User talk:Alexkyoung

This is Alexkyoung's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Random field, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Functional (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg–Seymour conjecture

I have edited the new article titled Goldberg–Seymour conjecture to conform to some standard Wikipedia conventions:

An en-dash rather than a hyphen:

right: Goldberg–Seymour conjecture

wrong: Goldberg-Seymour conjecture

Similarly, ranges of pages or years or letters of the alphabet use an en-dash, not a hyphen, as in pp. 394–412.

A lower-case "c":

right: Goldberg–Seymour conjecture

wrong: Goldberg–Seymour Conjecture

In non-TeX mathematical notation, one italicizes variables (but not digits and not parentheses or other punctuation and not things like log, cos, det, max, gcd, etc.).

There remains the most frequent of all deficiencies of new articles: No other articles link to this one. If you know of others that should link to it, can you add the links? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Manchu language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspiration

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve You Xian Ku

Hello, Alexkyoung,

Thanks for creating You Xian Ku! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for one issue.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind response. I will look into it when I get the chance! Alexkyoung (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (You Xian Ku) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating You Xian Ku.

User:Boleyn while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Please add your citation translated into English.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Sanskrit Buddhist literature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tibetan

Tibetan Buddhism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Han

ʼPhags-pa script (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Persian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Civilization state (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

Digraphia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 'Phags-pa

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts?

Hello Alexkyoung,

Please do not edit anywhere else on Wikipedia until you have identified any other accounts that you have used or created. You can email me for privacy reasons and so that we can discuss. Thank you,
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely for continued disruptive editing via an apparent series of sockpuppets, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkyoung. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 11 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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I just came back after a week of working on my Stanford thesis, and I have been blocked by Fut.Perf. for allegedly using multiple accounts, as detailed in his investigation above. I have not done anything this past week on wikipedia, and this is the only account I use; I do not use any sock puppets. User:Jarvis Maximus is my roommate at Stanford, so we probably use the same IP address since we live in the same room. FutPerf and ST47 even use words like 'alleged' and 'apparent'. I just do not have any sock puppets.

Still I understand that there is a huge resistance against my disruptive pov edits, which have been accused of being too pro-Chinese or pro-Semitic. Sorry, I was not aware of it at first since I am new here, and I can certainly work on that. In the future, so that the ban be lifted, I can do the following:

1. Since the main source of concern comes from Xinjiang, Tocharians, Tarim Basin and related articles; I will not edit such articles for 2 months (since I've only been around 2 months).

2. However a ban on all topics is unreasonable. My contributions to articles on mathematics, Buddhism, politically neutral topics, etc. have been positive.

3. As a US citizen and being an American myself, I find any thoughts of a ban on US related topics silly. Why can't I write about my own country? But to address the concerns of others, I will not edit the Foreign Interventions by the US article for 2 months. I haven't even edited anything in the past week. Next, I will not edit the Australia article unless it is something really neutral like a grammar mistake.

4. You can trust me not to edit these because I have not edited these articles in the past week, and at this point, with my graduate studies, I have lost interest in these topics.

5. In case you haven't figured it out by now, I am Jewish, so I should be allowed to write on such topics; ok I get I'm white so I will not touch the article on racial or ethnic discrimination for 2 months.

6. I am also a woman, but it seems this part of my identity did not cause some concerns. I've given so much of my identity away, but I felt it was necessary to gain your trust.

Sometimes I make edits without realizing others may disagree with that, so it is probably fair to have maybe three warnings (we can discuss this number if needed). After three warnings, if I violate any of the above, I will accept a further ban on those select topics of 6 months; but not a ban on all topics. Lastly these are effective July 11. Any edits to wiki articles made beforehand I believe should not count as ex post facto evidence.

