User talk:Asennett

January 2025

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, 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. ... discospinster _talk 18:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock | reason=My other account, anthonymsennett, was the only one I used to make these edits. I have a friend who may have also tried to make these edits, as we have been trying to rewrite an outdated version of an artist's bio that is in need of new informationAsennett

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).

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

Request reason:

I had lost my user log in information for my previous account, and would like to be able to make the edits to the pages that I have seen a lack of updates for Asennett (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Your previous account"? I see three others, at least, each blocked for the same reason. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:01, 2 January 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.

Asennett (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

My other account, anthonymsennett, was the only one I used to make these edits. I have a friend who may have also tried to make these edits, as we have been trying to rewrite an outdated version of an artist's bio that is in need of new informationAsennett (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See below. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have a conflict of interest with Hilary Harkness. If you do, you will need to properly declare your conflict of interest (including if you are being paid to edit about Harkness) and promise not to make edits directly to her page. Instead, you must make edits using the conflict of interest edit template on Talk:Hilary Harkness. If you agree to those terms, I will conditionally unblock you, but block you from editing Harkness' article directly (that is, you will only be allowed to use the talk page). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list of accounts on the same IP that have all edited the Harkness article: Madippow, Asennett, Anthonymsennett, Infoppowgallery, Anthonyppowgallery. Let's get the story straight here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asennett: will you agree to declare a conflict of interest (assuming that you have one) and to a permanent block from editing Harkness page directly, as I proposed above. Please reply directly. Do not use the unblock template to reply. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@jpgordon: I emailed you RE this request. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for this reply. I work in a gallery that represents the artist, and we have seen that there has been outdated terminology around Hilary's practice. We are not being paid by Hilary. If we would be able to correctly state context including objective facts on her background, personal life, and style, it would be greatly appreciated. Asennett (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is conflict of interest under Wikipedia policy. As I said below, you can make edit requests to the article, but I have blocked you from directly editing the article. Please follow those instructions to request edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay absolutely, thank you for your help! Asennett (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello yes: I can confirm those are our accounts. We were confused by the blocking, and assumed it was necessary to start from scratch. In order to streamline, I can move forward with only editing through this portal, and listening to the advice on whether or not our edits are properly phrased. Asennett (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicative request. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:10, 7 January 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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Hilary Harkness) for conflict of interest editing.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asennett: you may now request edits at Talk:Hilary Harkness following the instructions here: {{Edit COI}}. Additionally, if you are paid for any edits relating to Hilary Harkness (for example, as part of your job), you must post the following template at the top of the article talk page:

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Asennett|U1-employer=Insert Your Employer's Name Here|U1-client=Hilary Harkness}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realized I never pinged @Discospinster; my apologies. Is this unblock acceptable to you? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the accounts were blocked at the same time, so I don't believe that new accounts were created due to "confusion". Also considering the COI and the promotional nature of the edits, plus the lack of response when they were warned about promotional editing, I feel like the same behaviour would occur. I would recommend against unblocking. ... discospinster _talk 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, while I do agree about alleged confusion, I think the solution here, given the narrow scope of their previous edits, is both creative and fair. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the same behavior would occur if left unchecked, which is why I blocked them from that particular article instead. I believe that is sufficient to prevent any further disruption in this case. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]