User talk:Brihaspati

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others. He who envies others does not obtain peace of mind.
— Gautama Buddha

Show another

Archives

1, 2

Blocked

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, as you did at Swarajya (magazine). This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have an undisclosed financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am aware of terms of paid editing and I am not getting paid of doing any Wikipedia editing. I have COI with the page though as I started internship at there just before 12 days. No one has directly or indirectly asked me to edit this page. There was discussion regarding this page [[1]] in which several new users were doing edit war over fake news line in lead. I didn't directly edit affected page, instead I used [page] for editing request and then after gaining consensus, I edited that page. I stopped editing page thereafter. Prior to 12 April, I didn't have any conflict of interest with the publication (though my articles were published there like my articles are getting published in other publications like Times of India, Ahmedabad Mirror, Navbharat Times, DailyO and many more but it was through general way of just mailing editor of the website). I didn't get any compensation from any of these publications for Wikipedia editing or writing for them till now. When Swarajya doxxed the Wikipedia editor, I mailed them to take those pieces down as they were not complying with Wikipedia's terms and policies; those pieces were taken down after. Hence, I always try to follow Wikipedia guidelines and larger aspects of Wikimedia movement. While editing, I thought that COI disclosure was not needed because I was using talk page already for editing request but I think, I could have mentioned COI while doing editing request. In the future, I will not directly edit this page and I will add userbox of COI on my userpage regarding this.

Decline reason:

There was an expectation of you to disclose your conflict, as is spelled out in WP:COI. Four days ago, you directly removed from Swarajya (magazine) the following sourced passage: "According to fact-checking websites such as Alt News, Swarajya has propagated fake news multiple times." You cited your reason as being "Per consensus on t/p." But looking at the talk page, the conversation was: a. only with one other editor. And b. that editor expressed their preference for modification of the passage ("I prefer the current wording with in-text attribution") rather than removal outright. This was in response to you writing: "I think word Alt News and other’s are reductant because they’ve been certified by IFCN. What say?" And you did all that with an undisclosed conflict of interest looming large? A few hours later, the other editor involved (Newslinger) re-added a modified version of the passage which you removed, a passage which remains in the lead presently. It now reads: "According to fact-checking websites such as Alt News, Swarajya has misreported news on multiple occasions." Did it not occur to you, at the very least, the optics of making such a favourable, direct edit to an entity with which you are connected? I'm sorry, but I am finding your current request to be insufficient at this time. El_C 15:27, 24 April 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.

