User talk:Rapture's Andrew Ryan

January 2019

Hello Rapture's Andrew Ryan. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Nadia's Initiative, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Rapture's Andrew Ryan. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Rapture's Andrew Ryan|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. wumbolo ^^^ 21:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - "The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic" - I don't. Please stop putting this on my talk page.

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

TonyBallioni (talk) 04:10, 28 January 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).

Rapture's Andrew Ryan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I'd like to request an unblock. Andrea and I are two different people. I'm at her place a lot so I use her computers sometimes. She asked me to look at Nadia's Initiative. I know now that that is against the rules and I'm sorry. I also read that there are multiple IP address logins - I've only ever logged in on two, maybe three places. The computer I'm on now has a dynamic IP address, can that make it look like different places? Also, I can't find it again, but there was a note somewhere that said we were 'spamming' the same pages. As far as I know the only page we have in common is Nadia's Initiative. I don't think that would fall under spamming, but I obviously am not 100% on the rules here. Thanks for your time! Rapture's Andrew Ryan (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below. This was a clear violation of WP:MEAT, WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO and you've been less than fully honest during this process. Yamla (talk) 11:24, 29 January 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.

I buy the working together situation. I do have a question though: could you explain your username? TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: cf. Andrew Ryan (BioShock) - not a promotional username. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be willing to accept the "working together" explanation (although we still don't allow that), save for the fact that above, you have categorically stated that you have no paid conflict of interest, while User:Andrea Burgess claims she does. I think that discrepancy needs explaining before an unblock is considered. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, if Andrea has a financial stake or conflict of interest in promoting a topic and if you edited on her behalf or at her request, that conflict of interest transfers on to you and your statement above, explicitly denying this, is deliberately and maliciously misleading. You need to explain this and you need to specify how exactly you would avoid all future conflicts of interest. --Yamla (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugggh. Over at User talk:Andrea Burgess, Andrea discloses that your relationship is closer than you've listed here. I'm sorry, but at this point it just looks like you are going out of your way to mislead us and I'm going to go and decline your unblock request as a result. --Yamla (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

The Arbitration Committee has reviewed a private appeal from this user and decided to unblock their account. – Joe (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]