User talk:Nmwalsh

Your draft article, User:Nmwalsh/sandbox/BACtrack

Hello, Nmwalsh. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox/BACtrack".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Widefox; talk 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Nmwalsh/sandbox/Inwall Tech

Hello, Nmwalsh. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox/Inwall Tech".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Widefox; talk 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Nmwalsh/sandbox/Peter Fogel 2

Hello, Nmwalsh. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox/Peter Fogel 2".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Widefox; talk 09:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Nmwalsh/sandbox/National Society 2

Hello, Nmwalsh. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox/National Society 2".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Widefox; talk 09:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Nmwalsh/Teddy Bear Band 2

Hello, Nmwalsh. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Teddy Bear Band 2".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Widefox; talk 09:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion

This user engaged in extensive block evasion as Gibmul, from November 2017 to May 2019. --Yamla (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I am currently seeking to have my block removed. If you follow my account Gibmul[1] you will see that I have been a compliant Paid Contributor for the past 18 months and if I am allowed to continue as a paid contributor then I have absolutely no intention of using sockpuppetry. I wish to contribute positively and constructively to Wikipedia. I admit to sockpuppetry but I have never been a page vandal in the sense of destructive and malicious editing. I am a professional journalist who just wishes to get on with the work of a paid contributor. I feel that my record of the past 18 months illustrates my cause and I would request that you give me a second chance to make further valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Nmwalsh (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Just going to note here that it also looks as if this user has been paying someone to accept their drafts. See the architecture prize article and the similarities to this on going SPI. SmartSE (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but as Gibmul and a paid contributor, I worked completely alone and can give you the contact details of the client to confirm it. I have no idea about this other investigation. I am a professional journalist [2] and not in the habit of using outside assistance.

If you care to check on my work on Gibmul you will see that every article I worked on was listed on my Userpage. Every article contained a Paid notice on its Talk Page as required. I am committed to continuing this practice and I am prepared to give a link to my Upwork site [3] on my Userpage. If you require further compliance I will be happy to oblige. Nmwalsh (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would request that my block be removed on that basis that I have been a compliant Paid Contributor for the past 18 months and if I am allowed to continue as a paid contributor then I have absolutely no intention of using sockpuppetry. I wish to contribute positively and constructively to Wikipedia. I admit to sockpuppetry but I have never been a page vandal in the sense of destructive and malicious editing. I am a professional journalist [4] who just wishes to get on with the work of a paid contributor. I feel that my record of the past 18 months illustrates my cause and I would request that you give me a second chance to make further valuable contributions to Wikipedia. In my work as Gibmul [5] you will see that every article I worked on was listed on my Userpage. Every individual article contained a Paid notice on its Talk Page as required. I am committed to continuing this practice and I am prepared to give a link to my Upwork site [6] on my Userpage. If you require further compliance I will be happy to oblige.

Decline reason:

After being blocked for abusing multiple accounts, you continued doing so for two years to line your own pockets. It is very clear that Wikipedia and its policies come a distant second to making a quick buck as far as you're concerned; I see no reason to allow you to continue abusing this site for your own ends. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:18, 13 May 2019 (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.

I feel that you have reached a decision in haste rather than with due consideration. It is probably necessary for me to cite my history here.

When I started to make paid contributions it was greatly frowned upon by Wikipedia but it was also very unclear as to how a paid contributor was supposed to indicate it. It has now reached a more positive stage where a new paid-for article needs to be shown clearly on your Userpage, on the Talk Page of the article and the Userpage should also contain a link to the advertising site (in my case Upwork). Like I have said earlier this is now part of all my work for the past 18 months.

A contributor such as myself has learned how to obey the rules and policies of Wikipedia and that to flout them is at your peril. I have given you my word that I will not employ sockpuppetry again and would ask that you reconsider your decision.

