User talk:Johnoblong

Thanks for uploading File:Bark-com search example Gardeners.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bark-com search example Magicians.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose if you have a WP:COI relating to Bark.com. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnoblong. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Bark.com (company), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bark-com search example Gardeners.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bark-com search example Magicians.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 an undisclosed 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Forgive my ignorance. I was adding content helpful to users to the page of an organisation I work for.

Initially, there was a request to add more citations for some of the edits, which was done. Those that were potentially promotional in nature were omitted in subsequent edits In terms of the requests -

1) Yes, and I'm happy to disclose I have a relationship with this organisation. I think having this on my talk page is sufficient, if I'm reading the article correctly.

2) I am employed and remunerated by Bark.com

3) My suggestion would be to use the request edit feature, so that edits are approved/discussed before going live and/or state a reminder of my affiliation in the edit summaries.

Johnoblong (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, this was not an attempt at "adding content helpful to users", as Huon clearly demonstrates below, it was a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia for marketing/advertising purposes and was clearly aimed at benefiting one party only, Bark.com.

(To reviewers of any future unblock requests, I would oppose any unblock that allows Johnoblong to edit in the subject areas of Bark.com, its competitors, or its general business sector. Even with that prohibition, I would only agree to an unblock if Johnoblong were to reveal the position he holds with respect to Bark.com - I'm reasonably confident I know what it is, but I can't violate WP:Outing policy. Any other admin is welcome to email me if they think that information might be relevant to a future unblock request.)

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:40, 18 April 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.

Hi Johnoblong. First of all, no worries: This appears to be a genuine mistake.

I'll need to criticize the behavior, though, especially your editing of competitors' articles to include the name of your own business. I'm not a lawyer, and legal issues are not really at discussion here, but that didn't make a good impression (see WP:COVERT for a possible concern). A connected contributor editing the article about their employer isn't unusual; we deal with these cases multiple times a day. A connected contributor editing competitors' articles in this way exceeds the usual level of policy violations.

• Regarding 1), almost correct: The option "a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions" in WP:PAID refers to the article's talk page, not your user talk page. You can open the article's talk page by clicking the "Talk" tab above the article, and you can click "request corrections on or suggest content" to easily use the feature mentioned in 3).
• Regarding 2), this may seem redundant or unnecessarily insistent of me, but your request contains the unspecific text "this business"; you should probably replace this by the business name. When unblocked, I recommend adding the template "{{paid}}" to User:Johnoblong, your user page.
• Regarding 3), this does seem to be a good idea, and I (or, probably, multiple other administrators) would be willing to unblock you on the condition that this feature is always used in the future instead of directly editing the article. This would alleviate pretty much any concerns left about unblocking, since you have honestly disclosed your affiliation after a genuine mistake.

On your talk page, which you are currently reading, other editors had attempted to contact you about this before. Their messages sadly remained unanswered; their advice remained unheard. Before unblocking, we need to be sure that future concerns voiced on your talk page are not ignored or overlooked; please take a moment to affirm this as well.

I think we're getting towards an unblock, but the points I have now mentioned should be addressed directly. I'm optimistic and sure that your following answer will alleviate the remaining concerns.

Thank you very much in advance and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree thanks for clarifying.
Have updated the copy above and added the {{paid}} bits below, as requested. I think the block precludes me from adding WP:PAID (or even suggesting it seems) but will do this if/when I'm unblocked.

Hopefully that's all you need - have a fab day.

Johnoblong (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)John[reply]

This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Bark.com Johnoblong (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC) for their contributions to Wikipedia.[reply]

Hi Johnoblong, almost: Could you take a moment to directly, clearly affirm that you'll respond to (or at least read) other users' concerns voiced on this talk page in the future? If I understand correctly, you didn't even notice them before the block; I'll need to be sure that future complaints would be noticed earlier. The whole blocking would have been unnecessary if Jtbobwaysf, a user who had messaged you above and on the article's talk page, had been successful in reaching you with their concerns. Can you, for example, promise that you'll look at the notification bell icon at the top of any Wikipedia page, to see if it contains a new notification, before making future edits? You are not required to respond quickly to such messages – Wikipedia is not compulsory – but you are expected to do so before you make more edits, when returning from a break. You are also not really required to answer all such messages; you are just expected to read and understand them. Reading and understanding Jtbobwaysf's message, or asking for clarification if needed, would have prevented the need for this block in the first place.

