User talk:Kepri Estates

December 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Kepri Estates", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because usernames must reperesnt individuals, not organizations. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 08:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because it has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your username gives the impression that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or website, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must follow all these steps:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked; and
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
Provide a new username.

To do this, insert the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can search to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is still available.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Euryalus (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: I made a choice as an admin to try and discuss instead of block here, and it appears the user has not edited since I dropped the discussion template here two days ago, so I'm left questioning what preventative purpose is served by this block and why you chose, two days later, to substitute your own judgement for mine? El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 20:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and happy new year. Yes I saw that, and was actually typing a note to you as you replied. Apologies for my slowness in doing that, am on a mobile.

Per our last interaction. Having seen your message to then I would normally be happy to just leave this alone. However in this case the editor not only has a username that is unambiguously associated with a company rather than an individual, but they have also edited main space (not draft or user space) to gratuitously add a link to their company website in a largely unrelated article (and with a pretty misleading edit summary to boot) It is clearly a promotional account, and preventing them from making more promotional edits is within policy.

I appreciate that you have a different approach to some isername/promotional blocks, and I followed the recent RfC with interest in case it led to a policy change. Fwiw I don't agree with its early close, and would have been happy to adopt a different set of rules had one been agreed. But as it stands, accounts named after companies that also edit to add advertising for those companies to main space articles, are reasonable to block. Per the policy they are free to seek an unblock after renaming and ideally indicating they understand the policy about paid editing (note they refer to Kepri Estates as "my company").

Ofc we also have policies such as IAR, and almost all policies have room for discretion and differences of opinion. Per IAR in particular, if you prefer to override policy in this instance you're free to do so, and can do so with my blessing in the spirit of cooperation. But as a statement of the obvious, please keep a close ye on their future edits to ensure they don't immediately return to trying to advertise their business.

And if I could make one additional suggestion, please do reopen the RfC on this topic. Not sure that this case would fall within it given they have promotional mainspace edits, but its clearly something that you and some others feel strongly about and it would be good to have clarity on whether the community as a whole prefers a policy change. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]