User talk:ElooKoN/Archive2019/September

Unblock Request 1

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. Alexf^(talk) 12:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ElooKoN/Archive2019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

ElooKoN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

First, my account is more than 11 years old and I am not affiliated to a company, so I do not want to rename my account of course. I recently edited the page DNS hijacking and added a passage regarding the situation in Germany, because the situation in UK was already explained there. I described in a neutral way, that someone filed a criminal complaint against the Deutsche Telekom AG because of DNS hijacking. After that, the Deutsche Telekom stopped their DNS hijacking (after more then 10 years):

In Germany, in 2019 it was revealed that the Deutsche Telekom AG not only manipulated their DNS servers, but also transmitted network traffic (such as non-secure cookies when users did not use HTTPS) to a third party company because the web portal T-Online, at which users were redirected due to the DNS manipulation, was not (any more) owned by the Deutsche Telekom. After a user filed a criminal complaint, the Deutsche Telekom stopped further DNS manipulations.

The German press like Golem reported that, using the primary source – which I also provided in the Wikipedia article –, but also by simply asking the Deutsche Telekom AG for the reason they stopped their DNS hijacking. They confirmed that they stopped it, because the Bundesnetzagentur (National Network Agency) contacted them after the criminal complaint was filed by an internet user (which was me). The German prosecution department also initiated a judicial inquiry, same for the national data/privacy protection department.

So, there is no conflict of interests. Although it (unfortunately) was me who helped to stop the DNS hijacking after more then 10 years, I didn't write anything wrong into the article, and also nothing which could be considered as not neutral because I only noted the facts which are accessible to the public.

Decline reason:

if you are unwilling to change your username, we will not consider an unblock. Additionally, your account is five years old, not 11 as you claim. Nor have you addressed your relationship to elookon.de. Yamla (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My German account is 11 years old, seems the english one is a different account. No, of course I'm not willing to change my username because there is no reason for that. The website elookon.de is my website, there I published the information about the German DNS hijacking incident. --ElooKoN (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Unblock Request 2

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/Archive2019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is a new appeal because I have used the wrong code block before; please also have a look into the rationale of the declined ban appeal I made before. The ban was invoked, because my account was suspected to advertise or promote on Wikipedia, which is wrong. The article »Wie die Telekom mit unserem Vertrauen spielt« on my website elookon.de was written by me and I were not paid for it. The article »Telekom beendet DNS-Hijacking« was written by an author of golem.de and I am not affiliated to this site. The edit only recited important facts which are publicly accessible.--ElooKoN (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you agreed not to link to your own website or add yourself to articles, maybe someone would unblock you. However, this unblock request has been open for three weeks without anyone responding. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but of course I don't. There is no reason to not refer to my own work when it is the only and the primary resource. If another user would have filed a criminal complaint, I would have used his resource.--ElooKoN (talk) 07:50, 14 August 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.

Email received from user: "A few days ago I have been blocked from you, so I made two ban appeals. The first one got declined because, I guess, I used the wrong template, so I created a new one. Can you please review the new one? Unfortunately there is no response from the other administrators for 4 days now"

As a n involved admin I should not make a ruling, though personally I agree with Yamla. Patience, it is in the queue and an univolved admin wiill take a look. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)