Personally, I feel that anyone deserves a second chance to prove that they are as good as their word. Nmwalsh (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable but not withstanding that new acceptance, you showed you ignored it for months until it now which the community doesn't like, in essence we look like the idiots here. I'd suggest asking for the standard offer after not evading the sanctions. It sounds harsh but one way you can gain acceptance is by submitting that the behavior was problematic and sitting out the block and then come back with the same rationale. It isn't a bad rationale and I'd prefer to know the paid ones over not but it just proves your bona-fides. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

So, are you now saying that the block could be removed? Nmwalsh (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but yes you are not site banned. You just have to show us you can follow the rules here and part of that is honoring your block. If you show you won't evade it an admin will consider your req much more favorable but from the record it looks like you have evaded that block for many many months. It's hard to take someone at their word that they will now play by the new rules when they wouldn't with the old ones. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I have shown that I have followed the rules assiduously for 18 months without deviation. Is it not reasonable for me to continue in the same manner? I am fully aware of the consequences if I don't. Nmwalsh (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

But you evaded the block? How is that following the rules? The rules for a block is not edit, not create other accounts or evade teh block, that's the problem here as I see it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Let us think of it this way... you are in jail because you had marijuana. You escape and break no more laws. Most times even if marijuana is legal you still have to deal with the escape part of things. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I also wish to note here that this article created by your sock account contained numerous BLP/promotional problems i.e. unsourced information and unverifiable information. I haven't inspected more, but I would suggest that nobody unblocks until more of these have been looked at. As Yunshui mentioned above, it seems as if complying with our policies comes a strong second to monetary gain. SmartSE (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I was always very careful to present an article in a neutral manner and to use references from reliable sources. I am fully aware of the rules in this matter. Nmwalsh (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That's even more disturbing if you think that. WP:CIR. I don't think we need to waste any more time here. SmartSE (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Strong (non-admin) stance though it may be, I oppose any return of the editor in question to the site. Nmwalsh, you have engaged in a number of unsavory and block worthy offenses. I feel the need to compile a list;

• Your initial block came as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nmwalsh/Archive, which revealed you had committed sock puppetry by editing under the name User:Solvilo. When asked if this account was you, you were not forthcoming (an act which may have offered you a chance at clemency), instead claiming that Solvilo was a "colleague" you were training; Checkuser later determined this statement to be blatantly untrue, and you were blocked for sockpuppetry.
• As User:Nmwalsh, you were informed here [7] as to how you should disclose your status as a paid editor. After this point, you successfully disclosed your paid editor status on this very userpage (as can be seen with this revision [8]. However, following your block and return to the site as User:Gibmul (a blatant violation of WP:EVASION), you did not disclose your paid editor status on your userpage, despite having been informed of this requirement years before. Indeed, not until other editors questioned you about your failure to disclose your connections at User_talk:Gibmul#Paid_editing,_etc. did you take action. To me, this represents a startling lack of effort to comply with Wikipedia's policies, which you by definition were already aware you needed to make.
• I find your comment (made in several forms on this talkpage) that you are a "compliant Paid Contributor" to be disingenuous. How can the community see this comment as being in good-faith given the thread that resulted in you being blocked (User_talk:Gibmul#Full_Compliance_with_WP:PAID) was started to ensure you were in full compliance with WP:PAID and the WP:TOU? As the editor who informed you of this part of WP:PAID, I understand that some paid editors are not always up to date in regards to WP:PAID; however, as a paid editor, the exchequer is on you to stay informed as to how you should be disclosing your paid status. You did not, and when you did you were quickly revealed to be a sock of a previously banned editor.
• Frankly, your activity as User:Gibmul has consumed valuable time and energy from volunteer editors. Your talk page at User talk:Gibmul consists of comments from editors informing you of COI/PAID editing policy, AfC reviewer comments, deletion notices, etc. 9 of the 10 articles you created have been deleted (some recently via G5). I am of the view that your editing—done for personal compensation—has sapped Wikipedia's volunteer community of time and resources.

So concludes my comment. To offer a final comment, the editor in question has disrupted the encyclopedia, and the community's assumption of faith should only go so far. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

So you cannot see your way to giving me a chance to prove my word and follow the rules as I have for the past 18 months. Nmwalsh (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nmwalsh: No, as you never were fully following policy. Let me ask: As WP:PAID has required you to list off-wiki accounts since 18 January 2018 ([9]), how can you say you have always been in compliance if you only made this required link on 11 May 2019 ([10])? How have you not been in violation of WP:EVASION given your proven history of socking? SamHolt6 (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the list of the accounts which goes back to December 5, 2017 [11]. I told you I was being completely up front. Nmwalsh (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nmwalsh: all well and good, but how is block evading being upfront? In addition, how do you explain your failure to comply with all parts of WP:PAID? SamHolt6 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@SamHolt6 I have said repeatedly that I am prepared to comply with all parts of WP:PAID. I have also said repeatedly that I have participated in sockpuppetry but will not do so in the future. I just wish to have my account restored and continue with my work. I am giving you my word on this and asking for a chance to show it. Nmwalsh (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I have just blocked Rebius as another sock of this user. SmartSE (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #25649 was submitted on Jun 19, 2019 10:55:57. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have served my sentence

Decline reason:

Untrue. Your block is indefinite. You will not be unblocked until you account for your sockpuppetry, convince us you understand why that was inappropriate, explain why you violated WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE despite manifestly being aware of these policies in the past (that is, why did you deliberately and maliciously violate them) and convince us we can trust you'll never do so again. Yamla (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2020 (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.

