User talk:Mateobala

Unblock

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. Mateobala block log • ipblocklist • crossblock • luxo's • unblock • remove gblock • contribs: +/-

---

Request reason:

Unreasonable

Decline reason:

No valid/convincing reason for unblock.-BRP ^ever 10:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

---

беларуская (тарашкевіца) | български | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | français | македонски | Nederlands | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenščina | svenska | 中文 | +/−

@Jasper Deng @Jasper Deng (alternate)

As you read the conversation that is taking place in RfD, specifically when reading the most recent part of the discussion over the last week, you’ll start to realize the serious progress that has been made already when you see the communication with @Bovlb and @Estopedist1 in achieving a consensus. This seems to be a misuse or subjectivity based on misinformation in using the administrator's tools to delete and nominate deletions to the pages I worked on, translated, edited, etc. based on false accusations that are just now getting sorted out.

Ideas are not only false and unverifiable but also physically impossible. With the first one being the Wikipedia sitelink that precedes the item, the WP precedes any spam associated with the WD item. The WD of the "jetset" item has been vandalized, then banned and deleted despite having a WP. Nominating Deletion Admin is aware of this + multiple other WD admins + the multiple deletions of WP admins; I’ve provided irrefutable, transparent, accurate, and verifiable evidence confirming the validity of all stated facts. Every admin was made aware and responded by turning a blind eye, ultimately avoiding the responsibility to uphold community guidelines and role duties.

At the end of the day, everyone is human, so I understand things like this happening because we all know in general that most people are going to want to pass a "problem" on to the next person if it’s not "really their problem anyways" to avoid having to deal with the unnecessary internal stress felt as a result of the social pressure or discomfort that arises from a lack of certainty or clarity during disputes. However, if every administrator did that, nothing and nobody would improve. On the bright side, I use this as an opportunity to become more knowledgeable on the platform; however, it is exhausting defending the weightless accusations, especially considering none of my edit actions would confer or relate in such a way that it could indicate a lack of good, positive intentions that are all inclusive. On the "don’t shoot yourself" page, it links to a page that says "unclean hands," where there is a definition of "the defendant has the burden of proof to show."

Following below is the burden of proof. Additionally, the Unclean Hands page says, "In other words, if you ask for help about the actions of someone else but have acted wrongly yourself, then you do not have clean hands, and you may not receive the help you seek." "For example, if you desire your tenant to vacate, you must not have violated the tenant's rights." The first part is pretty obvious: why would a sock puppetry account ask to be unbanned?

Nobody makes sock puppets by accident; it’s an intentional, deliberate action.

If I was a socket puppetr…Why would I risk a perfect account that made every edit within guidelines, received no deleted wikidata items, was always adding sources, had restored 3 notable pages, removed a faulty block, spent hours on discussions, edited multiple wikis, had 0 account bans or restrictions, etc., etc. & then decide to openly expose a 2-day-old sock puppetry account and risk being blocked indefinitely? There is no reason. That doesn’t even sound sensible or reasonable, nor is it a pattern that’s consistent with my actions. The second part says, "If you desire your tenant to vacate, you must not have violated the tenant's rights." Multiple guidelines of policy have been violated and wikipages deleted based on misinformation. My request has been so far ignored regarding those.

Next, to address your accusation of sock puppetry, A quick dive into the digital fingerprint of the devices edited on will reveal this is not sock puppetry. We may share the same IP, but not the same devices, and this can be revealed and cross-referenced with every edit I've made. So yes we are roommates; however, this is not a valid accusation in accordance of what sock puppetry is, and additionally, my roommate has had a single 2 days use of non-controversial and non-disruptive edits that triggered a block by a filter that doesn't exist anymore. Then he publicly asked to get unblocked. This doesn't sound like sock puppetry to me, and everyone knows this, but I'm sure you just wanted to see me explain myself, so no worries. I just end up becoming a better and more knowledgeable editor a lot faster with everything that happens to me.

Do I know the editor, Paul Turner? Yup. He is my roommate, and I told him verbatim "that I enjoy editing" WD and that "it’s addicting" and that "he should create a WD for The Rangerz and its members," and after I discovered that it has been talked about in many notable sources when restoring "The Blonde Jon's" Wikidata. I told him to promise me he would edit or create at least 1 WD, and if he doesn’t find it addicting, no worries. I told him to use the item I restored as a reference since he is familiar with The Rangerz. He had fun, learned pretty quickly, and started building WDs and/or adding sources to other notable influencers who either lack a properly sourced item or do not have an item created for them at all yet.

