User talk:Waspex

August 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 7 August 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).

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

Request reason:

Hi @ponyo. I am shocked, finding my account blocked. I suspect that the reason (you stated "multiple accounts") is because i stated in my pending changes reviewer - application that i had two accounts. Please let me clarify this. I do not work on two separate accounts. I HAD two accounts as editor on wikipedia. I am not switching in any way back and forth, i am not using two accounts for circumventing policies or creating illusions of support. I am very happy to just have created my first article (created, not edited) and was just wondering whether i could become a reviewer as well, as this seemed like the next step. Mz7 told me that this was not possible (you can see my request) which is fine. I can assure you, not to be using 2 accounts at all, and i would just love to give back to wikipedia what i could benefit from by continuing to edit correctly and creating a new article. I do not think there is any reason to block me, but i understand the issue/situation as you saw it of course. Please unblock me, as i did nothing wrong or help me understand what the issue is. Thank you for your job here on wikipedia and your support.Waspex (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)waspex[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you have made no response to the messages below in a week I am closing this request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:47, 15 August 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 is a checkuser block, and I am not a checkuser. But the information provided indicates that you have used four accounts, not two as you state. This should be clarified before a checkuser considers your unblock request.----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be unblocked, you should declare the usernames of all accounts you have ever used to edit Wikipedia, so that we can verify your statements. Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Mz7, dear @AnthonyBradbury. I have not used 4 accounts. However I have now taken my time and checked up: I see the issue. I am a student in a known university and for a small group-project we were supposed to edit wikipedia articles, to give back to the community, since we have used wikipedia so many times over and over again. The goal was to show us how to do it, how to cite correctly and maybe even create articles, if possible. I dont know what "the information provided" means, but if you are talking about the IP Adress, well then of course it can be the same, since we sat together, editing articles. I am deeply sorry for confusing you and the wikipedia-community, but we have never done anything wrong nor abused any wikipedia policies. I want to clearly state that there has not been any socketpuppetry going on. The second account i mentioned, which was created by a student friend of mine is called @MaxMilchmann. I have used it exactly once as he stayed logged in, which is the reason that i stated that i had two accounts. I do not OWN two accounts. Dear Admins, I have done nothing wrong and i only gave back to the community. I would be very greatful and happy if i could continue my quest to providing wikipedia with knowledge. Since we are on holidays now, I do not know whether you blocked the other accounts as well, but for me, waspex, it is a huge burden not to be able to continue editing. I want to point out again that i have not done any vandalism or misused wikipedia for any reasons and that the quality of my edits were always good, correctly cited and accepted by reviewers.

I am now aware of the issue and will gladly pay attention to not using my account with the same IP adress that my co-students use.--Waspex (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)waspex[reply]

CU note to reviewing admin: The details Waspex provided regarding the simultaneous account creations due to a project are feasible. If the behavioral evidence also bears this out then I would not object to an unblock assuming the bit about using someone's account is dealt with. Waspex, if you want another admin to review your updated information above, it would be more efficient to include it in a new unblock request so that it appears in the appeal queue. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Dear Admin, please read through the talk page. I have learnt my lesson, i had no idea that this could produce so much troubles. Please also read @ponyo's last comment from 15. august, 19:03 above. I will state everything again here:

Dear @Mz7, dear @AnthonyBradbury. I have not used 4 accounts. However I have now taken my time and checked up: I see the issue. I am a student in a known university and for a small group-project we were supposed to edit wikipedia articles, to give back to the community, since we have used wikipedia so many times over and over again. The goal was to show us how to do it, how to cite correctly and maybe even create articles, if possible. I dont know what "the information provided" means, but if you are talking about the IP Adress, well then of course it can be the same, since we sat together, editing articles. I am deeply sorry for confusing you and the wikipedia-community, but we have never done anything wrong nor abused any wikipedia policies. I want to clearly state that there has not been any socketpuppetry going on. The second account i mentioned, which was created by a student friend of mine is called @MaxMilchmann. I have used it exactly once as he stayed logged in, which is the reason that i stated that i had two accounts. I do not OWN two accounts. Dear Admins, I have done nothing wrong and i only gave back to the community. I would be very greatful and happy if i could continue my quest to providing wikipedia with knowledge. Since we are on holidays now, I do not know whether you blocked the other accounts as well, but for me, waspex, it is a huge burden not to be able to continue editing. I want to point out again that i have not done any vandalism or misused wikipedia for any reasons and that the quality of my edits were always good, correctly cited and accepted by reviewers.

