User talk:Psthomas

August 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted Harm reduction model, which was copied from at least three different sources, as far as I could tell. That's in addition to Chekottu Ashan and Thomas Mar Athanasius. If, by any chance, you are not also User:Rivatphil, you can explain here how you plan to avoid similar violations in the future; that would be a first and absolutely necessary condition for an unblock. If you are Rivatphil, of course, things are different: there is still work to be done on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Rivatphil. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Whatever, your accusations are baseless and it the same is evident by your previous actions. You are piggybacking your claims based on certain ip's and certain users to cover up your act along with SpacemanSpiff. To read the criteria's that you pull-up against is also very important before you impose it on someone. It is O.K if you don't understand the importance of those articles. As i have counseled someone before it is very unhealthy to have such an obsessive enmity when we don't know someone face to face and just because I haven't talked to you about taking off the block. You don't have the moral right to impose indefinite(now not set) block. Disruptive edits and online bullying can only be more poisonous to the Wikipedia Project. Check the user's log to see the evidence in tracking and disruptions.

The deleted articles were out of some sort of disturbed attitudes and mindset. I hope other editors are also reviewing these actions and would take an understandable reaction. If possible also revert the unruly deletions of the articles.

If the central idea of content is portrayed from knowledge gained through other online sources, texts and in some cases lived experience. It shouldn't be considered as copyright infringement. If so everything in Wikipedia come under COPY RIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

I hope someone sane enough will intervene this case. Someone with a positive approach. Just because I am facing a horde of asinine attacks, doesn't mean every other editors are also the same. If possible also pass an notice of warning to these admin's for abusive use of rights. I would also like to know whether I could blacklist activities of certain admin's especially the below mentioned two on future articles, if allowed to contribute.

Good luck on your Sock-Puppetries and other sorts of bullying - Drimes and Spacemanspiff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psthomas (talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Reviews

The First - Declined

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).

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

Request reason:

Continuous bullying using multiple accounts and accusations, article deletions. It all seemingly started after I rv some edits in page Knanaya based on the talk page. The bullies who intervened to silence or make look as irrelevant were Drimes and Spacemanspiff, the very joint actions can be seen now at Revision History of Knanaya

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the deleted material and the problem is very clear; you simply may not copy the works of others and pass them off as your own contributions. You've done more than express "the central idea of content"; you've just copied it wholesale. This is simple copyright infringement as is explicitly not allowed here. As you seem to be ignoring warnings related to this, the block appears to be very valid and attacking the other editors enforcing our policies is not helpful. Kuru (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2015 (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.

Response

Kindly do explain your review process and explicit findings(esp. wholesale). Without this you are just following what others have said. I would also like to understand the "warnings" that were issued, because I didn't see any-Either the articles were deleted or the issue was not talked out through talk pages. My point was not against enforcing policies, but abusing them. I hope the conversation you have started wouldn't be one of with preconception but through thorough check. Do point out the findings. If no responses are there within the next 10 minutes, the unblock request will be going up and this decision of yours will be counted as invalid, in my book. I believe the user should also have certain rights.

