User talk:Empire AS

Hi Empire As hope you are doing well. I just came here for the all the help you have given me when you were here. If you don't mind and trust, can you share your e-mail address?

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Empire AS. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I've not used any sock puppet account. In the past, I used ALM Aadeez due to security and soon abandoned that account so I removed that user box from my user page. (you may see that in my user page history [1]). What I do is that I use a Wi-Fi that is provided in my hostel to edit Wikipedia. The other accounts might have the same IP as of me due to that Wi-Fi that is used by all of my hostelmates. Why I would create another account when I've such a good account where I've a large number of edits and good articles too. I wasn't even given a single chance to provide my arguments at the SPI case. I know neither Zindaaab nor Gorilla Werfs. I've not created another account and the IP you see may be shared by someone else as the Wi-Fi isn't only used by me. I'd abandon to use that Wi-Fi too to prevent such types of IP sharing and would use my personal mobile data in the future. Thanks. Empire AS ^Talk! 05:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There are some gaping holes in your defense, and I'm being kind by describing it that way:

1. You have heavily edited articles related to Atif Aslam.
2. Here at 06:01, 20 January 2021, Zindaaab just happens to upload an image of Atif Aslam.
3. Here at 08:39, 20 January 2021, Zindaaab requests File:Atif Aslam smiling.jpg be deleted.
4. Here at 11:54, 20 January 2021 you upload an image, File:Atif Aslam while smiling.jpg, which you later add to the Atif Aslam article.

So, your claim that you are unrelated to Zindaaab is demonstrably false, since it would have to be an extraordinary coincidence that two independent members of the same hostel would be 1) editing Wikipedia (a niche hobby), 2) editing in the same subject area, 3) uploading images of Atif Aslam, 4) with similar file names, 5) within hours of each other, and 6) that these people would be unknown to one another. And as for your claim that you used the ALM Aadeez account for security reasons, I find that very difficult to believe when:

Four hours after you tried to beef up Tajdar-e-Haram to save it from speedy deletion,[2] for alleged "security" reasons you logged into the ALM Aadeez account and deleted the speedy nomination. You absolutely knew that you weren't supposed to delete the speedy (it's stated very clearly in the template) and so you used your other account to sneakily delete it so it wouldn't look like you did it, and then conveniently you stop using the ALM Aadeez account after you did this.

While having multiple accounts is permissible, that edit constitutes bad-faith editing, and that would be a violation of WP:SOCK. Since you have failed to acknowledge any of this, your unblock request has been denied. Now really the only questions outstanding are: Why are you sneakily using multiple accounts to hide edits related to Atif Aslam? Are you being paid? And what was the reason for the post on GorillaWarfare's user page? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Cyphoidbomb, 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. [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb, 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)[reply]

Tahaaleem 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Hut 8.5 and Dreamy Jazz: Can you help? Empire AS ^Talk! 11:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 | my contributions} 12:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz, 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)[reply]

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 | my contributions} 14:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Mz7: Can you help? Empire AS ^Talk! 12:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging other checkusers or admins won't necessarily help. Your unblock request should be reviewed in good time. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

TonyBallioni, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

TonyBallioni, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hut 8.5, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hut 8.5, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 | my contributions} 23:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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. Cyphoidbomb, Hut8.5, and Dreamy Jazz 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 Gorilla Warfs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi, I'll like an uninvolved administrator or checkuser to review this request. My SPI case appeared as if a gunshot to the head: open and shut seemingly instantly. No timeline for the investigation and I was not even given a chance to respond. I was blocked for using these 3 sock-puppet accounts which I'm going to explain one by one.

1. ALM Aadeez

This account belongs to me, I created it back in April 2020. I had already revealed about that account in my userboxes. So, I should not be blocked for using an account about which I had already told publicly. Morever, I also redirected that account to my original account and soon abandoned that account. I've never used that account to get an illusion of support or to engage in edit wars or anything else.

