User talk:HCUP Presentations

Conflict of interest

Hello, HCUP Presentations. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have blocked you for several reasons.

You edited with an IP without declaring that you are a paid editor.

You edited with an inappropriate username. Then you registered this, also inappropriate username.

You have not declared that you are a paid editor, at any time, with any account.

You were warned not to add urls that way to the article.

You are making massive, disputed changes to the article.

Let's discuss this, if you like.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

HI Anna, can you please tell me how I can become unblocked? While making updates to the pages, large sections were lost as another user was making updates simultaneously. I do work on behalf of the HCUP Project but this is a non-profit governmental project

Decline reason:

Please disclose any and all other usernames you have used. Serious question-- has someone been running a seminar that claims not for profits do not have to comply with our user name policies? Our policies on promotional editing? That is incorrect.

you must propose a new username that meets the username policy
you must confirm that this account is used by one individual only
you must agree to avoid creating or directly editing articles related to your organisation (requested edits will still be permitted)
you must agree to abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and disclose any paid relationship in accordance with the paid contributor policy
you must indicate what areas of Wikipedia you intend to edit in the future

If you have no interest in editing Wikipedia beyond writing about your organisation, then you will not be unblocked. If this is the case, I recommend you consider alternative outlets.

I'm sorry that this message could not be more favourable.

(Any other admin should feel free to amend these conditions or unblock at their discretion.)

-- Dlohcierekim  (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2018 (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.

I will respond in a moment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have to assume that all of these accounts are one person:

The editing style of all or most is very similar, and the names indicate that they all represent the same organization. Because the second account created was indefinitely hard blocked, the creation of new usernames clearly constitutes the abuse of multiple accounts.

As for the article, I think it is best edited by the Wikipedia community and not a paid editor who has consistently ignored warnings about introducing copyvios and promotional content.

As for you, I think you should not be unblocked. You are only here to promote your organization and have consistently ignored community wishes to do so.

Please tell your boss that the neutral Wikipedia community will manage the article rather than your organization.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

This user is now blocked as a sockpuppet of User:HCUPData.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Anna. Did not mean to step on your toes. Feel free to modify my unblock conditions.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Dlohcierekim. I fully support the decline, and think it will be very hard for this user to convince another admin to unblock, considering all the facts. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

This discussion should really take place at your original account (User:HCUPData), but you last edited 9 years ago with that one. So...

Do not edit that article using an IP. You are blocked, not just the accounts. You are not permitted to edit at Wikipedia. You are part of the United States federal government and here, openly and transparently, violating Wikipedia policy. All of this is undeletable and will remain in the history for all to see. A few days passed since the article was gutted. I suspect you all had a meeting to decide what to do, and the result was to put the content back.

Stop, go away, and tell your bosses what I just wrote.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]