@El C: Another editor used sentence: I am not a big fan of using the term "fake news" in this way, since our articles on American/British publications don't do the same unless reliable sources explicitly describe it as such. Previously, line fake news was in lead and another editor clearly denied use of it. So, I thought it that they are in favour of removal of sentence and hence, I removed it. But after they objected it, I didn’t reinstate it and just stepped back because I had CoI. This discussion was not even direct, some new editors on another page brought issue of this publication and I shifted that discussion and my thoughts there. I am sorry that I didn’t disclose CoI at the time of making request, which I could have done. - Brihaspati (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brihaspati, please see my comment below. Also, replace "could" with should. Briefly, again, I'm not sure how you could have read the other editor's comment to be indicative of a preference for outright removal when, as I mention above, they wrote: "I prefer the current wording with in-text attribution." How do you explain this discrepancy? El_C 15:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: That comment was done after my edit, not before it. And hence, after that comment, I didn’t edit it.— Brihaspati (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it looked like it was edited the very minute, but converting UTC remains an issue with Wikipedia which decades later has not been streamlined. Sorry for conflating the timeline. Still, a highly problematic edit. El_C 16:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An internship is still considered to trigger the requirement to declare as a paid editor, even if you are not paid in cash money, as you are being compensated with the experience. You don't have to be specifically asked or directed to edit. What topics will you edit about henceforth? 331dot (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: thanks for enlightening me that it is considered as paid. I’ll not directly edit article in future. Even after starting internship, I edited article by posting request and after obtaining consensus. I’m associated with Wikimedia movement in India and specifically to Gujarati Wikipedia and Wikisource’s social outreach programs. So, I didn’t have any objective to use Wikipedia as soapbox or to advertise. I will do my regular edits (leaving this page) and page creations on books, geographical locations of Gujarat, biographies of notable people, acts passed by parliament of India etc. like I did it in past. — Brihaspati (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make another unblock request. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: made.— Brihaspati (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brihaspati, as I note above, the point is that you've taken upon yourself to make a highly favourable direct edit, one which did not seem to have been in-line with the talk page conversation you allude to (i.e. removal of the unfavourable passage outright), to an entity with which you were connected, without having disclosed that connection to anyone on Wikipedia. Surely, that warrants further elucidation on your part. El_C 15:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: as I clearly said in above message, another editor said on talk page that they were not in favour of using fake news in this way which was considered by me as removal of fake news sentence. However, meaning by them was to replace word fake news with misreporting. Therefore, I didn’t edit article further because I have CoI and I agreed with present version.— Brihaspati (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Brihaspati. I've consider you to have been a productive editor, which is why it pains me to ask: you've known you had a conflict of interest for weeks, but you still failed to give WP:COI even a cursory glance? I'm not asserting intentional deception or anything, but that seems... well, strange to me. You've been on Wikipedia long enough, I think, to know how seriously we take the conflict of interest policy, yet you've been operating with your own interpretation of what that conflict of interest policy ought to mean to you without having checked out the policy page once, or at the very least asking another experienced editor (I would have been happy to advise you) about it...? El_C 16:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: First let me clear one misunderstanding. You wrote, I mention above, they wrote: "I prefer the current wording with in-text attribution." How do you explain this discrepancy? I want to say that last two comments (one by me and one by another editor) were after my edit. I thought I’m just doing internship without getting any money as of now. By looking at CoI, I considered to write on T/P as it said so. I didn’t know I should disclose coi there too. My primary reason not to disclose there was doxxing which I’m facing and perhaps, I mailed about it to you too. I’m associated with Wikimedia movement offline and I didn’t have any malicious intention to turn encyclopaedia into soapbox. — Brihaspati (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brihaspati, you confirm having been aware that you were suffering from a conflict of interest, but you still opted not to disclose that, to anyone. You opted not to seek any clarifications about that, whatsoever. That is why I declined your request. Because that just does not make sense to me. El_C 16:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I was not aware that it’s compulsory to disclose COI while doing edit request on talk page. I was not still editing article directly first because of my knowledge of CoI policy. And I edited after receiving response which has been misinterpreted. After clarification, I didn’t edit article further because of CoI and dropped stick. I apologised for editing article though. That’s it!— Brihaspati (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brihaspati, I don't usually like invoking Ignorantia juris non excusat, but the fact that you knew we take conflict of interests seriously, and yet had failed to do your due diligence, is something I find too problematic to unblock myself. That said, if you draft a convincing second unblock request which results in another admin unblocking you, that would be fine with me. I've said my piece and it's unlikely I would be offering further input on the matter (including objections) at this time. El_C 16:38, 24 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

As recommended by 331dot and El_C, I’m filing the unblock request again. I have not been aware that it was compulsory to disclose COI even on talk page. Having said that, I’ll disclose CoI on my userpage and will not edit page further.

Decline reason:

On 17 December 2019, you asked for your previous userpage, which contained a rather revealing link wrt to your internship at Swarajya (for the sake of your privacy I won't characterize the link further) to be speedy deleted. That could be seen as not merely not declaring your COI, but actually being furtive about it. Many of the diffs in Bradv's post above, where you warn eight different users about COI editing, were made shortly before and shortly after that speedy request. Combined with your statement "I have not been aware that it was compulsory to disclose COI even on talk page" in this unblock request, it sounds a lot like you think there's one rule for other editors, and another rule for you yourself. I agree with Bradv that this amounts to bad faith editing. See also El C's comments higher up on this page. Bishonen | tålk 20:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Adding: I should probably have supplied a link to the deleted userpage in Brihaspati's old name, even though there is already one in the block log: User:Harshil169. (Only readable by admins.) Bishonen | tålk 09:54, 25 April 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.

