User talk:Rcheeseright

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use by engaging in undisclosed paid editing.

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 ~~~~}}. User:Yunshui (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Unblock Request:[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

The Block is no-longer necessary. I was unaware of the mistake, I have now read up on the specific violation and will ensure that this doesn't happen again, I will also be sure to go back and tag my edits appropriately. Apologies. Rcheeseright (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2019 (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.

Note to reader In this block, I was asked to confirm that the block was not necessary. As I work for Asgardia, and I am a subject matter expert the argument the blocker is making is that I'm getting paid to do the work. The policy on this says that I need to disclose any paid work. Not that it's against the policy specifically. So, I do what was asked of me, but it was immediately declined. The cited reason that I did not address the reason clearly.Rcheeseright (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Unblock Request:[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

As I stated, the block is no-longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for - undisclosed paid edits - This was a mistake on my part and one that can easily be resolve in the future by using the 'paid' tag. I have read up on the specific violation and understand that because I am employed by Asgardia, I must make a disclosure whenever I make edits. I hope that this clears the matter up Rcheeseright (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As noted below, you will not be unblocked without an agreement by you to not edit about Asgardia or related topics(broadly construed), and telling what you will edit about instead. This would be the case even if you had been aware of policy in this area. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2019 (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.

Note to reader Here I appealed, and made sure to clearly address the problem that the decliner raised about making sure that I raise the correct information in my profiles and using the correct tags on pages - but now the admin has decided to shift the goalpost. Although the policy doesn't specify that what I'm doing is against the rules, 331dot has decided that I need a broadly construed topic block, likely because he fears a conflict of interest, or bias. Rcheeseright (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that a different admin first suggested this idea, I merely agree with it. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - but the final decision - regardless of the suggestions - was yours. Both Yunshui and Dlohcierekim suggested this course of action, I believe. And it seems fair, given their concerns. Rcheeseright (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshi throws some shade[edit]

Note to reviewing admin There are several other accounts that I have blocked today that also appear to be Asgardia employees working in concert; cf. Nigelbmitchell, Benji987654 and Jesszed17. The organisation has also placed recent adverts on Upwork asking for editors to assist in pushing their drafts into mainspace. I would not recommend unblocking any of these accounts without receiving a firm commitment to avoid any edits relating to Asgardia. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin This is a clear misunderstanding and certainly not a malicious issue - Everything that is being added is being done-so inline with the guidelines of Wikipedia with the exception of this single issue that I was unaware of which was to use the 'paid' tag for these edits and to update my profile. This was my mistake. None of the edits that I am making to Wikipedia, nor the pages that I have edited are disruptive or damaging to Wikipedia. I do not personally know about these other users that ^雲 is referencing, so I can't speak for them.Rcheeseright (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not personally know these other users..." I assume this was the royal "we", then? Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made an assumption about this before I checked their user profiles. After checking their profiles, I have no knowledge of who these people are and I updated my reply accordingly. Definitely not the royal "we". Besides - it's rude to speak on behalf of other people Yunshi. Rcheeseright (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh, Hells no[edit]

Please read and heed WP:PAID. I don't know about any other admin, but I certainly will not unblock you without a topic ban on Asgardia and any related topic, broadly construed. There are more than 5,000,000 articles on Wikipedia. Most of them you will be able to edit without a WP:conflict of interest. If your only purpose here is to edit about Asgardia, you should try some other website. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Hells... wait, what?[edit]

"These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

a statement on your user page,
a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions."

All I am guilty of here is not knowing about this policy - I fully accept that this is on me. However; It definitely seems that the reaction of "An indefinite lifetime ban on editing wikipedia." is far too strong of a reaction. I have already affirmed that I am aware of what I have done, and, I will follow the guidelines outlined on WP:PAID to ensure that I am fully compliant with the terms.

I'm starting to feel a little bit picked on considering that this is just a misunderstanding.Rcheeseright (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third Unblock Request, attempting to capitulate[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Fair enough. Though, this definitely seems a bit personal, to me. In the original request, I was asked to confirm that I agree to the policy. Which I did - I also agreed that I would follow the steps outlined on WP:PAID, I also have not distrupted or damaged wikipedia. But I guess the blanket statement of "You must convince the admin" really just allows you to be completely heavy-handed whenever you feel like it. One mistake and it's a ban for life. Definitely doesn't seem to be in keeping with the wiki foundation's goals. Goals which I have been a firm supporter of and donor to for many years. If that's what it takes, then I'll agree not to edit articles relating to Asgardia, too - or the broad topic of knowledge relating to Asgardia. Instead, I will focus my attention on the topic areas of Software Engineering, Virtual Reality and Technology - Other areas that I have a great passion for. Rcheeseright (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2019 (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.

Note to reviewing admin I'd like to add: None of the edits that were made were disruptive, problematic or damaging to Wikipedia. All edits that were made were sourced and written in good faith with a simple desire to expand the body of knowledge with a wide range of sources being used to back up the information that was being added. I understand the principle of conflict, of course - and while I am working with Asgardia, this was not commercially driven work. It was done as a subject matter expert on Asgardia. Rcheeseright (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Unblock Request, because the last one was simply left to go stale[edit]

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

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

Request reason:

I'm requesting an unblock as I have agreed to do everything that was asked of me and I genuinely can't see any reason why I should be permanently blocked based on the guidelines and the requests posed to me by the previous reviewers. I haven't done any harm - I made a simple mistake and I am being punished far too harshly for this. Please reconsider everything that's happened impartially. Rcheeseright (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Accepted on the basis that the user is indefinitely banned from all edits related to Asgardia and related people, broadly construed. I would be willing to lift this restriction also in six months if you demonstrate good editing in other areas. GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, like other admins, am only willing to unblock you on the condition that you agree not to make any edits that could be construed to be related to Asgardia (including related people, for instance). Will you agree to this? GoldenRing (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 100%, I agree to this condition. Rcheeseright (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you on this basis. As I have said above, I would be willing to lift the restriction after six months of editing productively in other topics. Please do go carefully and bear our policies in mind. I hope you have a productive wiki career. GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Looking forward to getting out there and helping to expand the body of knowledge! Rcheeseright (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]