User talk:Analyst.Rehmat

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Analyst.Rehmat! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Ollie,

I'm not sure which wiki page activity you are referring to in your message. My last discussion was already on the talk page, and I only provided a suggestion for better content without including any links in my previous activity. It seems like you may have replied to the wrong user.

Please let me know if there's anything specific you'd like to discuss or if there's any confusion regarding the previous interactions. Thanks Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. You (along with the other sockpuppet accounts) have been doing nothing but replace legitimate sourcing with spam links. If you continue, you can expect that your websites will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie, this is my contribution so far Special:Contributions/Analyst.Rehmat Recently, I replaced some dead links with live links on a relevant topic. These dead links were leading to anonymous sites that Google was ranking. However, I find myself confused as to what I might have done wrong. From what I understand, replacing dead links with live ones is not considered spamming. I would appreciate your suggestions and guidance in this matter. Thank you. Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A dead link is not an opportunity to add link spam. MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie, I want to clarify that I did not add any spam links. If you believe you can improve the content on Wikipedia, please feel free to do so. You can replace those links with better ones if you think it's necessary, but please refrain from accusing me of doing anything wrong here. Let's focus on improving the page collaboratively. Thank you. Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You've been warned about what will happen if you continue. MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie, it appears there might be some confusion. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, replacing dead links with live links from anonymous sources is not considered spam or invalid activity. If you have a different understanding, please correct me. Let's ensure we are aligned with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you for your cooperation. Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing dead links with archived links is fine. Replacing dead links with fake websites and linkspam is still link spamming. MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Ollie, I haven't linked any spamming link in my activity yet. You should read this: Wikipedia:External links#What can be done with a dead external link

Thanks Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why someone blocked me. Anyways Ollie, I have few confusions, Let me share them. You said on your talk page that "dead link exists does not mean that any live link can be added in its place. You are always responsible for the links you add, including making sure that they are not spam links" I have little confusions here:

A dead link cleverbot.io is not affiliate with the primary domain cleverbot.com.
What if I had replaced cleverbot.io with claude.ai in external links only? (What I am seeing both cleverbot.io and claude.ai is same niche web applications)
How to check If I am linking a spam domain or any link?

All I am trying to understand where I did mistake as cleverbot.io dead link is also not affiliated with cleverbot.com. I don't see any affiliation of this site and this link was already dead. Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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) 18:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Girth,

As a newcomer to this platform, I am not aware of the activities of other users or the specific patterns that the you or any other administrators have noticed. I rely on your guidance to understand how I can prove that I am not involved in spamming activities.

My main request is to regain access to MrOllie's talk page User talk:MrOllie#About your conversation with a new user, where I was in the process of discussing my alleged involvement in spam activity. This conversation is crucial for me to clarify any misunderstandings and address any concerns raised by the administrators.

I want to emphasize that I take responsibility for my own actions, and I can assure you that I have no connection to any other spam activities that may be occurring, of which I am completely unaware.

Participating in the wiki community is genuinely important to me, and I am eager to contribute positively. I kindly request you to reconsider the block and grant me the opportunity to continue engaging in the community.

I sincerely hope for a positive and constructive response from you. Thank you for your understanding. Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email. Checkuser evidence indicates that you have used multiple accounts to add spammy links to our articles, many times over the last few months - you surely don't deny this? That is why you are blocked, and I'm not going to unblock you so you can waste another contributor's time in discussing those spammy links. Please don't email me again - if you think I have misinterpreted the CU evidence, you can create another unblock request, and another CU will make their own evaluation. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Girth, thanks for your response.

I understand that you might have taken this action due to the association of my IP address or network with spammers on the platform.

I want to clarify that I do not have a dedicated IP address for internet usage. My access logs may show that I have dynamic IP addresses, which means my IP changes over time. It is possible that the block was imposed while I was in the process of discussing my mistakes with Mr. Collie.

I acknowledge that there might have been some confusion regarding my account and its association with spammers. I assure you that I have no intention of engaging in spam activities, and I genuinely value being a part of this community.

I kindly request you to review the situation and consider unblocking my account. I am eager to continue contributing to the platform responsibly and constructively.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response. Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of accounts has been spamming inappropriate links to our articles for months. You are editing on the same network as those accounts, and you are interested in discussing those same external links. Kinu connected you to the spam ring purely on your behaviour, and I independently confirmed the connection using technical data - please don't waste our time in telling us it's all just a coincidence. You remain at liberty to request an unblock again, and another CU will make their own evaluation based on the technical data, but I am not going to unblock your account. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Girth, Thank you for your response once again. I have a question regarding your previous message. When you mentioned "our articles," are you referring to a group of people or a firm that publishes articles on Wikipedia? Whatever the case may be, I am reaching out to you directly because I am unable to submit another user unblock request. If i do, it will block me from editing my own talk page.

I hope you can provide some clarity on the situation and help me resolve this issue. I am eager to address any concerns and demonstrate my commitment to responsible editing on Wikipedia.

Looking forward to your assistance. Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By 'our' articles, I mean the articles that belong to the community of Wikipedia editors, who own the copyright to the text that we write, except where those articles use text taken from another source under a compliant license, or where which is in the public domain. Ownership of the content of our articles is discussed in more detail at WP:COPYRIGHT. I don't know why you think you cannot submit another unblock request - Kinu has merely indicated that timewasting (such as a continued insistence that you have nothing to do with those other accounts) may result in your ability to use this page being withdrawn. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Girth,

Thank you for your kind clarification. I appreciate your willingness to respond to my concerns. I would like you to understand the situation I am currently facing and seek your guidance on the best course of action.

Given my current position, I am uncertain about what steps I should take next. Should I wait for the block to be lifted, or is there any action I can take to address the situation more proactively? Your advice on this matter would be invaluable and greatly appreciated.

Once again, thank you for your understanding and support. Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your words "Kinu has merely indicated that timewasting (such as a continued insistence that you have nothing to do with those other accounts) may result in your ability to use this page being withdrawn."

I have not been insistent about anything, my friend. I do not feel entitled to demand anything from you. Initially, I believed you were a dedicated Wikipedia editor, but it appears I was mistaken. My only intention was to seek your guidance in having this ban lifted, but it seems that your group is more focused on supporting one another and preventing new users from entering.

As you can see, I am genuinely putting forth efforts to explore all possible ways to have this ban lifted, rather than resorting to creating a new identity. This itself serves as evidence that I am not a spammer and that I value having a genuine identity on Wikipedia. My purpose here is not to promote links to unknown sites, as referenced in another talk page. I am committed to abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines and contributing meaningfully to the community. Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I may have put wrong links but I am still trying to understand it with mr.Ollie in his talk page and user Girth Summit just blocked me. I humbly ask for your consideration in temporarily unblocking me, allowing me to continue my discussion on Mr. Ollie's talk page. I assure you that I will strictly adhere to the platform's guidelines, and should any activity be deemed inappropriate, I fully respect your authority to take appropriate action, including re-blocking if necessary. Analyst.Rehmat (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block; you have been technically linked (by looking at your IP or user agents) to a large number of other accounts that have been spamming the same materials. Even without that, I was looking at the pattern and behaviors of the accounts and had come to the exact same conclusion independently. This kind of silly charade does not help at this point. Further unblock requests that are intentionally obtuse will lead to the removal of your ability to edit this page. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2023 (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.