Dcraigo

Apology edit

Latest comment: 10 months ago29 comments3 people in discussion

Hello User:Bovlb, I already went to your talk page to apologize for the mistake i made, only to realize that I had been blocked from editing.

I didn't mean to vandalize Wikidata. Had I known the items had been deleted several times, i wouldn't have recreated them (Q118958868 and Q118966419), I should have done proper research about the items before jumping on it. I don't have anything to do with the users you mentioned nor do i know them, You can check all my previous contributions accross MediaWiki Dcraigo (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for following up. I have requested an investigation. Bovlb (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you Dcraigo (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Bovlb what is the outcome of the investigation or when will the outcome be out? Dcraigo (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Still waiting for a response. We're all volunteers here. They usually get a response within a day or so, but there are some that have been open for over three months. Bovlb (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The results came back and confirmed block evasion, abuse of multiple accounts, and spamming. Bovlb (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Me? Abuse of multiple accounts? I have never used multiple accounts fgs. Is it because of the item I created?

What am I supposed to do now? I can't contribute or edit on wikidata never again? How am I supposed to continue editing or contributing? @Bovlb Dcraigo (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is expensive for us to review items for notability and we experience a lot of recreation of deleted items. This is why we track deleted items so that we can delete them summarily when they reappear. In such cases, we usually warn the user so that they can avoid the problem in future. If warnings are not heeded, we start blocking.

For both of these entities (Arash Barmaan and Dennis Shen), we have seen the item recreated repeatedly by many different user accounts. Between these various accounts, many warnings have been issued and several accounts have been blocked. Seeing you recreate these two previously deleted items, I reached the conclusion that you were the same user returning under yet another account and blocked you "on behavioural grounds".

It's a little unlikely that a new user would chance to start off by recreating two previously-deleted items, but coincidences do happen. Given your appeal above, I was happy to take a second look, so I requested a "checkuser investigation". This process is not based on behaviour; it involves the review of logfiles to determine if different accounts seem to be using the same computer system. The result of this investigation was to determine that your account is linked to the other accounts "on technical grounds". I'm afraid that this doesn't give me any basis for unblocking you.

If you wish to appeal further, you are welcome to add the {{Unblock}} template to this page and another admin can review the situation. This block only applies to Wikidata, and not to the other WMF projects where you have been contributing. You may wish to build up a track record of constructive contributions in another project before appealing, as that sort of thing is considered in unblock requests.

In the meantime, could you explain how you came to choose those two specific entities to create items for? Bovlb (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, I have not used multiple accounts and I never knew that the items has been created before. Before I proceed with creating the items, i search for it to know whether it's on wikidata or not but I didn't see it which I forgot to check other logs to know if it was deleted or anything.

And about my account been linked to another users account, it has also happened to me on en.wikipedia which I explained that I manage and use my account from my PC and phone and I provided them with two IP address (My PC and browser IP or so) which I was later unblocked after checking and doing what I was told to do.

And about how I came to create those item, how I came to create it might/might not be against wikidata policies but I have to explain. About Dennis Shen, a colleague told me he has been creating the item before but since I searched it and it didn't appear in among the items, I thought he didn't know how wikidata works not knowing it has been deleted or so. And about Arash Barmaan, I came across it online which I was going to contribute about across WMF which I started from Wikidata. @Bovlb Dcraigo (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@علاء: Could you please chime in here? Bovlb (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

hello @Bovlb, @علاء seems to be busy or unavailable Dcraigo (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Unfortunately, we're all volunteers here, and people aren't always able to respond as promptly as would be desirable.

The only think I can suggest here is that you make a formal unblock request using the by placing the {{Unblock}} template on this page. This invites all administrators (including all checkusers) to review your case. Bovlb (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

okay, thank you.

i will do that Dcraigo (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

okay do i have to explain all that i have said above in the unblock request @Bovlb Dcraigo (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, people will read the text above, but it would be a good idea to provide a thumbnail summary. Bovlb (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Bovlb I didn't get a response for almost a week now, seems that people are busy or are they not just attending to my request? What could have happened? Dcraigo (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your patience. I you can see on Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dcraigo, I got the checkuser to review your case a second time. To translate their findings into plain English: It could be a coincidence that you are recreating two different previously-deleted items, and it could be a coincidence that your logs bear technical similarities, but both together is unlikely to be a coincidence. Sorry.

I also publicised your unblock request at Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Backlog_of_unblock_requests five days ago. It appears that no other editor has chosen to intervene. Bovlb (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, I don't know what else to say or do because i have done what i can but it seems i will have to stop contributing to Wikidata forever because if i am guilty, i would have go and create a new account immediately instead of appealing for unblock, and I have a question.

