User talk:GenieEdits

Welcome!

Hello, GenieEdits, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! PATH SLOPU 10:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamesmaharrison, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

_pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jake Brockman

Please can you confirm why my account has been blocked? It looks like you have linked me to a JamesMAHarrison. I work at Caxton, saw this page and thought I would tidy it up and make some corrections.

Thanks, Jane

Hi Jane. There are two points here. 1) The other user has engaged in undisclosed paid editing which contravenes Wikipedia's terms. 2) A behavioural and technical analysis, which includes server logs and other such items (see WP:CHK), has concluded that it is likely both editors are related. When users appear related, Wikipedia calls this sockpuppetry (when the same person uses two or more accounts to make controversial edits) or meatpuppetry (when two people work in coordination to make controversial edits). Both are prohibited. If you work at Caxton, the same rules apply about WP:PAID editing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jake,

I have not made any controversial edits. I simply tidied up the page (grammatical mistakes) and checked all the references. Surely you should look at the quality of my amends before you go ahead and block me. I also made an update to one other page which again was backed up with evidence - I see those changes have now disappeared. I can understand if I was making all the information up and there was nothing to substantiate the claims, but this seems rather odd to me.

I hope you will reconsider this.

Thanks, Jane

Hi Jane, the kind of edits are in a way secondary here. Any edit made by a connected editor (e.g. if you work for the company) that is undisclosed is inherently "controversial" as it contravenes Wikipedia's terms. The block is not my decision to make, this is being decided on by a team of administrators who have reviewed the case in the first instance when the block was put in place based on the evidence I submitted and other information they have at hand. If you wish to appeal to the block, please read the guide to appealing a block. In your appeal you should state clearly your understanding of WP:COI and WP:PAID and take required action. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:28, 14 May 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

please see the above email conversation. I am not connected with JamesMAHarrison. My edits are based on factual information supplied with evidence that can be easily found online. Thanks Jane

Decline reason:

You did not address Jake Brockman's point about conflict of interest and paid editing. Additionally, you will not be unblocked to write about your employer or anyone affiliated with them so we would like to know how you will contribute to Wikipedia if unblocked. MER-C 19:21, 14 May 2019 (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.