User talk:HashimA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Kaos-Industries)

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Kaos-Industries, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Vanjagenije (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, Kaos-Industries, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. 

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

  1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Vanjagenije (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I very rarely login to Wikipedia except to clean things up for the good of the pursuit of knowledge and all that malarkey, and the few experiences I have had of this site don't make me much more keen, from the site's terribly convoluted UX, to being blocked for some username issues, to the latest incident below. I'm 24 years old and a programmer, so if I'm having trouble figuring out how to use this site then I know I'm not the only one. I found that my account had been blocked (again) a year or so ago for some unknown reason and haven't bothered logging in since because obviously owning a Wikipedia account that I was trying to use for good was becoming too much of a drain on my time and energy. Today I visited a Wikipedia page and was told I had a message, and then logged in to find that I actually had lots of messages. What all of them were about, I don't know, because clicking on a message's notification didn't take me directly to the message itself, as is the general UX standard, but to a generic Help page for the current day. To get to my message, I had to search out the direct page for it by going through the "archives". Like I said, convoluted. Regardless, it was there that I found that some other poor user named "Nuralakbar" had been accused of being a "sockpuppet" of my account, or the other way round, and there seems to have been no evidence provided for this whatsoever except the testimony of the user who was arguing with that user (this all appears to have happened on the Ibn Arabi page). I'm here to settle the issue and both get that account and mine unblocked. HashimA (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; this account is not blocked. If you are unable to edit, please exactly follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. Yamla (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Apparently an administrator came along and decided my account hadn't been blocked. Curious then that when I go to edit a page, the site's own systems claim I have been, using the word "blocked" several times: https://i.imgur.com/O2kG8f7.jpg. I also stumbled across a page that listed not just one, but TWO users who apparently were closed as being sockpuppets of my account. This is a serious issue that needs to be rectified. HashimA (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This user account is not currently blocked. However, a combination of the screenshot you provided, these edits, and other technical data, links this account to the Kaos-Industries account and its confirmed sockpuppets. Accordingly, I am blocking this account for sockpuppetry. In my opinion, a standard offer unblock is still an option, as it has been over a year since those accounts were blocked for socking. However, others may weigh your attempts at deception here against you. In any case, we will at minimum need you to explain what editing you intend to do if you are unblocked, and to convince us that the problems that led to the blocks of Kaos-Industries and your other accounts will not be repeated. As this is your oldest account, this is the right place to do that, using a fresh {{unblock}} template, and after reviewing WP:GAB and WP:SO. ST47 (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2019 (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.

The screenshot you included is for a different user, Kaos-Industries. That account is indeed blocked, but that's not the account you are currently using. Note that blocks apply to people, not just to accounts, so if Kaos-Industries is your account, you are not permitted to edit. If that is not your account, please let us know how you were able to obtain that screenshot, as that screenshot should only be available to someone logged in to that account. --Yamla (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Kaos-Industries was the previous name of this account, which was renamed back in 2016. This account was blocked in 2018, however, due to abuse of multiple accounts (see Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Kaos-Industries. The rename seems to have caused a bit of confusion in the block log, which doesn't show this account as being blocked due to the different username (it doesn't help that the redirect at User:Kaos-Industries was inadvertently overwritten). I'd be inclined to extend the Standard Offer, given that no sockpuppetry seems to have taken place since the summer of last year. Yunshui 雲水 22:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: I referenced the situation Yunshui refers to in my original block reason.
@Yunshui: Looking at that page, it feels like accepting such an offer would imply guilt and the potential implications that may come as a result of having such charges apply to my account, in which case I would rather not go down that route. I would rather have the decision reversed as is right. I'd really like to know how exactly the admin in question pinned me of having not one, but two sockpuppet accounts "beyond reasonable doubt". Which of the signs of sockpuppetry were actually present? It really can't have been that many beyond mere coincidence. Reading this page reveals this very revealing excerpt:

Sometimes a brand new account is accused of being a sockpuppet account, simply because it is apparently experienced with the ways of Wikipedia, and leaps straight into areas of the project that the accusers think to be obscure, or shows proficiency with Wikipedia's mechanisms and processes. In years gone by, when Wikipedia was a very new project that hadn't yet come to the attention of the world in general, that was a fair argument. But it is now 2019. Wikipedia has been around long enough for people to have read it and learned about it, without creating an account, for years, now. Its policies, guidelines, and processes are extensively documented on Wikipedia itself; and are even, now, documented outside of Wikipedia, in books such as John Broughton's Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Furthermore, these policies and guidelines are linked to from the welcome template that is often the first thing placed on new users' talk pages. It shouldn't be surprising therefore that someone with a modicum of intelligence manages to learn about how Wikipedia works, and what to do, before, or immediately after, creating an account. Also, the person could have previously edited other wikis. ... Don't automatically cry "sockpuppet!" when a brand-new account simply and solely shows proficiency.

This excerpt resonates with me but it's exactly what I suspect has happened here. I'm passionate about truth enough to be inspired to make occasional edits to Wikipedia and technically competent enough to figure out how, and in return an editor accused my account and two others of being sockpuppets, and an admin appears to have taken that information at face value. Why? HashimA (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delving back into the history, it looks as though suspicion was originally raised due to similar editing themes on Ibn Arabi. Following this, a checkuser investigation found a match between the three accounts (the data is now stale so I cannot recheck it, but generally a confirmation like that would indicate that either all three accounts were using the same IP in close temporal proximity, or that they were all using the same actual device). Checkuser data is usually considered fairly reliable. Yunshui 雲水 07:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The same device or even the same IP address is an absolute impossibility, but even the same IP address range is something that would be highly, highly unlikely due to the odds of such a coincidence, and I am very skeptical about any such claim without seeing evidence of it from the people who investigate sockpuppet accounts. Here is the edit on the Ibn Arabi page that supposedly got me accused of sockpuppetry: a single edit that was so small it didn't even make a difference to the document's byte size. That shouldn't even qualify as a "similar editing theme", and yet the sockpuppet investigations team concluded I must have been a sockpuppet. I can accept based on this history that the IP address 96.241.155.118 *may* have been a sockpuppet, but how can any serious investigative team compare that IP address's edit history with mine here and conclude they point to the same person? Furthermore, where even is the third supposed sockpuppet "Dervishtan" in this entire edit history? I've done my fair share of work in infosec/cybersecurity, and the deeper I look into this the more I get the feeling this is an incidence of either malice or serious incompetence on the part of the "sockpuppet investigations team", and something needs to be corrected. HashimA (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are failing to address the central question here. This account was renamed from "Kaos-Industries" to "HashimA" on 24 September 2016. But then, on 30 November 2016, new "Kaos-Industries" account was created (see the log). Who created it? You? It seams so, according to your message above. Why? Why did you re-create the Kaos-Industries account when you knew that username is not acceptable? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained above at enough length how convoluted I find the Wikipedia UX, and I also remember it being a lot worse in 2016. I don't ever recall explicitly creating a new account or doing anything except logging into my account like I always have as normal - what the system did with that is the system's problem. However, if you believe that 3-year-old issue is the central question here then you're mistaken, and apparently scanning this page looking for past issues to pick on rather than actually trying to address the issue I reported. The central question here is the wrongful blocking of my account from editing on the basis of what can only be flimsy evidence, evidence that has never been materialised. HashimA (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HashimA&oldid=1076239909"