Unfortunately, he was unaware of the block on the "JetSet" item listed as a sibling to the example I gave him and got himself pretty quickly banned, blaming me and saying it was my fault I did not tell him. I was the one who told him to appeal it because it was an out-dated and faulty block filter. which he did, and then pretty much just rage quit after seeing that other admins were wikihounding some of his edits and making abusive deletions on items he created or even deleting pre-existing notable items he had just added sources to.

I analyzed the sock puppetry guidelines, and this is the second time now that I’ve had to appeal a false accusation of this term due to the previous (now removed) auto filter preventing sources from being added. This is the first time I've said, "Run a check on me openly."

Again, this meets none of the guidelines for sock puppetry, meat puppetry, tag teaming, or any other thing—not even close. There are no actions that were taken by myself, Paul, or anyone else that were not taken in good faith or in an attempt to not follow the guidelines.

I’ve done IP edits in good faith, got blocked, and disclosed my IP edit to admins, telling them to remove the LTA190 nearly a month ago. This is the reason Paul got blocked as well. I’ve been aware of this block for a month after seeing a random person edit this "JetSet" item and have it get blocked in real time.

Because of this, I had to prove its notability using sources without the subject's name to just barely receive a response that it had been removed days ago. Again, Paul, on the other hand, had no knowledge of the block and quickly got banned.

Either way, sources were asked for prior to the block of Paul, and considering I taught him using the sibling of that item as an example, it’s human nature to branch out and back to where you started from, and this can be seen in the editing style patterns. Ultimately, the fact of the matter is that it’s inappropriate to block editors, preventing them from adding reliable sources to an item that is requesting reliable sources or to avoid being deleted.

I informed the admins of this; it took some time, but finally, when this was realized, the LTA 190 was removed by the admins, which is the basis of Paul being blocked and therefore the basis of this sock puppetry accusation as well as consequently holding no merit in live time.

At best, the closest thing this would fall under is "tag teaming," but even that is a stretch as there is no collaborative effort besides me showing him the mechanics of editing and showing him an example of how to upload a photo, which is no different than learning from a course, an in-person teacher, or reading a step-by-step blog. Otherwise, there is no attempt to collectively do something that can’t be done by any single one of us on our own.

The editing patterns are quite different too; pull up 2 tabs and analyze them side by side, and there are distinct differences in the specific identifiers, qualifiers, BLP niche, quantity, specificity, and types of sources he and I tend to habitually use that are different and clearly indicate separate directions, independent interest, and inspired yet different thought processes in the qualities or characteristics deemed important or relevant to items.

Another point I just noticed is the collapse of time, which is natural for any beginner after shortening the learning curve. He spent several hours on his first few edits, then nearly an hour on his later edits before getting banned. My edit history is also way more edits per minute and way more inclusive, bouncing around from item to item, disambiguating, adding missing info, internal linking, etc., where as his is more exclusive and focused more on crafting 1 item, which is normal for a beginner. You can confirm this by looking at the edit history.

This can also be easily and quickly confirmed by running the device's fingerprints. which I'm assuming you already have via checking the user's IP, so you should know this to be a fact.

The Wiki Privacy Policy also states the following, which would also confirm it is not sock puppetry:

"Information We Receive Automatically" Because of how browsers work, we receive some information automatically when you visit the Wikimedia sites. This includes when you use an online tool on a third-party site that loads information from the Wikimedia sites. "This information includes the type of device you are using (possibly including unique device identification numbers, for some beta versions of our mobile applications), the type and version of your browser, your browser's language preference, the type and version of your device's operating system, in some cases the name of your internet service provider or mobile carrier, the website that referred you to the Wikimedia Sites, which pages you request and visit, and the date and time of each request you make to the Wikimedia Sites."

Lastly, at the end of the day, the overall progression towards an outcome is what needs to be focused on, and then the degree of radical self-honesty in the belief or lack thereof determines the likelihood of our mutual understanding being followed through on. And since blocks are preventive measures, not punishment, I would like to request the removal of this block based on the facts presented above; I encourage you to go ahead and verify every single one of them all the way down to the device fingerprint and edit patterns. As well as the facts that there was a consensus reached with the original blocking editor in RfD, the LTA 190 block that Paul is blocked from doesn’t exist anymore, and the subject has been proven more than notable with multiple staff articles.

If you want me to tell my roommate to come on and you can do a check user test while we both go to different sides of the city at once or something to verify the device fingerprinting. That can be arranged if you’re willing to cover the gas money!