2. Zindaaab

An account about which I didn't reveal that I'm using it, I admit my mistake. I created this account in January 2021 just to upload a photo of my fav. singer Atif Aslam that I received from one of my Facebook friends to see whether it is deleted or not, because all my recent uploads to Wikimedia Commons were deleted one by one as I was weakest in the "file" namespace. I didn't use that account to harass any user, perform vandalism or something else. I made just 3 edits using that account on Wikimedia Commons all related to that photo and made no edit with that account on Wikipedia. If that account was a factor in my block then I should be blocked on Wikimedia Commons only, not everywhere i.e. my block should be limited to Commons only for using this account.

3. Gorilla Warfs

The account that isn't used by me at all. This account made this edit on GorillaWarfare's talk page. The account looks similar to me, technically and behaviourally.

• Technically due to the same IP address, I guess. I already said that I used the Wi-Fi connection provided in my hostel which isn't used only by me but by all my hostel mates.
• Behaviourally due to the slight gap in the edits time. I edited Enrique Tarrio at 19:44 on 12 February 2021. The account was created at 19:52 and made this edit at 19:54 on 12 February 2021.

Not only I use that Wi-Fi but everyone in the hostel do. So, that account might have a same IP address but that doesn't mean that they are me or I'm that. Anyone in the hostel may have that account. According to WP:ROOMMATE, "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}}." I admit that I should have used the userbox {{User shared IP address}} but I didn't know that who may share this connection. So, I didn't use it. Behaviourally, the account doesn't look like me (if you see) due to potential of dissimilarity in the writing styles (i.e. emoticons, capitalization and edit summary) of both the accounts, that was not even looked into. I'll not perform such an act after being here for 11 months when I've a such a reputable and good account. If I were to do this then I'd have done this in the past when I was a newbie. If I had done this in the past at least for a single time then there would be definitely such a record in my contributions (you can check) but you'd find nothing like this. So, there arise no question of doing it now. An editor said: that's why it was done with a sockpuppet. But if I can create a sockpuppet now then I'd have also created other sock puppets in the past months for such purposes. Where are that? The reality is that you'd find no sock-puppet. I have not done such acts neither now nor then. Why I'll dig so hard on something so hard that is really really stupid? The user had provided a link to their Twitter account and also their Email address. If I were really to do this then I'd do it on Twitter where I'd have no worry of being blocked where everything would be private, not on Wikipedia where there were solid chances of a block and everything is visible publicly. Morever, I could also use another network to hide the similarity of IPs of both the accounts but I was such a fool that I didn't care about the IPs and considered Wikipedia best for such purposes, neither Twitter nor Email. :-D. A user said that I edited a random page, found the top contributor of it and created a sock puppet to comment on her. What a great supposition! I was in such a big hurry to finish this all within the ten minutes. You may think that as soon as I came to knew about her, I created the puppet and commented. I'll explain this too. She made this edit on 7 February 2021. I was watching that page (if you are doubtful, then see the article's history, I'm one of the top contributors of it). I also noticed that edit but not created a sock on that day (7 February 2021) to comment on her appearance (when I had not edited their heavily-edited article) whereas after a week, while editing a random page at 19:44, I did this. If I can post this message after editing their article on 12 February, then I could also do that on 7 February when I saw her firstly. I could also make that edit on that article another day or after a day or two so to keep me away from any SPI case. I was such a big fool that I made an edit on an article and within 10 minutes I did this all, not even waited. I could easily 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). What could I expect after doing this on Wikipedia? A block and the loss of trust. One may also feel strange that someone from the same hostel can not do this especially at the same time. But I feel nothing that's hard to believe here. What is the impossibility here? I already knew her a week before this incident. A random Wi-Fi user from the hostel just created an account for this message because I wasn't going to be such a big stupid in a great haste that even don't cares about the time gaps or IPs. Someone also said me to wait for 6 months and apologize. I can wait for 6 months and can apologize for using Zindaaab account secretly and not revealing about that but can't admit or apologize for something that I've not done. I'd be guilty only if I have done this. I'll only apologize if I've performed this edit. Morever, if I've done this then I'd not make any unblock request. Btw, check my level of stupidity by the point of view of some editors.

