User talk:Kenosplit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Kenosplit, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A more personal welcome[edit]

@Kenosplit: As you might have guessed, the previous message was a standardized Wikipedia template. In my own words, this time: welcome to Wikipedia. Please continue our conversation either on my talk page, or if appropriate, at Talk:Machine Zone. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Kenosplit I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Thanks for disclosing that you work at Machine Zone here. I'm providing you with more formal notice of our COI guideline and paid editing policy, and will have some comments and questions for you below. Please do reply here, below my comments.

Information icon Hello, Kenosplit. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

  • avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
  • instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests[edit]

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. You've done that at another user's talk page, and that editor added a template to the article Talk page.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Kenosplit - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet)? Just something simple like: "I work for Machine Zone and have a conflict of interest with regard to that topic" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but nothing promotional about the company (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

That would finish the the disclosure piece.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is what I call "peer review". This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. A section has been added to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:Machine Zone - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).

I hope that makes sense to you, and that you will stop editing the article directly.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on the Machine Zone article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. And if you want me to quickly go over the content policies, I can do that. Just let me know. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jytdog: Thank you for the message. I understand Wikipedia's guidelines but don't believe I violated them in anyway, and it certainly was not my intention to violate them. Your changes to the "Machine Zone" article, however, have completely done away with basic facts about the company. Most of the changes you made were not even to text I wrote -- they were written by Lwarrenwiki, who is not a Machine Zone employee and has no apparent bias in trying to promote the company. Your changes to the Machine Zone article were extreme and only make the article inaccurate and antiquated. It ignores anything about the company beyond summer of 2015. Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to offer accurate, up-to-date information? That was my only intent in making edits to the article -- not to promote the company, but to offer more up-to-date information about the company. I would simply like the article to be more accurate and hope that we can work together to achieve that.
I would be happy to talk about content in a bit - can we first get through the process of getting you oriented here? Would you please make the disclosure on your user page and agree to not edit content about Machine Zone directly? Please do let me know. Then, I would be happy to provide you with a brief orientation as to how Wikipedia works -- how we decide things, and on what bases. You won't be able to really participate here until you understand that stuff. Do let me know about the two questions. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: I updated my user page and agree not to edit content about Machine Zone directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosplit (talk • contribs) 19:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. I am going to start a new section in a minute, providing the overview of how this place works. It is kind of long, but meant to be quickly skimmable, and also something you can dig into if something puzzles you. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How Wikipedia works[edit]

OK, so I would like to get you oriented to how Wikipedia works, including our criteria for whether articles should exist, or not. There are some non-intuitive things about editing here, that I can zip through ~pretty~ quickly....

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers encyclopedia articles that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via loads of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". (There is a whole forest of things, in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus. ) And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in Wikipedia space. There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines
  • WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing. This where will also find stated in that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion WP:PROMO - please think about why you are editing Wikipedia, as you read that)
  • WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
  • WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
  • WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
  • WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
  • WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically about articles about living people. We are very careful about these articles (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
  • WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources with substantial discussion about X, with which to build a decent article. I reckon this will be of special interest to you.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

  • WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
  • WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
  • WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
  • WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
  • WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it. If you cannot, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
  • WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or the one in the article about your company: Talk:Machine Zone, and also deletion discussions, should ever get involved in one of those.

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.

SO... Anytime you want to create an article, here is what to do.

  1. look for independent sources that comply with WP:RS for most things (and with WP:MEDRS for any content about health) - those sources need to give serious discussion to the topic, not just be passing mentions. Start with great sources.
  2. Look at the sources you found, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule to even go forward. (generally you need at least two or three independent sources with substantial discussion) If you don't have them, you can stop right there; if you already created the article, you can expect someone to nominate it for deletion.
  3. Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT - be wary of distortions in weight due to WP:RECENTISM
  4. Go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be ginger b/c WP has lots of bad content) - create an outline. (For example, for biographies, the relevant project is WP:WikiProject Biography or for companies, see WP:WikiProject Companies)
  5. Create the article in draft space. Create the talk page, and disclose your COI there.
  6. Start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have, and source each sentence as you go.
  7. Make sure you write in neutral language.
  8. When you are done, write the lead and add infobox, external links, categories, etc
  9. Consider adding banners to the Talk page, joining the draft article to relevant Wikiprojects, which will help attract editors who are interested and knowledgeable to help work on the article.
  10. The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences or what the client wanted; there is no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.
  11. Submit your article for review via the WP:AFC process - again I can help there if you like. You will get responses from reviewers, and you can work with them to do whatever is needed to get the article ready to be published.

There you go! Let me know if you have questions about any of that

Anyway - there it is. Hope that makes sense. I know you already created your the article has already been created so a bunch of that is not necessary. But it might help you understand how others will react to it.

