User talk:Chagcharan

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Poojanthebeast per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Poojanthebeast. 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 ~~~~}}. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:15, 18 April 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I really don't know where this is coming from. I have not heard of the account you mention until now. The only thing in common I see is that we edited the same page. My account is not associated in any way with the account you mention. In fact I would like this account checked by a CheckUser to prove that there is no connection. User:Alison User:Mz7

I do in fact have a second account for privacy reasons, but with which I have never edited the same articles as with this one. Furthermore, I do not see any way in which my usage of this account would be illegitimate - all my edits on the Bald and Bankrupt talk page were in accordance with the guidelines of Wikipedia, feel free to inspect them. And please let me know for what reason is this account "illegitimate". Thanks. Chagcharan (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"In fact I would like this account checked by a CheckUser to prove that there is no connection.": On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted." Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Could someone then please tell me what I should now do to get unblocked? I am not a sockpuppet or associated with any group. There is nothing even to suggest that, as far as I know... Chagcharan (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2021 (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.

There is also some evidence to suggest that the editor was involved in a WP:MEAT campaign in order to brigade the discussion. There's two reddit threads dedicated to include the information that was in dispute. The editor's username was mentioned in one of the threads to gain support. I requested a CheckUser before I learned there was an organized campaign. It's possible this isn't a sockpuppet account, but by the editor's own admission they are using multiple accounts and was either encouraged or involved in the meatpuppet campaign. --Nemov (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. What kind of evidence is there? Could you please show it to me? Despite your speculations I am not a part of any organized group and after you reverted my edit I created a discussion on the talk page specifically to prevent an edit war. What's wrong with that? Chagcharan (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page originally stated that this is an alt account. This, coupled with restoring the edits of Poojanthebeast and general same interest and activity resulted in a block as a suspected sockpuppet. I would recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Appealing a block and not editing logged out like you have done on my talk page as this is considered block evasion and itself a blockable offense. Please keep all communications through this account (Chagcharan) and on this page. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained the reasons for having a second account above. I also now rarely use my second account, since it's edit history could easily be traced to my real world identity. Regarding the sockpuppet - I have now gone through the edits of me and the account Poojanthebeast. It's true that I have made edits regarding the same topic - something I was not aware of until now. Also, I have never restored his edits. Chagcharan (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both first edits of both accounts were adding the same subject matter with the exact same source after it was reverted. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Yet still, I was not organized with Poojanthebeast in any way. I must admit that I learnt about this matter online and thought to add it to Wikipedia, since I saw it as important. Perhaps user Poojanthebeast heard about it in the same way, I really don't know. What I do know is that I did not take part in any organized group effort. I think that when something is a hot topic such as this, several users might independently try to add it to Wikipedia simultaneously, but that's hardly something I can be responsible for. Furthermore, since after my edit I noticed the ongoing edit war, I took the matter to the talk page - specifically to reach a community consensus and to prevent the type of behavior for which I am now apparently being blocked for... Chagcharan (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the matching source - as far as I know, It's the only published source regarding this matter that exists. Anyone wanting to add this information will end up using this source. Chagcharan (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a hot topic. It's an old story from two decades ago. It hasn't received any recent coverage. This seems to only be a hot topic on a reddit dedicated to including the information.[1]. It seems pretty obvious you arrived when the call was made there to get involved.--Nemov (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen that reddit post until now. In fact I did not know about the existence of that subreddit until you mentioned it. Only shows that this topic is being discussed in many parts of the internet. The first time I heard about this incident was actually on the forum Caravanistan, specifically here. After that I did some more research, which lead me to the aforementioned article. Chagcharan (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]