1. Noticed GW on 7 February and waited for 5 days till 12 February. (Why did I wait?)
2. Edited her most-edited article first before doing this non-sense. (Why do I need to edit the article first if I were to do this?)
3. Not used another connection to avoid the similarity in IP addresses.
4. Not cared about the slight time gap and finished everything within 10 minutes. (Why I was in such a big hurry when I had already waited for a week?)
5. Not found Twitter useful for such discussions where everything would be private and no risk of blocked.
6. Preferred Wikipedia over Twitter where everything is publicly visible.
7. Not even cared about the consequences of this edit that were to get a block and the loss of community trust.

Meanwhile, a user considered me to be a COI. I've never edited for pay but edits due to my interest. If you see my created articles and top edited pages then you'd note the variation in the types of the articles. Most are music-related, some are sports-related. Others include articles related to tv shows, YouTube, comics, lists, media, channels, albums and songs. That's is just to clarify you that I am not a COI because a COI mostly edits articles that are related to their specific subject.

Thought that I've sufficiently explained everything to you and also I'm hoping that is good for us. It's quite easy for me to create a new account and start editing now but I want to be abide by the rules of Wikipedia plus don't want to lose this (unique) account where I've nearly 16.5K+ edits, 45+ articles, 60+ categories and 70+ templates. I'm also a CVUA graduate from PG2 and TC21. I also had planned many things to do in future (i.e. participate in AfDs, NPR, RCP, and AIV etc) that would be possible only if I'm unblocked. I can clarify all of your doubts if you have left anything else to ask. Thank you for reading the request. Hoping for the good. — Empire AS ^Talk! 17:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the technical evidence behind this block, and it is extremely compelling. The claim that you are unrelated to the "Gorilla Warfs" account is unconvincing: in general, checkusers are able to distinguish between sockpuppets and unrelated users who happen to share the same IP, and I can say with a high level of confidence that this is not the latter case. Because over the past three weeks you have persistently failed to be forthcoming about your misuse of multiple accounts, I am declining this request and will be revoking your talk page access. Mz7 (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

