Gdimarco7

July 2021

Hello Gdimarco7. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to ICM Partners, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Gdimarco7. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Gdimarco7|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. Melmann 19:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not receiving compensation directly or indirectly for these edits

Gdimarco7, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Gdimarco7! 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 Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

You said above that you're not being compensated. I do not find that believable - your editing behavior suggests that you either work for ICM Partners or are editing on their behalf. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

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).

Gdimarco7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here I was unclear of what a paid contributor is and by the time I figured out I needed to disclose the fact that I was a paid contributor my account was blocked. I would like to request my account be unblocked, so that I can disclose myself as a paid editor on ICM Partners page.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

• Gdmiarco, please expand on what edge case you fall into means you breach our paid-editing rules now you have read them properly, but don't receive anything that could be construed as "direct or indirect" payment for the editing? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and did not understand that my edits were violating COI because I work for ICM Partners. Before I had time to disclose that I was a paid editor, my account was blocked. Our page has now had contributors make ICM Partners page neutral. I would like to have my account unblocked so I can disclose payment, as the issue of self-promoting language has been taken off the page. I have never used Wikipedia before and feel that I should be given a second chance in having my account unblocked now that I understand the nature of the community and what is considered COI and what is not. I will use the talk page from now on and never directly edit as to violate COI. It is difficult to navigate the rules as a beginner.

Hmmm, three questions at this time:

1. If you work for the business, for which I assume you are paid, could you explain how you feel (or felt) that wouldn't fall into either the direct or indirect buckets of being paid?
2. While the majority of your edits are not especially content-changing, though in some cases mildly negative such as changing internal links to external (but going to Wikipedia) links, one particular edit is of concern: ICM Partners has packaged and represents many of the top showrunners, creators and executive producers responsible for some of the biggest hits in scripted and unscripted television.. Could you explain how this could be neutral phrasing, especially as that wording isn't used in the source in the paragraph?
3. You've stated you now understand our PaidCOI policy. You correctly note you'd need to disclose - are you aware of the other principal restriction on paid editors? Please summarise it in your own words. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

As a side-note, if there's an open appeal (blue box) you don't need to create a new one each time to provide additional detail. Just note at the bottom, and remember to add four tildes (~) at the end Nosebagbear (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

One. I did not know whether to consider myself paid directly or indirectly because I work for ICM Partners, because I was not someone directly hired to edit. That is why I was confused of whether to disclose if I was paid and my account became blocked before I could figure that out. Now I see that I need to disclose that I was a paid editor and that I cannot directly edit our page, but rather make suggestions on the Talk Page.

Two. It looks like a contributor has already changed that language to be more neutral and it now reads "ICM Partners' television and motion picture departments represent film actors, actresses, directors and writers. The departments also features a division dedicated to production professionals such as cinematographers, editors, 2nd unit directors, composers, production designers, costume designers and visual effects supervisors. The television department also represents on-air and creative talent." I agree that my edit earlier was self-promotional and what this contributor wrote complies with Wikipedias neutral stand point.

Three. As a paid editor I needed to disclose that I was either being directly or indirectly compensated and confusion aside, I was a paid editor. Directly editing our page was a violation of COI. Moving forward, I will always use the Talk Page and never directly edit. I would love to be unblocked so i can disclose that I was a paid editor and then the tag can be removed from ICM Partners page flagging as 'This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use.' Gdimarco7 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I suggest that you refrain from referring to the ICM Partners article as "our page". It implies a sense of ownership, which is exactly why WP:COI exists. It's an article in an encyclopedia, not an entry in a directory. Matuko (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)