User talk:Qazxcv1234

This user may sometimes share an IP address with User:Md iet.

This user may sometimes share an IP address with User:Ruksakba.

December 2014[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Mufaddal Saifuddin has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Mufaddal Saifuddin was changed by Qazxcv1234 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.934451 on 2014-12-10T06:24:10+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about the Dawoodi Bohra are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA[edit]

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 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for guidance please.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at mufaddal saifuddin. Summichum (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban[edit]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from anything to do with the Dawoodi Bohra on all pages of Wikipedia, including talk

You have been sanctioned because your edits at Mufaddal Saifuddin show that you are unable to edit neutrally on the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra succession controversy.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at [[{{{decision}}}#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posting at Talk:Mufaddal Saifuddin is contrary to your ban[edit]

Please note that your comments at Talk:Mufaddal Saifuddin#Improper deletion are contrary to your ban, since this person is a member of the Dawoodi Bohra. You should not post again on that talk page or you can be blocked. As noted in my earlier post the ban is from anything to do with the Dawoodi Bohra on all pages of Wikipedia including talk. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I am new to Wiki and did not notice this. I will study this ban and reply. Till that time I will try to obey the ban. It may take time to get to know the rules and articles.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I could check the history of Mufaddal. At 4.33, 14th Dec, I did not remove claimant word and other thing above. My intention was to correct the survey report only.

l don't know how the other revision took place. I have only worked after line ' There are various media reports....'.

May be there is overlapping edition. I was doing with mobile and addition done at 4.31 by another editor may have got mixed up.

I am really surprised. May please examine minutely. Why should then I complain further for 'Improper deletion'. If I know that I have deleted some material other than related with survey.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your intention to 'correct the survey report' is contrary to your ban. Please refrain in the future, or a block may be necessary. Even if the survey report is wrong, it is up to others to notice that, not you. You must not even *discuss* the survey report on any page of Wikipedia, including talk. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same exercise and simulated the condition. 'the' of community was not redone by me in last edit but it appeared.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of your topic ban at Mufaddal Saifuddin[edit]

Collapse one topic to fix page format. Revert if you disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

You have resumed editing the Mufaddal Saifuddin article on 16 December, which violates your ban from the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EJ, I feel that I was unable to explain my case proper, and there is misunderstanding. Let me clear my case:

On 14 Dec,04:33, at Mufaddal Saifuddin I have only edited survey part, and not not deleted 'claimant' word.

I came to know about my ban at around 13:00 on 15 Dec, as I was using mobile and I didn't notice any message.

After that I have not done any editing except simulation trial that too of removing and adding word 'the' at Mufaddal Saifuddin to prove that what I did on 14th was system mistake.

The explanation, I have given on 15 Dec, 13:11, was not for ban violation, but for incident 14 Dec, 04:33, which took place before my ban, and it was the cause of my ban which was a system error I confirm. The proof is as follows:

-At 01:07, 16 Dec, I deleted 'the' on Mufaddal Saifuddin page through my mobile.

-Just after that at about 01:09, 16 Dec, I have used my PC and open the Mufaddal Saifuddin page, given the edit command, and the page got open in edit mode without 'the' written before community, which I deleted intentionally at 1:07 above.

-I again took my mobile and added 'the' again at 01:13, 16 Dec, at the same place.

-At 1:14 using the PC which was open with page Mufaddal Saifuddin in edit mode as above, I only deleted 'the' from mustaali, and edited the page.

Now please check the page, my PC has deleted only 'the' from mustaali but Wiki showing both 'the' deletion.

- The addition done by my mobile of 'the' at 1:14 is missing.

This prove that if two overlapping edition done together, there is possibility that undo of previous edition done automatically by system and second editor is not at all responsible for this technical problem.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, hope the case is clear. May request resolution of the problem. Qazxcv1234 (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban prevents you from editing *the entire article* on Mufaddal Saifuddin. Saifuddin is a member of the Dawoodi Bohra, the topic which you must not edit. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Admin, what I am trying to explain is: I am banned for the incident which was false recorded. May be due to technical limitations of the system for two simultaneous edition, as proven by me above.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2014 (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).

Qazxcv1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

May please read justification given above. The reason of the ban and hence my further block is not applicable as alleged edition done at 04:33, 14 Dec, on Mufaddal Saifuddin is not done by me. I have proved it by similar simulation done at 01:14, 16 Dec, on the same page. There is technical problem in the system, when two overlapping edition done within 1 or 2 minutes. May please examine and decide my innocence.(EJ, please consider. This is because I can't write at your page.)