Jeremy::Copy-pasted articles don't get discussion; they get deleted upon discovery. See WP:Copyright violations. Your behaviour - speaking of being "bullied" and ganged up on - doesn't mesh with the reality. I do see previous edits to this talk page where you were alerted to the fact that your articles were being nominated for speedy deletion; your response was to blank them ([1]) or reply with responses that either vindicate the deletion ([2]) or ignore the issue ([3]). I see some "bullying" here; unfortunately you're the one committing it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be very clear of a point, those articles weren't copy-pasted. I saw my speedy deletion notifications(a reason to delete politely) and I have given proper reasons to be not deleted and even when no response was there I re-submitted an article that I kept, civil request and acknowledgement. After all these continuous haranguing I blanked them and that is my own interest to be not pestered by these whenever i look. You can also look at the block frequency imposed. But does that show any negativity-NO(I will blank the page after some time). The other part wasn't bullying at all-I was just trying to help and there is only so much one can do through online. Any child can understand the logical inaccuracy and thought train of the person behind the continuous bullying.[The said suggestions were based on the possible personality disorder and possible outcomes & how to handle them - Relaxation and Anger Management-Primary process] It is also sad that you were only able to implicate wrong "behavior" from my side. When the truth is just the opposite. I hope everyone could look at the issue without prejudice. If no responses are there within the next 10 minutes, the unblock request will be going up. This finding of yours can be developed into strong opposition base, but its on weak poles-You are minimizing the real issue and muddling it with random notions, thus creating a negative reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psthomas (talk • contribs) 03:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy::::And you've just gone and proved my point. You have multiple editors here who have outright said that the articles were copied from another source, including the blocking administrator and those who have reviewed your unblock requests; your response is to baldly lie and claim you're being bullied, that nobody is listening to you, and attempting emotional blackmail. I would advise against putting up a new unblock request that goes along the lines of your previous ones; admins do have the power to revoke talk page privileges if the blocked user keeps filing unblock requests with rationales that have already been rejected. The real issue here is your copyright violations, not the behaviour of the administrators here (which has been completely aboveboard). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read Failure or refusal to "get the point", that is a strong opposition. I hope above all you understand the ability to act righteously isn't a lack of competence. Blackmail(verb):"Exert pressure on someone through threats". There are no threats: "diabolical influence against someone half a world away they've never met in person", just civil talks. But you have said a point very clearly nobody is listening to you. Plenty of times I have asked about the copyright violations as I have stated before nobody is explaining the specifics: when one can do review, how hard can it be to make it clear. When the evidence is itself very clear and when you state those actions as aboveboard and go further to call as liar - Shows one's hostility itself. I have also given an intro in the talk page before starting any conversations: If you feel uneasy and is a person who gets exhausted after a resolution talk, kindly do move on - that way you are not throwing away your valuable time.-Let someone who has the head for it, do it. I am not going to go fall into the trap of speaking anymore about the blocking administrator's or reiterate the feedback from other editors. In every angle it has been bullying-but also do focus on addressing the indefinite block issue with just 3 articles and tag edit reverted based on talk page conversations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psthomas (talk • contribs) 04:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Second - Declined

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).

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

Request reason:

Continuous bullying using multiple accounts and accusations, article deletions. It all seemingly started after I rv some edits in page Knanaya based on the talk page. The bullies who intervened to silence or make look as irrelevant were Drimes and Spacemanspiff, the very joint actions can be seen now at Revision History of Knanaya

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. I too checked the deleted pages and compared them to the sources, and they were largely copy-pasted in violation of copyright. Huon (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2015 (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.

Response

First of all, thank you Huon for noticing me about WP:NOTTHEM. I was not able to see the deleted pages through deletionpedia. But the largely copy-pasted part is which I don't understand and nobody seems to be ready enough to clear that up. The 3 pages that was deleted and supposedly blocked because of a variety of violation of copyright was previously unavailable material. The very sources from which they have been understood and reiterated were from publicly accessible materials.

E.g. -

1.Chekottu Ashaan - Material available through free community resource and pre-digitisation book (1986). Importance of the person - A poet and syrian christian forerunner of reformation. Not a BLP. (For E.g. His father was Chekottu Kuruvilla Idiculla (Perumal Idiculla) and mother Kaipettoor Pallikkal Rachelamma. What requirement is there to change it. If required let others do or talked I could revise or the person who points out could revise.)

2. Bishop Thomas - Material scarcely available in online sources and even printed books. A bishop that was crucial in syrian christian reformation and widely left out because of the failure of his success. Not a BLP.

3. Harm Reduction - A plenty of material available in online medias and books, but no clear cut definition or direction. It is often portrayed as simply as an Addiction Management program. It is much more than that and the existing material here and there says it. That article was an attempt to put together a unified version of it. The said definitions and such things are copied, it was in the best interest of the readers/information seekers.

