vandalism, you have to use the word vandalism, no exception. When I was accused of sockpuppetry, the same Suneye1 was there to assert it. I intervened the page Joseph Kallarangatt since BLP:Balance is unseen there. "I will ask you one last time..." is the phrase used by Blablubbs during the enquiry made after sockpuppetry. Such an expression appears to be too silly that every time I assert my identity and my username. Ezhuth (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your request doesn't address the sockpuppetry allegation at all, and given that it generally sounds like an incoherent rant from a non-native English speaker, I think you should ask yourself if editing the English Wikipedia is really something you are capable of. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 7 December 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The reasons for blocking are to be reconsidered. I made a complaint related to BLP Joseph Kallarangatt on 16 Novemeber 2021. it was made as a new request since i feel that there is an emergency of intervention by reviewers. And my observations in the request was asserted by DeCausa that there is intentional inclusion of poorly sourced material under the BLP of Joseph Kallarangatt. I have accused the article of vandalism, because it is evidently felt there. Vandalism should be called vandalism. The findings under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arunmathewleo are not related to my account. The findings say, "Straightwrite, Arunmathewleo and Tomytomthomas made similar statements". How does it become related to my account? Another accusation says, "All four attempt to remove negative material from the article on Joseph Kallarangatt". In fact, i don't know about the other three. I haven't attempt to delete any information regarding the Joseph Kallarangatt. But obviously questioned the inauthentic, poorly sourced information in the page. Ezhuth (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The evidence presented at the sock puppet investigation seems clear. I believe this block was correct. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:22, 11 December 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.

(edit conflict)@Tamzin and Blablubbs: I had started this review on the technical end, which is my norm for sock blocks, then saw it was about a bishop. I don't think I'm INVOLVED since I've never met any of the editors or edited in the modern bishops in India space, but since my primary content stuff a few years ago was conclaves, I think HighInBC handling it is best, so I'll defer to whatever he thinks.
That being said, here are my thoughts since I did look at this a bit: I'm fairly convinced that these are all different people after looking through the technical details. Unlikely would be the result I'd give, but I don't disagree with RoySmith's {{unrelated}} result either. To me, this looks like different people in the same religious minority getting angry about the same thing. In a geographic topic area where religion is very important, this happens a lot, and its usually different people. That also tends to explain the similar language: in ESL communities that are fairly close knit and confined to one geographic area, you'll get accounts using extremely unique language because those were the structures taught in the schools everyone went to. It's a lot less useful of a tell in cases where all the accounts are ESL in a region where everyone is ESL, and I think the technical evidence backs up that these are unlikely to be the same person.
That raises the question of if its meat. I'm not quite convinced this is coordinated by people talking to each other so much as people being mad about the same thing. Again, this tends to happen a lot in regions where religion is important. The accounts might be disruptive and need to be blocked for other reasons (to be blunt, usually this is the case...) but people being mad about the same thing isn't necessarily abuse of multiple accounts.
Tl;dr: I did a technical review of this first, and my conclusion was that everyone was different. After looking at the behaviour and topic area, while I see the similarities, having dealt with a lot of these cases in the past, I tend to be more skeptical of linguistic analysis and behavioural evidence when the technical evidence says one thing, and it involves religion in a non-English speaking region. Take it for what it's worth. All three of you are competent, that's just my 2¢ on how I tend to analyze similar cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I edit conflicted while this was on hold, but I think the analysis is worth posting. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @TonyBallioni: I think you and I share a sensitivity to the risk of mistaking similar cultural circumstances for sockpuppetry—one of the first cases I clerked, I nearly made the mistake of requesting a block of two accounts that used an unusual phrase that, Google revealed, was not uncommon in some parts of the world—but in this case I noticed multiple tells that ought to be independent of that, such as the "footnotes x,y [sic] and z" thing and the very unusual use of {{w}}. Even "vandalism is felt", while potentially dialect-specific, is, as noted a the SPI, a phrase that has literally never been used on Wikipedia before. Still, your concerns are why I left open the door for each account to explain this, since I would have bought an explanation of "I saw a post on Facebook saying to go to this noticeboard and say X", especially from Ezhuth, who was last to post at BLPN. But they're claiming no outside coordination or canvassing, and I just don't believe that. (As to the CU side, my takeaway from Roy's comment was "inconclusive", and in general on India SPIs I tend to weight behavioral evidence much more strongly than an inconclusive, unlikely, or possible from CU, especially when proxying's involved. Even proceeding with a clear unlikely, though, I think I would have reached the same conclusion.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tamzin, so, without getting into specifics, technically this is pretty Unlikely in my opinion. To put it another way: to me, the data suggests it is more likely than not that these are different people. This is how my analysis looks:
    Ezhuth is on several devices. While I agree with Roy that some of them might be spoofed (though not conclusive), there are also a few UAs that do not appear spoofed. These two devices aren't used on any of the other accounts. There's also at least one network that I'm fairly confident is not a proxy.
    
