Jump to content

User talk:Bosecovey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
A plate of chocolate chip cookies.
Welcome!

Hello, Bosecovey, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! Bosecovey, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Uh... RoySmith, not sure this is the right sockmaster. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's wrong. The stupid script put up a template I didn't expect. I've deleted the template. RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: The block summary still says it's a multiple accounts block with a link to that SPI. I assume it was supposed to be a NOTHERE block like you said there?
Now even the ANI closure claims it's a multiple accounts block. – 2804:F14:80F1:A901:C423:1B79:95E4:60B (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing is that the account is blocked. What template got used and exactly what the log message says aren't that important, but in any case, I've changed the log mesage. RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, I disagree. If this editor wants to file an unblock request, the editor and the admin reviewing the request need to be on the same page as to why the editor was blocked. I see that now the block notice says "Disruptive editing" so I guess that is the ultimate reason this editor was blocked by you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fair, so let me expand a bit. I first became aware of Bosecovey when looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saqib, which Bosecovey had filed. I quickly noticed that the accused sockmaster was Saqib. It's certainly not impossible for a user with 10 years of history and 61k edits to be socking, but it is unusual so I was looking for a deeper explanation. As Izno had noted earlier, Bosecovey had exhibited WP:PRECOCIOUS behavior, so by this time I'm thinking they're likely to be a sock. I don't remember how I found my way to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umarfarooqzahoor, but once there, I saw that Bosecovey had been accused of socking by Gheus, and now was accusing Gheus of being a Saqib sock. That's about all I needed to see and I reached for the nearest block button, which, as you've seen, unfortunately plopped down some templates and canned log messages which were misleading.
To summarize, no, I don't think Bosecovey is a sock of Saqib. I think it's likely they're a sock of somebody, but I didn't invest the effort to figure out who. RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith, they're now appealing their block, so, to be clear: no checkuser data was involved here? This is more simply a "disruptively accusing people of sockpuppetry" issue? -- asilvering (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current block was based on the retaliatory SPI filing, not on CU data. However, the fact that with a history of 44 edits they already knew how to file an SPI report does in fact make me suspect they have had more than this one account. This suspicion is supported by their statement in their unblock request that they have been around since 2011. RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Hello @RoySmith and @Liz, i hope you're doing well!
  • Thank you very much, and I appreciate all of your hard work. My sincere apologies that my editing way left an impression that I'm here for "Disruptive editing".
  • I've been here since 2011, and as you can see I'm busy in real life so I'm not editing that much, and my real passion is to dive into Wikipedia policies and watch other editors' edits, achievements and behavior.
  • All of this began when i nominated Umar Farooq Zahoor's page for deletion, i noticed after that Saqib, Gheus and Wikibear were editing in a group (one of them nominate a page for deletion and the other editor voted with delete so, i thought they might be connected that's why i have submitted this SPI. For example, they are editing for the same purpose, both Wikibear47 and Gheus stated that Zahoor received Hilal-e-Imtiaz award while he's not yet, and supported that with a non-independent source as i assume. Saqib stated that nominating the article is "an attempt to whitewash a BLP simply because the subject did not approve of it." When I asked him "Which subject and how do you know that the subject did not approve of it?" He never replied. All of this is suspicious to me, in addition to Ghues's most recent comment on the article listing unrelated sources to the discussion or just a mention such as ([6]). My intention in Umar Farooq Zahoor deletion discussion was neither WP:BLUDGEON norWP:BATTLEGROUND. I was just commenting on their allegations like the Hilal-e-Imtiaz one. The Verdens Gang's reporter who published the articles around Zahoor clearly has a COI, which is suspicious and encouraged me to contine my particiaption to the discussion.
  • Thanks again @RoySmith for sharing WP:PRECOCIOUS. I have read it and i think in addition to WP:AGF that I'm not a sockpuppet (and I'm really not) as stated in WP:PRECOCIOUS, WP:Newbies aren't always clueless. In Addition, while browsing it, i found a particular concern is when multiple accounts are used simultaneously, particularly for a common cause, such as commenting on a deletion discussion, thereby giving the appearance of multiple votes. This happens frequently with Saqib, Gheus and Wikibear47 and confirms that it may be true.
  • I don't think that when a user reaches a huge number of edits and a specific number of years here, that user is completely clear and inexpugnable, and that we can't accuse him of sockpupperty. For example, he has used an archived URL for spam-listed domain to let him use it as a source, this one, which i might be considered playing the system to achieve his purpose which is publishing the article and sharing specific information.
