Welcome![edit]

Hello, Businessppl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 08:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. This profile and my previous profile banned for ‘sockpuppetry’. I switched to this account for reasons of privacy which could easily identify me. I have not been editing with my old profile since switching to this one. I may have forgotten to login at one point which also may have prompted the block. I completely agree with policy on this, however there is no intention of harm on my part. I have been making legitimate well sourced edits and creation of business people’s pages which sadly were deleted. Unfortunately I did not receive any kind of warning. I have taken a look at reasons for blocking, and I feel I do not fall under blocking for ‘abusively using multiple accounts’. There are two legitimate reasons I cite for making a new profile: privacy, and a fresh start. To further add, this ‘block’ implicates my accounts together which I switched for a legitimate and fair reason allowed under Wikipedia guidelines. The whole point of the switch was privacy which is now void because I have been blocked for making a new account. ‘Sockpuppeting’ usually uses fake sources that anyone can contribute to. I used legitimate news media organisations to make pages for people featured prominently in the media. There was a high bar. I never once cross edited with both accounts to fool anyone. I used one, and then moved to a new one where I would only make edits on this topic (as shown in my username). @Bbb23: I understand why you may have thought it wise to block this profile and my old account. Unfortunately, I made legitimate edits to business people whom I take interest in, as was shown in my username. I do apologise for switching profiles, however I did so as a matter of privacy as my old account was identifiable. The articles regarding founders of HiSmile included multiple legitimate sources on the web and didn’t use any language that was out of step with the appropriate tone for Wikipedia. Businessppl (talk) 2:23 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Decline reason:

It was a behavioral connection that led to the technical connection, not the other way around. We have clear guidelines on alternate accounts and making a true clean start, and you did not comply with either of them. Sockpuppetry has little to do with fake sources and everything to do with attempting to evade scrutiny. Katie^talk 01:06, 14 November 2018 (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.

Request for clarification

Katie Can you please clarify the behavioural connection and technical connection? Because I looked at the block reason on the other account and he says it was because I was a "paid sockpuppeter" for merely creating a page using news sources, and then later creating pages for founders on this profile. All of this was correctly sourced. I do not see how I evaded scrutiny because there was no bad reputation or scrutiny on my first account. The clean start isn't even required to make a secondary profile. You are allowed to. I kindly request clarification on what the issue was in the first place. Because bbb23 said it was because I was a paid sockpuppeter. Businessppl (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say "paid sockpuppeter"; nowhere does it even say "paid" on the master account's user or talk pages. It certainly wasn't part of the block notice or the template placed on the master account's userpage. Undisclosed paid editing may very well be involved here, but that's not the specific basis of the blocks. As for the behavioral connection, just read the evidence at the SPI. It's pretty obvious. You were promoting a company and its founders. Finally, your understanding of Wikipedia policy is flat-out incorrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, you wrote it right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zenomonoz/Archive where you called me a "paid Sockpuppet farm". At least have the consistency to check what you wrote. How was what was written promotional? It was very fact-based and sourced top Australian news organisations. My profile outright stated that I had an interest in business people from several countries. The idea that creating pages for prominent businesspeople with distinguished awards such as EY Entrepreneur of the Year and Forbes 30 Under 30, is somehow "promotional" strikes me as unfair. Just because I have an interest in adding facts to the pages of living people, does not mean I am in any way shape or form "promoting" them. I am an individual who has an interest. I politely request that my ban, for this profile, is lifted. I require additional help from an admin. Businessppl (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't get it right, can you? I didn't write that; the editor who filed the report wrote that. After I finish this comment, I am revoking your Talk page access. I see no point in permitting you to complain about obviously reasonable actions taken against you. It's disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Tim Gurner[edit]

Hello, Businessppl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tim Gurner".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Alex Tomic[edit]

Hello, Businessppl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Alex Tomic".

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Nik Mirkovic[edit]

Hello, Businessppl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Nik Mirkovic".

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]