User talk:Publius2016

Publius2016, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Publius2016! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

March 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for undisclosed paid editing [1]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 24 March 2017 (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).

Publius2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for alleged "undisclosed paid editing." I did not engage in undisclosed paid editing. At the time the CNN article was published, I was not on the payroll of the Corey Stewart campaign, nor did I receive income from any other source for the purpose of editing articles on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

You do not need to receive financial reward to be in violation of WP:PAID and WP:COI. As you only addressed that very limited part, I'm declining your unblock. Yamla (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2017 (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.

Note that the date the CNN article was published is irrelevant in any case. You need to discuss the situation when you made the edits. --Yamla (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2017 (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).

Publius2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not engage in undisclosed paid editing. When I made the edits, I was not on the payroll of the Corey Stewart campaign, nor did I receive income from any other source for the purpose of editing articles on Wikipedia. Corey Stewart was not an employer or client. There were no other relevant connections. I did not receive any payment or other compensation, nor did I contribute to wikipedia on the behalf of somebody who did. After a thorough look at the Conflict of Interest guidelines, I am not aware of any other possible violation. My edits were made solely to clean up and add information to the pages of Virginia political candidates that might be of interest to the public.

Decline reason:

Paid or not, your only purpose here is to promote Corey Stewart in violation of WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2017 (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.

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).

Publius2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My purpose here is not to promote any one candidate or another. I saw that information was lacking for two candidates, and contributed additional information from a neutral perspective. As WP:PROMO states, "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Which is exactly what I have worked to do. I'm not interested in boosting one candidate or another. I understand very clearly that Wikipedia is meant to be a compendium of neutral information. I respect that. I am unsure, at this point, how any of my edits have violated that rule. Cleaning up language and formatting, and contributing additional, cited information does not appear to be in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

Decline reason:

Per below. When the Governor publicly acknowledges you're associated with his campaign, your comments here about "saw that information was lacking for two candidates" can only be called deliberately misleading. Huon (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2017 (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.

The problem is, we have a reliable source (WP:RS) which indicates you worked for Stewart's campaign. You've hedged your wording (for example, "When I made the edits, I was not on the payroll of the Corey Stewart campaign", etc., which is not at all relevant), but haven't addressed the issue head-on. We have a reliable source which claims you are part of the campaign. Either the reliable source is wrong, or you were deeply in violation of WP:COI and WP:PAID. And honestly, I'm not sure what you could say to convince us the source is wrong. Probably the only way to do so is to find another reliable citation showing the first news article was mistaken, and Stewart has refuted the earlier statements. --Yamla (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]