User talk:Rec082

Rec082 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Rec082, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was 2021 New Jersey gubernatorial election, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rec082, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rec082. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2019 (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).

Rec082 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not have multiple accounts. I had someone else make one and gave them the copy of the blurb from the article. We both work at the same company and used work computers for it. The user name was Billmargot91 and he was a friend doing a favor who had never made an account. I posted and did not know you could not make a post about yourself. I saw it kept disappearing and asked him to make an account and sent him the copy and paste of the post. Rec082 (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is explicitly a violation of WP:MEAT, and is indeed considered abuse of multiple accounts. Yamla (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2019 (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).

Rec082 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

so having a member of your campaign post that you are intending to run in a political race since you were told you were not allowed to post it yourself is a violation? I want all the evidence against me in this case to review. Rec082 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, it is a violation of WP:MEAT. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2019 (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.

~~If they used your account to post it, yes, its a violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#ROLE~~ - FlightTime (open channel) 17:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They did not use my account. They made their own and posted what I had written. That is why it flagged. We wrote out the statement and had it copied in a word document we just copy and pasted from. Where is the evidence in question?

If you're asking me, I have stricken my earlier comment. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize, I should have stated that it was in reference to the original statement I had made. I want the evidence against me relating to the original charge of having multiple accounts and why the account was block. Rec082 (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2019 (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).

Rec082 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel this is a direct violation to the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Because I am a smaller candidate in a State-wide race, I am not able to access the same resources that would allow me to post that I intend to run for a public office. I want the evidence in this case to hand over to an attorney to get an injunction filed against this action, as in my jurisdiction, the Constitution supersedes the Policy of the website. Rec082 (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nope, this didn't work. And if you're a candidate for public office who somehow thinks that the Bill of Rights applies to private parties as opposed to the State, then you really need a lot of educating. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:19, 23 April 2019 (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 no freedom of speech here, please see WP:FREE. I'm surprised you'd make such a claim here. Additionally, as you have made a clear legal threat in violation of WP:NLT, I have now revoked your talk page access. Once your legal action is complete or if you unconditionally retract your legal threat, you are free to use WP:UTRS to regain access to this talk page. --Yamla (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]