The only thing I will not accept is a permanent ban. I have no sockpuppets so the reason for this ban, while understandable, is just not true. Lastly, I really invite you to look at my non-political contributions to wikipedia, and you'll find that they are positive. For the next 2 months, I will focus mostly on these non-political scientific articles because I can contribute a lot in this area hopefully without offending others. I really do want to help; and I am just a new user. Thank you for your time and consideration on these issues.Alexkyoung (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This bargaining is familiar. Hmm... Where else might I have seen that recently... ST47 (talk) 10:33, 11 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

TLDR: I'm sorry for some of those edits made before a week ago, but I do not have sockpuppets. I have made some proposals. I am just looking to move on and take this as a lesson for improvement. Please see some of my good edits as well. I am here to contribute to all of wiki, but have agreed to curtail temporarily (2 mo) some freedoms for the community.Thank you. User:ST47 declined my request above because he thinks the way I write is similar to others like Sven Karmanova. I do not know how exactly to address this other than saying that just thinking two pieces of text look similar does not mean they are written by the same person. Reading Sven's post, I may have been influenced by his writing, but we are not the same. Anyways, the checkuser even shows we use different IPs. I do not know what else I can do to or what further evidence can be provided to convince ST47 that I have no sockpuppets. But I was hoping we could actually discuss what I actually wrote, so I repeat my request below. Thanks. Hi, I just came back after a week of working on my Stanford thesis, and I have been blocked by Fut.Perf. for allegedly using multiple accounts, as detailed in his investigation above. I have not done anything this past week on wikipedia, and this is the only account I use; I do not use any sock puppets. User:Jarvis Maximus is my roommate at Stanford, so we probably use the same IP address since we live in the same room. FutPerf and ST47 even use words like 'alleged' and 'apparent', and the checkuser even confirms that we use different IPs. I just do not have any sock puppets. Still I understand that there is a huge resistance against my disruptive pov edits, which have been accused of being too pro-Chinese or pro-Semitic. Sorry, I was not aware of it at first since I am new here, and I can certainly work on that. In the future, so that the ban be lifted, I can do the following: 1. Since the main source of concern comes from Xinjiang, Tocharians, Tarim Basin and related articles; I will not edit such articles for 2 months (since I've only been around 2 months). 2. However a ban on all topics is unreasonable. My contributions to articles on mathematics, Buddhism, politically neutral topics, etc. have been positive. 3. As a US citizen and being an American myself, I find any thoughts of a ban on US related topics silly. Why can't I write about my own country? But to address the concerns of others, I will not edit the Foreign Interventions by the US article for 2 months. I haven't even edited anything in the past week. Next, I will not edit the Australia article unless it is something really neutral like a grammar mistake. 4. You can trust me not to edit these because I have not edited these articles in the past week, and at this point, with my graduate studies, I have lost interest in these topics. 5. In case you haven't figured it out by now, I am Jewish, so I should be allowed to write on such topics; ok I get I'm white so I will not touch the article on racial or ethnic discrimination for 2 months. 6. I am also a woman, but it seems this part of my identity did not cause some concerns. I've given so much of my identity away, but I felt it was necessary to gain your trust. Sometimes I make edits without realizing others may disagree with that, so it is probably fair to have maybe three warnings (we can discuss this number if needed). After three warnings, if I violate any of the above, I will accept a further ban on those select topics of 6 months; but not a ban on all topics. Lastly these are effective July 11. Any edits to wiki articles made beforehand I believe should not count as ex post facto evidence. The only thing I will not accept is a permanent ban. I apologize for some of my edits and will stay away from those specific articles mentioned. However, I have no sockpuppets so the reason for this ban, while understandable, is just not true. Lastly, I really invite you to look at my non-political contributions to wikipedia, and you'll find that they are positive. For the next 2 months, I will focus mostly on these non-political scientific articles because I can contribute a lot in this area hopefully without offending others. I really do want to help; and I am just a new user. Thank you for your time and consideration on these issues.Alexkyoung (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've made these into checkuser blocks and continuing to discuss with her via email. Update: This page view is relevant. This user has also confessed to making the Alex K Chen account but refusing to admit that below. They are also more than 2000 miles away from Stanford and have not been editing from that location. I felt that their comments were misleading but any checkuser reviewing may judge for themselves. Additionally, they supplied me with a school email that appears to be faked, not with a school domain but with a gmail one so impersonation is quite possible.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:43, 13 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.

