User talk:Empire AS/Archive 3

Blocked for sockpuppetry

 * , Let me provide my arguments.


 * 1) I edit the articles related to Atif Aslam heavily because I'm a big fan of him and I love all of his songs. Even before creating this account, I was an IP editor and edited Atif Aslam article. I wanted this article to reach FA so I worked on it most of the times and also I'm one of the top contributors of this article.
 * 2) Zindaaab uploads an photo of Atif Aslam and soon requests deletion doesn't mean that they are me. There are lot of Atif Aslam fans and he is enormous popular in Pakistan. They might request deletion of the photo because they might think it to be copyrighted. In the deletion nomination, they also say that they aren't the original author of the photo.
 * 3) I uploaded that image because that belonged to me. I was the author of the image and I added that to the article. However, I can clearly see a slight time gap between their and mine upload. But that might be a coincidence, whether you believe me or not.


 * Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites, so editing it is very common. That is not a new thing. I already said that Atif Aslam is very popular so there may be a lot of his fans throughout the country. Regarding the image upload, that was an image taken by me therefore I'm the original author not Zindaaab. By looking at File:Atif Aslam while smiling.jpg, don't you think that the image name is according to the photo? He's smiling so I added the word 'while smiling' in the file name as it was a descriptive name of the photo.


 * Regarding ALM Aadeez, (Atif refers his fans as Aadeez), I created the article Tajdar-e-Haram and a user nominated it for speedy deletion. I fixed the issue provided in CSD. After some time, I removed that CSD tag from that article because that issue was fixed. I used the account ALM Aadeez as then I was using a public computer not my mobile. If you think that article would be deleted if I wouldn't remove that tag then re-nominate it under CSD. Let's see what would happen. Although I stopped to use ALM Aadeez, but I included the userbox till December 2020. to let other users now about my sock-puppet account plus redirected that account to my original account. I've never used that account to get an illusion of support or to engage in edit wars. I edit Atif Aslam related articles because I'm his fan. See my creations, most of them are related to Atif Aslam and music. I swear that I'm not being paid for even a single edit. Why I would do such comments on Gorilla Warfare page even after getting my cvua training from Puddleglum2.0 and Thanoscar21? If such was my intention then I didn't make 16K+ edits and 40+ articles, 50+ templates and categories and I would have did this all in the beginning of my account not after 10 months just to spoil my community trust and get blocked. Thank you.  Empire AS    Talk ! 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When people get caught up in a lie, one thing they often do is provide details nobody asked about, and answer questions that nobody asked, which I see a lot of above. For example, I didn't ask you why you uploaded an image or why you named it "Atif Aslam while smiling.jpg", rather, I stated that there were six extraordinary coincidences surrounding Zindaaab's uploads and yours, and that some of those coincidences was that you both used similar file names. But I found another coincidence: The "Atif Aslam smiling.jpg" uploaded by the Zindaaab account was the exact same picture as the one you uploaded a few hours later, an image you claim to have taken yourself! So, no rational person looking at this string of coincidences would possibly believe they are coincidences no matter how much you yammer. The likelihood you will be unblocked while maintaining this obvious BS story is virtually nil. Your only chance of being unblocked would be if you came clean. But even then, there's a serious question about whatever conflict of interest you have with regard to Aslam, since it's not very often we see editors take up-close photos of celebrities' faces unless they have some sort of connection to them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , You said that uploading files with similar names, so I explained that the name of the file was clear from the photo as he was smiling. Giving similar names to such images may be very common. It was the answer of your question of uploading files with similar names. The other thing I said that I'm fan of Atif Aslam was to clarify you that I'm not a paid editor. I also didn't shoot this photo myself but I asked one of my friends on Facebook to send me his photo so that I could upload that to Wikimedia. Whereas, I've never seen him live. As soon as I got this photo, I uploaded the photo and then into the article. If I were Zindaaab then I'd stop using that rather to use more and why I'd upload such photo from a sock puppet account rather than uploading from my original photo. What did you mean by "came clean"? Again I'd say that I have never edited for pay but for my interest and hobby. If you still think me to be a COI, then I'm also the top contributor of Dirilis: Ertgrul (Turkey), Boonie Bears (China), Bandbudh Aur Budbak (India), WikiProject Lanka Premier League (Sri Lanka) and many others. So am I a such big paid editor that I'm being paid by Pakistan, Turkey, China, India and Sri Lanka? Well on this page, you may see a list of my favourites plus verify that I edit these articles mostly. This is just to clarify you that I'm not being paid. Another thing, that if I were to say such thing to GorillaWarfare then why here? They have provided a link to their Twitter account. Why I won't use Twitter to talk with them rather than messaging such irrational here on Wikipedia just for a block? Still I'd say that I've never edited for pay and also I've not did that to GorillaWarfare. My block is baseless. Well, you've rights and advanced permissions and you can block anyone (even before letting them to give their statements) and since I don't have, so I'd have to bear this. Btw, the tag placed on Tajdar-e-Haram db-person was wrong as it was about a song not a person. Thank you. Empire AS    Talk ! 04:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all meaningless off-topic yammering meant to distract from the facts. There is both technical and behavioural evidence that you used these other accounts. If you want to keep lying about it, that's your problem. