User talk:Anit13

This is Anit13'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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Malik Elarbi (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by John from Idegon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

You've made no showing that this individual meets WP:NMUSIC, and although you have multiple references, you only have two sources, as most of the references are from the same source. That particular source is also a weak source, as college newspapers generally do not meet our reliable sources. Further, although not contributing to the decline, there are numerous external links in the body of the article, which violates WP:MOS. In order for this subject to be accepted into the encyclopedia, you'll need more reliable sources that are completely independent of the subject that discuss him in detail.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Malik Elarbi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Malik Elarbi, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

John from Idegon (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anit13! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! John from Idegon (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Anit13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How can you say that I have used multiple accounts? This is the only account I have ever used and I only joined yesterday and how can I create an account in just a day.Please check the IP and my edit filter log.Anit13 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock puppet account - see diff of confirmation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:55, 8 December 2018 (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.

I would like to note that given this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOshwah&type=revision&diff=871449702&oldid=871448062 this user might be socking as 2402:3A80:A7E:1392:0:58:2A0A:FB01. This https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=871450329 might count as block evasion. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I actually logged out of the account after seeing that my unblock request is not being reviewed for almost a month I logged out so as a IP editor I can request Oshwah to review it.Anit13 (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that kind of thing will not help you get unblocked, as it is considered block evasion. Please read Wikipedia:Appealing a block carefully. If you create an unblock request on your talk page, as you already have, administrators will be able to see and review it. You need to wait and not edit Wikipedia in the meantime. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anit13, yes, you posted to Oshwah's talk page about your unblock request, and I can understand your frustration at not having the request answered in a long time. However, you also made several other edits from that IP address, nothing to do with your unblock request. Can you comment on that? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Can you give any indication what the evidence is for Anit13 being the same person as Supreme1000089stylezz? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesBWatson - It was evidence given to me by Praxidicae (I don't remember now). I've pinged the user so that he/she can respond and provide it; Praxidicae will have a better recollection than I would... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae:, please comment.Anit13 (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly email why to an admin but per WP:BEANS I'm not comfortable posting it here. CC: @Oshwah:, @JamesBWatson:. Praxidicae (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae - Thank you; please do. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson and Oshwah: this account is Confirmed to Knightrises10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and is now CheckUser blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Interesting. Just so you know, someone named Hamid331 asked me to get an account on my talk page. It was pretty innocuous, so I replied without suspecting anything - and then I noticed that soon after the original question was asked, Hamid331 had also been blocked as a sock of Knightrises10. I wonder what happened there...

@TonyBallioni: I accidentally didn't sign the previous statement, but I was the one who made it. Signing this one now, and then the ping should work as well. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~You are lying and I’m revoking your talk page access on this account. You can appeal via WP:UTRS or to ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - I've got nothing to do with this case or these editors (CheckUser away), and I just got here by random link-surfing, but I do not like how much of this case/procedure is about unseen evidence & "take my word for it" & shutting down the user-appellant. This is all getting a little bit too Kafkaesque and catch-22. I'm not even clear on what this person has done wrong? other than to be accused of being a sockpuppet. Openness & verifiability by the community is an important part of the Wikipedia community process, and there is too much here that is not open, and cannot be reviewed by anyone without admin-level powers. CheckUser is not an infallible authority, and simply invoking it, without providing any information, does not prove a case to the Wikipedia community. Perhaps it would help to try to imagine how you would like to be treatd yourselves, or even to consider the possibility that your judgement might be wrong? Humility is good for the soul. Also, at least one admin here appears to have become emotionally involved, and that user should step back now. 174.138.219.136 (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no secrecy here, it was confirmed by a CU. But also, in the interest of openness, what admin are you referring to? Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you see, you're back to CU & infallibility; and as a non-admin, I can't even access the CU information, nevermind judge the quality of it. Speaking as an outside observer, this whole exchange reads like a kangaroo court. An admin says that CU says that it is so, and therefore it is so. The user has no appeal. They are lying, because CU. Do we even have proper quality control oversight on CU? I'd like to see open data reoprts on accuracy and error-rates of CU usage in real-world user cases. Do we have that somewhere? Re: Names. I do not want to get into this, but if you read the exchanges, there is at least one user-admin who has clearly departed from civility. Worth mentioning that the same user felt the need to "protect" this talkpage. Protect it from what? I do not know. I also probably don't want to get much deeper into this debate, unless we're going to actually say something useful to one another here. This was just a passing comment. On the random and infrequent occasions when I surf community jurisprudence, I see a lot that makes me wince. This one stuck out, because I can't even figure out if the user did anything wrong, other than being accused of puppetry. 174.138.219.136 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you should take this up elsewhere if you have no "vested interest" in this block. Praxidicae (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we even have proper quality control Yes, we do. See WP:OMBUDSMEN. Praxidicae (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll respond to 174.138.219.136. Denim11 has admitted to this being their account. Additionally this account is beyond any shadow of a doubt Hamid331, who’s editing yesterday was what led to these accounts being connected to Knightrises10. CU isn’t infallible and we are careful about it, but this is not a case where the likelihood of a false positive is approaching zero. You are setting up a false dichotomy with “other than being accused of puppetry”, even if all they did was sock after multiple CU blocks, that would itself be a violation of our policy on the use of multiple accounts.
Re: the protection, it was lifted after consulting with another admin. I think it was justified at the time: we will enforce revoking TPA that way sometimes. When it became clear it wasn't needed, I removed it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]