  • Thank you in advance for your efforts, this is a journey that I would like to continue and on which I would like to grow, and I hope you will reconsider your decision regarding the block. Looking forward to hearing from you, Bosecovey (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello @[[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] and @[[User:Liz|Liz]], i hope you're doing well! * Thank you very much, and I appreciate all of your hard work. My sincere apologies that my editing way left an impression that I'm here for "Disruptive editing". * I've been here since 2011, and as you can see I'm busy in real life so I'm not editing that much, and my real passion is to dive into Wikipedia policies and watch other editors' edits, achievements and behavior. * All of this began when i nominated [[Umar Farooq Zahoor]]'s page for deletion, i noticed after that Saqib, Gheus and Wikibear were editing in a group (one of them nominate a page for deletion and the other editor voted with delete so, i thought they might be connected that's why i have submitted this [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saqib|SPI]]. For example, they are editing for the same purpose, both Wikibear47 and Gheus stated that Zahoor received [[Hilal-i-Imtiaz|Hilal-e-Imtiaz]] award while he's not yet, and supported that with a non-independent source as i assume. Saqib stated that nominating the article is "an attempt to whitewash a BLP simply because the subject did not approve of it." When I asked him "Which subject and how do you know that the subject did not approve of it?" He never replied. All of this is suspicious to me, in addition to Ghues's most recent comment on the article listing unrelated sources to the discussion or just a mention such as ([https://www.nettavisen.no/nordea-saken-ti-ar-for-hovedmannen/s/12-95-3230131 [6]]). My intention in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar Farooq Zahoor (2nd nomination)|Umar Farooq Zahoor deletion discussion]] was neither [[WP:BLUDGEON]] nor[[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. I was just commenting on their allegations like the [[Hilal-e-Imtiaz]] one. The [[Verdens Gang]]'s reporter who published the articles around Zahoor clearly has a COI, which is suspicious and encouraged me to contine my particiaption to the discussion. * Thanks again @[[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] for sharing [[WP:PRECOCIOUS]]. I have read it and i think in addition to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|WP:AGF]] that I'm not a sockpuppet (and I'm really not) as stated in [[WP:PRECOCIOUS]], [[WP:Newbies aren't always clueless]]. In Addition, while browsing it, i found <q class="inline-quote-talk ">a particular concern is when multiple accounts are used simultaneously, particularly for a common cause, such as commenting on a deletion discussion, thereby giving the appearance of multiple votes.</q> This happens frequently with Saqib, Gheus and Wikibear47 and confirms that it may be true. * I don't think that when a user reaches a huge number of edits and a specific number of years here, that user is completely clear and inexpugnable, and that we can't accuse him of sockpupperty. For example, he has used an archived URL for spam-listed domain to let him use it as a source, [[Umar Farooq Zahoor#cite ref-17|this one]], which i might be considered playing the system to achieve his purpose which is publishing the article and sharing specific information. * Thank you in advance for your efforts, this is a journey that I would like to continue and on which I would like to grow, and I hope you will reconsider your decision regarding the block. Looking forward to hearing from you, [[User:Bosecovey|Bosecovey]] ([[User talk:Bosecovey#top|talk]]) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello @[[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] and @[[User:Liz|Liz]], i hope you're doing well! * Thank you very much, and I appreciate all of your hard work. My sincere apologies that my editing way left an impression that I'm here for "Disruptive editing". * I've been here since 2011, and as you can see I'm busy in real life so I'm not editing that much, and my real passion is to dive into Wikipedia policies and watch other editors' edits, achievements and behavior. * All of this began when i nominated [[Umar Farooq Zahoor]]'s page for deletion, i noticed after that Saqib, Gheus and Wikibear were editing in a group (one of them nominate a page for deletion and the other editor voted with delete so, i thought they might be connected that's why i have submitted this [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saqib|SPI]]. For example, they are editing for the same purpose, both Wikibear47 and Gheus stated that Zahoor received [[Hilal-i-Imtiaz|Hilal-e-Imtiaz]] award while he's not yet, and supported that with a non-independent source as i assume. Saqib stated that nominating the article is "an attempt to whitewash a BLP simply because the subject did not approve of it." When I asked him "Which subject and how do you know that the subject did not approve of it?" He never replied. All of this is suspicious to me, in addition to Ghues's most recent comment on the article listing unrelated sources to the discussion or just a mention such as ([https://www.nettavisen.no/nordea-saken-ti-ar-for-hovedmannen/s/12-95-3230131 [6]]). My intention in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar Farooq Zahoor (2nd nomination)|Umar Farooq Zahoor deletion discussion]] was neither [[WP:BLUDGEON]] nor[[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. I was just commenting on their allegations like the [[Hilal-e-Imtiaz]] one. The [[Verdens Gang]]'s reporter who published the articles around Zahoor clearly has a COI, which is suspicious and encouraged me to contine my particiaption to the discussion. * Thanks again @[[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] for sharing [[WP:PRECOCIOUS]]. I have read it and i think in addition to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|WP:AGF]] that I'm not a sockpuppet (and I'm really not) as stated in [[WP:PRECOCIOUS]], [[WP:Newbies aren't always clueless]]. In Addition, while browsing it, i found <q class="inline-quote-talk ">a particular concern is when multiple accounts are used simultaneously, particularly for a common cause, such as commenting on a deletion discussion, thereby giving the appearance of multiple votes.