544:, which states that "A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent ... disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism", if a single edit I made appears to promote a subject then it can demanded that I refrain from making edits in that field before taking abrupt steps. So, if there's any listening ear I hereby state that all of my edits with no exception have been conducted with neutrally only in mind and I can explain any diff; no compensation was given to me for any edit; I just come across or pick articles that I like to improve, that is how articles all across Knowledge are improved and created! This block was done on the basis of some assumption by just one editor, who despite useful edits has also been found to be wrong on similar occasions in the past, and was based on his own suspicion, or "evidence" that is either non existent or was fabricated (such things can easily be faked by all kinds of bad actors, and can be more telling about the accuser/ their environment than the accused), and it is harmful for the wiki-project. The tone and notability of the article GSS took down are good and every editor knows this. Whatever the decision may be, this attitude discourages editing, but it is a matter of principle and I ask to be unblocked, even though I don't wanna stay much active anymore.
624:
people, groups and entities that I just like or dislike which require editing (most often minor stuff), so similar to other editors I choose to edit them; in this case of this company, it manages two of the world's most popular social media pages by viewcount and as one of 150 million followers who enjoy their videos, I took an hour of my time to create a good new page expecting nothing. There are only options here, a) GSS is willfully making a wrong accusation (to gain virtual wiki points of respect or some hidden benefit) with made-up substance, or b) has has been genuinely misled, or came across faked "evidence" (which maybe came from another editor, there are many possibilities, either way it is a scenario that implies GSS himself is connected to undisclosed paid editing and I think it can be proven if needed). Going after an editor who edits perfectly fine for supposedly making one paid edit to make ends meet or whatever is so wrong, the actual content is far more important than stupid suspicion. I am also against any bad edits or abuse of COI. If it helps, I state now that if/when I get my editing rights back I won't make more than a single-digit number of edits a month and will refrain from editing tech pages and creating articles altogether (simply because Wiki currently doesn't deserve it).
703:, I did miss it, sorry. As I explained, I know someone who has a connection to that company, but no monetary compensation was asked/given and the decision to write the article was random, which is why I insist on this point. While such minor connections happen often on Knowledge and probably everywhere online, if it's considered COI I will surely declare that on my page. Also, if any editor assisted me with technical edits (because I am not yet a "pro" and sometimes need help editing wikitexts, infoboxes etc.) deemed this as paid editing, it does not mean it's true; judge my editing by itself, and see it has been neutral and constructive. Per WP:GAB the block is not necessary, and as a precaution I will refrain from new article creations altogether and don't wish to edit often again anywhere considering the environment.
260:; an experienced editor should know that the content was fine by notability and quality standards, and if you suspected COI you should have placed a COI tag instead moving it to draft. Gaining editing points on the expense of other editors who work hard to improve pages in a NPOV is not the way to go, but "mistakes are a part of being human" as you have acknowledged so I hope your good contributions outweigh this. Namaste
536:, I firmly believe this block was done in error. You indefinitely blocked me for "likely" "spam or advertising", without any explanation or evidence so it is hard to adequately respond to this action (which I feel is disrespectful on a human level). My hundreds of edits so far have been valid and included fixing formats, updating references, article expansions, helpful page moves etc. I have never been accused of
444:
112:
384:
147:
313:
sure GSS, LOL? Go ahead, you are about to embark on a waste of time and a surprise but clear result that there is nothing. Naturally people who make significant contributions do so to articles of their interest - whether it's their favorite band, website, TV show or just a person they like; the COI
322:
are the factors that matters, and they were perfectly fine here. Provide this evidence, and if you don't have it which is the case then you may revert the page's move because a) it was based on a false assumption and b) you removed a notable and well sourced article for no apparent policy-based
623:
Hi and thanks for your adminwork. The need to remove this block is first and foremost a matter of policy - because none was broken by my edits, and by all conventional measures so far they have positively contributed to
Knowledge. To answer your question thoroughly: Pages I edit include places,
777:
Thanks for pointing that out. I will inform you that while you are blocked, you only have access to this page for the purpose of requesting unblock. You can't propose edits here or recruit others to edit for you. If you wish to contribute, you must make a successful unblock request.
566:
You gave a long response but didn't actually answer my question- only giving one hint by saying "supposedly making one paid edit to make ends meet". If you were paid to make any edits or work for the subjects of your edits, please clearly say so. I am declining your request.
251:
global registrar and hundreds of other pages also clients?), but your edit simply was not policy-based. You moved the article to draftspace, after I expanded it and it was perfectly improved by at least 3-4 editors throughout the entire day, including
178:
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
225:. 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,
796:), just as others do I decided to write the article in question for reasons unrelated to any compensation. Incorrect tags in the article or here need to be removed, and the block should end; they are
160:(COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Knowledge to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on
748:
While I am technically unable to edit, I am still willing to improve
Knowledge articles and pages, report vandalism and more, and will use this space now to make useful edit suggestions.
