User talk:EditorMax of RichmondFR

July 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "RichmondFedEditor", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 23:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post 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 a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

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.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. Orange Mike | Talk 23:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

1. My name RichmondFedEditor is not an organization name. It designates me (an editor) individually, in the nature of "Mark at WidgetsUSA" or "FoobarFan87." The name is not shared. I am happy to propose a new name if there is a problem with my current one. 2. Regarding my proposed contribution: To the best of my knowledge, I was complying with Wikipedia conflict of interest policy and best practices by suggesting an edit via an edit request on the article's Talk page while noting my potential conflict of interest. The article in question is https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Switchboard_operator. In particular, I was suggesting a link to a relevant article in a noncommercial publication. If I made my suggestion in a manner that violated Wikipedia policy, I would be sincerely grateful for guidance. Thank you for your time in addressing this request. RichmondFedEditor (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2020 (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.

"RichmondFedEditor" is still too generic, as that name could theoretically be used by anyone working at the Federal Reserve in Richmond. Your username needs to indicate that a specific individual is exclusively operating your account. You don't need to use your real name or any proper name. A format like "Username of RichmondFR" or similar. You will also need to formally comply with the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New username

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

EditorMax of RichmondFR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

EditorMax of RichmondFR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Proposing a new username to comply with policy per message of 331dot on my Talk page, to be unambiguous that the username is not shared. I will also follow the guidance from 331dot regarding the paid editing policy. RichmondFedEditor (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I would like to see, as Orangemike asked, that you are interested in contributing to areas where you have no conflict of interest before unblocking you. Otherwise, it seems that you are just here to spread the news about the publications the Fed puts out. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike, they've been making edit requests so I'm considering unblocking, but I would want to hear any comments you might have. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that Max must make it clear that they understand: promotion of the Richmond Fed and its publications, even if fully disclosed, is still promotion. Wikipedia does not exist to promote your cause or institution, no matter how noble you consider it to be. What other edits does Max propose to make, entirely unrelated to the Richmond Fed and its publications? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, EditorMax, I would like to know that as well. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will not make any edits to article pages regarding my employer or its content. I appreciate that my conflict of interest, as well as concerns about promotion, would make that inappropriate. What I would like to do, if acceptable, is what I did on the Switchboard operator and Janice Eberly Talk pages: to add an edit request on an article Talk page proposing a link to relevant content. In keeping with the article referenced by Orangemike on anti-promotion norms (thank you), I would present the information on the suggested articles "in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." I would then accept the judgment of the editor reviewing the request as to the relevance and value of the content I've suggested. I would note my affiliation in connection with my edit requests and would also add it to my user page once I have access to editing it. I would carefully observe the policies on COI and promotion. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. EditorMax of RichmondFR (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: 331dot, can I request your further consideration? And is this the right place to do so? Before your statement declining my request, I didn't understand that making non-COI contributions is a condition of participating as an editor. While it was not originally my plan for my near-term edits, I would be very interested in contributing links to relevant non-Fed economic research. For example, the Wikipedia article Non-compete_clause lacks any discussion of economic research on the effects of these clauses, a gap that I could and would like to partially fill. EditorMax of RichmondFR (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have reviewed a request, I cannot review another; you may make another request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request (follow-up request)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am making a second request for unblocking because I misunderstood the expectations about the scope of an editor's contributions. The first reviewing administrator advised me that he or she cannot re-review my request and that the appropriate option is for me to lodge a second request. As I understand, I was initially blocked on the basis of two concerns: (i) My original user name was not clearly an individual name as opposed to a shared institutional one. My understanding is that my new user name has resolved this concern. (ii) My suggestions of links to content of my institution on article Talk pages were inconsistent with rules on conflicts of interest or promotion. I believe my representations on this subject were satisfactory to the first reviewing administrator. (To recap: I stated that I had not and would not make any edits directly to article pages regarding my employer or its content. I noted that my intention was to do what I had done on the Switchboard operator and Janice Eberly Talk pages, that is, to add an edit request on an article Talk page proposing a link to relevant noncommercial content. Per rules against promotion, I would present the information on the suggested articles in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. I would accept the judgment of the editor who resolved the edit request as to the relevance and value of the content I had suggested. I would note my affiliation in connection with my edit requests and would also add it to my user page once I have access to editing it.) A third concern, however, emerged during the review process. The reviewer declined my request on the basis that I did not express a desire to contribute edits unrelated to the ones described above. I understand why the reviewer interpreted my comments in that way, but my not expressing such a desire was the result of a misunderstanding on my part: To be specific, I did not understand that making non-COI contributions is a condition of participating as an editor. While it was not originally my plan, I would be very interested in contributing links to relevant non-Fed economic research. For example, the Wikipedia article Non-compete_clause lacks any discussion of economic research on the effects of these clauses, a gap that I could and would like to partially fill. Another example of an article to which I would contribute without reference to my institution’s content is the article Economies_of_agglomeration, which does not include a reference to the seminal writing in that area by Alfred Marshall. (I hope this request will lead to my account being unblocked. But if it does not, I would be grateful if the associated IP address could be unblocked, if it is currently blocked, for the benefit of others at my institution who might like to contribute in the future and who would be deterred by the need to request an unblock. I would refrain from contributing content relevant to my institution under another user name or as an anon.) Thank you for your consideration. EditorMax of RichmondFR (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked based on editor's explicit commitment to contribute more broadly to this project. Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks - I have added the article you suggested to the further reading section of Economics of climate change (as it will likely be renamed soon from Economics of global warming). As well as this one I think quite a lot of the Wikipedia articles in Category:Economics and climate change are rather out of date, perhaps they have lacked recent attention from economics experts such as yourselves. So if you or any of your colleagues have the time and are interested in updating them that would be great. As I understand Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is not a commercial organisation I think there would not be much conflict of interest in you making edits so long as you are not just using them as an excuse to link your own publications. Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change is quite active at the moment but as far as I know there is no-one there yet who knows much about economics. If your colleagues are new to editing Wikipedia there is a 3 minute video guide [here] and if they have any questions please ask, for example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the appropriateness of this editor's edit requests

