User talk:Mohammedjaseem66

Edit warring

You have also been edit warring across various articles, including Narendra Modi. While awaiting expiry of your block, you should take time to familiarise yourself with WP:EW, WP:3RR, WP:BRD and WP:DR. In addition, I think you need to be aware of the information in the following notice. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohammedjaseem66, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

General Ization ^Talk 17:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Mohammedjaseem66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20550 was submitted on Feb 06, 2018 18:03:04. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Mohammedjaseem66 (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 multiple accounts in Wikipedia , this is a false blocking done Mohammedjaseem66 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per checkuser findings. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2018 (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.

This account --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You Are a Cheater you created a fake wiki account with minor username changes and created fake special contribution , i am ashamed about your acts Mohammedjaseem66 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that is not your account? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My account username is mohammedjaseem66 not Mohammedjasemen66 , i don't know why you created the fake page Mohammedjaseem66 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is now indefinite per the checkuser findings in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohammedjaseem66. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammedjaseem66: What is your connection to Abdulazeez123 and Ashjatkp10? Vanjagenije (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are my family members Mohammedjaseem66 (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2018 (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).

Mohammedjaseem66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not do so called Wikipedia:Sock puppetry , i am using a computer with ip address used by more than 1 family members and it is their accounts Mohammedjaseem66 (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's WP:LITTLEBROTHER. Note that those accounts are confirmed as block-evading WP:SOCK accounts. Yamla (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2018 (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.

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).

Mohammedjaseem66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I need evidence Prove the WP:Van caused by accounts from my ip address

Decline reason:

After all discussion below, I think there is no reason to unblock this user. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2018 (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.

@Yamla, RickinBaltimore, and NeilN: They were sharing the same IP address, obviously, but I don't see any kind of abuse here. There is no overlap in editing, nothing WP:ILLEGIT as far as I can see. Is there really need to block this account indefinitely? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Although the details are not specified, the other accounts are blocked as violations of WP:SOCK. I believe that to mean those other accounts are believed to be evading a block on another, third unspecified, account. If that isn't the case, and if there's no overlap in editing, this would be an acceptable use of WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: Yes, per Yamla. Also this won't work (I didn't get a notification). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN and Yamla: In thar diff, Materialscientist was talking about the other two accounts (Abdulazeez123 and Ashjatkp10), not about this user. And, also, what does it mean "edits do suggest past abuse, I just can't point to a possible sockmaster right away"? Is that evidence of socking? How do those edits "suggest past abuse"? I don't understand all this. We have three accounts that share the same IP, but have no overlap in editing, no abuse, nothing. We are blocking all three because two of them suggest past abuse, although we don't know how and which abuse. Do you really think that is correct rationale for indefinite block? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind, see the section #Discussion below. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I concur that it is probably safe and reasonable to unblock this user. Cheers,~~ -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have the copyvio and possibly lying to deal with. I'm out. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no overlap between the 3 accounts, so feel free to unblock Mohammedjaseem66, if you are comfortable with them creating 1 and 2 on their 1st day. Never mind Abdulazeez123 and Ashjatkp10, they have very short editing history. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Mohammedjaseem66: On your (now deleted) user page, you claimed that you made over 100,000 contributions to Wikipedia and also that you are a recent changes patroller. Can you explain that? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see. It seams that you copy-pasted content from User:BD2412. You even copied top icon that claimed you are administrator. Why did you do all that? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Sorry for that i wasn't familiar with the user talk page and templates at that time , I will not repeat any mistake on Wikipedia anymore Mohammedjaseem66 (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Waacstats is a puzzler. It's even more puzzling knowing we have a user by that name. I'd like to know more about it. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you going to do here? In addition to the above, during your short editing career, you've:

Tried to nominate a featured article for good article status multiple times and only stopped when warned you would be blocked
Done an incorrect page move
Created a redirect against WP:RFFL
Uploaded copyrighted images without any indication you had permission from the copyright owner.

While some mistakes are expected from new editors, what are you doing on your part to limit these mistakes? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mistakes are a part of being human , but i will give you assurance that i will not commit any mistakes on Wikipedia . I will read the Wikipedia rules and project pages more often.I understand what i am blocked for, i will not do it again, and i will make productive contributions to Wikipedia Mohammedjaseem66 (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm still looking for an explanation on your (re)creation of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Waacstats. I'm sure that was a mistake, but I would like a full explanation as to how you came to make that mistake. As to making mistakes, you cannot say you will not make them. We all do. Another mistake would be skirting the Waacstats issue after I and others lobbied to unblock you. Once again, the issue is WP:sock, and the possibility you are a banned or blocked user evading your ban or block. If that is the case, you need to stop editing, now. Wait 6 months w/o editing or socking, then request the standard offer on your original account. Thanks. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I also point out that all indications are that this editor repeatedly lied to justify their persistent insertions of a copyrighted image, as here and on the Talk page of the now deleted image. The information uncovered since then concerning how the account and IP are being used make the editor's claims dubious, if not obviously false. Lying to other editors here is not a "mistake"; it is a deliberate act. General Ization ^Talk 17:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye from Wikipedia :) Mohammedjaseem66 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to remove declined unblock requests while the block is active, see WP:BLANKING. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rosapoo film poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rosapoo film poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]