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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Discretionary Sanctions Alert
Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Quotes on talk pages
If you want to quote someone on a talk page, do. The \\ thing you are doing isn't standard. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

Transparency
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)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at 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:. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 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 and . Permanent application of this ban should remain. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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
 * 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)

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 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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

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)


 * 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)
 * Additionally, if did not respond the first time, do not continue to ping them.  SQL Query Me!  04:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi 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)

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)