Thank you for reading this; if you made it this far, I do appreciate your time. Let me know. Thanks again. Mateobala (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I analyzed the sock puppetry guidelines, and this is the second time now that I’ve had to appeal a false accusation of this term due to the previous (now removed) auto filter preventing sources from being added. This is the first time I've said, "Run a check on me openly."

typo .

should say

I analyzed the sock puppetry guidelines, and this is the second time now that I’ve had to appeal a false accusation of this term due to the previous (now removed) auto filter preventing sources from being added. AND THE first time I already said, "Run a user check on me openly." Mateobala (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• The content matter is not relevant to your being blocked for using multiple accounts. The technical evidence (which includes more than IP addresses) strongly connects you with Paulturner15 (talk • contribs • logs) and per WD:AA multiple accounts belonging to the same person must have their connections disclosed publicly, which you not have. The privacy policy does not help your case, and as a CheckUser I am authorized to look at otherwise nonpublic information to investigate possible sockpuppetry like this. @Bovlb: whose original assertion of block evasion was my impetus for conducting the check. Since I already did a check, I’m not sure why you are requesting a check again.—Jasper Deng (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that:

  If possible, the checkuser should attempt to resolve the situation without releasing any information, or by releasing the minimum possible information. The following information is commonly permissible. This list is not comprehensive, and cannot replace the checkuser's judgment. If the checkuser is at all doubtful, they should give no detail and answer like a Magic 8-Ball:

  However

  "If the content matter is not relevant to being blocked for using multiple accounts."

  The content edit patterns is the most relevant thing actually per:

  • CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. Almost all queries about IPs will be because two editors were behaving the same way. An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not).
  • It is always better to comment on content rather than on contributors

  Without that being relevant everything else, is inherently by its very own nature automatically addressed with common sense because the only thing is left if you remove the content.

  "The technical evidence (which includes more than IP addresses) strongly connects you with Paulturner15"

  1000% Of course it does. How could it not? I just told you we live together and that I encouraged him to become an editor. In essence there should be no one else in the world with a stronger connection than anyone else but the person who shares the strongest wifi connection, I literally stood over his shoulder teaching him how to make his first edits.

  What else were you expecting?

  &

  What exactly inside of the policy WD:AA allows you to force me to take ownership of someone else's accounts and edits claiming them as mine? What benefit would come from falsely implying there is a connection & disclosing it publicly? @Jasper Deng Mateobala (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I have 3 total roommates. If me and my 3 roommates leave the house, travel to france together, 1 of us edits mobile at a coffeeshop, another day one of them edits at the hotel on his computer and another day I edit from my iPad while in a uber and on 1 day we all edit at the exact same time to the second from our own devices (all with different interest, editing style, and time commitments), therefore having similar IP/geo locations yet different device fingerprinting ALWAYS - please inform me, what exactly are you referring to inside of the policy WD:AA that allows you to fuse the actions of those 4 people into 1 if "the content matter is not relevant to being blocked for using multiple accounts."?

  Not a single one of those accounts would be a Legitimate uses of alternate accounts nor Illegitimate uses of alternate accounts - because not a single on them is an alternate. If it not against the policy to share wifi with someone, travel with them, live with them while working on wiki at the same time.

  A matter in-fact, my roommate is in the room next to me right now alongside my other 2 roommates, @Paulturner15 is working on his computer (the same computer he made his edits on) which is different from the computer I've made my edits on. I will just have him get online same time right now as me and respond for himself. Additionally another 1 of my other 2 roommates have been wanting to do wikidata for awhile but I told him not too because I had thought multiple people on the same IP address, different devices at the same time, is not allowed. Which is why I told @Paulturner15 in our recent travels together, that it would be the perfect time for him to create an account and learn the ropes and that I would avoid making edits from the same IP address so he can edit.

  I can have all 4 of us right now or any time on demand within an instant start a conversation or start editing wiki from 4 different devices using the same IP address at the same time and all of will have different device fingerprints. Mine will always match mine. @paulturner15 will always match his and the same will go for my other 2 roommates who have yet to create their account. We can do this from 4 different wikis, 4 different fields. This can be done from 4 different phones, 4 different back up phones, 3 ipads, 4 laptops, 3 desktop computers and it would all be the same ip address and the similar trace routes. We also have an office in a city an hour away and could replicate the experiment there, further proving the impossibility of sock puppeting.

