User talk:Bossbowser

Welcome!

Hello, Bossbowser, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Nightclub management software, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 13:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 15:08, 9 February 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).

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

Request reason:

This account is not intended for spam or advertising purposes, but I completely understand if it looked like that on reflection due to the high volume of links to their official websites in the article on Aamer Khan (surgeon). Having recognised this, I would like the opportunity to fix this myself or submit it for clean-up. To prove that this wasn’t spam or covert advertising, consider the section on the court case (Khan vs. GMC); if this was covert advertising, I would’ve left this out because it reflects negatively on him, regardless of the outcome. Any feedback or suggestions on how to correct the article to fit Wikipedia's purpose and improve the articles to avoid being spammy would be greatly appreciated, too!

Decline reason:

For the moment, I am declining this because the appeal doesn't address the concern in Draft:Aamer Khan (surgeon) that you haven't disclosed a paid editing relationship, or conflict of interest, with the subject of your draft article. It's OK to be paid to edit, and draft space is the proper venue to start articles for pay, but you have a legal obligation to disclose that (it was a condition to which you agreed when you created an account here). Please have a look at WP:PAID and clarify the situation. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:12, 27 February 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.

Hi, thanks for reviewing my appeal. I'm was unaware that you could/had to disclose paid wikipedia articles, but the person in question isn't actually paying me to produce the article. I know him personally through his charity work and genuinely think he's an awesome guy that does cool stuff for charity and is famous, hence a wikipedia article. Would this mean the relationship would still have to be disclosed as I know them? If so, I'm totally up for that and honestly wasn't aware that you had to disclose that! Thanks for clarifying.

I moved your comment out of an unblock request (because it doesn't conform to what an appeal should be) for the purpose of discussion.

Yes, you must disclose any paid editing relationship, even if payment is indirect (for example, if you get paid for public relations and not specifically to edit Wikipedia, or if someone else besides the article subject has paid you for publicity work related to the subject). This is not optional, because you entered into a legal agreement to abide by Wikimedia:Terms of Use when you created this account.

And yes, even if not paid, you must disclose any conflict of interest you may have with article subjects you involve yourself with. As someone with a conflict of interest, you can create draft articles and submit them for review, but for any article published in main space with which you have a COI, any substantive changes must be proposed on the article's talk page, although you can still fix minor errors, add sources, and revert obvious vandalism.

If you have a better understanding now, please make another appeal describing your understanding of the reason you were blocked and how you intend to conduct yourself after being unblocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:22, 27 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I completely understand the reason I was blocked which was down to an undisclosed conflict of interest, and hope to rectify this as soon as possible if I am unblocked and can edit the problematic page in question to disclose the COI. In the future, all conflicts of interest - whether relationships, or being paid etc - will be disclosed and I’ll stick to the specific rules that that entails. The relationship specific to the article which is in question is not paid but I do know them through one of the charity events they host, and it was because of his charity work and (minor) fame that I thought he deserved a wikipedia page. In hindsight I can see how this should’ve been disclosed at the time and the specific rules followed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bossbowser (talk • contribs) 08:33, 28 February 2020 (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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:50, 14 March 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.

@MER-C: based on what is written in both unblock requests above, I am confident this is a case of a well-meaning editor who wants to abide by the rules. Do you object to unblocking? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered by email. MER-C 21:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Bossbowser, would you tell me what you think was problematic about about these edits of yours? this one and this one? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please think carefully and give an honest answer. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a “sneaky” backlink from 2 years ago for a client (I’ve never worked for Lush, but I have for Rosina’s)… I’m afraid I can only offer up the same excuse which is I honestly didn’t know you had to disclose your link to a client until my account was flagged. I can review all my past edits and remove all the non-disclosed attempts at rubbish SEO. Bossbowser (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your honesty is appreciated. Thank you.

If you have had clients who have paid you, you are a paid editor. I must point out that when you created an account here, you entered into a legally-binding agreement to abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, which includes disclosing any paid editing relationships. I'm willing to unblock, but until you make a complete disclosure, this account must remain blocked as a matter of WMF policy. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely open to making any disclosure about being a paid editor and will “clean up” past edits ASAP if I am unblocked. In official terms I admit that I am a paid editor. Bossbowser (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're going in circles. We already know you're a paid editor. As I said previously, until you make a complete disclosure (identity of all your clients and the articles involved; past, present, and future if you know of any), this account must remain blocked because full disclosure has not been given. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I misunderstood what you meant by a full disclosure. From my past edits, the article on nightclub management software, the edits made to the bath bomb article and the edits to Alexander Graham Bell’s page are paid edits linked to previous clients (Rosina’s Lotions and Potions, and Quotegrab). The article on Dr Aamer Khan was as you know through a friendship and thus had a conflict of interest, and the other edits (to articles relating to Brazilian Jui-jitsu) were not related to clients.Bossbowser (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else I can do to alleviate this situation? Without sounding desperate, I do have a lot of respect for Wikipedia and the work its editors do, despite my rather careless track record. I honestly do want to contribute in the correct way, but understand the consequences of my past actions. Bossbowser (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can do to help this situation and eventually become unblocked? Or should I go through with another appeal? Obviously the last 2 have been declined so is there any course of action to ease the problem at hand and then do an appeal?Bossbowser (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me templates are not meant to be used for block issues. Praxidicae (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make another appeal, for another administrator to answer who hasn't participated here already. Please be completely transparent about what you've done in the past and what you intend to do in the future if you are unblocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:44, 23 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).

