User talk:Nottoohackneyed

Welcome!

Hello, Nottoohackneyed, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nottoohackneyed, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nottoohackneyed! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nancy Appleton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Investigation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jackals (2017 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jackals (2017 film) 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/Jackals (2017 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. TalkMe (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for meatpuppetry.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I find it unfair that I am being banned. I only have one Wikipedia account and have contributed to the Wikipedia community. I asked you to compare my contribution to Wikipedia [1] to the other accounts mentioned in the investigation [2]. You will notice two things: A) my account has been around for months while the others in the group were rather new. b) I have contributed to Wikipedia while the other accounts have contributed very little if at all. I understand that the Deep Eddy Vodka deletion discussion ended up being very controversial [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Eddy Vodka Distillery] if you check my history you would see this is not the first time I contributed to a deletion discussion and that those deletion discussions did not have any of the other accounts in question. Nor have any of the accounts that have contributed to the Deep Eddy Vodka deletion discussion edited any article I have contributed to. My account seems to be linked to the other accounts through a single article the Deep Eddy Vodka deletion discussion we all participated in which is just one of several deletion discussion I participated in. How is this evidence of Sock Puppetry? I respect Wikipedia's policies but I don't think I have been in violation of any of them and look forward to contributing to Wikipedia in the future. Nottoohackneyed (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have examined your editing history, including deleted editing, and I have seen numerous pieces of evidence which together strongly suggest undisclosed paid editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The previous person to review my unblock request JamesBWatson said I am being blocked because I failed to disclose paid editing, but the notice under the ban says meatpuppetry. It my understanding that meatpuppetry is when one person operates multiple accounts for the purpose of deceiving Wikipedia. The only relationship my accounts have with the accounts in question [3] is a single article Deep Eddy Vodka.

According to that admin JamesBWatson I am banned because of "numerous pieces of evidence which together strongly suggest undisclosed paid editing" yet I was never asked for such information nor knew I was required to disclose such information. Wikipedia states that one is prohibited from editing (a.k.a. banned/blocked from Wikipedia) if they cannot disclose paid editing: "Paid editors who cannot disclose their employer, client, and affiliations are prohibited from editing."[4] Yet I feel like I am being banned not because I'm not willing to disclose but because I did not know I was supposed too. This ban would be more understandable if an admin asked me about paid editing and I either told them I could not disclose or ignored them. I also want to point out that I feel like most of the articles met Wikipedia notability guidelines either because they have won an award or/and made a significant contribution to their field [5] and I would like to point out that after I published the article most of them were found to be within the scope of Wikiproject Bio.

In terms of discloser here it is. After I completed an article, I would try to contact the subject of the article. Sometimes they would request further edits such as providing a picture, additional info, etc. Sometimes they would provide some type of compensation which typically would be trivial (i.e. a CD or Book). Please let me know if you want more information or want me to be more specific. AS you can see I am more willing to disclose this information and I feel it unfair that I'm being banned without even given a chance to disclose.

I also feel it unfair that the article about Nancy Appleton [6] that I contributed to but did not write was deleted. The person who deleted it stated they did so because it was created by a bad user in violation of the ban. If you review the history of the article you would see that all work done on the article was done before the ban on my account started. This is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy.

Finally, I find Wikipedia a wonderful opportunity that allows ordinary people an opportunity to contribute to a database of knowledge and would like to continue to contribute. That being said I would like to continue with wikipedia. How long does this ban last? Am I allowed to create another account.

  Nottoohackneyed (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No relevant answer to my question after seven days.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:11, 19 March 2018 (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.

Note for administrators reviewing the latest unblock request

In order to help any administrator new to the case to have an overview of the situation without lots of searching, and also to indicate my own opinion on the case, I offer the following comments. @TonyBallioni: as blocking administrator you may like to respond to my comments.

I still think that I saw things which looked like paid editing, but the explanation offered may cover it. I say more than that below, but first I will deal with the issue of meatpuppetry.

The blocking administrator may have seen something I don't know about, but the only evidence given in the SPI is inclusion in a list of accounts, about which it was said "a large number of new accounts listed here turned up to !vote keep" in a deletion discussion. Nothing is said specifically about this account beyond including in that list. Unlike the other accounts in that list, this one was not a new account that "turned up to !vote keep" out of nowhere: it has been active since August last year. That means that the only valid statement about this account in the SPI was that it !voted keep in an AfD, which is not in itself evidence of sockpuppetry at all. I have also run the interaction analyser against this account, the sock master, and several of the other supposed socks, and got no overlap at all except for that one deletion discussion. It therefore seems to me that there is no evidence of sockpuppetry (which is why I didn't mention it in my unblock request decline).