    Tomytomthomas, the other account that uses that template, used two devices that don't appear to be spoofed that never appeared on the Ezhuth account. It is also on a different network that does not appear to be hiding anything.
    
    Arunmathewleo uses the same OS as Tomytomthomas and Straightwrite; but uses an uncommon browser that none of the other three accounts used, and consistently used that browser for all edits, including version updates. They are also on different network, but I'm not familiar with it so can't say much
    
    Straightwrite has the same extremely common UA as Tomytomthomas, but also has a distinct UA that is not consistent with any of the accounts. They share an ISP with Ezhuth, but that isn't abnormal.

They all share the same geographic region, but that doesn't tell us much in this case. All of the above says to me that we're dealing with at least 3 different people (Straightwrite could be one of the other 3, I suppose, but I'd still go with unlikely because of the unique UA.)

That's the framing I had in mind when looking at the linguistic/other things you brought up. I agree that SPIs in this topic area tend to be more complicated on the technical side, but this is actually one of the stronger ones for them being different people, imo.

That leaves us with the question of if this is meat, which is something I'm perfectly happy leaving to others to discuss. The point of my initial novel on being careful with religious minorities in ESL regions was that you're dealing with what is usually a linguistically isolated group within an area where English is already not the main language (i.e. they mainly talk to one another and had the same schools.) Doesn't mean it's not an abuse of multiple accounts, but its a complicating factor in these cases.

Anyway, now that I've written a novel and a sequel, I'll let others talk/let Ezhuth file another appeal if they want. I'm not necessarily advocating for an unblock at this point looking over what you posted again. I do think these cases tend to be fairly complicated, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni and Tamzin: My take in looking over this was that it is most likely abusive meatpuppetry; behaviour suggests a common playbook that is significantly more sophisticated than instances of people getting upset at the same thing usually are. It is indeed not uncommon for religious followers to come in groups to fix a perceived issue in an article. What is uncommon is for them to for them to address the issue at BLPN, with multiple threads being opened days from each other with formatting and language commonalities (I have never seen the phrase "vandalism is felt" used outside of this group). The chance of that happening in the given timeframe completely coincidentally strikes me as very slim. Now, if the scenario is that someone writes social media post that posits specific complaints using specific peculiar language (like "vandalism is felt") and points out BLPN as a good avenue, multiple people read that post and independently decide to go act on it, I would generally be disinclined to block. The issue arises when a connection seems evident (as it does here, to me anyway), but the individuals involved consistently deny it. In my book, that's where things turn from "inadvisable but done in good faith" to "organised POV pushing", and that's why I decided to action the block request. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page Joseph Kallarangatt is contested on different grounds. The arguments in this page are far fetched from inauthentic sources. For example: The sentence "Mulakkal was later arrested in September 2018 and the Palai diocese extended its support for him" is supported by a write up by John Haritha in The News Minute. He spoke about "representatives of Pala diocese". Who are the representatives? The article is silent about it. No other citation is provided. (The funny thing is that the name of the diocese is not Pala but Palai). But the privileged editors wont allow anyone to make a spelling change. Kindly refer to the reverting attempts made by Suneye1 in the "View History" tab of Joseph Kallarangatt. Even links attached to names of institutions were removed by Suneye1. A warning was given to Suneye1 by DeCausa on 16 November 2021 for "blatant BLP breach". Complaints were made against the imbalance in the content of the BLP of Joseph Kallarangatt. Complaints in the notice board appeared when even informative edits were reverted Vandalism and intentional defaming were complained about this page. None of the overseeing editors intervened. So I made a separate session about the page in the Notice board. Vandalism and Defaming attempts were highlighted in my complaint too. The page overcrowded with the word "controversy". The word is used twice in subtitles. At the same time page states that the person is an Indian theologian. And limits his contribution that he has attended a couple of ceremonies!!! Whenever a single change is made Suneye1 intervenes. Whenever an enquiry is initiated Suneye1 is the first one to raise accusations. I have added a session Kuravilangad Sermon with enough citations from Frontline Magazine from The Hindu Newspaper, a renowned Indian newspaper which always maintain a neutral point of view. The magazine made translations of the significant arguments in the so-called controversial speech. Immediately wikipedians felt that it is an whitewashing attempt. How can you overlook at least a few wordings from a speech while mentioning all the controversies after it. A thorough analysis edit history of the page Joseph Kallarangatt will prove the special interest of Suneye1 about this page: defamatory content were welcomed, and facts, if they are positive, were strictly prohibited Ezhuth (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain if you have any connection to the accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arunmathewleo/Archive? The concern from other users involved in combatting abuse of multiple accounts is that you may have coordinated with other users to target this article.