Are all other users that i was tagged with also appealing for unblock? Dcraigo (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I understand your frustration. Based on the rationale I explained above, I don't think I can unblock you, but I am fallible, so I have invited other admins to step in in case they have a different perspective. Sadly none have. Yours is currently the only open unblock request. Bovlb (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oops

It is well, Good luck oo Dcraigo (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Bovlb, I was going through your comments/replies here and I see that you mentioned I am a new user which I am not, my account has been created for over 3months now during the wikifactchecker training and I have created items and contribute to wikidata before these two items we are talking about Dcraigo (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jasper Deng

You made mention that I was blocked because of abuse of multiple accounts which I have been saying that I didn't and you can see it on this talk page and also you said that my name is not on the participants list for the wikifactchecker training but how come I am in all training and the activities and also got a certificate as a participant(but that's not the issue here, it just to tell you that my account is not new and this is not the first item I created)

You made mention that I should appeal that I will stop creating promotional items about non-notable people, out of all the edits I have made and item I have created, how many is promotional and non-notable items?

I said that the two items I created was a mistake and lack of proper research on the entity which I said i will correct it and make sure it doesn't happen again. But you saying that I abuse multiple accounts is what I am not accepting and will not because I didn't. If it's because of the accounts that was linked to my account, I will say there is a mistake somewhere or a technical issue with the bot/check user because how can users from different countries be linked together on one IP address or are the users moving from one country to another for their account to be linked together?

I can only apologise for creating items without proper research and correct it not abuse of multiple accounts because I didn't, the decision is left to you people Dcraigo (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The technical evidence indicates that multiple other accounts are operated by you. Please tell me any and all relationships with the accounts listed in the RfCU; "they aren't mine" is not proving to be sufficient to explain the technical evidence because that is not consistent with what I see, certainly not to the point where I would overturn the conclusion reached by my colleague User:علاء. As for non-notable items, Q118958868, which you made on Dennis Shen, has been repeatedly deleted after being created on multiple previous instances (User:Bovlb will have more context).--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree with that sentence "The technical evidence indicates that multiple other accounts are operated by you" because I don't operate multiple accounts and I don't have anything to do with the aforementioned users/accounts. The only reason why my account is linked with them is because of the item I created and if what I have been saying is not enough proof to prove that I don't have any relationship to do with them, then I don't think you have 100% proof/say that I have anything to to with them.

Also, User:علاء has not say anything about this, @Bovlb asked him to chime here but no any response from him. And about Q118958868, I never knew it has been repeatedly deleted before which was expressed in my first comment on my talk page before check user and others was attached to it @Jasper Deng

strongly dis

@Jasper Dengtrongly I st@Jasper Deng Dcraigo (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@علاء: commented on the request for CheckUser with some of his reasoning: Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dcraigo.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure this process must be very frustrating for you, and I appreciate the patience you are showing in working though it. Your account has been checked in two separate ways:

Technical aspects of your computer and Internet connection have been compared with known problem accounts, and it has been determined that you are likely the same editor. I am not an expert in this process, and I don't have access to the technical information. (We have strong data privacy safeguards, and only a handful of administrators have gone through the process to be trained and approved for these tools.) I do know that there is a non-zero false positive rate, usually because people are sharing resources (Internet connections or computers) or are setting their systems up in the same way. I am aware that this may result in a unintentional bias against under-resourced communities.
You have been recreating previously-deleted items. It is expensive for us to assess items for notability so, when we see items recreated, we usually deleted them out of hand and warn or block the user. In the case where a new user recreates an item that has been deleted repeatedly, we have a default assumption that is it the same user returning with a new account. Again, we are aware that there is a non-zero false positive rate, which is why we are prepared to entertain appeals. I do have access to this information, so I go into more detail below.

While these two methods both have a false positive rate, we believe that they are independent, so failing both tests in considered to be strong evidence.

Looking through your deleted contributions, I find five items:

Q118958868 (Recreation of earlier deleted item: content was: "Dennis Shen", and the only contributor was "Dcraigo" (talk); recreation of Q117069923, Q117845996, Q117312338, Q116731377)
Q118966419 (Recreation of earlier deleted item: content was: "Arash Barmaan"; recreation of Q116748783, Q116768875, Q111206563, Q116487144, Q116456843, Q116731856, Q116680546, Q116680587)
Q118522839 (Does not meet the notability policy: content was: "Seedx App")
Q117726672 (Does not meet the notability policy: content was: "Phinova")
Q117221167 (Does not meet the notability policy: content was: "Jonathan D Ross")

To balance that, you have also worked on four other items: Jide Badmus (Q117242145), Jazmin Yvette Gonzalez Luna (Q115629849), Osun State College of Health Technology, Ilesa (Q117324742), Q116769324.

I'm not in a position to offer an unblock here, but I have some suggestions for how you might move this conversation forward:

Could you share how you happened to work on these five deleted items? Did someone suggest them to you? Are you working off a list that is published somewhere?
If you were unblocked, what do you plan to work on? Can you give specific examples?
It would also be helpful if you could point to a history of positive contributions on another WMF project.

Bovlb (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

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.

Dcraigo

block log • ipblocklist • crossblock • luxo's • unblock • remove gblock • contribs: +/-

Request reason:

I mistakenly recreated an item that has been deleted before which i wasn't aware of Dcraigo (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

You are also blocked due to misuse of multiple accounts; the technical data I see concurs with the conclusion reached at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dcraigo and is not consistent with participation in Wikifactcheckers (your name is also not on the participants list). We require that you appeal from your earliest, original, account, and not create promotional items on non-notable people.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic