TheNetOutcome

July 2020

Hello, I'm Enivid. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to EB-5 visa have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Enivid (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

TheNetOutcome, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TheNetOutcome! 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 Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: A1-Trading Company (July 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:A1-Trading Company and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:A1-Trading Company, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nicholas Syiek

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nicholas Syiek, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  GILO   A&E⇑  21:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Response from Author Regarding Speedy Deletion

Dear @Gilo1969: and @HickoryOughtShirt?4: I intend to appeal this speedy deletion once I'm able to conclude the process of requesting the corresponding block be removed. I wanted to bring this to your attention so that you might be able to participate and/or offer input on the unblocking process as well. I was in the process of remedying problems identified by a reviewer of a concurrently authored related article when both entries were deleted and my user account was blocked, preventing me from fixing the shortcomings. As I'm new here, I apologize for running afoul of the publishing etiquette, and hope you take my appeal seriously and as being sincere. Although there is validity in the concerns and comments connected with my account being blocked, I'm optimistic that a fair and honest review of my side of things should help things move forward amicably. I mentioned my rationale for disputing the speedy deletion nomination when I contested it, and I will again elaborate on it in a more detailed overview when I request my account be unblocked. I'd rather do this than just try to resubmit the articles again later. In my opinion, this makes the most sense, as the 3 actions (blocking for spamming and two speedy deletion nominations) are all inextricably linked. Thank you for your honest assessment and attention to this matter. TheNetOutcome (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Nicholas Syiek, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.  GILO   A&E⇑  21:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Response from Author

The deletion of the tag was indeed unintentional. I am a new user and still familiarizing myself with the policies. The article was accidentally published as what I gather might be considered a "stub" in contrast to what seems to be the generally accepted procedure of submitting a draft for review from the author's sandbox page. Once the erroneously published article was identified for having problems, I quickly attempted to bring the article into compliance, but was barred from doing so, although contested with what I feel to be sound rationale, when a speedy deletion nomination was enforced. TheNetOutcome (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:A1 Trading Company

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:A1 Trading Company, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Response from Author Regarding Speedy Deletion

Dear @Gilo1969: and @HickoryOughtShirt?4: In addition to my comments listed under the Biographical (BLP) deletion of the Nicholas Syiek article (above on my talk page), I also intend to appeal the speedy deletion of the company article for A1 Trading Company. As noted above, the article had been flagged by reviewer @KylieTastic: for a deficiency of reliable sources. While in the process of addressing these issues, the article was deleted. This was before I had the chance, as a new editor on Wikipedia (despite being a user and frequent financial contributor for years), to bring the article into compliance with community standards. Sources in a reputable industry media publication were set to be added, but the article was deleted. As mentioned in the response to the deletion of the BLP, I wanted to bring this to your attention so that I might be able to encourage your participation and solicit your input on the unblocking process as well, as it seems to me that the quality of the prematurely deleted articles (before I fully had the chance to address stated deficiencies brought up by user @KileyTastic: were able to be fully addressed while in draft). I was in the process of remedying problems identified by a reviewer of a concurrently authored related article when both entries were deleted and my user account was blocked, preventing me from fixing the shortcomings. As I'm new here, I apologize for running afoul of the publishing etiquette, and hope you take my appeal seriously and as being sincere. Although there is validity in the concerns and comments connected with my account being blocked, I'm optimistic that a fair and honest review of my side of things should help things move forward amicably. I mentioned my rationale for disputing the speedy deletion nomination when I contested it, and I will again elaborate on it in a more detailed overview when I request my account be unblocked. I'd rather do this than just try to resubmit the articles again later. In my opinion, this makes the most sense, as the 3 actions (blocking for spamming and two speedy deletion nominations) are all inextricably linked. Thank you for your honest assessment and attention to this matter. TheNetOutcome (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Important additional notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies.
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This is not the reason for your block, but staying away from such topics would be a reasonable minimum requirement for unblocking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Account Blocked for Spam: Request Review of Circumstances and Unblocking

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).

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

---

Request reason:

reason

Timeline of Relevant Events

• Authored business entity article on A1 Trading Company
• Article was tagged for concerns with source reliability
• Began biographical article for proprietor of company article while waiting for additional sources
• Accidentally published the article directly to Wikipedia instead of submitting draft for review
• Hurried to add additional info to make the article more complete (instead of moving it like I should have)
• Both articles were nominated for speedy deletion
• I responded to these nominations by contesting them with a thorough explanation
• Began working to improve the quality of the articles and address concerns regarding source reliability
• Both articles were deleted shortly after the nomination for speedy deletion
• I was reprimanded for an accidental failure to disclose paid advocacy
• The deletion of the two unfinished articles as well as the unintended failed disclosure were used as grounds to indefinitely block my account

The issue here, in my opinion, has been made unnecessarily complex, but I will attempt to address it as coherently as I can. It is, however, difficult to address any one issue without the others being included for context. Please excuse any redundancy across my talk page. I appreciate your patience and understanding in considering this issue. I am a new editor and am still familiarizing myself with the Wikipedia process. Nicholas Syiek, a young entrepreneur, stock market enthusiast, and noteworthy YouTube personality, sought my assistance in authoring an article for his business, A1 Trading Company. To be clear, this type of work is not my profession, and only a nominal fee was accepted in exchange for my assistance. As I discussed with Mr. Syiek, my main objective was having a business-like commitment to provide me with a personal incentive to complete my first Wikipedia article.

