User talk:GMOB

January 2018

There have been two problems with this account: 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 or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, 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 a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

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.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your email. You are currently allowed to edit this page, despite the block on doing so elsewhere, so you can post an appeal here as described in the box above. I won't consider any appeal myself, that wouldn't be fair on you. However, before making an appeal, note the following:

your suggested new account names GMOB Coordinator, GM237,000 or GM Arsenic Trioxide are unlikely to be accepted since they still clearly represent your company, rather than you as an individual.
You cannot edit on behalf of your company, which is clearly still your intention. It will be a condition of any unblock and new account name that you do not write about a topic in which you have a conflict of interest. I guess that is not what you or your employers want.
It's clear from your posting and your email that you haven't read WP:YFA. If you agreed not to write about your company and wished to make other contributions, you are strongly advised to do so otherwise you will run into further difficulties

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Letitia4Coord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

If I could change my current username to Letitia4Coord, if it is not used already, that would be great. I have read WP:YFA and understand that it is a personal account that I need to create, and not one that is affiliated with my workplace. I agree not to write about the organization that I work with, and will edit pages with content that I am familiar with, i.e. 'Giant Mine'. I may however, need assistance in creating a page, similar to the 'Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment', which is something along the lines of what we do as a non-profit organization. Considering that we have an in perpetuity clause for the second most contaminated site in Canada, it would be beneficial for Canadians, as well as to garner International interest, to learn of Giant Mine, its remediation and how the Giant Mine Oversight Board oversees the work being done by the government. We are not trying to promote ourselves, but rather trying to find resources that would help educate the general public and find networks that may potentially help find a solution to the very toxic poison that is stored underground. Assistance would be appreciated. I am open to more discussion if needed. Thank you.GMOB (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No. Please reread WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. You were told, above, you won't be unblocked unless you are willing to avoid areas for which you h ave a conflict of interest. That means no writing about the Giant Mine Oversight Board or about the Giant Mine. Yamla (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20446 was submitted on Jan 26, 2018 20:07:23. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for your comments and response. I have emailed Yamla two weeks ago and have not had a response in my appeal to remove the block, so I was suggested by another admin person to try the help/ticket avenue. I have done that, and now am waiting for a response. I was also advised to write a comment note, below, to try and appeal this again. I have read all suggested WP pages regarding conflict of interest, paid contributions/editing and promotion. Though it has repeated what I have read previously, and the messages are clear in the pages, I find a bit of a contradiction between the conflict of interest page and the paid contributions/editing page. The distinction that I can make is that I cannot create a page for my employer, but I would be able to do so if they were my client and I was paid to do so. Is that not a conflict of interest? I am not trying to cause trouble, I am just trying to understand how we can create a page for the Giant Mine Oversight Board. I realize that I may not be able to do that myself, rather perhaps I may want to go through the article wizard route with the help of Wikipedia where they create it for us, in order to do this the right way, following all of Wikipedia's protocols. A page on the Giant Mine Oversight Board would be helpful to researching students who attend middle and high school, as well as university graduate students. We have had students express interest in doing a heritage and/or science project, as well as university graduate students writing a thesis paper for their Masters degree. Though we do have a website, Wikipedia is well known across the world, where people go to do their research. I would like to do this right, with no conflict. I'm not sure that I necessarily need to create an account to create a page, as previously thought. If an account is not needed, we can delete my account altogether. The edit that I was thinking of making on the 'Giant Mine' page, was grammatical, and not necessarily on the content. A note of clarification for us, is that we are an independent body, that has to be neutral of all the Parties that we communicate with. I believe that a page can be created in an objective and unbiased way. Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how I can rectify this. If you have further questions, or further points that I need to be aware of, please let me know. Respectfully, LetitiaGMOB (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but it's not that simple. Please see message that follows

The proposed new username is I, think, acceptable. However, the other elements of the block still need to be addressed. You will not be unblocked until:

you agree to avoid creating or directly editing articles related to Giant Mine Oversight Board or about the Giant Mine.
you indicate what other areas of Wikipedia you intend to edit in the future

If you have no interest in editing Wikipedia beyond writing about your organisation, then you will not be unblocked. If this is the case, I recommend you consider alternative outlets.

I'm sorry that this message could not be more favourable, but the goal of Wikipedia is to build a neutrally worded encyclopedia whose articles are about notable topics based on previously published writings.

 -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for your message Dlohcierekim. Because Wikipedia is known internationally, we are interested in is creating a page for the Giant Mine Oversight Board, as part of our mandate is creating public awareness of this giant mess left behind by the gold mining era, as well as an effort to reach out to international organizations that may potentially have a solution to this world class problem. Can someone explain to me how there is a page on 'Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment' and 'Giant Mine', as well as other pages, when we are not able to have one created with assistance? If assistance were provided to create those pages, it would be great if assistance would be provided to help the Giant Mine Oversight Board create a page as well. I don't necessarily have to be the one to do so, as I understand that it needs to be neutral, so I agree to avoid creating or directly editing articles related to the Giant Mine Oversight Board, or about Giant Mine. Other pages that I would be interested in editing would be, "traditional knowledge, public engagement and consultation". If someone were able to get me in touch with the right admin person to get one created that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, GMOB (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)LetitiaGMOB[reply]

Decline reason:

Due to your repeated unblock requests that fail to address the issue at hand and continued ignoring of reviewing administrators' attempts to get you to understand the situation, your right to post further requests has been revoked. No, you're not allowed to write about your employer here. Period. Max Semenik (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2018 (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.

Sorry, no. "creating public awareness" is just a promo speak euphemism for promotional editing. Wikipedia is not not a platform for "creating public awareness". If this is your only purpose for being here, you will not be unblocked. As I declined before, someone else will review your current request.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]