UQal

UQal, you are invited to the Teahouse!

I did have another account, HaoYagpo (and used Wikipedia as an IP user before this), but I forgot the password to that account and started this account. If you check those two accounts history you will see that I haven't used "HaoYagpo" since I started this one. I admit that I agree with Incogreader on some points and suspect that the ban might have been partly based on this. I know Incogreader too but this is far as the connection to that account goes. I realize this was a conflict of interest now and would have reported this if I knew it was required for me to do it, but do not believe that my edits actually abused policy or were disruptive since other users saw problems with the articles complained about that I edited. I might have used a public connection one time but other than this there should be no technical connection, like Incogreader says the sockpuppet investigation appears to show that my account is technically distinguishable - it only says that my account is likely the same not that they are indistinguishable. The page also says that "Conclusions derived from CheckUser data have limited usefulness".

Hi UQal! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

what is the basis for sockpuppet claim?

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I just read that I was blocked for being a "sockpuppet," that this was "confirmed." What is the basis for this claim? Because I readded two deleted passages from another user? I started a discussion page to discuss these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Korea), and maintain that the changes were good.

Decline reason:

checkuser block -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:20, 2 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I want to clear up first that I did have another account, HaoYagpo and used Wikipedia as an IP user before that. I can see that this would seem suspicious but there is nothing sinister behind it. I forgot my password to the other account and have not used it since I created this account (which you can verify by checking the last and first contributions of the two users). I'm not sure what the explanation of "checkuser" to my last unblock request means the page says "Conclusions derived from CheckUser data have limited usefulness". As for the complaint by TimesAreChanging, the first responses that comes up to the question how many troops did North Korea have in 1950? on Google is 75,000 and through searches I did 135,000 troops seems to be sometimes listed too. This agrees with an earlier post by Incogreader in the same page but these results are easily verifiable by anyone who does the same search themselves. I was trying to verify that Incogreader was right before reposting something deleted and got similar results, that is all.

Decline reason:

Obviously, the problem is with the connection to the Incogreader account. In this case, there is both a technical connection (checkuser) and behaviorial evidence as you've jumped into the same disputes at unrelated articles: History of Tibet (1950–present), Korean War, and North Korea. Kuru (talk) 12:10, 3 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.

@Kuru: I would like to understand the evidence better. I am an acquaintance of Incogreader who in discussion said that many articles on Wikipedia had an outrageous bias and suggested that I read the articles on Tibet as an example since I have an interest in Chinese, Tibetan and world history in general. I live in the same city and it also is possible I may have once used the public Wifi where Incogreader frequents too. Could this explain the technical connection? After reading articles on Tibet I later decided to check Incogreader's other edits which are mostly about North Korea. Based on this I agreed with ICR that there was bias in some articles although I do think in several cases ICR went too far in "overcorrecting" this. I was not trying to "promote" the view that South Korea was the aggressor in 1950 only believe that this deserves to be considered as possible. Most of my edits are unrelated to North Korea and the decision to actually register and contribute was my own and I also used Wikipedia as an IP user before this. Now it is not as much that I want to be unblocked as I do not want to be associated with ICR in this way as a sockpuppet.UQal (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I asked a question about this but did not get a response. I am an acquaintance of Incogreader which I know is a conflict of interest now, but not a sockpuppet. I did not think about this before I edited and I did not know the rules on conflict of interest editing then. It is possible that I have used a public connection one time before that may have been used by Incogreader before too but other than maybe this one time there should not be any technical connection. I would like to be considered for unblocking or if not, at least removed as a sockpuppet. If this happened I would not edit any articles related to Incogreader. In the articles about Tibet and North Korea other people saw problems with what I pointed out too so I do not believe that I caused damage and disruption. If I knew about the conflict of interest rules then I would disclose it and not edit those articles myself but I was a somewhat recent user and did not. About why I am here: I did use Wikpedia occasionally before signing up but started contributing more after Incogreader talked to me about bias on Wikipedia and their ban because this led me to investigate more in detail. I genuinely wanted and felt that I was improving articles before the ban including the two or three related to Incogreader by adding information and references of reliable sources. Even in those cases that was not just because of knowing Incogreader but also because I agreed on those points myself on those points other users also agreed too. Thank you for taking the time to consider this.UQal (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC) UQal (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:16, 21 October 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.