User talk:Saff V.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

این نشان برای شما!

	نشان نویسنده
	Amirsara (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saff V.. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I got blocked in April 2020 from editing the MEK and articles related to Iran's politic. from that time, I have tried to behave as the warning you mentioned and stopped any edits which violate the warning(such as it).

I am an experienced user and many users appreciated my efforts on Wikipedia (the last one) then there will be no reason for me to pose a risk to my user, while I knew that the ban will be removed by passing a year. As you know I haven't edited since long ago because of illness and I will not be able to activate soon. But I can't stand my account being blocked for no convincing reason. it is really a silly idea to create a suspected account for me because my account is very old and valuable.

I used the "summery" phrase 3 years ago to mention something about "edit summary" while Ghazaalch didn't use that phrase for this mean. I use the "pick up" phrase as a substitution for "remove" but Vanamonde told me that does not convey the meaning. from that time I stopped using the phrase (if it is needed, I can send that diff). About the rest of the reasons, there are many other active users on the Mek article who have similar ideas such as Stefka, Barca. Can we accused them of suspected sock puppets because they have the same ideas or POV? Similar pov is not enough. Another clear point is the time when I was active in Wikipedia. If compare over time you will notice that the pattern of my edit time is so different from that user.(me and Ghazaalch)

if you check our logs, I often edited political articles, while Ghazaalch is focused on Shia ones. Therefore, while I was only limited to editing political articles, I was able to edit religious articles with my current user and there was no reason to establish a new one.