For this 3 articles were was "Assume good faith towards others" are you able to see them trough the previous block attacks and does the decision of indefinite block seem valid. It is also essential to look at the block intervals, the quick disruptive actions and Knanaya page to see an evident pattern. I hope my nature of appealing was not "complaint about other people" but statement of a ridicule fact.

Thank you , once again for genuine interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psthomas (talk • contribs) 04:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please do not modify declined unblock requests; in particular, do not add your reply between my remarks and my signature. You're welcome to reply below the unblock request. (This was written before talk page access was revoked; it's still a valid point for your information.)

Secondly, that "previously unavailable material" clearly was published before. Take for example Chekottu Ashan - the article was largely copied, with slight rearrangements, from here. It was deleted for that reason, and you went ahead and recreated it with the same content. I see no indication that the source has been published under a free license or is otherwise free from copyright - "publicly available" is not the same as "in the public domain". That article would need to be rewritten from scratch, in its entirety, based on reliable sources such as reputable magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly papers or books in religious history (assuming Ashan is notable enough for an article in the first place, which wasn't clear from the deleted page). Attempts to salvage the page by changing a word here and there or slightly rearranging it cannot succeed. Recreating a page that has previously been deleted as a copyright violation with the same content, without inquiring why the content was deemed inappropriate, is, at best, an extremely bad idea. If you repeatedly violate copyright despite warnings, we'll have to block you from editing to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you acknowledge you have seen NOTTHEM and still continue to request an unblock with a rationale that does not in the least discuss your own conduct - well, I'm at a loss for words here. WP:UTRS is still open for you, but you'll have to do better than with these unblock requests to ever be unblocked. Huon (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Third - Declined

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).

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

Request reason:

Continuous bullying using multiple accounts and accusations, article deletions when reverted an edit in Knanaya talkpage

Decline reason:

Because you keep on posting the same rant in multiple unblock requests, refusing to address others' comments, your talk page access has been withdrawn. Max Semenik (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2015 (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 am not able invest my time more on these silly talks. So I wouldn't be always active in conversations. Kindly do understand that point. Don't start any conversations that you don't intend to follow through and make the point clearly or to provide valuable suggestions. If this isn't your forte please feel free to pass on to others. Don't use this dispute as an opportunity to make contact with other admins or fraternize. Be truthful and pro-justice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psthomas (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message

Since it was made from an IP, we have no way to know it was really you. I've returned your talk page access so go ahead - log in and post your unblock request. I won't be reviewing it though because I had already reviewed you once. Max Semenik (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, looking through the talk page was like reliving the event. I will post the unblock request in the coming days.Psthomas (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note for reviewers: [4]. Max Semenik (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And more disruption and socking at ANI [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an active user, your name is used to benefit certain private convictions of certain editors on article Knanaya, more of to disrupt the article. If you are a dummy account used by any of the handler editors in Knanaya, let me tell you this handler, this is wrong way to find means to your end, especially in a community project. This is not your private blogosphere to do so. 117.215.194.175 (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Thank you for the notices.

To: Acroterion, Those edits are not by me. The reason I got blocked is for submitting articles personally without proper guideline checks and I didn't understand this at first. It didn't have anything to do with Knanaya article. I saw the comment from Spacemanspiff, this was an involved admin during that period, that person knows this fact which I have said, but yes to remember them specifically is hard, I myself had to check the the article history page to remember the details.Psthomas (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To:117.215.194.175 I already have asked to not use my name for incidents..., this is all I can do for now and ask for unblock very soon to avoid any future misconceptions. I am not a dummy account of any other editors. This is the last notification I have about Knanaya: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=prev&diff=693615389 as an community member I found then the article to be inappropriately oriented, so I tagged/re-tagged it then. But there are limits to what an editor can do in general in wikipedia. You may start editing basic articles and ask help from other willing editors. I can recommend MaxSem and Huon (If they are willing) or go to Teahouse. Psthomas (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To: others Don't use my username negatively, if in doubts - you can ask them, happy to help.Psthomas (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knanaya

Hey, editor you are causing a big trouble at the Knanaya article. Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knanaya&diff=731827096&oldid=731826569 You are allowed for an appeal use it ASAP and stay off from causing more troubles to others. This disregard and negligence itself would be more troublesome for your credibility as an editor in terms of WP:NOTHERE, at least by the spirit of it.117.215.195.147 (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The delay was due to personal reasons. You can talk to the Admin and link to this talk page, I have stated as I can.

