TassadarBLN
January 2020
edit
If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
- Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
- Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
{{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Please follow the instructions in the block notice to propose a new username. You don't need to actually disclose until you are unblocked. Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
TassadarBLN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Decline reason:
TassadarBLN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Part 2 of the reasoning we can understand and will rectify by changing the account to a personal account of someone in our team. This person will have sole ownership of the Wikipedia account. We were not aware of this Username Policy - sorry! Disclosure of employer etc will also follow on the talk page. Question: Is this disclosure already needed for the unblocking? The first part of the reasoning is incorrect, though. This account has just been created and has not previously been used for advertising etc. Instead this account was created with the honest intention to cooperate with the Wikipedia Community and avoid future advertising content - especially on the AUTO1 Group wiki entry. This part of the block goes against the fourth pillar - assuming good faith.
Decline reason:
We assumed good faith, but you violated that by violating WP:COI, WP:SOCK, WP:EVADE, and our terms of use. This unblock request does nothing to address these concerns. Yamla (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2020 (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.
TassadarBLN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
WP:COI --> This Was (I believe/hope) rectified by un-associating the user account from the company (see unblock-un reviewed) WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE --> I believe the (attempted) edits in February/March 2019 were made by someone in the company that has since left. It is of course natural to think that I am that same person - but that is not the true. My initial reasoning (possibly flawed, but not in bad faith) for creating this account was to come clean with whatever happened in the past and start from scratch with a positive and collaborative mindset. As I never was in charge of the previous accounts I fail to see the connection to sock puppetry - this current account is my only account. Therefore, Evasion can also not take place as - again - I do not controll the previously blocked account.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2020 (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.
Dislcaimer: I'm not sure how to bring my previous (so far unreviewed) unblock request to the attention of the moderators. Therefore I'm opening a second unblock request. Sorry for the inconveniences! :( ---> WP:COI --> This Was (I believe/hope) rectified by un-associating the user account from the company (see unblock-un reviewed) WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE --> I believe the (attempted) edits in February/March 2019 were made by someone in the company that has since left. It is of course natural to think that I am that same person - but that is not the true. My initial reasoning (possibly flawed, but not in bad faith) for creating this account was to come clean with whatever happened in the past and start from scratch with a positive and collaborative mindset. As I never was in charge of the previous accounts I fail to see the connection to sock puppetry - this current account is my only account. Therefore, Evasion can also not take place as - again - I do not controll the previously blocked account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TassadarBLN (talk • contribs)
- You only need one open request, so I removed the formatting from your post. The request is open and visible to administrators. Admins are volunteers doing what they can when they can. Your request will be reviewed in due course, please be patient. You are free to edit your request and attempt to make it more persuasive. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)