Environmentalone
Hello Environmentalone. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Environmentalone. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Environmentalone|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
August 2019 edit
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Nikko Curtis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Mz7 (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC) |
Environmentalone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, I'm not sure who Nikko Curtis is. My name is Chris Webber and I am being paid by Petroteq to create a Wikipedia article. I am new to Wikipedia and just saw how to note that I am being paid to write an article. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Can you please re-activate my account and allow me to list myself as a paid content contributor? Thanks much!
Decline reason:
No. We aren't interested in what Petroteq wants to say about themselves, particularly when they recruit multiple people, such as you and such as Nikko Curtis, to violate WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. Yamla (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2019 (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.
Environmentalone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am unsure who Nikko Curtis is. Maybe he/she was the previous writer hired with Petroteq. I, however was hired as a sole proprietor as Petroteq's digital marketing specialist and am willing and ready to edit my profile in the correct manner. They gave me sample text to post already. I apologize for not correctly inputting what was being edited. Was unsure what to say since nothing was really being edited and I was creating a new article post. I looked up Petroteq and did not see an a previous article. All I was told by Petroteq is to edit and post this article. I also apologize for not correctly listing that I am being paid. Again, I am new to writing on wikipedia and I did not know I was supposed to do that. I looked on forums online and it seems like this mistake is made quite often. I've made correct edits to numerous accounts and I make one mistake and you guys deactivate my account. That does not seem fare. I would like to be treated fairly in this matter and be given a second chance please. Thank you, Chris :)
Decline reason:
Yes, undeclared paid editing is a common problem, and there is a common problem with them thinking we are a promotional venue for their clients. We are not. I can only reiterate what Yamla already said. As this seems your purpose here, I will not unblock you. Fair? By sneaking in here with your undeclared paid editing, you've destroyed any possibility of trust or the belief that you are here for any other purpose. I hardly think it unfair that we hold you to the same rules we all follow. Before taking this job, you should have asked about the fate of your predecessor. Please tell your bosses we are not happy with this sneaky approach.-- Deepfriedokra 00:18, 27 August 2019 (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.
Environmentalone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not completely sure why you guys are so rude. Not sure why you are using words like sneaking and predecessor. I was just given a job as a writer. You accuse people of untrue things and condemn someone trying to write about a company that is actually trying to take a environmentally conscious step in the right direction. I truly feel sorry for you guys. You have nothing better to do than to be rude to people on here who make a simple mistake. I was unaware of any predecessor you speak of. After doing research over the last couple days, I saw you indeed have a clause that requires you to state if you are being paid. I made one mistake and sent a proper appeal to correct this one mistake. Nowhere does it say that you are not allowed to write about a company. I have been nothing but truthful and kind with you guys and you have been nothing but short, accusatory and angry. Is this part of the bylaws of Wikipedia? So I ask can you allow me another chance to correctly label that I was paid to do so, because I was unaware of this before? Thanks, Chris
Decline reason:
When you created your account, you agreed to our Terms of Use, which prohibit undisclosed paid editing. And now you're upset because we're not treating you with enough respect? After you've treated our website with no respect at all? Well, anyway, I suggest that you read our Terms of Use and core content policies. Then tell us what parts apply to you and how your edits will be different. This is the bare minimum we would expect from an unpaid volunteer, so I'm sure that you, as a paid professional, can do this for us. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2019 (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.
Environmentalone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please excuse me for not reading the entire Terms of use before making edits. I'm sure that is also a very common mistake users make. Sorry if you misinterpreted my last message, I was nnot upset. Just a bit confused at your anger and accusatory remarks in this matter. Just because I did not read over the entire terms of use clause, does not mean I am disrespecting your site. Sorry you feel that way. I apologize for not reading over everything. I have now read over the terms of use and core content policies and have listed what parts apply to me and how my edits will be different below. Thank you!
"We strive to make and keep educational and informational content from the Projects available on the internet free of charge, in perpetuity." - I am here to write educational articles (whether paid or unpaid) that can help educate readers on groups, disruptive tech, organizations and environmental issues that directly relate to environmental sustainability.
"Our content is for general informational purposes only: Although we host a great deal of information that pertains to professional topics, including medical, legal, or financial issues, this content is presented for general informational purposes only. It should not be taken as professional advice. Please seek independent professional counseling from someone who is licensed or qualified in the applicable area in lieu of acting on any information, opinion, or advice contained in one of the Project websites." - I intend to post general information about disruptive tech and environmentally friendly companies.
"Paid contributions without disclosure
These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
a statement on your user page,
a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure.
A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.
For more information, please read our FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions." - Moving forward, I will ensure that I disclose employer affiliation & compensation information on user page and/or in the edit summary. I will attributable all information to a reliable, published source. I will also ensure that all my writing are from a neutral point of view. Thank you for your time! -Chris
Decline reason:
You intend to write about "disruptive tech and environmentally friendly companies"? As in "Petroteq Energy"? Which you praised above as "a company that is actually trying to take a environmentally conscious step in the right direction"? Sorry, I do not think that is a good idea. You were hired as, in your own words, "Petroteq's digital marketing specialist". That is incompatible with writing about the company on Wikipedia; we simply are not a marketing venue. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia in ways that are not affected by your conflict of interest, you are welcome to make another request that explains what you intend to edit. If your purpose is to write about Petroteq, you will not be unblocked. Huon (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2019 (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.
{{unblock|Ok, I completely understand and apologize once again for the misunderstanding. I would like for my account to be reinstated so I can at least edit pages I'm interested in personally and write my own articles unrelated to Petroteq. I will tell them I am unable to post a wiki article for them. Thank you for your time and would really appreciate the re-activation!}}
What sorts of topics are you interested in editing? I would be willing to unblock your account if you agree to a conditional unblock with the following restriction: you may not create or edit any page related to Petroteq. If you agree to this topic ban, then it will apply to your account indefinitely while you are unblocked, and if you violate the restriction, you may be blocked again. You may appeal your restriction to the administrators' noticeboard 6 months after you are unblocked.Mz7 (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- After further review and consultation with a checkuser off-wiki, I am rescinding this conditional unblock offer and would recommend to reviewing administrators that the request be declined. In my view, it is more likely than not that Environmentalone and Nikko Curtis are the same user, contrary to Environmentalone's claims above—the accounts share specific behavioral and technical similarities that I would be willing to elaborate to any administrator on request. Mz7 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Environmentalone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm interested in editing articles related to the environment. And yes, I agree to the conditions. I will not create or edit any articles related to Petroteq. Thank you very much!
Decline reason:
As above, Mz7 had rescinded that offer after discussing the issues with a checkuser. No admin has found this unblock request convincing enough to act on in over two weeks, so I am removing it. You may make a new request, substantially reworded, and hopefully addressing all the issues surrounding your block, including sockpuppetry. Please see the Guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQLQuery me! 02:22, 18 September 2019 (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.