User talk:Encinocasino81

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has been paid by unknown.

I am formally declaring that my account is considered to be paid editor according to Wikiepdia's guidelines

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Encinocasino81 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My account has been randomly blocked for "sockpuppetry" but this account is a standalone account. It is not a sockpuppet of any account. I am not sure why this account was tied to another account and what evidence there is to support this. I am requesting an unblock because this is not a sockpuppet account 331dot (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Encinocasino81 (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Removing the block. Message to follow. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the formatting of your request for proper display. The block was not random. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate that. May I ask, why was this block added if it was not random? Encinocasino81 (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts are not easy to find or randomly come across unless one knows where to look. How did you come to edit that draft? 331dot (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually set out to create the Wikipedia page for a different company, Electric Last Mile Solutions, which I had recently written an article about. I found out however that there has already been a submitted page for them that is pending review (Draft:Electric Last Mile Solutions). I am a Reuters columnist that writes on emerging technology (clean tech, artificial intelligence, cyber, electric vehicles, etc.) I made a Wikipedia account about a month ago with the purpose of generating greater online content about the companies we cover i.e., to have more of an online presence by writing about them through Wikipedia; this in turn creates more "buzz" in the readership market and enables us as columnists to cover them more/produce more articles for our readers. Electric Last Mile Solutions was going to be my first attempt at this.

When typing in Electric Last Mile Solutions in the search box, the box auto suggested the name of this company - Electreon - (I am assuming because they begin with the same initial letters and operate in the same industry) - which I noticed had three draft article submitted for them (and rejected). Obviously, this caught my curiosity as to the number of rejections. I figured it would be good practice, as a new user, to modify the main text and sources according to the feedback comments from the reviewers who rejected the draft (I didn't read the full Talk page text, it seemed like a lot...only those comments on the main draft page, and for the latest rejection version of the three drafts). A few minutes later, I saw your block note. Is there a block on editing this page for all users? Encinocasino81 (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A draft being rejected means that resubmission is not possible, and it really shouldn't be edited unless there has been a dramatic change in circumstances. The draft you edited was actually given a second chance after an initial rejection, and rejected a second time. A user was blocked for editing that draft, and accounts that seem like they were created to edit that draft will be blocked as abuse of multiple accounts. A single person operating multiple accounts and multiple people operating different accounts but editing about the same topic are treated the same.

I would tend to believe your explanation, but it presents some new issues- Wikipedia is not interested in the "online presence" or "buzz" about a topic- those are promotional purposes. Our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. In the case of a company, that is the definition of a notable company. There may be benefits such as you describe for a company or even you personally, but those are on the side and not our goal.

As a columnist editing in relation to your work, you would meet the definition of a paid editor, which requires a formal declaration. You should also read about conflict of interest. However, since you are not a sock puppet, I would be willing to remove the block if you agree to not edit the Electreon draft further and declare your paid status. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. Indeed, Wikipedia serves a unique purpose; if there are companies of interest in my editorial space that have pages on this site, it pretty much serves as a semi "stamp of notability" about the company. It's this notability that generates the buzz and increased online presence/content that serves our purpose as editors to be able to write/cover more angels for our readers. Wikipedia is a great tool in this regard.

To be honest, the Electreon company did seem relatively notable (in my personal opinion, given my knowledge about companies in the same space that I have written about and researched), but when reading its draft again now, I do agree that it's at a stage that might not yet be "Wikipedia notable." I am assuming over time, if this company continues to grow, as with Electric Last Mile Solutions, it would be an appropriate company for inclusion on Wikipedia (it does seem to be on that trajectory at least) - though for this to happen, editors of the site would need to be able to edit its draft page and make updates to it based on recent company developments (this particular industry is changing and growing rapidly) without the worry of being blocked, even if the page has been rejected in the past (because again, companies in this industry grow very fast, very often).

I'd like to work on updating other drafts (and agree to not further edit the Electreon draft at this point) - as a general rule of thumb, though, should I avoid editing drafts that have already been rejected once? I want to help improve articles on companies in my industry of interest, but I don't want to edit/add to a draft page about a company with major recent developments that could result in my account being blocked again just because the draft had already been rejected in the past.

Happy to also declare my paid editor status, and I appreciate the length this site goes to ensure objectivity and neutrality. Are you able to please point me to the page where I can fill out a formal declaration? Encinocasino81 (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PAID which has instructions on how to make a declaration, which you may do on your user page(User:Encinocasino81). If the coding is too complicated, you may just type out a statement. You may edit drafts as long as they have not been rejected; a draft that has only been declined may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, appreciate your assistance and explanations. Encinocasino81 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just made an edit (Special:Diff/1078936804‎) to your userpage. The template you used was not meant for your own page, that template should be placed on any article talk pages you are being paid to edit. In the meantime, I have replaced it with the correct template, and will allow you to update it appropriately. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]