From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The Wikipedia Adventure guide

Hi!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks HostBot! Invitation accepted. Just had the adventure (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal Notice from InternetQ[edit]

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_Notice_from_InternetQ Tim.thelion (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 21:33, Tuesday, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

March 2014[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Dear Bbb23, I am not user Zebrasil. I am a unique user and have a unique account in Wikipedia. I am unfairly positioned in the sock puppetry case mentioned here. One of your administrators has suggested that users need to be open in case they relate to a company that has an article in Wikipedia and for which they make comments. So that's what I did. From the time I opened my user account, I suggested that I relate to InternetQ. At first I stated "partner of" but realized that this might sound as if I own the company or have shares in the company, which is not true. So I edited it into what appeared on my page till recently, before you blocked me out. I work at InternetQ. I do not understand why I should hide this fact or why this is wrong. If anyone checks my contributions' history, it is obvious that I never edited directly the InternetQ article. I only provided suggestions in the Talk pages. Truth is that, at some point, my tone was not perfectly appropriate like in the case of "please remove immediately" but that's about it. I was angry about the fact that an entity seemed to be under attack and only possible negative effects of its business (under discussion) were presented. I should have phrased it differently. I am new to this community and I am in the learning process. I was a donor of Wikipedia two years ago but was never involved actively in this project. The motive I was given for the first time to speak up about something in Wikipedia might not be the ideal in the mind of some editors, but that doesn't mean it's the only cause or that it should be criticized. Working in a company is not the only thing that I do or I care about in my life. I speak four languages, I like yoga. I dance Argentine tango, I like reading and so on. I wanted to build my user page in order to reflect this little by little and when I would feel I was ready to make an actual edit on an article that relates to any of these, I would do so. But Ι run out of time as I was blocked. Why? And now that I am blocked, how am I supposed to defend myself in all the talk pages I am mentioned? Aren't all editors in Wikipedia somehow related to a company, an organization, an entity, an individual etc? Is it wrong to provide comments in talk pages about subjects that are relevant to your education, every day life or interests? What's wrong with that? I really wish that my first active discussion on a Wikipedia article was on another subject so that I was not facing accusations now, but this was not the case. Why should I be blocked? Do you have proof that I cannot contribute to the Wikipedia community and I can only harm it? Why was I blocked automatically and in fact "indefinitely", without receiving a notification first that could allow me to explain whatever would need to be explained on my side and then, if my opinions and point of views were not accepted or sufficient, the blocking could take place? Please consider unblocking me as I feel I can only contribute to the discussions. When I had the Wikipedia Adventure, it was mentioned that new users should not worry if they get it wrong first before they get it right. I hope it is understandable that it takes time for a new member of the Wikipedia community to absorb all policies and guidelines and learn to act within the set frame and according to the accepted practices. I feel that I am a victim of "collateral damage" of other users who edited the InternetQ Wikipedia article in a wrong way. Please give me back my right to participate in the Wikipedia project and be an accepted member of its community. Thank you. (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The evidence appears to show otherwise.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Dear Anthony.bradbury, I realize your concerns, but would like to ask that my request be reconsidered. Could you or anyone else involved in the review of my case explain what does the evidence mentioned appears to show? I have read the article on and realize that a new user can be often suspected to be a sock-puppet. I realize the concerns raised by the editors who have submitted this case for review, as well as those of administrators that have reviewed it. I visited the page describing the sock-puppetry under investigation on . I realize that what has made me a suspect relates to: a) my comment on, b) my stating of professional status on my user talk page, and c) the uploading of a document I thought would clarify the status of a legal case under discussion among editors of an article. I admit the fact that the cause of my first active involvement in the Wikipedia project dates back on March 24th, 2014, when other users in the suspects' list of are listed. I would like to ask you to show good faith and accept that this is not a single-purpose account. I have no intent of violating the Wikipedia policies from now on. I have no intent to purposely harm anyone in this project, or anyone’s work in this project. It is easy for you to find out, as all my contributions and moves are and will be recorded in your systems. I would also appreciate if someone could help me better understand what the reference “ is confirmed to Zebrasil” mean in the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" section of I lack the technical tools you have to find evidence for accusations but I am more than willing to cooperate with any Wikipedia Administrator and help clarify the situation. Being part of this community has an increasingly greater importance to me and I would appreciate your consideration. Allow me to repeat that is a different user and a different account from the mentioned "master" of the sock-puppetry case "Zebrasil". Allow me also to express my certitude that this complex case has raised concerns among experienced editors and administrators of Wikipedia. Please help me understand where the evidence that links me to this case lays, so that I can avoid similar activity in the future. Please help me understand the steps to be taken in order to disengage from this case, if possible. I would appreciate it if the Wikipedia community could allow me to provide feedback to editors' concerns on talk pages and contribute to its project, provided I abide to Wikipedia's rules and accepted practices. Thank you for reconsidering my (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Read WP:CHECK for more information on what "confirmed" means.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)