User talk:Dfunk006

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Dfunk006, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Template:BFWA films, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! The Avengers (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:BFWA films[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Template:BFWA films, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Avengers (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:BFWA celebrities[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Template:BFWA celebrities, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Avengers (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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 sock puppet, 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. Mkdw ^talk 12:49, 24 October 2015 (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).

Dfunk006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just want to clarify that this account is my own and not a sockpuppet of any other account. You can also verify my twitter account: https://twitter.com/dfunk006 which was created in 2011. Let me know if there is any other proof required. I have made few but constructive edits on wikipedia on topics where information on wikipedia was not available, hoping it will be beneficial to the wikipedia community. I have not violated any Wikipedia policies to the best of my knowledge, however, if I have overlooked anything, do let me know so that it is not repeated in the future. Hoping this block is lifted. Dfunk006 (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As noted, the case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rikki233752. You may want to address the obvious relationship with the other account. Please also note our terms of use require disclosure of paid editing; I note that you've made promotional edits in the past related to your employer and clients. Kuru (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2015 (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.

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).

Dfunk006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The other account, i.e. user Rikki233752 in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rikki233752 is a colleague of mine. We share the same network connection in office, so it is possible that we may have made edits from a similar IP address while editing at work. However, we operate our own accounts independently and exclusively of each other and have in no way indulged in sock puppetry or inappropriate uses such as misleading, deceiving, vandalising or disrupting. If you take a look at our respective edits, you will see that we are not editing the same articles, nor are we participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute. As far as paid edits go, I have NOT made any edits to Wikipedia for which I have been paid for by my employer or a client. Could you kindly let me know what promotional edits you are referring to so that I can clarify the same? Thanks Dfunk006 (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per User:Bbb23's comments below, try again in three months; if there isn't any additional sock or "colleague" COI edits during that time, an unblock will be reconsidered. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:38, 26 October 2015 (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.

Except that you have edited the same articles, the now deleted Foyr for example. You've added material to promote your client and your firm here. You've both also heavily promoted the "BFWA" entity - is there a conflict of interest you'd like to disclose there? Surely, it is clear why people may feel that you have been editing less-than-ethically here? I would not be in favor of unblocking until you've made a commitment to cease any more self-promotion of your COI. Kuru (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: Currently, my account has been blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:Rikki233752 that was created to violate Wikipedia policy, not for editing less-than-ethically or because of Conflict of Interest. I have verified my identity, clearly addressed the relationship with the other account and there is no other evidence of my account being used for illegitimate reasons. Even in the example you mentioned of the now deleted Foyr, I have NOT contributed to the discussion as to whether it should be included in Wikipedia, neither have I contested in its deletion, thereby not creating any illusion of support and violating any wikipedia policies of sock-puppeteering. I do not think that my account should be blocked because it is being considered as a sock puppet. If there are doubts over Conflict of Interest, they should be investigated and dealt with separately as per wikipedia COI policy and I will be more than happy to address those concerns, but in no way should that be used to block an account for a different reason altogether. I sincerely hope that this block is lifted. Thanks Dfunk006 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could, of course, cover it now as the question has been asked. I'd also note that the COI spamming is what lead to this discussion in the first place. I'd be happy to suggest a path forward, but at this point you don't seem to acknowledge the problem. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that when an editor, blocked for any specified reason, requests unblock, then a reviewing admin is both allowed and expected, as part of the review procedure, to highlight any other concerns that may themselves have been a reason to block had the other reason not been stipulated.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: Well, if COI spamming was the case, then some sort of warning would have been nicer than to be blocked for sock puppeteering. Anyway, I shall try and clarify the COI problem. 1) I have NOT made any edits on wikipedia for which I have been paid for or received any sort of financial benefits. 2) I am connected to a bunch of startups and generally like to contribute on startups and grow the startup ecosystem. I also give startup advice on quora sometimes. 3) My edits on wikipedia have majorly been on startups, be it Foyr, BFWA, Housing.com or BankBazaar. 4) None of the edits I have made have been biased in any manner - they have been neutral, backed with relevant sources, and made with the purpose of contributing towards wikipedia. For example, for actress Wamiqa Gabbi, her birthday was missing on wikipedia and the only source where that information was available was on BFWA, so it made sense to add it, while citing BFWA as an external link. Similarly, for actress Kyra Dutt, her career info on wikipedia was wrong and was corrected with the help of BFWA. Even IMDB (which is an external link to that page) does not have her career info. Apart from these 2 edits, I have not added any other BFWA links - so I'm not sure if this even qualifies for COI spamming. Moreover, the last link was added on 4th September, more than 1 and a half months ago. 4) I'm relatively new here (started editing slightly more than 3 months ago with only a few edits ) so if I'm breaking something, a little heads up before a ban would really help! I hope I have clarified everything - if there is any other information I can help you with, do let me know. Thanks Dfunk006 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep this simple, so I'll ask one question at a time: Do you and Rikki currently have a conflict of interest with BFWA? Kuru (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru:To put it simply, yes.

Okay. Does it make sense that adding links to your sites, and adding positive material about your firm and clients at least gives off the appearance of impropriety? Does it make sense that people who have worked for a decade on this encyclopedia are at least uncomfortable when PR/marketing/entrepreneurs operate in what appears to be a gray space? Kuru (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: Yes, it does.

I'd be happy to advocate to the blocking administrator, if you will agree to avoid any future additions that you have a conflict of interest in, or to limit yourself to the article's talk pages to make recommendations in those situations. Kuru (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: Even if such additions are unbiased (i.e factual data from an authentic source or from a neutral point of view) and making the articles better and more complete?

