User talk:EXaline
EXaline (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Seriously? I am not a sock. If it should be specified, I am using Cybergost VPN IPs due to on my own choice. I edited "List of mobile network operators of Europe[1]" page with reasonable sources. Accordingly to Europe[2] wiki page Turkey is in Europe. However it continues to be removed from page accordingly to the UN source(https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/[3]). In UN page Turkey, Azerbaijan and Cyprus classified as Western Asia. But Azerbaijan and Cyprus take part in List of mobile network operators of Europe page unlike Turkey. So, either also Cyprus and Azerbaijan should be removed or Turkey should be added to List of mobile network operators of Europe page for integrity of information. Thank you. EXaline (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed sockpuppet, either violating WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Either way, the block is justified. Yamla (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
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.
EXaline (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I read WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT and there is no information about using VPN violates those conditions. There is no evidence to confirm I am a sockpupped. I am an individual and I made my edit with true and reasonable sources. I edited according to the facts I see. I am not obliged pay attention to what other users edit on same purpose. And now you are accusing me with being a suckpuppent but I am not. -I didn't create multiple account, this one is my only account. -I am not using another person's account. -I didn't logout to make problematic edits. -I am not reviving old unused accounts. If I remember correctly I created this account few years ago and I am using it since. You can check log in history. I should admit, on editing I am not very active but I log in frequently. -I didn't persuade friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute. I had to use VPN due to Wikipedia is blocked in my country. And there is no other way to connect Wikipedia without VPN or proxy. However I connected to wiki now from tor which should give me an individual ip in short periods of time. If I had a chance I would definitely not use a VPN or something like that but I have no choice. What kind of evidence do you need to proove I am not a sockpupped. For example you can look my previous long term log in and edit IPs. EXaline (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It is totally implausible that this account is independent of Aryan121 and the known sockpuppets. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
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.
You'll have to explain why you made an edit to reintroduce exactly the same material as the blocked user we believe you to be. That is either a violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT and it's just not plausible you are unrelated to that blocked user. --Yamla (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
EXaline (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sorry for my 3rd unblock request. I am hoping for a fair examination and explanation this time. Not just a cursory result. I didn't do anything wrong. I edited for correctness of information accordingly to sources. Here is the brief explanation of why I did the edit and why I can't be a sockpuppet of someone else: First of all I had my own reasons. When I examined history of the List of mobile network operators of Europe page I saw records that deletes Turkey from list without any explanation. Then I did my first edit which revert the change of deletion of Turkey. After that when it deleted again I searched for a deletion with explanation and found 11:49, 30 August 2016 by Expatelec and in explanation it is writing "According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe". However when I entered to that page I clearly see that Turkey is take place on List of states and territories of Europe part. In addition I found another deletion at 17:04, 10 December 2016 by Expatelec again which explains "United Nations definition of Europe is there: unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe". When I entered to UN web page I noticed at Geographic Regions part Turkey is indeed at Western Asia part but also I saw Azerbaijan, Armenia and Cyprus in Western Asia part too. If we go back to the List of mobile network operators of Europe page it is seen that Azerbaijan, Armenia and Cyprus are in the list. So this situation and that deletions does not make any sense and seems wrong to me. Accordingly to these sources I had two options I either delete Azerbaijan, Armenia and Cyprus or just re-add Turkey to list. So I did my second edit as adding Turkey to list. This is the situation from my point of view. If Aryan121 saw what I mention too, probably he/she come to the same conclusion as I do and tried to re-add Turkey to list. Even most people think in that way. But that is not a reason for accusing me as a suckpuppet. As I examine these sources that page doesn't look right. I am still suggesting deletion of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Cyprus or re-adding of Turkey. Why shouldn't I re-add Turkey to the list or delete Azerbaijan, Armenia and Cyprus, if I missing a point or what am I doing wrong could you tell me? After all this I don't think I will edit any page on wikipedia anymore. You can see from my edit history I am not a very active user anyway. But I like my user name and I use it everywhere. If you still want to block me than block me. But please from an another reason not a sockpuppet of someone else because it is complete nonsense. You can check my email, log in history maybe user creation times etc. I hope you will not examine this case superficially and will give fair decision. Thank you for your time.@Yamla:EXaline (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Accept reason:
