User talk:Coachpatrickmarino

December 2019[edit]

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

coachpatrickmarino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I have been editing the city of New Bedford's pages to improve their accuracy. I'm not sure what I got blocked for but of course I understand that advertising and promotion are forbidden. All of the edits made were factual and cited, many of the edits were made simply to update dates and data, while others did expand on existing information. If unblocked I intend to make similar edits that update the page for accuracy and bring key sections current.

Decline reason:

Clear violation of WP:COI and WP:UPE. Yamla (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paid to make edits[edit]

I do not advertise Wikipedia editing, but I have been hired by the City of New Bedford to edit their Wikipedia pages. My contract with the City of New Bedford is for online reputation management, and during our conversations, their wikipedia page came up as something they felt had a bunch of inaccuracies. I've been working to independently improve their page through updating many of the facts with the most recent statistics available, and expanding on short passages to make the page more informative.SouthCoastInbound (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed your account from SouthCoastInbound. Please review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies and explain how your future edits will be consistent with these policies(you will need to comply with those policies if unblocked). Also please note that "mission statements" are wholly unencyclopedic, as Wikipedia is not interested in what any organization wants to say about itself, only in what independent reliable sources state. What an organization considers to be its "mission" can change at any time and is impossible to independently verify. The New Bedford Fire Department or City of New Bedford are free to use their own websites to describe their mission. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for unwittingly violating terms regarding advertising or marketing info, based on posting a mission statement for a city department from their website. I understand that this violates policy. Since that time I have disclosed my conflict of interest in that the city had contracted me to make wikipedia edits. I understand that this is a violation of the conflict of interest policies, although it was unclear in the first article I read that I could not make edits. Initially I thought I could make edits as long as I stuck to guidelines. All the city wishes to do is improve accuracy and expand on information. My edits were all cited with most having strong 3rd party sources. If I cannot make edits, the policy states that I can make suggestions via the TALK section. Because my account is blocked, I cannot do that. I am asking to be unblocked so that I can suggest edits via the TALK section or make other edits where appropriate and not in violation of wikipedia standards.

Decline reason:

After consultation with the blocking administrator, I have decided to decline your request. You say that you have third party sources, but from what I can see most of your edits were sourced to either city or state agency websites, which are first party, not third. There are some cases where that may be appropriate, but Wikipedia is primarily interested in what independent reliable sources state. You will need to better demonstrate that you understand this as part of being unblocked. Being unblocked will also likely involve you agreeing to first tell what other unconnected subjects you want to edit about and building up a good edit history before being permitted to make edit requests about the City of New Bedford. Most of what you attempted to add seems more appropriate for the city's official website(like the number and location of police stations, and the names of city parks) If you make another unblock request, someone else will review it. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2019 (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.

If you don't advertise Wikipedia editing, how did the City of New Bedford come to hire you? 331dot (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just here for your work for the City of New Bedford, or are there other topics you want to contribute about(paid or unpaid)? 331dot (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per my website (https://southcoastinbound.com) I offer digital marketing services to local businesses. One of the services I offer is reputation management, checking out how businesses perform online, monitoring for positive and negative reviews mostly, and strategy. I have no other municipal clients, and I have no clients asking for Wikipedia editing services except for the City of New Bedford. They were looking for online reputation management, and wanted to give me a shot because I'm local. It was part of this conversation that Wikipedia came up. They apparently looked into wikipedia editors, there are literally hundreds all over the world. I advised the city that I had no experience editing wikipedia articles but that I'd give it a shot as part of my service. They provided me with some updated language and I edited some of it into the articles on wikipedia. I didn't use all of it because some of their language was promotional. I only used language I could find citations for. I did independent research to add new facts and figures, particularly to the airport section, but to others as wellCoachpatrickmarino (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your more recent question - I am an avid wikipedia user, I didn't really know how edits got made (other than basically anyone could make edits, and that could affect editorial integrity), so this was an opportunity for me to try it out. If this was successful, I was certainly interested in other editing. Most of my work is with small businesses that do not have wikipedia pages, so I don't have any other professional reasons to edit wikipedia.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked, and I recognize that I should not edit the City of New Bedford page based on conflict of Interest guidelines. The administrator who has most recently reviewed my request states that I have mostly used City of New Bedford sites for my citations as well as that I edited sections (parks and departments) that may have been better suited for the City's own website. I would like to dispute both of these arguments. First, regarding citations, for example, statistics on the Airport page were out of date. My sources include articles from South Coast Today, the Vineyard Gazette, Bridgewater State University, and official FAA data. In that article, only 1 of the edits came from a city owned asset. My edits to the City page included more accurate Airport information based on the data and citations made on that page that have now been rolled back. For the Water section the data in the current data is almost 15 years old, and was updated with new data from south Coast today and other sources. This wouldn't have improved the article from a strict marketing perspective, these were all more accurate and far more up to date facts. The admin also notes that the information regarding parks and police department locations is better suited for the City or Department websites, however, the information on Wikipedia is outdated, and inaccurate, so the edits I made were only made to improve accuracy and update information that is old and no longer accurate. Further, because I am blocked, there is no mechanism in place for me to edit other Wikipedia pages or include suggestions in the TALK section instead of the main page, as is suggested in the conflict of interest pages Instead, the data on the wikipedia pages remains outdated and inaccurate. It is in the best interests of Wikipedia to have up to date information and data on their pages, as Wikipedia is frequently criticized as being an unreliable source of information, particularly in academia, so I'm helping I can help with this for the City pages in some form.]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2019 (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.

Just noting that Wikipedia does not claim to be a reliable source, and should not be used as one, so any criticism in academia is quite correct. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January Unblock request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked. I am only interested in making edits to pages that improve accuracy, and update references. I was blocked for inadvertently posting a 'mission statement,' and using citations that were less than authoritative, as well as having a professional conflict of interest. Having learned that lesson I request to continue to contribute to make important updates to the wikipedia record, using only authoritative sources and disclosing any potential conflicts of interest as required.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2020 (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.