User talk:Hemchandra Jain
Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]
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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Hemchandra Jain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I usually make edits from my university and I use a public computer for that. Multiple users use it from time to time as it is dedicated for Wikipedia edits and article writing. I have kept good faith in Wikipedia's policies since the beginning of my work. I have not misused through multiple accounts. I know the other users and we work together on edits on Jainism as it is our focus of research study. Only after careful verification of sources, we work on them and add them as edits. Therefore, even though some users might be working on the same articles as me, I'm not the one who operates multiple accounts. Each of us only uses one account. We use the same computer for edits most of the times and hence, the same IP address. Not once in my whole time on editing Wikipedia have I made unlawful or unethical edits. If anything, I've only reverted vandalising edits. I firmly believe in the ethics and morals of Wikipedia administrators and that you'll consider the unique situation and excuse me and other users who work with me. We do not vandalise pages and have never done so. Thank you and I hope you'll lift the ban on my account :)
- Hemchandra Jain (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
My reading of the technical data is that the same devices have been used by multiple accounts, so I think it is likely the block is correct. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- The nature of the editing that I see in the technical logs would not be adequately explained by the situation you have outlined, so I will not be unblocking your account. I will leave this request open for another checkuser to review. Girth Summit (blether) 16:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hemchandra Jain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Greetings! I sincerely apologise for using the template incorrectly earlier. I acknowledge the reason I've been blocked after reading the sockpuppetry logs. I usually use a public device at my university for edits. These edits are in complete collaboration with 6 other users. We research, discuss, and then post our own material. After discussion, we usually agree with one another most of the times, which is clearly suggested by the edit history of each article we've written together. The users listed in the sockpuppetry logs are some of my friends that I work with. Besides, all our edits are mostly in agreement to one another. It would be unnecessary for me to use another account to make edits in agreement with my own edits. It would only make my job of building credibility here, harder. '''Each of us just posts our own material because that helps each of us keep credit for our own work while working in a group setting.''' From my understanding of the blocking policy, I believe it I would not fall into a case of disruptive edits because I've never engaged in edit wars and all my edits are in good faith. I've never intended to vandalise pages, nor made pages or edits for promotion or advertising. My sole aim is only to contribute more to the project Jainism as and when I find time as it is a vast subject and what's available on Wikipedia is very little. In conclusion, I can see why I would be blocked because of using the same device. '''The best solution I can think of is we can continue discussing, but I will use my personal computer for edits now onwards. That would prevent such misunderstanding in future and reduce hassle for administrators as well.''' I'm sincerely sorry that my actions caused all of this. My contributions would show that I am genuinely interested in making a positive impact at Wikipedia. I do not intend to vandalise or promote or advertise anything and that from now onwards I'll make every effort to not come out as a disruptive user and assume editing in good faith only. [[User:Hemchandra Jain|Hemchandra Jain]] ([[User talk:Hemchandra Jain#top|talk]]) 21:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Greetings! I sincerely apologise for using the template incorrectly earlier. I acknowledge the reason I've been blocked after reading the sockpuppetry logs. I usually use a public device at my university for edits. These edits are in complete collaboration with 6 other users. We research, discuss, and then post our own material. After discussion, we usually agree with one another most of the times, which is clearly suggested by the edit history of each article we've written together. The users listed in the sockpuppetry logs are some of my friends that I work with. Besides, all our edits are mostly in agreement to one another. It would be unnecessary for me to use another account to make edits in agreement with my own edits. It would only make my job of building credibility here, harder. '''Each of us just posts our own material because that helps each of us keep credit for our own work while working in a group setting.''' From my understanding of the blocking policy, I believe it I would not fall into a case of disruptive edits because I've never engaged in edit wars and all my edits are in good faith. I've never intended to vandalise pages, nor made pages or edits for promotion or advertising. My sole aim is only to contribute more to the project Jainism as and when I find time as it is a vast subject and what's available on Wikipedia is very little. In conclusion, I can see why I would be blocked because of using the same device. '''The best solution I can think of is we can continue discussing, but I will use my personal computer for edits now onwards. That would prevent such misunderstanding in future and reduce hassle for administrators as well.''' I'm sincerely sorry that my actions caused all of this. My contributions would show that I am genuinely interested in making a positive impact at Wikipedia. I do not intend to vandalise or promote or advertise anything and that from now onwards I'll make every effort to not come out as a disruptive user and assume editing in good faith only. [[User:Hemchandra Jain|Hemchandra Jain]] ([[User talk:Hemchandra Jain#top|talk]]) 21:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Greetings! I sincerely apologise for using the template incorrectly earlier. I acknowledge the reason I've been blocked after reading the sockpuppetry logs. I usually use a public device at my university for edits. These edits are in complete collaboration with 6 other users. We research, discuss, and then post our own material. After discussion, we usually agree with one another most of the times, which is clearly suggested by the edit history of each article we've written together. The users listed in the sockpuppetry logs are some of my friends that I work with. Besides, all our edits are mostly in agreement to one another. It would be unnecessary for me to use another account to make edits in agreement with my own edits. It would only make my job of building credibility here, harder. '''Each of us just posts our own material because that helps each of us keep credit for our own work while working in a group setting.''' From my understanding of the blocking policy, I believe it I would not fall into a case of disruptive edits because I've never engaged in edit wars and all my edits are in good faith. I've never intended to vandalise pages, nor made pages or edits for promotion or advertising. My sole aim is only to contribute more to the project Jainism as and when I find time as it is a vast subject and what's available on Wikipedia is very little. In conclusion, I can see why I would be blocked because of using the same device. '''The best solution I can think of is we can continue discussing, but I will use my personal computer for edits now onwards. That would prevent such misunderstanding in future and reduce hassle for administrators as well.''' I'm sincerely sorry that my actions caused all of this. My contributions would show that I am genuinely interested in making a positive impact at Wikipedia. I do not intend to vandalise or promote or advertise anything and that from now onwards I'll make every effort to not come out as a disruptive user and assume editing in good faith only. [[User:Hemchandra Jain|Hemchandra Jain]] ([[User talk:Hemchandra Jain#top|talk]]) 21:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Update: I had appealed my case, but another admin user declined it after accusing me of meatpuppetry. What I want to make very clear is that although we work in a group, we only create new articles. None of those articles are controversial or 'debatable' as entailed by meatpuppetry. We work together to improve the quality of material presented online, not to support a debate or to prove a controversial point. I was not involved in meatpuppetry because everyone I edit with have their own views and they edit independently. We only discuss to improve each other's work, not to get into debates. My contribution history itself suggests the quality of my edits and none of them are controversial. No other user I work with has ever endorsed my work here. I'm sorry. If you want to keep me blocked, continue to do so, but such wrong accusations as meatpuppetry only suggest that some admin users are not willing to listen to appeal. I completely understood why sockpuppetry was a probable issue and I've explained my case right above this message, but meatpuppetry is simply a blind accusation. The admin users should at least look at my contributions before accusing me of this. Hemchandra Jain (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a checkuser block, meaning that only a checkuser can authorize its removal, and they are limited in number. You say in your request "these edits are in complete collaboration with 6 other users"- that's meat puppetry because as far as I can see you or others did not identify yourselves as part of a group effort. That's leaving aside that one checkuser does not believe your explanation. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)