User talk:Hemchandra Jain

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hemchandra Jain. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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.

Girth Summit _(blether) 13:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit

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).

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)[reply]

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)[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.

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)[reply]

@Girth Summit

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).

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

Request reason:

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. Hemchandra Jain (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

User indicates they intend to abandon this account. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 30 May 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@331dot our talk page was blanked doesn't mean we weren't contributing positively. All articles we wrote together were well-referenced and well-researched. You admins just eliminated an entire group that knew way more about project Jainism than your encyclopaedia will ever have content about and all of it for no good reason is the funniest thing ever. Not one edit we did was disruptive or against the truth or against the most popular references, but now I see very well what's important for the checkusers. Keep going with that attitude. Hemchandra Jain (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how good your edits are if you are violating policies to make them. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I don't understand how policies were violated when we didn't post anything controversial or got into edit wars in the first place. The entire project Jainism hardly had a few active editors. You just blocked almost all of them. I don't care. I'm just gonna delete this account. I don't have time to deal with people suffering from such superiority complex here. Good day. Hemchandra Jain (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no means of deleting an account, but you are free to withdraw your unblock request. No one has a superiority complex here. Name calling is the last resort of people who lose logical arguments. If you have not violated policies, then tell the checkusers how you haven't. That's all we need, no more, no less. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I have reiterated the entire scenario thrice. It is a public PC, several people can work on it. There's nothing more to say. If you don't believe me because of your biased POV, there's nothing I can do about it. You may continue to do this for the rest of your lives, or actually try to see the truth. I don't have any more information to provide. All that I had, I've already shared. To believe or not to believe is at your discretion. Anyways, even if you unblock me, now I hardly care about contributing to your system under dictatorship. Hemchandra Jain (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are withdrawing your unblock request? 331dot (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I am abandoning the account. You can do whatever you want to. Hemchandra Jain (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot you and your admins are a bunch of laughing stock. Dictators masquerading as promoters of free speech only to achieve sinister motives of information war. I'm glad that you blocked me. I didn't wanna be a part of this stupidity anymore. But before I leave, food for thought for you - if I had to do meatpuppetry, why would I be arguing with you through the same account? Good day. Continue promoting "free speech" while you hide your true dictatorship. Hemchandra Jain (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? I've seen a lot of things that don't make sense but are nevertheless done. In any event, due to your continued attacks I have removed your talk page access. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere on Wikipedia do we promote free speech. See WP:FREESPEECH. This is a privately owned entity that is able to have rules about what is done here, just as you can have rules about what is said in your personal residence. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Padmasagarsuri

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Padmasagarsuri, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]