FTAdviser

May 2022

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

• Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Orange Mike | Talk 11:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hallo there.

By my boss, I mean the Managing Editor of the Financial Times, which is an independent, free, trade newspaper. And I am the Senior Editor of the FT group trade newspaper - FTAdviser. The Financial Times requires all its titles (such as Investor's Chronicle) to create and curate a Wikipedia entry. So I am interested in knowing why our newspaper (FTAdviser) has been blocked, when The Financial Times and the Investor's Chronicle both have Wikipedia entries. If there's something they did that I did not, I'd like to know - I did try largely to structure FTAdviser's entry the same way the Financial Times has. FTAdviser (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Your newspaper hasn't been blocked. This user account has been blocked because of a violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies and guidelines. As an employee of the organization, you are under a conflict of interest and should not be editing articles at Wikipedia about entities with which you do have a conflict of interest. Furthermore, your username is a violation of Wikipedia's username policy, which forbids "usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, organization, group, club, institution, or product". As an aside, if your boss is telling you that it is your job to "curate Wikipedia entries" you need to go back to your boss and just tell them that Wikipedia's rules don't allow you to do that. --Jayron32 15:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see. I didn't realise that. It had been my own idea which I took to her, and she said to go for it so I did. I didn't realise that me doing it myself was a violation. If there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the way I've written it, should I look to someone else to write something and put it online, perhaps one of the Wiki community of editors? Would anybody be willing to check my work and links and citations, rewrite if necessary, and publish it themselves? Or ought I to leave it and just chalk this down to experience? Thanks again for clarifying Jayron, that's really helpful. FTAdviser (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem, FTAdvisor. Let me recommend a few things that may help you in moving forward. 1) Creating a new user account under a name that doesn't represent your organization. 2) WIth your new account, declare your conflict of interest, the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has some ways to do this. 3) Using the Articles for Creation process, which is where we recommend users with a conflict of interest to go. AFC is an optional process for creating Wikipedia pages that allows you to create a "Draft" version of an article and then have the draft reviewed. The process can be frustratingly slow, given the backlog of reviewers, but it is one way that you can get a set of neutral eyes on any work you create to see if it complies with policy. I hope this helps some, and good luck! --Jayron32 15:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. I think it might be best if I leave this to someone not affiliated with my company or to me to avoid any potential conflict of interest arising in the future. They will be able to cast a better and more independent view and be able to show more impartiality. Much appreciated. FTAdviser (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ps thanks Orange Mike for flagging this in the first place; through several helpful responses I've been able to know what went wrong from the start with this. As a journalist who values independent content I am grateful that you raised this issue in the first place to prevent me from inadvertently breaching the regulations around independent, fair and balanced content on the site. Much appreciated. FTAdviser (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You should also warn your Managing Editor: a mandate to "create and curate a Wikipedia entry" about any publication you work for, was a violation of our Terms and Conditions, deeply compounded if this has been done by persons who have failed to do our mandatory Disclosure of Paid Editing Status. The articles on all FT-linked publications, and the accounts of those who have edited them, are going to be subjected to some rather harsh and cynical scrutiny now that this has come to our attention. It seems pretty clear that you understand the problem here; alas, people whose background is in PR rather than the legitimate press tend not to see what the fuss is about. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I checked back after seeing Jayron's message; it was not actually a requirement but it had come up in a session we had together (my line manager is different to the FT) and I suggested it and she said it was a good idea and the FT had several pages up. I've put two and two together and made five, apologies. There has been no violation of the code for previous entries. Thank you for flagging though. FTAdviser (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

In other words, my comment was wrong based on my interpretation of a conversation a few months ago. Apologies for creating a false impression. FTAdviser (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)