Thank you very much in advance and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: After being unblocked, before making other edits, please click the following link, do not change anything in the editor, only replace the edit summary "Undid revision 951093321 by ToBeFree (talk)" by "Disclosing paid contributions". Then click "Publish changes". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bark.com&action=edit&undoafter=951093263&undo=951093321

For what it's worth, I am opposed to an unblock. This is a blatantly obvious attempt to drive business to their company from a competitor's article. Funny how adding Bark.com as a competitor to the HomeAdvisor article was supposed to be "content helpful to users" - but why not point out in the Bark.com article that HomeAdvisor has the better reviews, with a link to their website? Wouldn't that have been equally "helpful to users"? No, that wasn't what these edits were about; they were meant to be helpful to one party only, namely Bark.com. Afterwards lying about one's intent and pretending that spam is altruism is an indication that we can expect further attempts at such "helpfulness", and that unblocking this user would not improve the encyclopedia but, at best, would soak up the time of volunteers who have to deal with requests to get the spammiest edits made that Johnoblong can get away with. Huon (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree Regarding: "Could you take a moment to directly, clearly affirm that you'll respond to (or at least read) other users' concerns voiced on this talk page in the future?" - Yes, this is no problem at all - I saw the emails that I had a message but couldn't find the content it related to. I'm learning a lot about how to edit (and what is, and is not permissible). Apologies again.

Hi there Huon Happy to engage with you on this. As I've stated about I am employed by Bark.com. I have no issue with this being added to the Bark.com page, though I believe that particular section has been removed for now anyway. As stated above I future edits will use the request edit feature, so that edits are approved/discussed before going live and/or state a reminder of my affiliation in the edit summaries. I trust this will be sufficient. Johnoblong (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. That does not address your inappropriate conduct nor your misrepresentation of said inappropriate conduct, and it gives no assurance that unblocking you wouldn't just be a waste of the time of the volunteers who have to deal with your requests. You are not here to improve the encyclopedia but to promote your employer. I fully agree with what Boing! said Zebedee wrote above. Huon (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon. As I said - happy to engage with you. What assurance would you consider appropriate here? As I've said, I'm happy to add in details on HomeAdvisor's reviews to the Bark.com page, as you suggest. Johnoblong (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's what Huon was actually suggesting you do, I think you have missed the point completely. As I read it, Huon was using that as an illustration that you are here for marketing purposes and are lying when you claim otherwise. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boing! said Zebedee. I understood his point but saw little benefit in arguing. Had my intention been to "drive business" as you put it, I would likely have engaged in far more motivating marketing language than the neutral tone I deliberately chose. I can see that, in the view of you and some others, this was deemed inappropriate - for which I have apologised. There seems little point in having a policy on allowing paid contributions, where these are signposted as they will be going forward, if when someone tried to do this in line with the policy, they're disallowed from doing so. What would be your suggestion on an appropriate way for me to add content to the article in a fair and reasonable manner, and in line with the various policies on the site please?

If you are doing it for the purpose of marketing, then you can't contribute here, it's as simple as that. Wikipedia is not a free marketing platform. By the way, did you tell us what your role is at Bark.com yet? I think it's very relevant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boing! said Zebedee I believe you mean Bark.com. Do you have a "current conduct issue of concern." preventing me being unblocked, rather than one relating to previous conduct please? If so, please would you advise what that is - so I can address it in line with the Blocking Policy. If there's a specific policy stating I should disclose my position then please would you point me in the right direction? It does feel a little like I made a mistake by being new and am being punished for it. Johnoblong (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, your mistake was trying to use Wikipedia for marketing purposes, and then lying about it. I corrected my typo here, but my correction got over-written by your edit. I'm not interested in pandering to your evasion any further. If you want to make a new unblock request, feel free to do so and another admin will review it. I will very likely oppose it, and I will offer what I know about who you are and your position at Bark.com to any reviewing admin. I can't say what another reviewing admin might decide, but I have a lot of experience of dealing with marketing people abusing Wikipedia, and I rate your chances of being unblocked while sticking with your current stance as close to zero. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HI Boing! said Zebedee Sorry your edit got overwritten - didn't even know that was possible! What "stance" is it you're referring to please? I've confirmed my employer, that I understand and will comply with the policy, and that I'll use the "request edits" feature and that I'll address concerns raised on here before continuing - as I'm doing now, for example.Johnoblong (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that, no matter how much you claim you will comply with policy, you are not allowed to use Wikipedia for marketing purposes. Period (as our US friends say so effectively). You know that is your motivation, I know that is your motivation, and you know I know that is your motivation. I know your position at Bark.com, and you know I know it. Make a new unblock request if you want, or don't. I have no more to say to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]