July 2020
edit
Hello Webisy. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Maria Grazia Giammarinaro, 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 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. 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:Webisy. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Webisy|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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Maria Grazia Giammarinaro is one of our customers, but the wikipedia modification is not one of our services. We are doing this work in particular as a personal favor and not for a fee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webisy (talk • contribs)
Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have an undisclosed financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:
- Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
- State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
- Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Webisy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Maria Grazia Giammarinaro is one of our customers, but we don't get paid for the changes on Wikipedia. It's a job we do for free as a favor. It was not our intention to violate the rules, but we don't know how to proceed with the changes without going against the rules. We tried to explain that we do not receive any compensation. If you tell us what the procedure is, we will stick to the rules. We just want to update Maria Grazia Giammarinaro's page by adding the data regarding her last working years. Webisy (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As per below. You won't be unblocked to promote your clients. Yamla (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2020 (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.
- Someone else will review your unblock request, but I will say this - if someone is your "client," then you have a financial interest in them and so I would consider you to be covered by the paid editing policy even if you are not specifically being paid to edit Wikipedia. Additionally, you keep saying "we" - does more than one person have access to this account? GeneralNotability (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with GeneralNotability. This person is a client; even if she is not paying you specifically to write about her on Wikipedia, she is deriving a benefit from you doing it. Unpaid volunteers working for a client are treated as paid editors, so I see no difference here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, what if she published the changes with her account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webisy (talk • contribs)
- That would be conflict-of-interest editing, which is very strongly discouraged. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so how do you suggest proceeding to update the information without breaking any rules? These are only career information updates.
- We really don't have any interest in what a person wants to say about themselves. It's difficult for an article subject to write about themselves with the required objectivity and without a sense of ownership over the content (which is not allowed).
- She or her representatives are welcome to make edit requests on the article talk page (Talk:Maria Grazia Giammarinaro). However, any information to be added or changed must be backed up by reliable, independent sources. Information from unreliable sources won't be considered; this includes but is not limited to: unpublished personal knowledge, self-published sources (e.g. blogs, social media, message forums) and excessive use of primary sources (e.g. official website, interviews). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The change initially included all the sources necessary to demonstrate the truthfulness of the contents. This change, however, was blocked because the sources included publications for the United Nations. These documents, despite being in the public domain, and freely shareable, did not comply with your regulations, so we have removed them.
You can see the history of the page and the first modification made recently (by an account not logged by mistake) with all the links that I have been asked to remove? Can I repeat that to you? There are all the necessary sources from the United Nations, which can be freely published but which in order not to create problems we removed after they had been rejected.
Those are the only sources that, with the specific work of the person, are 100% reliable