User talk:Karma Saheb

June 2022

Hello Karma Saheb. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Jerome Laxale, 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:Karma Saheb. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Karma Saheb|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. Your username suggests you are Karma Saheb of The Social Media Network Pty Ltd, who worked on Jerome Laxale's election campaign. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to Jerome Laxale, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Karma Saheb, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Karma Saheb|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karma Saheb: Please respond here before making further edits. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you are mistaken and I am not paid for my efforts. Karma Saheb (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also the edits you and others are making are unfounded accusations, unproven and cannot be recorded as fact without evidence. Your sources are misquoted and they are also ephmatically stating that their is no allegation of wrongdoing on mr Laxale's behalf. your entries are defamatory and false. Karma Saheb (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karma Saheb: This is your LinkedIn profile where you state you are employed by The Social Media Network Pty Ltd. On your Facebook profile you proudly disclose that you worked on the campaign for Jerome Laxale. This is corroborated by your company's own post. Even if you are not being paid specifically to edit Wikipedia, you still have a commercial relationship and therefore a conflict of interest. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirement refer to editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. As im sure you are aware, campaign is over and any contributions I have made are post election and the conflict you raise is not relevant in relation to the paid disclosure rule. Karma Saheb (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand what a conflict of interest entails. Conflicts of interest can occur even if payment is not specifically involved (please see WP:COIEDIT). You are still expected to disclose the conflict of interest and avoid editing the affected articles.

Regardless, your edits at the moment are in violation of WP:3RR. You plainly have concerns regarding the content, but it is sourced and notable enough for inclusion. If you have suggestions as to the wording of the section, please take them to Talk:Jerome Laxale where they can be discussed by all concerned editors. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Glen (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Oz\^InterAct 08:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]