User talk:Wbrasp

December 2018

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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 sock puppet, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:48, 28 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I've only one account (so no Socket puppetry), so I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Maybe that I accidently used my recent NordVpn account, but I doubt it. Maybe it could be (but I don't remember) that I create that user Johnsaavn long time ago (and I certainly did nothing with ), but I seriously doubt that. Concerning that my account is already from 2016 (I was just reading the sleeper account Wikipedia page). I was then thinking about contributing and made an account to see what was possible. I did indeed nothing with that account since recently (more 'laziness'/'too busy with other things'). I didn't realise that this could be seen as suspicious, sorry about that. Thank you in advance to help me unblock this user (or say what has to be done to realise it)! wbrasp (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So you don't have any other accounts, only this one? But you might have accidentally used another one of your accounts? And you might have a third account too? You need to get your story straight, list all of the accounts you have used, and offer a convincing explanation of why Wikipedia will benefit from your unblocking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:47, 29 December 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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I've double checked: I indeed only created and used account Wbrasp. JohnSaavn also doesn't ring a bell, but I've used at least 1 time in the past some totally random account name I probably don't remember on another less serious site than Wikipedia, not as sock puppet, but for a bit of privacy. Although I would probably choose a better one then JohnSaavn (Saavn?). Let me try to explain the situation as honestly and clear as I can. I made an account in 2016 in order to get a feel and to maybe edit something on a Wikipedia page. That didn't happen than because of lack of time/other interests, although I spent some time then reading howtos etc (as far as I can remember: do you know every minor detail you did 2 years ago?)... I'm a fan of the SAFE Network, that is true. But I'm not paid for it. A couple of weeks ago someone on safenetforum.org mentions that there is a wiki page for the SAFE Network. So I check it out and see a couple of obvious neutral errors (to me at least) in the page: the PARSEC link who points to something totally unrelated and also that the SAFE Network that the mention of Linux support is missing (besides Windows and Mac). And as I understand novice (I mean without much experience) members are encouraged to start with small minor edits(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold) on Wikipedia pages. I tried to put some thought in it: separate changes so easy to rollback, a clear explanation (with reference) why I made the change. Then I tried to add the logo. I was sure the license of the logo was ok (I could give you details if you want why I thought that), but I didn't find it online (ps: I've informed myself later and the license info of the logo (=Creative Commons 4) should be provided in the future by the creator ). So I gave the 'I don't know' (or something in that effect) option in Wikimedia. Please have mercy with me, I'm a novice here, but I didn't realise that this was a big problem. My naive idea was: the 'I don't know' the license is there in Wikimedia, so it won't be a big problem to use it. And please notice that it took me a couple of hours of my volunteer time to gather other information (creator/creation date) and figuring out the layout concerning the logo with the intent to have a better Wikipedia page. Later on I changed the logo to Blue (because used so on safenetforum.org and used in very popular movie 'Ralph breaks the Internet': see the comments). It probably was better to add the blue logo in the first place, but such things happen. So I hope you agree my intent was to improve the page in a minor way and I made some novice errors where I will learn from, if given the chance. I've built a bit of knowledge/familiarity about Wikipedia now, so chances are bigger now that I will edit some page (also something else) in the future, this time following all the rules. Also I don't like to be called a sock puppet unjustified, certainly after putting a couple of hours of my free time in an effort to improve a Wikipedia page. wbrasp (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't find your explanation regarding multiple accounts satisfactory. You shouldn't have to "double check' if you have used more than one account. You either did or did not. Which is it? 331dot (talk) 12:48, 29 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I've only one account: user Wbrasp. I did not create or used other accounts, so no sock puppets. That is it. Sorry for possible confusion I created earlier and I appreciate that it is not easy to separate the weath from the chaff here.wbrasp (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
What is the exact reason for the block? Is it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/875774986 (from the creator of the block):
HarryLeap (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
and
WillPeppers (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
are Likely, plus with the off-wiki evidence provided by email I have no problem believing this is the same paid-editing firm. Wbrasp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) is geographically distinct and appears Unrelated, although this wouldn't be the first time this group had outlier SPAs that didn't seem to be technically connected to the main sock-drawer. Given Wbrasp's timing and edits, I have aslo blocked them as a suspected sock. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the reason of my block: it seems more a timing suspicion (rather far fetched in my opinion) of my edits on the SAFE Network page and not a suspicious IP.
Let me state here that I'm not an outlier SPA of a paid-editing firm. Nor was I being paid for any of my couple of edits (which are all minor changes BTW). wbrasp (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:11, 30 December 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.