Berean I did confess to admitting this below. Also I have not said I was at Stanford at this exact moment and apologize if you found any such comment misleading.Alexkyoung (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other users

Due to the current circumstances, during this time I wish to speak to administrators only. Thank you. Alexkyoung

* I am not an administrator, and I hate sockpuppetry, but, personally, I don't find the evidence made public that you are a sockpuppet master entirely convincing. In particular I think your assertion that you share a room, and a router, with a room-mate, who is also a wikipedia contributor, is credible.

I'd encourage you to give Berean Hunter permission to share the checkuser data.

I'd encourage you to ask your roommate if you can name them, so your pattern of edits can be compared with theirs, to see if there is an overlap.

I have had multiple individuals accuse me of being a sockpuppet, generally of Sherurcij. There were surface reasons for this suspicion: we both edited articles related to terrorism; we both lived in Toronto; and we both started contributing in October 2004.
But a deeper analysis would show we were not sockpuppets. We had different IPs; We did have genuine editorial disagreements; and, at the time two separate sockpuppet investigations took place, we both had about 70,000 edits under our belt - way more effort than a dedicated sockpuppet-master would make to put forward a charade 2 wiki-IDs were the work of 2 individuals.
The lesson there was the surface appearance of sockpuppetry should be balanced against the credibility of explanations for that surface appearance.
FWIW I think you and I have some underlying editorial disagreements. And, if your block is rescinded, I'll look forward to a collegial discussion of them.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I would never flat out assert someone was a sockpuppet without first explaining, on their user talk page, whatever it was that triggered my concern their edits suggested they might be a sockpuppet. I always give them a chance to offer an explanation for the kind of circumstantial evidence publicly offered in your case.
  Sadly, some people frivolously name people as sockpuppets when they disagree with them. Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Geo Swan for sharing your sentiment. I appreciate it.Alexkyoung (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up

Even if you remain blocked on en.wiki, even if articles you started here are deleted, you still retain some rights to the material you contributed. The license we click on allows other wikis, including wikis not operated by the wikimedia foundation, to copy the articles you started, provided they provide attribution. You started: Al-Qaeda in China, Han–Uyghur intermarriage, Civilization state, Tamrashatiya, Opening of the South-North route, Restoration of Taiwan strait shipping, Guanbi policy, Tutte–Grothendieck invariant, Danqi Chen, Surface growth, Random cluster model, Deletion–contraction formula, Nash-Williams theorem, Maggie Chen, Intersective adjective, You Xian Ku. I ported them to an non-WMF wiki. See:

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Geo Swan. Hopefully I will be freed soon.Alexkyoung (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until your block is lifted I encourage you to consider working on the versions I copied to the non-WMF wiki.

I am not one of the people authorized to work on sockpuppetry, but I have initiated sockpuppet investigations. I have seen individuals have all their counter-policy alternate accounts blocked, but have seen them allowed to use their primary accounts. It bugged me, as I saw those individuals as bad actors, but, I guess, the individuals who made those rulings concluded those individuals use of counter-policy alternate accounts was an innocent, good-faith, newcomer's mistake.

I don't see anyone, above, explaining why people hate sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry can corrupt our discussions. (1) If I make some comments in a discussion, using Geo Swan; and then (2) covertly use a second ID to say Geo Swan is a genius, has seen a solution that escaped everyone else, so we should do what he says... if I covertly use enough alternate IDs I can give the surface appearance a consensus already agrees with me, when maybe no one agrees with me. If you ask for an unblock, now, or some time down the line, and you have gone through all your multiple IDs and can confirm you didn't weigh in to any discussions using multiple IDs, at the same time, that may help sway those who have the authority to unblock you.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your preferences here there is an option to enable email. If your block still allows you to do that, please consider doing so. That options (1) informs you when your talk page is edited; (2) allows people to send you email; (3) allows other people to email you.

When someone uses this feature, the sender doesn't learn the email address of the receipient -- unless the receipient replies.

If your block doesn't allow you to turn on this feature you can still reach me via the non-WMF wiki.