  (I will quickly research this experiment to make sure we don't get blocked for revealing the truth & once I am aware of the rules and outcome, I will debunk this unsubstantiated accusation) @Jasper Deng

  If you have any task that need some work/help aquedate for someone ranging in experience editing wikis, 1 person @Paulturner15 who has only wikidata experience, and my other 1 roommmate who contributes a couple times a month to wikialpha/everybody wiki/iqwiki for experience you're online let me know. Now that I know it is okay for multiple users to edit with accounts from the same IP address, I will ask all my roomates to dedicate 10 minutes of concentrated editing, you will need to unblock PaulTurner15 for him to do this and you can then do a check user and run device fingerprints. We can tackle 4 diff wiki projects at once, 4 different WD sites at once, likely making edits within milliseconds of each other, possibly even across 4 different languages, niches you name it. Then you tell me if you think PaulTurner15 is a sockpuppet after this experiment. Even use it as a case study to analyze the different level./skills of editors that live together. With 1 being a newbie, Paulturner having less than 12 hours of experience, and my other roommate who has zero wikidata experience but has article experience from wiki clones and then myself of course who has been here making weekly edits for nearly 2 months. - @Jasper Deng

  @Estopedist1 @Bovlb @Trade - I am going to have my roommates hop online to

  What do you guys say? Is this a fair resolution? Seems quite fun and mentally stimulating. I am open-minded. Please provide me with a link to information, I'm sure I am not the first being accused of something similar. I'm inviting you guys since you guys are the only people I've communicated with on here. Mateobala (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Most annoying here is such huge info massives created by You. In general, people (even administrators) don't want to read info massives, we are looking concreteness and not massive info units. Currently, I am waiting Jasper Deng asnwer at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q115334880 Estopedist1 (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  understood.

  It would be easier to express thoughts verbally than via a keyboard so I will keep that in mind. Ty Mateobala (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  To reword Estopedist1, please read Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read (Q12294446). You’re going to convince no one with long screeds (4.7 kB is excessive). While the content the two accounts made was the basis for suspicion, now that I have established a technical connection, whether your items are kept or not is no longer relevant. I’m going to seek a second opinion from another CheckUser but I am unwilling to believe there’s no connection here. Lastly, the amount of incivility, abrasiveness, and wikilawyering you are showing here, if anything, suggests the community would experience too much disruption if you were unblocked. Limit your next reply to 1000 characters or less (ideally less than 500).—Jasper Deng (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am a blogger in my day job, so I do apologize for my lengthy articles. And you are right, I have been showing incivility, abrasiveness, and wikilawyering and I apologize. I am just getting upset that I am being falsely accused of actions for now a month. Imagine I went around wiki deleting your work and telling people that you were doing things you never did and then next thing you know your items and pages are put up for deletion and then because you're the new person, everyone looks to qualify the accusations rather than disqualify. Mateobala (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Additionally to educate you on why I am requesting an unblock is because the impetus you conducted the check user IMO is not reliable and I would like it to be tested and confirmed as fact or lack thereof.

  So yes, I would to request that you consider please doing a check user on the creator of all the wiki pages for "JetSet" items that Bovlb linked here and the original wikipedia page linked here. The facts will be self-evident. I think @Bovlb would find this useful as well.

  I would appreciate it. Thanks Mateobala (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hello. Happy Saturday. I just wanted to follow up here on my latest message. Thank you. Mateobala (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Per this article, this experiment is not really even needed actually, all that is needed is @Paulturner15 and I plus my other 2 roommates disclose this. I will tell my other roommates to sign up now actually.

  It states here: If two or more registered editors use the same computer or network connection, their accounts may be linked by a CheckUser. Editors in this position are advised to declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. There are userboxes available for this; see {{User shared IP address}}. Mateobala (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Per this article, this experiment is not really even needed actually, all that is needed is @Paulturner15 and I plus my other 2 roommates disclose this. I will tell my other roommates to sign up now actually.

  It states here: If two or more registered editors use the same computer or network connection, their accounts may be linked by a CheckUser. Editors in this position are advised to declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. There are userboxes available for this; see {{User shared IP address}}. Mateobala (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Note: My 2nd roommate attempted to make an account and is not allowed to make an account currently due to being on same IP as me.

• @Sotiale: affirms my verdict, i.e. that you’re being untruthful and that you are the sole operator of both accounts. You require approval from a CheckUser for unblock.—Jasper Deng (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. Thanks for your response. What leads you to assume that I'm being untruthful making me the sole operator of both accounts on two different computers? Is it not reasonable that a new editor would be unaware of needing tags until told by someone with more experience? Compared to - the alternative that you and @Sotiale are suggesting: which is, that I was traveling around the world, during the holidays, carrying multiple laptops, using different wikidata accounts to make edits? Mateobala (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Uploading video for proof right now with me standing next to @Paulturner15. @Jasper Deng Mateobala (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  same @Paulturner15 Mateobala (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hopefully this gives you some reassurance that my statements are valid. Once again, I have a near perfect wiki edit history and so does @Paulturner15 since the filter was removed as non use-ful. With that said what exactly about either of our actions implies deceitful intent and sock puppetry? Let’s say hypothetically we were the same person and we just used different devices, what exactly about our intention is responsible for us being labeled our as sock puppets? This way, moving forward in the future @paulturner15, 1 of my other roommates who wants to sign up and I can avoid violating those rules. Thanks

