User talk:EdJaUno

April 2020

Hello, EdJaUno. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Spencer^T•C 21:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please ensure that you read WP:PAID, and make the required links to any off-wiki advertising of your services on your Userpage. Thanks. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: I do not advertise services anywhere. EdJaUno (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then how you were paid by various clients/companies as you claimed on your userpage? GSS ^💬 11:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in the B2B digital marketing industry for about 9 years now and have established personal connections with other companies in the field. These are their clients. Right now, I have a few assignments from PCW, somebody else might give me another assignment. That's it. If there is another way to disclose such an arrangement, I'd be happy to. EdJaUno (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to disclose the link to the company you are working with as per WP:PAID and you must not edit articles directly if you are doing it as part of your job. GSS ^💬 11:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Should I add a list of clients, as I have for edited articles, on the user page? Also, I'll keep the editing bit in mind. EdJaUno (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Done. Please check and let me know if that's all right. EdJaUno (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I have created this account as a publicly disclosed paid editor. The block notice claims that I am a sock puppet. Please note that I do not have multiple accounts on Wikipedia, this is the only one I am using. I have already disclosed the paid contributions on Wikipedia, but those pages were not created by me. Please let me know how to proceed and if there's any information you require. EdJaUno (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry was established via technical means and is not in doubt. Yamla (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2020 (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.

I'm not admin, but this is clear sock/meatpuppetry. @EdJaUno: you have recently disclosed you are a paid editor on several talk pages, but you have also disclosed that other editors have edited for pay. For example, you added at Talk:Horizn Studios disclosures that you, User:DoshNomad and User:OffenzaWo have all edited the article on behalf of pro-creative writers - you did the same at Talk:Brian E. Kinsella on behalf of User:ElricFullMetal. The glaring issue here is that none of the three editors you made disclosures for ever actually disclosed they were editing for pay; OffenzaWo ceased editing after their block, Doshnomad continually denied being a paid editor until a client outed them (after which Dosh ceased editing), and to my knowledge ElricFullMetal continues to actively be attempting to appeal their block and deny they edited for pay. Given all this, I am suspicious as to how you - as a new editor without a previous account - know for a fact who these editors are, what articles they edited, and what company they work for. It strikes me that, given you have disclosed you and these three editors are all working for ProCreative Writers/PCW, you thought that returning to three client articles and removing undisclosed paid templates was not going to be considered dubious, as it is clear sockpuppetry. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: I can't be held responsible for what the other editors said or did not. I asked my contact at the ProCreative Writers for a full account history of the editors they've used in the past given the nature of edits they want me to do. They had asked me to remove the tags and see if I can restore some of the deleted pages. Apparently, the company had a couple of in-house editors who couldn't get it done for them. They consulted me for this, I asked legal@wikimedia.org for the proper way to do it, and here I am. Once again, I ask you to tell me if I can provide any information to resolve this matter. EdJaUno (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Please let me know what proof I can provide you with to resolve this matter. EdJaUno (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAB explains how to request an unblock. There's no proof you can provide me, though you are free to make a new unblock request which another administrator will review. You'll need to explain why you were using the same IP address and the same browser while being completely unrelated. --Yamla (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, my account was blocked for apparently being a sockpuppet of User:ElricFullMetal. I assure you that this isn't a block evasion or another account by the same person. The company that employed ElricFullMetal is the same one that employed my services. In addition, before creating my account on Wikipedia, I consulted with the WMF on how to go about it. I tried to follow their instructions as best as I could, might have made some mistakes, but I'd appreciate if I could be told what not to do in the future and unblock my account. Another administrator has asked me to explain why we have the same IP address. Mine is 38.68.39.11, I have no idea what IP other users might have. I would also like to point out that I tried to be as forthcoming about the disclosures as I could, trying to source all the information about the past paid contributions by my employer and disclosed them on the talk pages of the articles for which I am being paid. I will gladly provide any other information you require. Thank you. EdJaUno (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I do not see any convincing grounds to lift the block; instead of leaving you in abeyance, I will decline this request so you can perhaps convince another administrator. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2020 (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.

Perhaps if someone from WMF would care to opine? Was not aware that WMF condoned sockpuppetry. Perhaps the WMF should clue the English Wikipedia in on what it is approving. I'm sure we can get this all straight. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that they condone sockpuppetry or they allowed a second account. I'm telling you that this is the only account I have, that I asked them for the best way to disclose paid contributions and structure my profile in a way that all disclosures are clearly visible. I can give you the names of the people who responded to the emails - I don't know their Wikipedia user names, just the ones they used to reply, but the admins should be able to verify. I believe one thing was missing in the initial disclosure, the specific company name. User:GSS asked me to disclose the company that's paying me and I did that right away on my user page. Please note that I disclosed my connection with the account I am being associated with before the blocking administrator said that I am their sockpuppet. I have been entirely forthcoming and honest about it all as per WP:PAID, and I am still asking if there's anything I can provide as a proof to what I am saying. EdJaUno (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask the person you spoke to at the WMF to comment here regarding this matter. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. EdJaUno (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I have sent them an email request to comment here. EdJaUno (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Hi. This user contacted OTRS and WMF asking for guidance. I replied to their questions stating:

"If you are being paid to edit an article (i.e. if it's part of your time spent at work), this must be disclosed as per the Terms of Use of the Wikimedia projects: http://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

More information on this policy, as well as steps to make this disclosure, can be found here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure

Following the example of Beutler Inc, and following the Terms of Use, is the best, and indeed only, way forward. Additionally, it would help prove to other editors that there are ethical and rule-following digital marketing consultants in the world. The world needs more of those!

(Note: Beutler Inc had been mentioned earlier in the thread by the user, as a point of reference they were familiar with.)

and when asked for more advice, I wrote:

"I am not certain how it is best to separate volunteer contributions from paid contributions. That would be a good question to ask the community itself, probably on the talkpage of the policy page. Alternatively, you could follow the example of http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:WWB_Too and have two accounts (clearly linking to each other, and explaining what each is for).

In general, it is best to ask the community these types of questions."

I hope that clarifies this particular block issue. I hope I haven't added to the confusion. I grok it's a thorny set of bigger issues, but I'm not deeply immersed in the details, hence I was trying to provide simple and clear advice and recommending that they ask the community for specifics. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @331dot:, please check the response by Quiddity (WMF) and let me know if I need to do anything else. EdJaUno (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reply from Quiddity doesn't address, as Yamla asked, "why you were using the same IP address and the same browser while being completely unrelated." At least I'm not seeing it. Maybe someone else does. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Of course, I didn't think there was a reason to discuss IP addresses with anybody, so it wouldn't be covered in their response. Can you please advice on how to resolve this? I am willing to cooperate and provide any details that you might require. The only explanation for IP addresses that I can think of is that the blocked user might be in range. EdJaUno (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lets simplify this discussion. The terms of use set by the wikipedia foundation are the minimum terms of use applying to all projects., including this one. In addition, the English Wikipedia has additional policies and guidelines that apply here specifically, though most of them are very similar to those of some other WMF projects. In particular, our rules about acceptable use by paid editors are exceptionally strict, because of all the different language wikipedia we have by far the biggest problem with paid editing both declared and undeclared. Our rules are at [[[WP:PAID]]-- you must declare all paid wok here, all intermediates or agencies used, and link to all advertisements. It is permissible to have a paid and an unpaid account, but they must be linked.

The WMF can tell you their minimal rules; an inquiry to our WP:OTRS system will give you advice about ours, but here on Wikipedia is where the rules are checked and enforced. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]