I remain willing to help you comply with policy, here, when you are unblocked, or discuss and offer my opinion and help, if you continue your work on the other wiki.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock details

I have been accused of alleged sockpuppetry for users that seem to have been created to support my edits on Xinjiang and related articles. As a first time user having been only around for 2-3 months, I first want to apologize for my extreme naivete and carelessness in dealing with multiple accounts and calling up friends to support me on wiki. I have only recently been informed of what a "meat puppet" was and can only swear that I will never pull off such an underhanded move to deceive other users. I have greatly underestimated the integrity of wikipedia and am ashamed for my "newbie" actions and have to give great credit to my fellow wikipedia users and admins for catching my mistake. For this I wish to request an unblock so that I can return to contributing in a more positive and non-disruptive manner, fully aware not to abuse socks or meat and remain as transparent as possible when using multiple accounts.

Details:

1. User:General Lincoln and User:Sven Karmanova are meat puppets. More than a week ago, I called them to review my edits on the article on Xinjiang and other articles. I take full responsibility for inciting friends who share similar interests and viewpoints to defend my edits. I have learned that wikipedia is not a place to canvass people, real or online, for support in such a deceptive way.

2. User:Steph Goodwin and Sven are socks, which is why he was able to find Steph's comment on the Xinjiang talk page and respond to it.Alexkyoung (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. User:Jarvis Maximus was created on my computer. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alexkyoung: "Also, the accounts, KidAd and MrSpruce are on the same IP and Likely from a technical perspective. The account NHaksar is the only other one on the same IP but using a different device."

I have learned that editing on wikipedia is not a freedom or right, but a privilege and great responsibility, and that is why I must deeply repent for the sin of letting down my fellow colleagues. I wish to amend my wrongs--it won't happen again, but first I need a chance to demonstrate my renewed self and fealty to the community through unblocking. Thank you. Alexkyoung (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter

The previous unblock requests will remain uncollapsed as other checkusers will need to review. Obfuscation works as a negative for you and I'll revoke talkpage access if you do it again.
"According to Berean there are apparently even multiple editors in this single building. CU data can confirm." What? I'm not sure what you are talking about. Would you please provide the exact quote?
The Alex K Chen account will not be renamed. That is not an account under your control any longer and was not made in good faith. You are no longer the owner. We don't rename sockpuppets.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berean Hunter

Sorry, I won't conceal the previous unblock requests.
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alexkyoung it says

"Also, the accounts, KidAd and MrSpruce are on the same IP and Likely from a technical perspective. The account NHaksar is the only other one on the same IP but using a different device." So if they are using the same IP as me, then I'm guessing it's from the same building, unless I am missing something here.

I created the account Alex K Chen over two months ago and did nothing with it. It has made 0 edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alex_K_Chen), and it did not support me on anything. How was it not out of any good faith? Alexkyoung (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not created as a valid alt account and was not labeled as required. It is not an acceptable humor account but may be an impersonation account.
  — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Berean Hunter, when I created that account I did not even know what a valid alt account was and had no clue there were rules for username creation until very recently. I know you are very angry at me, and I really hope you recovered from that headache, but can you please assume good faith since unlike many people here who have been around for many years, even 15 years, I am really only a novice, like a child who stumbles her way into walking and with the help of wiki veterans like all of you? I want to continue walking to the point where I can run so that I can help all of you improve this wikipedia, but to smother a child when it's in its infancy is no way to do that. Please, part of the reason I wish to change the username (which I need to be unbanned to do so) is so that it is not an impersonation account anymore.Alexkyoung (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I might be insistent and don't like some of the tactics that you have tried but I'm not angry. I've simply stated that you cannot change that account name. Basic operating procedure: we don't allow editors to change the names of sockpuppet accounts.
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47