Authored Article for A1 Trading Company

As discussed with Mr. Syiek, noted above, an article was composed for A1 Trading Company. It is my fervent contention that the article was no more promotional in nature than the majority of other company articles I’ve seen here on Wikipedia. I know because I used many existing articles as a model for the A1 Trading Company in terms of composition, structure, and presentation. It was, however, tagged for review by @KileyTastic: for having a deficiency of reliable sources after I submitted it for initial review.

Responding to concerns regarding source reliability

I spoke with Mr. Syiek about the challenges we’d encountered in publishing the article on his company. While, as an individual with a substantial YouTube and social media following (with well over 100,000 unique subscribers), Mr. Syiek’s company, on its own, has a lesser degree of documented notability. Mr. Syiek then mentioned that a reputable industry news publication, Benzinga, which specializes in market coverage, investing trends, and relevant products, would be publishing two articles about his company within the next day. I noted in response to concerns raised by @KileyTastic: that additional sources would be added to bolster the credibility of the company article.

Began working on a biographical article for the company proprietor

After speaking with Mr. Syiek, he agreed that an additional personal article outlining his escapades as “TraderNIck” on YouTube (124k subscribers) as well as Instargram (36k subscribers) might help corroborate my claims on the notability of the page for A1 Trading Company. My rationale, after all, was that the success and unique nature of the company had a large overlap with Nicholas Syiek, the individual. Unfortunately, my inexperience with how to navigate the Wikipedia publishing platform and lack of familiarity with the community standards and common practices resulted in my accidentally publishing what one might have considered a “stub” article when I went to create Nick’s BLP. I became immediately concerned, as I knew my only other original article was already being flagged for perceived problems regarding reliable sources. I hurried to add additional information, hoping all along that we’d be able to corroborate the notability of the A1 Trading Company article with more reliable information once the Benzinga articles were published.

Mr. Syiek’s BLP was nominated for speedy deletion

User @Gilo1969: nominated the article for speedy deletion. I sought to contest the deletion and provided a thorough explanation of the error in publishing before completing the article as well as the error in not submitting as a draft before publishing. I was careful to explain that I was in the process of remedying the issues associated with the article. It is my assertion that the incomplete nature of the prematurely published article was the justification for its removal, despite my explanation. In retrospect, and bearing in mind I’m still learning the ropes here, I acknowledge I likely should have moved the article to my Sandbox before continuing to work on it, but I was in a rush and uncertain about the process to begin with. Before I had the opportunity to address the issues raised in the deletion notification, the article was promptly removed by User @HickoryOughtShirt?4:.

The A1 Trading Company article was nominated for speedy deletion

The A1 Trading Company article, while in draft and being revised to comply with the issues raised by @KylieTastic:, was deleted alongside Mr. Syiek’s BLP. As was the case with the (admittedly less credible, given the incomplete nature) article on Mr. Syiek himself, the A1 Trading Company article was deleted before the issues regarding source reliability could be addressed. While the speedy deletion notice mentioned the article could be rewritten in order to comply, I feel I was not afforded that opportunity despite having stated an intention to do so before the article was even nominated for speedy deletion.

I was reprimanded for failure to disclose paid contributions

User @ToBeFree: noted on my talk page that there were concerns about failing to disclose paid advocacy for A1 Trading. While compensation is broadly construed for the sake of determining whether contributions are considered paid, it could hardly be called anything but nominal, in financial terms. It would be easier to measure my compensation in hours per dollar as opposed to dollars per hour. It’s like a lawyer asking a friend to give him a dollar before offering “legal advice” … the compensation was a mere technicality. I mainly wanted to establish a commitment, in a business sense, that I’d be motivated to follow through on. I’ve been meaning to write a Wikipedia article for some time now, and have been procrastinating it. By establishing this arrangement, As for neglecting to disclose, it was a beginner’s error. As noted in my response in the section regarding these concerns, it is an error that will not be repeated. “Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users.

Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future.”