Once you have that under your belt, we can have a real discussion about article content at Machine Zone, based on these policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC) (redact per below Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for the information. I've read it and would like to move forward with discussing the article content at Machine Zone. And, just to clarify something you wrote, I did not create the Machine Zone article. It has been in existence for some time and was being maintained by another Wikipedia user. I just wanted to update it to make it more accurate and reflect the new products/services and branding of the company. Kenosplit (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i realized that after I wrote it. i redacted above. sorry. and good luck!! Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, I would still like to work with you on editing the Machine Zone article so that it is more accurate and up-to-date. I am fine with making suggested edits to the article rather than editing it directly, but my suggested edits will be in line with the edits I made before, which I do not believe are promotional. If it's an issue of citations, I can cite to articles and other sources supporting the facts in my edits.Kenosplit (talk)
Understood. Articles are open for discussion by all comers, so go ahead and open a discussion at the talk page asking for whatever specific changes you would like to see. This goes best if you do one thing at a time, as opposed to a whole slew of stuff. And be really specific about what you want to see changed, and that any proposed addition has a reliable source. and please be ready to discuss (which means really listening and really asking if you don't understand the replies you get) If you are decent and open and are engaging and talking, not demanding, most times things go well. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MZ logo.png[edit]

@Kenosplit and Jytdog: See commons:File talk:MZ logo.png. Kenosplit, I'm not asking you or anyone to delete the logo. It could be a potential concern, but I'm not making suggestions or advising you about it. Not my place. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oh I am so sorry you resorted to SOCKing. :( Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't have multiple accounts! Am I going to get any explanation for what multiple accounts they believe I have? This is coming out of the blue. Kenosplit (talk)
This is based on the fact that other accounts were open at my IP address? I think everyone at my company has the same IP address. So why am I being punished because someone else at my company also opened a Wikipedia account? I have been completely accommodating and forthcoming since I joined Wikipedia and have been working with you guys amicably. I haven't made any direct edits to the "Machine Zone" page or done anything else in violation of the rules. It just feels like I can't win here, no matter what I do. Kenosplit (talk)
Are there are other people from your company editing? Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of anyone from my company editing the "Machine Zone" page, no. Kenosplit (talk)
That actually didn't answer my question. Please do answer it. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the activity of the account "Wesmail" Special:Contributions/Wesmail. They started working the very day that you agreed not to edit directly. That is amazingly coincidental. And the folks who work at SPI see coincidences like this all the time where one account picks up where another left off, working on the exact same subject matter. People do this all the time. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds. People do this. And they get blocked and come right back do it again. And again. And then there is ["Niki now"]'s one edit (who amazingly understood "updating references" on their first edit). All of that coming from the same location. All of that is really solid evidence of either coordination (what we call meatpuppetry) or a single person. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make those edits and it looks like those edits were made to a different page, not the "Machine Zone" page I was working on. The coincidence in timing has to do with the fact that Machine Zone had just rebranded as "MZ" and multiple people at the company were working to update our Wikipedia page accordingly. And it makes no sense that I would be working with you guys on the "Machine Zone" page while simultaneously working on a separate page. Why would I even bother working with you if I was going to just create a new page anyway? That new page was not created by me. I have not violated any rules and only wish to be reinstated. Kenosplit (talk)
OK so here you wrote "multiple people at the company were working to update our Wikipedia page accordingly". Can you talk more about that please? Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is just feeling less and less productive. You've got lots of questions for me but don't appear to have any interest in actually helping me. This all started because I wanted to make some basic edits to the "Machine Zone" page to make it more up-to-date and this process has really soured me on how Wikipedia works. I appreciate your assistance but the people who run Wikipedia appear to have a greater commitment to their own draconian rules than to providing the best information to its users. Kenosplit (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I wrote to you above when I first interacted with you, if people are straightforward and simple and are willing to learn and "play nicely with others", they have a pretty easy time and can become productive quickly. But some people get lost in malarky and they hit brick walls pretty quickly. You are not being simple and straightforward in this interaction (twice ducking very simple questions about team efforts at MZ), and you have no chance of getting unblocked. The evidence for SOCK or MEAT is solid. I wish you well out there in the world! Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request made via OTRS[edit]