@Alexkyoung: I received your email, but I will not respond via email. Further, given the details of this block, it can only be handled by a CheckUser who has access to the non-public information that was used to upgrade the original block to a {{Checkuserblock-account}}. (Even then, they would likely require community consensus for an unblock - which I, for one, would still oppose.) ST47 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ST47, I am so sorry to hear that. At this point, given my limited freedom to edit, what else I can do to change your or anybody's mind? I'm not even given a chance, and it's only been a few months since I started editing. I've looked at your standard offer but an infinite ban or waiting 6 months is still too much given that I've only been around for two, and it says only exceptional circumstances will merit a much quicker unban. Surely, can we please find a way to reverse this expediently? I really don't like begging like this in public because it's humiliating but can't you see how sincere I am? These are no crocodile tears. I am even praying to God to help me. Could you please spare me some sympathy? I'm so sorry and will never do anything like this again. If only I could be given the freedom to demonstrate this. User:ST47 and User:Berean Hunter I'm sorry. To anybody in the community User:Moxy, User:Citobun, User:Joshua Jonathan, User:JimRenge, User:Adoring nanny, even User:Nickm57 I apologize for those filthy edits and underhanded tactics. I'm not trying to canvass anybody here but I just need them to know how sorry I am. I withdraw any bad statements I made about any of you; I know deep inside you are all good people, and that is why I trust that you will have to strength to help reverse this total unban, and I wouldn't want any of you to be in the same situation. Any concessions you request, I am willing to discuss. I don't want this case to taint anybody's summer. Even Moxy I know you were trying to help me by providing feedback on how to improve my unblock request. User:Geo Swan I am so grateful that you helped preserve all of my article creations. This is no rant; I'm trying to put in words the deep shame I feel in my heart. Please, all I need in return is just some empathy. I'm just so sorry to everybody.Alexkyoung (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

Two different topic bans were being discussed in an ANI thread about you when you were blocked for sockpuppetry. If you want to address how you would change, you should address the concerns there. Also, how would you do things differently?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berean Hunter, I am not allowed to edit the ANI page, so I guess I will address the concerns here.Alexkyoung (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hunter: How I would change and do things differently

Xinjiang

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xinjiang&diff=896698405&oldid=896694598&diffmode=source, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xinjiang&diff=prev&oldid=896912074&diffmode=source, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tocharians&diff=896707575&oldid=896700684&diffmode=source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Xinjiang_conflict#Alexkyoung, I will not disruptively remove material, especially about those involving those Tarim mummies or Tocharians ever again. Nor will I edit war when the consensus is clearly against me. And I thank ReconditeRodent for his civilized response.
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Turkestan_independence_movement&diff=896698182&oldid=896695749&diffmode=source, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xinjiang_conflict&diff=896750312&oldid=896701831&diffmode=source, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xinjiang_conflict&diff=898148745&oldid=898068877&diffmode=source, and similar events I will not selectively use sources to support any particular pov. Some see it as terrorism, but others clearly do not, and we need to take both perspectives into account in order to be npov. Further perspectives should not be given undue weight.
In general I will stay away from articles related to Xinjiang and Uyghurs for a very long time.

Consensus and Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Xinjiang&diff=898492141&oldid=898211530, I will not declare consensus when explicit consensus is not given, which Sirlanz clearly did not give. In the future, I will seek consensus before making edits.
As Darthkayak says, statements like "moving forward only existing content shall be edited or added to" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Xinjiang&diff=898215894&oldid=898202379) are indeed against the spirit of wikipedia. I will seek greater consensus with my fellow users in the future.
If I am reverted, I will discuss on the talk page and not edit war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia#Speculative_Chinese_Arrival, As User:Begoon says I will not exhaust other articles with any non-collaborative belligerent behavior and will seek compromise rather and learn when to back down. That is all what being part of the team is about. I will not return to that particular article as I have been convinced that Menzies is a fringe historian who probably should have done a bit more research before making such claims.