Do you know any of the users listed at the archive link I just posted? If not, did you hear about this article in person or online? Just trying to figure out what exactly is going on here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni Personally I don't have contact with any of the usernames mentioned in the archived link. But the speech made by Joseph Kallarangatt on September 8, 2021 was a topic of heated discussions in the Indian media. It led me to the page about him in Wikipedia. The speech which has similarity to the Regensburg lecture by Benedict XVI in content and controversy was not treated with integrity in this page. I have already admitted that i have used the words vandalism and defamatory statements in my complaint. Again factual errors are on this page. I attempted to edit these errors, and added links. The username Suneye1 seems to be prejudiced with this page (Earlier the word "covering up" used about a sexual scandal against another bishop in the Church was removed by ample reasons, Suneye1 retained it, and led to a warning by DeCausa in the talk page). Since Joseph Kallarangatt is a renowned Indian theologian several people attempted to edit the content since they felt imbalanced treatment of the page. All edits were condemned disruptive and the page was protected till Nov 06, 2021. The page lacks neutral point of view. Since the page is a BLP I came across the possibility to complain in the notice board of the page. The complaints about the page in the notice board were felt to be overlooked.

When I added matter to the page C.Fred added the session "Two sections on love/narcotics jihad controversy?" in the Talk page. The first response was from Suneye1 as usual. I defended my logic, and the content I added in the page subtitled "Kuravilangad Sermon" was retained. For the first time excerpt from the September 8 speech by Joseph Kallarangatt was quoted in the page. I have referred to the names mentioned in the speech, and the events related to each name which triggered the speech. It followed a new inquiry of sock puppetry against me. The first four observations in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arunmathewleo/Archive is made by Suneye1. I was confident in the inquiry since i haven't retained any relation to the accounts mentioned. I was blocked at the end. I have always taken the full responsibility for my edits. I still retain my accusation of vandalism and intentional defaming on the page Joseph Kallarangatt. The very next day Suneye1 successfully deleted the session "Kuravilangad Sermon" from the page Joseph Kallarangatt. I feel that I haven't got any fair treatment from Wikipedia admins. Ezhuth (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni Please see, Talk:Joseph_Kallarangatt#Two_sections_on_love/narcotics_jihad_controversy?, there was no consensus for the duplicate WP:OR version added by Ezhuth. @Ezhuth : Please refrain from personal attacks.- SUN EYE 1 05:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my reply below, I don't really have an opinion on this, and don't think it has anything to do with the block rationale. I agree they've been editing rather stringently, but that's common for new editors in contentious areas. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, it isn't vandalism. That has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. Whether or not it is in line with the biographies of living persons policy or neutral point of view policy is another question. I haven't read the article and don't really follow controversies in the modern Catholic bishops sphere, so really can't give an opinion and that (nor do I really want to, in all honesty.)

My recommendation to you is this: you should make another unblock request; you should promise to refrain from calling actions by others you disagree with vandals if it isn't there to intentionally harm Wikipedia. You are free to say that an article is not neutral, but please comment on the content, not the contributor. Mention that you will only comment on content rather than other people when dealing with controversial articles.

In terms of the MEAT subject, I'm probably slightly more familiar with the various Indian religious groups (in regards to St. Thomas Christian groups, Western Christian groups in India, and non-Christian religions and sects) than the average administrator, so you will need to explain what you explained above in terms that someone who is not familiar with the religious history of where you are from will understand, and do it in a way that can convince them that you did not edit in collaboration with other people. It is impossible to prove a negative, so you need to provide a reasonable alternative explanation that people can convince another administrator that it is just a coincidence.

Finally, to be rather blunt, you're editing like a bull in a China shop in an area that is rather contentious. Even if someone were to believe that you had no relation to the other accounts other than having similar beliefs, there would be an argument to change your block to a disruptive editing block rather than a meatpuppetry block. You need to overcome that problem in addition to explaining why different people have the same view on the same topic as you and edit in a similar way.

