User talk:Sunflowergal34

{{adminhelp}} user:Will_Beback has placed a block on my account, after user:Berean_Hunter and user:RHaworth both had previously decided to let my account stay. Furthermore, he is making false allegations that user:jarviskile is a sock of user:petrosianii . He tells me to contact user:Jimmy_Wales to remove the orig. block, but I cannot see how to do this, seeing as how I'm blocked. I do not find an email to use to contact Jimmy. I need to ... somebody just help me. All I want to do is be a reg. editor and do the right thing and not cause trouble. I am really, really upset about this whole thing. I don't know what else you want me to do. I feel I am being unfairly singled out by Will_Beback. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

completely clean

It would be better if you voluntarily handed over the other accounts rather than have us find them. You've no doubt seen several of the articles deleted within the last 24 hours and if we continue it just wouldn't be the same as you coming completely clean and proving the sincerity of your confession. Not revealing them seems to suggest otherwise. I believe you want to turn a new leaf but you haven't done this fully yet. Doing so would help mitigate the circumstances.

If you have proteges that are still editing deceptively, you may want to suggest to them to retire. Co-mingling commercial interests with deceptive practices is a slippery slope as it seems you have found out. Negative aspects arise out of your control.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have uploaded this as proof that we have stopped editing.

I am not going to give a list of all articles only because it would cause us to be flooded with inquiries and complaints from former clients. Our phone would be ringing off the hook with disgruntled clients. We're already hurting. "My name is only some-dumb; my name ain't crazy," as an old Waco, TX buddy of mine used to say. That isn't fair to them, or to us. If you cannot accept all that we have done so far as just penance, I don't know what to tell you. Our whole firm is in disarray right now. Believe me, the effects of this decision were not seen by my staff as laudable on my part in the least. We've lost a major revenue stream, we have to completely rearrange our service offerings, the website will have to be significantly changed, etc. I have staff to take care of, just like the Wikimedia foundation does. If you understand anything about business, you will understand the weight of all this. We are not criminals, and don't expect treated like ones.

So ... sorry ... but this ain't tell all here. I'm not going to give you the blessing to start a witch hunt.

Sunflowergal34 (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

try ideas at Village pump (misc)

You should try to bring this up at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) and state your ideas there to see what the community may feel about it. Also, you may want to post at the bottom of this page...users are accustomed to finding it in chronological order that way and some may not see your post above believing they have already read it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ok thanks. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts

evading block

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.83.100.225.242 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Charge was not upheld, dismissed Sunflowergal34 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Otaki Forks Article

What about the [Otaki Forks] article needs additional citations before it can be verified? -Postitnz

The article has been deleted already. I was just going to say, the whole first section, it needs more than just one reference from New Zealand Gov site. But apparently, the author request the article be deleted. Feel free to let me know if you need any more help on this Sunflowergal34 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a Block Evasion

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).

Sunflowergal34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If you visit this page, you will see everything you need to know. I was already reported to WP:ANI for block evasion, and they deleted it because I have been open and came clean about our activities. Please also see the Confession on my userpage. Thank you Sunflowergal34 (talk) 3:25 pm, 23 December 2010, last Thursday (3 days ago) (UTC−7)

Decline reason:

Making new accounts is not how we process unblocks here. Request an unblock on your main account or appeal to ArbCom. I will be removing your right to edit this page. Brandon (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2010 (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.

Until the block on user:Petrosianii is lifted you are still blocked. You can contact the user who blocked you, user:Jimmy Wales, or the Arbitration Committee to request an appeal.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't obvious this is a sock? I mean, it didn't take much sleuthing to figure that out, seeing as how I told everyone it was a sock several days ago?? Both user:Berean_Hunter and user RHaworth already knew this account was a sock (technically, although it is not being used to perpetrate any illicit sockpuppetry ;) And they intentionally did not block me b/c we did an about face and have said we will be legit editors. Then, you come along a re-block. jeezalou! lol.

At any rate, I visited Jimmy Wales' page, I don't even see where to contact him at? Can't contact him via his talk page, obviously. <an angry grimace> Sunflowergal34

Man, if you guys don't want me here, all you have to do is ... say so. Sunflowergal34 (talk)

I just blocked another puppet account, User:JarvisKile, so the claims of "coming clean" and intending to edit legitimately do not appear to be accurate. As for contacting Wales, if you look again you'll see a prominent section on his user page, "Contacting me".   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

...and, what does user:JarvisKile have to do with me? I can assure you that THAT is not one of our accounts. Look, no one else on my staff is editing anything in Wikipedia. It's only just me, Eric Bryant, Director of Gnosis Arts. No matter what I do, it is not good enough for you folks. I come clean; you have a problem. I hide out, you have a problem. I use socks, you have a problem. I don't use socks, you still have a problem. I sign my name with my company name and title, you tell me I'm self promoting. I don't sign my name, you report me to WP:ANI. Whoever user:jarviskile is, I have no idea, but they are not in any way related to Gnosis Arts. I know every single account we've used, and that isn't one of them. We used

• user:Petrosianii
• user:34pin6
• user:Artemis84
• user:1weezie23
• user:eabbab

That's it, to my knowledge. All these other accusations, are unfounded. And I went to Jimbo's page and saw the Contacting Me and didn't see anywhere to email him. No matter, I've already emailed arbcom. Thanks for being absolutely no help. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You were asked weeks ago to provide a list of accounts, but refused that that time. You claim to have earned "tens of thousands of dollars in revenue ... each month" from editing Wikiepdia. I don't know what you charge, but it isn't plausible that those five accounts did enough editing to earn anything like that amount. Assuming $100 an hour, that would mean a minimum of 200 hours a month, or 50 hours a week, editing Wikipedia. So something doesn't add up here.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No I was asked to provide a list of articles, not a list of accounts. And yes, I refused. That has nothing to do with nothing. I refused because it is not advantageous for me to reveal to you all articles we wrote for business reasons. That has nothing to do with us breaking any rules on Wikipedia. We are no longer breaking any rules. Furthermore, you're pretty presumptuous. We had a full time business, for a number of years, editing and publishing Wikipedia articles. Why is it so hard to believe that we would work 50+ hrs / week writing/editing/publishing articles? But that doesn't matter. All that matters is: you're supposed to assume good faith, which you're not. And if I had a means to, I would report your conduct. But since you have all the power here, I can't do that, now can I? I can ban or block you for being disruptive, can I? I can't report you to anyone, for anything, here can I, while I am blocked?

You're actions don't even make sense, when you think about it. First, you're not deterring me from responding to your actions. Second, if I intended to break the rules again, I would have just forgotten about this acct entirely and made a new one. You're actions aren't helping. I've already emailed Jimbo and Arbcom and cited you by username as someone who's abusing h/er authority. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Noting here, I cancelled the 'adminhelp' request, because the unblock request was still active.  Chzz  ►  01:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Erm, twice. [1] [2]. Sunflowergal34, there is no need to duplicate requests.  Chzz  ►  01:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

On top of all this, as if to add insult to injury, I declared that I would be a NewPage Patroller and watch out for COI violations. I found one already today, and reported it to you, Will_Beback. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ern_Phang And what have you done? It is to me plain as day that this is a paid editor and a paid article. I even put the COI flag up top. Put a note on your talk page for you to look into. Instead of doing that, you don't do anything against them, and instead, you block me! wtf? Sunflowergal34 (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's what really pissing me off. Will_Beback, you are stepping way out of line by trying to judge my motives. That isn't your job. Your job is to enforce policy, rules, makes sure things run smoothly. Not to be a judge of people's motives, values, intentions, beliefs. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you were asked to provide a list of accounts. "It would be better if you voluntarily handed over the other accounts rather than have us find them." Your motives are irrelevant. I am enforcing the block.

I don't doubt that you have a thriving business and have spent 50 hours a week or more editing Wikipedia. However I do doubt that those are the only five accounts which you and your employees have used.

Until the block is lifted on your main account you may not edit here, either openly or secretly. Nor may you hire others to edit on your behalf.   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make, if we used 5 or 500? The articles are already here! Maybe we did the majority of editing, offsite, and only uploaded the final product to wiki? Maybe the majority of the hours were spent educating, consulting, explaining - all of which is billable time. Or perhaps I exaggerated the "10s of thousands"? Maybe it was only a few thousand? Who cares? Do you not get hyperbole? Do you have to take everything literally? I mentioned a figure to show that shutting down our service is punishment enough - there doesn't need to be the Spanish Inquisition here.

But why is it relevant to blocking me? And if it were so relevant, why didn't either of the other three or four admins who've looked at this, block me? You see, you folks are woefully inconsistent, and you act like little gods at times. This is human, I understand. We all fall prey to it. But you're in the wrong, and you won't admit it. It's that simple. I was asked to turn over all accounts. You can't make me do anything. You can't make any Wikipedia editor do anything.

"It is a sign of really poor sportmanship, when you don't know how to win gracefully." YOU'VE ALREADY WON! THERE'S NO NEED TO BE A JACKASS! Sunflowergal34 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is: If I turn over all accounts, then you'll remove the block? Apples and oranges. Turning over all articles/accounts, doesn't have anything to do with what Sunflowergal34 is doing right now. Does turning over all the articles we've done change the fact that this account is a sock? Does it make the encyclopedia any better off - the articles weren't deleted b/c they were good, quality articles, not because "you didn't know someone paid for them." 75% of the celeb bios on here, for example, were paid for. So what? They're still good articles. My telling you all the articles we've done doesn't make Wikipedia any better or worse, and only serves to absolutely destroy my business! You must be out of your mind if you think I'm going to tell you all articles we've done. Not going to happen. I'll create a new account or just leave altogether, before I do that.

And why didn't you answer the question I asked before, about the paid editor you've conveniently decided to let stay?? hmmm? No comment, I guess. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to trust your word when you keep making contradictory statements. I do not see why we should change Wikipedia rules in order for you to continue to profit from our work.

The other editor is a separate issue and will be dealt with separately. You seem to have gone after your competitor's editing, which does not reflect well on you either.   Will Beback  talk  03:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)