User talk:Scadstads
April 2025
[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. If this block is based off of private evidence, it can additionally be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en
wikimedia.org. For an unblock 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.
Administrators: if this block includes a Volunteer Response Team ticket number, this block was placed as part of the conflict of interest VRT queue and the user must not be unblocked without the express consent of a user with access to the queue.
Scadstads (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a paid editor, and you do not have any actual evidence. why don't you retract your calumny before your corrupt practices are documented in the mainstream press? Scadstads (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Go right ahead. We don't take well to threats. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:50, 17 April 2025 (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.
Cabayi e-mailed me asking me for the "evidence" that led to my blocking this user for UPE. Because it was unclear to my why they were asking, in particular because there is no outstanding unblock request from the user, I raised the issue at User talk:Cabayi#Your e-mail. As you can see, Cabayi's final request was based on WP:ADMINACCT. My response follows.
I rarely block users for UEP because, unless it is obvious, e.g., the user effectively confessed but without disclosing, the evidence required for such a block is muddy. In this instance, it was based only on circumstantial evidence. The user created their account on February 7, 2025. Their first edit was to create Draft:Susan Roley Malone about an FBI agent with no apparent notability. They did not use the WP:AFC process. They made all their edits to the draft on the 7th.
After a gap of a few weeks with no edits, they created Draft:Hye-Sook Park about a Korean-American astro-physicist. This was a much more fleshed out draft than the first. Again, they did not use the AFC process. Again, they made all their edits to the draft on the same day.
Another gap, and on March 7, they edited an existing page, Draft:Phoebe Davies, about a Welsh artist, created on February 20 by another editor. Still on March 7, Scadstads edited two more existing drafts, one about an Indian musician, and the other about an Indian filmmaker.
After a gap of 10 days, on March 17, they created Draft:Liz Ann Sonders about an American investment banker. This was more like the FBI agent, short but perhaps more notable.
Two weeks later on March 31, they edited Draft:Jamila Awad about an Egyptian actress, which although still existing as a draft, also exists as an article, which Scadstads also edited.
On April 17, they took an existing draft and moved it to article space on their own (can't quite figure out the history of that one), and heavily edited it: Patty Gerstenblith, an American professor.
It has been my experience that unlike COI editors, who normally edit just one article or multiple related articles, UPEs are more diverse, creating and editing pages about a wide range of different subjects, as Scadstads has done. They get "assignments" and proceed accordingly. A good job shop hires editors who demonstrate proficiency in creating and editing pages on Wikipedia, which is not all that easy for the vast majority of new editors, and which this user has, in my view, shown from their very first edit.
Finally, although not relevant to my reasons for blocking, the user's unblock request was unusual. Calumny? Now there's a word I haven’t heard except in Italian opera. I've been called "corrupt" before but why would the "mainstream press" give a hoot about any of this, and why would the user want to get my actions "documented". That's all I have. Sorry for the length, although, other than Cabayi, I'm not sure who's going to read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.