  video of me and roommates posting simultaneously From the same devices we are being accused of sock puppeting from https://youtube.com/shorts/yBYEEyNi-z8?feature=share Mateobala (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Sotiale @Jasper Deng @Estopedist1@Bovlb Mateobala (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  https://youtube.com/shorts/yBYEEyNi-z8?feature=share Mateobala (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Please note that proving that "I'm not one person" is not an important factor in proving your innocence. Perhaps "technically one person" is misunderstood, but this actually includes the possibility that you have used two accounts, or that your friends or family have used other accounts for the same purpose as you. You have been blocked because, within this possibility, your account was abused for the same purpose of editing an item you created. Just proving that you exist as two different people doesn't help your appeal at all. --Sotiale (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, it means that for your appeal to be successfully accepted, it is not enough to claim that you are not one person; It's no coincidence that you and someone else edited on the same interests as you. You may simply claim to be innocent of having the same interests as you, traveling with you, on the same type of device, and getting an IP from the same ISP as you, but others don't see it that simply. Because many people make the same claim in this case. And they always give information about their family or other friends. But it doesn't really convince anyone of anything. --Sotiale (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And one thing I want to say, no one is here to block you. The data left on the server related to you fully reveals the possibility that you used multiple accounts, and Jasper blocked you based on this with same interests and same page editing, and I have confirmed that Jasper's judgment based on this data was not wrong(So I am not a direct party to this block). To emphasize again, if you adequately explain and give reasons for this appeal, this appeal will be accepted. For example, the several cases you are presenting are only proposing possibilities and do not serve your appeal. Excluding other block reasons, suppose only block reason is that you used multiple accounts by yourself. In this case, having possible multiple cases does not definitively prove that you are another user. Possible case alone does not prove that you are the case. It doesn't immediately come to mind which would be the proper way, but if you're another user, hopefully you'll come up with a way to prove it. I don't know if these explanations will help you, but hopefully they will help you find clues to getting your appeal accepted rather than wasting your time trying to convince others with finding possible multiple counterexamples. Perhaps this is all I can give you, meaningful or not, but this is all I can give you. --Sotiale (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sotiale current situation: problematic item (Josh King Madrid (Q113523134)) is undeleted and Special:AbuseFilter/190 is deactivated. See Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q115334880.

I suggest to use here en:Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, this means to unblock User:Mateobala. If he or his colleagues/roommates are trying to create not notable items or will do disruptive edits, then we will use "to block indefinitely" Estopedist1 (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not ruling out the possibility that they could be someone else either, but at least the checkuser data is pretty clear. Therefore, there is no problem with Jasper blocking based on this data. Anyway I don't have enough time (which is why I can't review this in full) and having this problem persist is stressful for this user as well, and probably for other admins as well. I would like to propose a clumsy solution to solve this problem.

1. Acknowledgement by the user that they're aware of the issues raised so far, promising not to cause any policy problems in the future
2. After that, respond to Jasper's several questions to check the possibility of being another user, and check if it matches the checkuser data.

It won't make sense if someone doesn't accept it, but if that's the case, someone can and should come up with a better solution. --Sotiale (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for your guys responses and dedication of your time to helping me out by providing more information on the block.

I’m regards to your latest response -

“or that your friends or family have used other accounts for the same purpose as you. “…” if you adequately explain and give reasons for this appeal, this appeal will be accepted.”

“ I encouraged @Paulturner15 to become a contributor so he can work on expanding an item I helped restore Q115206576 that was deemed notable by an admin. And I taught him in-person how to edit WD using that item because he is more familiar and knowledgeable about one of the properties I added to that item. This is because the properties of that item, which I told the admin, were in need of their own item suit his interest and are within his area of expertise property and not mine — specifically music/dance/social media collective groups. I told him to make sure every property and/or linked item must resemble Q115206576, since we know it qualifies for notability, which led him to being blocked by an auto-filter (that he was unaware of and I was aware of) associated with one of the linked properties of that item — an item I had created.

In my mind, teaching him how to edit starting with an admin-approved item he has interest in, that I did not create, but did edit since it was related to an item I did create and have interest in, made sense to me — at the time. However, I am now aware that it was against policy and should have never encouraged him or taught him to use wikidata on his computer since we are in proximity of each other. I apologize.

