User talk:Simpleman2.3

Blocked[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Josher8a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked because you've claimed to have made edits done by sock puppets of Josher8a (talk · contribs). You will need to explain this situation, and, at the very least, comply with our paid editing disclosure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:35, 24 October 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).

Simpleman2.3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet, we sent suggested edits to an external editor, as the article is sloppy and not entirely correct. But that was a failure and a waste of time, the article is worse that it was. I am no Wikipedian, but I agree to disclose, I was looking for guidance to request edits. Simpleman2.3 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2019 (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. -- Deep fried okra 15:22, 29 October 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.

October 2019[edit]

Hello Simpleman2.3. 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Simpleman2.3. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Simpleman2.3|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. -- Deep fried okra 15:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Deepfriedokra:, I understand why I have been blocked for and I am not looking to disrupt anything what I want is to have J. B. Hunt cleaned up and with more accurate information. I am open to suggestion on how to proceed to request changes. I am unrelated to the sockpuppets but I've been tasked to address this article situation. Simpleman2.3 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simpleman2.3, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by J.B. Hunt for their contributions to Wikipedia.

You'd need to articulate what you did wrong and what you would do differently. This is also a block for sock puppetry, so please review what the GAB has to say about that.-- Deep fried okra 08:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Sure thanks.Simpleman2.3 (talk) 23:14, 4 November 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).

Simpleman2.3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I won't try to edit anything , we approached J.B. Hunt page issue with the wrong idea but we still want to update the page bc its outdated. Now, I'd like to request and discuss edits on this matter any advice on how to do this is highly appreciated, I am not a Wikipedian. The sockpuppet issue is a misundestanding bc I was swayed by paid editors into a wrong approach to the issue, nothing good came from there. Simpleman2.3 (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The sockpuppet investigation has revealed evidence that is consistent with undisclosed paid-for spamming, namely the use of webhosts to edit. MER-C 13:56, 6 November 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.

how so? what happened? @MER-C: why I can't be unblocked? you should know that for security reasons its not wise to reveal my ip and haven't done anything, the investigation was inconclusive. Simpleman2.3 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 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).

Simpleman2.3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not abusing multiple accounts and the investigation did not link me to the sockpuppet at all. How can I help to be unblocked? If I am to be unblocked, I would like to request changes to J.B. Hunt article which is very poor right now and certainly do not deserve it. Simpleman2.3 (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing here is anywhere near sufficient to consider lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 12:04, 14 November 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.

@Yamla: I need insight to know what would be.. I really don't know.. Simpleman2.3 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

A sockpuppet investigation (WP:SPI) concerning your account is underway at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josher8a. You are invited to participate. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: I don't know what to say, I already said everything I know of the issue. Kinda of a misunderstanding. What should I do?