User talk:Shpirag3

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Guxhuli per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guxhuli. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. asilvering (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Shpirag3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I am not a socketpuppet of account Guxhuli, but I have been on Wikipedia for a long time as a non registered user! This explains my familiarity with it. I also don't agree with what that user may have done in the past! So I don't understand why I am being blocked only on assumptions!Shpirag3 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you made edits as an IP that you wish to share, but would rather not disclose your IP publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to make a private unblock request. I too think a topic ban is necessary. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2025 (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.

Shpirag3 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been on Wikipedia for a long time as an unregistered user, you may want to share your IP address so that admins responding to this unblock can look at your previous contributions. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Asilvering. Thanks for your message! When I said I have been on Wikipedia for a long time as a non registered user, I meant as a reader. (I have read Wikipedia articles as well as editing policies.) I created an account exactly so that I can contribute. I'd rather not disclose my IP. I don't understand what ones has to be here so that the edits can be considered legitimate. When I voiced my opinion on a Talk page (Battle of Kosovo), I was directly accused that I was a new account by @Khirurg, so my opinion was invalid according to them. Does one have to stay 1 year without any edits, before one can have a voice heard here? Does everyone already start big here? I don't mean to be rude, but this is giving me cult vibes, where everyone knows everyone and decisions are biased. Best Regards, anyway! Shpirag3 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you immediately jump into contentious discussions in topics where sockpuppets have previously gotten into conflict with specific editors, and end up in conflict with those same editors, it does make them somewhat prone to paranoia. Yes, the longer you are here, the more other editors get to know you, and the more they will trust you - that is pretty basic human social dynamics, Wikipedia or otherwise. If you would like to return to editing so that you can become one of those editors who is known and trusted, I would support that, provided that you accept a topic ban from "the Balkans, broadly construed". -- asilvering (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't immediately jump into contentious discussions in topics. I am simply interested in Albanian-related articles, the same way some specific users are interested (like the one I mentioned above) in their own country-related articles! Why is it wrong only when I do it? (If all Albanian-related articles are contentious topics, it's not my fault.) Can you please name what rule of Wikipedia did I break for me to warrant a block? Is it basically because someone didn't like my edits? (I also don't care about other Balkan countries articles unless they have to do with Albania or Albanians!)

"Yes, the longer you are here, the more other editors get to know you, and the more they will trust you - that is pretty basic human social dynamics, Wikipedia or otherwise.2

Yes, but the basic rule of Wikipedia is also: Assume Good Faith. How exactly is my opinion equal to zero just because I have a new account? That's pretty much consesus on ad-hominem arguments and not on Wikipedia policies and definitely not on a basic human social dynamic!

As I already said, I am mostly interested in improving Albanian-related articles and probably Star Wars too (which mostly are protected) so that unban you are suggesting wouldn't bring me anything!

Best Regards Shpirag3 (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, in that case, you will have to convince an unblocks admin that the block was incorrect. Good luck. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't convince anyone, unless I have been for years part of this cult apparently. As I said, I was blocked only based on assumptions. I didn't break any rules. There is nothing else I can add. Shpirag3 (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Hi, I stated that I have not made any IP-based edits before. I don't quite understand what is being asked of me or how should I now proceed, if the request was already declined! Best Regards. Shpirag3 (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may make a new request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Pardon me, but I am still not following you! What difference would a new unblock request make? I have no extra Information to add, except from what I have already said. Regards! Shpirag3 (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not think it will make a difference in whether you are unblocked or what unblock conditions you are offered, but obviously I would think that in the first place, since I blocked you. You are welcome to open a new unblock request to get a third opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else may feel differently than me. I don't think so, but I'm just one person and I'm just giving my opinion. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request - 3rd Opinion

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Shpirag3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My first unblock Request was declined: User_talk:Shpirag3#Unblock_Request After some discussion with the blocking Admin, I was suggested by them to ask for a 3rd Opinion by opening a new request. Can someone else generous enough take a second look at the discussion there on my page and state their opinion? Thanks in advance! Shpirag3 (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=My first unblock Request was declined: [[User_talk:Shpirag3#Unblock_Request]] After some discussion with the blocking Admin, I was suggested by them to ask for a 3rd Opinion by opening a new request. Can someone else generous enough take a second look at the discussion there on my page and state their opinion? Thanks in advance! [[User:Shpirag3|Shpirag3]] ([[User talk:Shpirag3#top|talk]]) 12:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=My first unblock Request was declined: [[User_talk:Shpirag3#Unblock_Request]] After some discussion with the blocking Admin, I was suggested by them to ask for a 3rd Opinion by opening a new request. Can someone else generous enough take a second look at the discussion there on my page and state their opinion? Thanks in advance! [[User:Shpirag3|Shpirag3]] ([[User talk:Shpirag3#top|talk]]) 12:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=My first unblock Request was declined: [[User_talk:Shpirag3#Unblock_Request]] After some discussion with the blocking Admin, I was suggested by them to ask for a 3rd Opinion by opening a new request. Can someone else generous enough take a second look at the discussion there on my page and state their opinion? Thanks in advance! [[User:Shpirag3|Shpirag3]] ([[User talk:Shpirag3#top|talk]]) 12:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Shpirag3 (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editor has failed to address their quite apparent sockpuppetry, which is based both on technical and convincing behavioral evidence. Instead, they tried to dismiss it altogether. Furthermore, in their previous unblock request, they pejoratively described the Wikipedia community as a cult (diff). I recently asked Izno (here), and they said that WP:3X applies to their case. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Demetrios1993 I literally addressed everything with the Admins. Why do you keep stalking me here? There is no behavioral evidence that suggest I am a sockpuppetry. It's only your assumptions and quite frankly the creepy stalking as well. I don't remember breaking any Wikipedia rules here. Otherwise you are welcome to bring your evidence that I broke them. God forbid one expresses his own opinion here regarding the community. Not everything is meant pejoratively. It was a clear constructive feedback. Don't twist my words to push your narrative. Shpirag3 (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, CheckUser should be used based on following:

"CheckUser data may be used to investigate, prevent, or respond to:

Vandalism;
Sockpuppetry;
Disruption (or potential disruption) of any Wikimedia project; and
Legitimate concerns about bad-faith editing.

The tool may never be used to:

Exert political or social control;
Apply pressure on an editor; or
Threaten another editor into compliance in a content dispute."

Neither of those 4 happened with my account, so getting my IP disclosed to Admins pretty much is a violation of my privacy! Shpirag3 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]