User talk:Mmartinkov

Mmartinkov, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Mmartinkov! 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

16:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021[edit]

Hello Mmartinkov. The nature of your edits 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:Mmartinkov. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Mmartinkov|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. CUPIDICAE💕 17:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for reaching out. I am not being paid for the work that I am doing, however, if I give off the appearance of doing so should I just go ahead an submit a disclosure in order to avoid any issues? Mmartinkov (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what would be the best course of action in order to continue editing in accordance with Wikipedia rules Mmartinkov (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you were not hired to edit Draft:Spencer Moeller? I advise you, strongly, to re-read the warning I gave you and applicable policies as failure to disclose your status as a paid editor is a violation of the terms of use and can result in your account being blocked and/or banned indefinitely. CUPIDICAE💕 18:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, I was not paid to edit Spencer Moeller's account. I am a third party that is interested in updating his page and remove it from draft status. Nonetheless, I would like to edit his page and if that means providing some sort of disclosure, I am happy to do it. To reiterate: I AM NOT BEING PAID TO DO THIS. Please advise on next steps. Mmartinkov (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice[edit]

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 a 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.

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not engaged in any sort of editing for payment and would be happy to provide any evidence necessary to prove it. Certain users have supposedly brought "off-wiki" evidence that suggests that I am engaging in activities in violation of Wikipedia TOS. I would like to see this evidence in order to properly defend my position. I understand that previous edits to the page at hand were made by nefarious users, however, I am not those users and do not have the same intentions. Please see this thread for reference: Wikipedia:Help desk#Unable to remove page from draft status

I have read the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements
I am not being compensated for edits and am only associated to the page as an objective observer of Moeller's journey to professional soccer
I intend to learn more about the charges being brought against me before editing further<nowiki> Mmartinkov (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Offwiki evidence is compelling. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2021 (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.

I will gladly provide the evidence I sent to ArbCom on wiki if this user gives permission and it is allowed (with arbcom's permission.) CUPIDICAE💕 15:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please give me insight into this compelling off-wiki evidence? Mmartinkov (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen it, it's not to your benefit if any of this is aired on-wiki. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]