Brihaspati, I'll let another admin handle the unblock-request but I do have a couple of questions:

if unblocked do you intend to continue to edit wikipedia article's related to India, especially Indian politics, governance, religious issues and current affairs, i.e., topics covered by Swarajya and OpIndia and the other publications you write for?
I see that you had nominated the wikipedia article for Nupur Sharma, the editor of OpIndia and the author who wrote an article outing a wikipedia editor, while you were apparently writing articles for the sister publication who then republished OpIndia's doxing? Can you clarify if you know or were in touch with the editor about deletion of the wikibio?

Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: I don’t write for other publications. I just send them piece via email and it got published. Writing for them means getting paid for being published which is not case for me.

Yes, I would like to edit those topics. But I don’t write for OpIndia and I don’t have any relation with them. Swarajya and OpIndia got separated in 2018 while I started internship in former one just before 12 days. It’s wrong to call them sister publication because Swarajya is media house having editorial standards and journalistic ethics. I was not part of any publication before 12 days, I can’t comment on those issues.
No, I’m not in touch with chief editor or anyone of OpIndia who outed Wikipedia editor. Plus, I was the one who emailed and explained Swarajya to take those pieces down because they were violative of Wikipedia’s policies and hostile for Wikimedia movement. Those pieces were taken down after my intervention. (I got to know from them that outed editor also emailed them and email from me put weight; thus, they took pieces down.)— Brihaspati (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Nupur Sharma whom you’re referring to is BJP leader not OpIndia’s chief editor. Both are different personalities and both have different verified twitter accounts. I nominated article for deletion of @NupurSharmaBJP not @UnsubtleDesi who is editor of OpIndia. — Brihaspati (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for the clarifications Brihaspati, especially correcting my confusion over the two diffeernt persons named 'Nupur Sharma'.

However, I am concerned with the possibly narrow interpretation you apply to "write for" or "part of". This combined with your earlier failure to disclose the COI with an explanation that you were not aware that it’s compulsory, leaves me with no clear idea of what you mean by I was not part of any publication before 12 days while also saying I was the one who emailed and explained Swarajya to take those pieces down since the latter surely was more than 12 days ago.

Frankly, I don't see how these issues can be evaluated without knowing the full extent of your COI, and since that probably involves disclosure of personal information, IMO it is best done in consultation with functionaries, arbcom or WMF Office. At a minimum, if unblocked I would like to see a topic-ban from some India related articles since your recent editing is highly correlated with the topics that Swarajya et al (controversially) cover and as is common for those publications, you have accused others of "encouraging islam-apologetic agenda". Abecedare (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: let me clarify: everyone can email to publication via their contact us section. I had emailed in that way and perhaps, outed editor too emailed in that way. Surely, I started internship before 12 days but that doesn’t mean no one can email any publication. Having said that, I will request you to look at t/p section where I made request first, gained consensus and edited page. Of course, there was some misinterpretation but I hadn’t edited page thereafter. It was only one edit (and that too with consensus). — Brihaspati (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Brihaspati, I am not buying your explanation about the failure to disclose the conflict of interest above. In the past few months you have warned numerous editors about their own conflicts of interest, e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. In one of those cases, the COI warning you gave was for the exact same edit that you made to Swarajya (magazine). This is just bad faith editing, and I wouldn't be willing to even consider unblocking you without some sort of topic ban or restriction on what kind of edits you will make in the future. Given your affiliation with an organization that's willing to out Wikipedia editors in pursuit of political goals, that needs to start at the very least with a ban from Indian politics. – bradv🍁 17:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: did you read whole discussion above? I approached on t/p first and after gaining consensus, I did edit page because I had CoI. I was not aware on topic that during t/p discussion, COI needs to be disclosed. Also, if you’re assuming bad faith because my recent connection with organisation which outed one editor then you should also consider that same organisation took down those articles after intervention and explanation from me. I’m affiliated with Wikimedia movement for 2.5 years and multiple Wikimedia projects while I started internship at Swarajya just before 12 days. How can you hold me responsible for some articles which were published much before I joined (and even they were taken down due to my explanation)? I can agree not to edit article related to Swarajya or any person affiliated to Swarajya.— Brihaspati (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brihaspati, yes I read the discussion. You're claiming that because you brought it up on the talk page first, you were allowed to edit the article despite your conflict of interest. That's not what the policy says, and that is explicit in the warnings you gave to other users and the ones you received yourself (1, 2). I don't believe that you didn't understand the COI policy or that you didn't understand what constitutes a consensus on the talk page, and I don't see how I can in good faith accept that explanation. – bradv🍁 18:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re still not understanding. I didn’t directly edited article. I brought up issue, another admin said they don’t have any issue and then I removed part. That’s it! I didn’t edit that article after it. I should have disclosed COI while taking issue to talk page but it was shifted comments from another article; I was not aware that COI should be disclosed to t/p while requesting edit.— Brihaspati (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? How is this not editing the article? And it's exactly the same edit that another editor made, for which you gave them a COI warning and added in your own words: "Kindly disclose your affiliation with magazine. We have off-Wiki evidence." – bradv🍁 18:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reiterating same comment: I brought up issue, another admin said they don’t have any issue and then I removed part. That old editor, whom I gave warning, removed part directly and I was not part of publication then. His username was assimilating with someone of publication and I opened this SPI. One new account was blocked at that time and this editor was blocked for 3 days. While my edit was being done after posting message and gaining consensus on T/P. Is that clear how these two are different?— Brihaspati (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you’ll ask me why I removed that part. The reason is this discussion and analysis used here. Otherwise, I was not in favour of removing or changing words. — Brihaspati (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the point of the conflict of interest disclosure. That admin didn't know that you were editing on behalf of Swarajya - they thought you were neutral. Pretending to be unaffiliated while proposing to remove criticism from the article is not good faith editing. You know this because you've pointed it out to other people. – bradv🍁 18:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I should have disclosed it then but I thought this is just discussion in which Swarajya was evoked by another editor. You’re free to restore original version, I’ve not any issues. And please, stop alleging that I edit on behalf of Swarajya. I don’t edit on behalf of them and I wouldn’t have edited this article either if this discussion wouldn’t have happened. — Brihaspati (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That response illustrates that you still do not understand the Conflict of interest policy. – bradv🍁 18:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brihaspati, as Bishonen says, you cannot enforce a policy while at the same time allow yourself to remain ignorant about it. That simply fails to meet our expected standards for editing here, inexorably so. El_C 22:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break

