User talk:Qaumrambista

April 2022

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Eastern Catholic Churches) for a period of 2 weeks for evasion of the IP block with a named account. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not circumventing any block. When I tried to restore the correct version, I got a message from Wikipedia saying: "your ip address has been blocked. Try creating an account or edit other articles." Meanwhile, I have added quote substantiating my argument. Qaumrambista (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have indeed evaded the block on the IP address. Remember, blocks apply to the person. I'll warn you, even in a month, when the block on editing Eastern Catholic Churches expires, you should stay away as you have repeatedly demonstrated you are not capable of editing constructively there. In fact, you should avoid editing anything about religion at all, until you have demonstrated a constructive history elsewhere of at least several hundred unreverted edits across several months. At the moment, you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. WP:5P would be a good place to start reading. Yamla (talk) 11:00, 16 April 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.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Alert

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes on talk pages

If you want to quote someone on a talk page, do {{tq|the words you are quoting}}. The \\ thing you are doing isn't standard. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patriarchate of the East Indies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daman. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency

@Qaumrambista: In the interest of transparency, would you like to declare any other accounts that you are behind? ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qaumrambista. 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 ~~~~}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I request the admins to reconsider my indefinite block due to the following reasons:

I have not used an alternative account for any illegitimate purposes as mentioned in [1]. It is true that I did not disclose that I use two accounts. However, I have never used both accounts to edit an article simultaneously or same discussion. Even the user who accused me of sockpuppetry actually acknowledge that that's just a simple CIR affair

I have not created an illusion of support: I have never involved any one of my two accounts in discussions related to the other.
I did not involve multiple accounts in internal discussions
I did not circumvent policies: I have not edited any page where I am restricted in any of my accounts.
I did not use strawman socks: I have not done that. I have never involved an alternative account in any discussions involving one of my accounts.
I did not evade sanctions: I have not used any one of my accounts to evade sanctions. I am binding to that even now while I am blocked. (see the checkuser results)
I did not contribute to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: I have not used more than one accounts to edit simultaneously in an article or in a discussion. Before forming a new account, I may have edited an article with the older one (Jude Didimus), but never in the same section.
Avoiding scrutiny: If I have violated this, it was totally unintentional. I had actually forgotten the password to Jude Didimus that is why I created a new account.
I did not use multiple accounts ad "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts: There has not been any case of vandalism proved against any of my accounts.
Editing while logged out in order to mislead: I have never intentionally did that.
Misusing a clean start: Actually, I created a new account since I had forgotten the password to my older one. Later I was able to retrieve the password from an alternative browser when I tried to edit Wikimedia commons.
I did not use multiple accounts as role accounts
I did not deceptively seek positions of community trust
I did not use any of my accounts to pose as a neutral or uninvolved commentator: I have never involved an account in disputes and discussions involving another.

My older account is Jude Didimus and if asked, I promise to edit only with that account in the future.
I request a relaxation in my block. Atleast a relaxation in the indefinite time period.Qaumrambista (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Stale unblock request. You can make a new one if you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:51, 14 June 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 ask any reviewing editor to note that the editor in question created this account to evade a block on the article Eastern Catholic Churches following messages like this one on a logged-out IP while in possession of the Jude Didimus account. The editor was using both the Jude Didimus and Qaumrambista account concurrently, apparently in a good-hand/bad-hand fashion and without giving the mandated disclosure for additional accounts editing the same topic. The editor repeatedly lied about whether or not there were any other accounts they used and protested in uncivil fashion. This account may also be tied to multiple other sockmaster accounts, particularly Br Ibrahim john and AARYA SAJAYAN. Permanent application of this ban should remain. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: Pbritti is repeating their allegations against me, which they had raised at the spi here. Their animosity towards me is increasingly apparent. Their allegations are not proven. It is true that I did not disclose that I have two accounts. I am sincerely sorry for that. However, I have never used one as a sockpuppet of the other anywhere and I have tried my level best to avoid editing the same page with both accounts. I also like to bring to the administrators attention that I have been editing only with account Jude Didimus for a long time. After I had taken a break from editing, I lost my password. So I started to edit with a mobile IP. Some of Pbritti's disputable edits prompted me to edit by an account since all of the edits made in IP were getting reverted. Since I had forgotten the password to Jude Didimus and since I had not linked the email address, I created a new account Qaumrambista. But I have always distanced this account from disputes involving Jude Didimus. Later an image which I had uploaded to Commons got a speedy deletion tag. I tried to remove the speedy deletion tag and express my disagreement in its discussion. However mistakenly I was signed as Quamrambista. Hence I used another browser where my password to Jude Didimus was already saved (I got aware of it only very recently) and replaced the signature. Since then I used both accounts simultaneously but never in the same article.

