—== November 2017 ==
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Nazzah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Having read through the section on abusing multiple accounts, I acknowledge that i should not have asked my colleague Aoshevir to assist in editing content and pages of interest to me. I solely own this account and do not possess multiple accounts.I also promise that this will not happen again, i will always maintain the credibility of Wikipedia. Thanks 15:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sorry, but I cannot accept that you and Aoshevir are different people when you both produce unblock requests that are more or less identical ([1]). Optimist on the run (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2017 (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.
Nazzah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Oh wow, this could be because we both as colleagues/friends, took time to read through the policies together and even classified our offense as Meat puppetry. This could have been the reason we may have had similarities. I can persuade him to close his account, bearing in mind it was opened for the purpose of helping me. Just to remove any doubt of me owning more than one account. Awaiting a reply. Thanks Nazzah (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There is no practical difference between sockpuppets and meatpuppets, so the effect and the block are the same. And you even say he opened his account to help you. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2017 (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.
- These accounts were clearly involved in advertising - this is not acceptable. What constructive contributions will you make if unblocked? GABgab 17:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, Hell's bellsI mean, thanks gab. Did not know about the spam. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Without any intention to patronize, i have had my content re-edited in times past by other editors/admins, and this has only made me a better editor, helping me to effectively define what kind of content Wikipedia desires. It MUST be Neutral and verifiable. Not tilting to favour an idea or cause. This period of being blocked has been a learning curve for me as well, I have understood the sacredness of every line i edit here. I think I have become a better and more effective editor on Wikipedia after this experience. Nazzah (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Admins, please i will just like to follow up on my unblock request. Appreciate a kind re-consideration. Thanks Nazzah (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- If we were to unblock you, we would need assurances that you will no longer edit articles about entities with which you have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest. If there are errors in those articles, you may request they be fixed on the article talk pages, and let someone else deal with the actual editing. Can you make a positive statement that you intend to stop editing those articles altogether, and abide by these policies? --Jayron32 16:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jayron32. I think this is a fair judgement. My desire to be a positive contributor far outweighs any affiliation to any articles. I will not edit those articles for which there was a conflict of interest anymore and i will abide by the policies as stated. Thanks Nazzah (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: What say ye? yea or nay? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Nazzah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yes I know that there are no differences between Sock Puppets and Meat puppets. This is just me acknowledging that what I did was wrong. I am only admitting my wrong in asking for help and also asking for a reconsideration. Please reconsider. Thanks Nazzah (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Accept reason:
- These assurances are enough for me because it does not appear to be a farm. I'd note that Nazzah must also disclose any articles they are paid to edit if they are unblocked, and that if they continue with promotional editing after being unblocked, they may be blocked again regardless of the MEAT issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nazzah - do you agree to the terms that TonyBallioni laid out above? SQLQuery me! 06:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Admins, for this. Yes I agree with the terms. And more so I also state that if I have any reviews, I will first of all place them on my talk page for other Wikipedia editors or admins to share their views. Only after then will I or any other editor include the review in the article. But I will not directly make an edit to any article without a review by a Wikipedia editor or Admin. Thanks. Nazzah (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think what TonyBallioni was getting at is that undisclosed paid editing is incompatible with our terms of service. You would need to declare on your userpage what articles (The Template:Paid template is an easy way to do this) you are paid to edit once unblocked. SQLQuery me! 03:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- SQL, Yes, but given the above response, I’m fine with unblocking. Nazzah, please take SQL and my comments here seriously. TonyBallioni (talk)