User talk:Afersoy

October 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Epoka University‎, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Afersoy. You have new messages at Nomoskedasticity's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Eagly (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. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. 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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

user:Eagly and I are friends, we have found some unpropper information against epoka university and tried to edit them. It is ok for me if I am bloked because I was in a so called "edit war", but we are not the same person and this acount:afersoy is mine Afersoy (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So you essentially say you're Eagly's meatpuppet, but that doesn't help you to get unblocked as meatpuppetry is no less inappropriate than sockpuppetry. Max Semenik (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've got why I have been blocked. I've read policies regarding meatpuppet and Sock puppet. I do understand besides what I was doing (trying to correct wrong information) my way was wrong. I would have been discussing in Talk pages. I am asking my unblock request to be reconsidered. Afersoy (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:14, 6 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do understand why I'd been blocked for. I was trying to edit Epoka University article. As I was doing edits in the same way User:Eagly was doing it has been supposed that I was Sock Puppet of Eagly. Being in this condition made me meetpuppet which is also intolerable and requires blocking. Now I will not, even try, go on such destructive edits. Besides I will try my best to be constructive. I hope, I've learned from my mistake. I appreciate the concerns of the community to prevent such behaviors. As it had been asked from me I've once more read the guide to appealing blocks. Now just I'm requesting an unblock if it is possible. Afersoy (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - no response. Future unblock requests must address all issues in the block and related commentary (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:50, 12 November 2012 (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.

Talk about a knee-jerk reactiion. For the love of God BWilkins, I know you enjoy declining unblocks the way a rat loves cheese, but did you even bother to read the requset? It does adress the issues. I have no idea whether this user should be unblocked, but if you can't even be bothered to read the request... Joefromrandb (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm your and Eagly's connections with Epoka University? Mdann52 (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can supply any kind of confirmation that you want, just you may ask what kind of information is necessary to confirm. By the way I work as ICT coordinator of Epoka University. You can find my name "Ahmed Fatih Ersoy" there also my email address which I've used to register at wikipedia.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

During these days we have noticed that some changes are being made on this article Epoka University. The changes are including either missing and/or wrong information about Epoka University where I work as Information and Communication Technologies Office Coordinator (ICTCO).

Despite some of the information provided in the current version has been referenced properly, the content for which a reference has been provided (i.e. the original study) has almost no foundation to reach that idea.

Concrete examples of this situation are provided below.

ex 1: "The university is part of the Gülen movement. (cited from Kerem Öktem's study, second reference of the article)

This claim is based on the Kerem Öktem's study. In the original study there is no evidence which supports this idea. In order for this claim to be written under Epoka University article, either our institution should be accepting and publicizing this situation or there should be a concrete evidence which supplies this claim.

ex 2: The majority of the faculty members, as well as higher administrators, come from Turkey, have studied at Fetullah Gülen schools, and adhere to the Gülen movement. A few faculty members are non-Muslim, come from countries other than Turkey, and are Western-educated.

Above claim is the reference 8, Faculty CVs by department. This claim is referenced by a page which has no information about the given information.

These examples were the most concrete ones that I have edited. I have edited also some other parts such as student numbers, name of departments and programs, research centers etc. They were all informative and non-fictive facts of the institution.

My aim was not and has never been to be editing disruptively, blanking out or removing portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia.

My only aim was to correct these issues. I've made some edits, I've deleted improper information. Suddenly I've found my self User:Eagly's sock puppet. I've described that I'was not his sock puppet and requested an unblock while implying I know him (He also studies at Epoka University, he was the one who discovered that there were some improper, wrong and/or missing information regarding my university). This made me meet/sock puppet of him. So my second unblock request declined again.

Finally, as an Epoka University member, I would like to solve this issue while having proper, acceptable and valid information published in the article which is providing the facts and constructive information about our university.

And also I request my account to be unblocked. I think that what I am requesting is fair for all, myself, my university and Wikipedia Community. Afersoy (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

OK. Please keep in mind our meatpuppetry and conflict of interest guidelines when editing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]