User talk:Gfrostaxos

April 2020

Hello Gfrostaxos. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Axos Financial, 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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 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:Gfrostaxos. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Gfrostaxos|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. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Brianvargo". The reason given for Brianvargo's block is: "Spam / advertising-only account".

Blocking administrator: ‪Spencer‬ (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Thanks for letting us know. This account is now blocked indefinitely. Yamla (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gfrostaxos, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Axos Bank for their contributions to Wikipedia.

Gfrostaxos (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Gfrostaxos (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't understand why I am being blocked. I only have one account. I suspect the account "Brianvargo" belongs to an Axos colleague, but I cannot be certain of this. In any case, what I can say with 100 percent certainty is that I only have one account, and that therefore I am innocent of "sockpuppetry." Gfrostaxos (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below. We don't know who is sitting at the computer, and we must treat these two accounts as the same person. You'll need to address your violations of policy. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 10 April 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.

Please reread WP:MEAT. You are editing the same article from the same IP address. Both accounts violated WP:COI and likely, WP:PAID and WP:PROMO. --Yamla (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked 1.5 years ago for a variety of issues related to promotional editing from myself and other Axos employees. I have since then acquired a better understanding of WP:COI and Wikipedia’s Terms of Use. I can promise I will never directly edit any Axos-related pages. However, I’d like to request an unblock so I can post about some BLP issues at BLPN. Gfrostaxos (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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) 10:44, 24 October 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.

Unblock request

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

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

Request reason:

I was blocked 1.5 years ago for a variety of issues related to promotional COI editing from myself and other Axos employees. I continued this problematic pattern of behavior more recently when I created user FrogParis, in July 2021. Because my Wikipedia account was blocked, I figured I would just create another account. I now realize that I have compounded the problem, and for that I'm truly sorry. Over the last month or two, I have learned more about how to behave properly on Wikipedia with a conflict of interest and hereby make the following promises: * I will not create or participate from any other account besides this one. * I will not directly edit any Axos-related page(s) * I will do everything I can to make sure I am the only Axos employee participating on Axos-related pages. * I will do whatever I can to ensure only one Axos employee is ever participating at-a-time. * I will do my best to follow the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guideline I understand why I was blocked and promise that the promotional, direct, non-disclosed COI editing from multiple Axos employees will not continue. I do want to make useful contributions, such as a BPN post, suggesting additional citations, etc. I consider myself an honorable person who has a deep sense of integrity. The fact that I violated Wikipedia's protocols and terms is a source of shame. I commit to doing right by the Wikipedia community going forward. Thank you for your consideration and please accept my apologies for prior, unprofessional conduct on the site. Gfrostaxos (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Given your assurances here and Drmies's thoughts below, I have lifted the block. Please be really careful around WP:COI. Happy editing. Yamla (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, what do you make of this? It seems fair enough, and the editor has declared their COI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: @Drmies: Thanks for considering (and granting) my unblock. Some of the BLP issues I raised at BLPN were addressed, but the page was considered too boring to look at the rest of the suggested changes. Naturally, as a financial institution, our business is not very exciting to a typical consumer. I was wondering if either of you have a minute to consider the changes I’m requesting? Gfrostaxos (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say it was boring? Tsk tsk Drmies, that wasn't nice. Having said that--yeah, sorry, that's not exactly my, eh, style of prose writing, and I have to say that I am probably the last person to ask advice on how to write a business article. Removing the Garrabrandts thing about that "failure" seems fine to me. The April 2019 sentence, that's a different thing--I think the current "despite Axos being..." is a bit silly and skewed. The additional "context", about it being tied to stock, that sounds like a somewhat weak justification to me, but I get the attempt at balance. (BTW, if that's you, nice work, i guess--I'll need to work until 2070 to get that, but I'll PM you my Cayman bank account number. Can't you just buy Wikipedia?) I agree with cutting "excluding his own", and adding "oh Axos refused to comment on etc" is silly--it's really not relevant though I'm sure the Bloomberg writer enjoyed writing it and the Wikipedia author enjoyed sticking in the claim, which is of course not verified. So I suppose I mostly agree, though maybe Yamla won't mind having another look. Yamla, we didn't block the editor from editing the article, and I suppose we don't need to as long as they're playing by the rules, but to play it safe we could have one of us implement the change. To keep it all on the up and up I'll wait for your comment, and then put our comments on the talk page. Sound good to you? And thanks for unblocking. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Drmies:. I’ve corrected the proposed changes for the Axos Financial page so that it no longer shows the BLP issues that have already been addressed. Of particular note is the criticisms of mining personal data cited to the company’s own investor presentation and a very confusing sentence inferring Axos’ E-Trade services were closed (rather than the acquisition that was closed), also cited to Axos’ own materials. If you are willing to implement or reject the changes, it would be greatly appreciated. I don’t think anyone else has an interest. Per my unblock request, I have promised not to edit the page. Gfrostaxos (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]