Once you are able to do all that, make an unblock request and another administrator will review it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin and Blablubbs: Kindly re-consider the case of indefinite blocking of the account Ezhuth. In fact, the intervention on the page Joseph Kallarangatt leads to the blocking of the account. Now the same article is labelled that neutrality disputed. In fact, what I have mentioned in the noticeboard frequently is about this neutrality. It is clear that I have created new section on the noticeboard on the same topic. In fact, it was out of ignorance. Again, all my editing and other interference are from a single username and IP address. Nothing manipulative is proved there. There is the common language usage in the noticeboard. The topic is sensational in one of the particular Churches in the Catholic Church called Syro Malabar Catholic Church. Again, the editing that I have made always used the mainstream sources like The Hindu newspaper, The Indian Express, Malayala Manorama and magazines like Frontline. I haven't used any online news portals which deliberately publish hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation. I promise to refrain from calling actions by others I disagree with vandals. I promise that when the article is not neutral, I will comment only on the content, not the contributor. The complaints on the noticeboard regarding the contested content of the page Joseph Kallarangatt could be from the followers of Syro Malabar Church, and about the citations that appear to be dubious and doubtful, almost all the accounts might have raised the same complaint. It was just a coincidence. Ezhuth (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for repealing block

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked accused of sockpuppetry while dealing with the page Joseph Kallarangatt. Now the page is with the notice on disputed neutrality. I have questioned the neutrality of the article on several grounds and edited the content with enough references. The only accusations against me were starting new sections on the same topic in the noticeboard on Joseph Kallarangatt, and similarity in the content of the complaint raised against the page from different accounts. The link is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arunmathewleo § Comments by other users. The person Joseph Kallarangatt is a Syro Malabar Indian bishop and Syro Malabar Church is a particular church in the Catholic Church. When disputed contents appear on the page, there is always the possibility for similar complaints on the same topic from people who are familiar with the topic. I admit that I made repeated sections on the noticeboard, and it is out of ignorance. Whenever I edited the page, I have given the references.--Ezhuth (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2022 (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. SQL ^{Query Me!} 06:18, 22 March 2022 (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.

I've added the unblock template so this will be in the queue for review. It won't get viewed otherwise. If you don't want this reviewed, feel free to revert me, but it seems your intent. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni SQL I have refrained further editing on my Talk Page since SQL has warned that even my talk page will be blocked if do not admit my faults. I write now since i have received a notification that my username is mentioned at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Njkattakayam?markasread=244684302&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Suneye1-2022-04-13T15:34:00.000Z-April_2022 Someone has edited the page of Joseph Kallarangatt and the issue of abusive/suspicious multiple accounts was raised again. An 'editing pattern' is found out, 'coordinating editing', regarding a new editor. The new editor is following my pattern. What is that pattern? Questioning the integrity of the BLP of the page Joseph Kallarangatt. Joseph Kallarangatt is an Indian bishop, and Indian secularism treat all religions and religious leaders with equal respect. Indian secularism is quite different from its western counterpart. People won't tolerate a page blaming a religious leader by simply quoting tabloids. I am ready to cooperate with any investigation with regard to the claim that i have used abusive multiple accounts in wikipedia. I am ready to unfold any information regarding my own account. In fact I have one account and all my editings are from my laptop and mobile. It seems funny that any one who edit the page Joseph Kallarangatt with factual integrity is accused to be an abusive multiple account holder. Anyone who add something positive regarding Joseph Kallarangatt is doing 'coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Ezhuth'. I have already made it clear that out of ignorance i started two sessions on the BLP complaint page regarding Joseph Kallarangatt instead of editing the first one. Several people may have raised complaints with similar wordings, even they may have copied my complaint since religion is a sensitive issue in India. I am not responsible for all accounts that complain against the page Joseph Kallarangatt. It is sure that people will edit that page especially areas where the Joseph Kallarangatt is presented as complicit in the sexual scandal case against Bishop Franco Mulackal since it is against the facts Ezhuth (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Ezhuth: Looking at the warning that Suneye1 gave, I don't see much reason to think that Njkattakayam is a sockpuppet of you or anyone else. If Suneye1 takes it to Sockpuppet Investigations I will give it due consideration, but my initial take is to believe them and you that you don't know each other. I do, however, stand by my conclusion that you and the other accounts in the last SPI were at the very least involved in some sort of off-wiki coördination. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I regret for all the inconveniences that I have made to the wikipedia project. Kindly repeal my block. Ezhuth (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin I have explained several times that I have done my editings from my own account. But the page Joseph Kallarangatt was highlighted as full of manipulations in the media. The page got attention soon. Still several information in the page has no credibility. Several people might have attempted to edit. Edit-undid edit- all these are frequent on this page. There could be people who attempted to copy the method of a previous editing. This page was a topic of heated discussion one year before. Kindly consider all these explanations. I regret for all my reactionary interventions here. I apologise all the mistake. Ezhuth (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]