User talk:Dele 123

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Zoerecords123 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) 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. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to email

Thanks for email.

Zoe Records is allowing a editor to write an informative Wikipedia page about Zoe Records in London— Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit as long as their contributions are relevant and have independent verifiable sources. Nobody needs your permission, since you don't own our articles. Since we require neutral encyclopaedia articles, the last thing we need is companies writing about themselves.
You emailed from a Zoerecords' account, and you have an obvious conflict of interest and a financial stake in promoting this topic. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization, directly or indirectly, to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not.
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, and if it does not, 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 paid directly or indirectly by the company you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation.
Misusing multiple accounts is not permitted, and the User:Zoerecords account is also a breach of our username policy. You cannot use a name that represents a company or product.
Your article was deleted for reasons including

it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. Your "references" had no links or specific identifiers to verify anything you claimed. The three web links went to pages that didn't mention you. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits, but you just talked about your label
it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
the article was a copyright violation. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

In summary, you have created an article for your company that fails our standards on at least three counts, and you have created multiple accounts to promote your company in breach of our terms and conditions. If you wish the accounts to be unblocked, you must follow the guidelines in each of the block boxes. I'll leave it to others to decide on any appeal otherwise it wouldn't be fair on you.

If you want to reply, you can leave a message on this page, which you can still edit, and I will know you have done so if you start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~~~~ when you post it.

User:Jimfbleak Please unblock this account and associated IP as it is being used to rewrite the neutral content for Zoe Records in London.Dele 123 (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure for requesting an unblock is in the pink box at the top, and you should follow that. I won't consider the unblock request because that's not fair on you, but I note that you have used multiple accounts to create an article in which you have an obvious conflict of interest which you must declare if unblocked as instructed above. You should not be writing articles about your own company, and I think it's unlikely that you will be unblocked if you intend to do so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 23 March 2016 (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).

Dele 123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not an employee of Zoe Records, I am an independent writing an Encyclopedic article about Zoe Records who represents gospel music in the UK and is associated with the non-profit Zoe Gospel Promotions. I should not be considered conflict of interest and I am only using this account, the other accounts will not be used any further. Dele 123 (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your usage of "we" here makes me doubt this claim. Regardless, you are blocked for massive sockpuppetry so right now the only way to return to editing for you is standard offer. Max Semenik (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2016 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Dele 123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16568 was submitted on Sep 21, 2016 14:07:29. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this sockpuppet using the UTRS system instead of a public unblock request. Despite blocking this account, and his/her others, I can't see the reason(s) for the unblock request or any undertaking to not edit the article in question. Even the claim to not have a COI is clearly unlikely to be true, and if genuinely independent they should give an undertaking to avoid Zoe records before an unblock is even considered Jimfbleak (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: you can request UTRS access and comment on the appeal here if you would like.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dele 123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16698 was submitted on Oct 11, 2016 09:48:49. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]