This is something I just saw now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orthodox2014&diff=661788966&oldid=661602412 it explains the essence of a conflict. I hope it helps.Psthomas (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block Review 2016

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).

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

Request reason:

Looking back one thing I know is that I wasn't familiar with policies and was only starting to understand what an admin is then. If I remember it correctly, after reverting a tag my articles was targeted for deletions without specific answers, most of them looked like policing and I felt it as bullying and felt strongly to stand against it.(Even when I recently reviewed the talk page, I felt same churning feeling- this is why I was hesitant to post this.) Now I know it wasn't bullying but following policies, this wasn't mentioned then or taken the time to explain clearly and calmly. Though I am clear from the memory of the incident that skilled editors could have spotted all the signs of a newbie and someone who didn't know to not edit in between to provide answers, orknow simple policies like bite to mention. There were also signs of stress which could have been noticed and turn those articles into entry class ones with redaction and explanation. What I can ascertain now is that I wouldn't go for complete article creation now and would follow related policies. Though I am a person who can make mistakes, but if policies cited honestly, any mistakes from my part would be cleared. For matters I didn't understand then I cant truly apologize, but I can be careful in the future. If the block is now reverted or not, I don't want my username misused and I hope this privilege would be respected as a wikipedia user and as an editor who have previously attempted to contribute to the project.(I see, this is not honored) This is not any attempt to cajole or sweet talk, to be open and true to myself is the only way I know to communicate.

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

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2016 (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'd suggest focusing your efforts on contributing to whatever wiki is associated with your native language. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, explain to us in full detail your understanding of copyright law and policy as it applies within Wikipedia.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day, Replies,

To: Ohnoitsjamie, I am bilingual and I am only comfortable with English language. Since I don't use it extensively, there might be some mistakes. Always open for corrections and guidance in writing.Psthomas (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To: Anthony Bradbury, A copyright issue I faced particularly was with Chekottu Ashan. The website from which content was used said then "It is absolutely free" similar to an Anti-copyright notice, this can be corroborated through tjpnalloor@rediffmail.com or Nallor Publications website. This was said to be copied wholesome from http://www.horebmtc.org/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/chekottu_asan.pdf and http://www.kcmtss.com/links/ep14.pdf which uses the same material and one adds their own site address under it. Then I guessed it to be free and wouldn't hurt any publishers interests since its a nonprofit organization. But explanations based on what I knew didn't seem to go well, I even tried to revert it with naivety and a sense of doing right to re-edit and time was asked. That to didn't fair well. In that instance I guess there is an additional requirement of statement, though then I found it as a burden. If allowed to work without the blocks i will post the article again sometime with minimal bare facts, information that the material was expressing than with full version obtained through Perangattu Kudumbacharithram without requiring the burden and if then too it is objected I will try to work with the objecting editor to create a better non-conflict article. If the objecting editor is not willing at the time, I would try to work with an other editor to solve the issues if doing so doesn't come under any sorts of shopping and just guidance.Psthomas (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General: In the heat of the moment I have said too much and felt it as a tag team approach because of the immediate following of users who tell the same thing in the same tone, it was very suspicious back then and I was hostile towards the ones with slight hint of insult and disregard plus their was a significant time spent behind those articles and when someone intervened I thought it was nobody's business what I write. But then I didn't knew about monitoring process' in wikipedia, admin status, ranking structure, article deletions of even seasoned users were common in wikipedia and gravity of notifications. Though this doesn't mean I know everything related to wikipedia. Much of it could have been avoided if informed on how to approach each obstacles and how and why these actions were taken.Psthomas (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to answer my question. Without mentioning specific examples, please give us your understanding of what copyright means, within a Wikipedia framework, detailing what, in your opinion, you may and may not copy. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating, Copyright for wikipedia means enabling its end user to use the content themselves under nonrestrictive license which allows modification and reuse. But content that is there shouldn't attract any copyright violations. For this the content should be sourced from public domain or materials that allow free usage by license. When required to use copyrighted material, it should be used prudently so that it only reflects the idea/information and not the structure of the content. While contributing content, it would be beneficial to use tools like http://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ to avoid such unintended copyright violations.Psthomas (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A query: do you understand the difference between 'publicly accessible' and 'public domain'? Peridon (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly accessible materials are legally protected and available to the public. Public domain materials are no longer legally protected and available to the public.Psthomas (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, you've also got to explain your disruptive sockpuppetry as seen in the history of Talk:Knanaya and the related postings at ANI, edit filter notice boards etc. —SpacemanSpiff 06:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember it as an intentional sock-puppetry back then. I reverted a tag, that's what I remember. I cant also understand from my talk page that my block had to do anything with disruptive sockpuppetry. I am also not aware of postings at ANI, edit filter notice boards etc that was held back then.(I didn't knew about these functionaries, even today don't know them to their full extend.) I have been notified about some recent mentions of my name but those were unrelated (After seeing them I have responded as I can and requested to not use my name inappropriately). I remember you as an involved editor to my first 72 hrs block back then. If you have links to these ANI, edit filter notice boards etc, I can review them and answer.Psthomas (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checking, my own talk page history also doesn't show any notifications regarding postings related to me back then at ANI, edit filter notice boards etc.

