User talk:Tayi Arajakate/OArchive

Unblock discussion

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

My conduct is not connected in any way with the block. I do not have multiple accounts. I was never notified about the sockpuppet investigation until after I was blocked and never given the opportunity to defend myself. I had previously been subjected to another similar investigation for editing pages related to Zee TV but I had been notified in that case. You can go through my archive. The one submitting the case for investigation mentions me as a WP:SPA which is not the case if you were to go through my edit history. Just as in the above case, I would state that the one I am being accused of being has almost exclusively edited the page for Citizenship Amendment Act protests whereas my edits on the page have been marginal. The other similarity is that I have a similar location. People in India are likely to edit pages related to India, that is not even coincidental. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

After reviewing the technical and behavioural evidence here, I am willing to unblock you. This topic area has attracted a lot of new editors, but it also attracted a lot of sockpuppets. Sometimes it is difficult to tell them apart, especially when people use a UA spoofer or other means of evading scrutiny. If you are genuinely a new user to Wikipedia, welcome, and please accept our apologies. If you are not, you have another chance to demonstrate that you are here in good faith, so don't let us down. Happy editing! – bradv🍁 06:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I find the behavioral evidence against rather absurd. Basically they both edited this page: [1][2] and Citizenship Amendment Act protests (the latter of which has 253,416 views!). Also, the idea that a user who has spent the last week on WP:Discord and has reviewed a GA is somehow a WP:SPA... honestly just silly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I had also created the article of Bharatiya Kisan Union, Ima Market, All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee and A. T. Ramaswamy. Two of which are already deleted, can I request a stay against deletion of these articles for the time being? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Aman.kumar.goel: I get that you think Tayi Arajakate is a sockpuppet and all, but this is some pretty down-right mean stuff. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz and TheSandDoctor: This is getting pretty urgent since Aman.kumar.goel has now gone around trying to revert all this user's contributions. See what I mean? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• @MJL: Thanks for the ping. I have asked ST47 to review this since CU was involved (ST considered it likely). Aman.kumar.goel Let's slow down a little here for a bit until we get this sorted. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

ST47, in case the User-Agent header is the issue. I usually use it with a proxy server for my online activities. I only disabled what's necessary to be able to edit here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I would still have to go with  Likely. The location match is more precise than simply a country. The User Agent changes with almost every edit, which prevents comparison to the previous account's UAs. Note this account's registration date. ST47 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If it helps I can disable my user agent modifier. Looking at my google device activity, that is at best able to give me my state which is still very wide. The registration date of my account is very close to their blocking date but my edits barely have any resemblance with their's. There is only a minor overlap in the articles edited. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@ST47 and TheSandDoctor: I asked Tayi Arajakate for their current IP address, so I could get a better understanding of what the CU brought up. The only information I could gather using it was that they IP was (1) dynamic and (2) geolocates to Karnataka. Karnataka is a state with 61,130,704 people in it (as of 2011), so I have no clue how that gets you to likely with the useragent also being inconclusively accounted for. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment just passing by and noticed that the userpage was tagged with confirmed. Seeing as confirmed is for cases with a CU confirmed result (per the docs on Template:Sockpuppet), I have changed it to proven which seems more appropriate in this case. No comment on the case itself / whether this user is a sock. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 02:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Dreamy Jazz: How are you the most helpful user to ever exist on this project? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• This page is my watchlist hence commenting this is a checkuser block as the checkuser feels it is  Likely and hence the only option for the user has to contact the Arbitration Committee and no admin will undo a checkuser block when the Checkuser states it is likely further this involves private information.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Pharaoh of the Wizards, if I am reading this correctly. CheckUser blocks constitute those blocks which were made by the CheckUser which isn't the case with me. I have still sent an email to the Arbitration Committee asking for a review. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards, TheSandDoctor, and ST47: I'm really not clear who's block this is then. How could this be a CU block if the CU wasn't able to {{confirm}} that the two users were in fact the same? How does this square with WP:CUBL? WP:CHK only mentions Checkusers having the ability to perform checkuser blocks.
Finally, I really don't understand why this needs to go to Arbcom exactly. No one here has questioned the finding of the underlying evidence of the block (okay well maybe me), just that there has not been enough behavioral evidence to warrant the block.
Tayi Arajakate has offered to disable their user agent spoofer as a unblocking condition. This seems more than reasonable considering the user (or at least this account) has not done anything improper in their on-wiki activities. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

MJL, just to clarify. Checkuser blocks can only be made by checkusers. Non checkusers cannot checkuser block someone, even if the CU result was confirmed. These sections in policy / relevant recent discussions detail this Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_blocks and User_talk:Dreamy_Jazz/Archive_5#CU_blocks / Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archives/Archive22#"Checked"_status. This is not a Checkuser block, however, it is partly based on the Checkuser evidence. It is TheSandDoctor's block as he is the blocking admin. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, the user does not have to appeal to ArbCom / have the block reviewed by a checkuser. Quoting Risker, If it isn't made by a CU and isn't labeled as a CU block, then it's not a CU block. Regular block/unblock rules apply. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Thank you so much for clearing that up. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not phase it correctly this is based on CU evidence through techinically not a CU block and but involves private evidence includes using a proxy server with user agents which can not reviewed publicly.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: Proxy servers have not been involved with, or are a consideration regarding, this block. User agents are a completely different thing. For example, my phone's is Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 6.0.1; SM-G920V) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.132 Mobile Safari/537.36. It doesn't tell you anything besides what device you use. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)