User talk:BillWikiAsk

Regarding my ban

@GeneralNotability: I am Bill and I acknowledge my ban and I understand it. I did engage in sockpuppetry with the following accounts: Shipisomani, Analog292, Hemantruparel, saaiyan21. I used them to email Wikipedians about Wikiask, a project I co-founded and that I thought could appeal to the Wikipedia community.

A455bcd9 (Antoine Dusséaux) is one of the Wikipedians I contacted. He isn't a sock puppet. He became interested in Wikiask and then contacted some Wikipedians as well. He then withdrew from Wikiask. I believe he should not be banned for my behavior. BillWikiAsk (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, thank you for considering my unblock request. I apologize for getting off to such a bad start and causing editors to spend time on this situation. First off, I am Bill Cherman, and I recently founded Wikiask, a Q&A website and wiki which is openly licensed (CC-BY-SA 4.0). I wanted to interview highly active Wikipedians to understand their motivations, get feedback on Wikiask, and invite them to contribute. I did this by using the special:emailuser feature. I admit that I used multiple accounts myself (sockpuppeting), so that I could send more than the maximum 20 emails per user per day. I apologize for this; it was evasive and wrong, and I will not do it again. Second, I enlisted interested Wikipedians who liked what Wikiask is doing to send messages to other editors themselves (meatpuppeting). I realize that this was also problematic, because they were acting effectively on my behalf to do what wasn't permissible by one person alone. Third, I see that contacting editors AT ALL to work on another website is against the rules. I will find other permitted ways to engage with the community going forward. I commit to never repeating any of these wrong actions. I humbly ask to be unblocked so I can continue growing the open knowledge movement, participate in discussions, and events, and grow reliable, trustworthy information. Thank you again.BillWikiAsk (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I can't say that I disagree with the comments below. Maybe someone else will, but not me. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2022 (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.

Hi! I have few questions for you. All those sockpuppet accounts that you were using have been created 6-8 years ago. Was it you who created them? Why did you need multiple accounts back then? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding, @Vanjagenije: The accounts were created by other Wikiask team members before Wikiask even existed. I did not personally create them. They all sent messages about Wikiask on my direction, so I take full responsibility. Everyone on the team now knows that mass messaging through emails or other means is prohibited. To be clear, there are no other accounts related to Wikiask besides the ones listed and disclosed in the sock investigation. BillWikiAsk (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those accounts have been used to create promotional (probably paid) articles. Most of those articles are now deleted (Salvation Army Radio, Jairek Robbins, Shawn Stratton, MT Educare Limited and many others). This was years ago, but still, it troubles me that you are founder of an organization whose "team members" were using Wikipedia for WP:undisclosed paid editing. I think that we can't trust you that your goal here is to "grow reliable, trustworthy information". Vanjagenije (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, Vanjagenije. I understand your position, but hope that you reconsider in the future, after I’ve shown evidence that my goal is to contribute to free and open knowledge. BillWikiAsk (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]