You've got to stop the prevarication. you've already been provided links above and refuse to acknowledge anything. You've been using IP socks disruptively ever since your first block (which I imposed) and now you act as if you have no clue about anything. This just doesn't cut it. —SpacemanSpiff 16:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff, I respect your admin-ship and its weight that affects a process such as this one. With the previous Q, I thought to acknowledge something multiple times, but deleted it. I guess this should be mentioned now. I am not very comfortable in engaging with members whom i have a bad history; If you can coordinate with an another admin about problems that you see should be addressed in my case, it would be helpful. Thank you for notifying about the ANI - I only checked talk-page notifications didn't remember about messages, even when I posted I didn't go through it to understand it as an ANI and I don't know how to access the full version. I hope this is the one you are saying about, (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=prev&diff=693615389) - it is the only one I know and dates say that posting was well after my block, I wasn't aware of it then. In it I am accused to be Stansley and later somewhere in the article's conflict as an other editor, I don't remember the name (though I recently read it). Even recent conflicts are attributed to me. I don't know what to say other than what I said earlier and I don't know how to substantiate it. So its a difficult position for me, I am not aware of how such a problem is tackled. But one thing we can all agree is that I am working towards a positive outcome, If I was a disruptor of any kind, there is no binding requirement. - this obvious fact could be weighed while deciding. I also ask for knowledgeable members help/suggestions on where to find answers in this matter both policy and process wise and on how to respond to this query satisfactorily.Psthomas (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ping @Anthony Bradbury: Can you check the following request and if inadequate provide a comment. Thank you.Psthomas (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC) ping @Peridon: Can you check the following request and if inadequate provide a comment. Thank you.Psthomas (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Thank you for simplifying and guiding.

I understand that I have been blocked for copyright infringements. I acknowledge SpacemanSpiff's query and explain that I am not involved as stated.
I will not cause damage or disruption. If such inadvertent moments happen in the future, I request for insight in the inaccuracy of logic (policy, sensitivity, analysis of information and representation...etc.) that I have employed with the matter.
I will only make useful contributions. If contributions are challenged, I will follow procedural measures, ask guidance in moments of unsurety and will self-revert related contributions.

