User talk:ElooKoN/Archive2020/January

Unblock Request

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).

ElooKoN/Archive2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unfortunately I am still – for a few months (!) now – blocked since I contributed in the English Wikipedia using a primary, informative, non-advertising resource originated to me. When you see my article and translate it to English you will see that I have done this work with no other reasons than showing a matter of public interest, which, as far as I know, only I revealed (which was extremeley surprising). Now I know that the English Wikipedia does not like primary resources and only works with secondary resources. Nonetheless, I am already the secondary resource for the fact that the German prosecution initiated an investigation procedure (which is, by the way, still active) since I quoted their written statement. - So, I ask you to please revoke my permanent block because I did not spam or advertise or something similar to that.--ElooKoN (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You've made essentially this same request several times already. As such, I see no reason differ from what others have already said. Your purpose here appears to be to promote your own off-wiki content. Unless that changes, you cannot be unblocked. As this is now your fourth unsuccessful unblock request, I am revoking your talk page access. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

I don't know if I can review this yet(any other reviewers, feel free) but I would suggest that you restore prior declined unblock requests and disable the archiving that takes place until the block is removed. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik: I’ve been speaking with this user via email: I think there has been some miscommunication and misunderstanding. At this point they understand not to link to their website as a source and via uploaded images, and wish to continue what minor things they did on enwiki (they are primarily a de and commons user). As I understand it, their focus on this project is generally adding relevant images (again, without the backlinks to their website). Also ping @Alexf, Yamla, NinjaRobotPirate, and Deepfriedokra: : concerning the username/website issue: many of us have domain names registered to our usernames- I don’t think it’s fair to force someone to choose a different name under which to edit simply because they have a website at that name. As long as ElooKoN agrees not to promote their website any longer, or attempt to use it as a source, or links it from the images they uploaded (though this may be more of a commons issue), can we allow a tentative return to editing? Thank you for your time and consideration, –xeno^talk 15:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: Please be aware that there is some adminshopping going on here. They've emailed me as well, and likely contacted you due to being dissatisfied with the outcome of that interaction. I have serious reservations about unblocking them. Their correspondence with me makes it clear they intend to continue using images from website, which is a substantial part of the reason for the block. Unless they've meaningfully changed their tune with you, I would not unblock this user. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sir Sputnik, the user has been corresponding with me for some time, and placed some of the unblock requests and UTRS tickets at my suggestion. Could you explain further your concern with this user adding images like File:Intel_i7_8700K.jpg, which seems to be appropriately used in our article on the subject? Am I missing something? (Deleted edits perhaps?) –xeno^talk 19:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: Out of context, any one of their images is probably fine. However, every one of their edits prior to the block was distribution of content on their website. Taken as a whole, their editing smacks of self-promotion to me and is presumably the reason for the block. Alexf can correct me if I've got this wrong. If their interactions with you address this concern don't let me stop you from unblocking them. Their interaction with me did not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik I think the miscommunication is that the user is trying to explain what they've done/why they did it/why they felt it was appropriate - in the meantime, they are agreeing not to do such deemed self-promotion anymore. At least, I think so. Perhaps if they had talk page access they could speak for themselves. Right now I don't have the toolset to unblock them. –xeno^talk 19:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

They've done edits like this, for example: commons:Special:Diff/379388689. Clearly, they are trying to comply with whatever it is you and the previous reviewing admins are asking of them (so far as they understand), so they can just continue to add these useful images to our articles. –xeno^talk 19:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno:, @Sir Sputnik: The original block was due to filters catching user posting references and links to their own website in the article DNS hijacking. That led to a spamublock to have them change their name, which I see now they do not want to do. Note they did not communicate with me either here or by email. I have no issues with the images I've seen. I would be ok with unblocking and keeping the name, as long as they do not link to their site. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Alexf, would you mind performing the technical unblock? I seem to have misplaced my tools :) you can put “per communication with User:Xeno” and I’ll take any resulting heat (don’t think there will be any). Thanks all for input. –xeno^talk 21:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Alexf If that's the case, I have to respectfully submit that the block was incredibly heavy handed. My entire handling of this case was predicated on the assumption that there's no way the single edit linking their website would warrant an indefinite block without prior warning. ElooKoN, it seems I owe you an apology. I seriously misjudged the purpose of the block against you, and demanded changes in conduct that the block was never meant to induce. I'm sorry. I'm unblocking you on the understanding that you not link to your website. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: Was already unblocked. @Sir Sputnik: We have to disagree on this. The rules are clear even though you may not be fully in agreement with the action. Thanks for unblocking after Xeno's request. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I am honest and I absolutely don't want to be disrespectful, but I am not able to accept your apologize. It was obvious that Alexf only blocked me because of the link in the article. And I told you that the photos on my website were placed there years after Wikimedia Commons, but in this thread you still claimed, knowing, that it can't be true, that all Wikimedia Commons photos came from my website. The opposite was true. I also removed all source citations from my uploaded photos. I promised to you multiple times that I would never use again any links to my websites in Wikipedia, either as article resource or source citation of a photo. You still didn't care and claimed that, when it comes to me, the mere contribution of photos would be a prohibited self-promotion. For me this was quite bizarre, so I asked you multiple times why you would think that, but you never explained it. Now all source citations have been removed, multiple photos were deleted and mostly all of them were removed from the articles. It would have been so easy for all if you only would have respected me and read my emails entirely. After this experience I have to stop my photo contribution work. ElooKoN (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi ElooKoN it does seem like there was good faith misunderstandings from a number of parties. I would hope you would reconsider your position, and continue your good image contributions here - of which I’m appreciative. Otherwise I spent all that time working on this unblock for nothing :) best to move forward rather than looking back I think? Happy editing, –xeno^talk 22:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: Thanks for your words. However, Sir Sputnik unmistakeable stated and reinforced (last time on 8 December 2019, 20:41 UTC via email) that he considers the mere contribution of my photos as self-promotion. Even though he misunderstood the reason for the initial block by Alexf, he did not change his mind. So, regarding this point, there were no misunderstanding. That means I run into the risk to get blocked again and so have to stop my contributions unless Sir Sputnik would confirm that he changed his mind. ElooKoN (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I kindly ask you for a statement regarding my previous post in this thread so that I know how I can(not) continue my work.--ElooKoN (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The only condition on my unblock was that you not link to your website. Don't do that and you have nothing to fear from me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification Sir.--ElooKoN (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: Since it is my right as author according to the CC BY-SA 4.0 to receive appropriate credit, I today readded the source citations to my own already existing works on Wikimedia Commons. However, I will no more contribute to articles to prevent further arguments.--ElooKoN (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)