I am responding here to a question that Graywalls asked me about the appropriateness of this editor's edit requests. Above at § Unblock request (follow-up request), EditorMax of RichmondFR said: I did not understand that making non-COI contributions is a condition of participating as an editor. While it was not originally my plan, I would be very interested in contributing links to relevant non-Fed economic research. That's essentially an admission that EditorMax of RichmondFR's "original plan" was to cite Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond publications (especially, apparently, the magazine Econ Focus), and the editor has so far mostly (except for a small unrelated edit to 3 or 4 articles) stuck to the original plan instead of editing more widely. The editor has made requests to cite Richmond Federal Reserve publications on about 15 talk pages. An interesting aspect of this case is that the Fed is an independent agency of the United States government, therefore it may be true (though I'm not sure) that Richmond Federal Reserve publications are in the public domain in the U.S., as described in Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States.

The important question here is: Do EditorMax of RichmondFR's edit requests contribute to Wikipedia's purpose? My initial thought is that the editor's requests (for example, here) to add links to "External links" sections do not contribute to Wikipedia's purpose: per WP:LINKFARM, Wikipedia is not a repository of external links; building an encyclopedia should focus on adding content, not on adding WP:LINKSPAM. But, in contrast, some of the editor's requests to add content (for example, this one on sources of U.S. labor market data) seem to be providing a public service. So my initial conclusion is that these edit requests are appropriate as long as the editor stays focused on what is best for Wikipedia readers and improving the content of Wikipedia articles, and not on using Wikipedia as a PR vehicle for Fed publications. The editor could continue to gain trust by not focusing exclusively on requests to cite Fed publications, and by phrasing edit requests so that it is clear that the purpose is to improve the articles and not to advertise Fed publications. Biogeographist (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for context. The user above and I engaged in a brief discussion on, broadly speaking, concerns of this nature at Wikipedia_talk:Spam#We_need_a_good_essay_about_academic_citation_spamming Graywalls (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment that some of my edit requests to add content seem to be providing a public service and that these edit requests are appropriate as long as I stay focused on what is best for Wikipedia readers and improving the content of Wikipedia articles. This is great encouragement and guidance for me. I've responded further at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. EditorMax of RichmondFR (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]