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , here I'm agreeing that Zindaaab was my sock puppet account, but not Gorilla Werfs. Here the question arises why I created that account? I created that account to upload the photo of Atif Aslam that I received on Facebook from a friend just to see that whether the photo is deleted or not because recently all of my uploads on Wikimedia Commons were deleted one by one. I didn't upload that photo from my original account just to avoid the Wikimedia Commons blocks. I've not misused that account to perform vandalism, harassment and anything else. You can check that contributions. That's the truth. Regarding Gorilla Werfs, I don't know them. And I've also proved that below to Hut 8.5. I can't imagine to do such with any Wikipedian. You said that if I came clean then I'd be unblocked and now I've told you the truth. Lies are caught up though but truth never changes. Thanks! Empire AS    Talk ! 14:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * is my good friend on Wikipedia. We've worked together on a lot of articles and wikiprojects. I'd request him to tell here what he thinks about me. Thank you. Empire AS    Talk ! 07:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, so I am here to give my opinion, Empire AS has helped me a lot going through Wikipedia and other things, without his help, I would still be a inexperienced user. After knowing that he has been blocked, I was very shocked to learn that, the user has maintained good faith with other Wikipedians, I would say that, that he didn't do that, but if he did, then I don't what should be my reaction, in conclusion I would say that I wouldn't consider him doing these kind of things, but if it is true, then I don't know, the user and me has worked on a lot of articles. Thank you. Tahaaleem  Talk 09:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Other
Can you help? Empire AS   Talk ! 11:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot do much as this is a checkuser block, and I am not a checkuser. I would note that checkuser tool contains information which is more than just your IP. So, although I do not know what checkuser evidence led to the confirmation, it is likely to be more than just your IP address. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , if not IP address then what? Looking at their contributions, I see that Zindaaab made no edit while Gorilla Werfs made only edit to Wikipedia. I had already revealed about ALM Aadeez in my userboxes to be a sock puppet of me for security reasons in the past which I soon abandoned to use. Morever by watching this page, I don't see any connection between me and the other editors. I'm confused. Thanks! Empire AS    Talk ! 12:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Information stored in the checkuser tool includes other technical information. I am aware that it also includes user agent strings. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing I can do about a checkuser block even if I wanted to. They can still be appealed, including to the Arbitration Committee (see here). The evidence given above is pretty convincing to me though and if this was you then it's appalling.  Hut 8.5  16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you help? Empire AS   Talk ! 12:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging other checkusers or admins won't necessarily help. Your unblock request should be reviewed in good time. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I’ve read your explanation above and it doesn’t sufficiently explain the data in CU. I don’t mind another CU giving their opinion, and I’m more than happy to walk them through how this was confirmed. As for Gorilla Werfs, the overlap isn’t that hard to find: your last edit before being blocked was to Enrique Tarrio, a page GorillaWarfare has edited fairly extensively. You found her user page from the page history and then created a sock to comment on her appearance 10 minutes later. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , well I perform such type of edits like adding short description, removing extra space and capitalization on many articles. The same I did with the above article. Really, doesn't this seem to be a prediction or a guess? As I edits an article, finds the top contributor of it and then creates a sock-puppet to comment on her appearance. Well, why would I do this? Just to get blocked? Thank you. Empire AS    Talk ! 17:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t try to guess the reasoning behind people acting inappropriately on the internet. You did do this, however. I just re-ran the checks on Gorilla Werfs and the evidence is pretty clear. I stand by my conclusions and block. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Ok, if I were to do this then why here on Wikipedia? They have also provided a link to their Twitter account. If I were to say such things, then why I won't use Twitter to talk with them rather than messaging such irrational on Wikipedia just to get a block? Other thing, the page was edited by a lot of users before and after my edits like Liz, CambridgeBayWeather, NoahDavid771, and many others but you still think that I'm the only one, not from them. Just by looking at the same IP, I guess, you believed that it was I. Did their edit summary match me? Did their way of typing match me? Did their symbols used match me? How can I make you trust that I'm speaking the truth? Thank you. Empire AS    Talk ! 04:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You aren't going to be unblocked because nobody could think of a good reason why you did something stupid. There is good evidence that you did in fact do it, and people do stupid things all the time. The block isn't just based on you editing that page, it's based on technical evidence, but even if there is a reason why the technical evidence is mistaken (such as editing from a hostel, as you claimed above) then that wouldn't explain the fact that you'd recently crossed paths with GorillaWarfare. Someone else editing from the same hostel might be plausible, but someone else editing from the same hostel who happened to notice GorillaWarfare at the same time isn't. If your reaction to being blocked was to accept responsibility and apologise then you might have got somewhere, especially as you're still young. But this track isn't going to work.  