My Account was blocked for spamming

It seems that the swift and heavy-handed nature of these deletions, coupled with the connotation of impropriety implicit in the failure to disclose paid advocacy, ultimately served as the basis for blocking my account. I believe, instead, that these issues should have been handled separately and sequentially in order to give me a chance to respond to the deficiencies instead of necessitating this involved process. Particularly when one considers that I was actively trying to address the issues before the deletion nomination and had carefully described this when contesting the nomination.

“A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as a "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticize.”

“Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating.”

A warning would have sufficed, and a review of the reasons for issues with my entries would have revealed that efforts were underway – efforts I might add, that were underway when the block and deletions occurred – that were actively addressing the issues raised in the two deleted articles.

“Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these.”

“An indefinite block is a block that does not have a definite (or fixed) duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy.”

I don’t think the indefinite block was justified, considering my intent and efforts to bring my submission into compliance, and my overall desire to be an active participant in the Wikipedia editing community. I have no intention of providing ongoing paid Wikipedia editing services, and no ideations about making this a part of my professional service offerings. I have a genuine desire to be able and eligible to add to the living record here on this site. While new, and as I’ve mentioned, still familiarizing myself with he editing platform’s norms, I feel the time and care I’ve spent in attempting to abide by guidelines and common practices illustrate this clearly. I’m happy address any additional questions as needed, and look forward with optimism to the prospect of being able to work through this misunderstanding.

TheNetOutcome (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This request borders on being too lengthy(I'd suggest keeping it to a couple of paragraphs next time, and without section headers); but I can say that undisclosed paid editing is generally considered to be a "major breach of policy", as it is a violation of the Terms of Use for Wikipedia. Whether the compensation is one penny or one dollar or a million dollars, you are a paid editor and additionally have a conflict of interest. Please see other stuff exists; it is possible that the other articles you reference are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. We can only address what we know about. I don't believe you have discussed what topics you will edit about if unblocked that are unrelated to any conflict of interest that you have. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2020 (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.

Response to Denial of Unblock Request

Thank you for the prompt response, @331dot:.

I apologize for the length of my request explanation, but I felt that all relevant aspects needed to be addressed. I will seek to shorten any such request in the future, although I hope there should be no need.

As described in my response, the breach of policy you mentioned was completely unintentional. I feel, as described in my response, that it should be readily apparent this was an innocent mistake, now rectified, and shouldn't preclude me from editing the platform. Furthermore, this was not the rationale given for blocking me. Although I gather it was part of the rationale behind making the determination that I was only here to advertise. As for the OSE claim, it is not a reference to other "inappropriate articles" going "undetected." I purposely used prominent articles across Wikipedia after which to model my entries, and were, as a result, no less promotional in nature than whatever I put together.

Moving forward, I do not intend to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, nor do I intend to accept compensation to edit Wikipedia on anyone else's behalf. I simply wanted an incentive to hold me accountable while I got started.

Also, moving forward, I do not have a particular subject on which I'd like to edit, although I suppose it will likely involve discussing matters of local historical significance as well as business and literary topics I find interesting.

I humbly ask that you reconsider denying my unblock request based on my good faith attempt to address all deficiencies in a timely and organized fashion. Thank you for your consideration. TheNetOutcome (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

.......

I stand by my decision; however, you are free to make another unblock request that will be reviewed by someone else. The decision will then be in their hands. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

.......

Thank you, @331dot:, for your honesty. Although I disagree with your rationale, I respect your reasoning and acknowledge your expertise. At the risk of soliciting a biased response, are there any recommendations you might have in regards to structuring my new request? I ask only for guidance on presentation, to meet community standards and generally accepted practices, and not on the substantive content of the request itself. Any feedback you might have for me would be greatly appreciated.TheNetOutcome (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

.......

You've argued the merits of the block above, so I would focus on what you will do going forward. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

.......

Thank you @331dot:

Second Request to Unblock Account

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

After a brief discussion with the administrator who denied my request to unblock, @331dot:, I was advised that I could make a second appeal. Given that the merits of my case were stated above, I'd like to focus on my intent moving forward, as recommended by user 331dot.

Moving forward, I do not intend to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, nor do I intend to accept compensation to edit Wikipedia on anyone else's behalf. I simply wanted an incentive to hold me accountable while I got started.

Moving forward, I do not have a particular subject on which I'd like to edit, although I suppose it will likely involve discussing matters of local historical significance as well as business and literary topics I find interesting.

Also, moving forward, I intend to more thoroughly familiarize myself with common practices and standards so as to avoid the issues raised in my first article by user KylieTastic, as well as the subsequent impression of other editors who determined my unfinished articles met the criteria for speedy deletion.

More specifically, my preventative measures moving forward will include:

1. gaining a more thorough familiarity with source reliability and credibility to support encyclopedic value of any edits or entries
2. Thoroughly reviewing and adhering to guidance surrounding spamming and promotion for any contributions to the site
3. Never accepting compensation, broadly construed, for any future contributions to Wikipedia.

