User talk:RockTheBlockchain

RockTheBlockchain, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi RockTheBlockchain! 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

16:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Harmony (blockchain platform) (September 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Harmony (blockchain platform) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Harmony (blockchain platform), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 13:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Hello RockTheBlockchain. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:RockTheBlockchain. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=RockTheBlockchain|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are also concerned about the repeated use of the word "we" in this account's edits. Does this account represent more than one person? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the review and feedback. I am a supporter of the Harmony project and run a community validator on their chain and have collaborated with two fellow supporters on writing the content we're attempting to publish. This is why I say "we" in my updates here - I am simply referring to myself and fellow supporters who are contributing on this together. As for payments and compensation - I am not employed by Harmony nor am I receiving or plan to receive any monetary compensation, fiat or crypto, for this work. To be clear once more, I am a supporter who runs a validator to help secure their network and simply hoping to help the community by helping to write this article.

That said, we (I and my fellow supporters helping) will simplify this article so that it's less referencing Harmony's technical documentation and strictly third part sources. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. RockTheBlockchain (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- Team: Can I continue editing and attempting to clean up the draft now that I replied above? I'm not sure if you'd like for us (fellow supporters and myself working on this [see edit sources]) to wait for a reply or if we should continue now that we responded above. Thanks in advance. I'll wait another day or two before continuing with the edit if we don't hear back. I'm unsure if you'll see this or get a notification. This is my first Wikipedia article so forgive my ignorance on how this works. Thanks again. RockTheBlockchain (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

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. Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

My account was flagged as a sockpuppet but I am one person with one account. My name is Daniel Pagan and I'm the sole person behind RockTheBlockchain. I made this very clear in my previous edit and response to another moderator here. I met and befriended some supporters of Harmony on Reddit and we have discussed creating a Wikipedia article as community members for a while. We contributed to this article together using separate accounts. I'm RockTheBlockchain https://twitter.com/rockTheBlockchn, my friend Shawn is WellnessOne https://twitter.com/wellnessonenode/, and the other two are Reddit users who were earlier contributors. I can provide my LinkedIn professional profile if needed. This is becoming increasingly frustrating as I have spent many hours with these community members trying to meet all the expectations of Wikipedia only to be flagged for false accusations. Not to mention the hours of work is now deleted. I don't know how else to prove I am a singular individual but I can provide whatever proof needed. You can even see that we're coming from different IP addresses in the logs. Please explain why my account has been banned along with proof or please restore it and the article. I've done nothing wrong and have been very communicative with moderators. Additional proof we are separate people with different accounts: #1 - https://www.reddit.com/r/harmony_one/comments/p31bzn/wikipedia_draft_page/ #2 - https://www.reddit.com/r/harmony_one/comments/n9jthj/wikipedia_page/ #3 - https://www.reddit.com/r/harmony_one/comments/pbzc2m/wikipedia_page/ Look at the creators and commenters in these posts we made in the Reddit community. You will see some familiar user accounts, just like I provided in the Twitter links above. In fact, one of the accounts you blocked is also a volunteer moderator for the Reddit community. I've replied earlier to other Wikipedia admins -- we are community members -- we are not paid for this -- we are separate accounts and different people behind them and are simply trying to write an article that adheres to the rules and standards. I feel like the edits I made today in an effort to follow standards weren't even reviewed. RockTheBlockchain (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

OK. Because separate accounts exist on Reddit, a site which AFAIK does not routinely punish, much less check, for people operating multiple accounts, we are supposed to take your word for it that those are separate people? Maybe they are, but we don't accept that as proof and we never have (otherwise the sockpuppetry policy would be a pathetic joke as people could easily talk their way out of it). — Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

That response from the admin, Daniel Case, is not helpful in my honest attempt to prove that we are separate people behind these accounts. My point was simply that you can see multiple people discussing this topic, whose names match those you've blocked. This response is highly unprofessional and frustrating. The admin did not state what I can do to prove that my account is legitimate. You can see my Twitter account has 671 tweets which date all the way back to February, and my Reddit account is a moderator of a 34,000 member community. I hope you can see it would be extremely difficult for David Bugallo (Dbuga) to use all my and WellnessOne accounts as sock puppets all for the sake of posting a Wikipedia article. ++ I've offered to give my LinkedIn profile (I'm a Cisco CCIE and work for a Cisco partner). ++ I've provided Reddit conversations showing we're separate accounts, and moderators of the subreddit, for a number of months. ++ I've provided Twitter accounts, months old, showing we're separate community members. ++ To provide more solid evidence we are separate people, below is a screenshot of us creating a Telegram chat room to discuss the creation of the Wikipedia article. You'll even see a "David Bugallo" who is the user "Dbuga", the very person I'm accused of being. You can see we are separate people trying to write an article together: >> Screenshots with myself, WellnessOne, David Bugallo (DBuga) and Stratos talking about writing the Wikipedia article >> #1 --- https://imgur.com/73xrJIf #2 --- https://imgur.com/9CllGgI #3 --- https://imgur.com/B2ye1w0 My apologies if I come across as frustrated, but all I received was a passive aggressive response from someone I was hoping would help me and a sarcastic link to a YouTube clip. Can someone else please, someone willing to help, reply to this request and let me know what I can do to restore my account? I can provide my LinkedIn profile and modify it slightly to include a message that only an admin and I could know. I can join a Zoom call with a WP admin and WellnessOne (who was also banned). Please look at my history on Twitter and Reddit, as well as the Telegram chat. To be a sock puppet after many months of being public on these platforms would be an extreme form of "playing the long game" just for a Wikipedia article. I provided so much information when the first admin reached out and it seems to be completely ignored, nor was the most recent response helpful. It was actually quite rude. I just want to abide by the rules and get this post in line with Wikipedia standards. More images below to go the extra mile and show we're separate people trying to write an article: https://imgur.com/tTw79X1 https://imgur.com/J5MgLUc Thank you. ++++++ EDIT: Repling to Daniel Case below. +++++++++ Thank you, Daniel, and I can respect and appreciate that it's difficult to simply take someone's word for it. This is why I'm willing to provide whatever is needed as proof that I am not a sock puppet. I'm only offering what comes to mind, but have to defer to you and other WP administrators to tell me what is sufficient evidence. Can I hop on a Zoom meeting with WellnessOne, record it - showing we're separate individuals - and then provide the recording? Please let me know what would be good enough evidence and we'll do that.

Decline reason:

Assuming you are different people, this kind of off-wiki coordination amongst people with an obvious COI is in violation of WP:MEAT. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:29, 23 October 2021 (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.

I will let another admin decide on this one but ... far too many people in the past have tried to prove to us that they really were different people by making exactly the same offer of proof as you: See all these different accounts on other websites? Speaking of YouTube clips, we even once (in my memory; it may well have happened on other occasions) had someone link to one to say "I'm that person in the video, and the other person is [other account]". It didn't work.

To make my point unsarcastically, we cannot accept your evidence because there is no way for us to independently authenticate it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla declined WellnessOne's unblock request, which was roughly along the same lines as yours, rather succinctly: "See WP:MEAT". In other words, even assuming you and the other accounts are separate people, what you did violated policy. I should also add that your claim that you have no WP:COI is not credible. Whether you are paid by the organization as a "validator" or are a volunteer, you are still affiliated with them and still have a COI. You can keep tweaking your unblock request if that makes you happy, but it's unlikely to do any good.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]