Decline reason:

(1) The circumstances of the edit made by this account at 04:33 on the 14th of December are irrelevant, as the ban was put in place as a result of numerous edits, not just one, and you repeatedly breached your topic ban after that. (2) If I believed your claim that the edit you refer to was not done by you, then I would be blocking this account indefinitely, as it would be a compromised account. Luckily for you, I don't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2014 (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.

EJ, I can wait for 72 hrs or any hrs of block. I don't have any emergent matter , which can't wait. My aim is to prove that this case is an interesting case of technical nature. I opened MS page and started editing before 04:31. Editor Sumi did editing at 04:31 and restored 'claimant' etc. As MS page was already open with me was without sumi modification only my edition was on screen. As soon as I saved edit at 04:33, only material present on my screen was saved, and it automatically deleted sumi revision.

Please take your own time and understand my simulation exercise. This block/ban time is immaterial for me, but It is not acceptable that one innocent get banned due to such technical situation.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JBW, thanks for advice given. Let me assure you that this is not a compromise account and I only did part of that edit. The top part of edit was shown because some one else (in this case Sumi) has started editing after my start and his edit got saved. When I saved my edit, than preview showed only my edit and that got only saved. In between saved edit of Sumi got automatically deleted.

I have simulated this technical problem at Mufaddal Saifuddon and explained it at my talk page immediately after so that Admin may not get confused of my act.

This is an interesting case, I am in no hurry to solve this case immediately. Please take your own time and study. It may surprise you also.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Qazxcv1234 (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at Talk:Moulai Hasan Fir[edit]

Please undo this post because it violates your topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) OK03:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston, please examine again. This topic belong to common Taiyabi Bohra. This is not only specific db related. As bohra are also Fatimid. Can't I edit that?Qazxcv1234 (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article begins "Syedi Hasan Fir is the 14th century holy Dawoodi Bohra saint.." This is self-evidently part of the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra. You should not be editing there, and not on the talk page either. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is truth, but not a complete truth. DB formed in 15th century AD. Hasanfir was representative in India of Dai office at Yemen. At that time there were only one Bohra. Sulaimani/Dawoodi bifurcated later when Dai office shifted in India. Hasanfir is common to all bohra, Sulaymani/Dawoodi/ Alvi/ progressive. Qazxcv1234 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban covers everything related to the Dawoodi Bohra. Hairsplitting is not advisable. Pages containing the words 'Dawoodi Bohra' are generally considered to be realated to the Dawoodi Bohra. There may be no further warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EdJ , I have undone. As such DB is included in list page of Muslim. Wiki rules may not generally restrict the user to that extent. It is requested that the limit can be after DB existence.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who issued the ban, I have the authority to change it. In this case I decline to do so, because I don't understand the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra well enough. It's better if we merely say that articles containing the phrase 'Dawoodi Bohra' are all subject to the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand, could you delegate the authority? Qazxcv1234 (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simple bans are best. This makes them easy to understand, and any admin can enforce them if there is a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a problem. As per my 100% confident claim, I am banned for the activity I have not at all done. Even I am forced to not to comment for general 14th century old topics of era when DB itself was not defined.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Test check simulation[edit]

I am banned for forceful removal of material from a article.

Step 1. I am first adding material as a editor z :

"Mr. X is disrupting Wiki editing."  Qazxcv1234 (talk)
03:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Step 2: I am now opening my account my friend PC.

step3; opened my acount at 10:01 and added X is very good. gone to my mobile and edited at 10.02 now saving at my ftreind pc and

In this exercise first (03:59) when there was simultaneous editing at my friend PC.It did not accept correction and edit conflict message came. But when second time exercise done at 04:32 it allowed simultaneous editing. The exercise is being repeated for better understanding.

Repeat simulation[edit]

-- At 11:02 IST, through my mobile I am writing:

A is disrupting .Qazxcv1234 (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC) at 11:10[reply]

opened my m a/c and corrected above.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC) a bcQazxcv1234 ([[U[reply]

talk:Qazxcv1234#top|talk]]) 05:43, 25 December 2014 (UT

a. 11:16 a bad

second repeat[edit]

a. 11:21 A is very goodQazxcv1234 (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

third repeat[edit]

a 11:29 a Qazxcv1234 (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2014 (UT

11:31

forth repeat[edit]

--11:35 a is very good.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC) --11;37 b is very bad 11:39 d is bad[reply]

test with different account[edit]

11:54 A is goodQazxcv1234 (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cis good.

Results[edit]

Above various simulations done to test the adequacy of edit conflict safety. Above exercises revealed that this safety in the software is not sufficient and if two edition done simultaneously even with different device and different IP then also it is possible that in between edition will be not done, as it will be shown as subsequent deletion in final edit. Final person will be responsibilities for in between edition which he has no knowledge and not done.