Editing or deleting others' comments on Article Talk pages

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_Xinjiang&type=revision&diff=898198076&oldid=896697250, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_Xinjiang&type=revision&diff=902622970&oldid=902622822, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_Xinjiang&type=revision&diff=903844831&oldid=903844483: I will not remove anymore comments on article talk pages when they are useful. I apologize to Sirlanz, Darthkayak, JimRenge.
ownership: I do not own any of these pages and will never act like I do by pretending to command others to do stuff; I thank Joshua Jonathan for pointing this out to me
I will not annotate other peoples' comments

Canvassing support

I will not canvass support or mass ping admins without urgent or due cause
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexkyoung&diff=prev&oldid=903986228&diffmode=source, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui&diff=prev&oldid=903975434&diffmode=source: I will not say others are bad people or say others are sad little things, regardless if others pressure me or are insistent. If I feel harassed, then I will simply report either to ANI or one admin, but I will not retaliate with personal attacks.

US foreign relations

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States&diff=903173272&oldid=903154782&diffmode=source
To quote: "The United States has intervened, tampered, meddled with the domestic affairs of foreign countries throughout its history, sometimes through direct imperialism." This is strongly pov and highly charged inflammatory wording with words like "intervened, tampered, meddled" that clearly does not adhere to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. American imperialism is further pov. Others may say the US is granting peace and security in the world. This first paragraph seems clearly designed to undermine the US and give it a bad name.
I will never do this again. Next time I write intros, I will try to capture the content of the entire article much better rather than adding a huge political and worst of all anti-American pov twist to it.
How do I even explain this? All I can say is that attending an Ivy or Stanford, you get exposed to all sorts of viewpoints (because those schools want "diversity"). Some viewpoints are more pro-American and others are less so (i.e. really anti-American). These schools attract students from all over the world, so the fact that I interact with some who have these viewpoints should not come as much of a surprise. However, I take full responsibility for this serious sin and swear never to make such an egregiously disgusting pov edit ever again to tarnish the reputation of my country.

Support from others

These refer to times I have been thanked, as well as articles I have contributed to wikipedia to show that demonstrate my ability to build an encyclopedia and contribute positively.

I quote from the ANI page from User:ST47: "given this user's lack of any previous blocks, my hope was that a short block in combination with a very short leash for future edit warring or civility issues would allow them to contribute productively. It does seem like they have made some substantial contributions to other articles, and it's just this one area where their POV-pushing gets them into trouble."
See User:Geo Swan's response above

I have created or worked on many other articles on wikipedia, and most of them do not suffer from the above serious problems. For that I do not deserve a complete block on everything.

Creations:

Expansions:

Acknowledgements

Some people who have thanked me for or reviewed my contributions:

DavidMCEddy
Jamez42
OhConfucius
PulauKakatua
Rosguill
Boleyn
Geographyinitiative

User:ST47 I am pinging you since you were quite involved with the ANI case. User:Berean Hunter I am pinging you to answer your request, to demonstrate how I would change and how I would address the problems brought up on the ANI page. I admit I have wronged on so many levels, so I am hoping you and my fellow wikipedians can accept my sincerest apologies as well as my plans to move forward.

In the future, I plan to avoid the above mentioned articles that got me in trouble in the first place, and edit more on politically neutral subjects like Buddhism, Hindustani, or the sciences: areas where I have demonstrated many times that I can contribute positively to the wikipedia community and actually build an encyclopedia.

I am a very new user and am not as experienced as you, so please pardon me for these horrible mistakes and pov edits. Part of learning is to address these mistakes but also be given the chance to move on, but with a "death sentence" infinite ban, I will never be given a chance. I learned that wikipedia does not belong to any one person or any group of people; it is a community project, and we should seek consensus. I really want to be given the chance to prove to you that I can continue to edit positively and improve wikipedia. That starts with an unban.

I spent a thorough time crafting my response and confessing my sins here and swear to change and demonstrate more of my good side. But I just need the chance for an unblock. I greatly appreciate your consideration into this. Alexkyoung (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newest unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

First time block for sockpuppetry; I won't do it again and will contribute positively: I understand that I have been blocked for sockpuppetry, using multiple accounts to garner artificial support and deceive fellow users to support my singular pov on the Xinjiang article and other Asian-related articles. I understand that meat puppetry, canvassing my like-minded and like-interest friends for support also constitutes as sock puppetry. The ban is no longer necessary as I have stopped creating multiple accounts and getting friends to create accounts to support me and will not do so in the future. I look forward to contributing more positively. If people disagree with me, then rather than creating new accounts or asking friends to do so for me, I will simply make my points in a civilized manner, and if the consensus is against me, I will stop, accept, and move on.