@El C: I wonder if you mention your opinion as an active and experienced admin in the MEK article.Saff V. (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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=I got blocked in April 2020 from editing the MEK and articles related to Iran's politic. from that time, I have tried to behave as the warning you mentioned and stopped any edits which violate the warning(such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quds_Day&diff=prev&oldid=957834989 it]). I am an experienced user and many users appreciated my efforts on Wikipedia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_74#Maybe_it_is_the_copyright_violation the last one]) then there will be no reason for me to pose a risk to my user, while I knew that the ban will be removed by passing a year. As you know I haven't edited since long ago because of illness and I will not be able to activate soon. But I can't stand my account being blocked for no convincing reason. it is really a silly idea to create a suspected account for me because my account is very old and valuable. I used the "summery" phrase 3 years ago to mention something about "edit summary" while Ghazaalch didn't use that phrase for this mean. I use the "pick up" phrase as a substitution for "remove" but Vanamonde told me that does not convey the meaning. from that time I stopped using the phrase (if it is needed, I can send that diff). About the rest of the reasons, there are many other active users on the Mek article who have similar ideas such as Stefka, Barca. Can we accused them of suspected sock puppets because they have the same ideas or POV? Similar pov is not enough. Another clear point is the time when I was active in Wikipedia. If compare over time you will notice that the pattern of my edit time is so different from that user.([https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-timecard/en.wikipedia.org/Saff%20V. me] and [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-timecard/en.wikipedia.org/Ghazaalch Ghazaalch]) if you check [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=+Saff+V.&users=+Ghazaalch&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki our logs], I often edited political articles, while Ghazaalch is focused on Shia ones. Therefore, while I was only limited to editing political articles, I was able to edit religious articles with my current user and there was no reason to establish a new one. <span class="template-ping">@[[User:El C|El C]]:</span> I wonder if you mention your opinion as an active and experienced admin in the MEK article.[[User:Saff V.|Saff V.]] ([[User talk:Saff V.#top|talk]]) 19:53, 26 April 2021 (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=I got blocked in April 2020 from editing the MEK and articles related to Iran's politic. from that time, I have tried to behave as the warning you mentioned and stopped any edits which violate the warning(such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quds_Day&diff=prev&oldid=957834989 it]). I am an experienced user and many users appreciated my efforts on Wikipedia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_74#Maybe_it_is_the_copyright_violation the last one]) then there will be no reason for me to pose a risk to my user, while I knew that the ban will be removed by passing a year. As you know I haven't edited since long ago because of illness and I will not be able to activate soon. But I can't stand my account being blocked for no convincing reason. it is really a silly idea to create a suspected account for me because my account is very old and valuable. I used the "summery" phrase 3 years ago to mention something about "edit summary" while Ghazaalch didn't use that phrase for this mean. I use the "pick up" phrase as a substitution for "remove" but Vanamonde told me that does not convey the meaning. from that time I stopped using the phrase (if it is needed, I can send that diff). About the rest of the reasons, there are many other active users on the Mek article who have similar ideas such as Stefka, Barca. Can we accused them of suspected sock puppets because they have the same ideas or POV? Similar pov is not enough. Another clear point is the time when I was active in Wikipedia. If compare over time you will notice that the pattern of my edit time is so different from that user.([https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-timecard/en.wikipedia.org/Saff%20V. me] and [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-timecard/en.wikipedia.org/Ghazaalch Ghazaalch]) if you check [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=+Saff+V.&users=+Ghazaalch&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki our logs], I often edited political articles, while Ghazaalch is focused on Shia ones. Therefore, while I was only limited to editing political articles, I was able to edit religious articles with my current user and there was no reason to establish a new one. <span class="template-ping">@[[User:El C|El C]]:</span> I wonder if you mention your opinion as an active and experienced admin in the MEK article.[[User:Saff V.|Saff V.]] ([[User talk:Saff V.#top|talk]]) 19:53, 26 April 2021 (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=I got blocked in April 2020 from editing the MEK and articles related to Iran's politic. from that time, I have tried to behave as the warning you mentioned and stopped any edits which violate the warning(such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quds_Day&diff=prev&oldid=957834989 it]). I am an experienced user and many users appreciated my efforts on Wikipedia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_74#Maybe_it_is_the_copyright_violation the last one]) then there will be no reason for me to pose a risk to my user, while I knew that the ban will be removed by passing a year. As you know I haven't edited since long ago because of illness and I will not be able to activate soon. But I can't stand my account being blocked for no convincing reason. it is really a silly idea to create a suspected account for me because my account is very old and valuable. I used the "summery" phrase 3 years ago to mention something about "edit summary" while Ghazaalch didn't use that phrase for this mean. I use the "pick up" phrase as a substitution for "remove" but Vanamonde told me that does not convey the meaning. from that time I stopped using the phrase (if it is needed, I can send that diff). About the rest of the reasons, there are many other active users on the Mek article who have similar ideas such as Stefka, Barca. Can we accused them of suspected sock puppets because they have the same ideas or POV? Similar pov is not enough. Another clear point is the time when I was active in Wikipedia. If compare over time you will notice that the pattern of my edit time is so different from that user.([https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-timecard/en.wikipedia.org/Saff%20V. me] and [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-timecard/en.wikipedia.org/Ghazaalch Ghazaalch]) if you check [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=+Saff+V.&users=+Ghazaalch&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki our logs], I often edited political articles, while Ghazaalch is focused on Shia ones. Therefore, while I was only limited to editing political articles, I was able to edit religious articles with my current user and there was no reason to establish a new one. <span class="template-ping">@[[User:El C|El C]]:</span> I wonder if you mention your opinion as an active and experienced admin in the MEK article.[[User:Saff V.|Saff V.]] ([[User talk:Saff V.#top|talk]]) 19:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• @Blablubbs and Mz7: I was really astonished to see such a strong conclusion was made based on some trivial clues. Saff V is a reputable user and has done a lot of valuable edits to Wikipedia. Hence I believe there are much more evidences proving they are not the same. Just look at their languages; Though they are both non-native, Ghazaalch has a better grasp on English language. I think the "pick up" and "summery" items were well explained by Ghazaalch on their talk page. Saff V is not a new user and I believe sockpuppetry seems like the silliest solution for resolving his ban or block. Moreover, Oshwah's investigations did not end up with a concrete evidence except that they are "in the same geolocation and very wide range". Needless to mention that they have different time cards and editing behavior. Moreover, I believe El C's comment may also be determining here given his experience. I think the least thing we can say here is the case needs an in depth investigation and we should not rely on the superficial items presented in the SPI case. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)