In the last test above remark about b got automatically deleted, even the last fellow has not done it.

Please analyze the case in depth. I am the affected person and got banned without any fault.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad:, being expert you may like to see above.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop misleading[edit]

Your frivolous "simulation" are completely irrelevant and an attempt to mislead the editors which is what you have been doing since a year anyways you have been caught as a sockpuppet of md iet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qazxcv1234

I request the admins to ban the ip range as well as block these experienced socks for a year.Summichum (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Md iet (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 16:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Md, I am very sorry. Because of me, you got blocked further. Because of my night shift I couldn't open Wikipedia in the morning. I read your explanation. I agree with you. I don't have my own IP allotted so I used my Friend's PC. I am really sorry.

If there is mail possibility I can send you my detail. Please let me know.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Md, I shall try accordingly.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Md, You have really given an interesting argument. It will also remind User:Mike V to consider my claim and examine simulation done. Thank you. Qazxcv1234 (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston, may please have a look at above.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike V, I am commenting from my friend PC. I checked all mail here. I did not receive any reply mail of immediate ticket request appeal. I made this request from the same PC against my first block message which I received when I did test simulation here.

Please reply on my mail such that I can confirm use of this PC. Please act suitably on my sock puppet case at earliest.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm not able to consider your request for an unblock. I would encourage you to instead appeal the request to an uninvolved administrator using the template in the block notice. Mike V • Talk 04:14, 29 December 2014 (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).

Qazxcv1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry, I got trapped for multi problems due some misunderstandings and a possible technical snag in the conflict editing reporting process. May please have a look at following:

1. Please see the justification given by md iet at [1], same fellow cannot do contradicting thing of removing and adding word 'claimant' which is main topic of conflict. This justification makes some sense.

2. I was topic banned [2] at 05;22 on 14 December, 2014 for the removal of above word ’Claimant’ at 04:33 [3]. To prove technical problem in wiki software program, I simulated the case on 01;14 16th Dec [4] (adding word ‘the’ and deleting it.)and 06;56 on 25th Dec, I simulated the case further [5] and tried to prove that if two simultaneous edition saved within interval of one minute, only last edit will sustain and edition done before one minute will not be saved and record will indicate it as deleted by last editor.

-These testing activity of 01;14 16th Dec also noticed and I was also blocked for 72 hours for violating topic ban which is not applicable as explained above as I did not remove word 'claimant'.

2. Editing done by me at 06;56 on 25th Dec, was on my friends computer ( same I am still using now) having shared network with extension IP of 10.101.28.144. The main server IP of this network may have got matched with md iet ( Md also analyzed same ([6]) and I am suspected as sock puppet. This is my main explanation for sock puppet blame, which I immediately appealed with my mail also.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've run a check user, and my assessment is that you have used the same underlying IP address as Md iet (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). In this context, I consider it Likely that you are the same user. Accordingly, I'm declining your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2014 (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.

I did not wanted to re appeal but did because I was not able to contact Phil. I knew it will draw same reply, till one will not analyze me in depth. I took back my appeal and requesting last admin Phil for help: .

::Thanks, User:PhilKnight, for considering my case above. I am no where concerned with Md. Matching of parental ID may be due to common cooperate shared facility. I have given  my Friend's separate identity no. and no body else can use his PC, net line or mail. Please take your own time and help me to come out of the mess not created of me.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2014 (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).

Qazxcv1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

reason: Thanks, Phil for considering my case. I am no where concerned with Md. Matching of parental ID may be due to common cooperate facility. I know my freind separate identity no. and no body else can use his net line or mail without using his PW. I may not be held responsible for others. Please analyze accordingly. Qazxcv1234 (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the technical evidence and the sock puppet investigation I think this is an accurate block. Chillum 05:05, 30 December 2014 (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.

I am sorry, I didn't read the instructions of not removing review. As clearly written by me I didn't intended for re appeal, hence removed. User: Chillum, you may also help analyzing the case.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin, Please note that I didn't intended for any unblock appeal officially. I used the path as per suggestion of Mike V, my first admin applying block. Second appeal was due to similar reason.

I believe that if I am right no body can stop me. I was not able to edit on my PC, but it prompted me of Ticket request option. I could not attempt my application in first two attempt as my mail ID was of Vedanta and its server was rejecting wiki reply as quarantined mail . Then I tried on yahoo and I could succeeded in my second attempt.

I request all admin to take your own time. Please note that anyone should not be penalized for the fault, he has not done. .Qazxcv1234 (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sweat reminder for action on my Ticket request. Qazxcv1234 (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]