- Although I declined one of your unblock requests, having read your latest unblock request and also checked your editing history again, I am now much more inclined to think you may be telling the truth. I have contacted the blocking administrator to see what he thinks about the possibility of removing the block. I hope this can be cleared up soon, but please be patient for a while. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: Please don't take any action. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- To reviewing administrators: A follow-up statement from Bbb23 can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aryan121/Archive#03 July 2017. In short, while technical evidence does not link you to Aryan121, some technical information found through CheckUser is identical to that of other blocked users on Wikipedia. The CheckUser information also indicates that EXaline is not using a VPN, contrary to what they say. However, it has been noted that the behavior of this account is inconsistent with that of those other accounts. Mz7 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Mz7 and JamesBWatson: Are you going to do something regarding this unblock request? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- To reviewing administrators: A follow-up statement from Bbb23 can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aryan121/Archive#03 July 2017. In short, while technical evidence does not link you to Aryan121, some technical information found through CheckUser is identical to that of other blocked users on Wikipedia. The CheckUser information also indicates that EXaline is not using a VPN, contrary to what they say. However, it has been noted that the behavior of this account is inconsistent with that of those other accounts. Mz7 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: Please don't take any action. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije, Mz7, and Bbb23: Thank you, Vanjagenije for calling attention to this. I left it following Bbb23's request to do so. Perhaps I should have checked to see if he had got back on this, but I expected another ping when he did so. In the light of what Bbb23 has now said, I woudl be inclined to unblock if it weren't for Bbb23's two statements "All of these accounts are using proxy servers or webhosts" and "Contrary to what EXaline says on his Talk page, he is not using a VPN server". EXaline, if you are still around and haven't just given up and left, can you comment on those two statements? Are you using a VPN server? Have you used one or more proxy servers or webhosts? I am also surprised that you say you have connected via Tor, since Tor exit nodes are normally blocked automatically. I have tested that a large number of times, and have never once found a Tor exit node which is open to editing Wikipedia, so can you suggest why you are able to do so? I am not going to unblock your account unless you can provide answers to those questions, but I for now I am leaving your unblock request open, so that Mz7, Vanjagenije, or any other administrator may consider either accepting or declining the request. (Bbb23 has already said that he does not endorse granting the unblock request.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: @JamesBWatson: I am still here and I am not giving up. I used Opera VPN and Cyberghost VPN's multiple exit nodes like USA, UK, Canada etc. Maybe these private vpn servers not showing on wiki's system as vpns. I am not sure about this. I used tor for only accessing wiki pages but I didn't do edits with tor. That time, I thought I blocked due to editing with same static VPN ip and after that I connected with tor. However when I connected with tor my editing rights had been already blocked so I couldn't edit anything. On my talk page I probably do my edits with VPN not with tor. In addition, right now I am not using VPNs, due to my trip I use public wi-fi's.EXaline (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Mz7 and Yamla: Bbb23 says "EXaline is technically identical to various accounts that are blocked or globally locked", but since he also says "All of these accounts are using proxy servers or webhosts", that is only weak evidence of sockpuppetry: it could be a different editor using the same proxy servers or webhosts, and since Bbb23 also says "EXaline's behavior does not match any of those accounts" I think we should give the benefit of the doubt as far as that technical evidence is concerned. The question I raised about Tor is answered, as EXaline says it is used only for reading Wikipedia, not for editing. That leaves just two pieces of evidence of possible sockpuppetry, as far as I can see. Firstly, there is the appearance of a little used account to repeat an edit by a blocked editor, but it is perfectly possible for an independent editor to come along, see a change which he or she thinks may be wrong, and follow up in the way EXaline says. One incident like that is enough to raise suspicions, but not enough to convict. Finally there is "Contrary to what EXaline says on his Talk page, he is not using a VPN server", but how certain is it that the available information enables one to identify Opera VPN as a VPN rather than just as a web host? Certainly there is enough evidence to raise concerns about possible sockpuppetry, but I am no longer convinced that there is enough evidence to make it virtually certain, as I thought when I declined an earlier unblock request on this account. I am therefore inclined to unblock, but I would be grateful for any opinions from Mz7, the blocking administrator, Yamla, who declined an earlier unblock request, or any other administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't buy it. That is, I don't find the explanation at all convincing. But, and I want to be very clear, that's my opinion, and what lead me to decline the unblock request. I most definitely have no problem if you choose to unblock the user (keeping in mind that I'm not the blocking admin here). --Yamla (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: I can see where you are coming from. The behavior of EXaline doesn't match previous sockpuppets of Aryan121, and neither does the technical information. CheckUser information does indicate similar data to other banned users, and Bbb23 tends to have a good sense about these things. But I can see why you might think that EXaline is using the same proxy servers as those banned users. I too have no loud objections if you choose to unblock this user. Mz7 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson:@Yamla: Hi there. So is there any final decision about my case. My unblock request neither accepted nor declined. I don't know how long does this process take. I am not in a hurry but I think I am forgotten. By the way, Yamla, I am not sure which explanation wasn't convincing. If it is for my first unblock request which you declined, I can agree that there wasn't enough details. But if it is for my third unblock request, well unfortunately I can't say much because that explanation is all I can say about my whole situation. If I were a sockpuppet, I would simply just open a new account. But I am still here and struggling for my only account.EXaline (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry that I didn't respond to the message above and your email earlier. I was not able to do so as at the time I did not have any internet access. However, you are now unblocked, and I hope you will now be able to edit without further problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)