673:
I received your email; as a matter of policy I handle most
Knowledge matters on Knowledge. I considered your unblock request; you may make another request for someone else to review.
658:. GSS, please explain your claim clearly, or retract it if it's possible that your source was fabricated or faked. I was blocked unfairly in an empty ruling. Why are you doing this?
410:
103:
152:
Hello Bezrat. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with
Knowledge's
243:
I rarely say this, but I do not appreciate your edit sir. You have not only wrongly assumed COI, you did so in a manner that included a baseless accusation ("
601:
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.
323:
reason (instead of maybe adding a tag or something of that sort). Please continue the good editing that is content-based and not assumption-based, thanks,
75:
724:
I have followed your guideline and requested here. Will you consider my request and lift the block (even partially/ under some conditions)? Thanks,
687:
I have nothing to add except that you missed or ignored the part on the email form that said I do not consider unblock requests sent by email.
153:
81:
586:
484:
417:
40:
759:, while trying to locate your user-page I mistyped your username and landed on User:Dot331 - he may be an impersonator, and has
402:
180:
165:
161:
406:
157:
26:
70:
608:
What is your connection with First Media? If you don't wish to be active anymore, there is no need to remove the block.
479:
61:
174:
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the
456:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
111:
99:
94:
168:, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to
457:
397:
392:
122:
451:
186:
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are
275:
352:
650:, I have answered it, I was not paid to do anything, and deny the accusation made by one single user
498:
315:
298:
51:
127:
66:
348:
47:
783:
678:
613:
595:
572:
423:
124:
797:
540:
or any other Wiki violation, any reviewing admin can easily check and verify this. As per
293:
253:
175:
347:
Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --
537:
319:
274:
Are you sure? because there is evidence off-wiki that suggest you were paid to create
541:
284:
235:
205:
362:
Thank you, I used the ready-made format but forgot to remove one of the parameters.
291:
I have not judged the article, just fixed the links to disambiguation pages. Sorry.
801:
779:
764:
754:
725:
704:
674:
659:
645:
625:
609:
568:
545:
462:
363:
324:
261:
257:
256:
who worked hard to update wikilinks leading to the other page in the respective
198:
22:
793:
719:
698:
688:
531:
433:
169:
383:
653:
416:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
279:
230:
420:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
192:
146:
792:
Sure. And as explained very clearly to the editors involved (including
126:
809:
787:
772:
733:
712:
691:
682:
667:
633:
617:
576:
553:
436:
371:
356:
332:
304:
286:
269:
237:
248:
197:
You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at
128:
17:
442:
382:
145:
583:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
603:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
760:
512:
508:
502:
493:
489:
475:
471:
467:
278:
and I will be sharing those details with admins soon.
450:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
195:to disclose your employer, client and affiliation.
211:can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:
29:, where you can send them messages and comments.
245:Covert advertising and a violation of WP:PAID"
154:mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements
8:
800:. On your free time...I can wait patiently.
744:Making more positive edits (suggestions)
314:is often in the grey zone and therefore
7:
247:. Excuse me? That is false! Are the
170:black-hat search-engine optimization
763:- consider blocking him. Regards,
14:
156:. Paid advocacy is a category of
229:until you answer this message.
110:
41:Click here to start a new topic.
183:process, rather than directly.
343:Fixed your talk page archiving
1:
403:advertising or self-promoting
38:Put new text under old text.
214:{{paid|user=Bezrat|employer=
454:, who declined the request.
46:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
827:
692:18:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
683:00:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
668:19:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
634:05:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
618:08:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
577:07:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
554:05:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
437:11:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
372:04:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
357:08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
788:16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
773:16:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
734:00:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
713:16:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
642:regarding the decline by
587:guide to appealing blocks
418:guide to appealing blocks
333:18:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
305:11:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
287:11:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
270:11:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
238:05:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
76:Be welcoming to newcomers
810:17:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
805:
768:
761:made inappropriate edits
729:
708:
663:
629:
549:
367:
328:
265:
447:
387:
193:Wikimedia Terms of Use
150:
71:avoid personal attacks
499:change block settings
446:
428:Your reason here ~~~~
386:
276:First Media (company)
181:articles for creation
162:neutral point of view
149:
104:Auto-archiving period
407:conflict of interest
405:in violation of the
158:conflict of interest
258:disambiguation page
227:do not edit further
448:
388:
151:
82:dispute resolution
43:
401:from editing for
135:
134:
62:Assume good faith
39:
818:
758:
723:
702:
657:
649:
600:
594:
535:
518:
516:
505:
487:
485:deleted contribs
445:
431:
303:
296:
282:
233:
224:
223:
210:
204:
166:Knowledge is not
129:
115:
114:
105:
18:
826:
825:
821:
820:
819:
817:
816:
815:
814:
752:
746:
717:
696:
651:
643:
606:
598:
592:
591:, then use the
580:
557:
529:
506:
496:
482:
465:
458:blocking policy
443:
440:
439:
421:
414:
380:
345:
294:
292:
280:
231:
221:
217:
213:
212:
208:
202:
201:. The template
144:
131:
130:
125:
102:
88:
87:
57:
12:
11:
5:
824:
822:
813:
812:
790:
775:
745:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
715:
637:
636:
581:
564:
560:Decline reason
527:
523:Request reason
520:
441:
415:
413:guidelines.