I know for the second and third question I don't have to go that length to explain my position. I don't know the future, but if I am getting into a similar contention - I don't want to go through the same process. I know it might seem at first look lacking grace from my current position. But the fact is that, I am trying to be unpretentious to the reviewing members and gently ride out the process. Psthomas (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Given how long you've been blocked and your statements about avoiding copyright infringements, I'm willing to unblock. Obviously, future close paraphrasing or outright copyright violations will result in another indefinite block, which would be unlikely to be lifted. Note that copyright applies not to specific words but to an arrangement of ideas. You must present writing in a substantially different manner to avoid copyright violations. If you just change words one at a time until the uniqueness percentage is "suitable", you're likely still violating copyright. Moreover, future blocks are likely not to take into account whether you understand how to avoid copyright violations. You've had repeated chances to understand at this point. I think you've now got it, but if you prove not to understand at this point, a block will be necessary to prevent ongoing damage. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two things that I would like you to clarify, if you would:

Can you clarify what you mean by "I understand that I have been blocked for copyright infringements. I acknowledge SpacemanSpiff's query and explain that I am not involved as stated"? Do you mean that you are not "involved" in copyright infringement, or that you are not "involved" in sockpuppetry, or what else is it that you are saying you are not "involved" in?
Do you acknowledge that you have copied content from elsewhere? Do you accept that doing so is not acceptable? Do you undertake not to do so again? I am asking because although you say that you will "not cause damage or disruption" and that you "will only make useful contributions", it is not at all clear to me whether you are still maintaining your earlier claim that "those articles weren't copy-pasted" or not, nor whether you are undertaking not to do that in the future. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JamesBWatson

1. I was involved in copyright infringement.

2a. As stated before and emphasized in this request as “will not cause damage or disruption” I now know and accept copyright infringement is not good for Wikipedia and commit myself to not to do that in the future.

2b. I acknowledge that my bad paraphrase resulted into a copyright infringement. Back then, I used solid seo tools and aimed only for 60 % uniqueness. However, I remember articles that I created gave me 70 – 80 % uniqueness against plagiarism. Today too If unblocked and if I intend to contribute something I have to search for active contributors from Wikipedia:Recent additions who can help and share their process. Back then, nobody shared (and I didn't know where and what to ask) any personal tips regarding how to source resources, improve articles or avoid copyright infringement while writing them. For improving my writing and correcting the request I would also like to know what made my first statement grammatically confusing in the given context and what suggestions you have.

Thanks to everyone.Psthomas (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Hai, Rob13, on 30 June I received a mail stating I have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and on 29 June ‪a mail on Cuchullain‬ mentioning my name for socks, and disrupting this article for years. I imagine the block is related to ‪Cuchullain's claim.

I am not active in Wikipedia since the last block removal, though then thought I would resume as a wiki gnome, but didn't resume the activity. For a fact I don't use internet regularly nowadays. Currently in a H1N1 scare.

I am not liking the way my account is abused this is the second time this has been done. I have stated clearly in this pages to talk before accusing or acting against as if I am to be persecuted. I also see there has been no removal of my username from talk page Knanaya even after the earlier clarifications about it. Given the historical nature of abuse I like to removed from Wikipedia.

I like to also report illicit actions of using my username to support personal interests in articles. I like to know how to do this. Is there an investigation committee that I could report.

I just found this now, took some time, the investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Psthomas/Archive, Sadly a new user tied is Emir of Wikipedia, I don't no why this complainer keeps on attacking even per wp:notthem it wont be sanctioned, atleast per my experience and "suits Psthomas' MO." ? mo - these all seems purely fictitious for a cause. I don't like this, even if I am not active in Wikipedia I am forced to be active for petty issues like these. Kindly conduct an investigation or just simply as a average user such as me will do look at the history of accusations the complainer had made regarding the page and the user's whom it is previously tied to. This is all that comes to my mind after an exhausting cause find. Do reply.Psthomas (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain: I have no association with Knanaya than reverting an edit. I see you have been repeatedly using my username for your own reasons and that too in an illicit manner. SpacemanSpiff has mentioned this mentioning in this talkpages, I have answered the queries then and I am sure you might have read them before bringing again my username now for your interests. I request you to remove or strikeout these allegations that you have used to gain blocks or other permissions.