And to answer your request in #1. - Yes, I promise not to cause policy problems in the future.

for #2. - You lost me here.. I could not find the questions you are referring to. Could you highlight them for me?

Thanks. Mateobala (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

To everyone else, I apologize for sounding like a broken record, but out of respect for @Sotiale not having time to read my original request to appeal and asking for me to explain my reasons, I felt it was appropriate to paraphrase it once more. Mateobala (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing highlighted. This is because if Jasper agrees with this suggestion, he will ask you some confirmation questions if needed. It's not something that has already happened. --Sotiale (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Got it. Understood. Appreciate you clarifying and happy MLK day!

I know you guys are busy, but I wanted to touch base on the video sent over the other day of myself and the editor Paulturner15 as a response to Jasper's last message.

It's a real in-person short 15 sec. vid that we decided to quickly film revealing @Paulturner15 and I standing next to each other and sharing the same network connection on diff devices. The video physically shows us both typing/commenting on each of our separate talk pages at the same time.

May I request that you two @Sotiale & @Jasper Deng give me 15 seconds of your time to watch https://youtube.com/shorts/yBYEEyNi-z8?feature=share and please reconsider entertaining the idea of {{User shared IP address}} being the appropriate usertag for our talk pages assuming I am able to answer Jasper's confirmation questions

Thanks! Mateobala (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

For all I know, your roommate could have just logged in to that account only for the purposes of that video. It does not prove anything about whether you operated that account as well, and pretending to be a new user is a common sockpuppetry strategy. Why is it that your "roommate" seems to be physically with you no matter where, regardless of location? (You can answer in private via Special:EmailUser/Jasper Deng). The data I see is consistent with one person. As of now we have no reason to believe you. Your only option is to attempt to convince another CheckUser otherwise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The C/U data: 2 devices, 2 device fingerprints, 2 WD accounts, a similar IP range spawning throughout multiple countries on an international xmas trip.

@Jasper Deng - When you say the "data I see is consistent with one person. As of now we have no reason to believe you" what do you mean by that?

Let me know soon please, this is important to me. Thanks a ton.

&

@Sotiale - would you be able to provide me with the following please. thank you in advance.

What about this data Jasper is referencing or my edit history specifically gives the reason to believe I am editing in good-faith ?

Additionally, What about this data Jasper is referencing or my edit history specifically gives the reason to believe I am editing with lack of good-faith ?

I'm just trying to understand why I am being met with so much resistance and lack of willingness to work come to a reasonable resolution. Aren't block supposed to be a preventative measure? I never been banned, blocked, warned, and had like only like 2-3 edits out of 500+ ever be reverted.

How can some one that has no indicators of abusive edits and 100% indicators of good-faith edits be blocked as a preventative measure if when asked why multiple devices share the same IP addresses, is going to bet met with nothing but a simple "I don't trust you" as a response? Everyone has skepticism for time to time, but there's no reason for being cynical.

Just seems quite harsh, seriously.

Also the fact that every other suggestion by every other admin here has been ignored by Jasper completely, yet Jasper responded multiple times speaking on behalf of everyone else. Mateobala (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. My evidence suggests the use of a single device. I encourage you to answer via email to preserve your privacy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The blanket statement and “quotations” came off to me as either sarcastic and in-genuine. Your question is a straw-man argument that implies your personal incredulity on what I’ve have disclosed in several replies + showed you a video. Mateobala (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you be willing to provide the C/U technical & IP evidence here publicly on my talk page? you have my full permission.

If your technical evidence has the ability to discerns seperate devices using device fingerprinting, I am absolutely certain without a shadow of a doubt that your technical evidence does not show one device.

Assuming it does, then providing it here will allow me to request another C/U or higher up to confirm it with full transparency. Mateobala (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng

And if it does not have the ability, then, this only reveals that it is not 100% accurate and subject to error and best guesstimation.

Therefore appealing from ignorance is not a valid reason to deny my request to be un-blocked without begging the question that I asked to be answered by providing reasons on how @Paulturner15 and I have used our accounts to deceive or mislead other editors. Mateobala (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not permitted to reveal any of the data publicly for privacy reasons. Given that Sotiale has concurred with me and you refuse to answer my question, I’m standing by my conclusion, so you will remain blocked to prevent further socking.—Jasper Deng (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to inform you guys on what's going on, since you guys have played a role influencing the outcome of this overall situation thus far. @Sotiale @Estopedist1 @Bovlb. I have screen-recorded and printed out this entire conversation and I will be writing a letter to Jimmy Wales.

In Jasper's latest reply, he puts words in my mouth and continues to set me up with irrelevant loaded question that have nothing to even do with this block or how my edit history implies deception, which I've asked 4x times...