I am now aware of the issue and will gladly pay attention to not using my account with the same IP adress that my co-students use.

Here Ponyo's comment to you, admin:

CU note to reviewing admin: The details Waspex provided regarding the simultaneous account creations due to a project are feasible. If the behavioral evidence also bears this out then I would not object to an unblock assuming the bit about using someone's account is dealt with. Waspex, if you want another admin to review your updated information above, it would be more efficient to include it in a new unblock request so that it appears in the appeal queue.

Thank you - i would very much appreciate it. Again, my edits were always in good quality and i never abused wikipedia nor breached any rules.. With a friendly wikipedia-wave, waspex. PS: regarding the "bit about using someone's account": this will never happen again. It was in accordance, but i do not want to cause any trouble again. Rest assured!

Waspex (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)waspex[reply]

Accept reason:

See below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Dear Ponyo, Could you clarify why this is taking so long.. I would love to continue with above mentioned project. And again: I have done nothing wrong and all edits made are qualitatively good, most of them have been acceptep (i guess around 95%). If they have been declined it was never a policy-issue, it was only because my edits were deemed irrelevant or something similar. Thank you very much and all the best, waspex. Waspex (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)waspex[reply]

@Ponyo: Hey Ponyo, As i am still waiting for someone to have a look at my unblock request i wanted to ask whether there is any feedback on it or not..? Thank you very much!Waspex (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)waspex[reply]

Waspex, the reason Ponyo isn't replying is because typing "@Ponyo" isn't enough to ping her; you have to link their username like so: User:ponyo, or use {{ping}} (I know, it's just about the least user-friendly way of communication there is). So she isn't ignoring you, she just didn't know you were asking her something. I'm less sure why no one else is addressing this unblock request, it's been quite a while. I've asked Ponyo for input, but will accept or decline in the next day or so, so you aren't left twisting in the wind any longer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed miss the messages as they didn't ping me (sorry!). When I returned to editing after a hiatus I blanked my watchlist and am determined to keep it pruned to a minimum. I've left some additional details for Floquenbeam on my talk page in order to explain the details of the block further.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, the problem here is that you've done several things that are very common among undisclosed paid editors. You've created, as your first article, a biographical article of someone not really famous, which sure seems like it was done at someone's direction; you asked for reviewer rights when you realized it took a long time for drafts to be reviewed; in that request you mentioned that you have "edited lots of articles with my two accounts", and have multiple articles waiting to be reviewed ("I have been waiting for some articles to be reviewed for over 2 months"), although this is the only article this account has written. When the IP you use was investigated, it was found that your account was created at the same time as other accounts that have similar communication styles and all created userpages in a similar way. You can understand, I assume, why people suspect you of not telling the truth when you call all this a misunderstanding, and claim you used someone else's account once by accident. That is sure a lot of coincidences. While Ponyo has said that your explanation is technically feasible, all of that sure seems unlikely, doesn't it?

Rather than draw this process out even longer to discuss this other account of yours with lots of edits, I am going to unblock this account, with a strong warning to read WP:UPE and WP:SOCK, and understand that future edits will be scrutinized to see if they continue to fit either of these patterns, and that anything remotely suspicious is likely going to result in another check of your IP address. I am leaving the other 3 accounts blocked, as they have not requested unblocking. Going forward, use only one account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Floquenbeam ! Thank you so much for your kind editing of my unblock request! That is something I have been missing on Wikipedia. You are entirely correct, and yes, it does not seem very likely (all the things you mentioned). Again, this was all a Universityproject. In that light, I guess it all does make sense, right? Well anyways, I have learned my lesson! And sorry for replying so late, as I have almost given up on this request.. University is starting as of next week for me, so this is a perfect timing for the approved unblock.

Thank you for understanding and being so kind. Also, User:ponyo, thank you too for being cool enough to look into it.

Have a great time guys, Waspex (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Waspex[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ralph Winter (September 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chrissymad 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). 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:Ralph Winter 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:Ralph Winter, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Waspex! 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! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ralph Winter

Hello, Waspex. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ralph Winter".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]