I admit that User:General Lincoln, User:Sven Karmanova, and User:Steph Goodwin are sock/meat puppets who were created to support my edits on the Xinjiang article and other Asian-related topics. Also User:Jarvis Maximus is my sock puppet, created on my computer, and supporting those same edits. It does not matter whether they were my roommate or not; they are indistinguishable from a sockpuppet created by the same user and may thus be treated as such. When I was just starting around two months ago, I did create the user account Alex K Chen as this was related to someone I knew. However, this user was not created to support edits on any article; in fact it has made 0 edits, and I have no intention of ever using it. I apologize as I do not want to impersonate Alex C, and when I get unblocked I really wish to change that username by following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Changing_your_username. At the time of creation I was not aware of any username policy, but now I am and wish to make amends. I apologize if my language suggested I was at Stanford at this exact moment. I am not but I just did not want to publish my real location. As I am a new user, I did not know the difference between meat and sock puppetry, but I have learned that meat puppetry also counts as sock puppetry (from User:General Lincoln) and therefore meat puppetry is also unacceptable on wikipedia.

For the purposes of this unblock, and given how similar our editing behaviors are, we may say that these users are indistinguishable from sockpuppets used by the same user and can be treated as such. If any of us want a fresh start, we understand we first have to be unbanned, and they will create new accounts, understanding that we will have to avoid each others' editing to avoid implicatures of sock puppetry. I vow never to create socks again and if I use multiple accounts will abide by the alternate username policies.

I am a new user and can learn from this: This is the first time I was banned (without ample warning) for sock/meat puppetry, a concept I had a vague understanding about since I am only a very new user only a few months getting started on wikipedia. To demonstrate that new users can learn from this mistake and contribute positively, I kindly request liberation. If I had 15 years of wiki-editing experience, and this were my second or even third time of committing sock puppetry, then an infinite ban would be understandable, but this is only my first time, and this is my 2nd or 3rd month, so such a ban is not necessary anymore.

To quote from above: "Unlike many people here who have been around for many years, even 15 years, I am really only a novice, like a child who stumbles her way into walking and with the help of wiki veterans like all of you. I want to continue walking to the point where I can run so that I can help all of you improve this wikipedia, but to smother a child when it's in its infancy is no way to do that." A toddler will inevitably make some big mistakes when learning how to walk. Sometimes it is important to save the toddler from hurting themself and others, and that is what I learned through this ban. However, for the toddler to continue to walk and grow and learn how to run, to contribute positively to the community, we need to give it the freedom to do so. After four days of imprisonment, I have really learned my lesson.

I have only started editing wikipedia for a few months, so I am a total newbie. I have made positive contributions to many other articles as listed above so the ban is unnecessary. And my sockpuppetry has been mostly limited to just this subset of articles related to Xinjiang that have got me in trouble. I will stay away from these articles, I will not create anymore socks, and I will contribute in a positive, non-disruptive way; the ban is no longer needed.

Thank you.Alexkyoung (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Fails to address the reasons for the block, per comments below. Be advised that continued unproductive unblock requests will result in you losing the ability to edit this page. ST47 (talk) 22:35, 14 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.

If possible, we can say that these users are indistinguishable from sockpuppets of mine and therefore can be treated as socks used by the same user. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry: 'A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."' Not sure this would count as a 'dispute resolution', but I have already admitted to sockpuppetry, and you are entitled to view these accounts as operated by the same user. Alexkyoung (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop "refactoring" your talk page. It's impossible to follow what's going on when you move comments around.

First time block for sockpuppetry; I won't do it again and will contribute positively

You still have failed to admit to abusing multiple accounts. We will not discuss unblocking you while you are operating in this dishonest way. That includes disclosing any and all accounts you have previously used, including those which haven't been mentioned or blocked here.