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

Request reason:

I understand the errors I have made with my Wikipedia entries and edits in the past which include paid edits on the articles on Nightclub Management Software, Alexander Graham Bell and Bath Bombs (for Rosina’s Lotions And Potions and QuoteGrab) or edits that had a conflict of interest (the article for Dr Aamer Khan) that were not disclosed. I failed to fully adhere to the terms of the contract I entered into when I signed up, and wish to rectify each of these edits including disclosing my conflicts of interests and cleaning them up suitably (or deleting them) for compliance with Wikipedia’s rules. If unblocked this will obviously be the first thing I will do in the future, and I will go through the rules to ensure any future edits and articles are fully transparent in terms of conflicts of interest and any other potential problems that violate the rules. Bossbowser (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2020 (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. Yamla (talk) 13:54, 14 May 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.

Hi Bossbowser, Thank you very much for the disclosure.

After disclosing your paid contributions, do you agree to never again edit Wikipedia with a conflict of interest? Do you agree that you will never make edits that require paid editing disclosure again?

If so: Which edits would you like to make instead? Please provide specific examples: Which articles, which edits?

Thank you very much in advance.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response - I agree that any future edits and articles will have no conflict of interest or be paid edits, and completely understand why you’d want to prevent previous users like me who have not followed the rules from making the same mistakes again. One of the edits that didn’t flout the rules was on jiu-Jitsu, a personal hobby of mine, so articles on martial arts I will want to build on and contribute to. Aside from that, as a keen programmer, I would like to also contribute to the pages on software and programming tools, e.g. Bootstrap and Cascading Style Sheets. But this time, these edits won’t be related to my clients or businesses, and will just revolve around my passion for the subjects, of course.

Also, I have a question about previous edits and articles and am fully open to complying with the answer: would these be automatically deleted, or would I have to disclose the conflicts of interest/paid editing on previous edits and articles immediately? Would they still be allowed up on Wikipedia as long as I disclosed my previous conflict of interest/paid editing? Bossbowser (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should disclose any and all clients you have edited for in the past, so we can review those entries. The articles wouldn't be deleted automatically - if the subjects are notable, the articles will be retained, but they may need to be edited to ensure that their language isn't promotional, that the sourcing is appropriate, etc. You should obviously not do any further editing on those articles if you are unblocked, and restrict yourself to making edit requests on the talk pages. I'd want to see a full list of all the articles (with links to them) for which you've accepted payment to edit before considering an unblock. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your response. I am happy to follow those rules and to not add to these articles or continue with paid edits/conflicts of interest in the future. If my edits/articles are retained in the future, I look forward to them properly complying with the rules. Here is a full list of the articles which were paid to edit or had a conflict of interest with the names of the clients: Nightclub management software which was for Cluboid, Bath bomb for Rosina’s Lotions And Potions, Alexander Graham Bell for QuoteGrab, and Aamer Khan (surgeon) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Aamer_Khan_(surgeon) for Dr Aamer Khan (to clarify, not a paid edit but conflict of interest). Bossbowser (talk) 15:00, 7 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I fully understand the reasons for which I was previously blocked which due to undisclosed paid edits and undisclosed conflicts of interest despite being in the rules/the contract laid out to me when opening an account with Wikipedia, and if I am unblocked I am completely open to follow the rules properly and any specific limitations on what I can do e.g. no paid edits and no edits to previous articles. For those who review this appeal, here is a list of the articles I edited which broke the rules and got my account blocked with the names of the clients: Nightclub management software which was for Cluboid, Bath bomb for Rosina’s Lotions And Potions, Alexander Graham Bell for QuoteGrab, and Aamer Khan (surgeon) [1] for Dr Aamer Khan. If there’s anything I can do to alleviate this situation I am eager to comply. Bossbowser (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2020 (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. Yamla (talk) 17:36, 2 June 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.

Your draft article, Draft:Aamer Khan (surgeon)

Hello, Bossbowser. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Aamer Khan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]