I am, however, distinctly dubious about the idea of an editor contacting the subjects of articles after writing them and offering to then edit on their behalf, as this seems to me to create a serious conflict of interest, and under the conflict of interest guideline the editor should therefore not continue to edit the articles after contacting the subjects of the articles, but could suggest edits, stating that he or she is doing so with a conflict of interest. I also personally think that even when the editor creates an article with the intention of then offering to edit further on behalf of the subject of the article there is already a conflict of interest, although as far as I know the guideline doesn't explicitly cover this situation. Because of these concerns, I don't think we should unblock this editor unless he or she indicates an understanding of the COI guidelines and undertakes to change how how or she deals with this situation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the stated reason for the block is meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry. This is, I concede, a fine point which can in reality be difficult to distinguish from sockpuppetry and which is clearly equally unacceptable. This editor has, in passing in his unblock request, made an admission of having other accounts, which has not as yet been followed up. This needs, of course, to be satisfactorily respolved as an unblock condition. But leaving that aside, I am seriously concerned at the explicit admission made by this editor that he creates articles and then seeks remuneration from the subjects of the articles created. Whether this falls under WP:PAID criteria may be a discussion point, but either way it appears to me to be wholly unacceptable; I would feel that this, in itself, would be an absolute reason to deny an unblock at least until a clear and unequivocal undertsking was given that this practice would immediately and permanently cease. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury: On the subject of creating articles and then seeking remuneration from the subjects of the articles you express yourself in more forthright and uncompromising terms than I did, but I think we are substantially in agreement: no question of an unblock unless there is an undertaking to change behaviour in that respect. However, you also say " This editor has, in passing in his unblock request, made an admission of having other accounts", but I can't see where that admission is. Can you point me to it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: First paragraph of current unblock request (of March 11th). Quote "The only relationship my accounts have with the accounts in question.....". I picked up on the phrase "my accounts". Perhaps he can explain this usage, although to me it appears unequivocal.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury: Thanks for your answer. I had read that as "The only relationship my account has with the accounts in question....." but you are quite right, it does say "accounts have". Nottoohackneyed, can you comment on that? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for the ping. Yes, this account is not new, but like both of you, I saw clear signs of undeclared paid editing in this account and the others as well. The CU turned up unrelated, but all of these accounts, including this one that has signs of UPE, show up out of nowhere to save an article. As I said at the SPI, that is a sign of freelancers or employees of the same PR firm trying to save the article. That’s MEAT, IMO, and the oldest account of the bunch is still likely guilty of it, even if they aren’t newly created. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: I just want to clarify something for I might not be clear. There have been cases where I did contact the subject of the article. But I never offered to edit on their behalf. I contacted them for moral and ethical reasons, What would you do if you found yourself on Wikipedia and did not want to be there and have no clue how to remove your self from the site. I felt like I had a moral duty to contact them and basically say "I put you on Wikipedia, is this ok". I also felt asking for the subject "ok" protected me legally, did not want to be sued. On occasion, some of the subjects asked me to make edits on their behalf. Some of these edits I rejected for one reason or another but others edits I made. In doing so I did not know I would be in violation any Wikipedia policy and i'm sorry for this I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. What I should have done. And what I will do in the future. This is if you allow me to have a future on Wikipedia. Is upon contacting them inform them making changes on there behalf or them making changes to the article is in violation of Wikipedia conflict of interest guideline policy and if they want changes made to the article they should propose a change [7] on the article talk page. Maybe the best thing to do is not make any attempts to contact the subject of the article. But can I be held liable if the person does not want to be on Wikipedia? Yes I want to contribute to Wikipedia no I don't want to be sued. Nottoohackneyed (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury: In regards to your questions. I am referring to my account which is: user:nottoohackneyed and the other accounts involved in the investigation which can be found here. [8]Nottoohackneyed (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jose R Costa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jose R Costa 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/Jose R Costa until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. scope_creep (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please view last unblock request and their corresponding comments. Reason for my failure to respond was that waiting for you guys to respond. @Anthony Bradbury: I'm sorry I did not respond in seven days I was actually waiting for a response from you. I thought I clarified my self and answered your questions. Did you not view the comments? If still not clear can you please let me know? Nottoohackneyed (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Further evidence that has been discussed in private makes it crystal clear that you are not telling the truth. I am revoking your talk page access accordingly to stop you wasting more time. SmartSE (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2018 (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.

promptly

Perhaps my question was not sufficiently clear. I will rephrase it. You have spoken of having other accounts. What names, other than this one, have you used when editing? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury:. Thanks. To make things clear. This is my only account. However, I have made edits without using an account. But not since the ban. I want to point out that another admin who contributed to the previous deletion conversation found no evidence of sock puppetry a.k.a me using multiple accounts. So I don't know why you think I have another account. Let me ask you this, If I had another account why would I be spending the time trying to get this account unlocked? Why would I have asked you at the end of the last conversation "is it ok to create another account?". If I had another account, I would be using it now and not be trying to get this one unlocked or asking you is it ok for me to create a new account?