AND this is after, I literally just told him in the message he is responding to the answer has been quote on quote "disclosed in several replies + showed you (jasper) a video".

No one should be above the principles of 'assuming good faith' and treating others with respect. Mateobala (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is a checkuser block, so this is out of my hands; I cannot overrule @Jasper Deng on a checkuser decision. I have already given my opinion on this unblock request. ROPE here means that if there is doubt about a block, a probationary unblocking can be a good idea, because subsequent behaviour will settle the question as to whether the block was necessary to protect the project.

There is one more option open to you, which is to make an appeal to the wider community. I can help you with this by starting a thread on WD:AN pointing to this page. I have to warn you that most people would be unable to evaluate the checkuser evidence so would be obliged to defer to it, and many would consider it premature to appeal if you have left reasonable questions unanswered. Bovlb (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds fair @Bovlb and I agree 1000% that my subsequent behavior will settle the question as to whether it was necessary. I believe @Estopedist1 recommended this as well.

Also, you are awesome for extending help, thanks so much. I am definitely not opposed to appealing to the wider community, so let me read over the link you sent me to get informed on the process as well and go through this thread to consolidate into bullet points. I will notify you once done for guidance.

- checkuser evidence point. Understood.

- I'll double check that all questions have been answered. Mateobala (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The deceptive part comes from you trying to make us believe this whole roommate story. Acting like two people while really being one is expressly against the policy.

With your comments, you’ve added main reason I am opposed to unblocking you: if you were to be unblocked, how could I be assured you will not post uncivil screeds like you have continued to do so here, even after acknowledging it above? I was going to offer a reduction to 2 weeks for this account only if @Sotiale: agrees and you provide a satisfactory explanation as to why both accounts are at the same time and place beyond the scope of one vacation. Now there is no such offer because I would still be inclined to block you for combative behavior.—Jasper Deng (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The reality is we all use motivated reasoning to pick and choose facts that support our prior beliefs.

The uncivil screeds only appear as such due to the fact we have taken an adversarial approach against each other which likely will never change either of our minds. I think by unblocking me, it would be a step in both of us agreeing to come together to find the truth in good faith rather than just trying to prove the other person is not being truthful and operating with lack of good faith. The very action of deciding to unblock my account will IMO dissolve the possibility of what you want to make sure won't happen again. Mateobala (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This excessively long comment and others do not give me reason to believe you will stop if unblocked. As you probably have learned, longer comments hinder, not help, with resolution of anything. If unblocked, this would not be the last dispute you’d have (guaranteed), so “I’m only being uncivil because I don’t like it” is not acceptable.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop what?

The replies you linked were needed for the 'LTA' to be removed and the admins askedfor context, which I gave - ultimately. It says in the policy "focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct"

AND... nothing is ever guaranteed + statements you quoted - I never said. So what do you mean when you say that? Mateobala (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you 1000% on the long comment matter. The linked comments, which I later retracted took place on Jan6. On Jan12, you informed me about TL;DR (Thank you) and ever since I've changed, my replies are significantly shorter, collaborative and on point.

I can't guarantee that disputes won't arise. If and when they do, I can't guarantee every reply will be super short, some comments, like this need more info. If unblocked, then you can be certain that I guarantee my comments and all my edits, regardless of length, are civil. I guarantee they will be collaborative, concise and on point. And I guarantee that I will seize any comments that are excessively long due to including way more information than necessary. Mateobala (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sotiale@Jasper Deng: heads up! After this honest declaration and promising by user:Mateobala, I would give him a last chance. But the unblocking right is owned by these two above-mentioned checkusers Estopedist1 (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Jasper Deng following up. Mateobala (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy Sunday! Bumping this.

Thanks! Mateobala (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy Monday. Following up here again. I would appreciate an update. Thank you. Mateobala (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bovlb - Hey, happy tuesday! Hope you had a blessed weekend. Quick update - I wanted to give some time before deciding how to move forward which is why I haven't got back to you yet. I haven't had any response or much progress here in awhile now but m going to attempt to receive assistance one last time but from another C/U before deciding to communicate with WD:AN and as well as ArbCom & WMF. If no response here in the next day or two, I will reach out for help with WD:AN. Thanks you. Mateobala (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@1997kB @BRPever @علاء Hello, Happy Tuesday! I am tagging you to ask if one of you could unblock me, my account has been flagged for having a potential sockpuppet because another user (my roommate) and I share IP addresses. I greatly appreciate if you could take a look into my request to be unblocked. Thank you in advance and I provided some context below.

