User talk:Sollewitt

This is Sollewitt's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 25)

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

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, David Annesley, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

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 User:Sollewitt/sandbox 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 User:Sollewitt/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sollewitt! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sharples1985. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I'm very sorry for this misunderstanding, all accounts lead to the same IP address because this is a work place. We are different people trying to publish the same draft, we did not know this was not allowed in Wikipedia. We are just simply trying to get an english translation of this page : https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Annesley Would it be possible for you to unblock our accounts ? Sollewitt (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You acknowledge that multiple accounts acting in concert aren't permitted here, but then ask that multiple accounts be unblocked. That's not going to happen. We aren't going to unblock any of your accounts at all, not until we are sure you understand WP:SOCK. You'll also need to address the plagiarism concerns and what appear to me (but may not be) violations of WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. Yamla (talk) 14:10, 26 January 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).

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

Request reason:

It's my understanding that everyone is allowed to have a Wikipedia page just not to publish the same drafts therefore i don't see the problem in unblocking them. The only thing I want to do is to have an english translation of the David Annesley page, that's pretty much all, even if I'm not the one to publish it, it doesn't matter. I'm sorry if you see these actions as an offense to Wikipedia but the rules are just not very clear for people who aren't in the community. Sollewitt (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One account per individual-- why do you need more than one? If you were coordinating edits with others outside the encyclopedia, that's just as bad. Robert makes a good point. I'm considering removing your talk page access because the ongoing disruption is, well, disruptive. To be honest, it is unlikely that this user id can be unblocked, even discounting the obvious WP:conflict of interest and WP:nothere issues. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:41, 7 February 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.

Comment

As the original reviewer who reported the sockpuppetry, I will comment on the unblock request. I am inclined to believe that these were multiple people sharing an IP address at a workplace, which is consistent with what I (and the blocking administrators) observed. In that case, the issue is not sockpuppetry as such, but undisclosed paid editing, failure to observe attribution rules, amounting to plagiarism and copyright violation, and meatpuppetry. I consider the rules against meatpuppetry to be incomprehensible, but the rules about paid editing and about attribution are very clear. The "red flag" that there was a rule violation was indeed that multiple accounts were trying to publish the David Annesley page at the same time. Any suggestion that they were all trying to do this at the same time without being paid is incredible, unworthy of belief. So the reason why the accounts should be blocked may not be sockpuppetry. It may be undisclosed paid editing.

The requester says that the rules are not very clear for "people who aren't in the community". The community consists of all editors, and four years of editing should be long enough that an editor or group of editors should be expected to know what the rules are, and that paid editing is discouraged but must be disclosed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hello Robert,

I’m sorry this subject has turned into such an investigation, I was not aware of all the rules set by Wikipedia and never thought I was breaking them in away.

I’m an art student of 22 years old living in Paris, I really truly write these articles because I’m quite a big fan of these galleries and these artists. I wanted to get the David Annesley translation up as fast as I could and a friend of mine told me, I don’t know exactly why, that I should put it on different accounts. I thought that maybe my draft would be more visible to the community. At that time I didn’t know it was against the rules at all and I ended up in this trap that I don’t know how to get out of…

I ask you to please not penalize the galeries and artist pages that already existed, I really didn’t want to harm them in anyway and I’m afraid that it will have big consequences for them and would hate to be the one responsible for all of this.

If ever it is possible, I would really like to learn more about the rules of Wikipedia to not make the same mistakes again.

I remain at your disposal should you like for us to meet or talk. Sollewitt (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new header to get the coin template out of the way

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Sollewitt (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please see my decline above. Please do not place blank unblock requests. To the matter at hand, if you have no interest other than recreating articles that have already been deleted, or creating new articles for which you are paid, then there'd be no point in unblocking you. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:48, 7 February 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.

Hello Robert McClenon,

I have left you a message about a week ago and was wondering if you had received it ? I would really like to be able to fix this and for the artists and galeries not to be punished by my mistake. Thank you

This is not my call but that of an administrator. If it were my call I would block your talk page access. I find your various explanations (not all consistent) to be incredible, that is, not worthy of rational belief by a reasoning H. sapiens. However, wait for an administrator to make the call. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sollewitt - The artists and galleries whom you don't want to penalize have not been penalized anyway. The articles about them were deleted, not because you were engaged in sockpuppetry and undisclosed paid editing, although you were, but because they were written purely as advertisements, and were grossly non-neutral. They would have been deleted if anyone had written them in the language that they were written in. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penalized? Really? Once again, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or a promotional venue. Not being included in an encyclopedia should be an expectation for most people. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim Robert McClenonAs I have said before I’m not getting paid and neither were the people who wrote the articles before that. I am asking you to please give me a way to be able to publish again for Wikipedia. If there were problems with the articles and you thought these were too promotional could you please show me how so I can understand ? It might be types of phrases that seem to look like advertisement and that I should look out for ? You can take out the phrases that seem incorrect to you, I would like to avoid anything that’s contradictory to the mind of the community.Sollewitt (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Dlohcierekim Robert McClenon As I have said before I’m not getting paid and neither were the people who wrote the articles before that. I am asking you to please give me a way to be able to publish again for Wikipedia. If there were problems with the articles and you thought these were too promotional could you please show me how so I can understand ? It might be types of phrases that seem to look like advertisement and that I should look out for ? You can take out the phrases that seem incorrect to you, I would like to avoid anything that’s contradictory to the mind of the community.Sollewitt (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]