User talk:Rtludwig
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Rtludwig, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I noticed that one of your first edits related to University of Maryland University College, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. It is therefore recommended that you request changes on the article talk page rather than editing the article directly.
In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! TSventon (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
July 2023[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.
Request for Unblocking[edit]
Rtludwig (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please review my block, as I was attempting to make factual corrections and thought my identity as a member of the staff of University of Maryland Global Campus was understood. However, I also have researched how to use Wikipedia more transparently and now understand that I can suggest changes and have others review those changes. I believe this block has made me look more in depth about how to be a better Wikipedia user. Bottom line is that it's not simply believing that you are making factual changes and making the page more accurate, but there are rules to follow that are in place to make Wikipedia trustworthy for all.Rtludwig (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not convince me you have read and plan to comply with WP:COI and WP:PROMO. Yamla (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2023 (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.
Unblock Request[edit]
Rtludwig (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I respect the volunteer nature of Wikipedia’s oversight and the important role that editors play in the process. After taking much time also to review the conflict of interest and the paid contributor disclosure policies, I have a much deeper understanding and appreciation for the vital purpose these policies play in keeping the high standards and trust that users have with the platform. Frankly, prior to editing the University of Maryland Global Campus page, I did not have much experience in trying to edit an article and was looking through a different lense (i.e., my focus was on accuracy of the information) and not on the perception of a conflict of interest or the proper way to disclose my relationship to ensure that my edits were properly vetted. However, in the last two months I have educated myself on conflict of interest and promotion and how to use the talk page discussions to ensure that any editing on a page that I have a possible conflict of interest is thoroughly vetted by an independent editor before it can be posted. The conflict of interest rules also help to avoid advocacy, help guide descriptions of a topic toward a neutral point of view, and encourage information about organizations, companies and products to be objective and unbiased. Probably the most important element in this discussion is that the information in an article must be properly sourced. Further, substantive edits to an article should be discussed in the appropriate venue (talk page) and reflect consensus when possible. One particular line struck me in reviewing conflict of interest editing: “Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.” This is important to understand because I believed I was acting in good faith. It’s not about good faith, but about following an accepted process to ensure the integrity of the platform. Rtludwig (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Per below Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Rtludwig (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Orangemike you placed this block. Perhaps you can comment on the reasons for the block. You blocked on 29 July 2023 for undisclosed paid editing. The editor stated his paid position in relation to the subject he has been editing about in a talk page post on 5 September 2019, and he has always had a username which is unambiguously related to the name of the real life person they have declared himself to be, so there was clearly no attempt to hide the paid editing. Of course a mere mention in the middle of a talk page of an article is not a very satisfactory way to disclose paid editing, as it is likely to be overlooked, but the editor has never been asked to do otherwise, and at the time of the block had never been informed of the requirement for disclosure. To me, that all adds up to what looks like a situation where a friendly message explaining the situation and asking for a clear disclosure would have been a better approach than a sudden block without warning, but of course you may be aware of something that I haven't seen and which changes the situation, so I will be grateful if you can clarify the situation for me. (Incidentally, Rtludwig's editing has not been substantially promotional.) JBW (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- The initial disclosure was obscure, and never improved upon. That said: it seems clear that our message was received, and I have no objection to an unblock. Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)