As such, I've dissolved the compensatory nature of my first submission, and, in the future, will not accept any further compensatory arrangements, broadly construed, that involve publishing or contributing to Wikipedia. I apologize for my transgression. Although an innocent mistake, ignorance is no excuse. A more detailed account of my mistake can be reviewed above. That said, I understand this is disruptive and problematic, and would like to assure other members of the Wikipedia editing community that causing harm was not my intent.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my appeal. Please let me know if you have any questions. TheNetOutcome (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC) TheNetOutcome (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I substantially agree with what ToBeFree has said below: the commitments you have made in this unblock request on the face of it answer the reasons for the block, and as long as you can edit in the way you have suggested, unblocking should be fine. It is now 18 days since ToBeFree suggested that if there were no objections within 2 weeks or so you might be unblocked, and there have indeed been no objections. I am therefore going to unblock your account. However, in order to help you avoid being blocked again, I will offer the following pieces of advice.

• The pages you created read from start to finish like marketing or PR copy. You seem not to be aware of the extent to which that applies, which means that there may be a danger of your editing again in ways which look promotional to others, even if you don't intend to. You should be really careful about that.
• My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start.
• Some of your comments to others have read as somewhat condescending. Even if you sincerely believe that you have a better level of understanding of issues under discussion than others, it is inadvisable to write in a way that gives the impression that you do. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors who are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being unwilling or unable to collaborate on an equal footing with others are likely to encounter difficulties. JBW (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In case someone wonders, the new request looks reasonable enough for an independent administrator's decision to unblock to me, as long as 331dot doesn't object. If noone responds within, say, two weeks, I'll consider unblocking myself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid contributions?

Hello TheNetOutcome. 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 serious 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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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 below, here on your talk page, as you are currently blocked from editing any other page. The disclosure will be copied to your user page on your behalf. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=TheNetOutcome|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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Response to Concerns Regarding "Undisclosed Paid Contributions"

Thank you, @ToBeFree:, for bringing the issue to my attention. As I'm new here to Wikipedia in the editor capacity (despite being a longtime site visitor and frequent financial contributor), I'm unaware of much of the common etiquette and generally accepted practices regarding contributions to the site. I'm concerned that this issue regarding what you've characterized as paid advocacy may be conflated with the recent block on my account, and I feel that those issues should have been dealt with separately and sequentially. I understand the need to preserve the integrity of new entries, however, I read in the links provided throughout this talk page regarding stated issues with my contributions that new users are responsible for a substantial portion of new substantive submissions and edits, and likewise shouldn't be so hastily discouraged from the opportunity to acclimate to the norms of the Wikipedia editing community.

“Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future.”

More importantly, the issues identified as reason for the speedy deletion nominations, primarily lack of reliable sources, were in the process of being remedied after being raised by user @KylieTastic:. This was a page for a Company that, by comparison, would have been no more promotional than any other Company entry here on Wikipedia. Additionally, a BLP article for the founder of the company was erroneously published, without the same draft and review submission I used for the Company article, prior to (and contrary to my intent regarding) the successful review and approval of the company article. Incidentally, I was working to elaborate on the entry's details that would have bolstered the encyclopedic value of the original company article, including the inclusion of direct coverage of the company and the individual profiled in the BLP from reputable industry news publications. I am of the impression that the lack of this information was used to give credibility to the speedy deletion nominations brought by @Atlantic306:, @Gilo1969:, and @HickoryOughtShirt?4:, and those, in turn, in conjunction with the "Undisclosed Paid Contributions," were subsequently used to give credibility to indefinitely blocking my account.

While these concerns are more relevant to my request to be unblocked, and will be covered in more detail in my appeal, I feel they are important to raise in the discussion of my objectivity. These issues are inextricably linked, and I'd like to offer other editors and administrators the opportunity to put these issues in the larger context.

In regards to my supposed conflict of interest and the undisclosed paid advocacy, I apologize for not more readily familiarizing myself with community standards. I undertook the creation of an article for what any objective assessment would clearly determine to be a nominal fee. To be clear, the term "nominal" without a dollar amount is not meant to obfuscate the nature of the arrangement. I'm happy to confirm in private communications. Suffice it to say, the amount was small enough to be called nothing other than nominal if applied as a qualifier to the term "fee." Although that does constitute compensation, broadly defined, my arrangement with the proprietor of the company in question was more for my benefit, and to serve as a technical incentive of sorts (i.e., my commitment to this proprietor in a business sense), to create a Wikipedia article; something I've been meaning to accomplish for a long time.

Again, I apologize for mistakenly violating the site's generally accepted standards regarding contributions. I will not repeat this oversight in the future.