My comment regarding recent activities in the article. As In ictu oculi says with proof, I can confirm from regional knowledge if the article is to be about Knanaya Christians, it is a good to change the article as such. If it is about Knanite Northist - Southist division theory, change the name as such per Emir of Wikipedia stated "moved page Knanaya to Knanite Northist - Southist division theory (Requested at WP:RM/TR: Aligns with the POV and with the undue weight of oriented sources "Northists and Southists" in the article.). I checked the version you have commented "rv destructive sock edits" before moving for block illicitly using my username and it truly doesn't appear destructive per Wikipedia:Core content policies. It is my guess you might be going through a conflict of interest situation or something else. By reading the article again now, I can say there are many nonfactual factors in it, if it is about the christian community. I can confirm from regional understanding that there is no Northist - Southist voicing or echoes of it in Knanite Christian community as dominantly mentioned in the article at present. There is no historical mentioning anywhere as the presented plot that St. Thomas Christians are Northists and they are the children of Thomas of Cana (At-least in reputable sources). This can be confirmed by reading Saint Thomas Christians and possibly related references. St. Thomas Christians are considered to be indigenous Christians that were there before the arrival of Thomas of Cana. Knanaya Christians are a group that later evolved like denominations or with the migration history. These might be the orientation that you were missing with your edit. If you are defensive atleast ask for an extended protection of the article like say 5-10 years, if its possible - this might definitely be lesser burden to others in terms of attacks on others (This is not a disrespectful statement but from evidence that I have read above about you which I have supposedly read before somewhere doing the same sock attributing process in the article).

Anyhow, I like my username mentioned in the article talk page removed completely or striked out and an understanding that without sensible reasons my username wont be used or abused.

@BU Rob13, Anthony Bradbury, Peridon, Yamaguchi先生, and Huon: In the past you all have provided me valuable insights, now too I am in a trouble which I don't have a grasp on how to respond. This time I am blocked for socking. The truth is I am not active in Wikipedia and don't read articles as I used to. I am also tired of this block and unblock requests. I like to be removed from Wikipedia altogether if possible due to the burden. I do not know for what reason I should ask for an unblock other than being simply blocked. I would like to know suggestions, relevant policies and guides, essays available for better response or cases you can quote to gain an understanding of these situations.

You are not fooling anyone, it's abundantly obvious that the IPs are you. Your best bet for ever being unblocked is to own up to your disruption - the sockpuppetry, the agenda pushing, all of it - and vow to stop. Otherwise you'll stay blocked and your socks will be blocked on sight.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cuchullain kindly do a reality or trust check whether you are projecting a problem onto others. The thing is that I am not very much interested in matters of Wikipedia so in a way I am not very upset about whether my freedom in this is disrupted by others or not. Though there is a matter of principle. Usage of silly words like abundantly obvious without explanations is like a sentence written in wikipedia article without references - This is something anyone with a bit of conscience can easily spot. You can block anything on sight if it satisfies policies or it is allowed by your peers, it is of no interest to me. But kindly do check your history of usage of attacking users that have objected you in the article and with that sensibility do stop using my username for similar interests. I could only say I am not the prey you are looking for but if you insist what can I say...let someone help you or ...I don't know.Psthomas (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not engaged in any Wikipedia:Sock puppetry as mentioned, I am also not active in Wikipedia. Kindly check the complaint again and how this is traced to my account. Psthomas (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block looks appropriate to me. In any case, if you are not active here, there's no reason for us to consider unblocking you. Yamla (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2017 (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.

Hi Yamla, I hope you would review this again and also state why the block is appropriate. It is because I am not up to date with the policies and I am of clear conscience that I don't have anything to do with the complaint that led to the block. The reason for unblocking is on grounds of not being abused, just because I am not active doesn't mean the level of ethics at least presented in the primary welcoming banners should be lost while departing. Think about it, do reply - I like to get cleared.Psthomas (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]