User talk:Wikiemirati

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia
The Decline of Wikipedia

July 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. I use account user:masgouf when I am using a public computer or at work. I did the reverts on 2019 AFC Asian Cup as a single individual. Never meant for it to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus. I have not tilted consensus building in my favor using that account and never intended to mislead others for being a different individual. I have mentioned "reverted by two users" mentioning myself and another user, Anbans 585, at the editing comments. I did not use my other account to disrupt consensus building. Heck, I have said the same statements, reasons, and edit comments in Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup discussion and one can infer that I am the same person for giving the same reasons. The other account is intended to be used on public computers, work, or library computers or when I focus on Iraq-related articles. I have made the edits while at work and while I was editing Iraq-related articles when I had my other account logged in. I used to do that as an IP edits but decided to create an account to hide my IP address. Never intended for the account to be used as a strawman sock and never argued on talk page discussion as two separate users or endorsed my point of view as two separate users. I have that account for legitimate security reasons at work. I did not create it to avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. I admit I should have not used my work computer to edit in an article from my other account to not give off the impression that I am another person, I have made that mistake and I understand I that did that in an oversight and own up to that mistake. However, I did not claim that I am a different person and honestly never intended to suggest that I am a different person. You would noticed I even completed responses and used the same word choice when using the other account in edit summaries. I think I am a bit knowledgeable of wiki-policy and rules and I know that a check-user would be able to spot on sock puppetry if I was acting or pretending to be as two different people, as I have seen countless people banned who did. Please let me know if there's no reconciliation of that oversight and if that oversight is a big enough reason to have me kicked out of this project indefinitely. Thank you. --Wikiemirati (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I do not see that you disclosed anywhere that you had alternate accounts. You say people could infer that the two accounts were operated by the same person because you "have said the same statements, reasons, and edit comments in Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup discussion". The only comment by Masgouf on a talk page, ever, was this. That's about as far from your "Wikiemirati" style of talk page comments as it can get. Given your further deceptive actions documented below, I find your explanation unconvincing. Huon (talk) 01:28, 21 July 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.

Your deception was egregious. You, along with your sock Masgouf, edit-warred with Super ninja2 (talk · contribs · count) at 2019 AFC Asian Cup. Super ninja2 had initiated a dispute resolution report. At that report, after you summarized the dispute from your perspective, you said, "Also note [Super ninja2] broke WP:3RR, which I again assumed good faith and did not want to open an AN3." (see here) But a report was filed at AN3 against Super ninja2 by your sock. Then, of course, there's also the fact that your two accounts edited many of the same pages (see report).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this elaboration. I am disappointed to be though of as deceptive. I reverted once with my other account, never consistently in a 24 hours, and similarly which I would have still done using this account. Never intended to indicate that I am a second person. Please note the did in "assumed good faith and did not want to open an AN3", as I opened it after I got reverted multiple times in that page, and which still has the version I disputed as I stopped the edit warring. I have the same interests and its only natural I edit the same pages. However, I never did so in a dispute or to act as another person to get consensus in my favor. I did so in a public computer. Wikiemirati (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On this account your userpage states that you are an Emirati living in Ohio: [1]. On your sock account you state that you are of Iraqi ancestry: [2]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mother is Iraqi, my father is Emirati. I live and work in the United States. Hope this clarifies my interests in Emirati-Iraqi articles :) --Wikiemirati (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to learn the backgrounds of your mother and father. My background is south Asian. Here in this part of England, discrimination is occasional -- there are very large immigrant communities -- and sometimes amusing. Do you find it similar in the USA? On the occasions that I have visited the USA, I have found some of the locals less than welcoming. MPS1992 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, everyone is very welcoming in the US. Its a nation of immigrants so everyone is friendly, at least in my experience. I also study in a university and work in a hospital, so maybe my sample size is a bit biased of being surrounded by educated people. Also, regarding the reason for the appeal. I did not disclose my other account as I though it was a legitimate reason for having the other account, and required no identification since mostly I have edited Iraq related articles in that account. I admit I should have disclosed it regardless and since I have the same interests. However, it seems I am though of as deceptive and fraudulent here and my appeal is rejected. Considering this is an indefinite block, this will probably be my last comment in wikipedia. Thank you everyone who made my time here worthwhile. see you in another life, when we are both cats --Wikiemirati (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're confused I don't think any of us think there is anything wrong or unusual with you being of both Emirati and Iraqi descent. I myself am both Malaysian Chinese and Pākehā and grew up in Malaysia but have lived in NZ for a long time now. The thing is though, I don't participate in the same discussions with one account where I call myself a Pākehā living in New Zealand with no mention of my Malaysian heritage, and another account with a completely different account name where I simply call myself Malaysian Chinese with no mention of my Kiwi side and declare no where that both accounts are mine; but then have the audacity to try and claim . Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nil Einne, I am not using "it should have been obvious I was the same editor so this was no problem" as an argument or an excuse here. I fully understand the misuse of different accounts and the detrimental effect it may have on users in this project. I found myself editing more due to increased free time at work where I used my work computer. I noticed that editing with an IP leaves a pattern, specially when I edit only UAE-related articles and specially that IP addresses at work are linked. I did not wish to edit under an IP address but did not wish to use my personal account either on a public computer. I created Masgouf (which is named after the Iraqi dish) and decided to edit Iraqi-only articles from it to first, as to not sound like I am a total nationalistic UAE patriot at work as that is deeply unwanted behavior and frowned apon. It was not my intention to act as two users, an Emirati or an Iraqi. I understand I should have 1- not edited the same article 2-at least declared my other account or 3- declared it at least in the edit dispute board when both of my accounts were mentioned. I admit to those mistakes. I never used the instance to indicate that I am a different user, an Iraqi who's endorsing an Emirati point of view for example. I did make the mistake of switching my account on my public computer when on the AFC article and reverted a user. This might have suggested that I am a different user altogether, which I understand was very wrong of me to do, specially by not declaring that I am the same reason. That is the misstep than led to my block. I'm not arguing that "oh but my edits are the same hence people should've known" here. I'm saying my edit were very similar that if I was acting as a sockpuppet, I would not have acted that way. There was already another user in that article who reverted to my version at least once and hence I did not even need to use a sock-puppet to push my point of view there. I've been involved in countless edit disputes and didn't use my other account to "push my point of view" anywhere. Hope this gives you some clarification. Thank you. --Wikiemirati (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexandermcnabb thank you for going out of your way and opening an admins notice board for my block. I appreciate your sincere efforts. I am however, indefinitely blocked and my appeal is rejected. I understand I can't put in another appeal in such a short notice nor can I participate in that notice board. I deeply appreciate your effort and your time opening that notice. I understand how the community feels about sock puppets because I have encountered them as well. However, I am now seen as a sock-puppet myself. The worst part is that I have lost the community's faith here altogether, so my presence is no longer desired. Please continue your good work in UAE-related articles. That topic is lucky to have you interested in it! Best. --Wikiemirati (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry to see you going through this, it makes me sick to my stomach, I always admired your edits and efforts on UAE-related articles, I think Wikipedia should revise their sock-puppet policy, an indefinite ban is a very harsh penalty, especially for someone who contributed a lot to the project, I wish you the best, please take care of yourself and try to put all this behind you, Regards. UA3 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:UAEAF F16E Block 60, Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, 2015.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:UAEAF F16E Block 60, Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, 2015.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiemirati, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SharabSalam (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation (March 2022)

You have been mentioned here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikiemirati#Suspected_sockpuppets Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]