I would like to appeal to have my block lifted because I feel that I have served my sentence. I have been blocked for sockpuppetry since June 19, 2019 and I have not attempted sockpuppetry since. It is not my intention to do so again and I have ceased paid editing.

I have been keeping my hand in by editing on Wiki Simple English where there is lots of scope for any editor. See https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Nmwalsh&offset=&limit=500&target=Nmwalsh

Hopefully you will see that now my intentions are the betterment of Wikipedia and that I have no interest in further sockpuppetry. Nmwalsh (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry. Mea culpa and I won't be doing again. I dispute your use of the term malicious. That is completely untrue. Nmwalsh (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. You can make your case in an unblock request. You'll need to demonstrate that you never violated WP:SOCK after your first time (that is, you never violated it knowingly and maliciously) or alternatively, there's some other explanation for what you did. --Yamla (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Since I requested an unblock (June 2019) I have not violated the WP:SOCK. How often do you want me to say this. I have given up sockpuppetry forever.Nmwalsh (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Nmwalsh (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like my unblock request to be considered. I have been blocked since June 2019 and have not attempted sockpuppetry in any way since that time.Nmwalsh (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Can some reasonably sane person please explain to me what exactly I am supposed to do to have the block lifted? I have been blocked now for more than eleven months and have not violated it in any way

Decline reason:

You are supposed to follow the unblock instructions at WP:GAB. Given the amount of problems I see in your history (extensive sockpuppetry and paid editing problems), you're going to need to be very convincing, and I would expect to hear a thorough explanation of why you did what you did, your understanding of why you were blocked, and whether or not you plan to return to paid editing. creffett (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2020 (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.

And please no derision just sanity Nmwalsh (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I would like to start by giving you my story with Wikipedia.

When I first started editing I initially worked on articles about my local area and over time I gradually created some new ones on places in which I felt they were needed. I live in an area of Ireland which is very historic and popular with tourists. These included villages and historic sites on which locals and tourists alike needed reliable online information pages.

The local populations who lived in these places welcomed a Wikipedia article but they just didn’t know how to go about do one. This is where I came in. I took no payment or reward for my articles since only the local economy would benefit and I have always loved local history (my father, my wife and I have authored local history books).

Then I was offered the possibility of payment for other articles of a more commercial nature. I checked into protocols regarding paid editing and found that it was very vague at best. Now, it is somewhat clearer. The instruction then was that the article had to be declared as Paid but the method was vague and unclear. Basically, it was not totally shunned but paid editing was not encouraged. However, more and more I discovered that there were many worthy articles which needed to be authored for Wikipedia but the owners did not have the expertise. When compared with existing similar articles on Wikipedia I felt that mine had more overall worth and genuine information for the reader and were properly referenced.

I tried to follow the directed protocol of placing a Paid note on the article itself (on top or bottom) but, understandably, the sponsors were not happy. Then I discovered a new directive that if I put a paid note on the Talk page of the article it would be okay. Immediately I was met with scurrilous remarks from reviewing editors which were quite hurtful and unnecessary. I won't name names but I will if you insist but privately. It mattered not that I was attempting to present, in a factual way, a person or product without promotion and properly referenced (unlike many existing articles on Wikipedia). As a journalist I am more than capable of discerning between needless promotion and information.

Eventually a new protocol appeared which indicated that I should place a Paid statement on the Talk page of the article and another on my own Talk page. I was doing this for about 18 months as Gibmul when you decided to ban me. I got the feeling that there was either a resentment or prejudice.

Anyway I have not attempted to edit any article since then other than on Simple Wiki which I enjoy (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nmwalsh)

You can believe it if you like but I have retired as a paid editor since June 2019 and have no intention of doing any more. The only reason that I would like the block lifted is that I need to correct some edits to my local articles.

I can assure you as reviewers that I am no threat to Wikipedia and if anything as a trained journalist still working in the print media I am an asset to your organisation. If you decide to keep th e ban in place I think that it will be Wikipedia's loss. Nmwalsh (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)