Helicon Arts Cooperative

Username policy violation

Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Our policies prohibit the use of user names that appear to represent or promote a company, group, other organization or a product, and as a result your account has been blocked from editing. If you wish to continue editing, please consider reviewing our username policy more thoroughly and then creating a new account. If you feel this block was made in error, you may ask for a review of this username block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this message. Thank you, Shereth 18:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

{{#switch:User talk|User|User talk=

Orphaned non-free image File:Yesterdayposternew.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yesterdayposternew.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI complaint

This sockpuppet complaint concerns you: [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Helicon Arts Cooperative (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

Noir Is The New Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

Although you were initially blocked for a username violation, it has been determined by CheckUser that you are also a sockpuppet, so now there's that problem too, you need to pick one account that you would like to use and request it's unblocking — Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have no access to other accounts and am requesting unblock on this account only. Checkuser likely ruled sockpuppetry due to shared network, but I could not defend myself due to username block. I do admit to having used a deceptive username on this account to give the appearance that I own the copyright of an image I once uploaded. I apologize for the deception ad would like to have this account unblocked so I can correct my username violation and get a fresh start editing.

Decline reason:

This is one of the accounts confirmed by checkuser to be a sock in the Sorrywrongnumber SPI case. In addition to the sock problem, this one also has a username problem, so I can't see any good reason for unblock. The account known as Sorrywrongnumber is *not* blocked. Since the socking caused so much trouble, I would prefer that they make a frank account of what really happened, and who did what when. They could do this privately with a checkuser. If the deception is really over, an unblock might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am attempting to make a frank account. A check of that investigation shows that this account was allegedly confirmed to be a sock of User:Smokefree, not User:Sorrywrongnumber. User:Sorrywrongnumber was not implicated. Currently I cannot edit, so I cannot request a change in username to conform to your policies. If your policy is to unblock one and only one of the implicated accounts, then I believe I am entitled to have one account unblocked, and it would be this one. I do not have access to the others.

Decline reason:

No. You have had more than enough accounts, and you don't appear to be using any of them for anything other than self-promotion. If you and your movie are truly notable, then other people will write about them. Since Wikipedia is a privately owned web site, the number of accounts to which you are 'entitled' is zero, and that seems to me to be the correct number in this situation. If, in a few years when the film has succeeded or failed on its merits, you want to volunteer to help write the encyclopedia in subjects in which you do not have a conflict of interest, feel free to request unblock of your first account, explaining that clearly. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Maybe this wasn't clear before, but whether or not there is sockpuppetry, there is no COI. An accusation of COI (by an editor who turned out to be a sock in an edit war) doesn't equal COI. I have not been found guilty of that -- in fact, I was found not guilty of it when the admins investigated. I have nothing to do with the articles in question other than having an admittedly strong interest in the players involved. I don't believe that constitutes a "COI," and the investigation agreed. Please do not ignore the fact that this was an allegation made by an editor who not only has a history of socking to avoid scrutiny, but his previous username was identical to the name of a crew member on the film in question. Despite that COI, you take no COI action against him and he is allowed to continue editing at will, including the page of a film he worked on, with no sanctions, and not even a SOCK badge placed on his various userpages (only redirects). Boggles the mind. Rather than simply set up another account and continue editing under a different name, as my accuser has done repeatedly, I am trying to do the right thing, admit my error, and get a fresh start.

Decline reason:

You haven't even addressed the username violation. And it's more than just technical. Two unblock requests back, you admitted that you chose this name to deceive the community into thinking you owned the copyright to an image you uploaded that, in fact, you did not own. This wasn't just a poor choice of username. This wasn't just a badly chosen username used with deceptive intent. This was a badly chosen username used with deceptive intent to facilitate the violation of a core Wikipedia policy with a basis in real-world law. This is something you should be lucky that you have only been blocked for. You could be sued, or even prosecuted. AND YOU EXPECT US TO UNBLOCK YOU LIKE IT'S "SORRY, OUR BAD"???? After you went and flushed good faith down the toilet like it was some used feminine-hygiene product?? You ... have ... some ... freaking ... nerve. Needless to say, this is your last unblock request as I will be protecting the page so that we don't have to deal with people who insult our integrity like this. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

If you're still requesting unblock, you need the previous requests still up, rather than blanking them. I'm not clear; are you saying that you shouldn't be held responsible for conflict of interest because the person who pointed out your use of multiple accounts was using multiple accounts himself? Or are you actually saying that, despite the fact that you've used at least six different accounts for the sole purpose of promoting this film, you actually are not in any way associated with the film or its makers? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? You are still not clear? I really don't know any other way to say it. Let me try it this way: Just because Debussy-Jones has said that this (and other) accounts have been used to "promote" a film, does not make that a fact -- especially when the COI investigation resulted in a ruling that the accounts in question were not making promotional edits to any articles. Or I can phrase it thus way: Editing pages about a film and actors does not equal promoting that film or actors. The accuser has been editing these pages ceaselessly since I was blocked. By your own logic, he (and his sock accounts) are therefore "promoting" the film as well. How about this: block me from ever editing any of the pages that you are so convinced I am "promoting". That should solve the problem, right? Frankly I have no interest in editing pages any more that Harold has taken ownership of. He is too possessive of them. Let him take "ownership" of those pages and allow me get a fresh start editing other things. Helicon Arts Cooperative (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)