Now I understand what I did was against policy. After writing an article I contacted the subject of the article and if they asked I agreed to do edits on there behalf. I already explained my reasoning for this so I'm not going to go into the details. I did not know I was violating any of Wikipedia rules and I find it unfair that my privileges were terminated with any warning or even an opportunity to provide disclosure. In the future, if the subject of the article or people related to the subject of the article wants changes made to a Wikipedia article I will refuse and instead ask them to disclose who they are and propose those changes on the Wikipedia article talk page. This would put me in accordance with Wikipedia policy. But maybe it's best just to create an article and not make any effort to contact the subject. But what do you think about the ethical issue I mentioned in a previous discussion?Nottoohackneyed (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The block was for meatpuppetry, which I stand behind. You are an account that is clearly being used for spamming and likely being used for undeclared paid editing. Your editing history makes that clear, and not just for this article. You used similar arguments to the other accounts (who were clearly related based on formatting alone). I think you are a different person, but I think you are somehow related to the rest of those accounts: whether it be you were paid by the same firm as different freelancers with you being the more experienced one, or you are one of those that steps in to save articles that are put up for deletion.
One of your drafts User:Nottoohackneyed/Draft1:Jon Wanzek was almost entirely copied from the subjects websites. There were parts of the text that were difficult to match in the copyvio detector because of the formatting of the website, but they were either a close paraphrase or a word for word match when a human comparison was done. It was of course mostly spam and the like, and not something that you would expect an independent editor to write.
Any look at the articles on your user page shows an editor with a clear connection to the subjects who is only here to promote. You also are familiar with strategies to maximize the amount of coverage your subjects would have using Wikipedia, and there are many other signs in your edits that make this part clear. If I didn't block you for meat puppetry, I would have been more than justified in a terms of use block for undeclared paid editing.
I did not make a terms of use block, however, I made a block for meatpuppetry and this is why: I find it absolutely unbelieveable that in an AfD with a bunch of other accounts that were clearly connected based on style that the other account that is a promotional paid editor is not connected to them in some way: whether it be that you have the same client or that you are the more experienced editor who directs the others, I don't really know or care. I'm simply saying it is beyond my capacity to assume good faith that an editor who is pretty clearly paid and who had only been to AfD on two other days in their entire editing history, the second time to mainly cast a bunch of cursory !votes in 9 AfDs that were all but certain to end one way in a 1.5 hour period, would magically stumble upon an AfD for an obvious meatpuppet infected AfD and the account be completely unconnected. Sure, you may be a different person, but our policies don't really differentiate. The fact that you are an older account doesn't matter: Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgment. I'll ping Smartse as he was the admin who filed the SPI so he's aware of this unblock discussion, but I felt the need to more fully explain my rationale for the block to the reviewing admins. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To other admins who read this. I'm sorry if somehow wronged the Wikipedia community. It was not my intension. Before making any decision I only ask you read the discussions and comments that I left prior to this that explains my behavior and include them when makeing your decision. Tony + Others, I'm sorry you think this. I'm not freelancer or part of some company. I just wanted to contribute to Wikipedia community. I find it ridiculous that you would assume that through the only connections that my account have with the other accounts in question is a single discussion I contributed to. As for using a website as a citation. Yes I did this you are allowed to. I used a subject website as a citation and included the information on it because it was a good source. I also made sure paraphrase and not just restate what was on the website. This is what is involved in citing sources and is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I choice to use his website becuase I viewed other Wikipedia pages and those pages have used the subject website as a citation and pharaphased the information. I will respect the desion of the admin but as a courtesy to me can you please let me know if I am blocked how long is it for? And When Can I make a new account?Nottoohackneyed (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that based on your edit history before the AfD. This block is indefinite. Unless you are unblocked on this account, you may not create another account. If you do, they will be blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the process to get unblocked. I guess that is my question. Nottoohackneyed (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have already started it. Another admin will review it. My reasons for blocking above are to help them understand why I blocked you. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]