- JamesMcK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "LucaPeterson". The reason given for LucaPeterson's block is: "Spam / advertising-only account".
Decline reason: Now directly blocked as a meatpuppet. Yunshui 雲水 15:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
JamesMcK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Apologies Yunshui, I should have made myself clear. I am a colleague of LucaPeterson and I am working with him to resolve his issue with regards the block placed on his account and our IP. I am satisfied that the reason for our blocking has been provided and discussed. If you are able to provide a method of evidencing that I am acting of my own accord, I am happy to cooperate.
Decline reason:
I would only be willing to unblock you if you declare your conflict of interest, as per WP:COI, and agree to refrain from writing about your company, as requested (but not yet accepted) over at User_talk:LucaPeterson. Yamla (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (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.
Good Afternoon Yamla. Thank you for reviewing my request. this response is understood, I was in the process of adding the COI tag to my user page when the original ban took place rendering my unable to do so. As LucaPeterson has highlighted, he was working to a template using a similar company as an example, without any intention to advertise. This account was created to support only and was never intended to contribute to this process. I am happy to confirm that I will not be writing about my company. JamesMcK (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Yunshui: I'm willing to consider an unblock request on the above basis, that this user will declare the conflict of interest and will avoid writing about their company. What are your thoughts? --Yamla (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Yamla: I'm perfectly satisfied that the individual behind the account is a separate user, and have no issue with unblocking as long as he steers clear of writing about GCV. Personally I would like some indication, per the usual COI unblock expectations, of what JamesMcK intends to edit instead. However, that's just me; you know I trust your judgement on unblock appeals - if you deem the above request sufficient then you'll hear no complaint from me. Yunshui 雲水 15:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Yamla, Yunshui I appreciate your understanding. While I have previous experience of editing Wikipedia, I am still a relatively new user and am happy to take guidance on correct use. On this note, I would appreciate it if you can review my COI after posting to ensure it meets your approval for providing the required information. If you are happy, please let me know how best to alert you. JamesMcK (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have lifted the block with Yunshui's blessing. Yunshui is indeed correct, we normally request an idea of the sorts of edits you'd make instead of writing about your employer, but I'm okay in this case assuming good faith. James, you are unblocked and should declare your conflict of interest. If you are unsure whether or not an edit you are thinking of making would violate your prohibition on writing about GCV, please ask first! --Yamla (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Yamla:Thank you for lifting the ban. I am pleased that you have understood the situation and that you have applied good faith to this situation. I have now added a COI declaration to my user page as per WP:COI, I hope this is acceptable. In terms of the edits I would be likely to make, these would most likely be regarding discussions on relevant changes to UK tax and investment legislation. As a company we take an active interest in our sector and education of investors, this is the purpose of our hoping to contribute to Wikipedia. In this spirit, we had hoped to add our own page to provide a more complete view of the co-investment/crowdfunding space. Would you consider it a breach of our COI to request that a page be created for Growth Capital Ventures through the WP:AFC process? Happy to take your advice on this.JamesMcK (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, this would be inappropriate. Your topic ban prohibits it and you have no history of edits at all, outside of this topic area. So no, stay away from Growth Capital Ventures in your time here. --Yamla (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Yamla:Thank you for lifting the ban. I am pleased that you have understood the situation and that you have applied good faith to this situation. I have now added a COI declaration to my user page as per WP:COI, I hope this is acceptable. In terms of the edits I would be likely to make, these would most likely be regarding discussions on relevant changes to UK tax and investment legislation. As a company we take an active interest in our sector and education of investors, this is the purpose of our hoping to contribute to Wikipedia. In this spirit, we had hoped to add our own page to provide a more complete view of the co-investment/crowdfunding space. Would you consider it a breach of our COI to request that a page be created for Growth Capital Ventures through the WP:AFC process? Happy to take your advice on this.JamesMcK (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)