(Commenting as the blocking admin:) I'd like to find a way for you to get back to productive editing Brihaspati, but this situation isn't good. First things first you need to drop the excuses that you were not aware of the COI requirements or that you do not have a financial COI with regard to Swarajya (magazine). As demonstrated above, neither is remotely plausible. As a minimum requirement to return to editing, you will need to disclose your conflict of interest and fully comply with WP:PAID. I know you wanted to avoid outing yourself, and that would have been fine if you didn't edit the article. But you did, so unfortunately that option is no longer available to you. Further, given this attempt to furtively edit the article without disclosing, and the problematic history of Swarajya and Wikipedia, I wouldn't be willing to unblock you unless you also agree a topic ban from Indian politics broadly construed, including articles relating to Swarajya (magazine), OpIndia, and connected publications. This would mean you could not edit the articles, their talk pages, or make edit requests. We would of course also have to have the consensus of the other admins here. – Joe (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: First thing I want to clear is I was normal reader of Swarajya like I am of other publications right now when problematic history happened. I have subscription of the publication. As a subscriber of publication and Wikipedia editor, I have emailed them to take down pieces which outed editor and they took down. Now, I don’t understand how I became centre of problematic history of Swarajya and Wikipedia? Also, I have edited this article as part of this discussion and I gained consensus on the talk page first. Now, I think that I should have disclosed COI at that moment while gaining consensus but I think that disclosure on t/p was not compulsory (as interpreted by me which was wrong). I was really not aware that I shouldn’t edit article after gaining consensus because I had CoI. I apologise for my mistake and I’ll not edit article further. Leave that matter. I’m associated longly with Wikimedia movement and multiple Wikimedia projects than Swarajya. Even in Swarajya, I’m at learning position of writing and editing; that too from home. I’m not getting paid from them. For me, free knowledge movement is more important than my internship. Will topic ban/block be abandoned if I discontinue my internship at Swarajya? Another point I want to make is I can agree of topic ban Swarajya, OpIndia or media publications but I can’t agree on whole Indian Politics because it can intersect in my any editing. Suppose I make Wikipedia page of book Sixteen Stormy Days or A Dominant Character or The Elephant Paradigm— all will have intersection of politics. Similarly, I am in process to make Kanaiyalal Munshi article good which I can’t do it. Additionally, 2019 Vadodara flood couldn’t be made by me because some political party politicised it later. My most of edits have been directly or indirectly into this topic. So, broadly constructed TBAN will reduce me to zero editing because I have rarely contributed in any article prior. I can agree on TBAN on Swarajya or OpIndia or similar mediahouses.— Brihaspati (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: I wrote this offline before I saw any of the above - I think that religious disputes needs to be part of the topic ban you're suggesting. Brihaspati, it's not really your choice. Because I posted the discretionary sanctions alert on your talk page, I thought I should chime in here. It seems pretty clear that you deleted your old userpage because you didn't want your identity known. In fact, you'd complained about doxxing at ANI[10] although your old user page had included your Facebook account which identifies you by name and your Instagram account, and WP:DOX says "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." But you'd voluntarily identified yourself and you knew you had. You can't be doxxed, you've said publicly who you are. So long as you can follow our policies and guidelines here, your politics and actions off-Wiki shouldn't matter (unless of course you harass our editors, and I'm not accusing you of that). Support your political party, attack your opponents, even try to get someone fired (did you do that?), these are all things we can do offline. I know I do. But the doxxing accusation seems a bit feeble. Still, that's water under the bridge.