</q> This happens frequently with Saqib, Gheus and Wikibear47 and confirms that it may be true. * I don't think that when a user reaches a huge number of edits and a specific number of years here, that user is completely clear and inexpugnable, and that we can't accuse him of sockpupperty. For example, he has used an archived URL for spam-listed domain to let him use it as a source, [[Umar Farooq Zahoor#cite ref-17|this one]], which i might be considered playing the system to achieve his purpose which is publishing the article and sharing specific information. * Thank you in advance for your efforts, this is a journey that I would like to continue and on which I would like to grow, and I hope you will reconsider your decision regarding the block. Looking forward to hearing from you, [[User:Bosecovey|Bosecovey]] ([[User talk:Bosecovey#top|talk]]) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello @[[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] and @[[User:Liz|Liz]], i hope you're doing well! * Thank you very much, and I appreciate all of your hard work. My sincere apologies that my editing way left an impression that I'm here for "Disruptive editing". * I've been here since 2011, and as you can see I'm busy in real life so I'm not editing that much, and my real passion is to dive into Wikipedia policies and watch other editors' edits, achievements and behavior. * All of this began when i nominated [[Umar Farooq Zahoor]]'s page for deletion, i noticed after that Saqib, Gheus and Wikibear were editing in a group (one of them nominate a page for deletion and the other editor voted with delete so, i thought they might be connected that's why i have submitted this [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saqib|SPI]]. For example, they are editing for the same purpose, both Wikibear47 and Gheus stated that Zahoor received [[Hilal-i-Imtiaz|Hilal-e-Imtiaz]] award while he's not yet, and supported that with a non-independent source as i assume. Saqib stated that nominating the article is "an attempt to whitewash a BLP simply because the subject did not approve of it." When I asked him "Which subject and how do you know that the subject did not approve of it?" He never replied. All of this is suspicious to me, in addition to Ghues's most recent comment on the article listing unrelated sources to the discussion or just a mention such as ([https://www.nettavisen.no/nordea-saken-ti-ar-for-hovedmannen/s/12-95-3230131 [6]]). My intention in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar Farooq Zahoor (2nd nomination)|Umar Farooq Zahoor deletion discussion]] was neither [[WP:BLUDGEON]] nor[[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. I was just commenting on their allegations like the [[Hilal-e-Imtiaz]] one. The [[Verdens Gang]]'s reporter who published the articles around Zahoor clearly has a COI, which is suspicious and encouraged me to contine my particiaption to the discussion. * Thanks again @[[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] for sharing [[WP:PRECOCIOUS]]. I have read it and i think in addition to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|WP:AGF]] that I'm not a sockpuppet (and I'm really not) as stated in [[WP:PRECOCIOUS]], [[WP:Newbies aren't always clueless]]. In Addition, while browsing it, i found <q class="inline-quote-talk ">a particular concern is when multiple accounts are used simultaneously, particularly for a common cause, such as commenting on a deletion discussion, thereby giving the appearance of multiple votes.</q> This happens frequently with Saqib, Gheus and Wikibear47 and confirms that it may be true. * I don't think that when a user reaches a huge number of edits and a specific number of years here, that user is completely clear and inexpugnable, and that we can't accuse him of sockpupperty. For example, he has used an archived URL for spam-listed domain to let him use it as a source, [[Umar Farooq Zahoor#cite ref-17|this one]], which i might be considered playing the system to achieve his purpose which is publishing the article and sharing specific information. * Thank you in advance for your efforts, this is a journey that I would like to continue and on which I would like to grow, and I hope you will reconsider your decision regarding the block. Looking forward to hearing from you, [[User:Bosecovey|Bosecovey]] ([[User talk:Bosecovey#top|talk]]) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Hello, Bosecovey,
First, you claim you have been editing Wikipedia since 2011 but you have had this account for over 2 years and have only made 44 edits. So, please disclose those previous accounts you used if you want your claim to be taken seriously. You should have disclosed these accounts on your User page previously.
Secondly, before this unblock request gets reviewed, I revise you to rewrite it and remove any references to Saqib, Gheus and Wikibear47 from it. This block has to do with YOUR behavior and making accusations against other editors (which have been reviewed and dismissed) makes it look like you are trying to change the focus from yourself to other editors. They have nothing to do with your block so acknowledge how your own behavior was disruptive and what you will do in the future to avoid this disruption.
I urge you that if you want to be unblocked, review, thoroughly, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks which will tell you exactly what you need to do. Unfortunately, most blocked editors ignore this guide and they remain blocked. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bosecovey&oldid=1254541407"