390:You have been
389:
381:
379:
376:
375:
374:
344:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
289:
219:
215:
143:
140:
138:
136:
133:
132:
123:
121:
120:
117:
116:
90:
89:
86:
85:
78:
73:
64:
58:
56:
55:
44:
35:
34:
31:
30:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
823:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
789:
785:
781:
776:
774:
770:
766:
762:
756:
751:
750:
749:
743:
735:
731:
727:
721:
716:
714:
710:
706:
700:
695:
694:
693:
690:
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
672:
671:
670:
669:
665:
661:
655:
647:
641:
635:
631:
627:
622:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
605:
604:
597:
590:
588:
579:
578:
574:
570:
563:
561:
556:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
533:
526:
524:
519:
514:
510:
504:
500:
495:
491:
486:
481:
477:
476:global blocks
473:
472:active blocks
469:
464:
459:
455:
453:
452:administrator
438:
435:
429:
425:
419:
412:
408:
404:
400:
399:
395:
394:
385:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
360:
359:
358:
354:
350:
342:
334:
330:
326:
321:
317:
316:WP:Notability
312:
308:
307:
306:
302:
301:
297:
290:
288:
285:
283:
277:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
250:
246:
242:
241:
240:
239:
236:
234:
228:
207:
200:
196:
194:
190:
184:
182:
177:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
148:
141:
139:
119:
118:
113:
109:
101:
98:
96:
92:
91:
83:
79:
77:
74:
72:
68:
65:
63:
60:
59:
53:
49:
48:Learn to edit
45:
42:
37:
36:
33:
32:
28:
24:
20:
19:
16:
747:
639:
638:
607:
602:
584:
582:
565:
559:
558:
528:
522:
521:
494:creation log
461:
449:
427:
398:indefinitely
396:
391:
349:rchard2scout
346:
310:
299:
244:
226:
188:
187:
185:
173:
137:
107:
93:
15:
798:WP:libelous
199:User:Bezrat
794:User:MER-C
490:filter log
411:notability
378:March 2021
295:The Banner
254:The Banner
220:InsertName
216:InsertName
142:March 2021
585:read the
509:checkuser
468:block log
176:talk page
164:and what
84:if needed
67:Be polite
27:talk page
480:contribs
426:|reason=
218:|client=
189:required
95:Archives
52:get help
21:This is
640:Comment
596:unblock
538:WP:SPAM
503:unblock
424:unblock
393:blocked
320:WP:Tone
191:by the
802:Bezrat
780:331dot
765:Bezrat
755:331dot
726:Bezrat
705:Bezrat
675:331dot
660:Bezrat
646:331dot
626:Bezrat
610:331dot
569:331dot
546:Bezrat
542:WP:GAB
463:Bezrat
364:Bezrat
325:Bezrat
262:Bezrat
108:7 days
23:Bezrat
720:MER-C
699:MER-C
689:MER-C
589:first
532:MER-C
434:MER-C
80:Seek
806:talk
784:talk
769:talk
730:talk
709:talk
679:talk
664:talk
630:talk
614:talk
573:talk
550:talk
409:and
368:talk
353:talk
329:talk
318:and
309:Are
300:talk
266:talk
249:.net
206:Paid
69:and
654:GSS
513:log
460:).
432:.
311:you
281:GSS
232:GSS
25:'s
808:)
786:)
771:)
732:)
711:)
681:)
666:)
632:)
616:)
599:}}
593:{{
575:)
562::
552:)
525::
507:•
501:•
497:•
492:•
488:•
483:•
478:•
474:•
470:•
430:}}
422:{{
370:)
355:)
331:)
268:)
222:}}
209:}}
203:{{
172:.
106::
50:;
804:(
782:(
767:(
757::
753:@
728:(
722::
718:@
707:(
701::
697:@
677:(
662:(
656::
652:@
648::
644:@
628:(
612:(
571:(
548:(
534::
530:@
517:)
515:)
511:(
466:(
366:(
351:(
327:(
264:(
100:1
97::
54:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