It all changed when you took up your internship with a major Indian media company. Now no one is accusing you of editing at their request, please put that argument aside. What we are saying is that you have a strong incentive to want to keep your job, and that we all know that parts of the Indian media (and Twitter) are extremely interested in what happens on Wikipedia. You're being watched, now maybe I'm being watched. You know that. It's not as though there's no way your employer is going to know about your Wikipedia activities. Edits that endanger your job security, edits that enhance it, they're all relevant. And that means, to me a least, any edits about the Indian media, any edits about Indian politics, and any edits about religious disputes are areas that you need to avoid. If nothing else interests you, then that's a shame but you're active on other Wikipedia projects, right? I see you've asked whether abandoning your internship would make a difference. If you then went to work with an IT company, a retail business, an airline, clearly not. But if you still want a media career with an organisation with politics similar to Swarajaya, that's got to affect your editing, your votes at AfDs, etc. What that means for any topic ban is up Joe whoever else considers your unblock request, but frankly I think you'd be foolish to give up your internship in return for being unblocked with no topic ban. And do remember that your actions recently, particularly your accusations of COI while not admitting your own, are going to put you under the spotlight here more than if you'd simply declared your internship and your COI when it occurred. Finally, because I know others will be watching anything written here, let me make it clear I'm not pro or anti Hindus or Muslims. I am against religious bigotry or violence. As I hope are you. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brihaspati. Looks like a few admins posted detailed walls of text explaining the problems with your edits, so I will try to keep this short. I understand that this is not your first block and being blocked from editing can be frustrating. Have you considered WP:SO? That is how I got back to productive editing in a year. Admins hate imposing sanctions, but they are needed to prevent disruptive edits from happening. I know I coached you earlier on WP:DNBTN, but I think some admins realized that there are many other things, including coi editing, that you have done that is persistent to right now. I think your best bet would be to take a step back from Wikipedia for a few months and make another unblock request no earlier than 25 October 2020 explaining how you will mitigate these issues so they do not happen again. An admin may copy your request to the administrators' noticeboard for review to determine whether the block should be lifted. The community may choose to (a) lift your block, (b) lift your block with restrictions, or (c) endorse the block as a ban. Note that the community is making a determination as to whether further disruption will ensue should you be unblocked. (I am not an admin, I am just explaining my experience from when I got an indefinite block a couple of years ago to right now.)