I admit that User:General Lincoln, User:Sven Karmanova, and User:Steph Goodwin are sock/meat puppets who were created to support my edits on the Xinjiang article and other Asian-related topics. Also User:Jarvis Maximus is my sock puppet, created on my computer, and supporting those same edits.

You are still mincing words. You are still claiming that this set of accounts is controlled by three people other than yourself?

This is the first time I was banned (without ample warning) for sock/meat puppetry

You shouldn't need a warning to know that when you're blocked, you aren't allowed to use a VPN to make a different account to keep editing.

I feel that you've been given adequate chances. I'm declining the above unblock request on the basis that checkuser and behavioral evidence shows that you have abusively used multiple accounts, and that in your ensuing 150ish edits to this page debating this block, you have failed to address this. For as long as you are dishonest about your use of alternate accounts to evade blocks and to push your POV, we will have no reason to believe that it will not happen again. ST47 (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, replying to the several emails that you just sent me: your talk page access has not been removed. (When it is, access to emailuser should be removed as well, given how you've been using it.) ST47 (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25905 was submitted on Jul 14, 2019 23:06:05. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

e mail reply

As your email did not contain confidential material, I shall reply here as part of WP:ADMINACCT.

No. Please. Do not send me emails.

I do not have justification for undoing the removal of talk page access.
The only purpose in restoring talk page access would be to request unblock
There is no possibility in of unblocking within 6 months. Please use WP:UTRS. (Wait till TPA is removed.)
It's good if you have listed all your accounts/socks.
You will need to succinctly list all the reasons for the block and succinctly describe what you will do differently
I'm a cynic.
Oh for Heaven's sake. In looking over your talk page, I see you still have talk page access. More cynical.
I really cannot say better what has already been said.
As you find sending people emails irresistible, I am muting you on my email.
Good day. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Authentication email

"User:Jarvis Maximus is my roommate at Stanford, so we probably use the same IP address since we live in the same room." diff 1
"One of my Stanford roommates also edits wikipedia and created an account recently (I believe Jarvis something) and told me about a recent block. We use the same IP because we live in the same room." diff 2
You confessed to making the Alex K Chen account after you stated in your email that you wouldn't here so I posted it to let others know.
"Students usually take the summer to work at other places." diff 3 Perhaps, but the checkuser tool also shows that while Stanford's Spring quarter was going on, you weren't there. You were on the same ranges as now, more than 2000 miles away. Spring quarter started in February. I find your allusory language is still fudging towards deceptive. You weren't there for exams, etc.
Yesterday, I found the real Stanford email address for the person that you have claimed to be and sent an email to her. It isn't the email that you gave me but is indeed of a @stanford.edu format...you know, the one that you said that you didn't have. Your forged account had "Alex Younh" and you didn't realize it or correct it until I pointed it out to you. If you were the owner of that legitimate account then you would have been able to bounce my email back to me to authenticate yourself.
Do you remember what I said would happen if I didn't receive a legitimate student email to authenticate? That has happened. I think some folks are going to be taking an interest in you.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Danqi Chen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Danqi Chen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Citobun (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom appeal declined

Alexkyoung's appeal to the Arbitration Committee has been declined, but Alexkyoung has been given the standard offer, so may appeal again to ArbCom after 20/1/20. No more appeals on this account or any other account created by Alexkyoung should be made. SilkTork (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexkyoung has continued to evade the block by using yet more sockpuppet accounts, up to at least 21 October 2019, and by editing without logging in, up to at least 23 October 2019. This means that the earliest date when a standard offer could be considered is currently 23 April 2020. However, the more often block evasion and sockpuppetry take place the less likely it becomes that any unblock request will ever be accepted. Alexkyoung must by now be very close to the point of no return. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 16:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Chen/Chan

Hi. You created the page Maggie Chen. It looks to me like she is very often known as 'Maggie Chan Mei Kei', or simply 'Maggie Chan', and I'd like to write this up in the content, or maybe even change the article name. But, not being a film buff, I'm holding back. I'd welcome your response to my question on Talk:Maggie_Chen. Onanoff (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]