User talk:Bezrat

This is Bezrat's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 7 days

March 2021

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 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 search-engine optimization.

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 to your user page at User:Bezrat. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bezrat|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. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. GSS ^💬 05:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 ("Covert advertising and a violation of WP:PAID". Excuse me? That is false! Are the .net 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 The Banner who worked hard to update wikilinks leading to the other page in the respective disambiguation page; 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 Bezrat (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? because there is evidence off-wiki that suggest you were paid to create First Media (company) and I will be sharing those details with admins soon. GSS ^💬 11:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not judged the article, just fixed the links to disambiguation pages. Sorry. The Banner talk 11:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you 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 is often in the grey zone and therefore WP:Notability and WP:Tone 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 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, Bezrat (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I used the ready-made format but forgot to remove one of the parameters. Bezrat (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

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 ~~~~}}. MER-C 11:42, 12 March 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

@MER-C:, 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 WP:SPAM or any other Wiki violation, any reviewing admin can easily check and verify this. As per WP:GAB, 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 Wikipedia 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. Bezrat (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2021 (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.

What is your connection with First Media? If you don't wish to be active anymore, there is no need to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. To answer your question thoroughly: Pages I edit include places, 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). Bezrat (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the decline by @331dot:, I have answered it, I was not paid to do anything, and deny the accusation made by one single user @GSS:. 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? Bezrat (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email; as a matter of policy I handle most Wikipedia matters on Wikipedia. I considered your unblock request; you may make another request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. MER-C 18:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C:, 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 Wikipedia 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. Bezrat (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: I have followed your guideline and requested here. Will you consider my request and lift the block (even partially/ under some conditions)? Thanks, Bezrat (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making more positive edits (suggestions)

While I am technically unable to edit, I am still willing to improve Wikipedia articles and pages, report vandalism and more, and will use this space now to make useful edit suggestions.

@331dot:, while trying to locate your user-page I mistyped your username and landed on User:Dot331 - he may be an impersonator, and has made inappropriate edits - consider blocking him. Regards, Bezrat (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. And as explained very clearly to the editors involved (including User:MER-C), 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 WP:libelous. On your free time...I can wait patiently. Bezrat (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]