User talk:JohnHamill151

JohnHamill151, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi JohnHamill151! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bsoyka (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, JohnHamill151. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Atheist Alliance International) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Lot of boilerplate above, but this is a personal message. I understand you care deeply about what you are editing about. However, you are too closely connected to the organization for us to allow you to edit it directly. Thus I have blocked you from editing that page, and that page only. You may still use the article's talk page to discuss the matter, propose changes, etc. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:14, 12 August 2021 (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).

JohnHamill151 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe that the approach to "conflict of interest" being taken here is misguided. Every single author on this page has a "conflict of interest" on these terms. The rest of the page was written by current Board members, who have provided and extremely positive slant on their contributions, many of which are assertions of their own wonderfulness with no support. I have been open that I am a former Secretary of the organisation, and thus well-informed. I could recount many detailed criticisms of my own here but I have not done that. I have listed a dispassionate set of facts, each with citations to AAI's own web site to demonstrate them. Where I have referred to specific criticisms it is to articles published by respected human rights organisation that I have no connection to. I suggest that your interpretation of a "conflict of interest" is misguided as it treats every highly slanted positive comment by current members as objective fact, while treating objective facts as suspicious. It would be much better if you merely insisted that contributions are justified with citations, rather than assuming a priori that any criticism is nefarious.

Decline reason:

This is precisely what we consider to be a conflict of interest. You are encouraged to participate in the article through its talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:31, 12 August 2021 (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).

JohnHamill151 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You are correct that I have a conflict of interest according to your definition. I have never sought to hide that I am a former Secretary of AAI, and I disclosed that fact when I added the Criticism section. You haven't addressed the issue I raised in my Unblock Request though. That is, if I have a conflict of interest as a former Secretary adding criticism of AAI, why doesn't the current Secretary have a conflict of interest when adding praise for AAI? Your interpretation of a conflict of interest, decides a priori that praise must be accurate while criticism must be nefarious. This is not a way for you to deal with conflicts of interest, it is merely a way for you to avoid objectivity.

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:51, 15 August 2021 (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).

JohnHamill151 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As a former Secretary of AAI, I would like to ask that conflict of interest interpretations be applied in the same way to me as they are applied to the current Secretary of AAI. That is, the current Secretary of AAI is permitted to make positive comments about AAI so long as they are factually correct and well cited. I would also like to be able to include criticisms of AAI so long as they are factually correct and well cited. To interpret a conflict of interest differently in these two different cases, merely guarantees that the page will lack objectivity. On this basis I would like to ask to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. See WP:GAB. Yamla (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (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).

JohnHamill151 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not complaining about others. I am highlighting where others have been treated fairly, and asking politely that I may be similarly treated. If there is a specific problem with my approach, you could helpfully say what that is. However, if you're unable to deal with the merits of my point then I guess I guess you can just say this is not an unblock request and we'll just leave it here, Thanks anyway for your time.

Decline reason:

You are not making unblock requests. You evidently cannot be bothered to read and follow the instructions in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks given in your block message. If you want to be unblocked, you need to explain what you did that got you blocked and how you would act differently if unblocked. I'll give you a hint: you will not be permitted to make substantive changes to the article.

If your next appeal does not directly address the reasons for your block and what you intend to do if unblocked, then you are just wasting administrators' time and your access to this talk page will be revoked. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2021 (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 other people from AAI edited it, then that is a problem too. No one from an organization should be directly editing an article about that organization. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]