Really?!? Really?!? This is the approach you are taking?!? Wow. Both accounts edited:

George Alencherry

Syro-Malabar Church

Mar Hormizd Syro-Malabar Cathedral, Angamaly

Saint Thomas Christians

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

List of Syro-Malabar Catholics

George Rajendran Kuttinadar

Joseph Sulaqa

That's not even counting that both accounts edited almost entirely the same subject areas, so the overlap is far, far closer than indicated here. If this is you trying your "level best" to avoid editing the same page with both accounts, WP:CIR applies. If I hadn't already reviewed an earlier unblock request, I would most certainly decline your current one. --Yamla (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that I have not edited any article with both accounts simultaneously. It is a fact that I have edited some articles with both accounts. But the edits made by Jude Didimus there were before the creation of account Qaumrambista. Moreover, some of those edits are minor ones and are in different sections. I am curious to know why Yamla has added Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, since it is not an article and both of my accounts have not edited the same discussion there. At the same time, I have also deliberately distanced from discussions involving Jude Didimus. I humbly request Yamla to explain what sockpuppetry I have done (edits and discussions). At the same time, I apologise for having editing the same topic area with multiple accounts (I did not know that it was wrong and I thought that only contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts is the violation)Qaumrambista (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the SPI was opened, you edited using both accounts for three weeks–as Yamla said, that's just a simple CIR affair. I will say, if sometime in the future, this editor demonstrates an understanding of what civility and sockpuppetry standards are, I would appreciate their return; they clearly understand Indian Syrian Christianity far more than just about any other editor and their language skills are sorely needed in this field. But, as an editor who has faced the brunt of this editor's aggression on both their recent accounts, I ask that their unban be declined for now. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of fact that I used to edit with both my accounts for some time recently. I did not deny that. Meanwhile, I want to make it clear that I have not used both accounts to edit an article or discussion simultaneously. In the above comment from Pbritti, it is evident that their chief issue with me is not 'sockpuppetry' but brunt of this editor's aggression. Pbritti had previously filed complaints against me at Wikipedia:Administrators but their complaints were rejected. At the same time I have already openly apologised for some comments against Pbritti which I had made while editing in IP. On the other hand I have never indulged in the same mistake after creating the account Qaumrambista or while editing in Jude Didimus. Qaumrambista (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that I did some more checks and see no evidence of further socking. I have no particular opinion on the merits of this unblock request. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Frost, Tamzin, Bbb23, C.Fred, Ivanvector, Ks0stm, Mz7, and RoySmith: Qaumrambista (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC) I just thought I must ping all admins whom I know. My request is getting stale. If you decline this, please also illustrate what sockpuppetry I have done, since I am blocked for sockpuppetry.Qaumrambista (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: then you may illustrate sockpuppetry with examples from my edits and discussions.Qaumrambista (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The open request on this page is identical to the previous request that went stale. I would suggest substantially rewording your request, as no one found it convincing enough to action previously. SQL ^{Query Me!} 19:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: I am sorry, but I don't think I can make a better unblock request than this. I have explained my part to my best. If the admins are finding it insufficient, I will be much happier if they are rejecting it with a valid reason and explanation.Qaumrambista (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. If this request failed to convince anyone previously, it's likely that simply re-posting it will have the same result. Doing this a few times will likely be seen as abusive / time-wasting behavior, and in the end will likely result in you losing access edit this page. At least, that's the way I've seen this play out in the years I've been monitoring unblock requests. SQL ^{Query Me!} 04:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if Tamzin did not respond the first time, do not continue to ping them. SQL ^{Query Me!} 04:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tamzin: I remembered your comment Determining the appropriate sanction, however, requires knowing whether JD was this user's first account. in the SPI page. If you are sticking to it, I want to make you aware that Jude Didimus is my first account.Qaumrambista (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Ah! Yes. I totally understand what you said. I am sure that I cannot make the blind see, the deaf hear and the dumb speak. With my limited experience in Wikipedia, I've come to the conclusion that if they want to see me remain banned, I cannot make any difference by requesting them again. I'm actually trying to get an proper explanation from them. I think I have a right to know why they banned me from this space. But they do not answer my question. They have no answer or responsibility. Anyway, atleast you were kind enough to react to this. Qaumrambista (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]