It is clear to me that I'm being viewed as a sockpuppet (the technical detail why exact are probably less important), and the most important thing that I wanted to make clear (could be with less confusion) that my only account (ever) was/is Wbrasp (and I created this account: of course same user, not a different one) and that I was not payed to do contributions. I understand that the administrators can be suspicious that this is a sockpuppet. I'm not intending to continue damage or disruption (I guess only changes on 1 new page and this discussion here are seen as the main disruptions). My main goal here was to make it clear that I'm no sockpuppet, because I don't like to be part of the reason the SAFE Network page is down. I hope this block will be undone some time in the future, so I would at least have the chance to do useful contributions. I would be grateful if that would be possible.wbrasp (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui:: Have you any suggestions what I can do more to get an unblock or could you give an extra word about the exact reason (as I'm understanding it now: Sock puppetry of account JohnSaavn because suspicious timing of post edits?)? I think I've done the necessary reading (see the result above) and I'm out of ideas. Thanks in advance! wbrasp (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is very clearly a campaign by SAFE Network to get the Wikipedia article about their product embellished. At least part of that is being done via paid editing, solicited through Upwork, and several accounts have already been connected to the Upwork profile of a serial sockpuppeteer. Investigation also suggests that SAFE Network is co-ordinating off-wiki efforts outside of Upwork. Any account that suddenly appears out of nowhere to edit only the SAFE Network article is therefore extremely suspect. Your account, which although created in 2016 had never made a single edit, suddenly appeared to start editing the SAFE Network article and only the SAFE Network article, at exactly the same time as the apparent off-wiki co-ordination began. The chances of this being a co-incidence are in the slim-to-none category. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui:: I can understand that you find it suspect. I can only speak of my own account here of course. If you call the SAFE Network a product, you can also call Wikipedia a product. Please be aware that it consists of a lot of volunteers. It is free, open source software so everyone can participate: it is not owned by anyone. I was reading the SAFE Network forum and I did see there that an new article of it that was created on Wikipedia (Upwork: I don't even know what that is). But I noticed some small, 'neutral' (in my opinion) errors in it and I corrected them with a minor edit. I also tried to add the logo (better to not do this if you can't find the license, I now realise this). I wasn't paid to do this, nor has anyone said that I had to do this. I personally wouldn't call correcting obvious minor mistakes that I noticed myself on an existing page clear evidence of promoting (WP:MTPPT). Adding the logo could be seen as a way of promoting, I understand that and won't do something similar in the future. I would be grateful to get the chance to do updates in the future on Wikipedia, this time on multiple articles (not the SAFE Network to prevent even further suspicion) and if there has to be a discussion concerning the content it has to happen on Wikipedia and not somewhere else. Although my account is a couple of years old (reasons why: see my block requests), my updates are only recently. So I would call myself a Wikipedia newbee. And reading the guidelines, I understand that it is recommended practice to give newbees the benefit of the doubt. I can understand that the idea is that the situation has to settle down a bit. But if my account stays blocked forever, that means Wikipedia can never get an improvement by me, who at least knows by now probably better than a lot of other people (I've done a lot of reading the last days) what the guidelines are. Thank you in advance! PS: probably not relevant here, but should the SAFE Network one day work even partially as promised it could also improve Wikipedia (Wikipedia could be stored on it in a better way as it is stored now). wbrasp (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]