A few weeks ago I have provided explanations + sent a link to a in-person video filmed alongside the other user who is thought to be a sock-puppet of me. In the video, you can see the other account holder and I both editing our WD talk-pages simultaneously on our separate devices. If you feel it is needed, I don't mind if you decide to run a separate C/U test to confirm that both devices in the video as well as both of their unique fingerprint data points do in-fact match to each of our two separate user accounts and always have. A few replies above, I also outlined what actions and changed behaviors I will take to ensure the things I am willing to do differently once I am unblocked, starting with adding the appropriate {{User shared IP address}} tag on my user page. Thank you for your time, your guidance is appreciated! Mateobala (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Bumping this :)

@Sotiale @Estopedist1@1997kB @BRPever Mateobala (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I hope all is well with you @Sotiale (A/CU/S) @1997kB (A/CU) @BRPever (A/CU/S), @علاء (A/CU/S),

I’m just writing to follow up on my last contact with re-activating this {{unblock}}, I've answered all questions asked of me providing background information detailing my relationship with @Paulturner15 and that we contribute from nearby IP ranges, I've made a honest declaration on 8:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC) above and also sent a video as well that matches the C/U technical data on 20:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC) with @paulturner15, but, we haven't heard back or gotten any help re-activating our accounts. Is there an ETA of when one of you have the time to chat to make a decision, or has one already been made but not communicated yet? Would appreciate a prompt update on the status of this, Thanks, I appreciate you. Mateobala (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

it is a checkuser case, but because they don't want to to close it (I don't know reason(s)). Then I think I have administrator right to unblock you in three days (i.e. on 10 February) Estopedist1 (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Estopedist1 I don't know why you would wanna unblock users who are clearly involved in some UPE, Influencer marketing. Likely a group coordinating together and trying to use loopholes to make their claims legit. Leave it to CUs. BRP ^ever 10:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

ABF paid editing because someone edits majorly within a particular subject matter is unwarranted and it completely contradicts Jasper's earlier statement "The content matter is not relevant to your being blocked for using multiple account". Biases should not be relevant in this conversation and we should stick to facts.

&

"No valid/convincing reason for unblock"

That's because appeal for clemency when there is no prospective grounds for the block in the first place nor is there 1 single problematic edit, can not make sense logically, which is why all the other editing admins involved in the thread suggested ROPE. It is also would explain the failure to communicate back to me and provide reasons that justify the block for weeks on end.

I read over many previous AC experiences and they collectively seem reasonable, fair and honest in their assessments in unblocking very problematic editors. At the end of the day the WMF mission is to have more contributors that help and I've seen them give second chances to people who actually violated a policy because they committed to applying good behavior moving forward, yet here I have done the same and have perfect edit behavior so far and I'm being dragged along for over a month. I'm not sure the motive of this block but it is clear that it has nothing to do with following WD policy. Mateobala (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"The content matter is not relevant to your being blocked for using multiple account," yes. But I am not going to unblock an account which has behavioural similarity to other who have been blocked for abuse in the past, and has been using multiple accounts here. You are clearly not being honest here and have been accusing us of fault. I am not going to sit here and argue with someone who is making excuses. If you continue this, your talk page access will be blocked. Also, stop trying to promote those people in other smaller Wikimedia wikis. BRP ^ever 00:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

So you blocked me because you also blocked someone else with solid edit history that provided sources for all their edits on notable pages? If there is a problem with my behavior why hasn't it been specifically addressed yet? All possible problems have been reversed due to my in research and proven to be done in error.

"You are clearly not being honest here"

Honest about what? You guys asked me for an explanation and declaration to change. I did both and even sent a video of me and the other editor confirming everything we've said. Then after I do it, you guys just keep saying dishonest, despite not providing any honest answer of why I am banned per policy. Nothing about my behavior or @Paulturner15 behavior breaks policy, therefore this block is not being done as a preventive measure which is why no one has provided any burden of proof for their accusations. The truth is you guys made a false assumption about who I am and when the evidence didn't support your story, you guys realized that I am correct and instead of providing me with an explanation of why I was blocked per policy or acknowledging it was done in error and unblocking me - there has just been bad-faith accusations hurled at me without any evidence to support the statements.

All I ever asked was for you guys to be reasonable and fair. This is not un-reasonable and unfair treatment and I'm sure based on the evidence (not assumptions) and within policy the AC & WMF will agree. Mateobala (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This is un-reasonable*** ....

• typo

Mateobala (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s quite enough; your talk page access has been disabled. No, the arbitration committee of Wikipedia has no jurisdiction here and I already explained why your video does not refute our findings.—Jasper Deng (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: This is a CheckUser block and under no circumstances can it be removed without CheckUser approval.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)