In the meantime during these six months, why not spend time editing other wikis? Wikimedia has a complete list here and there are many other popular wiki sites like wikiHow and Uncyclopedia that you may get a kick out of editing :) A a s i m 01:22, 26 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I reread all the policies and guidelines as well as all above discussions and questions. Following is my clarification. #My understanding of COI: I should have read WP:COI carefully. I should have understood that only paid editing does not mean COI but any remote affiliation or association too qualifies as a COI. I sincerely apologise for my poor interpretation of COI and sticking to the belief that I understood it. I had previously warned other editors about COI but it was in the view of paid editing. I will carefully reread all important policies so it does not happen again. #My association with Swarajya: I started an internship with Swarajya magazine on 12 April 2020. It is an unpaid short internship and I am not directed in any way to edit Wikipedia. I had no previous association with Swarajya. I write articles and email them to various magazines and such articles have been published on Swarajya’s website previously. But I was not paid or had any specific association with them then. I had no other communication with them then. I had emailed them about Wikipedia policies when they doxxed an editor so they took down their news pieces then. It was only for protecting Wikipedia editors and informing them about our policies. I had no other stake in that issue. So I want to clarify again that I had an association with Swarajya only after 12 April 2020. I have not COI previously. #As soon as I joined the internship, I should have declared COI on my userpage and should have not edited the Swarajya article in any way. But due to my poor interpretation, I failed to declare COI. I believe that it is not real COI because I was not paid in any way. When a discussion regarding consistency was carried out regarding a sentence in the article, the other editor, who is also an administrator, agreed to remove it so I removed it. When someone reinstated, I did not remove it. But now I understand that I should have also declared my COI there on talkpage and should have only used talkpage. Now I understand that I should not have edited that page in any way. Editor has removed the sources referred by me to maintain the consistency in all sources. #Indian politics is my primary area of interest. I have no malicious intent or political goal. I am here only to improve articles and have no other intention. If I am topic-banned from Indian politics, my area of interest will shrink significantly and I will not have much left to edit here. If you don’t trust my COI association declared here, I am also ready to reveal my personal identity and afficiations to ArbCom or any other relevant authority. #I will not edit Swarajya or any COI topic anyway now onwards. I can agree for topic ban on Indian media or media personalities for unblocking. I made a terrible mistake and I regret it. I apologise again and assure that it will not happen again as I have learned a lesson. I kindly request you to unblock me and please keep an eye on my edits as long as you want. Thank you,- Brihaspati (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I believe that it is not real COI because I was not paid in any way". Nope, you are wrong. And that destroys any chance of having your block lifted. In fact, you had a conflict of interest prior to your internship, the moment this happened: "such articles have been published on Swarajya’s website". Additionally, you clearly fit the definition of a paid editor at WP:PAID. This is directly addressed in WP:PAID. Frankly, this is the end of the line for you at this time. You've repeatedly refused to listen to what others are telling you. WP:IDHT applies. The only path forward I can see for you is to wait six months with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO. At that time, you'll need to demonstrate a clear acceptance that you violated WP:COI and WP:PAID. Specifically, you'll need to directly state that you were indeed a paid editor with a conflict of interest (even though you weren't receiving money to edit). Yamla (talk) 11:42, 23 May 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.

Sorry to say this, but you need to take a break from Wikipedia. I am not an admin here, but you need to follow the standard offer in order to be even considered for an appeal. I do not want your talk page access removed, but if you continue making unblock requests like what you are doing right now, an admin may disable your talk page access, which will make appealing much more difficult. A a s i m 11:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jagdish Lal Ahuja for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jagdish Lal Ahuja is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagdish Lal Ahuja until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sohom (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for Unblocking

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).

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

Request reason:

"Voila. Appealing after a break of 4 years. The points here are well-addressed and I agree with them. Henceforth, I will be disclosing my COI on my talk page and main page. Also, I agree with topic ban on Indian media as a whole as I have been associated with them. I have been editing Gujarati Wikipedia in this long break and I want to continue editing in English Wikipedia with translation of Gujarat-related pages.-- Brihaspati (talk) 11:11 am, Today (UTC+5.5)"

Decline reason:

Per Yamla's comment below. WP:SO applies only if you haven't been evading your block. Also, for the record and based on your past editing, any future unblocking should come with a topic ban for Indian media, religion, and politics related topics. RegentsPark (comment) 13:24, 14 June 2024 (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.

Confirmed block evasion via logged-out editing, last month. --Yamla (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it crystal clear, you cannot ask for the standard offer again. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]