@Jytdog: I have been in email conversation with this editor at OTRS. ticket:2016052010028966. I have helped the editor with some issues; I have also made clear that additional changes at the article should be done by a request for an edit on the talk page, but that can only happen if he is unblocked. I am planning to unblock this editor with the caveat that the editor stick to a single account and with respect to Machine Zone, post request for edits on the article talk page and not directly edit the article. Do you have any objection?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)t[reply]
as you will. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some matter of urgency that prevents the normal use of unblock appeal procedures, under ordinary policy per WP:GAB and WP:SOCKBLOCK? I'd prefer to see an appeal. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning on the normal unblock process - I have asked this editor to post a request - my question is to to find out why such a request should or should not be granted. I see a lot of discussion about socking, but I haven't seen any evidence of anything beyond what we might expect a new editor to mistakenly do. Is there some real evidence of knowingly violating the rule?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sphilbrick: Unfortunately, I don't have time to discuss this now, but just in the unlikely event you're unaware, you can't unblock the user on your own without approval from me or another CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm asking. I think the request is legitimate, so I want to hear why it is not.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it differently. A representative of a company has identified errors in a Wikipedia article about the company. That person now knows that directly editing the article is not appropriate. We have a well-established process; the person should identify the problem and ideally propose an edit on the article talk page. They cannot do that at this time because they are blocked. I think it is entirely reasonable for them to post request for edits on the article talk page. Do you disagree? Do have another way they can do this other than requesting and receiving an unblock?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that all concerned editors should have that discussion; it should begin after we all see Kenosplit's unblock request. It is premature to respond to the appeal before it's been made, and before the editor speaks for himself/herself about past conduct and future intentions if unblocked. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sphilbrick we actually had that process in place, where this account was making suggestions on the Talk page - I helped make that happen if you review the history of this page - and it was going relatively OK and then this sock/meatpuppeting started happening. It was dismaying and weird and their explanations were... infelicitous at best. MZ is a company not some hippy camp where people just do what they want. I was willing to accept accidental MEAT with say marketing acting separately from legal - a response from this user along the lines of "hey sorry let me check with the marketing folks and if it wasn't them but some employee going rogue we can find out who that is and shut it down" and then coming back with an actual response based on looking - would have been reasonable to me. Instead their response was just disdainful and assumes we have no clue how companies function and makes it seem all the more likely they were actually socking. And in my view, using OTRS as another means to get their marketing message into the article is really an abuse of the OTRS system; that isn't what it is for in my view. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please hold off on discussing the whole matter, until there is an unblock request to respond to. It really is counterproductive to talk about Kenosplit's past conduct (and desired future conduct), until the content of Kenosplit's appeal is known. Let Kenosplit and Wesmail and Niki Now have their say in the appeal next. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Request to Unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I formally request that my account be unblocked because I did not violate Wikipedia's rules. I was apparently accused of using 2 accounts to edit "Machine Zone" pages, but I have only ever edited or proposed edits to a single "Machine Zone" page through a single account. The other account that I am accused of using was not used by me but was, apparently, used by someone else at my company to create a new "MZ" page to focus on different aspects of Machine Zone's business. Neither one of our edits were done maliciously or in an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia's rules, and I did not create the new "MZ" page or make any edits to it, nor did I direct anyone to do it. I only ask that I be unblocked so that I may make proposed edits to the "Machine Zone" page to update it as it is quite outdated. I agree not to make direct edits without authorization and am only asking for an opportunity to help improve the "Machine Zone" page. Thank you. Kenosplit (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't think you are being honest. Based on the evidence it was not just someone at the same company, but sitting at the very same computer. It also appears you are here just to promote your company, this is not what Wikipedia is for. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 16:23, 29 June 2016 (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.

So the process of requesting to be unblocked is that I offer my reasons for why I should be unblocked and someone unilaterally makes a decision -- without any evidence -- that they "don't think" I am being honest? So where does that leave me exactly? You tell me that the two accounts made edits from the "very same computer," which I can tell you is impossible because my computer is locked and can only be accessed by me, and (as I have repeatedly said now) I did not make edits from any other account. So to the extent that you are basing your decision that you "think" I am not being honest on that complete and inaccurate conjecture, what am I supposed to do now?Kenosplit (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of unblock request[edit]

After a CheckUser SPI investigation, this editor was blocked for sockpuppetry. The unblock request states "I did not violate Wikipedia's rules." Earlier denials of socking appear above at #May 2016.

The following three points don't seem to be in dispute:

  • WP:COI applies. The editor acknowledged here, "I do work at MZ", after being questioned about an edit that inserted text from MZ's press release the day before it was publicly released.
  • WP:SPA applies. The editor and socks have never edited an article on any other subject.
  • WP:NOTHERE applies. The editor has never expressed interest in editing on any other subject.

The blocked editor's pattern of past edits and edit requests was to add content to Machine Zone that was similar or identical to MZ's press releases or other marketing material. After a notice at COI/N, all of Kenosplit's edits were reverted by an administrator, JzG (talk), with an edit comment about "blatantly promotional material". At that point, Kenosplit stopped directly editing the page. The activity of the sock Wesmail (talk · contribs) started one day earlier.

Taken together with past statements, the unblock request indicates no acknowledgement or acceptance that previous edits/requests had issues with non-neutral wording or problematic marketing language in violation of WP:PROMOTION, WP:PUBLICITY, or WP:NPOV. After being asked to read those policies, and after violations were pointed out in detail, Kenosplit maintained that the COI edits made the article more accurate and up-to-date. See above: "I am fine with making suggested edits to the article rather than editing it directly, but my suggested edits will be in line with the edits I made before, which I do not believe are promotional."

I'd suggest that the policy on Advertising-only accounts also applies here. The unblock request uses the word "only" to describe the editor's only purpose here. Even if the sockpuppetry was excusable, this unblock should be denied because the editor demonstrates no intention, if unblocked, of making any constructive contributions to Wikipedia that are unrelated to the subject of Machine Zone. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kenosplit&oldid=756038768"