Hut 8.5  10:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Really? If I were to do this then I wouldn't do it know but I'd have done it in the past when I was a newbie. I can't imagine to do it now when my account is 10 months old and have 16K+ edits. In the past 10 months, I've not done any such activity (you can check my contributions). So, there arise no question of doing it now. You said: people do stupid things all the time but if I've ever done this in the past at any moment then definitely there would be a record of such activities performed by me. What a story! I edited a page, found the top contributor and created a sock just to post something immoral and immodest rather than using Twitter, where I'd have no worry of being blocked. I came to know about GorillaWarfare about 2 weeks ago when she edited a page from my watchlist, but I did nothing in that period. A random user from the hostel may create an account and post a message on their talk page (by seeing at their edit, what I also noticed is that their capitalization of words, emoticons and edit summary don't match with any single edit of mine). I don't see anything that is hard to believe here. Can you explain 'same time'? You said: If your reaction to being blocked was to accept responsibility and apologise then you might have got somewhere, especially as you're still young. But this track isn't going to work. Good advice though! But how can I accept something that I've not done? I'd be guilty only if I do that but can't apologize for something that I've not even done. I can't lie just to be unblocked and take the false responsibility that isn't performed by me. Still I'd say that I've not done this with GorillaWarfare. Thanks! Empire AS    Talk ! 11:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not going to convince people to unblock you with this line of argument. You can't imagine how you could have done this? That's not going to go very far when there's evidence that you did in fact do it. Personally I don't think it's that hard to imagine a straight male teenager catcalling a woman he thinks is attractive. There aren't any contributions like that in your edit history? Of course not, that's why it was done with a sockpuppet. Using one account for legitimate editing and others for disruptive editing is so common it's specifically listed in the sockpuppetry policy. (In any case this isn't your first account.) As for "same time", you made this edit to Enrique Tarrio at 19:44 on the 12th. The Gorilla Warfs account was registered at 19:52 and made this edit at 19:54. Now a checkuser has said there's technical evidence tying you to the Gorilla Warfs account. Let's say, hypothetically, that it was somebody else editing from the same hostel. GorillaWarfare has made numerous edits to Enrique Tarrio and her name is all over the edit history and the talk page. Do you expect us to believe that this hypothetical hostelmate happened to make that edit minutes after you edited that page? And that they were coincidentally uploading images of Atif Aslam smiling hours before you did? Pull the other one.  Hut 8.5  12:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not trying to convince other users. I'm just telling what's the truth. You said that I did it using a sock puppet as there were not any such edit in my contributions. But why it was for the first time? I mean to say that if I created a sock this time for such activity then I'd have also created a sock in the past for these kind of actions. Where's that sock? If I can create a sock now to keep my contribs clean then why not I've created sock in the past for this purpose? The reality is that I've never performed such edits, neither in the past nor now. Speaking about this edit, I'd say that I lied then. Actually I was a newbie and receiving teahouse invitations plus welcome messages. So, I did this to prevent these. Soon I removed that as that was a lie. Now I understood what are you thinking? You are thinking that I edited a random page, found the top contributor and created a sock puppet to comment. She made this edit on 7 February 2021. I was watching this page (if you are doubtful, then see the article's history, I'm one of the top contributor of it). I also noticed that edit but not created a sock on that day (7 February 2021) to comment on her appearance whereas after a week, while editing a page at 19:44, I did this. Amazing thought! If I can post this message after editing the article on 12 February, then why couldn't I do that on 7 February? Sounds queer? What if I didn't make that edit on that day but after a day or two so to keep me safe from SPI case. Was I such a fool that I make an edit on an article and within 10 minutes I do this all. Why didn't I wait to make that edit on one day and create sock puppet next week because I already have waited for a week (from 7–12 February). Thanks! Empire AS    Talk ! 13:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So what? For all we know you have created sockpuppets in the past. Checkuser isn't perfect at finding sockpuppets, especially old ones. Even if you only started socking recently that doesn't make any difference, it's still not allowed. Equally the fact that you could have noticed GorillaWarfare a week earlier doesn't make any difference. If anything the fact that you remembered someone who made a minor edit to one page on your watchlist a week earlier makes it sounds more suspicious. Don't bother pinging me again, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere useful.  Hut 8.5  13:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, now you've nothing left. I've clarified all of your doubts. I explained everything. I'd not ping you anymore as I think that you don't have capacity to bear the truth. Thanks! Empire AS    Talk ! 14:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is strange that someone in your hostel edits Wikipedia to comment on GW's appearance, does so 10 mins after you edit a page which she has edited, when you have been also recently been using a undisclosed account (Zindaaab as you agree to above). It is also strange that you have reversed your statements about using Zindaaab. You didn't agree to using Zindaaab and then now do. I can see that you were both capable and willing to lie after being caught about Zindaaab. I'm sure you can see how this could easily stretch to you lying about not using the account Gorilla Werfs.
