User talk:Ashot Arzumanyan

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am accused of being a sock puppet of Psalm Tours . The reality is the following. Being unaware that role accounts are prohibited I made some contributions to Wikipedia from role account Psalm Tours . After Cirt blocked Psalm Tours he also marked all of my contributions for deletion. In order to provide evidence that the content I provided from that role account is still well sourced and should not be deleted, I signed up for a personal account Ashot Arzumanyan and provided those evidences in the discussion pages. Right after that Ashot Arzumanyan was accused by Cirt for being a sock puppet account and was blocked. Well, I am really sorry for not being aware of the role account rule and would like to continue making contributions to Wikipedia from my personal account and on behalf of myself.

Decline reason:

Checkuser-confirmed sock of Psalm Tours. Blueboy96 01:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You're not addressing the key issue: the "role account" was blocked for spam edits. Personal account or not, the spam edits cannot continue. Promotional or WP:COI editing cannot occur. Please address this issue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: There was a hyperlink to my company website in the role account Psalm Tours which was not put for spamming or advertising reasons. Since we did not know that role account was a violation of rules, we put a hyperlink to the company website in the user page so that others might learn more about the owner of the role account if interested. I kindly request to unblock my personal account Ashot Arzumanyan and tell me if there are some actions I should avoid in the future. Thank you. -- Ashot  (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on decline decision of Blueboy96: As far as I am aware Check User examines IPs. It is obvious that in my case the same internet connection should be used both for the role account Psalm Tours and the personal account Ashot Arzumanyan which was created by me right after the role account was blocked. -- Ashot  (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

{{[[Template:This account is accused to be a sock puppet of Psalm Tours. I claim that it is not a sock puppet for the following reason:Psalm Tours was a role account and multiple persons (including me but not me alone) accessed it because they didn't know about the role account rule. However this account is my personal account and it was created AFTER the role account was blocked indefinitely. Hence there was no single second when both accounts coexisted. It is obvious, that role account would rightfully never be unblocked and hence creation of this personal account was the only opportunity for me to make contributions on behalf of myself. Apart from that please consider the following: I personally admit and am sorry for being involved in role account rule violation. This account has not been involved in any spam or misleading edits. I assure that I will do my best not to violate any Wikipedia rules in the future.|This account is accused to be a sock puppet of Psalm Tours. I claim that it is not a sock puppet for the following reason:Psalm Tours was a role account and multiple persons (including me but not me alone) accessed it because they didn't know about the role account rule. However this account is my personal account and it was created AFTER the role account was blocked indefinitely. Hence there was no single second when both accounts coexisted. It is obvious, that role account would rightfully never be unblocked and hence creation of this personal account was the only opportunity for me to make contributions on behalf of myself. Apart from that please consider the following: I personally admit and am sorry for being involved in role account rule violation. This account has not been involved in any spam or misleading edits. I assure that I will do my best not to violate any Wikipedia rules in the future.]]}}

Note: Versageek's explanation on the case may also be found at talkpage here. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 16:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This user is asking that his autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

Ashot Arzumanyan (block log • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

---

IP address: 83.139.38.1 (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • unblock • checkuser (log))
Blocking admin: Alison (talk • blocks)
Block message:

{{blocked proxy}}: Used abusively - {{checkuserblock}}

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=Ashot Arzumanyan}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=Alison | 2=<nowiki>{{blocked proxy}}: Used abusively - {{checkuserblock}}</nowiki> | 3=83.139.38.1 | 4= | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=83.139.38.1 | 2=<nowiki>{{blocked proxy}}: Used abusively - {{checkuserblock}}</nowiki> | 3=Alison | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=83.139.38.1 | 2=<nowiki>{{blocked proxy}}: Used abusively - {{checkuserblock}}</nowiki> | 3=Alison | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}

I kindly request also to review my account's block on Commons. Thank you. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 05:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how successful you'll be on Commons, Ashot; you'll have to ask at your talk page there. Just because a Wikipedian is an administrator does not mean he edits, let alone possesses administrator rights, on Commons - they're two separate wikis. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked for review several days ago, but have no news since then. In the meanwhile I need to put the ((OTRS pending)) note in some images so that they are not deleted on the February 27th. Thank you anyway. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 09:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some alternate way to connect to the internet? Editors are generally not allowed to edit from open proxies. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that makes a difference, but I login via secure connection and this doesn't help. Right now I don't have any alternative :(( -- Ashot  ^(talk) 05:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there still a pending request here? We cannot do anything on Commons - it's a different process that needs to be done there. I see autoblocks already removed - is something outstanding? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The problem with Commons is now solved. Actually the pending request is to unblock 83.139.38.1, so that I am able to use my home internet connection for editing. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment

This is a very severe case of WP:BITE. The editor falls foul of rules he didn't even know the existence of and the book is thrown at him. When these rules are pointed out, he is immediately co-operative.

The accusation against the "role account" Psalm Tours of "using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes"[1] is a somewhat selective analysis. I've just looked through the first 70 or so edits of that account. There were just two questionable external links added, but a substantial amount of content, including articles and images. These article were then nominated for deletion with the following results:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makravank Monastery - unanimous keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaskenian Theological Academy - unanimous keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getik Baghdasarian - pending
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stepanavan Dendropark - unamimous keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baghdasar Arzoumanian - pending
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebouh Chouldjian - unanimous keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horomayri Monastery - pending (unanimous keep so far)

A sockpuppet case was made against Psalm Tours[2] because of an IP post to an AfD. There was no evidence of malintent, and no double voting. The edit merely provided useful information on alternate name spellings.[3] Again, it seems the user was not aware of the rules and was given no warning about them.

This user shows every sign of being a valuable contributor of substantial and worthwhile content, and need to be helped and encouraged. The treatment meted out to him so far is rather less than exemplary.

Ty 18:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)