User talk:AlexaSmooth

Hi AlexaSmooth. Are you one of Zak Smith's alternate accounts? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: Hey. No, I'm not. AlexaSmooth 03:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AlexaSmooth, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi AlexaSmooth! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing with a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, AlexaSmooth. 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 conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Hi, Jezebel's Ponyo. I do not have an external relationship, or conflict of interest regarding any of my edits. AlexaSmooth (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have no conflict of interest regarding my contributions on Wikipedia, and have not spammed any pages/promoted personal interests. I continue to do my best to follow Wikipedia's content policies. AlexaSmooth (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: Your unblock request does not address the actual reason you have been blocked for, namely violations of the sock puppetry policy. If this is incorrect or no longer relevant, please directly appeal this statement in your next request(s). Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm trying to figure out how to prove I'm not a sock, in lieu of action that's been taken against me. I'm definitely not a sock, and have no conflict of interest regarding my edits. I'll admit that I'm a bit inexperienced and infrequent with my account usage, but I only use one account. I have no COI, and continue to do my best to comply with content policies. How best do I move forward with proving all of this? I tried following the links provided initially by Ponyo, but am honestly a bit confused as to where to begin. AlexaSmooth (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deep fried okra 00:14, 30 January 2020 (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.

Quoting policy while picking up precisely where previous socks left off within minutes of registering your account makes your defense that you are wholly unrelated to previous accounts, and to the topic as a whole, extremely difficult to believe. I might have been willing to believe this was a case of coordinated editing, which is still prohibited, if it were not for an idiosyncratic tell you have when writing (with this account as well as the master). Any reviewing admin can ask me if they don't spot it themselves.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, Ponyo. I don't know the other accounts you're referring to, nor do I know of any master account for any kind of coordinated editing. My most recent activity was perhaps not in my best form today, but it definitely wasn't done with some kind of organization with other users. How would I go about proving this? AlexaSmooth (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I've been wrongfully accused of being a sock account. I'm fairly novice to Wikipedia editing, but I don't have any intention of being damaging or disruptive to Wikipedia. With regards to the activity Ponyo is referring to, I was only trying address what I perceived as vandalism to the page for Zak Smith. As I explained on that talk page, I wanted to address that the majority of information on that page's career was at some point, significantly reduced. Moving forward, I'm completely willing to keep any edits I engage in to talk pages to request consensus first, and apologize for that breach in etiquette. I only intend to be helpful and productive on Wikipedia. AlexaSmooth (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Behavioural and/or technical evidence strongly suggests that this account is a sockpuppet. Simple denial is not considered a sufficient reason to unblock the account. In order to be unblocked, you will need to convince the reviewing administrator that there is a better explanation for this apparent connection than the abuse of multiple accounts. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:30, 30 January 2020 (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.