Shrestha.shome
August 2020 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 19:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Shrestha.shome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't have any of my old accounts anymore as I didn't link them with my email accounts and I lost their password. That's why I need to use this because this the only account I have linked with my email. If you can recover any of my old account, then I can leave this. Wikipedia does not state that a user can be blocked without proper investigation as per WP:SOCK. You can only block this when you found the use of multiple accounts being used for inappropriate uses. Until then, a block will mean serious misuse of power. I am sure Wikipedia admins do use multiple accounts as it is a human nature to ensure a backup system. So, this block is not valid. 05:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Edit n: The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges. So, asking me to prove if I understand the law is same as asking a rape victim if she understands the value of modesty. There is no way one can claim that I did not understood the WP:SOCK policy. You can clearly see in 3rd sentence of WP:SOCK page where Wikipedia says, "While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." Here Wikipedia expects the editors to have only one account but it's not Wikipedia's policy to mob lynch any editor because of the suspicion of alternate accounts. Again, you have to provide concrete evidence. This means while investigating, one must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected. Also, You must provide this evidence in a clear way. Vaguely worded submissions will not be investigated. You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable. You can read this on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations page. As I currently have only one account, there is no way to prove that I am using multiple accounts. Words don't count as prove unless it contains facts. That's why I am requesting to restore my account immediately. 06:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
A backup system? Most admins use only a single account, because they keep track of their passwords and link their email accounts. Also, this block is not against policy. I suggest you address your use of multiple accounts, and show that you clearly understand when multiple accounts can be used. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:30, 25 August 2020 (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.
I see that you deleted your statement this morning about having six accounts, which makes your block appeal confusing. Here is what you wrote: ": Actually I am an old wikipedia editor however this is one of my six accounts which was opened a year back. But I rarely use it. by Shrestha Shome 17:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)" Your appeal would be more convincing if you named the accounts. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I lost those accounts. As they were not linked with any email, it is not possible to recover them. And I don't recall their usernames. --Shrestha.shome 07:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- You must remember some articles that you would have edited with those accounts, just search their history. We've got no way of knowing if there are any blocks, bans or even warnings on those 5 accounts. And having no idea what any of the 5 usernames were? You aren't being very convincing. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I rarely used Wikipedia. That's why I easily forget usernames and passwords. As you can see my talk page was previously edited in May 2020. This is the only reason I was forced to link my email with this account. How is this even an issue? --Shrestha.shome 14:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Pointy illegitimate PROD edit
I'll also note there that you added a PROD template to Gujarat Files giving as your reason "incomplete article for a book termed as politically motivated, and based on personal opinion, full of allegations and counter-allegations, with no utility and not of evidentiary value by Indian Supreme Court. As Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia can't be a tool to spread misinformation. That's why I am proposing to delete it." The first sentence of PROD clearly states that PROD "is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion". Clearly your reason, which actually has no basis in policy or guidelines, is controversial.Doug Weller talk 10:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- This book is known as a propaganda book in real life. Source: https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/sc-rejects-ngos-plea-for-further-probe-in-haren-pandya-case-slaps-rs-50k-fine/1569194 . This book is used to whitewash a genocide. One of my friends actually believe this book as truth. He told me to read this. When I asked him how he found this book; he said to me that he got to know about it from Wikipedia. Then I submitted a deletion request. Gujarat riot is a well known incident in recent history. When people searches something on Wikipedia about Gujarat or Gujarat riot, one of the first things they see is this article. I have no problem if someone reads an article about Mein Kampf, because everyone knows that Hitler is evil. Even if they get inspired to buy Mein Kampf by reading a Wikipedia article about it, they will surely know that this book is all about Nazi doctrine. But, how many people will know that Gujarat Files is a propaganda book? They see it in Wikipedia, they buy it; without even realizing it's motive. This book is already sold over 600K copies, meaning we have 600K people feed with lies and misinformation in real life. Wikipedia may be used to advertise it to 10K people more. That's where the problem lies. I believe everything has a place. But Wikipedia, a website used by more than a billion people should not be used as a media to promote hate. If this article gets published in some other website, I'm Okay with it. But, I can't see Wikipedia taking the dirty side of hate politics. As for the controversial thing you're saying, having this article on Wikipedia itself is controversial. --Shrestha Shome 15:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Shrestha.shome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have requested an appeal here: https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/public/appeal/view?hash=28e9a38293791a90c8b58c3b21d2beee . But the admin wants me to reappeal on my talk page for further action. So, I appealed here again.
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. Yamla (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2021 (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.