 * I have some advice: the community does not like editors who continue to lie after being caught. It shows that you can't be trusted. We know that (unless by some very very unlikely chance) you have used and control all the accounts. If you admit to it yourself, then it is one step towards being able to regain the trust of the community. It is good that you have admitted to one of the accounts, but you will need to be open about this before trust can be rebuilt. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding Zindaaab, I just used that account to upload a photo, not to harass anyone or vandalize any page. I didn't performed any edit using that account on Wikipedia but on commons. I uploaded the photo from Zindaaab just to see that whether it's deleted or not. But regarding Gorilla Werfs, I'll never admit that I own that account even if it appears a lie to you. I don't want to regain the community trust by lying. I'll speak the truth even if someone trusts me or not. Regarding Gorilla Werfs, I've explained everything above to Hut 8.5 who doesn't want to discuss it further (perhaps due to –). I'm not pinging you as it may bother you as happened with Hut 8.5. Thanks! Empire AS    Talk ! 07:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding Zindaaab, I just used that account to upload a photo, not to harass anyone or vandalize any page. I didn't performed any edit using that account on Wikipedia but on commons. I uploaded the photo from Zindaaab just to see that whether it's deleted or not. But regarding Gorilla Werfs, I'll never admit that I own that account even if it appears a lie to you. I don't want to regain the community trust by lying. I'll speak the truth even if someone trusts me or not. Regarding Gorilla Werfs, I've explained everything above to Hut 8.5 who doesn't want to discuss it further (perhaps due to –). I'm not pinging you as it may bother you as happened with Hut 8.5. Thanks! Empire AS    Talk ! 07:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * For some clarity: this is not nearly as ambiguous as you’re making it seem. It’s some of the strongest CU evidence I’ve seen since I was appointed 2.5 years ago. People always assume CUs don’t take into account the “possible shared IP” type of defence. I don’t know an active CU who doesn’t regularly ask for second opinions when there’s the possibility of a shared connection or ambiguity in the data. There was no such ambiguity here. If you wish to publicly get a second opinion on that from another CU, I’d recommend you file another unblock request., , and are all colleagues I respect highly. They can’t unblock you without the consent of another CU, though, so arguing with them on how the behaviour supposedly exculpates you (though it doesn’t) isn’t going to help you get unblocked. I’m very confident in my findings here, and any CU who checks the  account will easily see the same things I did. My honest advice is to wait 6 months, admit what you did, and request an unblock then. If you wish to continue publicly arguing your case, file another unblock request. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can wait for 4 – 5 months, but would not admit what I've not done. Although your evidences were clear i.e., the IPs may be same and the times were nearly same, but I've also explained everything above to Hut 8.5. I don't think that there's a need to explain that to you too as you may also act like Hut 8.5. Not pinging to avoid bothering you. Thanks! Empire AS    Talk ! 07:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 6 months, not 4-5. You’re also not going to be unblocked unless you admit it. You didn’t explain anything to Hut8.5 in a way that provides any support for your claims. As I said, if you believe that you have sufficiently explained it, file an unblock request and another CU will come along and look at this. The back and forth without an actual active request to unblock doesn’t serve a purpose. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there's not a big difference between 6 months and 4–5 months. Another thing that I want to clarify you is that I'm not going to admit that lie, neither now nor after six months. I don't know whether you want me to admit the truth or something that I've not done. My answer would never change even after 6 months, 1 year, 2 years and so on. I've explained everything above to Hut 8.5, re-read my above posts. Hut 8.5 ends the discussion with 'So what?'. I'll make another request next week as I'll inactive for some days onwards. I'm feeling like a paralyzed man who is just able to move a single finger. Empire AS    Talk ! 16:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're under the impression that I conceded you're right, or something like that, then you're mistaken. "So what?" means the points you made were irrelevant and don't prove anything. I suggest you follow TonyBallioni's advice (the standard offer): wait six months, admit the socking, promise you won't do it again and ask for an unblock.  Hut 8.5  18:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It would made me laugh :-D. When you've left nothing to say, you used these words but refused now. I provided comprehensive answers to all of your questions. You also said that you don't find this discussion useful. TB suggested good offer though where I can wait for 6 months, also may promise not to repeat socks like Zindaaab but not admit socking of Gorilla Werfs. The working procedure of offer clearly says: Apologies and other expressions of remorse aren't necessary, but basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively are. So I'll not apologize for an unperformed act. Thanks! Empire AS    Talk ! 18:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)