User talk:InstantExample

Welcome!

Hello, InstantExample, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Svoboda (political party). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 07:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically indistinguishable to DoubleY.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I registered on Wikipedia a few weeks ago and started contributing in various amounts depending how much free time I had. After a couple day break I came across this message: "CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively." I'm not completely certain what that means. I follow all Wikipedia rules and make contributions exclusively from legitimate and objective academic sources. If I breached a Wikipedia rule, please let me know. Thank you!

Decline reason:

You need to explain your relationship with the user, DoubleY. Yamla (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2017 (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.

For the record, this account was created on November 17th, that is nine days ago as of this posting. That was, incidentally, the day after DoubleY was blocked. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, the account DoubleY was run by a family member with zero prior editing experience, as is evident in low quality of contributions, whereas I have been on Wikipedia for almost 1.5 years until losing my password in May 2017. I re-created an account a week before this past Friday and started contributing again in the same topics as I always have. InstantExample (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What was your previous account?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am still waiting to have my account unblocked. Also, Berean Hunter I noticed you reverted/deleted/vandalized a number of my contributions, seemingly picked at random. I want to hear reasoning behind your actions.InstantExample (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You appear to have a variable explanation of your creation of this account; also, you have not yet answered the question posed by Berean Hunter, and will not be unblocked without doing so.I note the close similarity in edits from this account and from DoubleY. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:13, 9 December 2017 (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.

We are waiting on you to answer the question raised above, by Berean Hunter. --Yamla (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

— Berean Hunter, you marked my account as sock-puppet, that is, you believe that I "attempt to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies". If you tracked my contributions you'd see that I can hardly be accused in these wrongdoings. I edit articles mostly related to Ukrainian history, political figures, organizations, military, arts or geography, especially when information is poorly written or outdated. I use a massive pool of knowledge and material in different languages before writing a single sentence of text. Right now I have no reason to believe that if I provide my old account it will not be dismissed as sock-puppet and the rest of my volunteer work vandalized. It would help me to know how my inactive account will help resolve this issue. InstantExample (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural close - the unblock template is not a reply button, and multiple requests will not speed up your appeal (or notify anyone) in any way. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:31, 16 January 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.

"Right now I have no reason to believe that if I provide my old account it will not be dismissed as sock-puppet..."

If it isn't provided you have absolutely zero chance of ever being unblocked. It appears that you are avoiding scrutiny to us right now.

After running a check today, I see that you have been IP socking while blocked and that is block evasion. If you are going to try to deny that then you will need to give the checkusers permission to reveal your IP and we will let other admins/editors decide.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

— Berean Hunter, okay, so you just referred me to "IP socking" page that clearly defines it as "masquerading as multiple users by constantly changing IP addresses". I have NOT once changed my IP address. I made an edit using my IP address SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING IT PUBLIC and showing that I have no bad intention and do not intend to engage in IP socking. And then you blocked my IP address citing the very behavior I stayed away from. Anyway, I do give CheckUsers permission to reveal my IP address, go ahead and do what's necessary. InstantExample (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A number of things you have said in connection with this block are either evasive or downright false. You have contradicted yourself, failed to respond to requests for clarification, and made utterly implausible claims. You are not remotely likely to be unblocked as long as it is blatantly clear to anyone with a grain of intelligence that you are being dishonest in your unblock requests. In addition, even if you start being honest in your unlock requests, you will still have to deal with the reason for the origianl block, which applies as much to this account as to the other: you are clearly here not to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but to use Wikipedia to promote a point of view. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:02, 16 January 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.

Thank you. Special:Contributions/142.160.243.167. Now, others may decide whether you have been evading your block.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"JamesBWatson" I am just curious, did you even read my contributions? Either you did not or you have very little understanding on the subjects to which I contributed (eg. Ukrainian history etc.). The latter would be more understandable as there are no more than 100 experts in that field worldwide. In my contributions I would always provide several points of view if there were none or at least one more if there was only one, and only from reputable sources. I never "used Wikipedia to promote a point of view".InstantExample (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning

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).

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

Request reason:

Now that the Russian trolls are being exposed for who they are, maybe this account will get unblocked, and the troll that blocked it will have the administrator's privileges revoked. InstantExample (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Still socking, as below. SQL ^{Query me!} 14:32, 21 October 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.

Talk page access revoked. --Yamla (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account created Moodsey just before filing this request. Technically indistinguishable.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]