•  Administrator note Two uninvolved CheckUsers looked at the technical data and determined it to be sockpuppetry. I also tracked the behavioural evidence and concluded that two of the accounts were used for bad-faith editing. Let's also remember that you lied about Zindaaab repeatedly until finally admitting to it, aaaand you also committed blatant copyright violations as both Zindaaab and as Empire AS, by uploading non-free images and declaring them as your own. So, just on that alone, that's the use of multiple accounts to engage in disruptive editing, a clear violation of WP:SOCK. Linking the GorillaWarfs account isn't even required to justify a block, but based on the additional explanation a CU gave me, the technical evidence is compelling that you are also linked to that account. Why you're lying about it, is likely because you realised that it would be perceived as sexual harassment in a climate that no longer tolerates that shit. I'll let another administrator a CheckUser will handle the unblock request, but your chances of being unblocked are nil. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC) An administrator won't reverse a CU block. Edited to reflect this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 CUs? Only the blocking CU, TonyBallioni was present here that isn't an uninvolved CU but an involved. Which 2 accounts I used for bad-faith editing? ALM Aadeez or Zindaaab? I don't see any bad-faith editing performed from them. I didn't use them for vandalism or illusion of support. I agreed about Zindaaab the next day of lying but not continuously kept lying. Although the photo didn't belong to me but that was not already present on internet so I uploaded that because the older photo in article was not too good. I agree that was copyright violations on Commons but not on Wikipedia. Morever, I used Zindaaab just on Commons so block should be limited to Commons only iff I'm blocked for using Zindaaab. I'm not lying about anything but speaking the truth that's hard to believe for you some users. But if you consider my request neutrally, you may see a higher chances of being unblocked. I'm still not sure that how can I assure you that I'm not connected to Gorilla Warfs. If you have further questions, let me know but please don't ask anyone to review this request or to revoke my talk page access. Btw I don't know whether you have noticed this edit or not. Thanks! Empire AS ^Talk! 18:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a court of law, and nobody is required to convince you to your satisfaction that you broke the rules. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note After the discussion above, Empire AS has subsequently modified their unblock request, and is now attempting to argue that they should only be blocked at Commons for deliberately uploading copyrighted content and lying about the copyright status. I guess we're in the bargaining phase of the five stages of grief. From my initial decline: Here at 11:54, 20 January 2021 you upload an image, File:Atif Aslam while smiling.jpg, which you later add to the Atif Aslam article. So, they lied about the copyright status and then made the image public at the English Wikipedia. Empire used ALM Aadeez to squirrely remove a speedy delete template. Empire claims it was an account he used for "security purposes" yet that was the only "contribution" this account made that day. The account was abandoned shortly thereafter. Then there's the strong CU evidence. The end. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another note. I edited my own unblock request and tried to explain everything in it. I've not edited any other user's comments but my own. You said: ... and is now attempting to argue that they should only be blocked at Commons for deliberately uploading copyrighted content and lying about the copyright status. I already explained that iff I'm blocked for using the account 'Zindaaab' then my block should be limited to Wikimedia Commons only, not on Wikipedia as I've not performed any edit from that account here on Wikipedia. I'm not arguing or bargaining to block me only on Commons. I already had accepted that the photo didn't belong to me. You said: I guess we're in the bargaining phase of the five stages of grief. Which says: "Although commonly referenced in popular culture, studies have not empirically demonstrated the existence of these stages, and the model is considered to be outdated, inaccurate and unhelpful in explaining the grieving process." Morever, the tag placed on Tajdar-e-Haram was {{db-person}}, an inaccurate tag that can't be used on articles related to 'singles'. As I've to use a public computer at that time so I removed that wrong tag using ALM Aadeez (about which I had revealed the truth in my userboxes), not my real account to avoid security problems. You are asking again and again those questions that I already had answered and explained comprehensively above. Any other unasked question? Now, the real eend. Empire AS ^Talk! 17:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you a single thing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, assuming that it was my talk page, I replied you. It won't happen again. I'll reply you iff you ask. Empire AS ^Talk! 17:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that I'm blocked only on Wikipedia, not elsewhere. I'm still able to edit Wikimedia Commons, Mediawiki, Wikidata and other sister projects. I'm blocked on Wikipedia which I use the most. Thanks! Empire AS ^Talk! 09:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb, Can I reply to the message below? Thanks. Empire AS ^Talk! 12:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Empire AS: You were a good contributor on Wikipedia before sockpuppetry evidence came in. I trusted you, and you said you would help me with this draft all along. Cheers, -Cupper52^Discuss! 10:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Next Right Thing.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jaffna Stallions in 2020, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Jaffna Stallions took home the trophy for the inaugural season of the Lanka Premier League in 2020, besting the Galle Gladiators, the Dambulla Viiking, and the Kandy Tuskers, despite failing to record a win against the Colombo Kings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jaffna Stallions in 2020. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jaffna Stallions in 2020), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dambulla Viiking in 2020, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Jaffna Stallions took home the trophy for the inaugural season of the Lanka Premier League in 2020, besting the Galle Gladiators, the Dambulla Viiking, and the Kandy Tuskers, despite failing to record a win against the Colombo Kings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dambulla Viiking in 2020. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Colombo Kings in 2020, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Jaffna Stallions took home the trophy for the inaugural season of the Lanka Premier League in 2020, besting the Galle Gladiators, the Dambulla Viiking, and the Kandy Tuskers, despite failing to record a win against the Colombo Kings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Colombo Kings in 2020. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kandy Tuskers in 2020, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Jaffna Stallions took home the trophy for the inaugural season of the Lanka Premier League in 2020, besting the Galle Gladiators, the Dambulla Viiking, and the Kandy Tuskers, despite failing to record a win against the Colombo Kings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kandy Tuskers in 2020. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kandy Tuskers in 2020), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Excuse Me Maadam.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Empire As hope you are doing well. I just came here to ask for your email address if you don't mind giving me the address. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.10.102 (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Pakistani television series has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Grizzy and the Lemmings.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lanka Premier League Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Diriliş Ertuğrul S5.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pakistan Super League opening and closing ceremonies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Obvious content fork. This detail can be included in the relevant season articles, any of which lack substantial prose anyway.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on List of Boards of Education in Pakistan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Happy Editing! -I Followed The Username Policy (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Indus Media Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indus Media Group (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User favourite LPL team, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User favourite LPL team and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User favourite LPL team during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]