Then convincing someone on the article's talk page should be trivial, or by simply using a reliable source that does not link back to your site. Meanwhile, there are 4,995,252 other articles you could be improving without straying into an ethical gray area. You are here to improve the encyclopedia, correct? Kuru (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: That is correct. Although the dilemma is that the topics that I might be interested in, or have information on or expertise in, are the topics I might also have a conflict with. Anyway, I shall take your suggestion on limiting to article's talk pages to make recommendations in a COI situation and using a reliable source that does not link back to my site. Thanks Dfunk006 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know when you've agreed to the condition. Kuru (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: As stated earlier, I have agreed to the condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfunk006 (talk • contribs)

I'll jump in here. This is a WP:CHECKUSER block. As such, it can only be lifted or reduced with the permission of a CheckUser. Kuru, whose opinion I respect, can of course advocate that you be unblocked, but I still would have to agree to it. I've seen nothing here that would convince me to unblock you. You created Template:BFWA celebrities and Template:BFWA films, as well as the documentation for each. Both templates were deleted per WP:CSD#G11. The account you claim belongs to your colleague added at least one of those templates to articles. Even though you (finally) admit to the BFWA conflict, regardless of what you think, promoting that entity is considered disruptive. I'm willing to revisit the issue of your being unblocked after at least three months has gone by with no evidence of further disruption if you wish to make another unblock request at that time.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I have added BFWA links to precisely 2 articles and in both those articles valuable information from BFWA has been added to the articles, which make the article better (the changes from the articles haven't been reverted yet even though the link has been removed). As per my discussion with Kuru, I have understood that this is a grey area with a possible conflict of interest and have agreed to limit myself to article talk pages in a scenario like this. Moreover, isn't it convincing enough that the last disruptive edit (i.e. one involving BFWA) I made was almost 2 months ago (i.e. on 4th September, 2015) and I have not made any other disruptive edits (involving BFWA) since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfunk006 (talk • contribs)

By creating the now-deleted templates, it's clear that you were making a cautious but deliberate effort to establish BFWA as a legitimate link. However sneaky, promotion is still promotion, and we've had a lot of practice at spotting it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: Nothing I did was under the hood - all edits were made while being signed in and no IP edits were made by me. Whether BFWA is a legitimate source or not was to be decided by the community, not me. I only put it out there for someone to see if it was useful. I mean the site does source a lot of its information from production houses and artist managers directly. It also has a subscription from Getty Images for copyrighted images. I myself have attributed to it on wikipedia only twice - both in legitimate ways. I understand that the approach was not correct - it should have been discussed in the talk page rather than making the edit myself due to a potential conflict of interested as highlighted by Kuru, but the edits themselves were legitimate and haven't been reverted yet. I'm relatively new here - had anyone warned me or raised any issues with me regarding this, I would have made sure that this would not have continued. However, I was blocked without any warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfunk006 (talk • contribs)

December 2015[edit]

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

Dfunk006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello @Bbb23:, it has been more than 3 months since I made my last edit (last edit made on 4th September, 2015). As discussed with @Kuru:, I have understood the reason for being blocked and acknowledge not to make edits that violate Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. I hope you can revisit this issue now as I feel this block is no longer necessary. Thanks. Dfunk006 (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

User agrees to follow COI policies moving forward. only (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if you read the discussion above carefully, it's 3 months from the end of October when you were blocked. That would be the end of January 2016. However, if Kuru wants to consider your request now, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: @Kuru: - Happy New Year to both of you! Just checking in to see if there is any update on this request. Cheers! Dfunk006 (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 has indicated that there is something more to this than is obvious; as such he'll need to resolve the unblock. Kuru (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: I'm not sure what that means exactly. Bbb23 indicated that he's fine if you are willing to consider the unblock request now. Dfunk006 (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to another ping) I spent an hour or so researching the background here on and off-wiki about three months ago, seeded with the identity provided above. It was clear that this is two individuals who often co-start entrepreneurial efforts. I also constructed a list of a dozen or so domains to watch for future promotional activities, and will continue to watch them. Bbb23 has indicated that there is some other reason for maintaining the block, and I respect that. As I do not have access to that information, this is his action to resolve. Kuru (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuru and Only, this unblock request has a tortured history. I'm not going to review it. My biggest concern is the promotional nature of Dfunk006's edits. Above the recent unblock request, Dfunk006 agreed to Kuru's condition "to avoid any future additions that you have a conflict of interest in, or to limit yourself to the article's talk pages to make recommendations in those situations." That's a major step in the right direction. @Kuru, would you be willing to monitor Dfunk006's contributions to make sure they follow the condition? Also, I'd like to change the phrase "to avoid any" to "not make any", meaning making it mandatory. Finally, I'd like the condition to remain at the top of this Talk page for some period of time, at least three months, preferably six. If I can't get everything I'm asking for, I'm open to discussion, and that would include Only's input if they wish to comment. If all my requests are agreed to, either Only or Kuru can unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is your unblock request to resolve, along with associated follow-up. I am not your clerk. Kuru (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: Apparently I've touched a nerve (sadly not the first time). I won't unblock for the reasons expressed above. Just to clarify, though, I was not the blocking administrator. Nor is this a checkuser block. Therefore, an administrator may unblock Dfunk006 without my or another CheckUser's permission. I'll keep this page on my watchlist in case someone has a question for me. Otherwise, I have nothing else to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: As per our discussion, you said you'd be willing to revisit the unblock after 3 months has gone by. It has been 3 months since the end of October when I was blocked. Would you be willing to consider the unblock now? Dfunk006 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: @Kuru: @Only: Any news on this? I can see that the unblock request is still on hold. Dfunk006 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: @Kuru: Thank you for the unblock! Is it ok to remove all the discussions from my talk page and start fresh? Dfunk006 (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]